I think the main reason intonation may be easier in fiddle music than classical is that there are certain fingering patterns that you see over and over again. This is also somewhat true between different eras in classical music: generally the earlier in time you go the more predictable the fingerings, and the more the music stays in string-friendly keys. Also, perhaps playing open strings more often in fiddle music gives your ear more of a reference to work from.

About positions: one of the main purposes of shifting is to make your life easier, especially as you play more in keys that aren't easy for strings. When you're learning, a teacher will likely make a big deal out of what position you're playing in. That way, when you get into performing, you have those positions in your toolbox to avoid awkward stretches or string crossings, especially when playing in keys that are not as friendly to string instruments. Method books or etude books may insist on certain fingerings, but outside of that the printed fingerings are only a suggestion. As a performing classical musician, I just use whatever fingerings get the job done for me.

I would suggest that one major reason classical players shift so much is that they play alongside wind players on a regular basis. The best keys for wind players can be awkward for string players, and vice versa.

Fiddlers often use different bow holds from classical players, though I would also note that many fiddlers' bow holds tend to resemble Baroque bow holds that are used with period instruments and bows. There seems to be more emphasis on quick string crossing in most fiddle styles; I've found that the classical bow holds (both Franco-Belgian and Russian) are not necessarily as good for back-and-forth string crossing but are better for precise control of articulation, especially when playing off the string.

My viola is fairly bright sounding compared to others in the orchestras I play in, and I have what I would consider bright strings on it right now (Vision Solo CGD, Larsen A). This is mostly to help it project, because it is a small-ish viola. But I'm not sure it would be considered bright compared to fiddlers' instruments and setups. It seems like the darkest sounding strings that fiddlers use are strings that classical players consider brighter than average.

starise said
 

Back to the thread subject though- Learning only fiddle techniques can be so rewarding. I mean, that's all I've been learning until recently. It's fun. Classical training can become a drudge if I don't break it up with other things. It would probably drive me insane if that's all I ever did. I'm still trying to condition myself to play more of that. Much of it is exercise oriented or tunes mainly exploited for technique reasons over melodic ones. Feel free to disagree with that. I'm sure there are many classical musicians who really love the music that teaches them the techniques in those Suzuki books. From what I've been exposed to so far, fiddlers mainly just learn the tunes. Not for any technique reasons. That isn't bad either per se.

  

It's funny that you mention the Suzuki books... with some pieces (such as the Vivaldi concertos in Books 4 and 5) it turns out Suzuki actually edited the bowings to make them harder! The idea was to force students to use certain bowing techniques for instructional purposes. But once you have all the technical tools under your belt, the main goal is the same one fiddlers have: to make the music the sound the way you want it to sound.

cid said
@AndrewH That is probably why my instructor says he does not like the fingering in a lot of the violin and cello books from Suzuki. He changes them so that they make more sense to teach me how to do it efficiently. Different train of thought.

On my cello, there were a couple songs in Suzuki 3 and 4 that he wanted to change too much of. Instead, he used the Essential Strings version of one and a PDF download of the other. 

So, I guess there are at least two different thoughts. Make the student work harder and not do it the efficient way, or the thought of teaching the student to think through to the most efficient way? Like telling Garmin to take the backroad route or the highway route? 

I suspect a fiddler would do the efficient way and learn that way, so maybe there are different teaching methods for the two?

  

Suzuki's purpose in making students do things the hard way was to prepare students for later on, when there may not be an easier option. This is really a question of whether the music is intended for performance, or a stepping stone to more difficult repertoire. Suzuki most likely would have considered everything in his method, at least through the first 6 books, to be stepping stones to something more difficult. I can't say I disagree with him, considering that the whole point of any method is learning rather than professional performance. (But if I were performing a piece that appears in Suzuki Book 4, I would do it the more efficient way too, because I'd be aiming to sound as good as possible.)

So I don't think this is really a difference between classical and fiddle. This is just a matter of whether learning the piece is a goal in itself or a stepping stone.