Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 33 of 33

Thread: Modern vs Traditional Tone

  1. #26
    Loarcutus of MandoBorg DataNick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Fallbrook, CA
    Posts
    3,837

    Default Re: Modern vs Traditional Tone

    I like'm both.....that's all I know; let's pick!
    1994 Gibson F5L - Weber signed


    "Mandolin brands are a guide, not gospel! I don't drink koolaid and that Emperor is naked!"
    "If you wanna get soul Baby, you gots to get the scroll..."
    "I would rather play music anyday for the beggar, the thief, and the fool!"
    "Perfection is not attainable; but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence" Vince Lombardi
    Playing Style: RockMonRoll Desperado Bluegrass Desperado YT Channel

  2. The following members say thank you to DataNick for this post:

    WW52 

  3. #27
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    4,787

    Default Re: Modern vs Traditional Tone

    In my mind's ear, for Modern Tone: Collings, Eastman. For Traditional Tone: Gibson, Kentucky, as examples of mandolins from typically opposite ends of the cost spectrum. The thing is, though, I've heard F-5 Loar's 1923 Loar in person, and have heard Thile's 1924 Loar in person a couple of times, and their tones couldn't be more different. Man, the 1923 just woofs...maybe the most powerful chop I've heard live, but it's top end, while excellent, pales a bit compared to its bass and midrange response. The 1924 has a more refined, midrangy (with excellent trebles all the way up the neck) focus, with an excellent but not boomy bass. For most applications, I prefer the 1924 tone (which is why I've really been enjoying my Collings MT lately), but for Bill Monroe-esque BG, it's hard to beat the chop/thump of the 1923 tone, which is why I still love my Silverangel, too. So even defining "traditional tone" is difficult.

    It's hard to describe tone with words, and it's funny how all of us will hear the same mandolins just a little differently. Jordan, I agree with your point that it's mostly the player, too, but it's nice to have different tonal palettes to play with. Heck, I think Thile sounded great back when he was playing his Rigel, too!
    Chuck

  4. #28
    Innocent Bystander JeffD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Upstate New York
    Posts
    24,807
    Blog Entries
    56

    Default Re: Modern vs Traditional Tone

    Quote Originally Posted by DataNick View Post
    I like'm both.....that's all I know; let's pick!
    Fundamentally I agree with this 100%. Not that the discussion is pointless, far from it, but it does cut into one's picking time.
    A talent for trivializin' the momentous and complicatin' the obvious.

    The entire staff
    funny....

  5. The following members say thank you to JeffD for this post:


  6. #29
    Registered User fscotte's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Zanesville, Ohio
    Posts
    2,490

    Default Re: Modern vs Traditional Tone

    Don Macrostie probably describes the traditional tone better than anyone else, since he's been so intimately involved in recreating it. One thing is for sure, if your high end notes are "zingy", it ain't a traditional tone.

    "...crystalline, brittle highs, with a bass that is not overly woody or thuddy, but strong and clear. Other Loar characteristics are good note separation (all the individual strings can be heard when playing chords or double stops), wonderful clarity throughout, and volume evenness high to low (no weak spots). They all have these characteristics, but differ slightly in where their strengths lie. The Vintage 25’s strength is in the high end. Clear up to 10th, 12th or even 15th fret those trebles almost get stronger. Vintage 24 voicing has a sweeter, more mid-range strength—clear highs, good bass, and
    a little darker. The Vintage 22 is strong on the ends—not quite as strong as the 25 on the highest frets, and really strong low, not as sweet. It has an “in your face,”
    edgier tone (bark). The Vintage July 9th resembles the Vintage 22 very much, but has a little more of every- thing. These are all subtle differences."

  7. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to fscotte For This Useful Post:


  8. #30
    Registered User Ky Slim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    588

    Default Re: Modern vs Traditional Tone

    In the video comparison of the Collings and Pickin Dave's A5: Both mandolins and both pickers sound great. The Collings sounds brighter to my ears. One thing that I noticed was that the guy playing the Collings plays with more of a forward pick angle where the other guy seems to come in more flat to the strings or with less angle. Anther thing was that Kym, on the Collings, remained at a pretty consistent distance from the bridge where the other guy moved forward and back some. I don't thing these things would make a traditional mando sound modern or the other way around but they are worth noting.

  9. The following members say thank you to Ky Slim for this post:


  10. #31
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Va
    Posts
    2,573

    Default Re: Modern vs Traditional Tone

    When listening to recordings, the mic can make the difference. A mandolin that sounds zingy, as one said is not a trad, on a condenser mic will sound entirely different on a ribbon. EQ would also play a part, most of what has been talked about in this thread has been recordings or at least amplified in some way.

  11. #32
    Registered User Ivan Kelsall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Manchester - Lancashire - NW England
    Posts
    14,187

    Default Re: Modern vs Traditional Tone

    I think that the OP means the tone of the mandolins that we've come to expect (desire ?) to hear in a Bluegrass music context. That said,many Bluegrass mandolin players,don't play Gibson mandolins,they play other makes,some of which have ''Gibson-like'' attributes,while others don't.

    With so many builders building today,we have possibly the largest choice of 'makes' of mandolin ever !. What we do is to make our own choice from their offerings. Some folk will prefer a 'Gibson-like' (trad.) tone,others will prefer the more modern tone. Myself,i could live with either - however i'm fortunate enough to have 2 'modern' toned mandolins,my Weber & Ellis,while my Lebeda is distinctly 'trad.' toned. If i was playing in a Bluegrass band,i'd honestly use any one of them - in fact,with their crystal clear,open tones,possibly the Ellis & Weber would cut through the band sound more than my Lebeda,especially the Weber with it's DR MD11 strings on it,it's a bit of a beast in the volume stakes.
    Bottome line,i like 'em all,
    Ivan
    Weber F-5 'Fern'.
    Lebeda F-5 "Special".
    Stelling Bellflower BANJO
    Tokai - 'Tele-alike'.
    Ellis DeLuxe "A" style.

  12. #33
    but that's just me Bertram Henze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    0.8 mpc from NGC224, upstairs
    Posts
    10,054

    Default Re: Modern vs Traditional Tone

    Quote Originally Posted by fscotte View Post
    This is modern...

    This is traditional...

    ...The traditional tone has a more hollow sound with brittle high notes.
    To my ears, the first mandolin has dry tuning, the second one is audibly wet (may well be a result of sloppy tuning rather than intentional technique). There may be more differences behind that, but to let me hear them the tuning would have to be made exactly equal first.

    This brings me to the theory that "modern tone" was not possible before the advent of electronic tuners...

    If you have any questions, I'll be over in my corner.
    the world is better off without bad ideas, good ideas are better off without the world

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •