Is the mandolin inefficient?

[Drew Streip]

I wonder: Does any other instrument have as much incidental noise as the mandolin? By that, I mean:

The ratio of (pick noise/finger squeak/taps and knocks) to (notes produced)

There are a number of factors against the mandolin, including the relative lack of:

• volume
• sustain
• range
• chord depth (limited to 4 distinct notes)

Compare that to something like a piano, where in a controlled recording, the key strike is virtually silent but a 10-note chord can ring for +20 seconds. Or a saxophone, where the pads do make noise, but the potential sustain and absolute volume are both much greater.

In other words, is a mandolin the least efficient instrument for making beautiful noise? (If so, that just gives us more bragging rights when we manage it!)

Kudos to Demetrius for the thread that inspired this question.

[journeybear]

You say. "incidental noise," I say, "characteristics."

The qualities you cite - and there are others - are not necessarily limitations; they help define the instrument. These are what the instrument offers. Some aspects are similar to other instruments, some different. I say, work with what it provides and permits, in its distinctive way(s).

Some of these issues can be addressed by adjusting the materials you use. Type of strings or pick may affect volume, for instance. Technique can be adjusted to reduce extraneous nose for picking and fingering. One may compensate for rapid decay by trilling notes. It's worth noting this technique sounds better on mandolin than on other instruments. Also, bowlback mandolins tend to hve longer sustain. Its range is actually comparable to other string instruments, despite being higher pitched than most. As to chord depth .. well, not a whole lot can be done there. Some jazz players leave out notes in a chord, even the root or fifth, when other notes are deemed more important to producing the desired sound. In group playing, these notes are often being played by other instruments.

There are plenty of ways to work with what a mandolin offers in order to get the sound one wants.

One more thing, somewhat tangential ... The locution that the instrument may be the "least efficient instrument for making beautiful noise." I've seen this sort of wording a lot during the last few years, in which someone posits that such-and-such is the most or least so-and-so. It strikes me that such considerations - whether the subject of a conversation is the extreme example of the category the writer has mentioned - are irrelevant, indeed detrimental to successful discussion. This skews the conversation toward whether or not the example cited is indeed such an extreme, getting away from discussing the actual aspects of the matter. There are other ways to state a premise or emphasize a point.

Just sayin'. And now easing on down off my soapbox ...

[Willie Poole]

I like Journey Bears answer.....Also I have learned to make every chord at many different places and fingerings just to change up from the "normal" sound of mandolin...When I tell people that I play a mandolin they say "I just love them, I think they sound so beautiful" so how can that be degrading or less efficient?

IF you are not happy with what you hear you might want to try a different instrument, some people like the sound of a guitar better that a mandolin, it`s a matter of taste...or you could take up the dobro, ugh...

Willie

[Bob A]

Pick noise can be successfully addressed by pick material and right hand technique. If finger squeak is an issue, there exists flatwound and ground-round-wound strings.

Efficiency to me is more a matter of how efficient an instrument is as a transducer, amplifying the sound of the strings.

The rest is, as stated above, part of the essential characteristics of the instrument.

[Randi Gormley]

Doesn't efficiency have to do with intent, as well as characteristics? If the intention is to play a stringed instrument, is it more efficient to have only one string you can adjust, rather than eight? Certainly for tuning, it's more efficient. Is it efficient to have an instrument the size, weight and depth of the average mandolin (whatever that is) if you're my size -- 4-foot-10 on a good day -- rather than someone who's 6-foot-5? Because you can probably design a more efficient instrument for larger people -- or larger hands -- than a current mandolin's limitations. How many people ask if there's a way to put more space on the fretboard? so the current width isn't efficient for them especially if you can't finger it correctly or get the tone you want out of it.

I guess my take is that playing an instrument isn't efficient to begin with, but I'm not into playing music because it's efficient or an efficient use of my time. I like taking the long way around on occasion, putting more time than required into a project, praising the good work of others -- none of which is "efficient" if your goal is to get through something with as little excess movement, thought or time as possible. And there are efficiencies in playing mandolin in the way you finger certain notes or keep a finger down instead of taking it off a fret.

[Mandobart]

As an engineer, "efficiency" is the ratio of output work to input energy, but I think the OP's original question basically refers to some kind of comparison of actual desired sound to the total sound generated. Similar to a signal-to-noise ratio in electronics.
This ratio will always be less than 1 for any instrument. How much "inherent inefficiency" exists in any given player/instrument combination depends somewhat on the build quality/condition (materials, workmanship, string age...), player proficiency, difficulty of the piece and of course desired sonic output.

When I play pizzicato on a violin is it suddenly now less efficient if that is what the song calls for? If a beginner sax player is honking every note does that make his sax inefficient when a more advanced player gets a pleasant tone out of each note?

IMHO any "inefficiencies" are most likely due to player limitations, and then instrument/string/pick/etc. quality, and not type of instrument. Sure we can say "all other things being equal..." but they never are. Are you seriously going to play Gold Rush on piano instead of mandolin because its a "more efficient" instrument?

[fscotte]

Yes it's got some shortcomings. It's a relatively heavy instrument for its size, as compared to the violin and ukulele. But that's because it's using steel strings. It's dynamic range is limited as well. Wasn't it Thile who suggested something about a mando's less than ideal circumstance in the instrument world?

If a piano is a guitar, then a mandolin is a piano with two octaves, and a much smaller soundboard.

[catmandu2]

Is a mandolin the least efficient instrument for making beautiful noise? ...

Well, in terms of comparative aethetics of sound, the mandolin does not produce my favorite. It's a great little instrument that's lots of fun to use. It excels particularly in rhythmic forms - where its inherent percussiveness is an asset. Imo classical idiom shows its limitations, in the above respects, perhaps more than any genre/style. Many or most will disagree.

In a contest of tonal and harmonic range, etc, there are many instruments likely to prevail over the mandolin. Why bother to compare? Is better than some; worse than others..

*What do you want to express?

In terms of an operational exercise, this goes under the "all the fish in the world is a big kettle of potatoes to peel with one small slicer" genre.

[Ivan Kelsall]

From Drew - "Compare that to something like a piano, ..." Well,compared to a full sized Pipe Organ,a piano is a non-starter = you can't compare one to the other in any realistic manner.

The mandolin was what it was long before the 'American version' was designed by Orville Gibson. It was designed to sound as it did. If the old mandolin builders had wanted a different 'sound' etc.,they'd have built a different instrument. Orville Gibson & then Lloyd Loar designed the 'new' varieties,to produce the traditional 'sound' of the mandolin,but i'd say that Lloyd Loar's contribution probably upped the efficiency in the true sense of energy input / output.

I'd maybe agree with your assessment of those aspects of the mandolin that you mention - but that's what you get in the package. As for 'finger squeak' - that's down to the individual's fingers & the string type that they use. I've had other players play my guitar & squeak all over it. I can (could - i sold it) play it without any squeaking at all. Dry,roughish finger tips are terrific squeak producers. My own finger tips are,soft(ish) but the skin is very tough due to 50 + years of banjo playing.

As for 'the most efficient instrument' - the mandolin ain't it,that's for certain - maybe a bass drum ?. I think that most of us are too involved in our playing to consider 'efficiency' - but an interesting question !,
Ivan

[William Smith]

I don't believe a mandolin is inefficient, well some are if you don't own a HOSS. There are some quality gourds out there and a whole heck of a lot of cheapies. Sure there not as full as some instruments but hey that's what makes em a mandolin.

[Ted Eschliman]

I'd offer you could make the similar critical analysis of the limitations of bagpipes. Perhaps prematurely...

[Michael Neverisky]

Mandobart nailed it regarding the term "efficient" and input/output. A violin produces more sound with less effort than any plucked instrument I can think of, for example, so it's much more "efficient".

Limitations are where we find opportunity for human creativity and expression. Plunking out one note after another in a dry, mechanical fashion on any instrument is pointless, in my opinion. Listen to how a masterful player (you know their names) expresses a melody within the constraints of the mandolin. Slides, double stops, tremolo, dynamic changes (albeit not as wide as a fiddle, perhaps), chords... when you listen to <insert favorite player's name here>, think about what it is that makes the sound you hear so endearing.

[OldSausage]

It's still better than a banjo.

[Steve Ostrander]

I don't find finger squeaks and pick noise to be an issue. I think that pick guards make pick noise worse, so I don't use them. And finger tapping is not an issue--people either plant their pinky or they don't, but I've never noticed anybody tapping.

[mandocrucian]

About Drew Streip
Biography:
Aspiring mandolinist, decent guitarist, lapsed saxophonist

I think you already "know" (even if subconsciously) the answer to your own question. I think it is inevitable the nagging thoughts about time investment vs. sonic pay-off of the mandolin (vs. your other instruments) will be an issue until you decide whether it is worth it past a certain playing profiency level.

I suspect that you'll eventually opt to make mando an auxiliary (tripling) instrument for some added sonic variety in the band(s) you play in, but you'll revert back to your old flames that are likely to provide you with more "sonic 'satisfaction'".



Niles H

[Drew Streip]

Thanks all! Mandobart nailed my intent. It's just an interesting physics question. I'd like to see some kind of controlled study that compared the absolute and relative volume, sustain, and noise of different instrument families. (Something more provable than "Do Stradivari sound better?")

As far as absolute efficiency goes -- well, I played baritone sax when I was in 5th grade and had to sit on a phone book (remember those?) to play it. So I've never been too worried about it

[DavidKOS]

I wonder: Does any other instrument have as much incidental noise as the mandolin? By that, I mean:

The ratio of (pick noise/finger squeak/taps and knocks) to (notes produced)

There are a number of factors against the mandolin, including the relative lack of:

• volume
• sustain
• range
• chord depth (limited to 4 distinct notes)

.

I am not sure I agree with your premises. In fact, I am certain I do not agree.

My mandolins - which are NOT archtop Gibson-inspired designs but bowlbacks and flatbacks - have good volume, sustain well, have a full range of notes with a full length fingerboard, and can play 4 note chords which only the guitar, lute, and keyboards can beat - all brass and winds are monophonic.

Guitars have finger squeaks, too. Pianos have mechanical noise, harpsichords worse. Up close, violins saw and scrape away.

There is much I could say, on my soapbox, about picks, strings, technical issues, and musical efficiency, etc. about the archtop mandolin versus the more traditional European instruments.

However since MOST mandolinists are convinced that those archtops are the "best" mandolin, I had best keep quiet.

I say that FOR IT'S SIZE, the mandolin is an amazingly efficient, compact, and useful musical instrument!

[DavidKOS]

Pick noise can be successfully addressed by pick material and right hand technique.

And pick shape. Those round picks make more noise as they scrape over the strings.

If a piano is a guitar, then a mandolin is a piano with two octaves,

My new flatback has a full fingerboard and over 4 octaves of tange.

You must have a very limited range fingerboard on your mandolins.

The mandolin was what it was long before the 'American version' was designed by Orville Gibson. It was designed to sound as it did. If the old mandolin builders had wanted a different 'sound' etc.,they'd have built a different instrument. Orville Gibson & then Lloyd Loar designed the 'new' varieties,to produce the traditional 'sound' of the mandolin,but i'd say that Lloyd Loar's contribution probably upped the efficiency in the true sense of energy input / output.

That would be debateable - think the heavy strings, long scale length, heavy wood top make the instrument LESS efficient than European instruments.

This should be tested in a scientific manner, though.

[sunburst]

Just a quick note:
I haven't seen it mentioned in this thread, but mandolins can play chords with more than 4 notes, if split string techniques are used.
(...and The Gold Rush might sound pretty good played on piano...)

[Mandolin Cafe]

There are a number of factors against the mandolin, including the relative lack of:

• volume
• sustain
• range
• chord depth (limited to 4 distinct notes)

This is more a statement of your paradigm as you think it applies to everyone, so the statement that these are factors that make a mandolin somehow inherently deficient I find not based on anything I agree with. Nor do I have any desire to debate it beyond this post. A piano makes a hell of a lot of noise. So does a saxaphone. Sometimes I find those pleasing. Other times it's so annoying it's beyond belief. Does that make them better because they have more sustain or can play more notes, or are these features problems that too many musicians can't control properly to make pleasing sounds?

Rather, the way you've posed your post is really intended to make us try to convince you of your own argument. Nope. While there's nothing wrong with that and I don't have a problem with it, the entire point is more about your own perception. You're wanting validation. You'll get it here from some. And others won't agree. No one's 100% correct.

At the end of the day the musician is still the most important element of the music being made. There's nothing quite like a mandolin and for me personally it's exactly what I like. You really should read Chris Thile's thoughts on how a mandolin is different and better in many ways than a violin for Bach. It's an eye opener.

[Marty Jacobson]

If you remove the percussive thunk of linkages and felt from the sound of a piano, it sounds like a crappy simulated piano.

[bratsche]

I just have to give kudos to the OP for starting a thread that has brought both journeybear and OldSausage out of the woodwork. Hi guys, long time no see! ;-)

bratsche

[Denny Gies]

Very creative thoughts, Drew. Thanks.

[Drew Streip]

Rather, the way you've posed your post is really intended to make us try to convince you of your own argument. Nope. While there's nothing wrong with that and I don't have a problem with it, the entire point is more about your own perception. You're wanting validation. You'll get it here from some. And others won't agree. No one's 100% correct.

At the end of the day the musician is still the most important element of the music being made. There's nothing quite like a mandolin and for me personally it's exactly what I like. You really should read Chris Thile's thoughts on how a mandolin is different and better in many ways than a violin for Bach. It's an eye opener.

I don't like to be 100% correct. In fact, I rarely want to be, which is why I solicit others' input. I just wanted to start a conversation and provide some starting points -- many of which have been thoroughly debated here. I don't dislike the mandolin at all. It's my favorite instrument to play. I DO dislike that my question has been interpreted as an attack on all of mandolin-kind, and I'll probably refrain from posting here if this is the response I'm met with.

And I have read Thile's statement that you refer to. In fact, it's part of what spurred this. In the same statement, he says that we are just smacking plastic against metal, and he imagines that there's room for improvement.

Chris is one of the only mandolinists who, to me, plays with an elegance and complexity that rivals something like a violin or trumpet. He has a full range of attack -- legato, staccato, pianissimo, fortissimo, etc. I love listening to Grisman, Bush, Bibey, Monroe, Avital, et. al., but I'm more acutely aware of the fact that they're "smacking plastic against metal."

Like I said earlier, just a friendly conversation from a curious mind. You'll find no argument from me. Carry on, or don't.

[catmandu2]

Regarding Thile (and his range of dynamics), we can look at observable traits that make him so good. For example we've had discussions here on the relative efficacy of mandolin tremolo in slow music such as Irish airs (considering its inherent sustain imitations). It's my opinion that, in order to render that degree of expression - very fine dynamics and color that occur with sustaining instruments - one would need to be very fast, such as Thile. (To illustrate, tremolo on a percussive instrument like a hammered dulcimer can be effective because we can provide an array of very fast "plectrum" attack using double-stick techniques up to and including a rub, as on a snare drum for example). Like Segovia and other preeminent figures in music, Thile is expanding technique and application.

I think the mandolin's role in a wide variety of music WILL continue to grow, especially as playing technique - human adaptation - naturally evolves.

I'm biased on my Bach. I understand that the mandolin, given its polyphonic capacity, does indeed provide certain advantages. For me it's a sonority issue; I came up in the classical gtr tradition and fell hard for the cello and lute suites.

Limitations are where we find opportunity for human creativity..

In a nutshell.