Back in 2010 researchers conducted an experiment at the
International Violin Competition of Indianapolis. They asked 21 violinists to play three old
Italian violins and three new ones to judge which sounded better. When the experimenters found that the
violinists couldn’t tell the old from the new, and in fact showed a slight
preference for the new, they searched for reasons to explain it. After all, there were many theories about the
superior craftsmanship and wood quality arguing in favor of the opposite
outcome. Perhaps they tested too few
instruments, the acoustics where substandard, or the violinists had too little
time to make a valid judgment, less than 30 minutes.
In response to these objections, they asked the same
question again this year with a redesigned experiment. “The researchers asked 10 world-renowned
soloists to choose a violin to hypothetically replace their own from a batch of
six new and six old Italian violins, five of which were Stradivarius models. In
the blind study, the violinist wore dark goggles and tested the instruments in
75-minute sessions, one in a rehearsal room and a 300-seat concert hall outside
of Paris. Six of the 10 soloists chose new violins as their preference, and
when comparing playing qualities of their favorite new violin and favorite old
violin, they rated the new violin higher on average.” Oops!
This reminds me of my story from New Year’s Eve 2012 about
experts’ inability to distinguish fine wines from ordinary, red wine from white
wine with red food coloring added, or expensive champagne from the grocery
store variety.
Why do we continue to be sucked in by the opinion of these
“experts” on subjects that are clearly a matter of taste and personal preference? Violins can teach us that it wouldn’t hurt to
exercise a little more skepticism in all areas.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Click again on the title to add a comment