Bright sound versus dark

March 17, 2007 at 10:20 PM · Gary....mentioning that you're considering retirement perhaps makes for a phenomenum similar to my own. My lovely, dark violin that was admired by many became tough to hear for me when playing in an orchestra. Retirement aged ears are perhaps not picking-up like they used to do...My solution was to get a neat French shop-Vuillaume that was really bright and loud...my stand partner didn't appreciate this maneuver but I could finally hear and adjust my playing...it was a great instrument but too bright...I sold it to an older gal who's hearing was worse than mine, and bought one of lesser brilliance....now have one for GO and one for SHOW. Hope this helps.

March 17, 2007 at 11:03 PM · I'm not at all retirement age, (infact I'm only 15) but I also prefer a brighter sounding violin. The choice in violin should match the purpose of the violin. One should not play an extremely bright violin in an orchestra as this will cause problems for the other orchestra members and the ensemble as a whole since one member will be audible to the audience as louder than the rest of the orchestra. I currently have such a problem, my violin is very bright and I have great difficulty NOT burying the rest of the orchestra. I purchased this violin with a different purpose though. I intend to be a soloist, thus I need a much more projective instrument that CAN be heard easily over the rest of the orchestra.

My advice to you: find a violin that is not bright, but is still very clear sounding. If you want a bright violin so you can hear yourself more clearly in the orchestra, the answer is not to play over them so you can hear yourself, but instead to play more crisply and perform on a much clearer sounding violin, without the extra volume.

March 18, 2007 at 12:10 AM · I like both. They both have their own beauties. But, sometimes it's not the violin. Sometimes you can make the sound.

March 18, 2007 at 12:22 AM · Just like chocolate, some prefer dark, light or both. Everybody is different. Heifetz and Szerying both preferred the darker tone of the Guarneri del Gesu violin, while Oistrakh and Milstein preferred the brighter, sparkling tone of the Stadivarius violin.

The ideal violin for me would be one that could have the most of both sound qualities, that is, a dark, projecting lower two strings, and a bright, warm-sounding upper two strings.

Best of luck,

Eric Gratz

March 18, 2007 at 04:43 AM · Eric, while what you say is true in several cases, I'm not sure I'd describe Oistrakh and Milstein's sound on their strads as "bright" or "sparkling" at all. In fact, I think they created some of the "darkest" colors and sounds on their instruments of all violinists. Although they possessed the ability to create bright and sparkly sounds, that was not what they were particularly known for. Gitlis, Kreisler, and Francescatti were well known for their bright and sparkling sounds. The closest modern day violinist I've ever heard come even close to imitating Gitlis's sound is Anne-Sophie Mutter, although she generally doesn't use as much bow speed as Gitlis.

March 18, 2007 at 04:52 AM · I agree with that Brian- I couldn't really think of anyone from the older genereation to use as a better example..However, I was talking about their violins in general, not the way they played them. Indeed Milstein and Oistrakh didn't have as bright a tone as someone like Gitlis, but they do serve as good examples for there being no better choice for tone as far as the terms "dark" and "bright" go.

March 18, 2007 at 01:29 PM · In addition to the projection, power, cutting through aspects mentioned above, bright and dark often correlate to the speed of response. As people improve in playing, many formerly adequate instruments with a darker sound suddenly aren't as much fun. I can hear the difference as a slight lag in response.

March 19, 2007 at 07:05 AM · Stephen, that's a very interesting observation, and worth further investigation.

How an instrument feels & responds can well affect the player's impression of how it sounds, even though it may sound very different to a listener. (even a listener who is not far away.)

I found this phenomenon when auditioning various strings. As you know, I record all my tests. I found that with certain strings, (esp heavy gauge) the response was slow enough that my impressio of the tone was skewed. That is, a slow response was in effect a small delay in the higher frequencies. The brain perceives frequencies that arrive late as being softer than they actually are.

The violin you just did for me happens to be a bit dark, though open. I have not had a chance to record it yet, but will soon. The darkness could be the strings you used (Dominants, I assume) but could be the nature of the beast. -Or it could be this response speed issue. It will be interesting to see if it records differently than I am expecting.

This all begs the question- If someone has a violin with a slowish response, can that person learn to compensate technique, so as to be 100% in control of the true sound. Or, is it just something you live with, and not enough of a difference to get hung up about? And last, are there things a luthier can do to make a such a violin respond faster, without radically changing the actual, overall tone?

March 19, 2007 at 07:12 AM · i don't equate darkness with slower response. i think you can still have a dark sound with a good response, especially on a well made violin.

my preference has switched several times between a "dark" and "bright" sound. but i still gravitate toward a dark sound, because i think it has more character and richness, and it is more distinctive. Over time, the terms "light" and "dark" have become less important, as i've learned to judge a violin's quality based on other aspects of sound - "thickness", "presence", "focus", and "complexity". (pls don't ask me to define these terms) These qualities are hard to achieve and apply to the highest tier of instruments made.

March 19, 2007 at 07:45 AM · Jim, I think you misundertood.

What I'm saying is that one could have a violin that isn't so dark, but seems dark when you play it due to its response being slow. An interesting possibility.

BTW, I like your 4 terms, esp "thickness." I prefer a violin that's a bit of a bully.

March 19, 2007 at 06:19 PM · I think my violin is both, it's strange. But I love it. Maybe it's just me.

March 19, 2007 at 07:04 PM · I think a very good violin is one that can't be characterized as simply "dark" or "bright" but one that can be either (and everything in between) depending on the player's conscious or unconscious expressive intent.

March 20, 2007 at 09:53 AM · Like you said, I think a "dark" violin allows you to hide more, or at least feel like it...

But I think like Peter, if you describe the sound as bright or dark and feel comfortable with that, you're probably talking about a fairly average sound. To me, a sound that is really, really good is very complex; to the point that it seems like it couldn't even be coming from wood. Maybe it leans toward bright, or at least has that kind of clarity.

Somebody posted this quote from Geoffrey Fushi and I thought it was a good desciption so I saved it.

"Geoffrey Fushi wrote of concert instruments being "...edgy, bright, brilliant, cutting...an extreme focus to the sound which is typical of the greatest concert instruments...This greatly enhances the projection of sound in a large hall, and adds a kind of electricity to a dazzling performance...Many violinists and students who have not had the opportunity to try great vioins are often surprized at this cutting, edgy quality. They might at first consider it objectionable until they have had the experience of playing a larger number of exceptional instruments...to learn that top violins all have this particular quality."