Chapter VII: 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.