mandolin evolution

[SincereCorgi]

While a couple of features are aesthetic (scroll, purfling, points), violins are otherwise brutally simple in design. They look like that because that's the design that gives the power and volume and balanced sound that musicians prized. You could make a tubby rebec or little gamba, or add extra strings or sympathetic drones under the neck or something, but if you change enough details it's not going to be able to do what people expect from a modern violin anymore. If you want to redesign something, I suggest the bassoon.

[Tom Coletti]

If you want to redesign something, I suggest the bassoon.

Winchester experimented with a modified bassoon design back in the 1890s:



Significantly less people died from exposure to this variation of the instrument than the traditional bassoon.

--Tom

[bratsche]

Then there are the people who try to make the viola more ergonomic, and wind up with Elephant Man looking designs.

bratsche

[Nick Gellie]

JeffD

Look at Marty Jacobson's website and the group that follows the construction of his mandolins. He is highly innovative. Some of his designs are 21st century versions of the 20th century mandolin design

[JeffD]

I can't comment on what I can't imagine, but that doesn't mean there aren't infinite possibilities, it just means I can't imagine them.

You have a good point though, at where and what, at a minimum, can be called a mandolin. And what changes render the results no longer a mandolin. For example, for some reason the mandolin is no longer just a variation of the lute. The mandolin transcended the lute. The lute is the mandolin that did not evolve.

Perhaps someday there will be the mandolin, what ever it might look like and be, and something called a bluegrass mandolin, which is what we know of as the mandolin today.

[Jim Garber]

Gibson at the turn of the 20th century and again 2 decades later came up with what was a far superior design for the mandolin. For 50 years almost no one even tried to improve on that design or really even copy it.

Contemporary with Gibson's designs were other carved-top mandolin makers, notably Lyon & Healy, Bacon, D'Angelico and Epiphone. Yes, they did not corner the market as Gibson did, however, the market for mandolins even in the 1920s was not all that large, certainly not large enough to support the number of makers that are around today. Banjos and then guitars were the most popular of the fretted instruments at that time. In any case, Gibson did not live in a vacuum and there were certainly other makers nipping at their heels.

Bear in mind also that there are lots of innovations that never got past the design phase and, for one reason or another, either did not get produced or were not accepted by the public of players -- check out the Google patent search for many examples. A prime example that does come to mind is the post-Gibson activities of Lloyd Loar.

[stevedenver]

It is my observation that many musicians are very traditional, and
most humans want something familiar and accepted, in whatever 'social circle' they may move. An item that reflects values and status. Gibsons archtops are a perfect example of orchestral appointments (ebony, violin like bursts, etc) on archtops guitars, etc.

I liken this to folks who revel in the chance to taste some food they've never seen, or those who wont touch it, simply because its totally unfamiliar.

I have seen many technical advancements, particularly in guitars, which players simply don't accept. Not all art is viewed as such, and all you need to do is flip through some of the guitar books highlighting cutting edge builders and their designs.

Also, there are instruments, designs, colors etc, that tend to reflect , or better mimic, accepted images. Playing older music? A muso may not want something modern. Playing metal, you want black with or without studs, pointed like a knife, spear or hatchet, too, etc. You send a message about who you are, your image, your music, etc.

This may, therefore, be a large part of accepting a benchmark.
and of course, a product must sell, and therefore, we have ...in the guitar world, Les Pauls, strats, teles, drednoughts, OOO's , etc, essentially a limited number of popular designs, and not for lack of creativity. Even colors like blue, green and purple are not accepted because, imho, they are not traditional...even a cherry burst, on the 'wrong' instrument can put off many.

I think, too, to answer the question, Hans Brentrup's Stealth and V6 and V8 models are simply amazing. Clearly a nod to the F5, yet sculptured, sleek, and functional.

I think the Rigel and Mix designs are superb, and I voted with my dollars on those too. I have to compare my Rigel to a Stratocaster for simple ergonomic comfort-and that's merely the rounded body, as well as straight pull on the strings from the tuners (not unique to Rigel, but came about, to my knowledge, as early as the snakehead )

Finally too, there is a point where design and function affect each other, and, sound changes, which is a much bigger aspect, truly a change not or personality but of character.
One need only try guitar effects on a mandolin to see that at some point, the mandolin loses its identity regarding amplified sound.

There are aesthetics. The F5 exemplifies turn of the century design, detail, hand labor, and unique appearance. Not unlike a guilded harp or ornately inlaid parlor guitar.

Do I want to play country style finger pickin blues on a Chapman stick, with a beer, and worn out jeans and boots?

....might reduce whatever fantasy or mindset I may have.....but it shouldn't.

And there lies the difference... strictly music and functionality, aesthetics and image, influence on the player, or something among those.

[Randi Gormley]

I've been thinking of all those old pieces about wanting to close the U.S. Patent office in the late 1800's because everything had already been invented.
And I've also been thinking about how few people even know what a mandolin is -- yes, because it's a niche instrument -- but also because it isn't a uniform instrument like, say, a harp. I'm not sure why the thought is that there's no change -- look at bowlbacks, ancient and modern; two-points, bandolims, flat tops, cylinder backs, reverse scrolls, side ports, scale length, five- and 10-strings and those lovely blue and green instruments that Sorensen and Girouard have posted on the 'in progress' string. No innovation? All the same color? Seriously?

[sunburst]

I've been thinking of all those old pieces about wanting to close the U.S. Patent office in the late 1800's because everything had already been invented.
And I've also been thinking about how few people even know what a mandolin is -- yes, because it's a niche instrument -- but also because it isn't a uniform instrument like, say, a harp. I'm not sure why the thought is that there's no change -- look at bowlbacks, ancient and modern; two-points, bandolims, flat tops, cylinder backs, reverse scrolls, side ports, scale length, five- and 10-strings and those lovely blue and green instruments that Sorensen and Girouard have posted on the 'in progress' string. No innovation? All the same color? Seriously?

As I said, variations on as theme.
All have a nut, bridge, straight strings, a neck and a sound box. Most have 8 strings in double courses... all "inside the box" as I see it.

[Kieran]

[QUOTE=bratsche;1202177]Then there are the people who try to make the viola more ergonomic, and wind up with Elephant Man looking designs.

bratsche


The current online edition of the strad features an 'interactive' cello:
http://http://thestrad.com/latest/news/futuristic-cello-projects-videos-and-lighting-displays

[mandroid]

http://www.luisandclark.com/ being an example of the carbon fiber orchestral stringed instrument family .

I did see a regular spruce and maple violin made without the 4 points in the sides,
Simplified ..

so thats not new, either..


dont know if the concertmaster lets a black instrument into the string section,
When the others are that uniform brown shade..

[Perry Babasin]

[Jim Adwell]

Mandotubolin?

[Jim Garber]

Mandotubolin?

Strohviol, original would be circa 1915, for recording on early acoustic equipment.

[Jordan Mong]

Here are some cool violins and violas of different designs I have found


EDIT:
Frank M. Ashley

[Jim Garber]

The only two violins I play are made in 1915 and designed by Frank M. Ashley. More info here. You can put them in your picture collection, Jordan.

[bratsche]

Here are some cool violins and violas of different designs I have found

The first one has six strings on it, so I don't know what kind of instrument it's supposed to be. Maybe some kind of modernized viola da gamba? The upper bout on the left has some strange things on it (posts for some kind of sympathetic strings?) but the resolution's too small to make them out. It's an odd duck, to be sure!

The second one has a bridge that looks like someone took a very thick slab bridge blank and just tapered off the top of it, instead of thinning all of it down, as is normally done. Very odd.

The first one is much more interesting to look at, but it isn't a violin or a viola, that much I'm sure of...

bratsche

[Jim Garber]

Hah! I recognized that one as the work of Fred Carlson. he calls it a Guitarangi da gamba, 30-string bowed or plucked "guitar"; carved top, flat back, gut and steel strings. Some explanation is here.

The other one looks like a modern copy of a Chanot violin. Not sure of the intent or if that bridge is odd but I see what you are saying. Chanot and Savart made odd ball violins in France in the 19th century. More about oddball violins here.