Well it's Wednesday (just about) which means that it's time to roll out some aliteration and introduce what I hope will be a weekly feature.
'Woo' is a colloquial term that you see quite a lot in skeptical circles that refers to a whole host of superstitions, urban legends and unverified beliefs. Psychics, mediums, homeopaths, chiropractors, acupuncturists, conspiracy theorists who insist that aliens from Zeta Reticuli travel hundreds of light years to fuck with rednecks: all are in woo up to their eyeballs. But how can you tell the difference between woo and, you know, the truth? My own working definition of woo - which I'm sure will shift and change like Barack Obama when he takes his reptilian form - is one of those persistent, unkillable ideas that survives despite all evidence to the contrary and indeed when tested remains unproven. Kind of like on ghost shows where the 'victims' of poltergeists describe chairs flying around the room and light bulbs exploding, but when the TV crews arrive nothing happens. All night. And you end up with sore eyes from all the night vision on the cameras.
I thought I'd kick off with something fairly simple: the stringed instruments made by Antonio Stradivari in Cremona in the 17th and 18th centuries.
Everyone knows that Stradivarius stringed instruments are the best in the world. It's a widely believed fact. A book I'm currently reading proclaims in fairly uncertain terms that the six hundred or so surviving instruments - violins, violas, 'cellos, harps, guitars and mandolins - represent the pinnacle of their field. Furthermore they constitute:
This is indeed a fairly bold claim to make. While undoubtedly Stradivari was a prodigiously talented craftsman, were the instruments he made really so superior to his contemporaries? Can they really not be bettered even with all the powers of modern technology? Surely in an age where you can chat to someone from Brazil while simultaneously blasting the (un)living hell out of hordes of computer-generated zombies, the quality and sound of a Stradivarius can be exactly replicated. Inevitably, when claims as grand as the one above are made, we have to turn to science.
The 'mystery' of the Stradivarius violins has been of particular interest to scientists and curious musicians for centuries, as you would expect. The French National Academy put one of the surviving instruments to the test in 1817, hiding players behind a screen and inviting experts to declare which they believed to be the legendary violin. Results were inconclusive, and have been in every test performed on them since.
Testing methods may have gotten more sophisticated over time - those inquring minds of 1817 were unfortunate not to have access to X-ray fluorescence spectroscopy - but still there is no scientific proof that a Stradivarius can be distinguished from any other violin of a similar time period and level of craftsmanship. Scientists have really gone to town on this, analysing everything from likely wood sources to the consistency of the glue used to piece them together but mabye it's time to acknowledge the elephant in the room: maybe they aren't all that different to other violins.
Granted they have been marketed extremely well : the naming of each instrument after an owner in particular creates a brilliant mystique around them and hell, I'd nick one if someone left it in my taxi. If I drove a taxi of course. Or even if I could drive. Regardless, you have to wonder if owning a Stradivarius is roughly equivalent to Dumbo's magic feather. While undoubtedly absolutely gorgeous instruments, it is the player that makes them perform the way they do and if neither experts nor audiences can tell the difference between a Strad and - in one test - one put together in the UK in 1976, does it really matter?
Maybe it is in the wood, or the glue, or the varnish but if so that hardly makes Stradivari the mystical genius that he is made out to be so often. Although the fact that we can construct modern violins that perform just as well as his in blind tests shouldn't detract from his ability to match modern science in 1680, with his own hands, let's not get carried away. I'm quite happy to settle for him being an exceptional artisan who knew his trade inside out, and produced some of the finest violins that exist in the world day. Some of the finest. Not the finest - I'd need to see some test results to say that.
'Woo' is a colloquial term that you see quite a lot in skeptical circles that refers to a whole host of superstitions, urban legends and unverified beliefs. Psychics, mediums, homeopaths, chiropractors, acupuncturists, conspiracy theorists who insist that aliens from Zeta Reticuli travel hundreds of light years to fuck with rednecks: all are in woo up to their eyeballs. But how can you tell the difference between woo and, you know, the truth? My own working definition of woo - which I'm sure will shift and change like Barack Obama when he takes his reptilian form - is one of those persistent, unkillable ideas that survives despite all evidence to the contrary and indeed when tested remains unproven. Kind of like on ghost shows where the 'victims' of poltergeists describe chairs flying around the room and light bulbs exploding, but when the TV crews arrive nothing happens. All night. And you end up with sore eyes from all the night vision on the cameras.
I thought I'd kick off with something fairly simple: the stringed instruments made by Antonio Stradivari in Cremona in the 17th and 18th centuries.
Stradivari, just chillin'
Everyone knows that Stradivarius stringed instruments are the best in the world. It's a widely believed fact. A book I'm currently reading proclaims in fairly uncertain terms that the six hundred or so surviving instruments - violins, violas, 'cellos, harps, guitars and mandolins - represent the pinnacle of their field. Furthermore they constitute:
"the ultimate rebuke to the arrogance of the modern age: science does not have all the answers; Renaissance technology still cannot be bettered"
This is indeed a fairly bold claim to make. While undoubtedly Stradivari was a prodigiously talented craftsman, were the instruments he made really so superior to his contemporaries? Can they really not be bettered even with all the powers of modern technology? Surely in an age where you can chat to someone from Brazil while simultaneously blasting the (un)living hell out of hordes of computer-generated zombies, the quality and sound of a Stradivarius can be exactly replicated. Inevitably, when claims as grand as the one above are made, we have to turn to science.
The 'mystery' of the Stradivarius violins has been of particular interest to scientists and curious musicians for centuries, as you would expect. The French National Academy put one of the surviving instruments to the test in 1817, hiding players behind a screen and inviting experts to declare which they believed to be the legendary violin. Results were inconclusive, and have been in every test performed on them since.
Soil, brightening the post-apocalyptic wasteland of Fallout 3
Testing methods may have gotten more sophisticated over time - those inquring minds of 1817 were unfortunate not to have access to X-ray fluorescence spectroscopy - but still there is no scientific proof that a Stradivarius can be distinguished from any other violin of a similar time period and level of craftsmanship. Scientists have really gone to town on this, analysing everything from likely wood sources to the consistency of the glue used to piece them together but mabye it's time to acknowledge the elephant in the room: maybe they aren't all that different to other violins.
Granted they have been marketed extremely well : the naming of each instrument after an owner in particular creates a brilliant mystique around them and hell, I'd nick one if someone left it in my taxi. If I drove a taxi of course. Or even if I could drive. Regardless, you have to wonder if owning a Stradivarius is roughly equivalent to Dumbo's magic feather. While undoubtedly absolutely gorgeous instruments, it is the player that makes them perform the way they do and if neither experts nor audiences can tell the difference between a Strad and - in one test - one put together in the UK in 1976, does it really matter?
Hammer, being mentally undressed by Baron Sugar
Maybe it is in the wood, or the glue, or the varnish but if so that hardly makes Stradivari the mystical genius that he is made out to be so often. Although the fact that we can construct modern violins that perform just as well as his in blind tests shouldn't detract from his ability to match modern science in 1680, with his own hands, let's not get carried away. I'm quite happy to settle for him being an exceptional artisan who knew his trade inside out, and produced some of the finest violins that exist in the world day. Some of the finest. Not the finest - I'd need to see some test results to say that.
0 comments:
Post a Comment