While a fiddle tune doesn't wring out a violin like some classical tunes, I think it's better to the power and not need it, than to need it and not have it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by NCnotes

So we got into this discussion yesterday at session…

M the whistle player said that he thinks he sounds the most “traditional”, and his tone is more like Mary Bergin ( trad whistle goddess), when he plays on his cheap $10 Generation whistle. He also has a Sindt whistle, which I gather is a good one (?) but he likes playing his Generation…?

Does this go for fiddles too?
Do expensive “concert violins” not sound right for folk music? It just got me to wondering! :-)

I asked the other two fiddlers there if they thought cheaper fiddles sound more traditional, and they shook their heads No…(No time to get into it more because a tune was starting up). I know they both have GOOD instruments. C has her mother’s violin (her mom was an orchestra player) and E has an old dark German violin (I know this because we use the same luthier, and he commented that E has a really good instrument ).

But, curious if you guys agree?

---

Do expensive “concert violins” not sound right for folk music?

The premise of the question seems wrong. I suppose might be using different definition of "folk music".

To me, it's essence is music from regular folks; it's more about process. They are individuals, there is no one sound that's right or wrong; nor defined by authority; they decide what qualities they think sounds or works.

With that, they might also work on the folksy idea about what's "good enough" or not.

Define expensive? Because it's a relative term; one of my favorite answers to the question "what's the difference between a violin and a fiddle?" is "about two grand." Over on a violin forum I saw someone say that you can't really expect to get a reasonably good instrument if your budget is under $15,000 and I thought I was taking crazy pills. That's insane to me. So from that point of view, yeah definitely fiddles should be inexpensive. This is folk music and folk means people who couldn't drop $60,000 on a violin. And I'm not making that number out of thin air; it was posited as the average price paid by violinists in the typical symphony orchestras. A local maker charges around $7000 for his violins and that seems reasonable to me, but to some parent looking to upgrade their child from a rental instrument to a full size violin that probably seems like a lot.
But another way to interpret your question is whether traditional music is supposed to be played on low quality instruments and that's a no from me.

Back when I still lived in L.A. I figured what the heck, why not go to a couple high end shops and put a passel of Five Figure Violins under my chin? Being a smooth, aging film industry type, it was no problem getting salespeople to put a happy selection of 'em on the table for me to "test out." None of the fiddles I "auditioned" were very old. On the contrary, most were brand new. Maybe only one or two of them were from the 19th Century.

Long story short -- some of those fiddles truly put a spell on me. They may have looked exactly like any old German trade fiddle, but their sound was uniformly excellent. They sounded big and beautiful. They truly sang. They put me under their spell.

Anyway, yeah, I still got a jones for a couple of 'em.

So pro violins cost $15-$60k?!
Are there pro fiddles that cost that much?

I guess I could go up to somebody after their show and ask how much their fiddle cost…LOL! ( Then they will probably say, this is my father’s fiddle…:-)

Anyway I’m just idly curious. I just found it interesting that M prefers the sound of his cheap Generation whistle to his Sindt whistle (I just checked and Sindts seem to go for $500+). I would guess that there are players who prefer their “cheap” fiddles over their expensive ones (?) but I haven’t met anybody yet like that.

And Lonesome Fiddler/Ed, that sounds like a fun (yet slightly dangerous) trip!!! :-D

I have never dared to try anything out of my modest price range…
I don’t trust myself!

quote:

---

Originally posted by NCnotes

Anyway I’m just idly curious. I just found it interesting that M prefers the sound of his cheap Generation whistle to his Sindt whistle (I just checked and Sindts seem to go for $500+).

---

The whistle comparison is interesting... since not sure what justifies the expensive whistles?

Physics wise it's a vibrating column of air pressure, open at both ends. The body, materiel doesn't really affect the sound volume or tone; as many many studies of wind instruments show. The overall bore diameter and conical taper vs cylindrical, makes difference in tone, but shouldn't play role in manufacture or price. The ends play a role in impedance, the bottom end or finger hole relative diameter (and a ibt with wall thickness); but more so the fipple end plays bigger role, the size and angle. 

I would guess that there are players who prefer their “cheap” fiddles over their expensive ones (?) but I haven’t met anybody yet like that.

Some of this reminds me of trade offs, like in electric guitars; and some acoustic guitars. Some less expensive instruments have their own sort of quirky sound; it's completely usable to make music, and even certain appeal in that sound for certain songs or music. But they are kind of limited, one trick ponies.  So some of that might be (like a in elec) cheap single coil bridge thin nasal twang sound; vs maybe cheap humbucker at neck is how it is warm smooth; maybe distorts in fat way. Part can be how it sits in a mix with other instruments, having cut or blend. So with that, some fiddles might sound good on, or well suited  some types of fiddle tunes, but just lack a bit of versatility to do others.

Acoustically, not thinking price but qualities of some properties, and ease; some might prefer tradeoff... say of raw, rough but easy to get loudness (on cheaper instrument) over less loud but subtle nuances, texture, dimension and warmth (more expensive). Others might be comparing a just easier to control limited dynamics, smoother, mellower but no where to go beyond can't dig in (on cheaper),... vs than rich and diverse tonal responsive and projection yet more difficult to control (on expensive). Of course some is about balance in range from high to low, moot if only playing in first position; so those trade offs might make sense.

What can I say? If I suffer from any trivial weaknesses, the grand prize winner is my devotion to quality sound.

The fiddle (object) predates the violin. We all primarily play violins. They could be setup to our preference, to play fiddle tunes. I'm a fiddler because I play non-violin centric music. This could get into an argument, but fiddle is a collection of music. Mostly dance music. This is separate from who's a fiddler and who's a violinist?

ITs all about the sound. A cheap fiddle is assumed to be inexpensively made ( woods, making skills, set up) and yet might have decent sound, but not up to what an orchestra player needs. A cheaper fiddle might not have the wide tone availability , all over the fingerboard, that classical music requires, but be perfectly fine for 1st-2nd position square dance type use. I will always advocate for getting the best fiddle that you love the sound, that you can afford.

That being said, my previous main fiddle is a superior instrument, that is really wasted on just fiddle music. A bench made Chinese instrument (I know, I was actually at the workshop), they were kinda upset when I bought it because it wasn't going to used to its full potential (or so they thought). In the hands of a good classical player, it really sings out on the upper registers, but me, I dont go anywhere near there! Its got a pretty solid low end that holds up well when you have to really dig in.

On the other hand, many of the cheap fiddles that have passed thru my hands (<$200 at auctions) were just passable. Not very complex tone, weak high end or just not pleasing to my ear. Some were newer, some older with some mileage on them. I never found that hidden jewel. All were certainly playable when I sold them off. And fiddles can change over time! My buddy has a Wurlitzer violin that I used to love the sound of. I had a standing offer to buy it from him if he ever wanted to sell it. THen it got damaged in a basement flood and it lost most of its great tone! Wouldn't give $50 for it now.

Like Ed, when I'm traveling and have spare time, I hit the music stores and ask to play the highest price violins they have, just for Gits and Shiggles. Played a few +$35,000 violins at Tommy Lee's in Hong Kong, with one that was super! Too rich for my blood, though! On the other hand I just bought a fiddle for $1200 that is really sweet and pretty sounding, but doesn't have much power available.

Interesting!

So ya think—-if I launched into a jaunty reel on a Stradivarius, it would still sound “right”? Or too weirdly polished of a tone for fiddling…well if somebody has a Stradivarius, give it a try! :-D

But I agree…I have played on cheap instruments in the starter range, and I found them hard to play, or harsh on the ears.

So maybe the cheap whistle thing only goes for whistles! (M is not the only whistle player who has said that spending a lot more is nor desirable).

I guess you don’t need a Strad to fiddle, and at some point it probably “tops out”?

But, some fiddlers may disagree ( thinking of mark O’Connor :-)

Anyways for me, the only thought is that it’s probably not worth it to “shop down” in hope of finding a jewel
of a fiddle…but out of curiosity, I might do the opposite of Ed and Al…go into a shop and try all the cheaper fiddles! :-)

quote:

---

Originally posted by NCnotes

 I might do the opposite of Ed and Al…go into a shop and try all the cheaper fiddles! :-)

---

I like doing this with estate auction violins that go for under $100. Occasionally I find a diamond in the rough and that's always a joy

In light of the discussion ,I find this amusing.--------

maestronet.com/forum/index.php...divarius/

I have two: each cost under $400 each,but I am cheap and happy.

I don't think folk music comes out of any instrument, expensive or otherwise. i think it comes from somewhere else.

Give a folk musician a Bean can and a stick and they will make it sound good. it's in em, and it gets out any way it can... Given the chance.

Musicians play instruments they like. There's no difference between fiddles and violins. Construction, quality, sound, appearance, provenance can all contribute to value/cost to collectors and players.

quote:

---

Originally posted by imapicker2

In light of the discussion ,I find this amusing.--------

maestronet.com/forum/index.php...divarius/

I have two: each cost under $400 each,but I am cheap and happy.

---

ha thanks!

whoops, edit of the spoiler:
Tommy Jarrell is not impressed by the Strad, and says that he paid $10 for his fiddle and he wouldn't trade it  :-)

I guess it's a very personal thing ...  

Played an Amati one time. Weren't nothing special, but that was back when I'd just started playing, 3-4 yrs. I couldn't appreciate what it was capable of. Man I'd like another crack at it now! Hey if you like how your fiddle sounds and more, you like what you sound like playing it, great! Cheap or not, that's really it, isn't it?

That is my conclusion too…

quote:

---

Originally posted by NCnotes

quote:

---

Originally posted by imapicker2

In light of the discussion ,I find this amusing.--------

maestronet.com/forum/index.php...divarius/

I have two: each cost under $400 each,but I am cheap and happy.

---

ha thanks!

whoops, edit of the spoiler:
Tommy Jarrell is not impressed by the Strad, and says that he paid $10 for his fiddle and he wouldn't trade it  :-)

I guess it's a very personal thing ...  

 

---

Jarrell ran a road grader for the NCDOT for a living.  I'd guarantee he wouldn't spurn a high-end John Deere 620 with an air cab, touch screen and CD player for a crappy old open-cab Allis Chalmers upon which you get yellow-jacket-stung every September.

I don’t think it makes any sense to suggest fiddles “should” be cheap. Since fiddlers don’t have to be able to play ppp and have it clearly audible at the back of a concert hall or to be able to play with enough power to be heard over an orchestra, the demands for tonal capabilities are much less extensive. That does not mean that cheap is ideal, just that some of the characteristics of expensive violins aren’t as important for folk styles.

Having a nicer violin doesn’t do any harm, and I would certainly say that playing a bad violin can make it very difficult for the audience to endure. A number of fiddlers have had excellent violins that were capable of being played in concert halls. Mark O’Connor hasn’t suffered at all for playing a Vuillaume.

What most players need the most is something that’s set up well. Sound can always be changed if the violin is of at least passable quality. Bad setup leads to problems that can actually make it harder to play well.

Any player has to consider what is reasonable to budget for an instrument and make decisions based on that. The genre isn’t what dictates the price. There is a bit of a tradition among fiddlers to thumb their noses at violinists who spend large sums on violins by bragging about how little they spent on their own instruments, but that’s a matter of personal vanity, not anything to do with the requirements of the music.

I was trying to wrap head around some of this discussion.

Maybe the OP question has to do with a similar ideas and aesthetic of  "lo-fi" music. (popular term/genre)

Not sure how to describe "lo-fi" (and my son will say it's all wrong)... but basically origianlly came from limitations of recording process, but does include aspects of instruments. The stereotypical DIY garage band of the 60's/70s, to punk and indie/grunge, to early street rap hip-hop; pretty raw recorded and copied with low quality gear, mics, preamps, and low end tape machines, not much of outboard gear (EQ, Compression), limited bandwidth; inexperience with setup and use of equip, overdriven, or McGyvered hacks... done in an largely untreated space; limits to achieving great mix, let alone editing. So included fair bit of dirt; noise, hiss, hum and distortion (as opposed to clean hi-fi, done in a good studio). A lot played on low end inexpensive guitar pickup and amps (like Silvertones); budget/old strings; later included early PCM synth and drum sounds of like a Casiotone, or Portatone.  Their early playing was not meticulous, might be out of tune, not much multiple takes, punch-ins, edits; mistakes or minor flaws in playing were left in. For most part probably wasn't really the goal, it's what they had, could afford.. but managed to experiment find  interesting sounds to make music.

There is a certain aesthetic appeal to some listeners, DIY, rough, raw, dirt, natural organic; that better equipment, better made or cleaned up as hi-fi studio recording would lose. It's a feature not a bug. So there is this idea, despite that they can afford have access to much better equip/technology, and have better skills; that try purposely go out of way to recreate some of that... all the limits and flaws are essential part of the appeal; finding a Portastudio cassette; cheap mic, Casiotone, drum machine; or RadioShack preamp to overdrive, or fascination with Silvertones and early Japan guitars and amps. (like Jack White); even the slight out of tuneness; and dead strings.

So for fiddle/folk music, similarly, I think for some, in their mind, idea of folk music; fiddle, banjo, to acoustic blues guitar, barroom piano... has similar DIY lo-fi goal? (vs classical would be hi-fi)

So maybe the question in OP, is the tone of cheaper instruments; limits of tone quality; as well extraneous noise, bow, pick, hits against body/fingerboard, fret squeaks/buzz... maybe don't play in tune... and other non- hi-fi flaw or aspects; are feature not a bug; not simply that they are acceptable, but they are a bit of "requirement" need in order to achieve that lo-fi folk idea? (like fiddle)

edit; not that I agree, but I can see the charm, and it might be how some seem to view folk music... as all needs to be lo-fi.

I think the whistle might be the only Irish trad instrument where cheap and cheerful can also be a sought-after sound. But I think that's because it is a very simple instrument relatively speaking, and Generation got it right a long time ago with their design and manufacture. Flutes, banjos, concertinas, button boxes, fiddles, etc. are all more complex to manufacture and cutting corners in all but the luckiest circumstances will likely lead to lower quality sound.

Yeah, Geo. I also get a kick out of the notion that, when it comes to aesthetics, what is considered by connoisseurs to be cheesy can often be quite effective on an emotional/artistic level. It isn't a simple matter. Bottom line, though, good sound is an emotional requirement for me. I crave it, whether it's delivered to my ears via live musical instruments or a stereo.

NCnotes - Your whistle playing friend thinks he sounds more "traditional" and more like Mary Bergin when he plays his Generation whistle because thats exactly what she plays. (BTW Generation only goes back to the 1960s, Clarke whistles, which are made differently, go back to 1843). Not to minimize the skills of the best players, but the whistle is just a metal tube with holes in it, and each brand has its sound in any hands.
The same is true of many other instruments. For example, I have two main guitars, both Martins - the D-28 I bought new 60 years ago, and a 00-21 of about the same age I bought used about 20 years ago. Both are very good instruments with rosewood bodies but completely different in size, shape, and scale length. Anything I can play I can play on either guitar, but it won't sound the same, no matter what I do.
Violins are different. Because of the way they are fingered without frets, and the bow, they are more capable of expressing the individual player. If I were to play your instrument I'd probably still sound more like me than you.
As far as "traditional" players, there are many stories of valuable old instruments brought to this country in flour sacks and passed down through generations, but I think most of these should be taken with a grain of salt. However, I've known many fiddlers, both older and contemporary, who played very nice instruments, and were interested in good tone. Maybe not incredibly valuable, but certainly not cheap junk either. There are exceptions, notably Tommy Jarrell, who wanted a particular sound they felt their instrument provided, but they are just that - exceptions. Many "folk" players probably couldn't spend too much on an instrument that really wasn't the most essential item in their life, but that doesn't mean they weren't interested in the best sound possible.