Interesting bilind testing of Stradivarius Violin

Schubert,

Would love to know more details about that meeting. Topics of conversation, personality quirks, food, etc.

These stories are so tiresome. Every few years the same "test"
is conducted; with the same or similar problems of methodology and biases
that render the results nothing more than bullshit. First of all, it should be
noted that there are, in fact, fine modern instruments, but any experienced
player knows that the very special qualities that make some of these old
(Strad) instruments special cannot be revealed in a minutes-long playing
session; they also require very careful set-up. The link below is a rebuttal
by a truly first-class player to a similar "test" done a couple of
years before this latest one, and his comments expound on the above
points.

Let's look at the problems with this particular "test":

Did anyone notice that Joseph Curtain the "researcher" is a
modern instrument maker? Conflict of interest perhaps?

The article mentions that the players who participated in the test were
competitors in an international competition. Why is the competition not
named? Who are these players? Do you know how many competitors in
many of these competitions are nothing more than young, inexperienced,
and often mediocre players?

Who the hell is John Soloninka, the only player named; and quoted? I
never heard of him, so I poked around. The only reference I could find is in
a personal profile in which he is described as "an advanced
amateur"....Uh huh. And guess what his other career is: luthier.
Interesting, no?

In a different article about the same "test", Joseph Curtain
seeks to gain credibility by claiming to have made instruments for players
such as YoYo Ma. Well, that may be true; players have many instruments
for different occasions. But, guess what YoYo plays on when he gives
recitals or solo performances?: his 1712 Davidoff. Perhaps the Curtain is
saved for those outdoor gigs on days with possible rain showers.

me-with-science/>http://www.insidethearts.com/nondivisi/they-blinded-me-
with-science/

****You know, I wouldn't be surprised at all if most of them were deaf, quite frankly.****

Huh?!?!

Geoffkait, I hope that what you wrote is hyperbole more than anything; and,
surprising for someone who cares so much about the more ephemeral
aspects of sound. Tostadosunidos is quite right in that playing in an
orchestra is unlikely to cause deafness. Now, it is true that some musicians
do suffer hearing damage from many years of playing in orchestras.
However, musicians in orchestras today are extremely conscious of this
potential and are very very careful about using protection when necessary.
Moreover, since the potential for hearing damage is cumulative, many
players will use protection while off the stage during non-working hours in
order to limit the total exposure to loud sounds over the course of the day.
There is a lot of misunderstanding and myth about this, the Strad business
and many other aspects of a professional musician's life.

Tostadosunidos, Curtin may be well known, but not as a player. He is a
violin maker and that was my point about conflict of interest. Additionally,
there are musicians and then there are musicians; let's just leave it at that.
Anyway, and I will say it again, there are fine instruments being made
today. However, it is absolutely true that for many players the Strads and
others have very special qualities that are often not found in modern
instruments. To not acknowledge that is simply to not understand what
most truly accomplished musicians look for in an instrument and to not
understand the process of playing music itself. Again, a lot of myth and
misunderstanding.

What is being talked about here does not apply only to string instruments
but also to woodwinds, brass and even percussion. Instruments back
when Strads were made (and winds in more recent times but still before
what can be considered current) were made with a different sensibility and,
ironically, without the help of modern "knowledge", techniques
and even computer analysis; there was more reliance on craftman's
intuition. Many of these vintage instruments are actually harder to play at
first than many modern instruments and require a certain familiarity with
their unique character before the special qualities of projection, complexity
of tone, and feeling of response reveal themselves. The way an instrument
responds does not necessarily have anything to do with that instrument's
inherent sound and what a listener may be able to hear as a difference, but
rather it is what determines wether the player will feel at home with that
instrument; a consideration which will then allow (or not) that player to fully
express the music as he feels it and that is a key point. The choice of
instrument for an accomplished player is very personal and like a marriage
of sorts. Some players may want the faster response of a modern
instrument and be content to sacrifice that last tiny bit of harmonic
complexity in the sound, while a different player may feel more comfortable
with an instrument that demands some coaxing and rewards with a certain
depth of tone and power of projection not possible with the other. To
anyone who thinks this is just gobledygook all I can say is that you just
don't understand.

Just as with the great "do cables make a difference"
or "can tweak XYZ make a difference" debates, there
will always be a personality type who will be predisposed to,
or lean towards believing, no matter the proof or testimony,
that the differences are mostly imagined. Even when
purporting to be evenhanded, distinctions such as
"realist vs romantic" are made that only highlight
the built-in bias and inability to respect (and potentially
learn from) someone else's experience or reality. I suppose
that they will never be completely convinced, but it is
interesting and telling that many of them are likely to be
more believing of the effects of audio tweaks, which they may
have direct experience with, than of things such as the
subject of this debate with which they probably don't.

One issue related to the subject of this thread which has not
been brought up relates to one that is often discussed within
music and musician circles: the phenomenon of the
homogenization of orchestral sound (orchestra to orchestra and
player to player). It is well recognized that orchestras have
been losing some of their distinctive sound personalities;
even in Europe where orchestras have traditionally played with
very strong and distinctive stylistic and "sound"
personalities. Clearly, a musical instrument is a means to an
end and a great virtuoso can, to a degree, express his/her
personality on an inferior instrument, but it should not be
difficult to understand how an environment which does not
nurture or accept musical individuality to the degree that it
once did would also result in modern instruments that,
likewise, have less personality. The two related trends (and
others such as the phenomenon of the jet-setting guest
conductor) feed off of each other and contribute to orchestras
and soloists who sound more and more alike. Is this
homogenization an indication of superiority?