 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Lelia Loban ★2017
Date: 2014-04-10 12:59
The article includes a link to the full study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. My husband, an advanced amateur violinist who's retired from 28 years in the Environmental Protection Agency's Pesticides Division (where he read scientific studies for a living), says that study is so full of bad science that he's amazed it passed peer review to get into a journal that well-respected. He thinks the result of the study may be correct, but the methodology is poor. The person responsible for the study is not objective, for one thing -- he's a modern luthier -- and individual fiddles of all ages vary so much that it's easy to set up fiddles to enhance or detract from their playing qualities. Violinists differ a lot, too. The set of strings or the bridge that's perfect for one violinist on one violin may be all wrong for another person on the same violin or for the same person on a different violin. And the bow matters at least as much as the fiddle.
Lelia
http://www.scoreexchange.com/profiles/Lelia_Loban
To hear the audio, click on the "Scorch Plug-In" box above the score.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2014-04-10 18:44
Yes, $100 pvc pipe clarinets sound just like the top line Buffets!
SHHHHHH !!!
Don't let anyone else know this.
..................Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2014-04-11 00:16
As science, this and similar studies are silly.
But it seems like the real point here is to demonstrate that there are excellent new violins being made today that can serve even the most demanding players' needs. Strads in addition to their playing qualities carry huge antique value, even mystique, that has little to do with the real needs of an active performer. Modern luthiers face a problem no other modern instrument maker faces - that the orchestral string instruments haven't evolved in nearly so obvious ways that the advantages of modern technology have yet been able to overcome that antique value that the old violins carry. No one especially wants to play the piano Beethoven played except maybe a Beethoven specialist who has been swept up in the original instrument movement. Ditto for old woodwinds or brass. Even then, most of those players using "original instruments" for their performances are using modern replicas made as far as possible to match the old specs.
Of course, it isn't really a question of non-evolution, either, but the adaptability of old string instruments to modern demands. Modern players don't generally play on Strads (or the other old masters' string instruments) as they were originally built - fingerboards, bridges, sound posts and strings have all been adapted to fulfill modern needs, to say nothing of the bows that are needed to play them. You can't really retrofit old clarinets or pianos with more advanced technical features. Unlike other instruments, though, the bodies of modern string instruments are not for the most part very different from the those of the old masters' instruments.
Everyone can't own a Strad, even among the players who could make the best use of their quality. It seems like the modern luthiers are just pushing back against the worship of the heavily updated old string instruments and want players to pay attention finally to them. What the modern luthiers' work will not have within their lifetimes is antique value. But who knows, in two hundred years or so....
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2014-04-10 21:26
I didn't read the study itself but I've seen other recent reports about this....and....I agree with Lelia's comments. One prior study had the vioiinists blindfolded.....haha....a lot of sense that makes. Being a born skeptic it is my opinion that the purpose of the so-called study is to sell new violins. I do, however, know for a fact that on some violin recordings the violin sounds "better" than on others. All kinds of reasons for that. For example the relatively new recording of the Sibelius violin concerto by Augustin Hadelich is the best I've ever heard....and I've heard many.
Bob Draznik
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Lelia Loban ★2017
Date: 2014-04-11 19:33
Another factor out here in the real world . . . most of us don't happen to have a spare five million dollars lying around (the asking price of a Strad now for sale from a highly reputable dealer in the Washington, D. C. area), or another wad of millions for some of the other Strads sold in recent memory. A good-quality modern fiddle is a much better violin for most musicians than the fiddle that's not even available because of its astronomical price.
My husband groans and howls when he hears how little the best clarinets cost, compared to the most sought-after violins.
Lelia
http://www.scoreexchange.com/profiles/Lelia_Loban
To hear the audio, click on the "Scorch Plug-In" box above the score.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Barry Vincent
Date: 2014-04-11 20:06
I have just finished reading "The great Stradivarius swindle" which was publish in a number of major international newspapers. Just type in Search (The great Stradivarius swindle) to find a number of links.
After reading this it's easy to come to a number of conclusions.
That the price of top name items , namely in this case Stradivarius Violins is manipulated for the financial gains of corrupt individuals. (mostly one particular individual)
That the prestige of owning such an item is often driven by snobbery, elitism and misguided assumptions that old and well made is better than new and well made
That some people have more money than sense is obvious and that the old saying "A fool and their money are soon parted" certainly holds true although that doesn't explain how the fool had money to begin with.
BJV
"The Clarinet is not a horn"
Skyfacer
Post Edited (2014-04-17 04:49)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2014-04-12 01:32
But, Barry, the old law of supply and demand still applies. The scarcer something is the more it's worth......to somebody. How many people really like Picasso's paintings!
Bob Draznik
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Barry Vincent
Date: 2014-04-11 21:57
You've got a good point there BobD.
Even so that Newspaper article makes interesting and disturbing reading doesn't it.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tom Ridenour
Date: 2014-04-15 23:47
The comparison between works of art as in paintings and sculptures vs musical instruments (in regards to valuations) is not without merit but theirs one very important difference.........you can't conduct a blind test when valuing a painting or sculpture, at least not in the same way you can with musical instruments.
If someone looks at a Picasso and decides to pay 100+ million dollars for it, as absurd as you or I may think that valuation is at the end of the day it's the buyers (the end user if you will) valuation of the objects worth. Someone can tell him all day long how such a painting could be reproduced with ease by a great number of individuals but he thinks it's worth that, it will be hanging on his wall, and theirs little to nothing one can do to discredit what he believes it to be worth.
If someone tells you that one musical instrument is worth X and the other is worth Y, but then judges Y to be superior in a blind test....how valuable are their valuations at that point?
I realize that one could conduct a form of a blind test with a painting by seeing if someone could tell the difference between the original painting and a well done duplicate but
A. This would only serve to further discredit valuations of ultra luxury or status goods.
B. I would argue that the very nature of a musical instrument is distinct from a work of art. The work of arts end purposes is to hang on a wall or sit in a room and impress people. As opposed to a musical instruments end purpose which is to create art/music. The value is not in the object itself but what the object in the right hands, can potentially produce and the reaction audiences (who typically have no clue and don't care what model or make of instrument their listening to) have when they hear the sound it produces. A painting is art....a clarinet is for making art.
The law of supply and demand, to my mind, comes into play far more in regards to the music high end musicians are capable of producing. If their is an endless supply of clarinet players with the skills of a Morales or Frost than the amount people are willing to pay for their time will obviously go down hill........just like if theirs only a few elite clarinet players and people are clamoring to hear them perform live, the elite clarinet players could charge a far higher rate for their time.
Ted Ridenour
Ridenour Clarinet Products,
rclarinetproducts.com
sales@ridenourclarinetproducts.com
Post Edited (2014-04-16 00:45)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tom Ridenour
Date: 2014-04-16 00:36
I could have summed all that up with the four causes;
Material.....formal......efficient......and final.
The final cause of a painting is to be viewed where as the final cause of a musical instrument is to be played.
Ted Ridenour
Ridenour Clarinet Products,
rclarinetproducts.com
sales@ridenourclarinetproducts.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2014-04-16 05:08
Ted's point, I think is that the clarinet is a tool, not an end in itself.
(Tongue firmly in cheek)
I wonder if there's a market for Picasso's brushes.
:)
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2014-04-16 15:36
The point was simply that both Picasso and Stradivarius are both dead and therefore their works are limited in number. The situation is similar to clarinets made during Vito Pascucci's life.
Bob Draznik
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tom Ridenour
Date: 2014-04-16 17:31
Bob- I don't disagree, I was simply bringing up what inspires that kind of pricing.
I (Tom didnt either) sincerely had no clue people view Vito's clarinets as collectible. He gave Tom some of his repair tools, some of that stuff might date back to when Vito worked with Glenn Miller, makes me wonder if......
Ted R.
Ridenour Clarinet Products,
rclarinetproducts.com
sales@ridenourclarinetproducts.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ThatPerfectReed
Date: 2014-04-16 19:58
Bob - your point is valid if not (I'm not certain) the focus of Ted's thoughts.
As I see it, Ted sought to contrast the value of not only art, versus tools for making art, but how we go about valuing those tools, (e.g. clarinets) comparing market value (what the next bidder will pay for it) to more objective determinations of value like what that tool can provide the purchaser/consumer in terms of its ability, in their hands, to make art, and at what cost.
We are all affected by emotions during purchase. And in moderation, this is a good thing. If we don't value things differently than others, we don't trade: trade being a good thing. But we also sometimes forget to tell ourselves that the same brand of tool a recognized artist uses, or even their very tools, may have limited value to us in our creation of art, and may come at a price that is too high in terms of what that tool can do for us.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Lelia Loban ★2017
Date: 2014-04-16 21:34
Karl wrote,
>Tongue firmly in cheek)
>
>I wonder if there's a market for Picasso's brushes.
>
Oddly enough, you could have asked that question seriously - and people who watch Antiques Roadshow would tell you that if someone could prove that Picasso definitely owned and used a set of brushes (or even one brush), an auctioneer could have a dandy time presiding over a bidding war.
Similarly, musical instruments previously owned by famous musicians command a higher price than the instruments by the same makers that come with no ownership provenance or an undistinguished provenance, as you can see on this well-respected website about violins:
http://www.cozio.com/
It's possible that a true blind test might reveal that a Strad previously owned by Freddy Fartbucket might be better than one owned by Joseph Joachim, but lots of luck getting the same price.
Lelia
http://www.scoreexchange.com/profiles/Lelia_Loban
To hear the audio, click on the "Scorch Plug-In" box above the score.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tom Ridenour
Date: 2014-04-17 03:06
The value of an object to a collector is almost always going to be far greater than it is to the actual users of the object. Many (most?) of those Strad's bought for millions are bought by institutions or wealthy individuals, not by the actual end users...who are merely allowed to use the instrument. Theirs a Stradavarius Viola that's going to be up for auction in June, the anticipated price is 45 million, no classical musician would or could ever pay even a fraction of that.
Ted Ridenour
Ridenour Clarinet Products,
rclarinetproducts.com
sales@ridenourclarinetproducts.com
Post Edited (2014-04-17 03:08)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: fskelley
Date: 2014-04-17 05:13
Lelia- I assume that your "FF" has trouble not just in getting top dollar for his Strad, but even in making dinner reservations. I've met a few folks in my time that I wonder why they don't legally change their name, or just use an alias. Family pride is only worth so much.
Back on subject... Ted- I assume that a high profile artist, who has an even higher profile "sponsor" who has paid $45 million for an instrument for the artist to play, is not then going to audition it and say, "No thanks, I like my new $3000 XYZABC viola better." And you can take that to the bank.
Stan in Orlando
EWI 4000S with modifications
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: wanabe
Date: 2014-04-17 09:51
I never thought too much of Picasso or his paintings until I saw them in person. I had the opportunity to view a number of them first hand and at very close quarters when I visited St. Petersburg, Russia. All that I can say is that a photo of one of his paintings is about as accurate as a 78 rpm recording of Yasha Heifitz. On that same note, I had the unique privilidge of hearing the Juliard String Quartet play a recital in Washington, D.C. and they all played on Stradivarius instruments owned by The Library of Congress. Both of those experiences will remain lifetime memories for me.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ThatPerfectReed
Date: 2014-04-17 15:47
Mr Comeaux (wanabe):
I'm glad you had the experiences you did and that they brought you joy--really. Still further, not for one moment do I wish to detract from the abilities of Picasso, Heifitz, Stradivarius, or those who were members of the Julliard String Quartet at the time you saw them.
But what does interest me is if you never heard of these artists before...if you casually passed a painting that happen to be one done by Picasso, if you had just heard Heifitz (in full fidelity sound) switching stations on a radio, or had the quartet you heard happen to be playing just for fun in a church rec. room as you strolled by, you being entirely unaware of the musician's stature or the make of the string instruments they were playing on, might you have been as moved?
My questions go to the essence of seperating the differences between the value of things based upon who made or used them, their value as collectables, and their value to us as musicians based solely on how they play for us. As it regards the latter, perhaps our trying the instrument, independent of who makes, endorses and uses it, or how "shiny" it is, is what's most important.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2014-04-17 16:32
ThatPerfectReed wrote:
(to wanabe, not me, but anyway)
> But what does interest me is if you never heard of these
> artists before...if you casually passed a painting that happen
> to be one done by Picasso,
When I was very young, I saw a full-sized reproduction of Picasso's "Guernica". I remember stopping in my tracks and asking my (mother? father? I remember less who I was with than the painting) something like "why did he paint that?" or something similar, and I remember giggling at "Femme" and then counting just 4 lines.
I think I was maybe 5 years old at the time.
I think even the very young can see - and hear - when something special is happening.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2014-04-17 18:16
Concurrent with following this thread, which I find very interesting, I've re-watched two violin oriented dvds I have, one about Nadia Salerno Sonnenberg and one about great violinists narrated by Itzak P. and other violinists. I also happened to hear on radio a relatively new release of "the Sibelius" by Augustin Hadelich whom I'd never heard of previously. The sound of Hadeich's playing immediately caught my attention even coming from a cheap radio. I later found out that he was playing a very old Strad owned by a benefactor. That in itself doesn't prove to me that it was the violin or the artist that was responsible for the sound. I agree that the very young can recognize special occurrences; I have some from when I was even younger than 5. And, yes, Ted the old Vitos are still considered collectibles based on eBay activity.
Bob Draznik
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Lelia Loban ★2017
Date: 2014-04-17 23:11
Tom Ridenour points out an important variable that influences how we can't judge the instrument alone or the musician alone.
> Many (most?) of those Strad's bought for millions are bought by institutions or wealthy individuals, not by the actual end users...who are merely allowed to use the instrument. >
In other words, the best fiddlers attract the best fiddles -- and vice versa. In part, we judge the musician by the instrument and the instrument by the musician and I think it's difficult to sort out how much influence one has over the other.
Minerva Megabucks isn't going to offer to loan her Strad, purchased as an investment and as a PR tool, to Freddy Fartbucket. Probably Freddy would play better on the Strad than he does on the VSO (violin-shaped object) he bought used for US$300. That VSO would hold anybody back. But giving Freddy the best Strad in the known universe wouldn't make any experienced classical music fan mistake Freddy for Joshua Bell. Nope, we'd be listening to the radio and twisting our ears and howling, "Pick a key, dude! Any key!"
Conversely, give Joshua Bell the VSO and he'll sound orders of magnitude better than Freddy Fartbucket on the same fiddle, but he won't sound anywhere near his best. The instrument helps or hurts the player. The player helps or hurts the sound of the instrument, too. The rich get richer.
Lelia
http://www.scoreexchange.com/profiles/Lelia_Loban
To hear the audio, click on the "Scorch Plug-In" box above the score.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tom Ridenour
Date: 2014-04-18 00:03
This is from the paper Mark C posted (thank you by the way, read it last night). It's the last two sentences in the conclusion.....
"There is no way of knowing the extent to which our test instruments (old or new) are representative of their kind, so results cannot be projected to the larger population of fine violins. But given the stature and experience of our soloists, continuing claims for the existence of playing qualities unique to Old Italian violins are strongly in need of empirical support".
Essentially what it says is that the most expensive fiddles are just that, the most expensive. Being expensive, in regards to quality, is neither a virtue or a vice. The fact that someone payed 4 million dollars for something or that it was played on by a world class player does nothing to affect the real value of something.
I've read about several other studies that confirm the same. The paper was critical of the other study, Indianapolis, but only on the grounds of how it was conducted.....the results still ended with a lack of empirical evidence for the superiority of the old Italian violins.
Ted R.
Ridenour Clarinet Products,
rclarinetproducts.com
sales@ridenourclarinetproducts.com
Post Edited (2014-04-18 00:04)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Barry Vincent
Date: 2014-04-18 00:25
Enjoyed reading those two articles Ted. It really drives home the point about how pretentious 'High Art' really is, whether it be in abstract style paintings, 'atonal' musical compositions or the manipulated high prices of antique violins. As one of the articles stated , it's all to do with the wealthy investing their money in things to enable them to gain some kind of prestige and the sense of self importance.
And how dare we Philistines question the validity of certain kinds of art. What would we common people know about 'real' art anyway.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Lelia Loban ★2017
Date: 2014-04-18 17:11
Yes, but there are some objective differences in instrument quality. Think about clarinets. I've been re-watching the Nero Wolfe series from the early 2000s and enjoying the Big Band soundtrack written by the late Michael Small. The folks who dressed the sets paid attention to period authenticity.
Throughout the series, outdoor location shots linger on the vintage automobiles, not resto-mods but maintained in or restored to original condition. Often these scenes linger on a gorgeous 1957 Chevy BelAir. But, as I listen to John Moses play so brilliantly on that soundtrack, somehow I suspect he's not wailing away on an authentic vintage 1957 plastic Bundy. I remember 1957 Bundies well, since a lot of my grammar school bandmates played them. Nope, if John Moses played a vintage clarinet for music reminiscent of the 1950s (and there's no reason why he should have, of course -- "If it sounds good, it is good") then unless I'm going deaf, it was sure as squeaks not a hunk-o-junk plastic student-quality vintage clarinet.
Lelia
http://www.scoreexchange.com/profiles/Lelia_Loban
To hear the audio, click on the "Scorch Plug-In" box above the score.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tom Ridenour
Date: 2014-04-18 18:40
I don't think, I know I wasn't, anyone was talking about a CSO or pawn shop clarinet vs the most expensive instruments on the market. However, in talking to clarinet players I find plenty that prefer (just as a for instance) the R13 over The Tosca......or you could say standard pro models over boutique pro models. Their are very few widely accepted standards in high art and most of the standards that do exist often get destroyed when put to blind tests....or as in the article above when the art work people pay millions of dollars for is compared with works done by toddlers and primates.
In high art their are very few objective standards. Also, if you found out he was playing a clarinet (I don't know about Mr. Moses in particular, but many top jazz players play large bore clarinets that most players would politely refer to as antiquated) that's not considered high end would that reduce the quality of the recording to you? I doubt it.
Ted Ridenour
Ridenour Clarinet Products,
rclarinetproducts.com
sales@ridenourclarinetproducts.com
Post Edited (2014-04-18 18:42)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
