# Why has playing the violin well got so much easier?



## Jaws

Here in the UK it is now not unusual for primary school children age 11 to reach the standard on the violin that is usually expected of someone applying to study music at university. The age at which they get to this standard has been getting younger and younger over the last 20 years. What improvements to the violin is causing it to be so much easier to learn? My personal feeling is that the advancing improvements in modern strings and the improvement on the quality of beginner instruments has a lot to do with it. What else could be contributing to this?


----------



## GraemeG

Maybe once only the great prodigies were the ones who learnt at the age of 4. You might get the impression these days that if you haven't started the instrument before you're eight, then don't bother.
People starting to learn age 11, like Sibelius & me, are probably a rarity these days...
GG


----------



## PetrB

Jaws said:


> Here in the UK it is now not unusual for primary school children age 11 to reach the standard on the violin that is usually expected of someone applying to study music at university.


Stop right there. I so seriously doubt this statement and think it is a grossly general exaggeration that I demand proof, articles and links to masses of youngsters playing at conservatory entry level, please.

Many universities with very good music programs are much easier to get in to, though staying in might be a different matter.

That level I think of is not ABRSM grade X (or whatever) level, but enough to get into those schools to which thousands apply, of those thousand only one hundred are selected to audition, and about ten of those auditioning are accepted:
Royal College of Music 
Paris Conservatoire 
Conservatorium den Haag, 
Vienna
Curtis Institute
The Juilliard School
etc.


----------



## Headphone Hermit

interesting thread, interetsing indications of battles to be fought

There are echoes of the wider 'have standards risen/fallen in education' debate. There are lots of indicators that ability to meet 'the grade' have improved in recent decades ..... along with persistent cries that educational standards have fallen. I'm currently supervising a PhD on a small part of this debate - if there is a clear-cut answer at the end of this process, I might get back to you


----------



## Matsps

Jaws said:


> Here in the UK it is now not unusual for primary school children age 11 to reach the standard on the violin that is usually expected of someone applying to study music at university.


I've worked in literally hundreds of UK primary schools and it's extremely rare to hear of anyone on any instrument reaching a high standard. Also, the standard expected to study music is not very high. You only need a grade <whatever grade that university wants in music> at A-level. Since the A-level in music consists of only 30% performance, you can easily be only grade 5 or 6 on your instrument and be accepted to study music.


----------



## Jaws

PetrB said:


> Stop right there. I so seriously doubt this statement and think it is a grossly general exaggeration that I demand proof, articles and links to masses of youngsters playing at conservatory entry level, please.
> 
> Many universities with very good music programs are much easier to get in to, though staying in might be a different matter.
> 
> That level I think of is not ABRSM grade X (or whatever) level, but enough to get into those schools to which thousands apply, of those thousand only one hundred are selected to audition, and about ten of those auditioning are accepted:
> Royal College of Music
> Paris Conservatoire
> Conservatorium den Haag,
> Vienna
> Curtis Institute
> The Juilliard School
> etc.


http://www.nco.org.uk/taking-part/grades-list-2012/

Have a look at the under 12s and below. There are often conversations about these orchestras on the ABRSM website forum, and although the under 12s give a range of grades as guides for violins, in practice it appears that you need to have got to the higher end of the standard and got experience in ensemble playing in order to get a place.


----------



## PetrB

Jaws said:


> http://www.nco.org.uk/taking-part/grades-list-2012/
> 
> Have a look at the under 12s and below.


Dude, this is _useless without hearing_ one of these ensembles, and even then they could be a group drilled the length of an entire semester to play but three pieces fairly well. That could be more a display of a group of well-drilled monkeys vs. a group of seriously advanced young players, i.e it is no real indicator of 'advanced.'


----------



## Jaws

PetrB said:


> Dude, this is _useless without hearing_ one of these ensembles, and even then they could be a group drilled the length of an entire semester to play but three pieces fairly well. That could be more a display of a group of well-drilled monkeys vs. a group of seriously advanced young players, i.e it is no real indicator of 'advanced.'


This is under 13s


----------



## PetrB

Jaws said:


> This is under 13s


I'm not particularly impressed, i.e. it sounds like many a teen group with some decent ability -- and this group is comprised of people auditioned and chosen from how many thousands of young people from a national program -- a winnowed out group of _la creme de la creme_, and yet...

all the lack of rhythmic preciseness and intonation problems I would expect from such an age group are quite audibly present in that clip.

They sound 'O.K.' and it is nothing exceptionally spectacular in any way.


----------



## Jaws

PetrB said:


> I'm not particularly impressed, i.e. it sounds like many a teen group with some decent ability -- and this group is comprised of people auditioned and chosen from how many thousands of young people from a national program -- a winnowed out group of _la creme de la creme_, and yet...
> 
> all the lack of rhythmic preciseness and intonation problems I would expect from such an age group are quite audibly present in that clip.
> 
> They sound 'O.K.' and it is nothing exceptionally spectacular in any way.


They aren't teens yet they are under 13.


----------



## PetrB

Jaws said:


> They aren't teens yet they are under 13.


*If you are eleven, you are in your teens.* Maybe you recall the flap over the new millennia, the 0 is the end of decade divisions, the 1 the beginning: just because eleven does not have teen as part of the word 

It still sounds like a non-spectacularly somewhat advanced student ensemble, as I said before.

At any rate -- next to the hyperbole of the OP which made it sound like teens and juniors were all become true prodigies -- well, I think your assessment and the degree to which you are impressed with this up to age 13 ensemble are highly inflated.


----------



## violadude

This might not have that much to do with the specific point of the OP, but in a general sense it is true that violin technique (and any instrumental technique for that matter) becomes progressively more advanced over time. What I mean is that as instrumental possibilities expand they become standardized. What were incredibly virtuosic violin techniques in the Baroque period are very ordinary and standard now. Once upon a time, Liszt was practically the only pianist that could play his compositions, now learning at least some difficult Liszt pieces is basically a requirement for any serious pianist.


----------



## Jaws

PetrB said:


> *If you are eleven, you are in your teens.* Maybe you recall the flap over the new millennia, the 0 is the end of decade divisions, the 1 the beginning: just because eleven does not have teen as part of the word
> 
> It still sounds like a non-spectacularly somewhat advanced student ensemble, as I said before.
> 
> At any rate -- next to the hyperbole of the OP which made it sound like teens and juniors were all become true prodigies -- well, I think your assessment and the degree to which you are impressed with this up to age 13 ensemble are highly inflated.


Yes I agree. Here in the UK we use teens to mean over 13, not under.

I was trying to compare what under 13s could do now with what under 13s could do when I was young. I know that the standards have risen but I can't see why. The only conclusion that I can come to is that children have access to better equipment. I know that the beginner violins are better than they used to be, probably because they can now be carved using computer guided machinery, ( yes I am that old.) When I was under 13 I didn't play a string instrument, but later started on a Lark brand Chinese viola, which had either metal strings on it. By metal I mean strings like wire, or gut bound strings. Gut strings bound with metal. Now on my better modern Chinese viola I have nylon bound strings. They are so much better in terms of response, staying in tune and making the sound on the strings sound more equal. In fact the bow hold has changed since I started playing all those years ago, I think because of the modern strings?


----------



## PetrB

Jaws said:


> Yes I agree. Here in the UK we use teens to mean over 13, not under.
> 
> I was trying to compare what under 13s could do now with what under 13s could do when I was young. I know that the standards have risen but I can't see why.


The why of it is a nationwide, systematized, funded program of bringing youngsters into music, starting earlier, with more known about how to methodically teach young people and get results and all the rest.

The phenomenon, then, is as much the existence of those music programs, as much or more than the young players and their playing level which it produces -- they are a result of what is in place, funded, systematically taught, and made readily available to all.

You might want to check what levels of maths students age 10 - 16 are doing. Decades ago, trigonometry was studied only by maths majors at university level. Now, many a high school graduate has completed one year of trigonometry... and none of those are being touted as remarkable in maths 

[To have an undergraduate degree today is the equivalent of having a high school diploma in the late 1940's- 50's. Presently, an undergraduate degree is more and more worth less, i.e. a graduate degree is now a commonplace requirement / expectation if one hopes to be able to compete in the work force and 'wants to be able to get ahead.']


----------



## senza sordino

I can't imagine that this can be narrowed down to one reason. 

Maybe the beginner violins are better, and better strings. 
Teaching is better, more standardized, more beginning repertoire, more studies.
Some parents can be quite pushy, currently called helicopter parents. 
The talent pool is larger, because there were only one billion people alive when Heifetz was born, now there are seven billion.
YouTube for extra lessons and to hear and see how a violin should be played.

But....
I've seen and heard young players who have flawless technique but little sense of music, and they don't know the repertoire 
There is a certain amount of sameness now among players.


----------



## Jaws

PetrB said:


> The why of it is a nationwide, systematized, funded program of bringing youngsters into music, starting earlier, with more known about how to methodically teach young people and get results and all the rest.
> 
> The phenomenon, then, is as much the existence of those music programs, as much or more than the young players and their playing level which it produces -- they are a result of what is in place, funded, systematically taught, and made readily available to all.
> 
> You might want to check what levels of maths students age 10 - 16 are doing. Decades ago, trigonometry was studied only by maths majors at university level. Now, many a high school graduate has completed one year of trigonometry... and none of those are being touted as remarkable in maths
> 
> [To have an undergraduate degree today is the equivalent of having a high school diploma in the late 1940's- 50's. Presently, an undergraduate degree is more and more worth less, i.e. a graduate degree is now a commonplace requirement / expectation if one hopes to be able to compete in the work force and 'wants to be able to get ahead.']


Here in the UK there was a better system of teaching music to children when I was at school than there is now. Then lots more children got lessons than they do now. So on that basis the standard should have gone down because there are fewer children learning any instrument, apart from voice, guitar, drums and keyboard.


----------



## PetrB

I give up. It seems whatever is said, there is a nay say response.

Conservatory students now routinely play orchestral pieces which baffled the professionals fifty years ago when those pieces were new. Technically, if not musically, many advanced young players possibly have more reliable technique than some of the famous virtuosi soloists of one hundred years ago. Things progress.


----------



## Jaws

I have an older oboe 1909 and it is much more difficult to play than my 2000 model of the same make. The old one doesn't benefit from the new technology that has allowed a much more reliable instrument, not just in terms of key work but also in terms of tuning between notes. The 1909 oboe was the top of its range when new with extra key work for the time, but it is still much more difficult to play in terms of tuning and overall sound control. Someone playing a piece of music written in the early 1900s would find it much more difficult to play it on the 1909 oboe than someone with one made recently and this isn't because the 1909 one is worn out. It has had very little playing. 

I suspect that most of the increase in standards is due to better instruments being available due to more advanced manufacturing systems.


----------



## Guest

Jaws said:


> This is under 13s


When did Williams start using quarter tones?


----------



## Ukko

Certainly more violinists end up with highly reliable techniques at their majority than used to. In nearly all cases these highly competent technicians do not, and are not expected to, play the music with the panache that was expected of Paganini. It's the panache that's so damned difficult.


----------



## Ukko

Ukko said:


> Certainly more violinists end up with highly reliable techniques at their majority than used to. In nearly all cases these highly competent technicians do not, and are not expected to, play the music with the panache that was expected of Paganini. It's the panache that's so damned difficult.


If you don't buy that story, consider: Paganini was not suspected of making a deal with Satan merely because he could play the notes, or even because he could play them standing on his head.


----------



## azumbrunn

It is important to note that the phenomenon exists on all levels, not just with 11 year olds. If you look at up and coming soloists / chamber players you are amazed at the degree to which they do not seem to have technical problems. 
And doubtless there are several reasons for this, but violin playing has not become markedly easier: We are still using the chin rest that I believe Spohr introduced, the modern bow was invented in the late 18th century and has not changed significantly since. The only thing may be that we now have strings that hold the pitch through a whole performance, we don't have to correct the intonation because the string is out of tune any more.
Among the reasons for rising technical perfection are I believe:
- Kids start playing earlier (this has already been mentioned).
- Progress in the way violin playing is taught (similar to progress in sports) combined with pressure from the competitions that young musicians must excel in if they want a career as performers.
- There is a greater talent pool than ever before.

What is very true is that technical perfection--while nothing to sneeze at--is not sufficient to make someone a good musician, it takes "Panache" as Ukko says.


----------

