Is there a crisis in mandolin, banjo and ukelele tone?

[foldedpath]

It seems to me that one can disagree with a writer without being rude and dismissive. Thanks for posting it David! Personally I found it interesting.

Maybe it's just me, but I think the term "fluff" is only mildly disparaging, and not the worst that could be said about the article. The title of the article is "Guitar Tone Rules," and the premise is stated in the first paragraph:

"These trends suggest that the guitar exerts a subtle dominance over other fretted instruments, even if banjo, mandolin, or ukulele players don’t realize it."

The article itself then proceeds to make a lot of unsupported assertions to support the premise. Like GBOMs are popular now because they balance better than traditional OMs (sheesh!). There is also the statement:

There were few mandolas, mandocellos, and octave mandolins (tuned an octave below the mandolin) available until recently, but new models are now coming out in even lower ranges.

Mandolas, OMs and mandocellos have been made for years by Weber and independent luthiers. The fact that more may be sold now, doesn't mean they weren't available before now. And then the bit about even lower ranges? What the heck does that mean? Are mandobasses coming back into vogue?

With a title of "Guitar Tone Rules," and published on a guitar-centric site, it just feels to me like a fluff piece to make guitar players feel better about their chosen instrument. Just my opinion, YMMV, and so on.

[Svea]

Well, I like my carved top and back GBOM because it balances better that a teardrop shape, and it actually sounds like a large mandolin (and not a guitar). But I doubt that my perspective has anything to do with why "guitar tone rules". Different strokes...

Svea

[HoGo]

I think the author forgot that the archtop f hole body was first used on Gibson mandolin family instruments so it's actually guitars (which came few years later) that emulate mandolin tone (or at leas some character of it).
I find the article a bit confusing mixing all the instruments and their tone that is still unique to my ears, but his ears may hear things different...

[Tim N]

I think it's important to celebrate the uniqueness of different types of instrument. When I took up Irish bouzouki, it was it's difference from guitar (tone, tuning, appearence) that attracted me, even though I could use it in the same way as guitar. I realise that guitar-bodied bouzoukis are convenient for staying on the knee, but I would never consider going that way myself because I love the tear drop form- it's an important attribute visually, and I guess also for the distinctive bouzouki sound. I spent some time with tenor guitars, and realised they have their place where they stand well on their own merits, even if I wasn't the best player for bringing that out. Probably its the clarity and relative simplicity, especially when finger picking, unmuddied by deep bass. notes. And as for mandolin, for me it presented me with a delightful way to learn to play melody, and to thoroughly get to know all those fiddle tunes that I normally accompany with chords. I love the feel, shape and sight of my mandolin - especially its size and lightness, and I never wanted to try to play tunes on guitar. Of course, I could petty well do everything on guitar, theoretically, and I always enjoy coming back to it, with it's fullness, but, as mentioned initially, I celebrate and enjoy the distinctiveness of other related instruments. Don't we all?
Whether the article speaks of a true trend, I really don't know. I doubt it. As others have implied, the guitar has a breadth of range and tone and can be creatively played in all sorts of ways

[PugetPicker]

The big miss for me comes in reference to the Northfield Octave. I certainly do think that guitar body octaves are having a moment, in the same way that wonderful bands like Flatt Lonesome or Greensky Bluegrass are having a moment on the national popular stage. And by that I mean these instruments are nearly unheard of outside of roots music circles. Octaves are cool, and I'd love to have that Northfield one day when finances allow, but it is in no way taking over the mandolin footprint. That is just silly.

As a multi-instrumentalist coming from guitar first, I specifically picked up each instrument that I play because I didn't sound like a guitar. First the Mando, then Banjo, Piano, and Fiddle, etc. I chose an open back banjo because of my preference for clawhammer technique over scruggs, and it didn't have anything to do with it sounding more guitar like.

This piece, to me, was more about guitarists admiring their own reflection thinking everyone wants to be just like them.

[Bob Clark]

Does it actually matter? Play the instrument you like. That's all that really matters. (Perhaps I could be missing something).

[Bernie Daniel]

Maybe it's just me, but I think the term "fluff" is only mildly disparaging, and not the worst that could be said about the article. The title of the article is "Guitar Tone Rules," and the premise is stated in the first paragraph:



The article itself then proceeds to make a lot of unsupported assertions to support the premise. Like GBOMs are popular now because they balance better than traditional OMs (sheesh!). There is also the statement:



Mandolas, OMs and mandocellos have been made for years by Weber and independent luthiers. The fact that more may be sold now, doesn't mean they weren't available before now. And then the bit about even lower ranges? What the heck does that mean? Are mandobasses coming back into vogue?

With a title of "Guitar Tone Rules," and published on a guitar-centric site, it just feels to me like a fluff piece to make guitar players feel better about their chosen instrument. Just my opinion, YMMV, and so on.

Ok fine -- I just gave my opinion and it is certainly no better than anyone else's. However Mr. Johnson is a man in a position to spot sales trends I guess? I think your critique fair.

[jesserules]

"Banjo heads are now larger - at least 12" in diameter instead of 11" "

Ome banjos are all offered in either 11" or 12". Deering's Sierra - "the flagship of our entire line!" - has an 11" rim. Bart Reiter Standard openback, Gold Tone White Ladye openback, Pisgah Wonder openback, Chuck Lee Lone Star Deluxe openback, Kevin Enoch Tradesman and Dobson openbacks, Nechville Atlas openback, just a few of the many banjos available in 11" or 12" … I'm sure there are banjos being made larger than 12", but they are vastly outnumbered by 11"s and 12"s.

As for the statement that low 4th string tuning on ukuleles is some sort of recent development … just no. (Unless, maybe, we're speaking in terms of decades, in which case the article is a bit late, hmmm?)

[Bernie Daniel]

I think the author forgot that the archtop f hole body was first used on Gibson mandolin family instruments so it's actually guitars (which came few years later) that emulate mandolin tone (or at leas some character of it).
I find the article a bit confusing mixing all the instruments and their tone that is still unique to my ears, but his ears may hear things different...

Guitars 10 years later? I did not follow that because the L-5 started production in 1922 like the F-5? True?

[Frost]

I haven't done any statistical studies, but I feel like I probably hear fewer guitars in more popular music these days than any time I can remember. I feel like the trend in popular music is more towards electronic & percussion sounds, and away from the guitar as a "feature" instrument. When i do hear a guitar it often barely sounds like a guitar.

I can't quite wrap my head around a hypothetical trend towards making non-guitar instruments sound like guitars while simultaneously making guitars sound like not-guitars and music in general less guitar-centric.

It would seem to me to make much more sense that the whole reason these other instruments are coming into more common use and availability is because folks are looking for something that is specifically not a guitar and sounds different than a guitar, as others have indicated previously. I suspect lots of folks are sick of guitars and the commonly recognizable guitar sounds. Guitar virtuosi and self accompanying singer/guitarists appear to be a dime a dozen these days, and at least to my ears are much less frequently pleasant listening.

I would think more highly of the article if it was presented something along the lines of - "it seems more musicians and instrument builders may be gravitating towards things that aren't guitars" - or even - "it seems various types of non-guitar instruments are being used to fill the guitar space more often than they used to be". I think notions like these would require less "creativity" to find support for the central thesis among the various anecdotes and bits information presented in the article.

Nonetheless, it was food for thought and thanks for sharing it.

[Charlie Bernstein]

Hm. That doesn't sound like a crisis to me. It sounds like a market analysis.

[dan in va]

Actually, they may be out there, but i have yet to hear an octave mandolin or mandocello that i've liked. So my favorite luthier did some work on a Martin O18T and it has exactly the sound i was looking for.

[Bernie Daniel]

Actually, they may be out there, but i have yet to hear an octave mandolin or mandocello that i've liked.

That is a bit surprising to hear given all the incredible octaves and mandocellos that have been produce in the last 10 years...there has been an explosion of options to pick from?

So my favorite luthier did some work on a Martin O18T and it has exactly the sound i was looking for.

So what happened to the Martin tenor that gave it the sound you wanted? Conversion to a GBOM perhaps? If so did the work include a new neck?

I like the sound of most octaves including GBOMs -- the only "complaint" or just quibble I have ever had with the GBOM as contrasted to an A or F style octave is the fact that it takes on more of a 12-string guitar sound to my ear. Thus, it departs a bit from the "mandolin family sound"?

[Bernie Daniel]

Hm. That doesn't sound like a crisis to me. It sounds like a market analysis.

I agree it does not seem like a crisis merely one man's report on a sales trend that he thinks he sees. The one possible flaw in his reasoning about mandolins is I don't really know if any mandolin luthiers out there are carving anything but Loar specs for their top boards? Does anyone actually know a luthier who is carving specifically to get better mid-range tone/sound as the article suggests. If not then mandolins are not trending that direction perhaps?

[foldedpath]

I agree it does not seem like a crisis merely one man's report on a sales trend that he thinks he sees. The one possible flaw in his reasoning about mandolins is I don't really know if any mandolin luthiers out there are carving anything but Loar specs for their top boards? Does anyone actually know a luthier who is carving specifically to get better mid-range tone/sound as the article suggests. If not then mandolins are not trending that direction perhaps?

If mandolins (and not the lower-pitched family) were trending more towards "guitar tone," then I would expect F-hole mandolins to begin selling in fewer numbers than oval hole mandolins. Maybe even a resurgence in flattop mandolins with oval holes. You can't reach the low pitch of a guitar while staying in the mandolin pitch range, but that would push the mandolin a little closer to a guitar tonality.

I'm just not seeing (or hearing) it in the wider marketplace. A mandolin is a mandolin. We already have a range of body styles to choose from, that having nothing at all to do with guitars. It's a different instrument with a different history and genre expectations.

[Doug Goodhill]

Isn't the pictured Martin guitar the model they still replace the carved top with a flat top so it has usable sound? (Jeff Daniels model)- so I'm not sure where that argument goes

[dhergert]

Mmm, keep in mind, the article used the term "identity crisis", not "crisis". Big difference.

Not to say that I agree with it as a socio-musical essay. As a market analysis, perhaps.

[foldedpath]

Not to say that I agree with it as a socio-musical essay. As a market analysis, perhaps.

I would be interested in a market analysis, but one store-owner's experience is not a market analysis. Especially in the current market, when many of us are buying from Ebay or alternative outlets like the Cafe Classifieds here. Or buying direct from luthiers.

My Weber octave mandolin was bought used from Ebay. One of my two remaining guitars was bought direct from the luthier as a custom order (Holst nylon string), the other was a custom order from Santa Cruz. I'll bet many others here in the Cafe have a similar history, and this kind of thing doesn't show up in a market analysis based on what one retail store is selling.

P.S. I have no beef with Gryphon Strings. That's an amazing store and I've come close to buying something there, but the timing just wasn't right.

[Mandola87]

I'll just point out that one reason for these trends is the use of all three instruments to support solo singers and instrumentalists. So rather than being INFLUENCED by the ubiquity of the guitar - it's that the guitar is ubiquitous BECAUSE of its (comparatively) large range, exactly in the human voice range. (It spans the lower notes of many male singers, up to the higher notes of many women)

It was recently in the news (link) that the "secret" behind Stradivarius violins was the fact that they closely approximate the human voice. Perhaps then all string instrumentalists are just subconsciously trying to mimic the human voice rather than guitars? Given that violins and mandolins are in the exact same range, that seems a more likely theory to me.

Another thing maybe worth considering is that many (maybe most) of the non-classical mandolinists I meet these days seem to have started on guitar. Historically however perhaps it was more likely to start on violin/fiddle, or at least be playing violin/fiddle tunes? If so, then perhaps more of today's players do have the guitar in mind whereas earlier generations had the violin in mind?

In short, I don't really know where I stand on this, but I suspect the situation is a lot more complex than the guitar-centric article suggests. That said, it was an interesting article and an even more interesting debate here, so thanks for sharing!

[HoGo]

Guitars 10 years later? I did not follow that because the L-5 started production in 1922 like the F-5? True?

I believe first L-5 came in '24. Have to check the archives though.
OK, there is one in '23 that could count as prototype...

[fscotte]

Inside every mandolin is a guitar just trying to get out.

Wouldnt that be a better title?

[Tim N]

Inside every mandolin is a guitar just trying to get out.

Wouldnt that be a better title?

That sounds a bit like the little toe wanting to be a bicep! But where would we be without the little toe?

[Eric Platt]

Interesting article. I understand where he's coming from. More guitar players now probably play uke, mando and/or banjo than before. At least outside of certain bluegrass and old-time circles. And they are maybe having an influence on the evolution of the instruments.

As to the rise of the CBOM in popularity, maybe it's because of the availability of inexpensive instruments like the Eastman and Pono that are fueling this? Much like the Taylor 150e helped create a small boom in the 12 string market when it was introduced. Whether this translates into sustained popularity or just another niche market is hard to say.

[Bertram Henze]

Inside every mandolin is a guitar just trying to get out.

Wouldnt that be a better title?

A more controversial title would be "When will mandolin, banjo and ukulele players learn to play a real guitar?"
And it would take that often-heard innocent remark about the "little guitar" to a new level. The electric tenor uke on my wall has already been called a toy guitar...

[Bernie Daniel]

Inside every mandolin is a guitar just trying to get out.

Wouldnt that be a better title?

and it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle then for a guitar to get out of a mandolin....(no disrespect for Mathew 16:24)