"To Cut, or Not to Cut. That is the Question"

[KSB - Ken Smith]

In March of 2004 I made a Thread about a new Bass I had just bought titled "Name That Bass". It was a complete mystery and was dubbed the 'Mystery Bass'. At that time I had two Basses that I used but was looking for a fine Olde Orchestral Bass to settle down with. That was before I started buying other Basses and selling them off after restoration and a few concerts to sample the goods so to speak while I wait for my 'Holy Grail'.

Old Thread here: " Name That Bass "

The Mystery Bass is now on its final leg of work before the re-assembly starts. The Top and Back have been off and the Ribs are in 5 sections with he upper Bouts still attached to the Neck Block. All the Blocks are still intact glued to one of the Rib pieces. The Top, Back and most of the Ribs are done as far as all the cracks go. The Bass Bar and Back X-brace will stay as is.

Now for the question. When I bought this it was to become my main Bass so playability was a major factor for me. I discussed this with my old friend, fellow Bassist, long time repairman/restorer and mentor, Paul Biase. The String length was currently close to 44" and I was looking for 42" maximum. He suggested cutting the Ribs at the Bout/corner block, sliding them down on the corner blocks and trimming the Top and Back around the new lowered shape and then restore the Purfling on the Top as the Back is un-purfled (those lazy English!).

This plan has been on the table for over 2 years now but many things have happened since then that is now giving me second thoughts. First, I got a large German Bass in trade awhile back that had a similar String length. I brought it to Arnold and he suggested a 'Block cut' as he called it. the Top and Back came off for other repairs so he made a new Neck Block, Set the Neck Lower in the Block and then trimmed only the Back slightly as well as giving it some added neck-stand to play over the shoulders. He got the String Length from 43 7/8ths to 42 3/8ths. That's 1 1/2" less without cutting the Bass. Before; http://www.kensmithbasses.com/Double...relliBass2.htm
After; http://www.kensmithbasses.com/Double...orelliBass.htm

I used this bass for a few concerts and even did Beethovans 5th fingering all the moving low notes on the extension. It was tiring but rewarding.

Arnold was also able to reduce the String length on the Prescott but that was mostly due to the neck graft being a D-neck from an Eb-neck. We also cheated the Bridge a little as well as on the Morelli.

One day I was in Arnold's shop and he gave me a huge Italian Bass to try. I played it and got around kinda ok. He said "you just played a 44" String Length". I was surprised but after taking a second look, I saw that the numbers were in my head a little as well.

The point of this Thread is to Poll opinions with discussion as to (1) Leave the Bass with it's shoulders as-is and do the 'Block Cut', D-neck graft (already planned) and cheat the Bridge up a bit, (2) Cut it as planned or (3) Do nothing and play it as a 44" and possibly cripple myself over time..lol

Your thoughts please Ladies, Gentleman, Luthiers and Luthierettes.......

http://www.kensmithbasses.com/Double..._that_bass.htm

[D McCartney]

Sorry Ken, I'm not a luthier, and only very new to DB. But I've been repairing old and new watches for 30 years. One thing I have learned is, you can remove material much easier than you can put it back on. With that in mind, option 1 might look pretty good.
Will option 2 change the sound that you liked when you bought the bass?

[KSB - Ken Smith]

Originally Posted by D McCartney

Sorry Ken, I'm not a luthier, and only very new to DB. But I've been repairing old and new watches for 30 years. One thing I have learned is, you can remove material much easier than you can put it back on.

That's fine and thanks for your point of view. I am very aware of that but I have seen more old Basses cut and modified to be used in Orchestras than I have seen Basses in their original form. It's a fact of life with this big Basses and I think they have been cutting them since at least the 19th century if not before. Even Dragonetti's d'Salo was cut when he got it and he died in 1846. Several of the Basses I have owned were cut when I got them so I am no stranger to a modified Bass for easier playability.

The main question here is should I go slightly over 42" or even to 43" and let well enough alone? This way I could slightly modify and adjust the length and still hear the full air volume and tone of the Bass. I bought it unplayable so I have no idea what this Bass can do. It's all speculation up to now.

Thank's for your reply.

[PIZZAcato]

I'd be opting for the Block Cut. Option number two makes me shiver. And also this will be your main bass and it'd be a gamble to cut and possibly do very bad things to your sound. I would try to avoid the cutting if possible and you can always get used to the longer scale... it won't kill you... *knock on wood*

P.S. this really is a toughy though

[Matthew Tucker]

Ken, that mystery bass has a lovely channel around the upper bout. How would that look once it has been cut into?

The deep-set neck sounds like a reversable change, but the cut-down is permanent. My conservative side says - the bass probably has a pedigree, even if unknown, so don't change it irreversibly. Leave the table intact and yeah, cheat the bridge a bit!

Can you post some pix of the back bracing?

[KSB - Ken Smith]

Originally Posted by Matthew Tucker

Ken, that mystery bass has a lovely channel around the upper bout. How would that look once it has been cut into?

The deep-set neck sounds like a reversable change, but the cut-down is permanent. My conservative side says - the bass probably has a pedigree, even if unknown, so don't change it irreversibly. Leave the table intact and yeah, cheat the bridge a bit!

Can you post some pix of the back bracing?

The shoulders would look almost the same up at the neck but the edges will loose their curve after they would be trimmed to match the shape of the Ribs. The plan was to cut the Ribs about 2" or less from the corner block area of the upper bout and re-attach the Ribs to the upper Corner block. Then re-trim the Top and Back to match so the upper bout would then be shorter making the string length shorter. With the 'Block Cut' the Ribs might be trimmed about 1/2" up at the Neck and a deeper Neck-set into the Block (or new neck block if needed) would be done. The Back Neck Button would get the most trimming with this method. Cheating the Bridge will only help about 1/2" in the String length. I don't remember if the Bass had a D or Eb neck when I estimated the old string length but it will be a D-Neck. I bought a beautiful piece of Maple with matching curl to the Back about 2 years ago. The gears going in the Bass are English made Baker style but on the modern side.

On the Back Braces, I don't have any Pics now but I will get some next time I am in NY hopefully before the Top goes on. The original lower crossbars were twin rails about 1cm wide and spaced about 2cms apart. The scars of this early gamba style bracing are still visible. I guess the maker thought this would be stronger and lighter for the over 29" (originally) wide lower bout. The Purfling runs off both the upper and lower bouts showing about 1/2" of trimming the width per side was done at some point. I don't know how tall those rails were but at least as tall as the were wide if not more.

[anonymous0726]

If string length is your only issue, I would cheat it at the neck block and tighten up the string spacing at the nut. Leave the poor fiddle alone, otherwise.

[Matthew Tucker]

were you intending to replace the neck block entirely?

[Wil de Sola]

When I saw the title of this thread, I thought that perhaps we had changed course and entered the realm of circumcision.

[KSB - Ken Smith]

Originally Posted by Matthew Tucker

were you intending to replace the neck block entirely?

We don't know yet if it is even usable. It is not the original from what we can tell. Actually the Bass had a small piece of Maple left in the back like a Tab from a blockless Bass so this could have been Blockless and with the smaller notch in the top, a previous restorer so fit to do a dovetail neckblock. Just speculation as we don't know what went on exactly in the last 200 years with this beast. A new Block will be no more disturbing than replacing the lining where needed. It's just a utility piece of wood. Both my Morelli and Prescott got new Blocks during their restoration so it's no big deal. It gets what it needs.

Ray, String length is an issue mainly due to playability. The measurement from the Bridge to the Neck is way long. Getting over shoulders is one thing but reaching the end of the fingerboard is another. This Bass will be set-up as a full sized Orchestral Bass and not at all intended for solo work. It's a 'sit back and enjoy the ride' type of Bass in my eyes.

[anonymous0726]

The string length is only a huge deal in the bottom few positions, as the 'box' of a full step multiplied against string crossings can get big, so what can be done is to tighten up the string spacing just a bit and the long string is again playable. By the 2nd position or so the difference between 42" and 43" is almost unnoticable.

[KSB - Ken Smith]

Originally Posted by Wil de Sola

When I saw the title of this thread, I thought that perhaps we had changed course and entered the realm of circumcision.

Wil, it's less than a 10% cut. Does that fall into your mis-read as well?

[KSB - Ken Smith]

Originally Posted by Ray Parker

The string length is only a huge deal in the bottom few positions, as the 'box' of a full step multiplied against string crossings can get big, so what can be done is to tighten up the string spacing just a bit and the long string is again playable. By the 2nd position or so the difference between 42" and 43" is almost unnoticable.

Ray, I am not 100% sure of all the types of gigs you play but when you are playing Cello parts in Mozart and Beethovan pieces, String length is a Huge factor. I had a bit of trouble playing the 5th with the Morelli as it required alot of stretching and pivoting. Intonation was on the fence being so exposed in the solo sections with the Cellos. My Bass was almost 2x as loud as anyone else in the section as well. This will be an Orchestral Bass only for me and playing some of the great Symphonies is tough enough with a 41 1/2" string length let alone anything way bigger. The Shoulders?, that's another issue. In classical pieces we go up to C and D fairly often in the thumb position and occassionally higher. I just want the Bass in the best possible playing condition and size so it stays in use and not in a basement or attic again like it did most of last century due to its unwiedly size.

[Matthew Tucker]

I wasn't thinking of conserving the neck block, more of the potential of reshaping a new one so that for example the ribs could almost be let into the block like some self-neck basses. In other words, the ribs would not sweep upwards towards the heel, more rounded, a bit like your Dodd. I am thinking that this could allow you to set the neck much deeper while retaining the heel projection and most of the outline of the front plate. does that make sense?

[KSB - Ken Smith]

Originally Posted by Matthew Tucker

I wasn't thinking of conserving the neck block, more of the potential of reshaping a new one so that for example the ribs could almost be let into the block like some self-neck basses. In other words, the ribs would not sweep upwards towards the heel, more rounded, a bit like your Dodd. I am thinking that this could allow you to set the neck much deeper while retaining the heel projection and most of the outline of the front plate. does that make sense?

The Block has to be lower into the bass by about 1/2" and big enough to set the neck in deeper. Currently the Bass is modified from and English Gamba style "Neck-thru" blockless type as so described in the Book 'The Brittish Violin'. The book shows an 18th century Violin made like this.

This is the Morelli before the block-cut, http://www.kensmithbasses.com/Double...s/fullback.jpg
http://www.kensmithbasses.com/Double...es/pufling.JPG

And this is it after the cut, http://www.kensmithbasses.com/Double...images/693.jpg
http://www.kensmithbasses.com/Double...images/688.jpg
http://www.kensmithbasses.com/Double...images/705.jpg
http://www.kensmithbasses.com/Double...images/692.jpg

The Block area would be flatter than before with wide Ebony strips covering the top view of the Block that the Ribs do not cover as seen in the 'after' photos. The Ribs will be cut back just a bit to allow for this lower set block. Currently the Neck just sits up on the Ribs with only a Dovetail going into the shallow block.

If I can, I will go into NY soon and take some pics while the Bass is still apart. I wish I had done this before any work was started when it first came apart just for comparison purposes.

[KSB - Ken Smith]

This is the b4 and after from the sides to compare.

Before; http://www.kensmithbasses.com/Double...ages/Rside.JPG
http://www.kensmithbasses.com/Double...ages/Lside.JPG

After; http://www.kensmithbasses.com/Double...images/700.jpg
http://www.kensmithbasses.com/Double...images/707.jpg

After the Cut, the upper Ribs are shorted going up to the Neck.

[anonymous0726]

What I was proposing with the string spacing at the nut (and bridge) was specifically meant to address things like open 5ths. The diagonal from an Eb on the D string to the Bb on the G string, for instance, can be alleviated greatly if the D and G strings are closer together. This adjustment can make a 43" bass feel a helluva lot shorter.

Two things, though: If you get the strings too close together at the bridge you can have trouble getting a clean bite with the bow on the middle strings in TP, especially if you play the strings high. At the other end you if you get them really close, it'll take you some practice to get the string that you want with the left hand (old dogs, new tricks).

[Matthew Tucker]

Looks a very clever way to achieve what you are after. Does the bass feel any different to play with such a shallow heel after the "block cut"? I mean, around the neck joint?

What are the two dots near the button on the Morelli? Mere decoration, or registration pins??

[bejoyous]

Hi Ken;

I've seen a couple of female bassists have their string length shortened to accomidate their smaller hand size.

They had the fingerboard at the scroll-end cut about 2 cm short, then they had an extended nut made to fill up that 2 cm gap. The nut looked a bit like a mushroom or a fat letter "T".

Also, the bridge is moved up about 1.5 cm as well with the f-hole nicks lined up with the bottom of the bridge feet rather than in the middle. Voila, the string length is 3.5 cm shorter (1.38 inches). 44" - 1.38" = 42.62"; 43" - 1.38" = 41.62"

This saved the bass from having to go through major surgery or being permenently altered.

[KSB - Ken Smith]

Isn't TB great? Post a thought and you get ideas from all over the world in a flash.. Wow, I'm impressed. Great ideas guys. I will address you one by one now.

Ray, I used to have a beautiful Italian Bass that was cheated at the bridge to be almost 42" SL. I used a very close string spacing as well. When I recently re-united with Paul Biase I asked about the fate of my old Bridge with the pickup installed in it that I personally did in 1974. Paul sold my Bass in the early for me '90s after my playing retirement in 1988. Paul said, it's right here in my cabinet and sent it to me. I measured the width of the slots only to find they were from 23.5-24mm center to center. That's a bit under an inch (25.4mm). Arnold sets my Bridges at about 27mm for the Orchestral Basses. The 5er is about 25.5-26mm and that feels tight to me now. Back then, I didn't play in a Symphony so my bowing on jobs was minimal. Now I can see how 26-27mm is closer to normal when sawing away with an Orchestra. True it feels smaller if tighter spaced but intonation is not an option for me. I'm sure you know what I mean Ray but thanks for the suggestion in either case.

Matthew, I didn't play the Morelli at all befor it was altered. It too was unplayable when I got it as a trade in part for a Bass I sold. My old Italian had a wide Block cut-like heel and felt great as the Morelli did. Not really a fell thing as much as a survival thing to have a playable Bass. As far as the pins go, yes they must be for location for the back removal as they were there when I got the Bass.

Bejoyous, I have made a few False Nuts myself in the past but this works only on Eb neck stops. When you do this, you are pushing the F#, G etc higher up and harder to reach. I usually go for a D-stop at the heel and go from there. Cheating the Bridge is something done more commonly and works to a degree but if you take a good look at this Bass, the distance from the F notches to the bottom of the neck is about 2" longer than average. The top of this Bass is even longer than my Prescott and that beast is a challenge to reach anything past the heel and have it in tune until you get used to it. This Bass on the other hand has even wider upper bouts as well so making it playable is most important to me. The restoration cost for this Bass is more than the average Bass costs as was the Prescott. The Gilkes restoration is not far behind and I can only imagine what it will run for the Fendt to be put back into service. Playability is a must here. This is a serious Bass and if the Shoulders need to be cut down the road, they will get cut just like all the other old English and Italian Basses that grace todays professional Orchestras. This is one monster of a Bass and my goal here is to get it into top playing condition.