Stradivarius, del Gesu and Loar

[Stephen Perry]

There is a book I recently read called Review of Violin Making: Ancient and Modern. It was copyright 1899 by W.W. Oakes. His premise was that the Cremona violin makers had no magic recipe, that they built as many mediocre instruments as good ones, the bad ones did not survive, that it was and is a trial and error process to get a good instrument. Further all except one of the Cremona instruments had been re necked and had major upgrades since they were built so they were not the same instruments. With the original short necks and tuned to a lower frequency standard as at the time they were made he felt they were probably muddy and flat sounding by more modern standards. Their reputation was acquired because they had made several design changes and were a significant improvement on the instruments that preceded them. He felt "modern" (for 1899) instruments preformed equally well or better in blind tests.

That was the gist of his argument made in 1899. The same discussion and points have been going on for at least 118 years and counting. In his case in full book length.

Survivorship bias. Very interesting subject, widely applicable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias

[lonestar_shawn]

Laurie Niles was a participant in one of the well know violin experiments. Here is her description of the experiment with some great points about the conclusions. For example, the new instruments were all optimized for peak performance, but the old instruments were taken as is with existing strings. Even though the old instruments included Strads and a Guarneri, there weren't necessarily the best examples from those builders, etc.

http://www.violinist.com/blog/laurie/20121/13039/

[DataNick]

A lot of this ground re: Strads, etc. vs new fiddles, as far as being able to tell a difference, was covered in this thread on the Paris Study from a couple of years ago
Study: Soloists Unable to Tell Strads from Modern Violins

[billkilpatrick]

*(But OTOH, all wind instruments tend to be 'difficult' as well - they're just infinitely sensitive/expressive)

"And the oboe it is clearly understood
Is an ill wind that no one blows good" - Danny Kaye

[Charlieshafer]

A lot of fun stuff here. Stephen's comment on knowing the violin by knowing the player is spot on. I hear a Bach Partita. It sounds like Viktoria Mullova. She plays a Guarneri. Ergo, I have just identified the instrument, consciously or subconsciously. The same is true with modern grass/old-time players. I hear a solo, and it sounds like Britt Haas. I know Britt plays a Silakowski, ergo I know the violin. You can easily distinguish players from one another: Stuart Duncan sounds like himself, Vassar Clements sounds like no one else, Richard Greene, and so on. Same goes for mandolin players being able to identify those players.You know Andy Statman or Dawg, you're probably aware of the period that the recording was made in, you probably know what instrument he was using.

Anyway, back to Cat's point about iconography. Why is one thing worth more than another, especially in the instrument world, where for the most part, all instruments that are made by really good makers are essentially equal? Selmer guitars are a great example. The originals are highly collectible, and almost unplayable, yet the great new ones sell for a fraction. I think the art world example is tough (Van Gogh, as per Cat's example) as there is so much subjective thought as to pure style. Instruments have to look like instruments, so the singular nature of a painter's style doesn't apply. But the questions sure is still the same. Everyone knows that it doesn't make sense that the icon instruments are that much better, if at all, but everyone wants to believe. From your childhood, Easter is special because of this magic bunny hiding chocolate eggs, not because of what Easter really is.

Instruments become one more form of marketing hype. For classical players, it's which Strad are you playing. The assumption is if you don't have a Strad, you're not worthy of public performance. Interestingly, young relatively unknown players who get the chance to perform with a Strad get higher ticket prices than equally-skilled youngsters who don't. You have a Strad, ergo you're good. You don;t have a Strad, ergo you suck.

How many would be disappointed if they went to see Dawg in concert, got the chance to meet him afterwards, and told him how great Crusher sounded, only to be told, "Oh, heck, I don't take that anywhere, that's an Eastman I had some guy refinish to look like a Loar." Would, in all honesty, that bug you? You got to see Grisman, does the instrument matter?

I can't think of anything other that the Strad/Gaurneri/Loar, maybe D'Angelico or pre-war Martin that warrant such worship, and frankly, I'm glad. The fewer the better. I don't see any instruments practicing 6 hours a day on their own.

[Stephen Perry]

On the other hand. I picked up a bunch of bows, examining them. For years. One day I was at a friend's shop. He told me to look at a bow. 1" off the table it was already the best bow ever. There's a good chance it might well be the best bow ever. Well into six figures. I never even played with it.

On violins, I generally walk into a room of them and immediately walk over to the $1,000,000 one without realizing that's what's happening.

I've seen quite a few players when I had a real shop simply walk down the line of hanging fiddles tapping the strings, and pick out the $15,000 one right away.

I have picked up instruments, good ones, and immediately gravitated towards the best ones, without doing more than picking them up.

So there's more than listening and playing involved.

Keep in mind what we're talking about here. These aren't fiddles. Give Johnny an F1 race car and see whether he gets out of the parking lot. He won't like it. Now find the people who can really make F1 cars perform. Not many. And each will have a different opinion about what each needs for his or her preferences. Now let those folks set up the cars to their individual liking and try them on a couple of tracks, preferences will emerge that might not have been apparent. Now let's do a blind test. With your eyes closed, I want you to pick out the best cars as they accelerate out of Portier, water to the left, the tunnel ahead. I'd ask the mechanics what the best one is!

[billkilpatrick]

As you say, the variables are enormous and the "best" can be highly subjective. The article showed - if there's anyone on this planet who needs to be reminded of this - how expectations and pre-conceived notions can affect our ability to reason.

[catmandu2]

As you say, the variables are enormous and the "best" can be highly subjective. The article showed - if there's anyone on this planet who needs to be reminded of this - how expectations and pre-conceived notions can affect our ability to reason.

Quite. We see every day how 'reasoning' is subsumed by ideology and various 'thought hierarchies' of all manner..

[bratsche]

There are those that question the validity of your premise in regards to Loar signed Gibson F5 mandolins. Whether or not one agrees personally, I don't believe you can reasonably question that association of Loar signed F5 mandolins as being the standard. I wish those who feel otherwise would come in and articulate their reasonings to the contrary in this thread...

Yeah, I for one really wish more luthiers would carefully examine the Kerman model, and develop that style of build. I hate to see it confined to Israel alone, as to me those instruments sound wonderful, and deserve a spot at the pinnacle of mandohood. But Loar.... to each his/her own, but ho hum, that sound just doesn't do it for me.

bratsche

[foldedpath]

I can't think of anything other that the Strad/Gaurneri/Loar, maybe D'Angelico or pre-war Martin that warrant such worship, and frankly, I'm glad. The fewer the better. I don't see any instruments practicing 6 hours a day on their own.

It depends on the genre and instrument. Talk to a slide guitar player about pre-war Nationals, or a drummer about old Ludwig snare drums. Neither are at the Strad level of valuation, but pricey compared to more recent versions.

Players of "Irish flute" mostly use modern recreations of late 1880's designs, because wooden flutes don't age well, and many aren't quite pitched for A=440. But there is still a vintage market for the old ones. Michael Flatley (yeah, that Riverdance guy) has a huge collection of valuable 1880's flutes squirreled away in his private castle. I was at a Frankie Gavin concert a week ago, and he played one tune on flute that I'm pretty sure was a late 19th Century cocuswood flute. Players actually use the old ones when they've been restored.

Scratch the surface of any genre of music that isn't modern Pop or Electronica, and you can probably find people willing to collect and pay good money for vintage instruments. It's human nature. Even if modern versions may be equivalent or even better in some cases for tone and playability, there's something many find attractive in playing an old instrument with a history, and with some life left in it.

[catmandu2]

...scratch the surface of any genre of music that isn't modern Pop or Electronica, and you can probably find people willing to collect and pay good money for vintage instruments. It's human nature. Even if modern versions may be equivalent or even better in some cases for tone and playability, there's something many find attractive in playing an old instrument with a history, and with some life left in it.

Mythologizing may be much of what makes life interesting, or at least fun. Mystique often comes before pragmatism - I too am desiring an old grey Paolo box, Selmer Mk VI ts (actually I love Conn 10Ms), Buffet R13 cl, to say nothing of guitars and amps... - but certainly tradition plays a large role in this; as with any human endeavor/institution - the same mechanisms tend to revolve.

Fortunately, however, my playing interests involve instruments where modern/small maker custom-made constitute a normative quality level (harps, pedal steels...one reason is that harps dont stand up to time very well, like violins and horns)

[Charlieshafer]

Mythologizing may be much of what makes life interesting, or at least fun. Mystique often comes before pragmatism - I too am desiring an old grey Paolo box, Selmer Mk VI ts (actually I love Conn 10Ms), Buffet R13 cl, to say nothing of guitars and amps... - but certainly tradition plays a large role in this; as with any human endeavor/institution - the same mechanisms tend to revolve.

Took the words right out of my keyboard. The old Soprani grey ghosts from the 50's. Mick McAuley back when he was at Solas and at a concert at our place said he was offered 25,000 for his box. He could't imagine why anyone would pay that for a box, but he figured if someone would, then he'd better hand on to it.

But, mystique is where it's at for instruments, and that's all part of the fun. It's when the instrument defines the player that I get a little itchy.

[almeriastrings]

With those luthiers in mind, is there any other instrument which rates the old over the modern, quite as much as Stradivarius' and del Gesu's fiddles and Loar's mandolins? Was there ever a blind test made between Loar's instruments and those made by modern mandolin makers of comparable experience and expertise?

First problem - Lloyd Loar was not a "luthier" in the sense of the others you mention. He did not build those mandolins. They were built in factory by other people. He was involved in the design, and also in the marketing.

[Stephen Perry]

Almeria has the issue that is troubling. Why are some labels signed and some not on a production instrument?

Of course, the late Stradivari violins were production instruments, too!

[Andrew B. Carlson]

I guess I'll settle for a Joseph Curtain violin and a Gilchrist mandolin.... if only.

[JeffD]

The mythologizing is, to my thinking not so much in considering the Strad or the Loar to be excellent, or maybe even the best in some, many, or most cases. The mythology is to make them the criteria. Because then all comparisons become distorted.

[Glassweb]

Yeah, I for one really wish more luthiers would carefully examine the Kerman model, and develop that style of build. I hate to see it confined to Israel alone, as to me those instruments sound wonderful, and deserve a spot at the pinnacle of mandohood. But Loar.... to each his/her own, but ho hum, that sound just doesn't do it for me.

bratsche

Sorry to disagree, but to me a Kerman mandolin is a toy next to Lloyd Loar F5. Just listen to Chris Thile play Bach on his. Not even in the same ballpark tone-wise. Helas, a chacun son gout...

[j. condino]

I've played and worked on a lot of original D'Angelicos. Just like everyone, there is context and periods that are distinct with his work. The early ones that were designed to be played acoustic are completely different instruments than the later ones that were designed to be played amplified- tops that go from approx. 5-6 mm up to those that are almost 10+mm so they don't feedback, and the later ones that Jimmy D'Aquisto made in John's shop are different than the others. Jimmy D's definitely have the best necks and overall feel, while the early ones have raw power.

The late '50s Les Paul nerds are just as obsessive and there is currently an original Gibson explorer for sale for just under $900k right now and a very cool 1958 flying V for about twice the price of a nice Loar signed F5 being advertised. Sometime over malt beverages, ask me about taking a router to an original 1959 Les Paul and installing a Floyd Rose, circa 1983 while the owner thought it was the coolest guitar in the country AFTER the modification....

[JeffD]

Sorry to disagree, but to me a Kerman mandolin is a toy next to Lloyd Loar F5. Just listen to Chris Thile play Bach on his. Not even in the same ballpark tone-wise. Helas, a chacun son gout...

I am more with Bratsche on this. I mean, I love the Loar sound. But to me that is one way a mandolin can be great. The Kerman is another way the mandolin can be great. Tone is very un-Gibson like. But is thick and bright and not often imitated. Not to take anything from Chris Thile, whose recording is amazing, but I prefer Avi Avital or Jacob Reuven playing Bach.

I would love to see Chris play a Kerman and talk about his impressions, and also to hear Avi play a Loar F5 and hear his comments.

I am open to the possibility that had I never heard the Loar F5 in the context of bluegrass I might be able to compare them a little more objectively, but I cannot un-hear that creamy Gibson archtop sound when I hear the F5. And that sound, wonderful as it is, doesn't, to my taste, go with every genre.

We are all at where we are, I guess. And I am fine with that. But to say the Kerman is a toy next to a Loar F5, no. It is definitely not nearly as Loar-ish as the F5, but it is much more Kermen-ish than the Loar could ever be.

[billkilpatrick]

The mythologizing is, to my thinking not so much in considering the Strad or the Loar to be excellent, or maybe even the best in some, many, or most cases. The mythology is to make them the criteria. Because then all comparisons become distorted.

Agreed - mythology clinches the deal. Being inclined to believe what's on the wrapper before tasting what's inside. "50 million Frenchmen ..." etc., etc., can be wrong.

Underlines just how difficult it is to make an informed opinion.

[Beanzy]

We are creatures of desires. Those desires drive our evolution. There is no absolute best, only fittest for the use. Different environments are going to produce instruments more fitting to those influences. You cannot remove the environment in which something lives and acts from defining it as the pinnacle of the species. There have been many hopeful monsters even in the short span of mandolin development. The evolution did not stop in the early 1920s or any other period despite the great tools produced historically. As a particular design reaches a peak of refinement its development slows and dramatic innovations within the design become less likely to produce improvements. But replication of the design becomes simpler as the design is more clearly codified and the production of equally fit instruments becomes more likely over time. However shifting or dramatically different environments will need different characteristics (think electric violins, pick-ups, response of different instruments when miked in different acoustic spaces etc).

The difference for me is that there is a mistique which we attach to owning one of "the real thing" we pick up a piece of revered history, we are connected to the past moments and that gives a very powerful talismanic effect to our emotional responses.
We become part of the timeline of the object and there is much to fire the imagination there.
Some people will pay dearly to access that, others won't even give it tuppence value over the sound they actually hear.
I have never been one to give any premium to talismanic value, but I definitely can feel the allure as it works its effect on the emotions.

[Ken_P]

Sorry to disagree, but to me a Kerman mandolin is a toy next to Lloyd Loar F5. Just listen to Chris Thile play Bach on his. Not even in the same ballpark tone-wise. Helas, a chacun son gout...

Put me in the Kerman camp as well. I've heard both Chris and Avi play Bach in a live setting and while they're both tremendous players, I'll take the Kerman every time. This isn't entirely a function of the instrument itself, but the one thing that really stood out to me when I heard Chris play, especially on some of the slower movements, is he generates a tremendous amount of pick noise that becomes really distracting in that type of music. Adding a click track does not improve Bach, and when combined with the already punchy Loar sound, I found it really distracting what was an otherwise wonderful performance.

By contrast, the Kerman is much more open sounding, particularly for big chordal sections like you'll find in the fugues and the ciccone. It really allows you to hear every note in a chord, which is a must for this type of music.

As to the bigger discussion, I'm absolutely of the opinion that builders today are making instruments every bit as good as Stradivari for violins or Loar ear Gibsons for mandolins. In terms of mandolin in particular, I love that people are still coming up with new takes on it. Kerman is absolutely one, you can also look at the crazy five string model that Brian Dean makes, there's the Giacomel archtop/bowlback hybrid that's really interesting and probably many others besides. I'd personally love to play any or all of them and I'm still interested to see what the next generation of luthiers is going to come up with.

[almeriastrings]

As to the bigger discussion, I'm absolutely of the opinion that builders today are making instruments every bit as good as Stradivari for violins or Loar ear Gibsons for mandolins. In terms of mandolin in particular, I love that people are still coming up with new takes on it. Kerman is absolutely one, you can also look at the crazy five string model that Brian Dean makes, there's the Giacomel archtop/bowlback hybrid that's really interesting and probably many others besides. I'd personally love to play any or all of them and I'm still interested to see what the next generation of luthiers is going to come up with.

+1 There are some truly wonderful, amazing instruments out there these days. Gorgeous things....

[catmandu2]

The mythologizing is, to my thinking not so much in considering the Strad or the Loar to be excellent, or maybe even the best in some, many, or most cases. The mythology is to make them the criteria. Because then all comparisons become distorted.

The processes and effects by which societies 'iconize' objects/entities are complex - see my post #14 for a brief sketch. Mythology is a most interesting field of study - and far more relevant (pervasive) in (our) society than perhaps many people realize .

[Stephen Perry]

Yup. Medicine has many myths. Science has become mythologized too much. All kinds of things.

A problem with truly high performance stuff is that it generally means a great deal to the people who can use such things to the full extent, and not really to anyone else. With musical instruments, those people are not generally scientists or particularly objective! Instruments ultimately aren't for the listeners.