Double Bass A message from Chuck Traeger

[Don Higdon]

Maybe I'll piss off some scientists in the TB family, but science alone won't do it in bass making and repair. I acknowledge that no one has claimed that it does. However, borrowing from Gary Zukav, the advent of "science" marks the beginning of the ascent of left hemispheric thought thinking into the dominant mode of western cognition, and the descent of right hemispheric thinking into the underground.
Arnold Schnitzer built his Ergo basses with substantial measures of experience and pure intuition. They've all been slightly different, and they've all found homes with excellent players.To talk with and see his mentor Lou DeLeone work can be breathtaking. At TB also, not enough recognition has been given to intuitive thought. Validation of opinion by means of "science" has led to some threads that make my hair hurt.
Your humble servant,
Donosaurus

 

[Matthew Tucker]

Funny thing is, "intuition" is usually based on experience with repeated successes or failures, rather than coming from nowhere.

For example I'm pretty sure I use my intuition when shaping a bass bar; not tapping it to get the right tone, or going off strict measurements.

I suppose if I gazed at the entrails of a goat for long enough, and based my bassbar shaping only on that, then it would be "pure intuition".

But, I think my intuition is based on my own little unofficial "laboratory", which is my results and experience so far (science?), plus the tips and tricks I learn from others along the way (research?). Plus the courage (or recklessness) to experiment a bit!

So I put it to you that what looks like "pure intuition" - even from Arnold - is not just divine inspiration, but the result of an accumulation of knowledge and empirical results from years of trying things out, improving, reshaping, recovering from mistakes etc. That's not at all putting it down. But it's not entirely unscientific.

 

[Don Higdon]

I don't know - did you expect me to disagree?

 

[drurb]

Funny thing is, "intuition" is usually based on experience with repeated successes or failures, rather than coming from nowhere.

For example I'm pretty sure I use my intuition when shaping a bass bar; not tapping it to get the right tone, or going off strict measurements.

I suppose if I gazed at the entrails of a goat for long enough, and based my bassbar shaping only on that, then it would be "pure intuition".

But, I think my intuition is based on my own little unofficial "laboratory", which is my results and experience so far (science?), plus the tips and tricks I learn from others along the way (research?). Plus the courage (or recklessness) to experiment a bit!

So I put it to you that what looks like "pure intuition" - even from Arnold - is not just divine inspiration, but the result of an accumulation of knowledge and empirical results from years of trying things out, improving, reshaping, recovering from mistakes etc. That's not at all putting it down. But it's not entirely unscientific.

Perfect!

...However, borrowing from Gary Zukav, the advent of "science" marks the beginning of the ascent of left hemispheric thought thinking into the dominant mode of western cognition, and the descent of right hemispheric thinking into the underground.

Well, I agree with your view of experience coupled with Matthews. As I've stated before, we don't always need objective, hard-core experiments. The experiences of highly skilled craftsmen and their accumulated knowledge are quite valid, informative, and are to be respected. That said, I do disagree with the quote above. The left/right hemispheric "thinking" styles are overblown in the "lay press" and I don't believe that there is an exclusivity or opposition between science and art. Just my $0.02.

 

[Matthew Tucker]

I don't know - did you expect me to disagree?

No not at all Don. You underlined "pure intuition" and I was unpicking that a little. Perhaps you were meaning something else though?

 

[Mark Perna]

The best science starts with intuitive leaps. Virtually all major scientific breakthroughs start with someone intuiting how nature works and going back and figuring out the logical steps between the starting and ending points later. Of course, the power of science is that it has to work. If a theory doesn't match up with reality, it doesn't matter how beautiful it was or how much people like it or how much people want it to be true, if it doesn't work, it gets discarded. That's a pretty powerful system.

 

[Damon Rondeau]

What's missing isn't so much pure science as practical engineering. If there was as big a market for double basses as there is for, oh, I don't know... blenders, sports cars, industrial machinery ... there would be a financial motivation to study materials and methods more systematically -- at greater scale and cost too. The reason we don't have arguments about concrete curing (to use the previous example) isn't so much all the genius ideas scientists have originated, but because of the immense amount of engineering study that's gone into it over the years.

But isn't it nicer that double basses aren't like concrete? That there still is something so beautiful and esoteric and rare that's made by hand by people with beautiful skills? I think so, but I don't see how a little systematic testing of materials, designs and processes would be bad thing. I think most craftspeople would welcome that kind of information.

 

[notabene]

One constant wild card in trying to systematize the "science" and even engineering of making a bass is that each different component piece of wood is different. Each tree is different. The age of each piece is different. We are dealing with a very complex "organic" set of materials. If it was all carbon fiber or the cursed aluminum, it would be much easier to systematize the variables for maximum results, but wood never lets you forget it was once alive.

Steven

 

[TheBassShop]

Funny thing is, "intuition" is usually based on experience with repeated successes or failures, rather than coming from nowhere.

For example I'm pretty sure I use my intuition when shaping a bass bar; not tapping it to get the right tone, or going off strict measurements.

I suppose if I gazed at the entrails of a goat for long enough, and based my bassbar shaping only on that, then it would be "pure intuition".

But, I think my intuition is based on my own little unofficial "laboratory", which is my results and experience so far (science?), plus the tips and tricks I learn from others along the way (research?). Plus the courage (or recklessness) to experiment a bit!

So I put it to you that what looks like "pure intuition" - even from Arnold - is not just divine inspiration, but the result of an accumulation of knowledge and empirical results from years of trying things out, improving, reshaping, recovering from mistakes etc. That's not at all putting it down. But it's not entirely unscientific.

Totally agree Mathew.

When I started repairing Chuck’s book really gave me a deeper insight into the sound part of the bass as well as the repairing. Although I don’t refer to it as much as I did back then it is still apart of the collection of books and personal notes I keep right near my benches. It’s a resource and I use it when I need to.