Intriguing...

[Eugene]

When I first started wasting massive amounts of my once-productive days here, there were occasional inactive stretches when there were no active topics in the Classical section of the bulletin board. Now, I see that there are nearly as many replies in the Classical section as the bluegrass section (nearly 1,600 and 1,900 respectively). Hmmm...

[Jim Garber]

I hope that I get credit for contributing a decent portion of that. It is my way of avoiding work and practice

Jim

[Eugene]

I hope that I get credit for contributing a decent portion of that.

Probably much-most of it!

[vkioulaphides]

"Unproductive"? I think not, my friends.

I, for example, spend my days in the MOST aggravating field of arts management, one fraught with inflated egos, attention-deficient, childish adults, staggering financial burdens, indifferent administrators, self-serving agents, and all kinds of other, assorted fools. And, I must admit the flaw inherent in my tempestuous, Mediterranean character outright: I do not suffer fools gladly.

I credit, therefore, the civilized, friendly chats on the Café with the (incredible to me) fact that, a decade into this business, I am STILL in business.

Couldn't have done it without you.

[Alex Timmerman]

Cheers to you all!


Best,

Alex

[Ted Eschliman]

What has always been ironic to me are the heated discussions regarding "traditional" bluegrass--an artform that's barely been around a century. Kind of like calling a 15-year-old microwave oven, a "vintage" appliance...
The Classical/Medieval/Renaissance connoisseur has every right to argue "traditional" (5 or 6 centuries) but what I thought was hilarious was when a couple years ago, someone from Ireland weighed in on the "Traditional Bluegrass" issue pointing out the Celtic roots that went back virtually a millenium.
Puts it in perspective.

[Eugene]

Aye!

[Eugene]

...And keep in mind that the earliest incarnation of modern mandolin (i.e. the plectrum instruments tuned in 5ths) came into being on the tail of the baroque and dawn of the classical era.

[Alex Timmerman]

Makes me wonder what future lies ahead...

Alex

[Bob DeVellis]

Not only are the classical posts significant in number, they're among the most informed, enlightening, and engaging posts on the whole board. Although I do own a bowlback, I wouldn't by any stretch define myself as a classical mandolinist. But I check here regularly because it's such an educational corner of the Cafe. Thanks, guys and gals.

[mandodude]

Kind of like calling a 15-year-old microwave oven, a "vintage" appliance...

Only the non-electrified ones can truly be called "vintage."

[Ted Eschliman]

Not only are the classical posts significant in number, they're among the most informed, enlightening, and engaging posts on the whole board.

Adding:
Those who post them are better informed, more charming, and you know it... better looking!

[etbarbaric]

So... perhaps given our surging presence in the mandolin world we can address my own pet peeve... naming. No, not the historically-correct nomenclature that Alex champions (worthy though it is) but the simple psuedo-derogatory name bowl-back (and all of its warped varieties... hump-back, melon-back, beatle-back, etc.).

I would much prefer to see our rotund little instruments refered to as what they are, simply mandolins. After all, they and their ancestors clearly are the most historically-deserving of the title. Perhaps I tilt at windmills...

Have a great weekend everyone.

Eric

[Jim Garber]

Eric, take your choice:

armadillo
potbelly
roundback
bowlback
watermelon
melonback
luteback
taterbug
humpback
turtleback
chili dipper
BUBBLE BACK
gourd back
Neapolitan, etcetera......

Jim

[etbarbaric]

My choice is simply mandolin(o), prepended when necessary by the appropriate geographic modifier (where I do defer to Alex).

I will now henceforth refer to Gibsons and their ilk as "scoop-backs"... others as "flat-backs". It seems only fitting :-)

Together we can change the world!!!

Eric

[vkioulaphides]

As regards volume of posts, well, I have done my fair share of damage— and then some! Jim has always been at hand with just the right image, as Bob A has been with the appropriate bon mot.

Still, we must all tip our hats to good Eugene who, well before most others, was here, a lonely Moses crying in the desert, amidst indifference (at best) or at worst contemptuous dismissal of our beloved little chordophone.

I must agree with Eric: Up until recently, I would not have recognized any instrument other than the, err... bowlback (sic) as a mandolin at all. But I am a hopeless case, perhaps, and one "from the outside looking in", as it were.

I suppose "roundback" is as generic as it gets; "Neapolitan" is exclusive or Roman; "Italian" (as origin, not as type) leaves out the millions of instruments built in the States during the instrument's Golden Age... well, I leave this matter to the better informed.

The real point of this thread is as encouraging as it is undeniable. Times, they are a-changin'...

[billkilpatrick]

i'm just glad no one has told me to go pitch my tent...

(later: just came in from out in the garden to add...)

...yet.

What has always been ironic to me are the heated discussions regarding "traditional" bluegrass--an artform that's barely been around a century.

(Inappropriate characterizations deleted-19 Apr) You will note that the board is generally in English, notorious for having multiple meanings for words. #When you hear someone refer to "traditional bluegrass" music, they are most likely using the fourth definition of "tradition" from the Merriam-Webster online dictionary: "characteristic manner, method, or style".

(Inappropriate editorialization removed - 19 Apr)

[Ted Eschliman]

Elitist?... whoops.
I've gone back in time to edit my original post for making a statement that without intent, offended.
Uncle.
I'm sorry, gang. I love this instrument, and ALL who play it. If words were typed here that betrayed that passion, than I truly am a "boob."

<stuff deleted 19 Apr> #Apologies to all in the C/M/R section.

[Billy Mack]

[Now, I see that there are nearly as many replies in the Classical section as the bluegrass section (nearly 1,600 and 1,900 respectively). Hmmm... ]

That's because some 'traditional' types come over hear regularly to set things straight.

[vkioulaphides]

Now, now...

As we were saying, this part of the board has truly grown exponentially. It is also arguably one of the most international: I have on occasion marveled at the fact that we might have folks posting from the U.S., Canada, the Netherlands, France, Bulgaria, the U.K., Australia, and a half dozen other countries more or less simultaneously!

And, as the Swiss say in the spirit of pluralism —whether they actually practice this I am not to argue— "the greatest democratic virtue is tolerance".

Moving on, then: I would like to hope that the surging interest in the roundback (or whatever-you-choose-to-call-it) mandolin will go far beyond its current cyber-abundance on the Café. To wit, I would like to see more mandolin orchestras using such instruments; after all, the vast majority of mandolin orchestra music was written with this instrument in mind.

Again, tolerance, friends, tolerance: I am certainly NOT suggesting that playing this repertoire on any other type of mandolins is wrong; just stating an obvious, undeniable historical fact.

I would also like to see the (roundback) mandolin regain its position in the humble, amateur, everyday music-making that endeared it to our forebears to begin with. The weather is lovely; the parks are open and abuzz with lightly clad, cheerful folks, some strumming guitars, some drumming, some humming. What was the last time you saw some goofy character (like myself) picking happily away at the park? That sort of "public presence" is essential to a living culture, i.e. not a musaic one.

Then, we need more, new music (I plan to add some to the pool in the near future), more publications, more printed matter in general. I do draw the line on competitions, as I have very mixed feelings about those; but that, of course, is only my bias, as one who has lived with (and against) the competitive aspect of professional music: I just see that as incompatible with the fundamentally amateur culture of the mandolin. But, naturally, professionalism is desirable, as is the continuous raising of standards.

So, much remains to be done...

Pick on, mando-brethren!

[bratsche]

Hmmmmm...

Did the "roundback" really come before the "flatback"? Seems the simplest design should have naturally shown up first, no?

bratsche

[Bob A]

G B Shaw is quoted saying Hell is full of amateur musicians. Perhaps so, but I daresay they are staff, rather than inmates. (Remember the cartoon of Beethoven being conducted into a roomful of accordion and banjo players?)

Still, I suppose the more interesting folks will be there.

So far as Bratsche's query is concerned, my impression is the bowlback came from the near east tradition, via Turkey and the African shores of the Med. I suspect the bowl was originally a gourd, simpler to make than a box. Refined into the oud, or lute, shrunk to accomodate the likes of you and I, and there we are.

Sadly, my memory no longer extends to those days dim with ancient dust, when I wandered a rose-red city, half as old as Time.

[vkioulaphides]

[QUOTE]"Did the roundback really come before the "flatback"?

Yes, bratsche. Of course, if you look at some of those outrageously ornate "presentation"-model roundbacks of yesteryear against, say, a present-day Mid-Mo, the conclusion is counterintuitive: All the rococo trappings speak of more (supposed) advancement. But Bob is right: Early lutoids were in fact built around a resonator of (plant, natural) gourd, a (whole) tortoiseshell, a hollowed-out hunk of wood, etc. Also, on semantic grounds, it was only in the States and only fairly recently #that any flatback was actually called a mandolin.

As for G. B. Shaw (a crackling wit and one of my favorite playwrights, by the way), I am afraid he is a co-conspirator in the demise of the musical amateur culture in the hands of romantic hero-worship. (He was, after all, The Perfect Wagnerite # What he (and many others) failed to see is the simple, almost biological truth that we cannot and WILL not have High Art (or whatever you call it) until and unless Joe Amateur and Jane Amateur sit down after dinner and play some (violin, mandolin, recorder, whatever...) duets to the best of their ability. You cannot and will not have apples without the apple-tree, complete with trunk, leaves, bark, roots, etc., etc.

The 19th century did some serious, serious damage. Who remembers now (or, worse yet, who actually participates #in) the amateur culture that made Haydn, and Mozart, and Beethoven, and Schubert possible to begin with? Who remembers, or is aware of the degree to which amateur, domestic music-making permeated everyday life in Central Europe at the time? (Obviously, all present company is de facto excluded from this tirade.)

So, my answer to all the Shavian wit is: No, George, no! What hell IS full of is the rank idiocy served by the mass-media, the dumbing-down of the public, the bottom-line-at-any-cost corporate mentality, the reality shows (*shudders*), all the false gods one is presented with and expected to worship uncritically. The Great Republic is, before anything else, a state of mind; and that mind (and soul) needs to be nourished: Bring out the fiddles, and the flutes, and the mandos!