Bowlback taxonomy?

[Bob A]

Having recently obtained a couple instruments from the northern half of Italy, I was struck by the structural differences from the mandolins I'm used to playing. Of course my study is skewed by the number of examples I have at hand, namely two.

Yet both of them, the Luigi Mozzani from Bologna and the Monzino from Milano, exhibit similarities to each other in the construction of the side of the bowl. My nomenclature may be faulty, but the clasp, or as it may be, skirt, is minimal or nonexistant on these instruments. The sides drop precipitously from the binding, with the two main ribs essentially acting as the rim of the bowl. This is reminiscent of the German bowlbacks, perhaps, but is strikingly different from all the other instruments I've handled.

(You can see the Monzino on the Classical Mandolins site; the Mozzani can be seen with a google search which will bring you to its former home at Fine Fretted String Instruments (FFSI)).

Is it possible that this is a regional characteristic, or am I speculating far in advance of the data?

Does it indeed matter, at all? Probably not much. Still, this feature makes for a lighter instrument overall. Both are bright loud responsive mandolins,i in particular having a sharp attack and rapid decay. Again, this is too small a number of examples to make an informed judgement, but I've never yet let lack of fact hinder wild speculation, so why start now?

Has anyone else handled instruments with this anatomy? Your impressions?

[John Bertotti]

Bob A I can't help with your question but would like to know if we can see a picture maybe in the bowl pic thread? Thanks John

[Bob A]

Alas, John, I lack the equipment and expertise to do so. Still, the pics are available a few clicks away.

I wonder if the current crop of bowlback makers has fallen into the same trap that has done so much to damage the reputation of some large American guitar companies in the last half of the 20th century, to wit: the overbuilding or overengineering of their products to forestall warranty claims, leaving guitarists little choice except to pursue so-called vintage instruments, which were lightly constructed and productive of vibrant tonalities.

I'm not well up on modern bowlbacks, but there are few large manufacturing concerns that are putting out a product of equivalent lightness of construction to, say, the depression-era Gibson flattop guitars. Even today the Gibson company's recreations of those old instruments are a joke. Pick up one of each and you can tell the difference blindfolded, without strumming a note. Of course, when you do, the contrast is even more pronounced.

Both the instruments mentioed above are of remarkably light construction, which of course imperils their survival. Sadly, if equivalent instruments are not produced in mass today, the understanding of what these things can be made to sound like may well be lost.

Did that strike a spark with anyone?

[pklima]

I remember someone 'round these parts writing that modern bowlbacks are built larger and heavier so they can be strung with heavier strings and produce a louder sound, like many modern classical guitars. I think the fear of warranty repairs would be largely a product of the American culture and not as much of a concern to European manufacturers.

[Bob A]

Still, it begs the question. Building a heavier instrument requiring heavier stringing modifies the sound and response. Victor's experience with his crossbow Calace is that side of the coin. My experience with a thin, light bowlback is one that I'd like to see repeated, by modern makers adopting or returning to that former paradigm. After all, it is seldom that one needs to project to the back of a large concert hall, alas. There is also a point of diminishing returns with the heavier is better route. (Not that I see you espousing that viewpoint, necessarily).

Warranties might be an American phenomenon, true, but products pulled to pieces can have an adverse effect on one's reputation, I suppose.

Where are the bowlbacks of yesteryear?

[pklima]

There's a definite historical trend towards louder instruments, at least in Western culture. It's been going on since at least the Baroque and even the development of amplification hasn't stopped it. It's an arms race, and its history and causes surely make a fascinating subject for various scholarly types.

Mandolin players might be affected by this less than trumpet players and very few of us need maximum projection (unlike those poor bluegrassers who have to deal with overzealous bluegrass banjos) but I think classical mandolin design is driven by high-end models whose prospective buyers need to keep up with grand pianos louder than those of yesteryear. And so it goes...

Yeah, I sometimes wish drummers would go back to using skin heads and horn sections would have to play quietly so an unmiked vocalist can be heard over them, but on the other hand I do play every week in a large church with lousy acoustics and it's nice to be able to do it unamplified.