Stradivarius ... again

[billkilpatrick]

One thing for certain - relatively few violins will allow effective use as a soloist instrument carrying over an orchestra. The more I learn about violins, the less I know!

On preference testing, the biggest impediments I can think of are time and access. While love at first sight is often reported, I have time and time again found that if several good smaller instruments (as opposed to pianos, which I have only had one at a time) are around and I'm actively playing I eventually find myself using one. This might not be the one I think it's going to be. If a great player had several top instruments hanging around for a year and then selected the favorite we might learn a lot more!! At least about that player, if not the instruments.

https://loc.gov/item/ihas.200154808 Read and go to the lower right for the performance links. Put on your good headphones. Pick your favorite. I never can pick just one!

Deciding on "The" instrument for you is probably down to internal chemistry - a combination of visual and audio boxes being ticked; how often and how consistently. Your earlier point about the estimated value of an ancient instrument having a tenuous connection to the sound it makes is also good. I was interested in "Stradivarius" and "Lloyd Loar" as brand names. In terms of sound alone, science indicates that age doesn't have much to do with an instrument's value. I'd love to see a comparative study between a Lloyd Loar signed F5 and other similarly constructed, modern F5 mandolins in variety of price ranges to see how they match up.

[brunello97]

Deciding on "The" instrument for you is probably down to internal chemistry - a combination of visual and audio boxes being ticked; how often and how consistently. Your earlier point about the estimated value of an ancient instrument having a tenuous connection to the sound it makes is also good. I was interested in "Stradivarius" and "Lloyd Loar" as brand names. In terms of sound alone, science indicates that age doesn't have much to do with an instrument's value. I'd love to see a comparative study between a Lloyd Loar signed F5 and other similarly constructed, modern F5 mandolins in variety of price ranges to see how they match up.

Lots of that conversation has been going on around here, Bill, for as long as I've been hanging out at the MC. There are those who love to be certain that the vintage icons sound better and those who love to say the emperor has no mandolins--I mean, clothes. Some who love their mandolin (purchased for whatever price) and are certain it sounds better than something sold at X times the price. Then their are the "acoustic science" folks who throw numbers at everything as a way to affirm their authority (neglecting the fact that everyone's ears are different.)

I'm up at Elderly all the time playing their mandolins. I haven't found an Eastman or a Kentucky or a The Loar that sound as good (to me) as the nice Gibson, A ovals and Fs that they get in and out. Or their Loar. Or the Gibsons I own. That's not to say they don't sound good. Some of the Kentuckys have sounded really good. And some better to my ear than some leaden Gibsons. But it's not the sound I like. I prefer the sound of the Pavas and the Ellis-es I have played to the classic dryer Gibson sound.

I resist the urge to get categorical about anything with such complex variables. Though I know that is bucking the trend these days.

I've watched and enjoyed as you have shared your experiences with a range of mandolins over the years here, Bill, and am super happy that you are super happy with your F model. If you want to believe it as as wonderful as the $200K Loar namesakes, I'm good with that, too. My wife is the most beautiful woman who has ever walked the planet.

Mick

[billkilpatrick]

Lots of that conversation has been going on around here, Bill, for as long as I've been hanging out at the MC. There are those who love to be certain that the vintage icons sound better and those who love to say the emperor has no mandolins--I mean, clothes. Some who love their mandolin (purchased for whatever price) and are certain it sounds better than something sold at X times the price. Then their are the "acoustic science" folks who throw numbers at everything as a way to affirm their authority (neglecting the fact that everyone's ears are different.)

I'm up at Elderly all the time playing their mandolins. I haven't found an Eastman or a Kentucky or a The Loar that sound as good (to me) as the nice Gibson, A ovals and Fs that they get in and out. Or their Loar. Or the Gibsons I own. That's not to say they don't sound good. Some of the Kentuckys have sounded really good. And some better to my ear than some leaden Gibsons. But it's not the sound I like. I prefer the sound of the Pavas and the Ellis-es I have played to the classic dryer Gibson sound.

I resist the urge to get categorical about anything with such complex variables. Though I know that is bucking the trend these days.

I've watched and enjoyed as you have shared your experiences with a range of mandolins over the years here, Bill, and am super happy that you are super happy with your F model. If you want to believe it as as wonderful as the $200K Loar namesakes, I'm good with that, too. My wife is the most beautiful woman who has ever walked the planet.

Mick

Sounds like I'm shouting, doesn't it ... sorry.

Somewhere ... there's a discussion which compares Sharon Gilchrist's "Gilchrist" and John Reischman's "Gibson" when they play together and how Reischman likes the fact that his mandolin "holds back a bit," ... or words to that effect. I like the idea of a "dry" Gibson as well ... Cocktails anyone?

But I'd love to see those numbers - or a point-by-point/peak-n'-trough graph, comparing a good sounding, mid-range, "manufactured" mandolin from the United States and its equal from the mystic East. I just don't think there'd be a huge, independently verifiable difference. For that matter, I'd like see how either would compare to a signature Loar mandolin of the same design.

As for "the most beautiful woman who has ever walked the planet" - I've got one of those too.

- Bill

[sunburst]

FWIW, the folks who participated in the violin studies had no problem recognizing their preference, they had no trouble picking a favorite. The studies were not about determining if we can tell what we like or not, they were to see if evidence could be found as to whether or not these high level musicians could reliably tell the difference between Old Italians and new violins by sound and feel alone, not knowing what the instruments were.
Turns out, according to the evidence from all of the studies, not knowing what violin they were playing or hearing made a big difference in which ones they preferred.

From John Soloninka:

At one point during the week, I had the great privilege to play a Strad and a Guaneri for about an hour. These instruments together are worth about $15M at today’s prices. I was so impressed with the sound that on seeing Claudia later in the afternoon I said, “I totally accept the double blind study… but when I pick up that Strad, it is so amazing! What is it about the playing experience when you “know” what the instrument is, that makes it sound so great?”

She said, “You think you could tell that instrument from amongst 4 new and old other ones?”

My response: “Of course…but that is not fair…I just played it for an hour, I would be able to pick it out.”

She proceeded to arrange another test. We did the same procedure later that day and, again, under blinded conditions, I felt the “magic” but not just on the old ones but on the new ones as well. In fact, I preferred a new one!

He thought he could trust his ears to pick out the Strad he had just played but found that he could not. He could pick out his favorite, but when he didn't know what violin it was, his favorite turned out to be a different violin. In other words, he was greatly enamored with the Strad when he knew what he was playing, but without the benefit of knowing he was playing a Strad, he preferred something else. If this "golden eared", trained, experienced musician found that he can't trust his ears to pick out the Strad, what is there to indicate that we could do any better? So, while I can trust my ears to tell me what I prefer, I can only assume that I cannot trust them to reliably pick out a particular instrument by it's sound alone (double blind) because nobody else has shown that they can.

Not all top violinists can afford an Old Italian, yet it is nearly considered essential that they play one for the betterment of their careers. It's just what they are supposed to do, yet we have no evidence that they cannot play just as well and sound just as good using a new instrument.

[Tom Wright]

Christian Tetzlaff so liked a violin belonging to a student that he made him an offer he couldn't refuse for the modern German instrument. I thought it was a fine violin, sounded great in Tetzlaff's hands, and he was touring with it when he played in Chicago. I've heard lots of great instruments at close range, but I doubt I could reliably point out a Strad. I might be able to distinguish a Strad from a Guarneri, as the former has a bit less bottom in the tone.

BTW, I had a chance to play the Paganini Strad viola (not for an hour, though). It didn't speak to me, particularly, but I'm sure it plays fine in better hands than were mine at the time. It belongs to the Library of Congress, and their quartet of Strad instruments are used by the principal players of the National Symphony.

I enjoyed my modern viola, a playing copy of an old Italian (Landolfi) made by Will Bartruff of Minneapolis. A modern viola by Otto Erdesz won me the audition, but I swapped a few over time, and ended up with the Bartruff. I've never owned an old instrument. BTW, Erdesz thought glue was a damper so he used as little as possible, and that viola opened up all the time, neck coming off, fingerboard separating, and open seams, of course. The Bartruff was bulletproof, and it only disliked humidity for the effect on tone. I used to tease my colleagues with old Italians, who were loosening strings for shipping on tour, by saying "Get a modern professional instrument instead of that fragile antique". (I never loosened my strings, and never had a problem.)

[Jeff Mando]

Not all top violinists can afford an Old Italian, yet it is nearly considered essential that they play one for the betterment of their careers. It's just what they are supposed to do, yet we have no evidence that they cannot play just as well and sound just as good using a new instrument.

Paul Simon was gigging live with a 70's Yamaki Martin copy within the last 10 years or so. That's right, Yamaki, not Yamaha. Made in Japan, lawsuit era, type of thing available used on eBay for a few hundred bucks or so. This is a man who has his own Martin signature model, so evidently he felt the Yamaki had the sound he wanted, and he should know................

[sblock]

Paul Simon was gigging live with a 70's Yamaki Martin copy within the last 10 years or so. That's right, Yamaki, not Yamaha. Made in Japan, lawsuit era, type of thing available used on eBay for a few hundred bucks or so. This is a man who has his own Martin signature model, so evidently he felt the Yamaki had the sound he wanted, and he should know................

Well, yes and no! Let's not forget that oft-times, the instruments that popular performers choose to bring on the road with them are generally not the sames ones that they elect to play back at home, nor are they the same ones they usually record with, either!

Instruments chosen for road gigs are often picked for other criteria. Sure, they do have to have good playability and sound decent. But beyond that, they are typically "practically disposable" as instruments. If they happen to get dinged onstage, get mistreated, get lost, get wet, get left out for periods in the sun/rain/cold, get mishandled as luggage, and so on, no one will be terribly put out. They are replaceable. They also have to mic well without feedback, or have some transducers installed, or meet certain sonic criteria that have little to do with their purely acoustic tone (for example, blending or contrasting with certain other band instruments). Finally, let's not forget that some musicians gig with instruments that they are paid to endorse.

I would not be surprised to learn that that Paul Simon was gigging live with a Tamaki Martin copy. But I would wager that he doesn't play that guitar very much at home, nor does he use it for his studio recording sessions. Put another way, the fact that he used it for a gig onstage does not necessarily mean that it had "the sound he wanted." It might have been plenty good enough, though. But he would not have been heartbroken if some crazy fan from the mosh pit jumped onto the stage and ran straight into it!

[Jeff Hildreth]

I had a friend (RIP) from the Seattle area who owned 2 Strads.

One was fancy, the other plain Jane and worn.

He bought them to play as well as for his "portfolio"

He played both for me .. I chose the ugly duckling.

He proudly said he bought it for a song but paid way too much for the tone and playability of the nice one. He bought it strictly for the return on investment.

BTW he wrote a book on Violin Bow Making.

[Ivan Kelsall]

From Tobin - "...your brain is going to automatically hear it differently (with preconceived notions about the quality of th...."

Exactly the same thing goes regarding any highly rated 'anything' (IMHO). We get told so many times by 'experts' that A is better than B & that B is better than C etc. that we can overide our own preferences. For example,we all know that Gilchrist mandolins are excellent (they are),but if we played a Gil.,but preferred another make - ''what we've been told'' by the experts can make us doubt our own ears.
Trust your ears & go with your own preference every time.

I'd bet in most of the situations that he plays in,nobody could hear any difference in any guitar that Paul Simon played,unless it was in a purely acoustic gig. 'Good enough' under some circumstances is exactly that !.

In response to reading a similar thread on here a few weeks back,i did an I/net search for 'blind listening tests' on violins & found a good one where 10 different violins were being compared - one was a Strad. The overall winner (they were voted on), was a high quality 'new' violin ( 6 months old) built by a builder in the US (New York i think),
Ivan

[Jim Garber]

And the ultimate question: who cares about any of this? It is always an interesting discussion to me and brings up all sorts of other questions. This discussion has been going on for hundreds of years and will continue to do so for hundreds more. But little will change and so what? We will all go on playing our Loars or The Loars or Strads or Strats or whatever and we will play music.

We have similar discussions in my writing groups about what is art and the nature of writing and literature and yet it impacts little on what we produce or don't produce. So it goes…

[billkilpatrick]

And the ultimate question: who cares about any of this? It is always an interesting discussion to me and brings up all sorts of other questions. This discussion has been going on for hundreds of years and will continue to do so for hundreds more. But little will change and so what? We will all go on playing our Loars or The Loars or Strads or Strats or whatever and we will play music.

We have similar discussions in my writing groups about what is art and the nature of writing and literature and yet it impacts little on what we produce or don't produce. So it goes…

For myself, I'm much too susceptible to what others think and it's always nice to get a nice, wee reality check every now and then.

[Jim Garber]

As I have commented in one of my writing groups: this is a wonderful fun and stimulating conversation/argument that is great over beers but we still play music regardless and plunge on since there are no true answers. I am not saying that there is no value to it but its value to the actual playing of music is really minimal. Play on, fellow fiddlers and mandolin players and afterward have a beer!

[Mark Gunter]

You're right about playing on, Jim, but the rhetorical "Who cares?" can't be confused with the fact that a lot of people really do care about the questions. Otherwise, no scientific tests, no lengthy discussions, no outrageous prices for the supposed holy grail instruments, no impetus to build cheaper instruments that rival the sound and quality of the 'ancient masters'. A lot of people care simply because musicians care about the instruments they play, and are curious about the 'mysterious, magical' instruments that are out of reach.

It is better to care about enjoying the music you make yourself, and about making the best music you can with what you have. You hit the nail on the head there. But musicians will always care about the tools they use and compare them with the tools of other musicians, that's inevitable.

[sblock]

And the ultimate question: who cares about any of this? It is always an interesting discussion to me and brings up all sorts of other questions. This discussion has been going on for hundreds of years and will continue to do so for hundreds more. But little will change and so what? We will all go on playing our Loars or The Loars or Strads or Strats or whatever and we will play music.

We have similar discussions in my writing groups about what is art and the nature of writing and literature and yet it impacts little on what we produce or don't produce. So it goes…

Actually, a good number of people care about this! I would not be so quick to dismiss them and their thinking, if I were you. Violin dealers, auction houses, and collectors all care very much, because the value of their businesses and investments hinges on the extraordinary value associated with rare, Golden Age Italian violins. Soloists and other great performers also care -- passionately, in fact -- and the fees they can command for performances are tied closely to their box office draw, which is in turn related to publicity surrounding the instruments they play, along with their own prowess (this is well documented). Luthiers care, because they are routinely asked to replicate certain types of instruments, to the exclusion of others, and to emulate certain characteristics. And their entire business hinges, in many cases, on being able to sell various replicas. This need to re-create/re-produce, rather than to explore sonic space, has stymied some types of new development, one can argue. Scientists and academics care, because there are exceedingly few examples of things that are made today that -- supposedly! -- cannot be made much better than some things produced over three centuries ago. And, like luthiers and players, they also care about understanding what physical characteristics make an instrument sound great -- and why! And thanks to better-controlled testing procedures and modern experimental designs, we are -- at long last! -- making real progress is dispelling centuries-old myths and stories.

We have come farther in the past two decades, in fact, than in the previous two centuries, when it comes to replicating and even surpassing the quality of sounds made by Old Italian violins. We have also come farther in replicating and even surpassing the sound of 1922-24 Loar-signed Gibson F5 mandolins. We are living in a new Golden Age of luthiery, in fact.

One can make the case that truly understanding what makes one instrument sound great, but another not, lies at the very core of the art of luthiery, and of acoustical physics as well -- and is also near to the heart of most great players. With only rare exceptions, I think we all would love to play a better instrument, if we could (if it was available and we could easily afford it).

So YOU might be of the opinion that discussions such as these are somehow boring or immaterial ("Who cares...", you wrote), but rest assured that you are not representative!! I would argue, in fact, that this type of discussion is actually more fundamental than any of our usual discussions about the best action height, the joys of scrolls on F5s, and so on. You are wrong to write that "little will change and so what." A LOT has changed over the recent past, and a lot is going to change in the future. Many of the myths about Strads have been pretty well shredded by recent findings, and newer musical ideas are now gaining better acceptance, and at a faster clip than ever before. Yes, this change is a slow process, with the occasional step backwards, but discussions just like this are the way that attitudes slowly and inexorably change within the musical community. They are not just "beer-worthy." Then again, I have nothing against beer, if it can help the conversation along!

[yankees1]

I go to the Musical Instrument Museum in Arizona each year ( a must go if you have never been there ) and in 2016 they had the real deal Strad there among other builders from the Golden period of Cremona. My ears could not differentiate from the sound of the old Strads from the top modern makers . There are probably people who can hear the difference but I'm not one of them. Same with wine, my taste buds cannot tell the difference from less expensive wine and expensive wine and this is the reason I buy Charles Shaw wine from Trader Joe's !

[sunburst]

Play on, fellow fiddlers and mandolin players and afterward have a beer!

Do you prefer micro-brew? lager? pilsner? IPA? Would you be able to pick out your favorite brand in a double blind taste test?

[Charlieshafer]

All this "caring" by dealers and the promotional machine which depends on mythology are all based on profits for the violinists playing them, not on actual quality of the instruments. It's a totally false economy. It's actually quite harmful to the careers of artists who can't afford to play them, yet deserve to be heard ahead of some contest-winner who gets a shot at a Strad.

I agree with Jim in one way, his "who cares" should really be "we have to stop caring." I don't worry about a $150,000 Loar and whoever wants to play one in public, there are too many superb mando players who couldn't care less, and mandolinists are fortunately not promoted on the basis of the instrument they play. But the classical violin world is, and it's turned into a an absolute mess.

The race to score a big competition win and thus the chance to say you play a Strad has reduced the music departments of many conservatories to a bunch of anxiety-ridden, performance enhancing drug addicted robots all sounding the same. They'll pop pills so they can practice 6-10 hours a day, then pop mood suppressants so they don't freeze up during an audition or competition.

The hierarchy which exists that promotes this bizarre concept of "music" needs to go. One benefit of being in the business for a number of years is that you get the chance to sit down with a lot of great musicians, who play all sorts of instruments, highly-regarded and not. The one common factor that all the great musicians have is that they're great. Their instrument is so irrelevant to the music it's just maddening to hear people worry about who plays what. I get that that's part of the fan-world fun, but no instrument ever made a player better. You're kidding yourself if you think it does. You may think it does, because for some reason there's a "feel-good mojo vibe" you feel when playing something, but it in no way increases your technical ability. If you actually think it does, you haven't practiced enough.

[V70416]

I know from personal experience that I have the natural ability to take the most expensive mandolins(Nugget,Gilchrist,Loar etc.) and
make it sound cheap.

It's a gift.

[catmandu2]

Only yet skimmed, but Charlie mentions some needed perspective, broader (sociocultural) aspects of the phenomenon (iconography and social processes thereof).

================

... no instrument ever made a player better. You're kidding yourself if you think it does. You may think it does, because for some reason there's a "feel-good mojo vibe" you feel when playing something, but it in no way increases your technical ability. If you actually think it does, you haven't practiced enough.

On this point too, there is the other aspect as well. To be succinct, we have a penchant to "kid ourselves." Our beliefs are shaped by many aspects, some perhaps more irrational or ritual-based. Humans like their 'mojo.' Our entire social structure is saturated with ritual-based behavior - some perhaps not so rational, etc. Humans are a peculiar mix of reason, superstition, idealism, willful ignorance, etc. Our 'practice' includes investment in processes, be they rational or not, that support our beliefs. In these respects, the echelon instrument may, in fact, help us to play better, etc.

[Mark Gunter]

The race to score a big competition win and thus the chance to say you play a Strad has reduced the music departments of many conservatories to a bunch of anxiety-ridden, performance enhancing drug addicted robots all sounding the same. They'll pop pills so they can practice 6-10 hours a day, then pop mood suppressants so they don't freeze up during an audition or competition.

Aw, c'mon Charlie, spit it out. Tell us what you really think.

Just kidding, you're right as rain and speak from experience. I really got a kick out of reading your invective prose though.

Humans are a peculiar mix of reason, superstition, idealism, willful ignorance, etc.

And you are also right. So whatcha gonna do? We're not going to change human nature.

[sblock]

Yeah, I guess we all realize, down deep, that owning a Gilchrist, Nugget, Dudensbostel won't really make us much better mandolin players. Nor owning a Loar-signed Gibson Master Model, for that matter. And we tell ourselves that owning a better instrument will eventually make us better players, because we'll be motivated to practice more ... and harder, too. If nothing else, so that we deserve these beauties. And we tell ourselves that we will derive greater enjoyment from our own playing, as we are carried away by the beauty of the sounds we can produce only on such high-end instruments.

Yes, we are a "mix of reason, superstition, idealism, and willful ignorance." And boy, do we covet!!

MAS MAS MAS MAS MAS MAS MAS MAS MAS MAS MAS

[CarlM]

A lot of classic recordings were made with less than top class instruments. Doc Watson's early recordings were made on a D-18 Martin that probably would not be extra special if he had not owned it. The Holy Grail D-28 that Tony Rice owns, was supposedly once packed full of sand and shot with a pellet gun by Clarence White. I do not think I will sound like Tony or Clarence if I shoot my Martin with a pellet gun. And the soundhole enlargement was done because the hole looked like a mouse had chewed it. Most of Merle Travis early work was done with whatever he could get that he could afford.

These musicians all got better quality instruments when they had the income and opportunity. Of course Tony went and tracked down that old instrument of Clarence's and recycled it. The dollar value coming as much from who played the instruments more than the quality.

[Jeff Mando]

Uhhhhhh, not sure I agree or even understand. If you are trying to make a case that pre-war Martin dreadnoughts are less than top class guitars, well, good luck with that!

I do agree that Doc, Tony, and Merle are/were all fantastic players!

[CarlM]

I am saying that the probably highest valued D-28 in the world was not all that highly valued when Clarence owned it. It is said to be a great guitar today but was not seen that way when it was sold in a pawn shop or packed full of sand and shot at in the 1960s or even into the 1970s. And it had to be rebuilt to make it playable when Tony got it.

The guitar Doc recorded the Doc Watson album with was a 1945 D18, a good instrument but probably not in that special category till it got in his hands. But it recorded groundbreaking material.

[Mark Gunter]

If you read the history of Clarence's Martin - it was basically a pile of dog poo when he first got it. Needed a lot of work to make it play, his frustration with that guitar at times was as legendary as his playing. And yeah, Tony's had a bit of work done on it over the years. It's a special axe for sure, and Tony gets tone out of it from here to tomorrow, but I'm sure it would sound like that original dog pile if it was in my hands, LOL.

Just because it is a pre-war Martin doesn't make a particular instrument a top class guitar, either. I've seen some instruments that should be top class but that have been mistreated and butchered that are dogs.

A lot of old timers like B. B. King started out with cheap Stellas, Doc used some homemade instruments and so did a lot of other poor folk who are known today as great pickers. They used what they could get their hands on, and their talent carried them along like a strong current.