back
24 comments
I kind of wonder how it would actually sound at this point. As a guitarist who has played a lot of older instruments (some upwards of 100 years), I find that getting played is critical to the health and tone of a guitar. A decades-old guitar that is in mint condition probably sounds like crap. But a guitar that has been played intensely, even if only for a few years, can sound really great.

"Break-in period" is certainly widely believed among guitarists, and I believe it myself (based on the experience of owning new guitars and playing them until broken in), although it's near impossible to measure. The instruments seem to change noticably in both tone and feel as they get played.

My favorite instruments generally are upwards of 30 years old and have been played extensively. I had the pleasure of playing a 50 year old Gibson SG recently, and it was fantastic - far better than any modern SG I've played. Why is that? It's just wood, metal, and glue. It's not made any better than a new SG. So I think age and playing really matter.

Beyond that, my own instruments seem "angry" if I don't play them for months on end. They don't like just sitting there. This is, of course, a very animist, non-scientific approach to the issue, but it seems very real to me.

That 50 year old Gibson SG is definitely at least a partial case case of survivor bias. All the less-well built ones that came off the production line with neck-warps and dead-frets have long been tossed out by the owner. Though, I bet off-the-line, the ratio of 'well built' to 'not well built' guitars was significantly higher when Gibson was still privately owned.

The other factor is I'm sure back when Gibson and Martin were US-made, there was a certain amount of QA that went into each unit that went out the door. I know some fine men who make their living off craft furniture for the bourgeoisie and every unit is meticulously inspected. I'm sure even if they attained commercial success, they'd ensure a base level of quality that a MNC like Ikea or West Elm probably doesn't have. In the same way you have an emotional attachment to your instruments, those instrument craftsmen/women have a similar bond/sense of pride.

Also, as a woodworker, I can tell you that there are so many contributing factors to wood, ranging from completely obvious spruce vs cherry vs sikta, to more subtle things like where the tree was harvested from, access to water, the way it was cut (quarter-sawn? flat? did the craftsman just select whichever was cheapest?), the way it was cured, in what environment, and for how long. These all contribute to the way they age, the way they cut. It's not unlike wine vintages and variations (which, incidentally, have a fetishized community, but certainly an amateur like myself can identify the difference between two bottles of the same grape and vintage, but of a different region). New SG's are produced in an assembly line with the cheapest acceptable materials, rather than having some skilled tradesman who went down to 4 different lumberyards spending 6 weeks picking the best wood stock for that years production.

I don't think the QA was better then. There's tremendous variability in those older guitars. Arguably, the wood quality was better, but top makers today are still getting their hands on great wood. It's just more expensive.

One of my favorites is a well-played 1980 Tokai. In its day, it was a "cheap guitar", considered inferior to American instruments, but it's magical. It's better than Fender Custom Shops I've played - but I imagine 35 years from now, they'll be much better.

> Beyond that, my own instruments seem "angry" if I don't play them for months on end. They don't like just sitting there. This is, of course, a very animist, non-scientific approach to the issue, but it seems very real to me.

Is it possible you (have to) play them slightly differently? I know that is my experience--my hands know the violin and guitar better than my brain can understand.

I was never a great violinist, but this fetishization of old instruments is part of what turned me away. I refuse to believe that we can't produce instruments as good as those of yesteryear - and indeed, no expert can tell a true Stradivari from the best modern instruments in a blind listening test.
The classical world is more diverse than people seem to think. Most string players I know play on modern instruments, made within the last hundred years. Likewise actual musicians don't idolize young prodigies – both of these things are marketing phenomena that the actual artists generally oppose.

That said, the idea that there's no difference between a great old instrument and a modern one is just as fallacious. Perhaps as a not great violinist you never got to the point where you got to find out, but there are qualities of an instrument that have nothing to do with sound. The fact that a Strad costs $5 million and an Iizuka costs $27,000 is ludicrous, yes. But the great old instruments are still around for a reason.

30k for a hand-crafted instrument that you'll use professionally is quite reasonable. A skilled laborer spent somewhere between building that instrument for ranging between ~3 -> 18 months. Every stroke of his chisel was dedicated to the production of that instrument. Every pull of his rasp. As a (subpar for the time I've spent in the shop, but acceptable compared to the average bear) woodworker, I can respect the labor that went into it. I'm not saying that everyone should buy at that level (e.g 30k), but if you're going to pay $150k for an education at Julliard or Berklee, $30k isn't unreasonable for something you're professionally going into. (For the hobbyist or student, you can "almost-there" apprentice-crafted string instruments for under 10k that will have proper action which won't contribute to bad-form habits.) I'd imagine most people here have spent well over that on Macbooks and iPhones alone, which are hobby purchases that have lost 80% of their value within 3 years. You can retain most of the value on a good instrument[1] and if you're lucky it might even appreciate in value[2].

I think it's commonly accepted amongst collectors that you're buying a Strad because it's a Strad. They're not buying it for it's sound any more than one would buy an 1894 Patek Philippe because it keeps time. (A 20 dollar quartz Timex does just as well.) You're buying a piece of history. A piece of art. In the case of a watch, you're buying a piece of a combination between history/art and engineering. Watch this[3] to see the engineering beauty in it all. If you're further interested, watch this traditionally trained German[4] to see how delicate[5], how precise, how intricate his movements are, despite having lost the steady hand he had at 35, he regains the fluid motion in certain strokes.

[1] Humidity control, minimize temperature fluxuation, peg maintenance, etc. Just the basics - you don't have to baby it, but obviously don't neglect it either.

[2] I don't know what the current scene is like, but take the 1960s Yamaha FG180's which were basically thought of "junkers" you'd buy your 8 year old for Christmas. A mint Red Label with no neck warpage can get 3 or 4k easily.

[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OViP9AR2HE

[4] Or Swiss (?) I don't know German well enough to distinguish regional accents, so he could be from the German-speaking region of Switzerland.

[5] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkGygB7BMsQ

In case it wasn't clear, I was referring to the price difference as ludicrous. I have an Iizuka viola and it's worth every penny.
> but there are qualities of an instrument that have nothing to do with sound.

To what are you referring? I was under the impression they were so prestigious as works of art and history, not necessarily as better violins.

The whole classical-music world has some peculiarities. Why fetishize young players but old compositions?
Is that the case for violinists? I listen to much classical piano music and there are only very few young ones which achieve levels of old ones. I never heard a pianist under 40 live which was able to play the late Beethoven sonatas in a true fascinating way. I always have the impression that their artistic (as in virtuosity) abilities get in their way.
Glenn Gould's take on the goldberg variations were recorded when he was 23, i think.
Good catch! However, Glenn Gould was considered very controversial especially at his time with the mainstream media. I like his Bach interpretations very much, but I know Bach enthusiasts who loathe them. With his Beethoven interpretations, I am very torn. Take for instance the 2nd movement of the op. 111, where I like the one by Barenboim (the second recording) much better. And Gould's recording of it I know of has been taken at a much later age I think anyways.
Correct, and just because he was young does not mean his popularity was due to his youth. :)
He recorded them again at ~49.
Yes, and I highly recommend back-to-back listens! It's simply gorgeous and a relatively poorly tapped part of Bach's (admittedly massive) catalogue.
I have a question for you. Several someones told me that a violin can be "ruined" by a child or novice playing it. They claimed that a violin played well during its lifetime will sound better than one played poorly. I was immediately sceptical of this, but the explanation went along the lines of "bad frequencies" mess with the "alignment" of the wood or some such. The only thing I could compare to this is that metal plate at the Observatorium that vibrates and makes patterns in sand on top of it. If wood grain and glue can hold patterns in a violin, then I suppose this may be true.

What is your thought on this, having played the violin?

Guitar and mandolin player (well, and a bit of fiddle from time to time, played poorly) here. That same mentality exists elsewhere in the wooden instrument world, more so with mandolins than guitars.

Though you didn't ask me, what are my thoughts? The burden of proof is upon the ones making the claim. Prove it instead of causing endless debate on the internet. No one has, of course, just like no one has proven that a $1500 ethernet cable makes your sound system sound better. IMO, there are a lot of things that can ruin an instrument. Dry environment (causes cracks in the wood). General neglect, fiddling with bolts you shouldn't be fiddling with. But being played by a novice is not one of the things that can ruin a wooden instrument. It's all smoke and unprovable subjective opinions.

Let me put it another way: the best mandolin I own sounds better when an expert player plays than when I do. Not just the skill of the playing of the piece (the expert and I can play a scale at a slow tempo for this demonstration), the actual sound of the instrument. Did the mandolin suddenly transform its sound because it knew a good player was holding it? No, of course not. What we have demonstrated, however, that an instrument doesn't have just a sound. Lots of things contribute to the sound, including who is playing it.

Thanks for the interesting answer!
The story I've heard is that they can tell the difference between the violins; they just frequently prefer the sound of the newer instruments.
I'm a pop musician (though I can play cello and double bass), but my wife is classically trained and has an MA (though in pedegogy). I've met a lot of folks, and after hearing a lot of folks, I feel like the best of them are playing instruments in the 15-30K range.

I had a conversation with a freind who is working on a DMA. He and his wife had visted to play a concerto with our local orchestra (I play bass, my wife runs it and conducts). The guy is a fantastic player.

He's upset because his teacher has about $1M dollars in her setup, and he believes that if he had the same setup that he'd play the same as her. She was given this setup at about age 17, by her family.

I think that my playing and practice strategies would be a lot different if I owned an instrument that I could "pas on " to the next generation of players ang have a guaranteed retirement. So on the point of having that instrument I agree with my friend.

But I don't think that we agree on why that would change his playing.

On a related note, I call my wife's playing has improved when she moved from a $2500 antique instrument to a modern instrument she paid about 15K for, which she paid for though her earnings as a performer. In this case, we are in agreement that social and personal effects are important. Of course, she sounds objectively better with her better instrument, but this particular instrument is a materiel improvement over her old one.

So while there differences in instruments, I don't know if it is possible that "how good" the instruments are can be isolated from their situation between player.

For my part, I started getting a lot better gigs when I started using a markbass and an american p-bass with flats... I dunno. Folks listen with their eyes, I guess. I know that is true about the double bass folk and blues gigs I play on upright but would rather play on electric.

For the record, my dad's a strad nut, but also believes that modern luthiers are more than capable of producing instruments as good. And he owns one he thinks falls into that class, so he's put his money where his mouth is.

It sounds good, but no better than you'd expect given his ability, which is dedicated amateur level.

Here's a double-blind test of modern vs Strad violins:

http://www.thestrad.com/cpt-latests/blind-tested-soloists-un...

(spoiler alert: a modern violin won)

Just wanted to share a sentiment from a living luthier that I like.

Samuel Zygmuntowicz (a modern maker) has remarked, Strad made new violins. It's a reminder that age has little to do with the quality in some fine antique instruments. Strad's craft to fabricate brand-spanking-new violins made him quite a wealthy man (because they were fine instruments then, as they are now).