Can a good violinist always sound good?

[Rue]

Does it matter?  She wasn't sticking it to the system.  What system?  Her choice affects no one but herself.  If she wants to pad her CV, all she has to do is say she 'won' blah blah blah competition.  That's a pretty good indicator of her ability as a performer.  Or does your ability to perform only count if you also can brag about it with your branded instrument?

Regardless, she has to give it back eventually.  While she has it, she didn't want to, or need to, suck it up with an inferior instrument.

Plus, I also know the violin she owns.  Really nice instrument.  When she returns the Vuillaume, she will use it again (unless that changes, obviously).  But it isn't a branded instrument either. Somehow - that doesn't affect the quality of it...funny stuff, eh?

Are you that jaded to think everyone MUST automatically jump on branding?

[David Burgess]

10 minutes ago, deans said:

Yeah, sticking it to the system and going with $350,000 violin. Changes the whole perspective doesnt it.

What is 5 or 16 million, divided by 350K? (I will rely on you mathemagicians for an answer, since I am just a fiddlemaker/woodworker, quite unqualified to do such complex assessments.)

[deans]

1 hour ago, David Burgess said:

What is 5 or 16 million, divided by 350K? (I will rely on you mathemagicians for an answer, since I am just a fiddlemaker/woodworker, quite unqualified to do such complex assessments.)

Whats the price of a Vuillaume divided by the price of a solid contemporary violin? About the same if you look around.  She probably could have paid a 10th  even for one of yours,.  Why did she not choose to save even more money, if name doesn't matter?  

I believe both her violin and playing are fantastic. But come on guys its a Vuillaume. These are well known and highly regarded instruments. And very pricey, even in the world of violins.

[Violadamore]

1 hour ago, Rue said:

Are you that jaded to think everyone MUST automatically jump on branding?

From what I've seen posted on MN attempting to justify retail violin pricing practices, I'd consider a mere flogging sufficient for most offenders. 

There's a well known Jascha Heifetz anecdote (sourced from Previn, Andre, No Minor Chords: My Days in Hollywood (New York: Doubleday, 1993), page 33) which tells how when a student in one of Heifetz's masterclasses complained that she could not play a certain passage properly because her violin was not as good as the one he was demonstrating on, Heifetz took her violin and played the passage perfectly.  That incident is cited (with a shared typo showing that the second author cut-and-pasted references from the first ) in these two interesting articles on violin tone:

http://www2.eng.cam.ac.uk/~jw12/JW PDFs/ContempPhys.pdf

http://stringvisions.ovationpress.com/2011/05/good-tone-recalibrating-ears/

The second article also includes the following illustration of professional disagreements over what "good" tone sounds like:

I had a seventh-grade violinist in my orchestra a few years ago, who had so much potential and seemed to take in everything I said at rehearsal, especially about playing in Helmholtz motion. I saw a transformation in her sound during the season, and by the final concert she was my concertmaster. I spoke to her about her amazing progress and asked what her private teacher thought of her wonderful tone quality. She said her private teacher cries at her lessons because she no longer plays with a “beautiful” tone. There is much confusion about what is “good” tone.

 

[Rue]

LOL...two more excellent 'anecdotes'...

We're all prey to impression/perceptions and personal likes or dislikes.  I'm not exempt.

If I had a choice of pair of identical shoes (same materials, from the same factory) but one was branded Walmart and one was branded Jimmy Choo - I'd be rockin' the Jimmy Choo!

And yes...the above scenario would not exist...but it could!  There are relatively few factories...and lots and lots and lots of branding!

BTW: another OT but related anecdote.  I am not a Walmart Shopper per se, but I do shop at Walmart. When the kids were little, a lot of their clothes came from Walmart.  As long as they fit well, looked acceptable - we were good to go! Why spend more for clothes they are going to outgrow and/or trash?

Last week I read an article (of questionable value, but still...) about a 'mum' who defended her choice to buy 'cheap' Walmart clothes for her kids while she wore luxury brands.  Apparently she was taking a lot of abuse from other 'mums'.

LOL...it never occurred to me that would even be an issue.  I don't scrutinize clothes labels when we're out and about.  As long as you are decently covered up...who cares?

[Violadamore]

24 minutes ago, Rue said:

If I had a choice of pair of identical shoes (same materials, from the same factory) but one was branded Walmart and one was branded Jimmy Choo - I'd be rockin' the Jimmy Choo!

If they really were identically made, why waste the extra money?  You could get Choo labels on eBay..... 

[Bill Merkel]

a great skateborder could probably do amazing tricks on a crappy skateboard, but can you reach that level of proficiency by learning on a crappy skateboard?  it's pretty much the same w/ fiddles  (fiddle dealers -- remember that line)

[Rue]

4 minutes ago, Violadamore said:

If they really were identically made, why waste the extra money?  You could get Choo labels on eBay..... 

No no!  Same price!

But hey!  Great idea about the labels! 

[Violadamore]

9 minutes ago, Bill Merkel said:

a great skateborder could probably do amazing tricks on a crappy skateboard, but can you reach that level of proficiency learning on a crappy skateboard?  it's pretty much the same w/ fiddles  (fiddle dealers -- remember that line)

Bill, the bottom line here is that "less expensive", or "less impressive provenance", does not automatically equal "crappy".

[Bill Merkel]

it trends that way, but i appreciate your statement in here that gold is where you find it

 

[La Folia]

7 hours ago, David Burgess said:

When I was working at "the firm", David Soyer (Guarneri Quartet) came in, tried a bunch of Suzuki cellos, and selected the one he liked best, and played it on tour for a while.

Why? He had grown weary of people coming up after a performance and saying, "Your cello sounds wonderful. What is it"? He was honestly able to say that is was a Suzuki cello.

I love it.  A joker, for sure.

However, he did select the cello out of a bunch, and he didn't take the worst one he could find.  There are plenty of instruments that just sound pathetic.  I could pound my chest and brag about how I can get a great sound out of any instrument, and better than anyone else (but I can't).  I can get a nice sound from a good instrument, but garbage still sounds like garbage, even in the most capable hands.  There's really no substitute for a good instrument.

[Pablo Saraví]

One of my violin teachers, for three years, was Yehudi Menuhin, and he used to say that for a violinist, the instrument is the final part of the musical process that had been born in his heart, was playing in his head and finally passed through. of the violin, to the ears of the listener. That is the same reason why Fritz Kreisler, in an interview, said that he divided instruments into two categories: permissive and non-permissive. The former were the ones that allowed him to express what he was already hearing inside his head. Those of the second group were those who did not allow him to do so. It may sound very simplistic, but it is not so simplistic. Of course, the better the quality of the instrument, the greater the ease of that musical message (considering that the violinist is good and they have sufficient technical means).

[Carl Stross]

On 8/20/2020 at 4:28 PM, Garth E. said:

I'm a little conflicted over the many not so positive comments directed at various violins presented here. I'm not interested in their monetary value but really more about their playability.

1. Can a violin of lesser quality sound really good? 

2. What is it within a good musician that can read an instrument's potential and draw out the best from that instrument?

3. Obviously a violin of excellent quality is preferred,  but what if you had to put on a demonstration somewhere and the only violin available to you was one you would never want to play.

4. My point being, if you could make that violin sound really good, wouldn't the playability far outvalue the criticisms ,whatever they were. 

 

Just some thoughts, I know that a quality instrument is always best, I just think it's the quality within that can also make a difference. 

1. No. If it sounds really good, it's not of lesser quality. 

2. Given that we talk "good musician" the next and possibly the most important attribute would be a memory of a particular nature. 

3. Well, if you "would never want to play" it, is probably complete rubbish and you're not going to sound good on it. GREAT violin players ( and I heard a few...) can have horrible problems changing from a Strad to another better Strad. In other words the difficulty and the exact technical nature / artistic demand of the passage matters enormously. The idea that X picks up some factory violin and sounds great on it is just unsubstantiated amateur nonsense. Takes A LOT of adaptation to a particular instrument to acceptably scratch a Wieniwaski c/to.

You'll get better results if you ask specific, focused questions. This one is incredibly vague.

[David Burgess]

1 hour ago, Carl Stross said:

 The idea that X picks up some factory violin and sounds great on it is just unsubstantiated amateur nonsense. Takes A LOT of adaptation to a particular instrument to acceptably scratch a Wieniwaski c/to.

Some players are pretty good at it, and a lot of this has to do with their level of experience at playing a high number of instruments. I've observed some players go through a quick preliminary experimental regimen, taking only about 5 seconds to figure out things like sounding point, and bow speed and pressure, sufficient to make an unfamiliar or inexpensive instrument sound pretty good. That's not to say that it will sound as good or the same as a better instrument, only that some players are very adept at this. Others are more like "a one trick pony".

[Garth E.]

46 minutes ago, Carl Stross said:

You'll get better results if you ask specific, focused questions. This one is incredibly vague.

Well... that's incredibly arrogant, you might want to lighten up a bit. Your spin on interpreting what was a fairly abstract concept really missed the mark. The results achieved here were intelligent conversations by quite a few members here. The thread didn't need to be anything other than that. Your awkward acidic comments arrived a little late I'm afraid. Please don't assume your writing composition advice is even remotely relevant here. It is however annoying at best. Maybe time to dial back that superiority attitude a touch.

[Carl Stross]

48 minutes ago, Garth E. said:

Well... that's incredibly arrogant, you might want to lighten up a bit. Your spin on interpreting what was a fairly abstract concept really missed the mark. The results achieved here were intelligent conversations by quite a few members here. The thread didn't need to be anything other than that. Your awkward acidic comments arrived a little late I'm afraid. Please don't assume your writing composition advice is even remotely relevant here. It is however annoying at best. Maybe time to dial back that superiority attitude a touch.

No, I was just being helpful. You asked a badly thought out and badly worded question denoting crass incompetency and I suggested you pay more attention next time. Pretty clear who's the arrogant one here.

[Carl Stross]

57 minutes ago, David Burgess said:

Some players are pretty good at it, and a lot of this has to do with their level of experience at playing a high number of instruments. I've observed some players go through a quick preliminary experimental regimen, taking only about 5 seconds to figure out things like sounding point, and bow speed and pressure, sufficient to make an unfamiliar or inexpensive instrument sound pretty good. That's not to say that it will sound as good or the same as a better instrument, only that some players are very adept at this. Others are more like "a one trick pony".

I fully agree. Most good players will get the bowing part into acceptable range pretty quickly. But once they start fighting left hand passages with difficult articulation ( one of the W. c/tos has some horrible ones ) the game changes and now, hours or even days are needed to accommodate. 

[Garth E.]

49 minutes ago, Carl Stross said:

No, I was just being helpful.

Of course... much appreciated.

[sospiri]

Would you be able to identify different instruments from listening to recordings of yourself playing them? That would be the most meaningful test l think.

[David Burgess]

3 hours ago, Carl Stross said:

I fully agree. Most good players will get the bowing part into acceptable range pretty quickly. But once they start fighting left hand passages with difficult articulation ( one of the W. c/tos has some horrible ones ) the game changes and now, hours or even days are needed to accommodate. 

Nathan Geim (currently concertmaster of the Hungarian Radio Orchestra) is one of the people who's very good at this. He loves trying out different violins, and I've seen people hand him fiddle after fiddle, with him just nailing stuff, and not just the bowing.

[Violadamore]

3 hours ago, Carl Stross said:

The idea that X picks up some factory violin and sounds great on it is just unsubstantiated amateur nonsense.

 

2 hours ago, David Burgess said:

Some players are pretty good at it..............

The largely obscure horde of competent violinists doing violin sales live demonstrations and demo videos comes to mind.  They must be a highly adaptable lot.  The substantiation for this can be found in profusion on YouTube and Vimeo. 

[Rue]

There is still a MN dichotomy of who is considered worthy of being called a 'violinist' and what is considered to be a 'violin' worth having a discussion about.

Maybe we have to group them. But how?  Need to keep it simple.  How about:

• Intermediate players
• Professional players
• Soloists

...and 

• Decent factory instruments (would include Markies, Waldies, etc.)
• Bench made instruments (assume the quality is there)
• Big Name instruments (those whose provenance is known).

I am leaving out beginner players and VSOs - that's another discussion.

 

[FiddleDoug]

2 hours ago, Carl Stross said:

I fully agree. Most good players will get the bowing part into acceptable range pretty quickly. But once they start fighting left hand passages with difficult articulation ( one of the W. c/tos has some horrible ones ) the game changes and now, hours or even days are needed to accommodate. 

That's pretty much what I was getting at in my earlier post on this thread.

" If a very good violinist picks up one of your violins, and plays it for a good long test (more than a few minutes), you can be pretty sure that they are enjoying the instrument and the sound."

In a case like this, the player isn't having to fight it to get the sound that they expect.

[Carl Stross]

2 hours ago, David Burgess said:

Nathan Geim (currently currently concertmaster of the Hungarian Radio Orchestra) is one of the people who's very good at this. He loves trying out different violins, and I've seen people hand him fiddle after fiddle, with him just nailing stuff, and not just the bowing.

Nathan is in my opinion one of the most talented violin players of today - absolutely wonderful !  I heard him a year or two ago and wondered what is he playing on. Guad ?

[Carl Stross]

39 minutes ago, FiddleDoug said:

That's pretty much what I was getting at in my earlier post on this thread.

" If a very good violinist picks up one of your violins, and plays it for a good long test (more than a few minutes), you can be pretty sure that they are enjoying the instrument and the sound."

In a case like this, the player isn't having to fight it to get the sound that they expect.

Very true. I noticed.