![]() |
| Stradivarius violin |
One reason I don't always get out a miscellanea on Fridays is lack of material. But here is a good article on the wood that goes into violins: Tree Rings Reveal Origins of Some of the World’s Best Violins
But the average tree-ring sequence for a sizable fraction of the violins in their sample correlated well with tree rings from near Trentino in northern Italy, and specifically the high-altitude reaches of the Val di Fiemme. And interestingly, those violins tended to have been produced during Stradivari’s so-called “Golden Age” from roughly 1700 to 1725, a period noted for particularly high-quality Stradivarius instruments. Perhaps Stradivari produced his best work when he found a source of wood in the Val di Fiemme and stuck with it, Dr. Bernabei said.
This strikes a chord with me because Robert Holroyd, who built my guitar, sought out wood for the soundboard from high-altitude spruce in British Columbia.
The wood that goes into making a violin — particularly the front surface, known as the soundboard — is critical. Parameters such as wood density and stiffness all affect how a violin ultimately sounds. “The wood choice is very, very important,” Mr. Beare said.
Stradivari is known to have favored spruce, but where exactly he sourced his wood has long been steeped in mystery. That’s where the study of tree rings — dendrochronology — comes in.
Most trees produce a ring of growth each year, and the widths of those rings depend on environmental conditions. High levels of moisture tend to result in wider rings, for instance. So a sequence of tree rings is like a bar code that records the conditions experienced by a tree year after year.
What they don't mention in the article is the particular benefit of using wood from high-altitude trees. The growing season is short so the growth rings are very narrow, which gives a more even acoustic response.
* * *
Here's an article on the mechanics behind Jimi Hendrix' unique guitar sounds: Jimi Hendrix Was a Systems Engineer
3 February 1967 is a day that belongs in the annals of music history. It’s the day that Jimi Hendrix entered London’s Olympic Studios to record a song using a new component. The song was “Purple Haze,” and the component was the Octavia guitar pedal, created for Hendrix by sound engineer Roger Mayer. The pedal was a key element of a complex chain of analog elements responsible for the final sound, including the acoustics of the studio room itself. When they sent the tapes for remastering in the United States, the sounds on it were so novel that they included an accompanying note explaining that the distortion at the end was not malfunction but intention.
Hendrix’s setups are well documented: Set lists, studio logs, and interviews with Mayer and Eddie Kramer, then the lead engineer at Olympic Studios, fill in the details. The signal chain for “Purple Haze” consisted of a set of pedals—a Fuzz Face, the Octavia, and a wah-wah—plus a Marshall 100-watt amplifier stack, with the guitar and room acoustics closing a feedback loop that Hendrix tuned with his own body. Later, Hendrix would also incorporate a Uni-Vibe pedal for many of his tracks. All the pedals were commercial models except for the Octavia, which Mayer built to produce a distorted signal an octave higher than its input.
Speaking of a 100-watt Marshall stack, when I was asked to play an obligatto guitar part in a contemporary piece for orchestra I found I had to double on electric guitar so I asked the concert office to get me a guitar and amp as I hadn't played electric guitar for years. What they got was a Stratocaster and a hulking Marshall stack that I never managed to turn up to more than 3. The whole viola section shuddered as I wheeled in the amp behind them.
* * *
It's very odd being a composer these days, it seems. Let's let Sarah Davachi talk about it.
Where is this devotion to interpreting a singular new contemporary composer these days? Deep musical friendships between well-established pianists and composers seems to have disappeared. Is there no time for long-term collaboration? A composer writing music who sees you especially in mind, for your unique musical fingerprint, is a magical thing. You don’t take it for granted. And it’s true the other way. Composer colleagues of mine always feel awe in how the right musician brings their music to life, or even to a place where they thought not possible in their heads.
Perhaps established musicians are playing it too safe. Commercialisation of their albums are top of the agenda, hoping that another Beethoven or Prokofiev Sonata cycle will keep the sales in the green. Or even that professional musicians simply don’t have the time to devote to curating life-long musical friendships with other established composers on the stage.
* * *
In the New York Times: What Can Musical Variations Teach Us About Creativity?
Several times during his hourlong performance of Beethoven’s “Diabelli Variations” at Carnegie Hall last month, the pianist Igor Levit made the same nonmusical gesture. At the end of a variation he would briskly swipe the flat of his hand horizontally above the keys as if clearing a whiteboard of the previous idea’s scribbles.
The motion seemed to be a mental reset — as if Levit were reminding himself to return to the blank slate of the theme, just as Beethoven had done, so as to ask the same question anew: What else might this music become? It was a reminder that variations are not merely a decorative form but also a kind of problem solving, in which each new section challenges the composer, the performer and the listener to approach the same material with a beginner’s mind.
Human beings have what’s called the serial-order effect: The longer we spend thinking about something, the wilder and more unusual our ideas tend to get.
Gen A.I. is constrained to the most statistically likely solutions. It’s fast, but it stays within a very small sphere of possibilities. Human beings go to edge cases. Time gives us the opportunity to diversify ideas and to see how well what we’ve made holds up.
* * *
Let's have some musical envois. Of course we have to start with Purple Haze:
The Critic article also talked about the Piano Sonata no. 6 by Prokofiev and there was an article I didn't put up announcing that Yuja Wang got Norman Lebrecht fired from the BBC for sending her a snippy email. So here is Yuja Wang with the Prokofiev Sonata no. 6:
And finally, of course, the Diabelli Variations by Beethoven played by Grigory Sokolov:

1 comment:
If the 19th century was the era of composer-performers in Europe then the torch was passed to Hendrix rather than to any composer who wasn't also a performer. Fans of Hendrix can certainly admire his instrumental skills in a way similar to the way Liszt fans admire his pianistic abilities. Cheng's article was an interesting read but the elephant in the room that kept ambling about was that in the earlier epochs of classical music a lot of composers actually could play their own works. A synergy between composer X and performer Y can certainly be cool; and I hear some people say that composers shouldn't perform their own works; but I am also reminded of Paul Hindemith's terse advice that the only person who can ensure a composer's work gets some kind of competent public presentation is, all too often, the composer.
AI articles sure are popular now. My hunch has been that the paradox of AI is that everything about it is human from start to finish. Humans came up with the idea and fed all of the canons of canonized music into AI models and yet are aghast at the results. If AI slop is so reliably bad and yet is a human creation then I can't shake the idea that the reason AI makes slop is because humans put the wrong lessons into AI, it's reflecting our own bunk surmises about human creations into it. Particularly when I think of the last fifty years of revision and revisitation about what sonata forms "are" it seems to me that that is an area where AI makes slop because slop theories have been used to oversimplify what should be counted as a "sonata" form.
Post a Comment