Re: Period vs Modern instruments?

Sightreader wrote:

> "Jerry Kohl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > It's already been done; it was called the Arpeggione.
> >
> > Yeh, but wouldn't it be cool to do it *again*? (And again, and again
> > ...?)
>
> I would say it has not been done successfully.  If it
> were successful, then we'd still have Arpeggiones.
> It's worth a try if there's a better chance of success
> than there was last time.

Of course, it's always possible that, contrary to popular belief,
perfection in the construction of musical instruments (or, at least, in
the construction of a particular type of instrument) is not the glory of
our own time, or the of the near future, but alrady occurred a long time
ago. Certainly violin making is so regarded; perhaps perfection in the
design and manufacture of the viola da gamba was achieved either in
England around 1600, or in France a few decades later. Why should we
suppose that we might now be able to improve on a technology evolved over
perhaps 200 years of continuous effort by people who were by no means any
less intelligent than we are? The latest scientific technology still has
not succeeded in telling us how to make a violin the equal of a
Stradivarius or a Stainer. Perhaps our complicated technological methods
only serve to blind us with science.

--
Jerry Kohl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."