Can't quite get with the bowl back...

**Neil Gladd** · Dec-05-2007, 8:18pm

Originally Posted by (catmandu2 @ Dec. 05 2007, 21:07)

I just haven't been able to adjust to a bowl back. I'm sticking with flat tops

Having played nothing but bowlbacks, I have trouble playing a flatback. I feel cramped because my right hand is too close to my body. It's just whatever you're used to...

**Chris Biorkman** · Dec-05-2007, 8:21pm

Not to be a hall monitor or anything like that, but you'll get in trouble with the powers that be for not keeping this confined to the classifieds.

**catmandu2** · Dec-05-2007, 8:34pm

Thanks--I've seen the error of my ways...

**Jim Garber** · Dec-05-2007, 9:24pm

catmandu2,
You are not the first, however I am one who switches back and forth. I like 'em all!

Just curious... what was it that you didn't like about your Vega? The tone or the difficulty holding it?

**Bob A** · Dec-05-2007, 10:28pm

Took months to get to the point where I no longer noticed the Bulge. Now it seems to make little difference . . . flat or round, mediocre on both.

**billkilpatrick** · Dec-06-2007, 2:55am

i'm in the same boat. i get the bowlback out every once and a while - more because it's beautiful to look at and it feels nice to hold. but to play ... i much prefer my flatback from dulack (hey-bop-a-ree-bop.)

it's uncomfortable to hold; has a too-narrow neck and a brash, metalic tone. with the charango and ouds i have i can hear the instrument but with my bowlback mandolin i'm more aware of the strings.

if i was stranded on a desert island and the bowlback was my only instrument, i'm sure these obstacles would be over come. but as it is - i play it only because i'm compelled to; in the hopes that one day it'll all come right.

**Martin Jonas** · Dec-06-2007, 5:07am

I switch between both freely and have no problems with either. The tone is different on bowlbacks compared to flatbacks/flattops or carved mandolins, and I prefer one or the other for certain tunes or certain genres. However, I don't agree that bowlbacks in general have a brash metallic tone. My Embergher, Vinaccia and Ceccherini bowlbacks certainly don't, but my much lower-level Rinaldi and Ferrari bowlbacks do. Just like with flattops or carved mandolins, cheap instruments by and large sound cheap and more expensive ones by and large sound better. It's just that with bowlbacks, the names of the individual makers have long since faded from public consciousness and original differentiations in quality and price are no longer necessarily reflected in current market values (well, they are with Embergher and Vinaccia, but not with the more obscure makers).

Martin

**catmandu2** · Dec-06-2007, 7:31am

I enjoy the tone of my Vega for early music. However, I haven't been able to get physically comfortable with it. I think its shorter scale may be a contributing factor. If I have to play a shorter scale I'll opt for my fiddle--I have enough problem with the size of mandos already, being a player of other strings including double bass.

**brunello97** · Dec-06-2007, 8:38am

It's a form thing for me. I've obsessed about each of them for years. They kind of go in cycles. Sometimes all at once.

Gourds Bowls Vaults

Mick

**vkioulaphides** · Dec-06-2007, 1:57pm

Originally Posted by

"I have enough problem with the size of mandos already, being a player of other strings including double bass."

Having been a bass-player by profession for some three decades by now, and a life-long (hack) mandolinist, I thought I'd put in my $0.02 worth-- by way of personal experience, that is; needless to say, YMMV.

I see/sense NO correlation between bass and mandolin. I have played bowlbacks (only) since childhood, and bass since my teens. I have NEVER experienced any discomfort with either instrument. They are, of course, totally different, and I engage a whole other set of motor skills for them respectively.

That said, among mandolins, I am most comfortable with the somewhat elongated Calace-build, a good 3-4 inches longer (in sum total length) that many vintage Neapolitans, and their American counterparts. But those are no problem to hold, either; I just prefer the longer shape, it just "fits" more automatically in my hands. Ironically, I find flatbacks --the two or three I have ever held-- impossibly awkward to hold and play. Go figure...

Cheers,

Victor

**catmandu2** · Dec-06-2007, 2:23pm

No correlation, other than to say that, as a lifelong guitarist, shorter scales are really different. Among stringed instruments, I find that the smaller they get, frets tend to become somewhat cumbersome, for me.

**billkilpatrick** · Dec-06-2007, 4:38pm

Originally Posted by (martinjonas @ Dec. 06 2007, 06:07)

I switch between both freely and have no problems with either. #The tone is different on bowlbacks compared to flatbacks/flattops or carved mandolins, and I prefer one or the other for certain tunes or certain genres. #However, I don't agree that bowlbacks in general have a brash metallic tone. #My Embergher, Vinaccia and Ceccherini bowlbacks certainly don't, but my much lower-level Rinaldi and Ferrari bowlbacks do. #Just like with flattops or carved mandolins, cheap instruments by and large sound cheap and more expensive ones by and large sound better. #It's just that with bowlbacks, the names of the individual makers have long since faded from public consciousness and original differentiations in quality and price are no longer necessarily reflected in current market values (well, they are with Embergher and Vinaccia, but not with the more obscure makers).

Martin

my turn-of-the-last-century, "a. galiano" obviously falls into the cheaper category - an oldie ... but not necessarily a goodie. #given that it was created for dapper, demurely sized neapolitans of a different age, it's no wonder that i find it a difficult fit.

also, i apologize for the use of the word "brash" - a derogatory term. #based solely on what i've heard over the internet ("youtube", mp3s, "my space" recordings, etc.) there appears to be a difference in tone between the various flat backs and bowl back mandolin. #previously, i described the bowlback's sound as being "tinny" - another derogatory word. #what i meant was "metalic" - as opposed to "woody" ... "bright" as opposed to "mellow."

basically, this a "chevy" vs "ford" discussion - one isn't wholey better than the other ... merely preferred (based on a whole range of personal variables.)

i find the smaller scale of "period" bowlbacks to be difficult to handle - the tone of the instrument excessively "bright." #beefy, anglo-saxon(ish) fingers and a low tolerence for the more acute treble range is probably to blame.

**Bob A** · Dec-06-2007, 6:24pm

When your hearing starts to fade in the treble registers, you may find the bowlback to be more pleasant to apprehend.

I understand 60 is the new 40. Will I NEVER be able to get outta here?

**catmandu2** · Dec-06-2007, 6:28pm

Oh, I see. I should keep it for another twenty years...:

:

**brunello97** · Dec-06-2007, 6:50pm

I think I'm with Jim and Martin in my ease of and interest in both body styles. I just like mandolins, period. Thankfully, I'm still skinny enough and don't have a matching 'bowl' to conflict with the bowlback.

While I've experienced their plentiful volume in live settings, for me, one of their joys is curling around them so to speak to play. It is often a more intimate playing experience for me.

Oddly, Bill, my Ciani/Galiano actually booms. The low-end is a bit shocking. I wouldn't propose the overall EQ to be anything but ordinary but the bass is very punchy. Great for droney Irish things. (Which some of my students have accused me of being....)

catmandu, the Loyal Order of the Bowl will still be here for you should you ever decide to return.

Mick

**JeffD** · Dec-06-2007, 9:44pm

I switch back and forth. The bowlback sound fits some tunes better, and I can play the bowlback just a little bit faster than my A2.

**Jim Garber** · Dec-07-2007, 6:53am

Originally Posted by (brunello97 @ Dec. 06 2007, 19:50)

Thankfully, I'm still skinny enough and don't have a matching 'bowl' to conflict with the bowlback.

I am blessed

with a moderate bowl of my own but I figured out long ago that you can sort of tuck it under your arm in a way that works quite nicely. I can even play it standing that way, tho I would not attempt to play a Vivaldi concerto as Maestro Aonzo has done in that position.

OTOH I see plenty of bowlbodied players playing Gibsons and the backs of those instruments are not carved concavely. It may just be a matter of degree.

As far as tonal quality, I find that the better bowlbacks have an uncanny ability to project their sound. I handed my Pandini recently to a player in our Aonzo workshop rehearsal and he almost jumped at how loud it sounded. Plus the tone can be sweet, sustained and haunting.

**catmandu2** · Dec-12-2007, 8:07pm

I feel I'll have to take Mick up on the offer. #I got out all of my mandolins tonight and played them side by side. #The BB sounds, really, better than any of them--carved and flat top. #I'm getting more physically comfortable with it, too. #I feel that approaching it a little different helps to adjust to its short scale and small body; I tend to want to hit it as I do my others, but a more delicate touch feels/sounds better on this instrument.

I think I've judged too hastily

**Jim Garber** · Dec-12-2007, 8:38pm

Ah, catmandu, glad that once again you have come back into the fold. I have to say that your choice of a vintage Vega I have discovered to be one of the best of the vintage Americans. Last winter, my Pandini was ailing during one rehearsal and I took the Vega instead and was surprised at how sweet it sounded -- and plenty loud to compete with those others.

**Eugene** · Dec-28-2007, 7:47am

I agree, Jim. Vega seems to me the most consistently decent of American mass production of the Neapolitan type...as I offer with too much frequency.

**JeffD** · Dec-28-2007, 1:13pm

Originally Posted by (jgarber @ Dec. 07 2007, 07:53)

Plus the tone can be sweet, sustained and haunting.

Isn't that what makes them addicting.

**John Bertotti** · Dec-28-2007, 1:49pm

It is the neck more then the body that messes me up. I started on a bowl and don't have another. The few flatback or carved backs I've tried the necks were just hard to get used to.

**vkioulaphides** · Dec-28-2007, 5:18pm

I concur on the primary significance of the neck of the instrument to the player's comfort level— this, with the obvious disclaimer that MY comfort level is not any "standard" applicable to anyone else's. I have played nothing but bowlbacks, so the body-shape is nothing for me to discuss. I'm sold.

Over the years, I have gravitated towards ever narrower-necked mandolins. Unlike (some) vintage Calaces, with their generous width of fingerboard, my 2004 "toddler" clocks at 26 mm. at the nut. I must admit it took some adjustment, "scaling down" all the fingerwork, coming as I was from my considerably wider de Meglio and Ceccherini. Yet nowadays I would not even think of "scaling UP" ever again...

During my recent visit to Ralf in Belgium, I had the —truly priceless!— opportunity to handle an inconceivable number of absolutely PRECIOUS Emberghers. By way of background: I had always assumed that, with my bassist-paws, I would never be able to get around those tiny necks, some 23-24 mm at the nut. NOT TRUE! Thanks to the radiused fingerboards, I had absolutely NO difficulty fingering anything I could imagine at the moment!

[Two disclaimers: being in the company of the likes of Ralf and Barry Pratt, I was far too embarrassed to actually PLAY anything; all I speak of is the comfort of "silent" fingering up and down the neck of these beauties. Second, it's highly unlikely that I will ever own such a beauty, yet I resist the all-too-human temptation to nay-say and chalk it all up to Aesopian sour grapes.]

So, to round off my concurrence with reesaber: yes, yes, think "fingerboard"— perhaps more so than body-shape.

Cheers,

Victor

**Bob A** · Dec-28-2007, 11:21pm

I've found that the depth of neck is a determining factor of whether I like, or can even play, a given mandolin. I find the thin Martin bowlback necks are very difficult to play upon, while the Embergher instruments, with their deep V are no problem at all.