Crowder
Jan-30-2004, 7:55pm
I was talking with a guy who collects and works on vintage mandolins the other day. He was looking over the BRW and we were noting some of the ways that my mando differs from the Loar design (deeper body, different arching, etc.).
This guy has played several Loars among many other vintage instruments, and his opinion is that most Loars don't typically sound the way that bluegrass players expect--how they are more refined, classical-sounding instruments that are heavy on sweetness and definition but somewhat light on volume and bite. He compared the sound to an imaginary "F-hole F4" as a point of reference.
We agreed that most players and modern luthiers are somewhat unconsciously trying to achieve not the accurate sound of original Loars, but rather the sound of RECORDED Loars, specifically Monroe's Loar. It's a bigger, barkier, bolder sound that might have been produced by a combination of the recording techniques and Bill's driving style and high action. Thus the deeper bodies, the more pronounced arching, the taller bridges, and at times the more angled necks we see on modern F5's.
What say you fellers?
This guy has played several Loars among many other vintage instruments, and his opinion is that most Loars don't typically sound the way that bluegrass players expect--how they are more refined, classical-sounding instruments that are heavy on sweetness and definition but somewhat light on volume and bite. He compared the sound to an imaginary "F-hole F4" as a point of reference.
We agreed that most players and modern luthiers are somewhat unconsciously trying to achieve not the accurate sound of original Loars, but rather the sound of RECORDED Loars, specifically Monroe's Loar. It's a bigger, barkier, bolder sound that might have been produced by a combination of the recording techniques and Bill's driving style and high action. Thus the deeper bodies, the more pronounced arching, the taller bridges, and at times the more angled necks we see on modern F5's.
What say you fellers?