• Blogs
• Post Blog
• Discussion
• Violin Tips
• Violinists
• Instruments
• For Sale
• Festivals
• Register
• Log In

News by E-mail

Printer-friendly version

Baroque violins

From Luke Strong
Posted December 19, 2005 at 07:08 PM

The appeal is the attraction of a violin sounding as they did 400 years ago, playing the music that was written with that sound in mind. If that's what you want to hear, then you need one.

The essence of it is a violin that's intended for, and set up with, all gut strings. It really isn't that different from a modern instrument in most respects that aren't cosemtic and superficial, and many baroque players use a modern violin with the appropriate strings.

Chinrests weren't invented until around 150 years ago, so no, they're not appropriate. The baroque neck is more suited to playing without a chinrest than a modern neck, so it's not as horrible as you'd imagine.

Getting the most out of a baroque violin involves a completely different playing style that modern players don't have even a tiny bit of, so your chances of picking up one, playing it right, and getting anything nice out of it are just about zero. Just because you play violin, don't think you already know how to play baroque violin.

The great thing is that, finally, I feel at home ... with both my violins!

I spent many years doing small experiments with my modern setup violin: removing the chin rest, change to gut strings, try diferent bow grips, alas, all the things you'd expect. But it wasn't practical at all, of course, having only one instrument. It was getting to be really frustrating.

So finally I bought one. It's a factory instrument, and the bow from a luthier, but it is being so great. My mind is free to do what I want with each, now.

It's not an easy instrument at all, and I can relate to the comments above that un untrained violinist will get horrible sounds out of it, as it happened to me too :) Shifts are hard to do, all the bowings and bow strokes need a second thought, the flatter bridge and fingerboard makes things easier and harder at the same time, but to me what's working best is to consider them as almost two separate instruments.

And you know what? The extra effort is paying off, even on my modern violin. Don't really know how to describe it.

But this is something I definitely want to pursue.

About chin rests, on videos I've seen many diferent things with top baroque players, even shoulder pads. But that's not what I'd like to do.

If you want to hear a super sounding baroque violin pick just about any recording from Andrew Manze. He may very well be the top baroque player these days.... I've seen him live, doing the most stunning things, incredible shifts, holding notes forever, a sound out of this world, and he was doing it with the violin just layed over a slik shirt.My point is, technically everything is possible if the player has the drive and the motivation.

Oistrakh had the most wonderful sound, right? Well, I think no less of Manze on the baroque violin. Try the Biber Sonatas, the Bach Concertos, the Handel Sonatas, well... anything :)

The thing is, many players wanting to try the baroque violin, just can't find enough information material to get started, nor other players around with whom to share their experiences, and that can work as a turn off.

That could be my case, but as I don't want it to happen, here I am replying to the baroque violin post :) Anyone interested in keep talking about it, please let me know.

D Wright, yes, the early music movement, historically informed performance may become a trend, but it has been around for decades since Alfred Deller (I think) decided to "recover" the counter-tenor's voice. Maybe many are seing it as a curiosity but I have no doubt that it is here to say, and in many cases it's already a point of no-return; just as an example I'd say that is increasingly harder to find big symphonic orchestras play some of the Bach works, while some years ago it was common practice.

Also, here's another good example: Anne-Sophie Mutter recorded The Four Seasons, many moons ago... then came Nigel Kennedy and dared to use a diferent approach, and then came Fabio Biondi and Europa Galante and turned the Four Seasons into one of the most striking shows you can watch on a live performance! And some years ago Anne-Sophie Mutter recorded them again, this time in a fashion more according to what is believed to be the "historically informed" performance. She didn't do any compromises but her new recording sounds actual while the previous is terribly "dated".

The fact is that whenever I see a Baroque Ensemble playing I can't help noticing the ammount of pure, raw fun they're having! And I can assure you, it's fun allright :)

Sorry about the long post!

Joao

Anyway, two of the groups played on period instruments (authentic period instruments owned either by collectors or the university, these included violins, viola de gamba, baroque flute, etc.) the other group played on modern instruments. (vuilluame, modern flute, etc. they DID use a harpsichord, however) so...

The modern instrument performance and one of the baroque instrument performances were the best. Really, it's the quality of the players, not the instrument.

Also, the groups using baroque instruments specialized in baroque music. The group playing on modern instruments were normal musicians (you know, play a little baroque, a little classical, a lot of romantic, a little modern).

So, unless you plan on specializing on baroque music, I don't think it's really necessary. Of course, if you're wealthy and you'd like to play baroque music on a period instrument, go for it (but then...few musicians are wealthy XD). Don't forget a period bow (I've heard that every maker had a different design in the early years of the bow, but they sell "baroque" bows that the the standard reversed bow with the different frog and such)

One more strange thing, the two baroque-specialized groups that played on period instruments played at least one Mozart. The group on modern instruments only played baroque music, I just found that strange ^^U

Andrew Manze, Moens Artists
Andrew Manze, The English Concert

Also, I just created a Group at Yahoo that will welcome anyone seriously interested on the subject:
Baroque Violin Group

Joao Paz

Being in very similar terms as you are right now I'll be very interested in your findings!

I'm falling for my new baroque violin/bow setup :)

Joao Paz

No, I live in Portugal, but that's a small hop on a plane to London :) And then on a train to Cambridge, really nice trip!

Joao

Although I, personally, prefer the sound of modern instruments, the main reason I’m not attracted to baroque violin and the historically informed performance style is the tuning. I have perfect pitch, and I’m wedded to A=440. I can tell keys apart as easily as most people can tell colors apart.

If a period ensemble tunes low enough so that B-flat sounds like A instead, then I, as a listener, can live with it. If the published key is B-flat, I just think of it as being in the key of A.

It’s more of a challenge for me when the ensemble tunes somewhere in between; e.g., Trevor Pinnock’s group. Pinnock’s B-flat is, for my ear, too low to be a true B-flat; but it’s still too high to be a true A.

I don’t shut off the radio when a Pinnock recording comes on, just because of the tuning. Overall, I like his work; and I can go with the flow, as we say, while the music plays.

When I was in high school orchestra, we played a fair amount of baroque. But it was always with standard 440 tuning on our modern instruments. This was before period instruments and historically informed performances caught on. The modern instrument sound and tuning are what I was brought up on. So in my case, I’m sure it’s largely a matter of conditioning.

I can’t say what it’s like to play a baroque violin, since I’ve played only its modern counterpart. But as far as what I’d prefer to hear, my vote goes to the modern violin. To my ear, it’s an improvement over the baroque model.

There is plenty of period instrument groups/performers that tune to 440 when playing baroque. The problems start with classical where you can't tune the fortepiano so high, because the strings will break...
IG

You said, “The problems start with classical where you can't tune the fortepiano so high, because the strings will break.”

I’m a little puzzled. In my experience, standard piano tuning has been 440. This has been the case every time I’ve played with piano accompaniment, including the times I’ve played chamber works from the classical era that have a piano in the ensemble.

IG

The thing about tunings has a lot to do with the composers/geography, too, in the sense that in the days we're talking about there was no such thing as a uniform pitch. Some theories say that, for instance in (some places in) Italy the A pitch was even higher than today, maybe a full tone. Historians rely on the pitch of the wind instruments that survived to this day as a source for comparison, and also on on the written voice lines' tessitura...

About the fortepiano, I just bought Mozart's Violin Sonatas by Andrew Manze/Richard Egarr; a great chance to hear the fortepiano! And a strikingly diferent Mozart sound.

Joao — yes, your feedback lines up with what I found in my researches within the last few years. I don’t remember where I read it, but I read that during the Romantic era, some ensembles even tuned to A=465.

A couple of years ago, I came across this extract from Lanfranco Rasponi's book The Last Prima Donnas. In the text, singer Renata Tebaldi (1922–2004) states her firm belief that the diapason should not go over 440. I agree. Read, if nothing else, what she says in § 9 (“What worries me more and more . . .”) and § 10.

I am partial to singers and have had experience accompanying them; so I can relate to a lot of the things Tebaldi says here. But I’m thinking of more than just the singers. I’m also thinking of the instruments. I wince at the thought of tuning one of my violins to 450 — let alone 465. I’ve never tried it, but I’d be afraid the strings would break. Then, too, I just don’t like the sound of an A that is so high. Even 443, which the singer cites, sounds high to me. From the recordings I’ve heard, it appears that the high tuning is more common within continental Europe than it is in America or the British Isles.

To Tebaldi’s observations concerning the diapason, I’d add, at least where modern instruments are concerned, that it should not go below 440, either.

I know — musicians who have perfect pitch can be a pain in the neck sometimes.

Thanks for the article link. Very interesting stuff, and me too I'm partial to singers as my wife and daughter are both. Oh yes, I can imagine how singers feel if they have to sing with an orchestra tuning to a diferent pitch! They always know the highest pitch that can be found at each piece :)

As for instrumentalists, I for once often think I'm glad I don't have perfect pitch (though I am sure that to a certain extent it could be acquired, but that would be another thread...!).

On violins, since I have been on a personal early music quest for some time, I'm quite used and enjoy the A=415 tuning. Both on modern and baroque instruments, but of course that goes with the repertoire... to me playing some early 17th century without the ring of the open strings at A=415 sounds as much as odd as playing Paganini's Cantabile with "loose" strings :)

http://www.pacificstrings.com/sogood.html

Support Violinist.com

Become a Sponsor

Search Violinist.com

Section Sponsors

The following violin shops have made a financial commitment to support the Violinist.com community.

Find how to advertise your business on Violinist.com.