What Joshua Bell's experiment tells us

[HoGo]

Math doesn't invent things like spirals. It's the language used to describe exact laws of this world. Spiral can be simply described as an increasing function in polar coordinates. There are many kinds of spirals that can be described by various functions.

Back to OP, I think there is something similar in this to that famous banana taped to a wall. If you taped the same banana to an underground station folks would just pass by seeing 20 cents of fruit on a wall. You do the same in gallery and some are willing to part with chunks of cash to own it. Bell in underground is just another fiddle busker in the wrong spot while Bell in concert hall is the star of the evening.

[Dr. Mark]

8 hours ago, Blank face said:

The spiral was invented by the maritime tribe of the Ammonites appr. 400 million years B.C. Unfortunately all of their craft secrets are lost and no living memory of their music exists anymore.

That has not gone unnoted.  Retribution may be delayed, but not avoided.

[Yoshiharu Ito]

8 hours ago, Dr. Mark said:

Just contemplating that 'ancient Greece' wasn't really a country either but however imprecise it's usually sufficient, and that natural spirals seem to predate the development of mathematics sophisticated enough to describe them.

 

5 hours ago, Don Noon said:

Astronomical things behave only according to the laws of physics and math.  Some of it can be extremely complex and non-intuitive, like relativity, but it's just math.

I rather think of musical instruments as following the path of life and evolution.  By trial-and-error, life finds things that work better at achieving "success"... as defined by surviving and making more offspring.

Instruments are mostly a trial-and-error thing, with the ones that are most pleasing to players and listeners (including visually) becoming more popular and thus in a way creating more "offspring".  Like life, instruments follow the local pressures and evolve differently, creating new species or races, if you will.  Maybe not so much now, where the world has shrunk.

I think that the violin has evolved in ways that were not totally understood by the makers.  F-holes have some acoustic effects that are different from C-holes, the scroll has some effects, as do the corner blocks.  You don't need to know what they are doing for them to become preferred for their function, although you could also argue things from a visual aesthetic as well.

 

5 hours ago, martin swan said:

That's a great way of seeing it.

Perhaps the way to tie it into the OP's philosophical question would be to ask if the evolutionary process has now stopped. It seems that we are now dealing with an orthodoxy rather than an evolving narrative, and that contemporary violin-makers have stepped out of this evolutionary chain by slavishly copying the models that are seen as canonical.

I think this has enormous relevance to the question of antiqueing, which for me is quite a profound ethical dilemma.

Thank you for this perspective.

I think learning from Stradivari is essential. But blindly copying him as if he were the origin of the violin itself feels like a misreading of what he was doing.
Because instrument making has left so few written records, we have to read it through context , through the ideas surrounding before Da'salo, Amati... da Vinci Michelangelo, and the thinkers who revived Greek and Roman thought, like Ficino. The entasis of Greek columns, the Ionic volute of Rome, the practice of the liberal arts, dialectic, geometry, arithmetic... these are the roots, isn't it?

And in music today, we see something similar re-emerging: ambient music expanding, movements that seem to reach back toward ancient ways of thinking. I find that deeply compelling.

I wonder if instrument making could develop distinct schools of thought, the way music has — styles emerging from philosophy rather than from imitation. (I am not saying anyone should be eccentric for its own sake.)
Antique finishing is one such school. But whether the finish is clean or antiqued, the underlying evaluation still seems to ask: how close is this to Stradivari?

This connects back to Joshua Bell.
The market values Stradivari through awe  a WYSIATI shaped by authority and framing.
But if AI can one day perfectly copy a Stradivari, and this competition results lose their meaning as an evaluative framework  the WYSIATI itself collapses?

What do you think??

[Marty Kasprzyk]

16 hours ago, martin swan said:

A spiral is a mathematically derived ornament.

So we might think of it as equivalent to an ornament in music such as a trill or more specifically a turn  - an embellishment to a note which can be expressed as a formula.

The ornamentation in the instrument has its parallel in the music the instrument is expressing.

I think this is probably quite a Renaissance concept, more so than thinking in isolation about what it might do acoustically.

Snails are smarter than most people realize.  Expertise in polar coordinate math isn't very common and some early violinmakers were impressed and added the snail's sprial shape onto their pegboxes.

[Violadamore]

14 hours ago, Blank face said:

The spiral was invented by the maritime tribe of the Ammonites appr. 400 million years B.C. Unfortunately all of their craft secrets are lost and no living memory of their music exists anymore.

Yup, since they provoked the Permian extinction about 252 Ma., apparently by trying to mine the mantle, none of the Cephalopoda have amounted to much, culturally.  Ironically, the last of the Ammonoidea didn't survive the results of clumsy dinosaurid attempts to move asteroids closer for mining, about 66 Ma.  All lucky for us, though......     

[Yoshiharu Ito]

6 hours ago, quietlifemotel said:

A NASA  astronomer I knew used to marvel at the application of higher mathematics to astronomy. She said it was stunning to her that some of the most seemingly  bizarre-and-unnatural implications of Einstein-and-beyond  Nobel-prize level mathematics would, relentlessly, be confirmed by later observations by astronomers working at places like the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory.  

Human perception seems to be another kind of science, though ...

Their work must be extraordinarily difficult to execute  and yet it looks truly beautiful. I say that with genuine admiration from the outside.

[martin swan]

I think there's a bit of a tendency to see Stradivari and his contemporaries as peasants, or at least as somehow limited by a lack of education .

This is a guy who was making instruments for kings - it's absurd to think that he wouldn't be steeped in the philosophy of the time. The Renaissance, which reached its culmination at least 100 years before Stradivari started making instruments, represented a profound philosophical reboot, which very specifically affected architecture, music, mathematics. It placed human creativity and ability close to godliness, and to a great extent undermined the pre-eminence of Christian thinking whilst remaining rooted in ideas of the sacred.

It's very difficult to relate to this metaphysical world, and of course no modern violinmaker can actually inhabit it - it's gone forever.

Ironically, when I look for an example of a more recent strand of violin-making which seems to embody some of the same principles I think of Poggi. Ironically because so many contemporary makers and musicians think of his work as somehow sterile ...

 

[Yoshiharu Ito]

1 hour ago, martin swan said:

I think there's a bit of a tendency to see Stradivari and his contemporaries as peasants, or at least as somehow limited by a lack of education .

This is a guy who was making instruments for kings - it's absurd to think that he wouldn't be steeped in the philosophy of the time. The Renaissance, which reached its culmination at least 100 years before Stradivari started making instruments, represented a profound philosophical reboot, which very specifically affected architecture, music, mathematics. It placed human creativity and ability close to godliness, and to a great extent undermined the pre-eminence of Christian thinking whilst remaining rooted in ideas of the sacred.

It's very difficult to relate to this metaphysical world, and of course no modern violinmaker can actually inhabit it - it's gone forever.

Ironically, when I look for an example of a more recent strand of violin-making which seems to embody some of the same principles I think of Poggi. Ironically because so many contemporary makers and musicians think of his work as somehow sterile ...

 

Thank you. I completely agree with you.

I'm pretty sure Stradivari knew exactly what he was doing philosophically. Renaissance thinking was everywhere  in architecture, in music, in mathematics. It would be strange if violin making was somehow exempt from that.

If the goal is to literally recreate what the Renaissance was doing, then sure, that world is gone. But the context disappears while the individual remains , doesn't it? The Poggi example is really interesting to me.

Renaissance philosophy got swallowed up by an era that was all about emotional expression. But maybe that era has run its course. Minimalism, ambient music , maybe these are early signs that we're moving toward something closer to what the Renaissance was actually about.

What do you think?

[Jonathan B]

3 hours ago, Yoshiharu Ito said:

I'm pretty sure Stradivari knew exactly what he was doing philosophically. Renaissance thinking was everywhere  in architecture, in music, in mathematics. It would be strange if violin making was somehow exempt from that.

Indeed - but Stradivari wasn't a Renaissance maker.

Renaissance thinking no doubt influenced the very earliest violin makers, with there still surviving violins from that period by Andrea Amati. And those have scrolls.

Stradivari was from a later era, in musical terms he wasn't a contemporary of Palestrina but of Corelli and Vivaldi. There was no longer the Renaissance prioritisation of aesthetics: symmetry, geometrical perfection, and in music modes. Thinking had become more pragmatic (think about the way science moved to theories that could be tested by experiment) with music becoming more directional (sense of beginning, middle, end). That became more codified in the later Classical musical styles, followed by the prioritisation of emotional expression marking the Romantic era nearly 100 years after Stradivari.

Stradivari's time was also one when craft skills were revered - Bach and Haydn were essentially master craftsment at a genius level turning out compositions to order. Stradivari was obviously a master craftsmen making violins at the ultimate level suitable for royalty and aristocracy rather than ordinary musicians. However it seems to me he stuck to the violin form he inherited from his Renaissance predecessors, his achievement was perfecting how that form was made and the quality of the sound produced.

[Yoshiharu Ito]

6 hours ago, Jonathan B said:

Indeed - but Stradivari wasn't a Renaissance maker.

Renaissance thinking no doubt influenced the very earliest violin makers, with there still surviving violins from that period by Andrea Amati. And those have scrolls.

Stradivari was from a later era, in musical terms he wasn't a contemporary of Palestrina but of Corelli and Vivaldi. There was no longer the Renaissance prioritisation of aesthetics: symmetry, geometrical perfection, and in music modes. Thinking had become more pragmatic (think about the way science moved to theories that could be tested by experiment) with music becoming more directional (sense of beginning, middle, end). That became more codified in the later Classical musical styles, followed by the prioritisation of emotional expression marking the Romantic era nearly 100 years after Stradivari.

Stradivari's time was also one when craft skills were revered - Bach and Haydn were essentially master craftsment at a genius level turning out compositions to order. Stradivari was obviously a master craftsmen making violins at the ultimate level suitable for royalty and aristocracy rather than ordinary musicians. However it seems to me he stuck to the violin form he inherited from his Renaissance predecessors, his achievement was perfecting how that form was made and the quality of the sound produced.

Thank you for the correction. You are right that Stradivari was a Baroque maker — I was conflating the two periods.

Your point about the approach to craft in the era just before the Industrial Revolution is well taken.

I listen to Bach regularly — particularly the Well-Tempered Clavier, the unaccompanied works for violin and cello, and The Art of Fugue. I find him deeply embedded in music theory, mathematics, geometry, arithmetic, theology, astronomy — the liberal arts running from Greece through the Renaissance. I have read somewhere that this was considered quite old-fashioned at the time. And yet what has survived in history is not the fashions of that era, but Bach's work. I find that a deeply interesting story.

As for Stradivari — I have no data. But if his only motivations were aristocratic patronage and technical mastery, I find it hard to explain the scale and consistency of his changes over time.

Which brings me back to the theme of this thread. If people experience WYSIATI in relation to Stradivari's authority — then the question becomes: was his evolution driven by the pursuit of authority, or by some philosophy rooted in acoustics and aesthetics? There is no answer. But I think the question of how contemporary makers read and feel those changes is worth asking.

 

[Stephen Fine]

1 hour ago, Yoshiharu Ito said:

the scale and consistency of his changes over time.

Can you elaborate a little bit?  My knowledge of Stradivari is limited.  Do you consider the "scale" of his changes over time to be especially great over his 70-or-so year career?

[Yoshiharu Ito]

3 hours ago, Stephen Fine said:

Can you elaborate a little bit?  My knowledge of Stradivari is limited.  Do you consider the "scale" of his changes over time to be especially great over his 70-or-so year career?

I think someone more versed in outlines and geometry would give a more interesting answer than I can. But here is what I can say as a maker.

There are broadly four periods: the early Amati-influenced style, the long pattern said to show Brescian influence, the golden period, and the late work.

In simple terms, the outline and arching went through genuine experimentation — flatter arching, longer bodies, many different forms tried and abandoned. The traces of that exploration are visible.

If the goal was to satisfy aristocratic clients, the logical choice after around 1700 would have been to repeat what was already working. But he didn't. Some of the late work may involve his sons or Bergonzi — but the pattern of change across a lifetime is hard to explain by patronage alone.

When I think about this through the lens of Joshua Bell's experiment — even aristocrats would have experienced WYSIATI. They were responding to the authority of the maker, not necessarily to the acoustic differences between one form and another.

Which brings me back to my original question: if the audience couldn't reliably perceive the difference, what was driving those changes across an entire lifetime? What was he reaching toward?

[Yoshiharu Ito]

…

[Dr. Mark]

9 hours ago, Yoshiharu Ito said:

If the goal was to satisfy aristocratic clients, the logical choice after around 1700 would have been to repeat what was already working. But he didn't. Some of the late work may involve his sons or Bergonzi — but the pattern of change across a lifetime is hard to explain by patronage alone.

I'd like to note that your initial statement here may not be strictly true.  A prevalent theme in art and other markets, and even in human nature, seems to be that repetition --> stagnation --> decline.  A savvy maker wouldn't want his market arguing whether his or a competitor's instruments are better, but whether his long model is better than his Amatise, or whether his newest model is better than last year's.  Picasso repeatedly changed his stylistic themes - imitations arise, and styles go out of fashion.

[David Burgess]

On 4/26/2026 at 9:11 PM, Marty Kasprzyk said:

Snails are smarter than most people realize.  

Maybe, but beavers are better woodworkers.

[Will Turner]

9 minutes ago, David Burgess said:

Maybe, but beavers are better woodworkers.

As well as termites.   Speaking of which, I have a few Australian wood wind instruments of antiquity.    Didgeridoos.

Haven’t convinced the local orchestra that it would be a natural inclusion yet.

[Yoshiharu Ito]

9 hours ago, Dr. Mark said:

I'd like to note that your initial statement here may not be strictly true.  A prevalent theme in art and other markets, and even in human nature, seems to be that repetition --> stagnation --> decline.  A savvy maker wouldn't want his market arguing whether his or a competitor's instruments are better, but whether his long model is better than his Amatise, or whether his newest model is better than last year's.  Picasso repeatedly changed his stylistic themes - imitations arise, and styles go out of fashion.

You are right that market logic depends on human saturation. I wonder if the greatest makers and composers operated on a different axis entirely.

Bach, Beethoven, Brahms, Debussy, Rachmaninoff — as their work progressed, their style became more distinctly their own, and it transcended its era. This looks less like market strategy and more like an inner compulsion to make.

Even Mozart, whose works can seem remarkably similar in style, shows something different in his late work — a depth that feels driven by the same compulsion, not by the market.

Well...Though I should note — both Brahms and Rachmaninoff were said to be deeply anxious about commercial success. Perhaps inner compulsion and market pressure are never fully separate.

In music, we see this pattern explicitly in neoclassicism — Stravinsky, Prokofiev, Hindemith returning to Baroque and Classical forms not to sell more concerts, but because something in those forms still held answers they were looking for.

I cannot know Stradivari's psychology（Nobody knows）. But his changes do not look like the moves of someone trying to stay ahead of imitation or armed with the latest theory. They look like someone reaching toward something.

[Dr. Mark]

14 hours ago, Yoshiharu Ito said:

Bach, Beethoven, Brahms, Debussy, Rachmaninoff — as their work progressed, their style became more distinctly their own, and it transcended its era. This looks less like market strategy and more like an inner compulsion to make.

Even Mozart, whose works can seem remarkably similar in style, shows something different in his late work — a depth that feels driven by the same compulsion, not by the market.

They do, however, seem to have worked under the same perception that lack of innovation and change  was the same as stagnation and decline - whether feelings of ennui, lack of purpose, boredom, disinterest, poverty, loneliness,... - however 'stagnation and decline' are manifest in an individual; or loss of market and opportunities, reduced compensation, loss of recognition, relevance, interest, ... - however 'stagnation and decline' are manifest in society.

[La Folia]

18 hours ago, David Burgess said:

Maybe, but beavers are better woodworkers.

Indeed.  I have pegs that were cut by beavers.

[mstein]

On 4/23/2026 at 9:18 AM, Don Noon said:

I think the experiment gives some possible answers, but not to the questions you want to ask.

1)  A Washignton subway station during a morning rush is where people usually are on a well-traveled, tight schedule to get from point A to point B, and don't have extra time for anything.  An airport would likely be vastly different.

Bingo. In experimental design, this is what is known as a confounding or hidden variable. For many, it may have zero to do with appreciation, and everything to do with the fact that they have a competing and compelling demand on their time at that moment. The experiment repeated during evening rush hour might well have significantly more people lingering to listen.

 

[Dr. Mark]

On 4/28/2026 at 6:28 PM, Will Turner said:

Haven’t convinced the local orchestra that it would be a natural inclusion yet.

Might be a didgeridon't. 

[Stephen Fine]

On 4/28/2026 at 12:52 AM, Yoshiharu Ito said:

Which brings me back to my original question: if the audience couldn't reliably perceive the difference, what was driving those changes across an entire lifetime? What was he reaching toward?

Not only was the audience incapable of perceiving the difference, but the luthiers in Stradivari's workshop (presumably, like today's luthiers) were incapable of themselves putting the violins through their paces in the way that actually demonstrates their superiority.

Have you considered that it was random and that he wasn't "reaching towards" anything in particular?  I've read enough of the "golden geometry" type threads on here to have formed an opinion that the geometric patterning stuff forms a basis for design but then adjustments are made basically freehand to make things fit.  Maybe once a mold was damaged or broken or worn they just cut out new ones that were different by a few millimeters here and there.

[Pluto Vermin]

5 hours ago, mstein said:

Bingo. In experimental design, this is what is known as a confounding or hidden variable. [...] The experiment repeated during evening rush hour might well have significantly more people lingering to listen.

They obviously chose the time and place to give them Pulitzer Prize winning complaints about us. 

[Violadamore]

1 hour ago, Mansfield Piggot said:

They obviously chose the time and place to give them Pulitzer Prize winning complaints about us. 

[Pluto Vermin]

Them Pulitzer Prize winning complaints was peak.