Friday, September 17, 2021
Study confirms superior sound of a Stradivari is due to the varnish
Ars Technica: Along with Andrea Amati and Andrea Guarneri, Antonio Stradivari dominated the so-called Golden Age of Violins (roughly 1660 to 1750), and the instruments they crafted remain the gold standard today in terms of acoustic quality. World-renowned cellist Yo-Yo Ma has long favored a Stradivarius instrument, as does violinist Joshua Bell.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
The contributing factors to the quality of a Stradivarius instrument have been highly speculated ever since these instruments have been popular. The Symphony Orchestra I used to work with had 2 on loan, both violins, and everytime I asked why they sounded so unique I received a different answer. “It’s about how the wood is shaped” “The age gives it unique qualities” and on and on and on. A couple of musicians even said that it was just a name recognition thing and it didn’t really sound that much more different than other high-quality instruments. Because of hearing all this, I’m glad to read this article pinpointing specifically why they’re different, because I’d never thought of the varnish being a factor! It’s not surprising that the chemicals used to treat the wood effect the sound, because that’s known for modern instruments, but I did not realize how different Stradivarius’s technique was for treating his wood. I’ll be interested to see if there are more studies using larger selections of Strads and analyzing their varnishes.
While I do not know a lot about violins and the different brands and price ranges, and how that affects the resulting sound and quality of the instrument, I know these facts about pianos. I have played on several different brands and styles of piano, and there is certainly a distinctly different feel to the keys, and a different resulting sound coming out of the strings. I can certainly see how it would be a similar situation with violins. That being said, I would never have expected the difference to arise out of the varnish used on the wood. I could understand if it was the wood type itself, which most certainly does have an effect, but for the difference between a modern high end violin as compared to a Stradivari violin’s sound quality being the varnish is shocking. In reading the article, it makes a little bit more sense how the chemistry of the components of the varnish and other wood treatments affect the density, wetness, and porosity of the wood. Nonetheless, it still shocks me that the varnish used has such an effect on the quality of the sound produced by the violin.
I have heard of Stradivari violins in the past, but was not entirely familiar with the specifics of how this brand of violin was made to have “superior sound”. It’s very interesting how scientists and musicians have so intensely sought out to determine what exactly makes the Stradivari sound better than others, from breaking down the geometry of the instrument to studying what ingredients were used to soak the wood. Ouelette maintains that the 2006 varnish theory was eventually proven to be true in terms of the Stradivari’s unique sound. The article then transitions into a more logical approach, weighing the subjectivity of musician’s opinions regarding what sounds better in terms of instrument, which I personally felt to be more realistic and meaningful. This mindset is very applicable to many different topics; rather than spending time and effort to determine what could provide an advantage, it is more of value to focus on what the self believes and can provide.
There's a couple really interesting things in this article.
1. Obviously, the role that varnish plays in the acoustic properties of an instrument. That is, after all, what the article is about, and pinpointing the varnish as a significant factor could have a lot of implications for modern instrument manufacturing.
2. That in a double blind study, musicians not only couldn't tell the difference between a Stradivarius and a modern instrument, but that they consistently rated the Stradivarii as worse than the modern instruments is sad but telling. We tend to romanticize the old, whether in the context of Antonio Stradivarius and the other classical instrument makers or in a variety of other contexts. I've heard Stradivarius instruments played, and I've seen them in museums. They're absolutely beautiful instruments, of course. But are we just hung up on the past? The conclusion that modern manufacturing techniques, mechanical, chemical, or otherwise, are likely to allow the manufacture of ever better instruments seems obvious, and yet we seem to intuitively reject it, instead insisting that in some long lost golden age, Antonio Stradivarius simply had some divine spark that can never be replicated again. That's crazy.
3. Stradivarii have 25% less water than modern instruments. That's wild. Now that we know that, though, I bet that modern chemistry has a pretty good way to get water out of wood.
As someone who most definitely does not come from a musical background, this was super interesting and enlightening to me. I had, of course, known that there was an industry for the fabrication of wood instruments of course but I don’t think it ever truly clicked that this was something that has been around for so long. The science of it I mean. It is fascinating to even get this small glimpse into their world. For example, I had no idea that the instrument makers had to treat the wood with chemicals or that those chemicals could create a different sound from the instrument. Sound is all vibrations through the air, right, so it is so fascinating to learn that having treated your instrument in different chemical solutions could alter the vibrations produced. It makes me wonder if these sort of techniques could be used in theatre spaces other than in traditional instruments.
I find it fascinating the level of consciousness that goes into the creation of instruments, its just one of those things where there are so many factors that go into the instrument's sound. The part that talked about the density of trees from the weather, the idea that a region’s instruments could have a totally different sound because of trends in the weather. I had a conversation about all the small things that affect the sound of wood instruments and learned how sensitive they are and how much variation there is between them, based on those factors of environment, care, the material itself or the posture or position of the musician. I went into the conversation with the idea that even if technique had not improved per se, with greater understanding of technology we could at least be more consistent in what qualities we want to emphasize.Each instrument will sound unique, even when held by the same person or the same instrument held by different people. I do love that individuality that will be produced.
How fun that the debate over what makes a Stradivarius sound so good can be settled, or at least very strongly implied, in the modern age. There has always been the debate whether it actually was the quality of the instrument or the hype of having one. Often times the skill of the performer was as important to the judgement as the instrument was. A cheap tool will always be less effective than the best you can get but with musical instruments, each seems to have their own personalities and quirks. The real question is if we start mass producing instruments built to the exact same specs, using this same varnish, can we take what was a highly sought after tool and make it the new standard?
I think the concept of musical instrument quality is so interesting, because in my experience what makes a ‘quality’ instrument is really different for each instrument, and then tends to come down to a matter of taste and personal play style. My personal experience is with the flute, where there are clear differences between a ‘beginner’ flute (which has one fewer key on the foot joint and closed keys) and an ‘intermediate’ flute (which has the extended foot joint and open holes), but the line between ‘intermediate’ and ‘professional’ is not clear cut at all and mainly dependent on the tone the player is looking for (things like metal composition, gold vs silver vs nickel mouthpiece, key shifts, which all add up to very small differences, but noticeable if you know what you’re looking for). All this to say that I really enjoyed learning about one of those small things that apparently make a difference in a different instrument. Even as a non-string player, I’ve heard that Stradis are the best, but not really heard why that was. I think part of it is probably still name recognition, and there’s probably several things other than just the varnish that all play into it, but it’s really interesting that that’s one of the things that appears to matter.
Post a Comment