I like her playing too - plus, she's never too busy for a coffee break!

Brian, we sometimes called that tune "Forky horn(ed) Deer," and we had a version we thought was from West Virginia that had a convoluted B part.

yes, i like her playing, too. very precise, efficient, and effective bowing from what I've seen.

Hmmm, it seems that we (Highwoods) not only knew a "crooked" version, but we recorded it, and someone's put it on YouTube.
youtube.com/shorts/rSsPWSme-E0...0pL1TAKeC

Both videos posted of the fiddler playing are compelling illustrations of the need for good technique. It’s painful to watch such a locked wrist, and the stiffness of the wrist comes across in the tone. Despite playing into what appear to be rather good microphones, the sound is weak and the tone is rather dull. Articulation suffers constantly as everything becomes clipped by the choppiness of the bow stroke. It’s a very two-dimensional sound.

Despite the suggestion that bow hold is not a limitation to fiddlers’ playing, these examples are damning evidence to the contrary.

I've probably written this a few times on this website over the years, but I've found extreme comfort and good touch when I rest the frog atop my straight but relaxed thumb and comfortably spread my next three fingers atop the bow to balance things out. In any case, my bowing hand and arm never get tired or strained.

Think it makes me feel like watching somone holding a hammmer half way up the shaft to knock a 6" nail in. But it could be ok, or even better for a 1/2" tack

Edit: But even the cleanest of fingers are going to leave a big ol greasy spot on the hair, right at he most powerful section of the bow

For those who enjoy fiddling...

Here is another (more well known) fiddler named Frankie featuring a fantastic fiddly bow hold and fabulous fiddly tone... https://youtu.be/eJ9E4dYYpiA?list=RDeJ9E4dYYpiA

"I daresay this young gentleman works relatively little on etudes and scales..."

The idea that any of these bow holds are “fiddle” bow holds is ridiculous. ln the article linked below you can see diagrams that illustrate regional holds that were popular in the baroque era. Holding the thumb under the frog was common (identified as the “French hold”), and so was holding the stick higher up or even placing the thumb on the hair (Italian hold). The treatise referenced was published in 1741 and specifically discussed cello techniques, but the variety of bow holds mirrors that of the violin bow at the time.

With changes to technique and repertoire as well as material changes to the design of the bow through Tourte’s innovations and the suggestions of the French and Italian virtuosi, the bow hold became much more standardized to make the best use of the stick’s length and balance.

Many fiddlers used holds that harkened back to the baroque era because that was when the violin was invented and these techniques were brought overseas by musicians and remained in seclusion as people moved further into the hills. Fiddlers were not discovering something new or unique by playing with thumbs under the frog, it was just the holdover of a violin technique from the baroque era (whether it was acknowledged or not).

The phrasing of fiddle tunes tends to be such that long, smooth, clean, or carefully controlled bow strokes are not necessary. Therefore techniques that would not work for more modern repertoire can be used for the music. Irish fiddlers tend to use very short sections of the bow (different regions of playing are known for using just one portion of the bow in phrasing), so a hold that facilitates long bows is not vital.

grimmusik.com/cellozone-techni...grip/?amp

yea I had to attach a yellow sticky scrap to my bow and keep an eye on it, because fiddle teacher said I was using too much bow length,

Went to an early music / baroque concert last night. Their violins had very short fingerboards (HUGE space between the tailpiece and fingerboard compared to modern violins)…they had no chinrests, and most held the neck with a flattened palm. THey used baroque bows, and were tuned down to A=415. There was also a renaissance lute, and a sackbut ensemble. In the “viol consort” my session friend was playing a viol held on her knee…six strings, tuned in fourths.

Very cool fascinating stuff! Music going back to the 1400s. People basically did what they needed to make a nIce sound with the instruments available at the time. BUt I’m sure that even back then, serious musicians wanted to study with master players to observe/learn techniques.

Those baroque guys stole all their good ideas from fiddlers.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ShawnCraver

Those baroque guys stole all their good ideas from fiddlers.

---

More likely they got all their ideas from court musicians who were playing for royalty. The first recorded example of a violin being used was for a Monteverdi opera. Fiddle tunes as we know them didn't come into being until later, after the violin made its way into popularity among commoners as well as the aristocracy. 

I don’t think of tunes as “fiddle” tunes at all, but just as tunes. Almost everything I play on the fiddle flows easily on the button accordion and even on the flute which doesn’t go as low as the violin. The same tunes are played on mandolins, banjos, pipes and the list goes on. I understand that some work particularly well on certain instruments but I don’t see a particular fiddle bias with tunes generally. Even with classical music there is awful lot going on in addition to the string section. I haven’t a clue of how early fiddlers were influenced by court violinists but I suspect that due to the strong class distinctions of the time it was very little. I think they may have just developed their techniques in parallel. Picking it up and finding what works best and interacting with other musicians around them. Learning tunes from lute, flute and mandolin players around them probably had more influence. Even getting their sense of rhythm from percussionists into the mix. After all music is all about communication.

Fiddle tunes were what court musicians played after work whilst drinking beer with their friends. Same as now. :)

Nope. Fiddlers pre-dated that opera and there is plenty of evidence to prove it.
F-the royals.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ShawnCraver

Nope. Fiddlers pre-dated that opera and there is plenty of evidence to prove it.
F-the royals.

---

You're changing the definition of the term as an attempt to give credence to a nonsensical argument. There were all kinds of bowed instruments in antiquity that were used for liturgical and secular music, but they were substantially different from the violin and were not related to the fiddle music we know today at all.

Even looking at the bowed-string instruments of antiquity, its most likely that those instruments were also first used in aristocratic settings before becoming popular enough to be played in public and made cheaply enough that peasants could afford them. Owning an instrument was much more of a luxury in the past than it is today.  

Well, we should consult my session friend (she's doing a graduate degree in Musicology)! :-)

I dunno, but one interesting thing i learned is that the "viol" is not the ancestor of the "violin" despite the name...talk about confusing!

quote:

---

Originally posted by ShawnCraver

Nope. Fiddlers pre-dated that opera and there is plenty of evidence to prove it.
F-the royals.

---

Whaddya got against "the royals" - still mad about the Stamp Act?

What no long bows etc? This is one of the most engaging solo fiddle performances i have heard. Thanks Shawn for the heads up on Frankie Gavin, mostly known for his blistering speed and articulation but here he is just sublime

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgB2N9bGZRU

I'm lovin' this thread! Human history wrought with a bow and...er...chin-held banjo.

quote:

---

Originally posted by NCnotes

Well, we should consult my session friend (she's doing a graduate degree in Musicology)! :-)

I dunno, but one interesting thing i learned is that the "viol" is not the ancestor of the "violin" despite the name...talk about confusing!

---

This is an important point that needs to be made more often. I mentioned this elsewhere, but there's still a lot of misconception about it and a lot of people still make the argument that the viol is an earlier version of the violin.

The first documented true violin was Andrea Amati's violin made for the royal court of Charles IX. In the early days of the violin's existence, royalty would often commission a "chest of violins" from a maker and keep them at court for their musicians to use. If you were lucky enough to get a job as a court musician, you could have access to the finest violins in the world. It wasn't too long before the violin became so popular that it began to be made and sold to the public as well, but that didn't happen immediately. 

Pretty sure they were playing Glory in the Meeting House ;)

quote:

---

Originally posted by ShawnCraver

Pretty sure they were playing Glory in the Meeting House ;)

---

That's nothing like a violin of our times. It's made of stone, probably granite. Nobody makes violins out of granite anymore. 

Edward Herron-Allen makes the connection all the way back to the ravanastron or the omerti as far as bowed string instruments goes. There are certainly some similarities between ancient bowed string instruments and the violin, but they’re not directly related.

The instruments may not be related technically, but the way a human with 2 arms and 5 fingers on each hand, plays an instrument with 1, 2, 3, or 4 strings with a bow made of a stick and some hair is related. imo