What You Hear is What You Get
The past two articles have concerned the locales of Brescia and Cremona in Northern Italy and their history of hosting legendary creators of stringed instruments. Antonio Stradivarius, Nicolò Amati, and Gasparo del Salò are a few of the luthiers attributed to the creations of famous instruments, and their craftmanship commands extraordinary prices to collectors and music appreciators from across the globe. Many ask what the secret was behind the mystery of their work and incredible accomplishments, but recent studies have shown their creations may have more value associated with their history and artistry then their auditory qualities. Claudia Fritz has completed a few tests over the past decade revealing some interesting properties about these instruments and their comparisons to new creations.
In 2012, Fritz conducted an experiment with 17 seasoned violinists in a hotel room in Indianapolis where they played six different violins in an attempt to see if they could identify the Stradivarius among them. In 2017, a similar test was conducted, this time with six more violins, two countries, and audiences of 50 to 80 people designed to research perceived projection and auditory quality from the lister’s perspective. While the details of the research varies, they were all validated in their methodology and point to a compelling conclusion. Not only do the old Italian creations prove to be indistinguishable from their contemporary creations, they are often ranked lower than them.
This is not to say that violins by the Amati’s, Stradivarius or Gasparo are not worth their price. These are incredible works of art and important pieces of historical record. Their value may be equated the same way a painting that in many ways is inferior to its modern reproduction does, simply because of its authenticity. However, the fallacy surrounding their superior auditory qualities is a big vindication for modern day luthiers, who are often under the pressure to recreate these legendary instruments. It may also be of great comfort to the modern-day musician who early on feels some pressure to purchase an instrument that has age to it as a means to validate their skills as a performer. Truth be told, you are better off supporting a new artist and making a name for your own instrument through the story you build for it by your own accomplishments.
The double bass has an interesting travel through its evolutions and history in craftmanship. The size, number of strings, and mechanics of usage are all intertwined in its shape and sound. Gut strings of the size necessary for its pitch were notoriously finicky to keep in tune at lower tones and higher tensions required of early basses. The larger instruments could not manage the pressure of more strings until improvements were made to the construction, and metal tuning gears finally allowed for basses to achieve more reliable tuning. The appearance of overwound gut strings in the 1650s had a profound impact on the auditory quality of lower notes and copper wound strings made intonation and tuning improvements. Until the 19th century, the double bass was usually a 3-stringed instrument and there was no standardization of its tuning. After 1900, we begin to see 4-string basses and its E, A, D, G tuning method of fifths becomes more common. What is important about all this, is that the older double basses may hold aesthetic and artistic value, but their improvement over time and the ingenuity of their craftsmen is the real triumph. New basses are amazing, and while, no doubt, instruments heralding from the late 19th and early 20th century are without equal, to suggest that their modern contemporaries are of inferior sound quality is just not true.
The story of Serge Alexandrovich Koussevitzky’s (1874 – 1951) bass and its previously unknown origins is a good example. When it was suspected to be a 1611 Amati construction, it had a certain aura around its performance. The discovery of its much more recent roots, (potentially of French origins, probably 1800s) it did not change the instrument in any way; however, it changed the public perception of the instrument. The Koussevitzky-Karr bass is regarded as difficult to play but possesses outstanding tonal quality for solo work. This is also the case for the stature of vintage Stradivarius violins. While blind studies may indicate virtually no discernable outstanding auditory qualities, once someone knows it’s a Stradivarius, the psychological effect it has on what one hears cannot be undone and is a very real effect.
My personal experience is not vast, and while there are many great modern luthiers of double basses out there, the example I will point to is Upton Bass in Connecticut on the eastern seaboard of the United States. While their accolades might speak for themselves, I’ve had the good fortune to come across two of their entry level instruments in California, and their rich tone and easy of playability was not only appreciated by me, but also by their satisfied owners. They cost a fraction of the tens of thousands that a similarly sounding instrument of the 20th century can run, and they produce amazing tonal response. These are not factory machine made, (Although I could make an argument for the benefits of them, too) but hand-crafted by artists who have studied and practiced their trade for many years. This is not an endorsement, just a personal account of my experience with aged versus new instruments. For those concerned, I suggest you try like Claudia Fritz, lock yourself in a hotel room and a blindfold, and hear it with your own ears.
Here is Harvie S Trio with James Weidman and tony Jefferson playing Prince Albert for todays listening example of an Upton Bass. Feel free to compare it with an older model. There are interesting differences to observe, but no doubt, exceptional sounds from either. Thanks for reading!