What makes Strad so special?


Recommended Posts

Part of the decision would have to be:

1) How much would it advance my career to be able to say "I play a Strad"?

2) How much would it hurt my career if that particular Strad wasn't quite as good as some other less prestigious instrument?

 

I have to think that any aspiring player would try like hell to make a proffered Strad work well enough so that they could use it, even if they could do better with something else.

Yup, and there's also the option of having a good enough copy made to fool the average professional "music critic", and even colleagues.

Copies don't happen to be my domain, or the way I make my living, so there's no self-interest whatsoever involved in saying that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 125
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Ummm,,,,s'okay.  I disagree with your disagreement, and don't appreciate being quoted out of context either.  Go back and look what I said the faith was in, and what the limited morality consisted of. :)

 

I've also known entirely too many old fools eminent academics who are extremely reluctant (if not totally unable) to change their cherished views in the face of new discoveries, sometimes to the point of attempting to shut down (or prevent publication of) research which they don't like. :angry:

 

 

I didn't state I disagreed with your post, I disagreed with the first part of what you wrote. I agree with what you are saying as well, one only has to look at the amount of institution Physicists who rejected Relativity when the whole time they were just reacting to Einstein being German and Jewish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Part of the decision would have to be:

1) How much would it advance my career to be able to say "I play a Strad"?

2) How much would it hurt my career if that particular Strad wasn't quite as good as some other less prestigious instrument?

 

 

 

Yup.  The operative word being "think"...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Following the David and Don discussion, what about the dangerous possibility of the Strad's poor performance being blamed on the player's lack of skill?  When somebody gets bucked into the stands, nobody ever blames the horse, right? ;)

 

 

I didn't state I disagreed with your post, I disagreed with the first part of what you wrote. I agree with what you are saying as well, one only has to look at the amount of institution Physicists who rejected Relativity when the whole time they were just reacting to Einstein being German and Jewish.

OK, Science isn't a faith, Materialism is.  :lol: 

 

 

:blink:  

Beams beatifically at your humor and begins slipping into your six, just in case............. B)

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, Science isn't a faith, Materialism is.  :lol:

Materialism is more likely genetic, with acquisition of resources having had major survival value throughout most of human history.

 

More recently, gone amuck, since it doesn't have much to do with survival, or reproductive efficiency and more, in richer Western cultures. Yet we still feel compelled to go through the motions. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Materialism is more likely genetic, with acquisition of resources having had major survival value throughout most of human history.

More recently, gone amuck, since it doesn't have much to do with survival or reproductive efficiency and more, in richer Western cultures. Yet we still feel compelled to go through the motions.

Wrong "materialism", https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

A few loose ends:

 

1) Strad isn't the only one who ever made a great fiddle. There are even some modern ones. And most of what we can praise in Strad really applies to any wonderful violin.  But Strad made so many good and great instruments.

 

2) 'plays itself' is obviously hyperbole. Some fiddles go where you want very readily. It can seem magical and effortless. Some of the science preachers are making too much out of this phrase.

 

3)  A fiddle can seem 'difficult' in the wrong hands, but 'amazing' in the right hands.  In discussing what makes some fiddles special or great, the opinion of the people that get the most out of instruments is what matters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not aware of a single one. Care to give a couple of examples ?

 

Whole Wikipedia page including this quote

 

 

 

in those countries, the Germans or the Western civilization were the enemies. However, in Germany the Jewish ancestry of some leading relativity proponents such as Einstein and Minkowski made them targets of racially minded critics

 

Check a few of these (including the first American Nobel Prize), honestly can't believe a whole website dedicated to this

Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Whole Wikipedia page including this quote

 

 

2. Check a few of these (including the first American Nobel Prize), honestly can't believe a whole website dedicated to this

 

1. I don't see anything there. Can you come up with any examples of reputable scientists who "disagreed" with Einstein because of his race

 

2. Did you check them out ? Einstein's "Relativity" was not news by the time Einstein published, large chunks of it were not original and were borrowed without appropriate attributions and there is that never ending discussion if he did steal from Hilbert. The theory was "in the air" so to speak but the people busy with it were too competent. Einstein simply cut to the chase. Good for him - great chap.

The physics community at the time did not pay much attention to it, they had good reason for that and did not give him a Nobel Prize. Relativity "explains" ( gives formulas ) for lots of things but not for everything.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1. I don't see anything there. Can you come up with any examples of reputable scientists who "disagreed" with Einstein because of his race

 

2. Did you check them out ? Einstein's "Relativity" was not news by the time Einstein published, large chunks of it were not original and were borrowed without appropriate attributions and there is that never ending discussion if he did steal from Hilbert. The theory was "in the air" so to speak but the people busy with it were too competent. Einstein simply cut to the chase. Good for him - great chap.

The physics community at the time did not pay much attention to it, they had good reason for that and did not give him a Nobel Prize. Relativity "explains" ( gives formulas ) for lots of things but not for everything.

 

Dude ... seriously, to answer your second point :

 

 

 

Michelson never believed relativity to be a tenable theory even to his death in 1931.

 

We're talking about the first American Nobel Peace prize winner

 

Additionaly, camman, you know how to use Google ...

 

Literally

 

 

 

How 2 Pro-Nazi Nobelists Attacked Einstein’s "Jewish Science" [Excerpt]
 
Link to post
Share on other sites

Dude ... seriously, to answer your second point :

 

 

We're talking about the first American Nobel Peace prize winner

 

Additionaly, camman, you know how to use Google ...

 

Literally

 

You seem to have some agenda here and I suggest you move it on physics.org . The vast majority of scientists accepted Einstein's theory. There might've been some imbeciles who had a problem with Einstein being Jewish - I hope they rot. You seem prone to generalizing and that's offensive to some - most scientists of caliber who did not "embrace" Einstein's theories had pretty solid reasons. 

 

I'm looking forward to your posts on physics.org

Link to post
Share on other sites

You seem to have some agenda here and I suggest you move it on physics.org . The vast majority of scientists accepted Einstein's theory. There might've been some imbeciles who had a problem with Einstein being Jewish - I hope they rot. You seem prone to generalizing and that's offensive to some - most scientists of caliber who did not "embrace" Einstein's theories had pretty solid reasons.

 

I'm looking forward to your posts on physics.org

 

That's your best comeback ? So sad, I was actually hoping you'd come up with something on a level better than 4 years old ... lol so pathetic, nice try to bait though ... It was a pleasure putting you in your place !

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's your best comeback ? So sad, I was actually hoping you'd come up with something on a level better than 4 years old ... lol so pathetic, nice try to bait though ... It was a pleasure putting you in your place !

 

Yup. That's about best I can do - not much to work with.  :lol:  Please be decent and keep politics out of MN.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Silliness aside, I've found that the reason Strads are so remarkable is that the great ones AREN'T easy to play. A top notch Strad is over-sensitive to bow speed, and point of contact... A decent player like myself can glimpse the potential of the axe, but only glean the promise of what it's capable of.

And the best Strad models I've played by modern makers have the same skill-level accomplishment gate, for what the instrument can truly offer to an intuitive, brave player. -- A Ryan Soltis violin in 2014 was a notable example, and a Ben Ruth I played recently reminded me eerily of the Glennie...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Claiming that a violin neck of unprovable origin and provenance came from a lost Stradivarius, and that the wood is somehow representative of the wood used in all Stradivarius’ instruments and reveals “some secrets” about “the chemical treatment of maple” is neither science nor history. 

 

Without proper controls, a large sample set, and a rigorous methodology for comparison, the opinion that “due to aging, vibration, and chemical treatment, the chemical properties of wood are very different in a Strad compared to any modern instrument under 100 years old” is completely unsupportable.

 

This is not science. It is more akin to a religion, complete with high priests, myths, and relics.

 

The paper will be published in January.

The data will speak for itself. 

The hemicellulose hydrolysis suggests that the 1725 neck is old maple. 

The 1725 neck maple happens to have similar mineral content as the 1731 cello maple from a different source, both very different from natural maples. We got lucky here. So I believe the neck is a real Strad sample, but there can't be a definitive proof.  

Amati results will further support our theory, because we already have the data, but they will be in the next paper. 

We can't thank enough all those who diligently tracked, protected, and restored Cremonese instruments over several centuries. I was really concerned about sample authenticity, but the data fit together nicely so far.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.