OLD TONE AND NEW--A CONTEST
On June 22, 1912, the London _Daily Mail_ published the following from
its Paris correspondent: “A contest took place in Paris last night which
seems to vindicate the contention that modern violins are as good in
tone as those of ancient make, for which thousands are paid by
enthusiasts. A number of violins were played in a dark room, and at the
end of the competition a vote was taken from the numerous musical and
artistic audience present, with the result that the finest was judged to
be a Belgian instrument dated 1912; the second was a French 1911 violin,
and not until the third came a Stradivarius, valued at more than £3000.”
There are lacking in the above report many details which cannot fail to
interest the tone-seeker. I am, therefore, indebted to Mr. D. I.
Cardozo, of Amsterdam, for a more extended communication on the subject,
which I print in full. While this, as well as similar contests, are
extremely interesting, the lesson which they convey has already been
learned by those who keep abreast of matters relating to tone. The
present contest will serve to keep this lesson before violinists, and
future competitions will spread further afield the high tone repute of
the modern violin.
A point in this communication worthy of careful note is contained in the
statement that the winning violins were both produced by a system which
enabled their makers to _control the tone_. I have dealt with this
subject at considerable length in previous chapters, but the bare
statement of the fact in this communication is incomplete without adding
that the maker not only controls and regulates the tone, but creates its
quality as well. Manifestly he could “control” with equal facility a
poor tone, and, if he possessed no ideals of what a fine tone should be,
his regulation of it would still be barren of satisfactory results. Mr.
Cardozo writes as follows:--
“Are the violins of the great Italian violin makers of the glorious time
of their art--the Stradivarii, Guarnerii, Amatis, Grancinos--without
rivals, and are the world’s famous violin players right in paying
fabulous prices for such rare instruments and to prefer them to those of
modern make? Or have the modern makers brought their art to such
perfection that the preference for the old instruments is nothing but a
prejudice; that a man with common sense must admit some makers are
producing such beautiful instruments, with such a rich tone, that they
are by no means inferior to the most beautiful old instruments known?
“This is not a question of yesterday nor of to-day, but the solution has
come somewhat nearer since the competition held in Paris some weeks ago.
Continuing the competitions of 1909 and 1910, when in both cases the
violins and violoncellos of modern makers were awarded the first prize
and the Stradivarii were beaten, the _Monde Musical_ has opened this
year a new competition.
“Twenty-seven modern violin-makers, viz. eighteen French, two Belgian,
two German, two Italian, one Dutch, one English, and one Russian had
together sent in forty-two instruments which had to struggle against six
old Italian: one Stradivarius (valued at £3000), one Guarnerius del
Gesù, one Maggini, one Gand, one Joseph Guarnerius (son of Andrea), and
one Grancino.
“The competition was so regulated that the public, consisting of
well-known artists, could not see what violin was being played upon at
any given moment. The same artist played, behind a curtain in the dark,
the same piece on the different violins, which were numbered, and which
numbers were acquired by casting lots. Between the playing of two
numbers the lights were switched on for a moment to enable the audience
to make their remarks and put down the points on their lists.
“On the first night only the new violins were played, in order to select
from them the best, and, as a result, twenty of the forty-two
instruments were deemed worthy to compete with the old violins. From
this twenty the six best were again chosen, No. 1 being a Dutch violin
with 112 points, and of the five others four were French with 87, 73,
67, and 51 points respectively, and one Belgian with 47 points.
“On the next night these six modern violins had to compete with the six
old ones. There was a large public attendance, and a hundred and
sixty-one artists were selected to do the voting. Two well-known
violinists, Simonne Filon and Jean ten Have, played, one after the
other, on the twelve violins. The voting produced the following
result:--
(New) 1 Auguste Falisse, Brussels 423 points
(New) 2 Chenantais-Kaul, Nantes 422 “
(Old) 3 Antonio Stradivari, Cremona 401 “
(Old) 4 Paolo Grancino, Milan 369 “
(New) 5 Deroux, Paris 351 “
(New) 6 Poisson, Lyons 327 “
(Old) 7 Joseph Guarnerius (del Gesù), Cremona points not given
(Old) 8 Joseph Guarnerius (son of Andrea), Cremona points not given
(Old) 9 Francois Gand, Paris “ “
(Old) 10 G. P. Maggini, Brescia “ “
(New) 11 Angard, Paris “ “
(New) 12 Kunze, The Hague “ “
“The two violins which gained the first and second place, and which
received a good number of points more than the Stradivarius, were built
according to the system of the French physicus, Dr. Chenantais. Kaul, a
pupil of the doctor, is a friend of Falisse, and it was while staying in
Brussels that he explained to Falisse the principles of Chenantais,[G]
and advised him to follow them. Falisse took this advice and entirely
succeeded. The violin with which he succeeded in winning the first prize
was finished on the 15th of June, the contest being held on the 21st of
the same month.
“The principle of Dr. Chenantais is that the maker must not continue to
copy the violins of the Italians, nor bother about why there is so much
variation of form.[H] The doctor does not pay much attention to the
varnish. The main point is the verifying (“relage”--regulation) of the
tone, and his success shows that he is right. In 1909 a violoncello on
this principle of Chenantais-Kaul was awarded the first prize, and now
again by means of two of his pupils he wins place over all new and old
violins.
“It may be that such competitions are not completely conclusive; that
the old violin may be played the best, as the artist is more used to
playing upon it. In any case it is not true to say the old violin-makers
cannot be improved upon in tone.”
* * * * *
The obvious criticism of this report is, of course, that the world seems
to have been scoured to find the six new violins, and, after all, only
two of them succeeded in beating all the old instruments in tone. It may
also be said we are given no indication of the tonal repute of the six
old violins, but are left to assume they were representative of their
makers. We have also no explanation of the peculiar fact that, when the
new fiddles were tested against each other, the winner of that contest
found itself among the “also rans” in the final--and bringing up the
extreme rear, to boot. We have no doubt, however, the result was arrived
at in a thoroughly honest and reliable manner, capable critics having
decided (without knowing what instrument they were voting for) that the
new violins were equal, and in some cases superior, to the violins of
the old masters. Since 1912 the new violin has made rapid strides, an
ever-increasing number of artists providing themselves with new violins
of fine tone, instead of old ones with questionable tone, thereby
increasing the pleasure of those who hear them play and adding to their
own renown. That these violins exist should be a source of gratification
to all lovers of the instrument, and especially to those who are unable
to invest the large sums demanded for the great-toned violins produced
by the masters of Cremona and elsewhere. To these the fact that a
violin, equally great in tone, is actually within their means may well
be accepted with incredulity. This incredulity is, under all the
circumstances, natural. It is, therefore, accepted and respected by
every maker of a great-toned new instrument. Not only so, but every
facility will be given for testing the new against the old, to the end
that modern tone may become better known and appreciated, for it is only
by this means that the sentimental influences which have so long worked
against the new violin can be overcome.
“Are, then, all modern makers creators of great tone?” No, they are not,
nor has this been the case in _any_ period of violin making. Yet--and
this may well be worthy of attention--there is scarcely a maker of
to-day, even to the copyist, who has not his tonal counterpart among the
builders of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. His violins are as
good as those produced by his more ancient prototype. They may, indeed,
be more worthy of the attention of players, as our modern is apt to
follow a model superior to those adopted by many of the older copyists.
* * * * *
Having, so far as the magnitude of the task and my own limitations
permit, made this effort to reinstate the modern violin in a position of
which, but for circumstance, it would have never been deprived, let us
consider some of the pitfalls besetting the pathway of the
tone-seeker--especially if he be so daring as to venture his quest
towards new pastures, leaving that pre-empted field wherein, some would
have us believe, tone can only be found. In plainer terms, if he seeks,
or finds, tone among new fiddles instead of old ones.