[quartesixte]

It's pretty difficult to play any classical instrument at the level required for elite philharmonic/symphony orchestras. It's why musicians all have to min-max on that instrument from an early age and go through many years of coaching and practice.

Playing the violin at an elite level seems to require a much earlier starting point, so I think that signals a higher level of difficulty. The range of possible sounds while being an incredibly unforgiving instrument in terms of sound quality add to this.

But I believe its stardom comes from its versatility and timbre.

Versatility: It can play any key naturally. Its relatively small size allows for fast passages to be played relatively easily. It can play two notes at a time, and even three or four in quick succession to simulate a chord. It is expressive in a way a tuba isn't.

Timbre/Expression: The Western classical tradition valued the Soprano voice as the "main" voice for melodies. The violin was more or less designed to emulate this voice and the characteristic agility, lightness, and clarity that defined any melody line given to it. So, composers would reach for the violin and make it the star of their compositions. As time went on, the tradition stuck, the virtuosity increased, and the ensembles grew ever larger and larger so the violin sections grew larger and larger.

For whatever reason, the Western Classical Tradition doesn't quite like the sound of, say, a French Horn, dominating the melody line the same way violins do.

What leads me to believe this is all the musical traditions that started off with violins and then quickly ditched them once an instrument that provided the needed versatility and timbre the tradition demanded. Here, I'm mostly thinking of Jazz. Jazz violin was common during the early days of the genre, but quickly fell out of favor in comparison to the guitar, the trumpet, the saxophone, and the piano. For many of the same reasons the violin became the star of the Classical world.

It's also why violins don't really go with rock music. The guitar has the versatility required and the vocal expressiveness that suits the genre.

[Semaphor]

> It's also why violins don't really go with rock music.

As a lover of violins in metal, I disagree, heavily. They are very common in folk metal (e.g. Isenmor with 2 violinists [0]), but also many other genres, including more underground ones (e.g. Exulansis where the violin is the focus [1]) use them. Even when there’s no violinist, there are quite a few bands that add them synthetically.

[0]: https://isenmor.bandcamp.com/track/drink-to-glory

[1]: https://bindrunerecordings.bandcamp.com/track/of-nature-hatr...

[quartesixte]

The heavy metal branch of the genre definitely has found ways to reincorporate them again, true.

The synthetically added orchestra hits or background string chords I want to exclude because they are not the mainline voice

[bondarchuk]

Every modern symphonic instrument (except some percussion) can play any key naturally.

[hunter2_]

If you play a chromatic scale on a valved brass instrument, played with no pitch adjustments via embouchure, you end up with a series of pitches that are of questionable temperament, since some intervals are achieved by jumping between registers which utilizes the harmonic series (integer multiples of frequency) while others are achieved through valves which don't necessarily utilize integer ratios. [0] To make unoptimized keys sound good, the player can sharpen or flatten with their mouth and I suspect this is considered unnatural.

Contrast with instruments that don't use the harmonic series and are always in equal temperament, like woodwinds and keyboards. Also contrast with fretless stringed instruments, for which there is no inherent temperament whatsoever if you avoid open strings, since the tuning of each note occurs by normal fingering, which I suppose is considered natural.

[0] https://www.reddit.com/r/trumpet/comments/1zy0w8/trumpet_phy...