Blind tests suggest that most of the brilliance today comes from the brain knowing it's a Strad, because great modern violins sound just as good or better.
(The other brilliance was being 200 years or more ahead of everyone else at the time!)
(The other brilliance was being 200 years or more ahead of everyone else at the time!)
It's like wine people who are easily duped by a fancy looking bottle. A true sommelier can identify different wines by taste alone, but for every one of those there's a dozen frauds who pretend they know what they're doing, just parroting stuff they've memorized.
The other troubling thing is the gender of performers is very hard to discern from a blind performance, but when the performer is visible the judges skew very heavily towards men. It's absurd. https://www.theguardian.com/women-in-leadership/2013/oct/14/...
Funnily enough, these are my exact thoughts on the state of the software industry and trying to hire good people.
As a guitarist, I do a lot of experimentation with picks. I can easily tell the difference between different kinds of picks by sound when I'm playing. But I can listen to old recordings of myself where I couldn't even tell you which guitar I played! Interestingly, a drummer I play with regularly can usually tell when I've switched picks, and has opinions about what picks I should be using. Such is the closeness of musicians working together.
Any of these A/B blind test experiments strongly need to be live. A recording isn't a measure of a violin... it's a measure of the violin, the microphone, the mixing board, the mastering process, the amplifier, and the speaker.
The instruments in this test are not factory-made Yamahas. They're hand-crafted instruments made by top masters. In other words, the best instruments now are finally catching up to the best instruments of a few hundred years ago.
As for casual listeners, I'd believe that some of them can't tell the difference between a Yamaha and a Strad. But professional violinists absolutely can--both when playing and listening.
Are you sure? Since you always k ow which pick you are using it's easy for your brain to fool yourself.
There are limits to the human ability to discern and judge - see the discussion of blind violin comparison. But they didn't sound the same... they just didn't always have the expected results for "best".
You might have difficulty discerning between, say, Hawaiian and Columbian coffee, but you can easily discern the difference between coffee and lemonade. Except under the influence of certain medications...
The point I'm making, though, is that discernment is situational. It depends on experience with the subject matter, and whether it's direct or indirect. I can easily hear the difference between two guitar picks and make value judgments - IF I'm the one playing. My drummer can tell if I switch picks, because he knows my sound so well, but he couldn't tell you which one is which. Most people could never hear the difference.
When I'm playing a guitar, I can discern tiny things like moving the volume knob 10%. But two years later, listening to a recording, I couldn't even tell you which of my guitars I was playing. It's very situational.
It's not a recording.
I think you're off by at least one, possibly two, orders of magnitude on the relative number of fraudsters.
> A true sommelier can identify different wines by taste alone
Well, for Chardonnay, if (1) it is dry (low sugar) and crisp (high acid) with delicate flavors, then it's from near Macon, France and maybe Pouilly Fuisse or even Montrachet. If (2) it is sweet (high sugar), flat (low acid), with the many flavors of, say, canned fruit cocktail, then it's from California!
Really, this was my summary opinion from wine investigations some years ago, but I haven't had any Chardonnay in years; maybe California does better now!
In fact, their efforts have met with great success and by all accounts within the field, we're presently living in the second "Golden Age" of violin making.
http://www.thestrad.com/blind-tested-soloists-unable-to-tell...
It's also worth noting that it's hard to do a fair comparison because the owners of the Strads might not permit the kind of setup/maintenance that wouldn't be an issue with a modern instrument. Even getting permission to change the strings might be hard.
I think it's pretty impressive that a Strad placed in 3rd place against what I presume were some very well made modern instruments. One would expect something that old to either be significantly surpassed by modern construction techniques or to succumb to structural problems.
Right from the article: "In the second test all the violins were tested again in the concert hall. At the end of the test the players were given a series of violins and 30 seconds to guess whether it was old or new."
> It's also worth noting that it's hard to do a fair comparison because the owners of the Strads might not permit the kind of setup/maintenance that wouldn't be an issue with a modern instrument. Even getting permission to change the strings might be hard.
That's a wild assumption. If I was also speculating, I'd guess that people buying Strads do proper maintenance in order to protect their investment. Since I happen to know that buyers hire both professional players and professional luthiers to keep the instruments in shape, I don't have to speculate. Strads deteriorate when they aren't played often enough, and most people who spend millions on them know that.
> I think it's pretty impressive that a Strad placed in 3rd place. ... One would expect something that old to either be significantly surpassed by modern construction techniques or to succumb to structural problems.
One of them did, another Strad placed last. It's not just unimpressive, but damning to the narrative, considering the myth and folklore that Strads and Guraneris are unsurpassed and that modern techniques have never achieved the same greatness and perfection that the old masters did.
Your guess may be right, but it is opposite of what the violin world mythology claims, and the entire reason it's a "surprise" that the best players can't identify Strads. Even the OP's article starts on the unquestioned premise that Strads are superior to today's instruments.
FWIW A participant (of the 2010 study, not the follow-up you linked) did explain in a blog post that "[the Strads] were loaned with the stipulation that they remain in the condition in which we received them -- precluding any tonal adjustments or even changing the strings"
The Strads, though, are in whatever condition they happen to be in at the time, which could be good or not so good, depending on whether the years and previous owners have been kind to the instrument. And if there's anything that ought to be fixed for maximum playability, it might not be possible to get permission to have it fixed. Not because the owners don't care about maintenance, but because the owners are more concerned about keeping it in as close to original condition than how good it plays right now.
For instance, let's say there's a divot worn in the fingerboard from years of string friction. With a modern instrument, you'd just take it to a luthier and have him/her plane it down. With a Strad, you might consider how many times you can plane the fingerboard down before you have to replace it entirely, and whether or not the violin would lose value with a new fingerboard. And you might also say to yourself that that divot was worn into the fingerboard by <some famous 18th or 19th century musician> and who am I to erase that little bit of history? People can be sentimental about old instruments, and doing too many repairs may also be more harmful in the long run than only fixing what needs to be fixed and nothing more.
You're right, I skimmed the article too fast and missed that. I do think it would have been more interesting to test whether the Strads sound recognizably different than whether some violinists are able to recognize a Strad when they hear it. As it is, we're left unsure whether Strads sound more-or-less the same as modern instruments or whether the listeners just don't know what a Strad sounds like. I mean, I play the guitar but if you asked me to tell you whether some guitar I'm listening to is a vintage Gibson or something made somewhere in Asia last year, I would probably fail that test about half the time. That doesn't mean the guitars are equivalent, or give us much insight into the relative merit of one guitar versus another or whether a singular guitar is representative of its class.
> That's a wild assumption. If I was also speculating, I'd guess that people buying Strads do proper maintenance in order to protect their investment.
It was a criticism of the earlier study I had read some time ago. Since somebody else posted a link, I won't go into it any further.
> One of them did, another Strad placed last. It's not just unimpressive, but damning to the narrative...
That really doesn't tell us anything; that violin might not have been Stradivarius' best work, or perhaps extreme old age had taken its toll, or perhaps there was some physical defect in that particular violin that can't be fixed without destroying its historical value, or perhaps it just needs a new bridge or a new set of strings.
I think the idea that any Stradivarius violin will outperform any modern instrument regardless of circumstances or condition of the instrument is a straw man position.
I'm a violinist, played for 15 years - not professional, but I do know one thing about violins. And that's that they are an art form. End of story. There is no "best violin" in the same way that there is no "best artwork".
Saying that "tests prove that Strads do not sound as good as modern violins" is like saying "tests prove that Mona Lisa is not as good as newer artwork". It's patently ridiculous.
Mostly, I hate the trope because it's like clickbait for "smart" people. You'll see someone scrolling through Facebook. They see "15 gifs that prove Kourtney is the best person ever" and laugh. "How could anyone decide the best person ever based on gifs? That's so ridiculous!" But then they see "Study finds that Strads are no better than modern violins" and they share it.
"Tests" that "show" that Strads aren't as "good" are one thing, and one thing only: polls. They say that "of the people we polled, x people preferred y violin to a Strad." Whether or not the poll is blind only determines one thing, and that's how smug you can be when you share the article on Facebook. Note that the majority of these "tests" are simply asking random prominent violinists their opinion between two unlabeled choices. Sure, it's interesting that the most valuable instrument in the world might only be favored by, say, 40% of the population. But at the end of the day, you can't pick a "best violin" no matter how many polls you run.
My favorite violin is this creaky old 100-year-old violin with holes in it. When I've blindly tested people if they prefer it, or my modern (2008) violin, the modern violin always wins - usually by big margins, up to 80% or so. But the 80% that prefer the modern violin give it plain praise like "nice sound" or "solid tone". The 20% that prefer my older violin say things like "damn, that [violin] sounds so nice", or "wow, it really sings". I don't know about you personally prefer, but I'd rather have 20% that love it than 80% that simply prefer it.
(sidenote, on the topic of art: I, personally, am a big fan of Céleste Boursier-Mougenot. I've seen his works a few times and I'm always blown away.)
Since I find the topic so interesting (and because my previous comments seem to be getting votes), I'll ramble for a bit more here on a few other questions I've asked myself, if you don't mind :)
Are Strads a good investment: In my opinion, yes in some cases. If I was ultra-rich (defined as worth over $100MM) I'd buy one. It's a great hedge against a lot of catastrophic events. Asteroid mining makes your stockpile of gold worthless? Violin still has historic and quality value. We can engineer a copy of a strad that sounds near-identical? Ok, well this specific Strad still has historic value. AI is able to create new instruments, or makes human achievements seem lame: Strad still has historic value.
Are Strads my favorite violins: I haven't heard enough of them in person to tell.
Do Strads have something special in their chemistry: Nothing downright magical, and I don't think there's any one specific magic ingredient. It's probably a combination of things, combined with Stradivari's skill.
It's not that modern instruments are "better" or "worse," but if they're indistinguishable, the question is irrelevant.
You may be referring to the question "which is the older instrument". (Which was asked in exactly one reputable study.) To which I say: why does it matter? Again, that's like asking "what is the older piece of art" when showing people the Mona Lisa. Is it interesting that, according to that one study, professional musicians are bad at guessing the age of their instruments? Kinda, I guess.
If you do want to trumpet that poll though, go ahead - be my guest. But you should know that a big reason why Strads are so valuable is (drum roll)... that they don't show their age.
[0] The instrument in question is a 1993 copy of the Booth Strad.
The available evidence does not support your assertion, in fact it refutes it. I mean, you can assert however much you like, but anyone who suscribes to the scientific method would disagree based on the studies.
(EDIT: That's not say that I don't "get" why people would want a Stradivarius -- its historicity, its rarity, etc. etc. Sound, however, cannot be the distinguishing feature.)
TL;DR The published research is absolute worthless garbage, with trash statistics, re-used participants, and downright inflammatory and confusing quotes such as the following: "Some musicians espouse decidedly nonscientific views, such as the existence of spirit guides". Say what you will about Stradivarius violins - I myself prefer Il Cannone to any Strad - but please do not try to prop up an argument with these worthless studies.
Your note of "Anyone who suscribes [sic] to the scientific method would disagree based on the studies" irritates me. "subscribing to the scientific method" is related to accepting published results in the same way that iPhone sales are related to the number of people who died falling down stairs [1]. Even more irritating, if you actually took two minutes to look for real, published studies you'd notice that the literature is surprisingly lacking for such a blogged-about topic. The entirety of published, close-to-legitimate research consists of two studies. Upon a closer look, one may notice that both studies were published in PNAS through the "Contributed" process, allowing them to bypass most parts of peer review - and critically, select their reviewers. After scanning the headline, you may notice that four of the five authors on the original paper are present on the second. Simply Googling the name of the first paper indicates strong concerns that have been voiced about the experimental design of the first paper, which made even the newspapers that published the second paper call the first paper "controversial".
Then, when you look at the second paper, you'll find a number of concerning things. I'm not sure how many papers you write, but even if the number is small I'm sure you'll agree that "The Team" is not something you'll find often in published literature. I assume one of their cherry-picked reviewers realized this, and thus they added the sentence "Although it is unusual to describe the team..." right after starting their "The Team" section, which made me chuckle. Once you start actually reading the beef of the paper, things start to look much more concerning. 40% of the violinists voiced deep concerns with the study.
What really makes me laugh was the supposed selection process. They claim to have selected a good sample of violinists (and make the, er, interesting claim that their sample is equivalent - yes, equivalent - to the entire population.) Then, only in the Supporting Information - accessible only by a link at the end of the paper in small text, by the way - they disclose that some of the violinists that were used in this particular study were exactly the same violinists used in the previous study. This becomes even more concerning when you realize the sample size is 10. A sample size of 10 is not bad by itself, and can often be justified, but in this case they reused study participants who had played the same violins before, and then in the same breath boasted about the quality of their study participants.
I'm not sure how this paper got published a SECOND time. Oh wait, I forgot. PNAS Contributed Papers. Letting Bad Science Bypass Peer Review Since 1914!™
For a fun time (warning: your definition of fun may be different than mine) you should read the absolutely disgusting commentary article [2]. It's basically an essay by the author on "Why Science Trumps Silly Artists!". It includes things such as hilariously saying that irrational minds will see triangles in Kanizsa's triangles when (and I quote) "careful inspection" reveals none actually exist! Wow! Scientists™ realized Kanizsa's triangles don't actually have triangles?! I for one am glad that we have Scientists to tell us that! There's no way our feeble artist brains could figure that out ourselves! The author then continues to let free-form bullshit dribble onto the page. Pop quiz: Are these quotes from Deepak Chopra, or a scientist with a PhD published in PNAS?
- "Expectations retune neural circuits"
- "Our processing can change perception"
If you answered Deepak Chopra, you're wrong! These are actually quotes from a PhD professor published in PNAS. He goes on to say some downright inflammatory and ridiculous things:
- "The findings should put an end to the outrageously high prices charged for musical instruments" What? I really hope this guy doesn't actually believe what he writes.
- "Because artists rely so heavily on their own experience, studies like this have historically fallen on deaf ears—“I know what I know because my senses tell me so” may be the refrain of those who are skeptical of scientific methods." Excuse me? The singular previous study was discredited by scientists first, then musicians second, because of sloppy science.
- "Some musicians espouse decidedly nonscientific views, such as the existence of spirit guides" What? I'd like to hear this man try to justify the inclusion of this sentence. Exactly what was he trying to accomplish?
I'm shocked and appalled at the current published "research", if it can even be called that. Say what you will about Stradivarius violins - I myself prefer others - but please do not defend the "research".
[1] http://tylervigen.com/view_correlation?id=28669
[2] http://www.pnas.org/content/111/20/7168.full
[3] for more notes on violin stuff in general, see http://pastebin.com/GCuK322j
Ok, so here's the deal: If it's really easy to get these things published, then I suggest (if you care enough, you clearly care a great deal) that you try to get a paper puplished on your double-blinded randomized trial (etc.).
Honestly, it sounds like you might have a beef with the scientific process[1].
Btw, what's going on with your (3) link? Was that your edit buffer or something?
[1] No, it's not flawless. There's publication bias, etc., but so far it's the best anyone's come up with.
And hah, no beef with the scientific process here. I'm definitely very pro-science, and pro-scientific process. But that also makes me very anti-bad-science, and that paper is definitely a jumble of bad science that somehow scraped by the peer review process because of nepotism in PNAS.
Yep, [3]'s my 3am brain dump. Mostly unrelated but dumped in that comment cause it's the only one I can edit.
And now you've got me thinking about how feasible it would be. If I actually go through with this, I'm blaming you for it :)
I definitely think there's room for improvement (no particular experience with PNAS) in general -- peer review is very flawed, and there are huge problems with publication bias, the area being so specialized that the reviewers (indirectly) know whose article they're reviewing, etc.
Actually, I think one of the most interesting things (science-wise) to come out in recent years is the meta-science of science-about-science, fuzzy as that may be. I'm guessing you already know of him, but Ben Goldacre has been a great source (for us outsiders) for information on this.