Are beaters better?

[catmandu2]

Me three...I love nice instruments but have too much fun just playing music--I just like playing and have a pile of amps and sound gear that, while it's just a bunch of gear, I couldn't live without as it enables me to play. The pile just keeps getting bigger....while my resources for a good instrument remain the same (or shrinks)

[pefjr]

I have been all over this rock, to three World Fairs, two goat ropings', judged 17 county pie making contests , several 7 ring Circuses, once saw a monkey F$%^ a football, ....but..... I have never seen anything like you guys, and your beater mandolins...... I have a beater pick ...and my pride and joy heavy fender pick for special occasions. I was going to suggest this pick.... for some of you boys that do not have the best pick for their beater mandolins but unfortunately it sold. http://www.ebay.com/itm/Stevie-Ray-V...#ht_500wt_1115

An this guy had the nerve to charge another 5 bucks for shipping.

[J.Albert]

Hoss,
or
Gibson F-5 "Bush"

If you're Sam, which one becomes the "beater"?

[Lee]

Some of us have a "sense of taste" that has to be solved with the most expensive mandolin we can afford. Whatever that level of expense is isn't really part of this discussion. When I practice, I generally use something less expensive/rare. When the time is right, I play the special one(s).

[Buck]

I don't generally believe in the "beater" concept, whether it's mandolins, or guitars, or whatever. I play whatever instrument I'm enjoying at the time. I feel like I play better, and I certainly enjoy it more. It may or may not be the most expensive that I own. Business travel, festivals, camping, gigs, etc. If the conditions are too rough for a decent instrument, they're probably too rough for me.

[Andy Fielding]

I'm glad to see this thread got so much interest. Thanks for the thought-provoking replies.

Personally,i wouldn't call a $1,000 Mandolin a 'beater',just less expensive.

Sure, $1000, or even $500, is serious dough in many people's books. But I couldn't resist saying "beater" because (a.) it was fun to use with "better", and (b.) I thought it might get more attention than something wordier.

By "beater", I meant "a less expensive mandolin whose value you're not worried about lowering by playing it a lot and taking it places."

I'll use myself as an example. I have two F's: a Gibson and an Eastman. I bought the Gibby new and it's what you'd call pristine. It sounds wonderful—but when I play it, I can't relax the way I can with the Eastman. I'm worried I'll bump it on the chair, or scratch it with a fingernail, or do any of the other 100 things you can to damage a perfect finish or a fragile peghead. And that's just at home.

By contrast, I can grab the Eastman, wail on it with abandon, and take it anywhere—and if it gets bumped or scratched, so what? It has no "collector's value". (Of course they said that about the Japanese Kentuckys, too [smile].) It doesn't have the Gibson's coveted sultry sound, but I play it more often and have more fun with it. (And ironically, because I have played it so much more, it's matured into a very good-sounding—and loud!—instrument... The one-piece bridge I made really helped, too.)

And frankly, at a jam with a dozen other people, I've found that volume can be more important than tone—and that it's hard to appreciate, or even hear, the difference between an expensive mando and a loud, cheaper one.

At times, the cheaper mando's tone may even be an advantage. I've been in places where my import mando's bright, "un-authentic" tone actually made it easier to hear, where a boutique-y mando's more subtle qualities would've been wasted. There are always lots of acoustic factors, of course; I don't claim to be able to generalize about something like that.

I didn't buy my Brentrup because of the name on it or because it's super fancy. I bought it because it's loud and sounds great. Why would I want to keep it at home and take out my Kentucky 380, which is a fine "beater", but is vastly inferior...?

Well, again, I'm not talking about preferring a lower-quality instrument for no apparent reason. I doubt any of us would mind having a Brentrup we didn't worry over. (Maybe the solution is to buy 'em by the six-pack—after you win the lottery? Heh.)

When I first got a more expensive mandolin, I was afraid to take it to festivals, etc., because I was worried about it getting dinged but I got over that pretty quickly and I just play it because that's what it's for. If a person's gets a mandolin they're afraid to play, then perhaps that's not the mandolin for him/her.

That's a healthy non-materialistic attitude. I suppose I could feel that way if I knew I'd be keeping my "nice" mandolin the rest of my life, and I didn't care if it was worth less than it could've been once my kids inherited it.

Isn't 'better' simply a subjective assessment? What is 'better' for one person won't be for another.

True... But again, by "better" I don't necessarily mean "higher quality". I mean "more practical", or "more enjoyable, including comfort".

I agree with Chip's sentiment in the very first reply. There's a feedback loop between player and instrument. I play better on instruments that inspire me; that sound great and don't present any obstacles to playing. That's not a feeling I get with cheap instruments. When I've played better, and owned better, I know what's missing and I feel like I'm fighting to get the results I want.

Well sure, but I suggest that has a lot to do with:

_ How well you can hear yourself. Onstage with mics, in a recording studio, or sitting around the coffee table with friends, sure. Elsewhere, for me it's not so important, and the comfort factor enters the equasion.

_ Your playing level. If you're David Grisman, you'll get considerably more out of a high-end instrument than a sub-$1K one. But for many of us here, it may not be such a profound limitation.

There's the initial pleasure with a finer instrument's tone. But I, at least, eventually get used to that. In fact, when I play an instrument that's not inherently fabulous-sounding, I often find myself playing with more subtlety and imagination to compensate for it—if that makes any sense.

Something that's often lost in these debates is that the idea of impressing someone with an expensive mandolin is darn near impossible outside of the community of mando-obsessives on these boards... My guess is that the only name on a headstock that folks would recognize is Gibson, all the others (no matter how desirable) usually mean nothing to most anyone, including other mandolin players. Again, the idea that a boutique mandolin signifies anything to 99.9% of the world is just crazy IMO.

LOL! How true! (BTW, I never intended this as a "debate", just a stimulating talk.)

Yes, we have gone overboard. Did you see the Lin rookie card that sold on Ebay for $21,000? A damn plastic card, 17 of them.

On the plus side, isn't it good to know that collector hysteria isn't limited to the instrument world? :?)

As for the worry factor, I don't think it's much of an issue for most folks. The guys I know who play Loar-era Gibsons and prewar Martins take good care of their instruments and tend not to leave them unattended in the trunks of their cars on hot days, but otherwise treat their investments as well-valued tools, and play them most any place and any time they are serious about making music.

Yes, I'm all for Chris Thile's "C'mon, people, play your Loars!" attitude. Anyone who has a Loar—or "even" a Nugget, Gil, etc.—and doesn't mind taking it out on gigs, and then can actually relax enough to play it, is a courageous soul IMHO. (Of course they may also have a few more at home and this one's their "beater".)

Vintage instruments are likely to already have imperfections, too. (In addition to the effects of pure age, their earlier owners may have played them harder because they weren't as insanely valuable as they are now. Bill Munroe always comes to mind, too...) So in that respect, it could be actually be less stressful to play a fine vintage instrument than a perfect new one that wasn't worth as much.

And if your serious music making always takes place in a bar where the band needs chicken wire to fend off flying bottles and you are playing through an amp with the volume set at 11, there's probably no point in having a high-end instrument. In that case, a beater probably is better.

Or one with the Taser option.

My preference is for a higher end mandolin that has been beat up a little, so you don't have to worry about keeping it "pristine".

That's ideal, but isn't your broken-in "working axe" still likely to be worth considerably more than your "nice" one? If you're grabbing your $5K Weber and heading for the parking lot, it may be because you're leaving your $20K Dudenbostel at home. It's all relative.

But now that you mention it, maybe these "distressed" new mandolins actually make sense! I've always laughed at the idea of people paying extra for instruments that'd been deliberately roughed up. But gee, do you think this may be their real purpose—not to look older and rarer, but so you don't have to worry about them getting banged around? I'd be the first to admit I was wrong about 'em.

[geeterpicker]

I never did understand the purpose of "beater" instruments. I'm rarely around campfires or situations where, if I want to play, I should be concerned about having a good instrument. I can't afford the ultra high end or vintage mandos, but to me, if you are serious about playing, investing in a very good quality instrument is necessary. There are so many things that are disappointing about low end mandos - construction, tone, intonation, playability. There's not as much middle ground in mandolins, like there are with guitars, so you may as well spend a few hundred extra to get something decent. And I don't view someone taking out a high quality instrument as showing off, but rather as someone with good taste.

[John L]

I am lucky to have a couple of beater instruments that I would play anywhere. I have a handbuilt F-5 that I paid way under $1000 for, and I would put up against anything up to $3,000, and many well above that including some that have been mentioned in this thread. My 1970s Gibson Heritage would not be worth a lot in pristine condition, and mine has a repaired top crack. It is great player that I don't mind taking anywhere. Both instruments have been to a lot of campfires and beaches.

[Bertram Henze]

If you let them use it, it's a beater.

[Chip Booth]

Andy Fielding, it sounds to me like you are too worried about the condition of your Gibson to fully enjoy it, and that perhaps some gap exists that doesn't allow you to appreciate the difference between it and your Eastman. I am not trying to bust on you, just making an observation after reading your long post. I have never been in a situation where a "beater" mandolin would perform better or be heard louder or more clearly than my Gil. If that ever happens I will sell it. Again, I am not making a judgement, just suggesting that if you are worried about your mandolin and can't relax with it even in your own home then that probably isn't the instrument for you. Perhaps you should consider getting rid of your Gibson and looking for something used and already broken in that will serve you better both in terms of volume and tone, and that allows you the freedom to not worry about it so much so that you can enjoy it in many more situations.

[Jim]

Mine are all beaters by price definition, However I am more comfortable with some in certain situations than others. A very important part of this is that all of mine have great action & intonation. When I travel I take a Bestler that cost me $19 , I seldom use it otherwise but when I'm sittin in that Hotel room or airport and play it I always think "wow this thing is fun to play". It's plywood and has a very thick finish so for a mandolin it's quiet and for playing in hotel rooms that's better. I have some 20s regals and a washburn, these are inexpensive and sound great but I don't take them out because I feel temp changes could be a problem with the old glue and no trus rod. Love to play them around the house though and have recorded with them for their individual tones. From my best to my worst I would not hesitate to perform with any of them.... I kept what I have because I liked it. I usually perform with a Rover RM75, I love the way it sounds and get lots of compliments on its tone from players. It is firmly in the low end of what many consider a beater but it's my best and can hold its own in a loud jam. When I play it I also think "wow, this thing is fun to play". If I didn't think it was fun to play I'd have either fixed it or gotten rid of it. So all my beaters have their place and in there own way can be "better" for that purpose.

[Scott Tichenor]

By sheer chance we'll be publishing an extensive article/interview on this very subject a week from today. In it we're interviewing some of the most experienced musicians, retailers, vintage experts, writers and long-time mandolin enthusiasts on the planet. The article is probably 80% done and now all I'm doing is adding the last remaining content as it trickles in from the contributors. The emphasis is on vintage instruments in the less than $1K market, what they offer, and why these folks think they're a sound option for a musician. Should be very, very interesting. I really like what I've read so far and think it'll be an eye opener for a lot of readers.

Hey guys,

Okay—we've all seen the photos and read the discussions about how fabulous-sounding, gorgeous, and expensive higher-end mandolins can be. It's an art form, for sure. There are endless ways that talented, patient luthiers can express themselves, and they fully deserve what they can get for their difficult, impressive work.

That said, some of us are just musicians. And while we appreciate the physical beauty of fine instruments—after all, we're artists—we're primarily here to get a good sound and say what we want to say.

Those few of us with deep pockets may think nothing about taking a $5K or $10K mandolin out on a gig, and damn the torpedoes. But I reckon most of us would find it more practical to have a couple of decent-sounding sub-$1000 mandos we could just take out there and, you know, play.

So when you get right down to it, are beaters better? Is it that important to you to pull out an obviously expensive, famous-name mando so everyone can see how "serious" you are—then spend half your time worrying about getting it scratched or dinged or someone sitting on it or spilling beer on it or making off with it? If status wasn't an issue, would you rather turn up with your good-sounding beater, not worry what anyone thought of it, and give your entire attention to the music?

Sure, most of us are likely to get more pleasure from the sound of a $5K mando than a $1K one. But I suspect the people listening to us—you know, the people we're actually there to play for—are focusing on the ideas and feelings we're expressing, not how close our instruments sound to $200K Loars.

So what's really important? Do you think marketing and status-seeking have distracted us from who we really are? Instrument-wise, do you think we've ended up in a situation reminiscent of The Emperor's New Clothes?

If I'm making any sense here, I'd appreciate your comments. Okay, even if I'm not making any sense.

[Cary Fagan]

It's possible to have a 'good' instrument and a 'beater' and still play the good instrument out a lot. I take my Passernig to jams here and everywhere I travel, to festivals and back yards, on planes, trains, automobiles and bike. But no, I don't want to get sand in it at the beach and sometimes when I'm going out on my bike for a good ride I just want something on my back to play when I take a break. That's beater time.

[jstout]

I dont own a Mandolin yet, but will when I find the right one and it will go anywhere and every where I go to play, just like my Martins do, they are D18 authentic,00018-Authentic and D28 museum Edition, eveyone of them is my beater, looking forward to finding my mando beater too.
One thing that I do is keep an all risk policy with Heritage and then just enjoy, have no one to leave my instruments to and Im just a caretaker for them for awhile, take reasonably good care of them and let anyone that wants to play one at a jam play them, that's why I have them making music and having fun.
jstout

PS On the hunt for my "beater" Mandolin.

[Keith Erickson]

I don't know what more to add than what has been said already. This is a great thread.

I play my Ludewig in our church choir and I have to say this mandolin fits me perfectly. It sounds perfect, great tone, very attractive to the eyes and addresses my mid-life musical needs.

My Michael Kelly A+ Plus is a decent mandolin. It's definitely not a Ludewig but if it decides to grow a pair of legs at a bluegrass festival, it won't be as painful to live through. Just my 2 ¢ .........

[scapier]

A good instrument is by definition an instrument that allows you to do what you hear in your head. Strads and Loars have a certain sound that lets players do a certain thing. Guareri and Heiden's let you do another, and it's the astute studied player that can feel the difference. I've ordered a new instrument (another Heiden) that's setting me back a huge chunk of dough because after long years of playing I know what I need to excel as a player. I can either live with the great instrument I have or push for one that will help me get to the next level.

Fact is, we fretted instrument players are small potatoes! I have a good friend who is a classical cellist who has been horse trading 40 to 80k instruments over the past few years to find the cello that is just right for him. He'd really like the 200k cello he played at a shop in New York this winter,and thinks of his second cello (a mere 40k) as a bit of a "beater." And BTW he ain't rich, he's a classical musician! So all this talk of 1k vs 5k is a tempest in a teapot by comparison.

If you can't tell the difference between a $15 bottle of wine and a $50 bottle, lucky you, your wallet is not as light! Sadly, I'm cursed with OCDMAS, a good palate, and a lower middle class income.

[chip]

Personally I can't really cope with the sound of cheap instruments. In my most recent band there was a fellow who insisted on bringing/playing an electrified Martin that's made out of some kind of composite material. Now here's a guy that owns a guitar shop and has some of the best guitars around. He found humor in playing this as he thought it was cool to fool the audience into thinking that this "Martin" was really the bomb...which should have been used on it. For me...tone is too important to be sacrificed in music. Life is short, be proud to play a fine instrument instead of "beaters". If ya need something to take to the beach thar's a different matter...

[Paul Busman]

Guy in my band has some great guitars, but he too plays one of those electrified Martin composites. He's in several bands, and does some gigging solo and that thing takes a lot of abuse. To my ear, it sounds perfectly fine-- certainly for the typical bar, K of C type of gig. The composite will even hold up if it starts raining during an outdoor gig.
He also plays a Rondomusic Sx 6 string banjotar which costs all of $160 and sounds pretty darned good. Again, no worries about taking that puppy to less than sedate venues.
http://www.rondomusic.com/country6vs.html

[chip]

Those whistles sound good!

[JeffD]

The more time in the saddle, the more one appriates a nice saddle.

I am very much a materialist. In the sense that I like nice things and am willing to spend what I can to acquire them. Without shame. There is nothing to be ashamed of (or proud of for that matter) in having a superlative instrument. Its just great fun to have one and to enjoy all its advantages. There is similarly nothing to be ashamed of (or proud of for that matter) in a less expensive instrument.

I do very little for an audience, so I what the audience perceives or doesn't perceive has no effect on my purchase decisions. I like nice well made things that do well what they are designed an built to do.

Get the best mandolins you can afford and play the potatoes ouf of them. Thats my view.

There is no beater-mojo in madolins like there is in some circles around guitars. Some blues folks like to "boast" about their beat up old carpenter guitar, found in the men's room of a Greyhoud station in St. Louis with a pillow case for a case and a jute chord for a strap.

[Jim]

Some blues folks like to "boast" about their beat up old carpenter guitar, found in the men's room of a Greyhoud station in St. Louis with a pillow case for a case and a jute chord for a strap.

Dude, I'm pretty sure that's my guitar :-)

[dmamlep]

I have a 1996 F5L Gibson and then I have a kentucky 260 that I would take anywhere, its cheap but great bark and tone.

[Jeffff]

I buy my instruments to play. If I was afraid to take one out, I would sell it.

It would break my heart to play someplace knowing I had a better sound at home hiding under the bed.

[chip]

Amen!

[Goodin]

I've played $300 mandolins that sound better than some $3000 mandolins. Price is irrelevant in many cases. There are excellent mandolins to be had under $1000, particularly Gibson teen A's and Big Muddy/Mid Missouri. Can't go wrong with these mandolins.