A university setting for violin knowledge

[Carl Stross]

 

It's a real wonder to me that more players don't buy new violins, or violins by contemporary makers. 

 

That's a surprising statement from an expert of your caliber. They don't buy them because in general , they're overpriced, tonally crappy and have no 2nd hand value. You drive it off the lot, at least half is gone. 

[martin swan]

Where we seem to have got to so far ...

 

Players are very poorly informed about the relative value of stringed instruments, both as musical tools and as antiques or "collectables". Unless they subject their prejudices to sensible scrutiny, either through logical experiments or by making use of the many sources of solid information which exist already (both written and in the form of knowledgeable individuals), then they will tend to fall into the wrong hands and make bad financial decisions.

 

The phenomenon I encounter on an almost daily basis is that players, particularly professionals, buy labels and names, not sound. The perception of sound and quality is almost entirely dominated by the sexiness of the name, and how this will play out in their peer group. I think this is very understandable, but it takes serious training to overcome it, and to learn to hear. There is no attempt within the classical music establishment to advance this concept. 

 

A University degree which further fetishizes the Cremonese makers and their direct and indirect descendants will only make matters worse ...

[martin swan]

They don't buy them because in general , they're overpriced, tonally crappy and have no 2nd hand value. 

A statement which applies equally to antique violins, except that the financial losses are much greater 

[Carl Stross]

 

 

The phenomenon I encounter on an almost daily basis is that players, particularly professionals, buy labels and names, not sound. The perception of sound and quality is almost entirely dominated by the sexiness of the name, and how this will play out in their peer group. 

 

 

There is no reason for me not to trust your experiences which reflect your market. My ( and others') observation is that in general players will always recognize a good sounding violin and buy it, should it be affordably priced. That's how we ended up with so many of the bloody things : people are on the lookout for better violins. The $30-50k new violin does not qualify as "affordably priced". It's half a house in many places and 1/4 in many more. 

[Carl Stross]

A statement which applies equally to antique violins, except that the financial losses are much greater 

 

No. Antique violins are overpriced and often crappy sounding but they do have 2nd hand value. That's what you're making a buck from, ain't it so ? 

[Ben Hebbert]

 

Somehow a system needs to be put in place in which to be dead wrong is ok, because the correction process is a positive one.  Academic scholars in all other discipline, ie, university faculty, have that freedom to be dead wrong and know that the correction process leads to better information.  Violin scholars need that freedom.

 

Steven, ... can you kindly elaborate on why this freedom  is a good idea? It's one thing entirely to put out a strong hypothesis only for it to be proven wrong by subsequent research - that is the fundamental of 'experiment' or 'debate', but what you are asking for is an entirely different thing. 

 

Given the choice that you leave me, I would rather buy from machold on the idiotic bet that I could embarrass him to resell the instrument to get me the price paid, than depend on an academic who could look at me blankly and say 'oops', because by your logic, my no matter how poor my chances, my chances would be better! 

[David Burgess]

  The $30-50k new violin does not qualify as "affordably priced". It's half a house in many places and 1/4 in many more. 

Depends. It is eminently affordable compared to some of the decent older instruments, which might cost the equivalent of several houses, and up. One is also likely to spend less on insurance and maintenance.

[Carl Stross]

Depends. It is eminently affordable compared to some of the decent older instruments, which might cost the equivalent of several houses, and up. One is also likely to spend less on insurance and maintenance.

 

True. But  I did not generalize, I do not think for a second that a maker is not entitled to ask whatever he can get and you must agree that $30k is not quite chance taking money - $3-5k might be more like it. And there is something else : there is a widely held belief that new violins start good and go downhill from there with little chance of ever coming back. I won't speculate on the true/false aspect but this is such a strong belief and in the best of places, something must be behind it.

[dan_s]

Where I am a starting medical doctor earns about $4000 per month. That is very hard work and takes a lot of years and a lot of brain to learn to do it. A typical violin has around $500 to $1000 in materials. Why are we not seing more $5000 violins ? I do not think a experienced maker needs more than two weeks to make one.

[Carl Stross]

Where I am a starting medical doctor earns about $4000 per month. That is very hard work and takes a lot of years and a lot of brain to learn to do it. A typical violin has around $500 to $1000 in materials. Why are we not seing more $5000 violins ? I do not think a experienced maker needs more than two weeks to make one.

 

One explanation might be trade agreements. If makers start working hard at it what's the Chinese going to sell. Another, more probable, is that there is a stage in the making of a violin where the maker "pours his soul" inspired by the greatest names of the past - he forges the tone of the violin.  Those mushrooms don't come cheap.

[martin swan]

No. Antique violins are overpriced and often crappy sounding but they do have 2nd hand value. That's what you're making a buck from, ain't it so ? 

People only believe this because they don't understand the economics of "trade-ins". There is very little difference between antique instruments and contemporary instruments, certainly after the initial sale. They are handled by the same people in exactly the same way.

Much of the investment value of mid-range antique violins is theoretical, and does not actually bear fruit for the owner.

I really think there is no economic case for buying antique instruments, unless you buy a cast-iron certified instrument in top condition with great sagacity, probably for over 6 figures, and then sit back for 20 years.

However, there is great pleasure to be had in owning such things, and it's far from a silly thing to do with your money even if you turn out not to make a profit. Many people spend money on beautiful and historic objects with no intention of reselling them.

Clever investment in violins is very difficult, and it certainly can't be done over 10 years through 3rd parties who take 20% at each end. 

But a fool and his money are easily parted, a greedy fool even more so, hence the "investment violin".

[Carl Stross]

People only believe this because they don't understand the economics of "trade-ins". 

 

Could you enlighten us, "people" ?

[jacobsaunders]

Could you enlighten us, "people" ?

Well, there is the tried and tested gypsy method, for instance, where you can sell your present violin for any fantasy price you wish, as long as you are prepared to add a little cash, to “trade up” to something “better”

(NB: Doesn't work backwards)

[David Burgess]

Where I am a starting medical doctor earns about $4000 per month. That is very hard work and takes a lot of years and a lot of brain to learn to do it. A typical violin has around $500 to $1000 in materials. Why are we not seing more $5000 violins ? I do not think a experienced maker needs more than two weeks to make one.

Would that be a really good violin, or just something one can call a violin?

No shortage of $5000 violins out there, if that's what one is looking for.

[martin swan]

Where I am a starting medical doctor earns about $4000 per month. That is very hard work and takes a lot of years and a lot of brain to learn to do it. A typical violin has around $500 to $1000 in materials. Why are we not seing more $5000 violins ? I do not think a experienced maker needs more than two weeks to make one.

Yes, this is what we do - a bit under $5000 and no sexy maker's name. But professional players will never buy trade violins (except Vuillaumes of course).

And it would be a really good violin, not just something you call a violin. I'm not saying it would be as good as a Burgess, I'm sure it wouldn't, but it would be a fine functional violin that some players would choose in a blind shoot-out. Quite happy to put this to the test. Who cares if I lose, they're not expensive violins 

[Carl Stross]

 

Much of the investment value of mid-range antique violins is theoretical, and does not actually bear fruit for the owner.

 

 

I'm sure it must be bearing fruit for somebody...   ..and I shall call them "the fruit bearers".

[martin swan]

Well, there is the tried and tested gypsy method, for instance, where you can sell your present violin for any fantasy price you wish, as long as you are prepared to add a little cash, to “trade up” to something “better”

(NB: Doesn't work backwards)

Exactly 

[Carl Stross]

Yes, this is what we do - a bit under $5000 and no sexy maker's name. But professional players will never buy trade violins (except Vuillaumes of course).

 

 

That's news to me. Never realized that. 

[martin swan]

I'm sure it must be bearing fruit for somebody...   ..and I shall call them "the fruit bearers".

No, the investors (personal or corporate) are the fruit bearers, the dealers who woo them are the owners of the fruit farm! They apply the manure and harvest when ripe ...

[martin swan]

We could probably count the number of Collin-Mezins in use in serious orchestras on the fingers of one hand, and yet they are in general superb violins.

[Carl Stross]

We could probably count the number of Collin-Mezins in use in serious orchestras on the fingers of one hand, and yet they are in general superb violins.

 

After treatment ? 

[dan_s]

Would that be a really good violin, or just something one can call a violin?

No shortage of $5000 violins out there, if that's what one is looking for.

 

Why it can not be a "good violin" for $5000 ?

[Carl Stross]

Why it can not be a "good violin" for $5000 ?

 

Because the shamanic component is missing. You just can't do "pouring of the soul" within that budget.

[JohnCockburn]

We could probably count the number of Collin-Mezins in use in serious orchestras on the fingers of one hand, and yet they are in general superb violins.

Some excellent posts from you on this thread, Martin.

Not sure about this, though....

[Stephen Faulk]

I'll add that if existing faculty members are profiting from instrument sales commissions, it might be pretty hard to get a program like that through the door. Why would they want students better able to second-guess their recommendations?

 As students matriculate through programs that teach the nuts bolts of music so they also matriculate through trading up through the violin ( or any instrument they play) market. They learn about the violin gradually by buying higher value instruments as they go along. If a market component was made compulsory as a part of  string program is might not be that great. For one it would or could undermine the authority of the teaching of the music if the teacher was constantly challenged on his or her market knowledge. 

 

Not saying it could not be done, but it looks real touchy in terms the schools credibility to teach objectively if they are entering market speculation as part of the requirements to graduate. A general survey history class about the violin might not be a bad idea, but someone has to write curriculum and set out to teach the class. How does one prioritize the history of the violin for a survey class? Do you focus on the history of pedagogy or the history of making? How do you integrate the two? There are already scores of books in the public library on this subject. Any student or parent of a student with two legs and heart beat could already be self educating. All you have to do is go to the stacks and pick up the books in the violin section and read them! *GASP*

 

Seriously has anyone ever gone to a good public library and seen the gobs of information available on violin history? I mean you can check out the books and read them, it's amazing this thing called a library. I'm being sarcastic, but for a student or parent trying to educate themselves the public library has things like Bachman's Encyclopedia of the violin, and the viola history books by Maurice Riley. What more could you want to start with? A seance with Gasparo himself? 

 

A viable way to do this is to have a few makers get together and develop a two day lecture and tour it to schools. Without hawking their own instruments too heavily they could present a violin history lecture and construction demonstration with discussion points and question answer sessions. Then leave out the market component and give some very basic guidelines on how to select instruments. That way the teaching of music is not compromised by a buying /selling atmosphere on campus. (yuck) 

 

Create a history lecture and then offer it to universities and colleges for a regular lecture honorarium fee plus travel expenses. Give high schools a discount or  a gratis lecture that is one day. That way the course stays taught by experts; a semi professional violinist, a maker or a dealer, but leave the market component mostly out of the lecture course.