Cultural Action, the Art of Tone and Sonic Brokerage: An Inquiry

[Scott Tichenor]

Part of hosting the Mandolin Cafe is that from time to time, interesting information becomes available or is offered to us for sharing. The following attached PDF document is one such example. It's the senior thesis of Forrest O'Connor, son of the fiddle player Mark O'Connor and is posted here with his permission. The cover page to the thesis, 114 pages in all, is titled as follows:

Cultural Action, the Art of Tone and Sonic Brokerage: An Inquiry into Lloyd Loar’s F-5 Mandolin Design
A thesis presented by Elijah Forrest O’Connor
To
The Committee on Degrees in Special Concentrations in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree with honors of Bachelor of Arts
Harvard College
March 11, 2010

I have not read this document in its entirety but have skimmed over it and intend to read it at some point in the immediate future. It has a lot of interesting information that will be familiar to us. Had hoped to read it this weekend but got caught up in another web project that turned out to be a lot more involved than anticipated.

I've had the opportunity to trade some emails with Forrest the past few years and he's a delightful young man and I hope you enjoy his efforts here. It's my understanding he's now working with a web start-up of some kind and I wish him well.

[allenhopkins]

Fascinating work; however, as I peruse it, I see that O'Connor adopts the (prevalent) position that the "F" in Gibson's F-model mandolins stood at the time for "Florentine." This question has been discussed at length on the Cafe, and as I recall the upshot was that "F" was an arbitrary letter designation, like "H" for mandolas or "K" for mandocellos. Gibson's "Florentine" models, so identified and designated in their catalog, were highly decorated banjos and guitars, with scenes of Venice (sic) painted on their fingerboards -- at least until the 1950's, when Gibson did build the EM-200 electric mandolin and marketed it as "Florentine."

No doubt in current usage "F" mandolins are called "Florentine," but there doesn't seem to be documentation -- at least, not that I'm aware of -- that Orville Gibson or the Gibson Co. called their early F-models "Florentine." Or, for that matter, called their pre-Loar A-models "Artist."

Probably O'Connor would be happy that I'm not still at Harvard reviewing his excellent, so far thesis...

Later: completed reading it, and recommend it for Cafe members who would like to be challenged by discussion of the role that a commercial object like the F-5 mandolin, plays in developing and furthering "art," and also the role that Lloyd Loar, and his later acolytes who build F-5-style mandolins, have as "artists" or "craftsmen." What I find fascinating is the possibility that Loar didn't actually invent the instrument, as much as the tone of the instrument, and that what later luthiers are creating is not the mandolin as much as its sound...

Lots of theory on what actually constitutes "art," and how it's developed. Found some of it heavy going, but I'm decades away from academia. Wonder where young Mr. O'Connor is headed?

[Nick Royal]

And does Forrest play the mandolin?
Nick Royal

[SincereCorgi]

I really liked how he located the F-5 within the field of new mandolin developments around the turn of the century, and found his comparison/contrast of that period's 'virtuoso' mandolin aspirations with the culturally-established status of the violin very interesting as well. To me, though, the most intriguing bits were some comments he got from Bill Collings and Dudenbostel (like whether more than a few of the Loars demonstrate 'the Loar sound', the cookie-cutter aesthetic of Eastman factory mandolins vs. Collings factory mandolins, etc.), but those never got their due, I thought.

His ultimate conclusion, I felt, didn't really differ from the conclusion you could draw about any legendary model of instrument that has spawned lots of boutique imitators (i.e. the Telecaster or the something), and that gee-ya-think conclusion was padded out with a lot of academic buzzwords and snippets (i.e. roll-call of Wittgenstein, Wordsworth, Schiller, etc.) that could have been left out without damaging his argument. In fairness, that's how they roll in The Academy so you can't really fault the dude. I don't want to come off as negative, the research and quotes make it more than worth reading.

[John Kasley]

Regarding the idea that "F" stood for "Florentine" at the time Gibson adopted the F designation. I agree with Allen. I looked at the "works cited" section of the thesis and saw that O'Connor cites Scott Hambly's doctoral dissertation of 1978 in which Hambly makes the same inference. In fact, O'Connor's statement of "F" = "Florentine" is made in several places where he cites Hambly.
I believe Hambly's dissertation was "state of the art" at the time. But in 1978, reliable information about the Gibson company,its operations, marketing, etc. was not widely known or available. Hambly offers no proof that Gibson intended for the F designation to mean Florentine. Back in 1978, when I lived in the S.F. Bay Area, my recollection is that the few bluegrass mandolin players around accepted that F = Florentine simply because it sounded reasonable. So I took it for a fact also until later years when more research on Gibson's early years became widely available. So what we may have here is an earlier, incorrect inference being perpetuated and continuing to muddy the waters.

Having said all that, I thoroughly enjoyed reading the thesis. I'd also recommend to anyone who's interested in delving further into the subject of mandolin development early in the last century to read Hambly's dissertation. My local library was able to get me a copy by interlibrary loan.

[fredrob]

I have been building mandolins,,( generally one a year part time) since 1985,,I very much enjoyed reading This thesis,,and some interesting points were revealed,,one thing that might have been overlooked while reflecting on how to capture " The Loar Sound" is the fact the in the 20s when Gibson produced these instruments the standard concert pitch was C=256 not A=440,,try tuning the modern F-5s to that tuning and you will find out what they sounded like to Loar,,another point of contention I might bring up is the question " Is the Gibson design of the 1920s the be all to end all?" or is what I firmly believe and that is if we try to build by strictly adhereing to a singular design aren't we just trying to build a better Gibson?? without the 90 odd years to season,,I personally have my own carving principles that I have developed by myself as well as bracing that takes me off in a differant but distinct direction,,and I don't beleive its as good as it can get

Fred Robson

[richardbradford]

Thanks for bringing this to our attention Scott. Fascinating read, did I read that right, none of the big four tap tune? I realy enjoyed reading about Lynn Dudenbostel - "I strive for perfection, but settle for excellence" - love that way of thinking and living. Forrest's thesis really brought up some interesting unsettled questions about the F5. Thanks Forrest, Harvard has done you well - congratulations on getting a great education.

[DerTiefster]

The things that jumped out at me as I perused Forrest O'Connor's dissertation:

O'Connor quotes Walter Benjamin at about p. 48, concerning a distinction between art and craft involving uniqueness as one characteristic of art. I would mention prints and books as non-unique examples of art -- books are printed in multi-copy editions, and prints, such as Audobon's bird prints, are also printed in multi-copy editions.

O'Connor mentions that Gibson did not patent the F-5 (p. 81 footnote 19) but that they (through Norlin) sued Ibanez. He did not mention the Flatiron takeover somewhat later, which was done following Gibson's (post-Norlin) owners' complaints to Flatiron about their production of F-5 style instruments. Or so it was recounted to me.

I enjoyed looking over the dissertation. Perhaps I skimmed over some key parts, but after all is read and done, I don't come away from it with a clear definition of "sonic brokerage." But maybe I'm just dense.

[Man of Wax]

And does Forrest play the mandolin?
Nick Royal

He does, and very well. He knows a tremendous amount. I met through a mutual friend shortly after I began playing, and he spent two hours just showing me basics. I suggest you all check out his company: Concert Window (http://www.concertwindow.com). It provides free, live streaming concerts, often of highly accomplished acoustic musicians. Tell the owner of your favorite venue to get in touch with him.

[San Rafael]

Interesting essay. Thanks to the author and the Cafe for the resource.

[Ivan Kelsall]

"....the Mandoline as a tool for seduction" - Now there's a novelty,i always thought it was the Banjer !. Seriously,his thesis does seem interesting,something which i'll ascertain for myself with a full reading of it. Many thanks for more food (theseis) for thought
Scott,
Ivan

[danb]

Just past the acknowledgements and I saw this gem:


Today, adherents of the mandolin comprise more than just laborers and
manufacturers of women's hats.

Go on...

[re simmers]

College professors usually have a volume of instructions on what a thesis should and should not be. It's usually not anything like a book, and sometimes doesn't meet the expectations of too many outside the world of academia, especially Harvard academia. I would assume that Forrest had lots of parameters to work within in order to satisfy the department.

Congrats to Forrest on getting through it.

Does anyone know what his grade was for this thesis?

Bob

I liked the inside of Dude's shop. Maybe he will be the subject of someone's thesis 80 years from now.

[forrestoconnor]

Hi everyone,

Thank you again, Scott, for posting my thesis here! It means a lot. And thanks to everyone who has taken the time to read it.

I really appreciate all your comments, and several of you bring up interesting points.

Allenhopkins and John Hasley question the use of the label "Florentine," which underscores the suspicion I had while reading Scott Hambly's dissertation. Thank you for pointing this out, and for what it's worth, I will look into this further and make the appropriate adjustments in the thesis.

SincereCorgi, you bring up the idea that my ultimate conclusion -- that modern sonic brokers of the F-5 literally construct some of Loar's legendary status -- can be applied to other models of instrument that have spawned imitators. On one level, it is true that the basic framework of the argument can be applied elsewhere, and that, in this case, the in-depth study of the F-5 just serves as a springboard for thinking about instruments more generally.

(Disclaimer: This is all theoretical, and what I discuss here is based on the opinions of many prominent F-5 builders and performers.)

However, there is some subtlety to my conclusion, which is why I preceded it with some examples of skepticism about the sound quality of Loar-signed F-5s. That is -- and Scott, I hope I'm not banned from Mandolin Cafe forever for saying this! -- one has to consider that many Loars weren't (and still aren't) as "great" as they are made out to have been, in terms of craftsmanship, sound quality (and everything that comes with that), and so on.

Certainly, it would be one thing if, collectively, Loars were universally regarded the ultimate manifestation of the F-5 sound and design. But, apparently, this is far from the case. So, imagine this scenario: Lynn Dudenbostel builds an F-5 that, he says, "has that Loar tone." A customer picks up his F-5, plays it, and thinks, "Wow, if this is Lynn's version of a Loar, the original Loar must be absolutely incredible!" Multiply this times the number of mandolinists who have played great mandolins by modern builders, and Loar becomes a deity. In other words, it can be said that Loar "steals" some of the greatness of Dudenbostel, Gilchrist, Kemnitzer, Monteleone, and other top modern builders who, in the opinion of many, have surpassed the craftsmen who worked at Gibson in the 1920s. If Loars were widely regarded the absolute best F-5s, Loar wouldn't be "stealing" any of this greatness -- his craftsmen would have constructed it themselves.

DerTiefster, I should clarify that Norlin sued Ibanez over a headstock design, not the F-5 itself, which, as you saw and pointed out, they never patented.

And Man of Wax, it has been a while! I appreciate the shout-out to Concert Window.

Thanks again, everyone!

Forrest

[Ivan Kelsall]

FWIW - I always had the opinion that the name 'Florentine' was applied to the 'new design' in an attempt at 'association' with the past use of the Mandolin in Italian / 'classical' music ie. It may be a 'new shape', but you can still play the 'old' music.
From Connor - " If Loars were widely regarded the absolute best F-5s, Loar wouldn't be "stealing" any of this greatness -- his craftsmen would have constructed it themselves.". That's the case with anything that might be regarded as a 'superlative' of it's type. Who for instance is / are the main players in the development of a superb custom-built automobile,the designers or the guys that build it ?.The same goes for any superlative architechtural construction & so on....
The initial 'genius' stems from the designer,who if he's not a builder/ maker, him / her self,has to coach the builders in the process of building the new design,in order to realise his design as closely as possible. I've often wondered how many 'Loars' were trashed in the begining,because they weren't 'quite what' LLoyd Loar wanted them to sound like.
I'm sure that the F-5 'Master Model' had a few trials before the guys at Gibson produced the new design with some regularity - at least i hope it did,as only with trial & slight adjustments to 'whatever',would they obtain the sonic standard that was required.The 'Virzi' Tone Enhancer must have been one such thing that they tried out,one that was adopted as an 'additional option' to the regular build.
I haven't read the complete Thesis yet,but i find it very interesting. Ultimately,my personal conclusion is, that at that point in time,''Gibson (Loyd Loar) got it right'' with the F-5 Mandolin design. So right in fact, that the majority of Mandolin builders,who build for the mainly 'Bluegrass' market,seek to emulate as closely as possible,the tonal qualities of the Loars. Whether we as individuals like the 'Loar tone' or not,is as in all things,a matter of personal taste.
Re.being ''banned from the 'Cafe'' - i doubt it . (LOL !!!),
Come back soon - Ivan

[Lynn Dudenbostel]

'Does anyone know what his grade was for this thesis?

Bob
Forrest is far to modest to mention this, but he he won the highest honor/award that Harvard can bestow on a graduating senior for this thesis. I forget the name of the award, but we are very proud of him! While at Harvard he also formed an Americana Music group and organized/sponsored several lectures, with (among others) Chris Thile, Bela Fleck, and Mark O'Connor. He was a driving force in a bluegrass symposium put on by the Folklore and Mythology Dept. called "Fire on the Mountain" in 2010. I was very honored to be asked to participate in that event, along with Sam Bush, Bobby Hicks, Allison Brown, Dr. Ritchie Brown, Matt Glaser, Neil Rosenberg, and Jack Tottle, among others. Forrest has done a lot to promote traditional music at Harvard. I applaud his efforts!
Lynn
Lynn

[forrestoconnor]

Ivan, you bring up a key point, and you make a distinction I realize I may not have clarified very well in my thesis.

You are exactly right: the greatness of Loar's design, and thus the greatness of Loar as an artist, is evident. It's the disputed "greatness" of the mandolins he signed that brings up an interesting problem. One of the main points in Chapter 2 is that Loar's work of art is not the F-5 per se but the sound the F-5 captures. That is essentially a single work of art that has been packaged (to widely varying degrees, of course!) in every F-5 built by someone constructing around tone (rather than simply according to a blueprint). For a variety of reasons, cultural, psychological, and otherwise, it becomes widely (and incorrectly) assumed that Loar-signed F-5s are themselves the works of art that solidify Loar's greatness.

Here's a quote from my conclusion:

Loar and modern sonic brokers of the F-5 enjoy a symbolically symbiotic relationship: sonic brokers earn a living by mediating between Loar’s tone and the public, and the F-5s they produce acquire symbolic capital for both Loar and themselves. In other words, modern sonic brokers of the F-5, all of whom operate in the name of Loar, literally construct some of the legendary status of Loar’s instruments.

It's possible I interchange "Loar" and "Loar's instruments" too fluidly. The point I intend to make is that modern luthiers are not simply enhancing Loar's status -- they are enhancing the perceived quality of Loar-signed instruments. Certainly, there is a major distinction here, but it's not surprising that the line can easily be blurred.

It's worth bringing up a comparable example: Stradivari. I am no expert on Stradivari's violins, and I understand that their quality has been challenged by some. But what does "the greatness of Antonio Stradivari" bring to mind? His violin design? The quality of his violins? For me, it's both. That's because, for obvious reasons, the name of the artist and the products he produced are deeply intertwined.

So, back to the F-5: there is a "reputation effect" that goes something like this:

Incredible Dudenbostel F-5 --> Lloyd Loar is brilliant --> Lloyd Loar's F-5's must be brilliant

I hope this clarifies things a bit. Everyone's comments are thought-provoking -- thank you again!

And hello to Lynn! It's wonderful to see you here in this forum. Thank you for dropping in!

Forrest

[Chris Baird]

Often the "Loar" tone is conceived as the difference between a Loar signed Gibson tone and any other F5 style instrument tone established either by Gibson or any other builder. That difference may exist (it's debatable in some cases), but, prior to the F5 there had never been that particular arrangement of body style, f-holes, tone bars, etc. One could make the argument that any tone established as a result of the F5's particular configuration is a "Loar" tone because Loar established the design concept and made possible that range of sounds. Gibson mandolins prior were constructed with oval holes, non-elevated fingerboards, shorter necks, different bracing, etc. They sounded much different.

I've heard authoritative accounts that the Loar signed mandolins have specific construction elements (within the scope of the F5 design) that set it apart from any other F5 ever built and attribute it a narrow range of sound production specific only to itself. Other authoritative counts disagree. But, if the Loar signed instruments do have a narrow range of tone among them and that tone was pervasive in the recordings that many mandolin players grew up listening to it would establish itself as a preferential benchmark.

Preference is highly influenced by what one is used to hearing. It's not only great construction and acoustic engineering that establishes the "gold standard" for tone, but, also psychology. A particular tone, perhaps ambiguous at first, will over time establish itself in the minds of many people as the "right" sound, simply by being the predominate sound that folks get used to hearing. If you're not used to hearing it, it probably sounds wrong. That's not to say that each generation (or individual) can't get used to hearing something different, and, I think that has happened. The "best" mandolin tone has just as much to do with the listeners mind, influenced by tradition and what they listen to, as it does the actual construction of the mandolin itself.

When someone establishes a preference by getting used to the sound of a specific instrument, and defines that sound as the only "right" sound, then there is nothing better than that specific instrument. It's not the specific mandolin (or builder) that established itself as the "best", it's people that define it as "best"; by establishing a preference through listening, playing, and interpreting tradition. Those folks who haven't listened to a lot of recordings of Loar signed mandolins or aren't familiar with the tradition associated aren't likely to think any more highly of a Loar than any other well made F5 style mandolin. They haven't formed that preference.

[stratman62]

Very interesting read. Thanks to Forrest and Scott for sharing this!

[mtucker]

Good stuff there, Forrest...Congrats on your recent degree from a great school! YAY!!

Not to derail this post, but here's a fairly recent clip of dear ol'dad and at least 3 recognizable suspects jammin on it (around 12:30 in the vid) in beantown. Guess the apple doesn't fall far from the tree...your family must be very proud of you!

http://vimeo.com/16296106

[Ivan Kelsall]

Forrest - It was the sound that i had in mind.The structural elements of the instrument would have ended up being whatever they needed to be within the constraints of the overall design, in order to obtain 'the sound'.
I think that all luthiers 'build for the sound' as there's no great percentage in NOT doing so.The structural elements of their individual instruments are 'adjusted' with regard to the type of materials (woods) they're using, in order to get the tones they require.
Re.Strad.Violins - A fellow 'Cafe member & amateur luthier from the UK attends (or used to),a luthiery school in Cambridge UK. The school was begun by a lady Violinist & luthier who built her own instrument quite a number of years ago. A couple of years back the school was visited by a professional concert Violinist who brought along her Strad.for all to hear. I bet you can guess what's coming next ? - yes,on doing a back to back comparison of the Strad. & the Violin made by the lady luthier,the Strad.was found wanting in a number of respects.
Returning to the Loar Mandolins,whatever we think of them personally,for a luthier who aspires to make the finest instruments that they can make,the Loar design is a heck of a jumping off point.
Finally - May i take the opportunity of congratulating you on gaining your degree. Having had to prepare a thesis many years back myself,i know that it's not easy,
Ivan