Yesterday I saw in a documentary a short clip of a classical string octet with a double bass that had no tail piece. It had what looked like four extra pieces of string or wire connecting the strings to the bass. I've never seen this before. Can someone enlighten me on the why and how?
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Double Bass bass with no tail piece?
- Thread starter Matthijs
- Start date
- Aug 1, 2005
- 3,546
- 1,421
- Disclosures
- Private Inventor - Bass Capos
It really depends on the bass. Some people really love them, but not everyone. It does seem that they are used more by arco players than jazz guys...
It does depend on the bass. I found that on one bass, it made the bass much more resonant and improved the sound of the instrument, as well as fixing a wolf tone. On another bass it had much the same effect. Some of my colleagues have found that it has improved the overall sound and resonance of their basses as well. On my basses the cable tailpiece gave the basses a looser feel as well. It's maybe not for everyone but in my experience it's a good thing. As it's not all that expensive, it's worth trying.
Thanks guys, I already found the site after Powerbass his post. And judging by the google pictures, what I saw was an older Marvin tailpiece without the dampening. I also read the claims and testimonials, but one can't help but wonder, if they are that wonderfull: why do we still use those heavy pieces of wood? Anyway the reasoning behind it seems pretty sound to me. I also think it's pretty straightforward to install, or maybe even diy, myself. It might be an interesting experiment for the holidays.
Because you won't get longer strings beyond the extended E/C. Some companies don't even have the machines for such long strings. And the strings would get much more expensive that way. So the Marvin Tailpiece makes sense.
I made my own wire tailpiece from $8 of hardware store parts. It made my bass sound $10 000 better.
Well I suppose the point is that the final anchor point is traditionally at the end pin. Putting that stress at the saddle would peel the top off, probably. And you'd lose the downward pressure against the lower edge (saddle) that you get now, with ? results. As it is it's a bit like a strung through body electric I think. But with a much greater effect.
See, that's what I want to hear
It also look totally feasable to me.I get the wires are a good solution for our standard length strings, but my question is more general: if there are only upsides to this innovation why not have a mini tailpiece just about at the saddle as Povl suggested and have longer strings? I seriously doubt the production cost of the extra bit of string would be a large part of the costprice. Is it the cliché of the conservative double bass world, or are there other good reasons to keep a tailpiece as it is?
- Aug 1, 2005
- 3,546
- 1,421
- Disclosures
- Private Inventor - Bass Capos
A DIY wire tailpiece would probably work just as well, but what did you use for clamps? I can't believe anything you would get cheap at a hardware store would look very nice. An option would be to use wire rope crimp sleeves, but the tool you need is pretty expensive. I think that the Marvin is a pretty good solution at a fair price.
- Aug 1, 2005
- 3,546
- 1,421
- Disclosures
- Private Inventor - Bass Capos
As DoubleMidi says, making the strings that much longer would significantly increase the price.
Yes, there is inertia in the bass world, but I don't think conventional tailpieces are on their way out. The wire tailpiece works in some circumstances and not others. Anyway, you now have the choice, so I see no problem here.
I'm not trying to solve a problem: it's all just curiousity What I'm hoping for is someone like James Condino joining in with a good explanation why the dampening or resonating effects of a tail piece can still be very beneficial.
So, just for aguments sake: I'd think an extendend E/C for 4/4 would actually be long enough so I doubt there are any real technical limitations for manufacturers to not make a longer string. It's not a cost thing: the main costs are in no way in the materials. Doing the silk at both ends and making the ball-end costs probably way more than doubling the length. I doubt there is a substantial diffence in production costs for a 3/4 or 1/2 size string.
The real reason likely is that there is no demand. That would only change if a big manufacturer would introduce a new bass that outshines the rest because of the missing tailpiece. And if that manufacturer has also cut a deal with a string manufacturer for extra long strings (not to uncommon NS does it all the time). The "problems" are we don't exactly buy a new bass every year, if we do we seldomly buy new and if we did there are no big manufacturers with that kind of market power and if there was it would be very hard to mass-produce a bass that would outshine the work of a small scale luthier. So sure the Marvin is a good solution.
I just like to do stuff myself if it is within my reach. I can get my hands on a crimping tool for steel cables. and the Marvin solution for attaching the string looks like a slotted section of steel or aluminium tube. It al seems doable.
What I'm hoping for is someone like James Condino joining in with a good explanation why the dampening or resonating effects of a tail piece can still be very beneficial.So, just for aguments sake: I'd think an extendend E/C for 4/4 would actually be long enough so I doubt there are any real technical limitations for manufacturers to not make a longer string. It's not a cost thing: the main costs are in no way in the materials. Doing the silk at both ends and making the ball-end costs probably way more than doubling the length. I doubt there is a substantial diffence in production costs for a 3/4 or 1/2 size string.
The real reason likely is that there is no demand. That would only change if a big manufacturer would introduce a new bass that outshines the rest because of the missing tailpiece. And if that manufacturer has also cut a deal with a string manufacturer for extra long strings (not to uncommon NS does it all the time). The "problems" are we don't exactly buy a new bass every year, if we do we seldomly buy new and if we did there are no big manufacturers with that kind of market power and if there was it would be very hard to mass-produce a bass that would outshine the work of a small scale luthier. So sure the Marvin is a good solution.
I just like to do stuff myself if it is within my reach. I can get my hands on a crimping tool for steel cables. and the Marvin solution for attaching the string looks like a slotted section of steel or aluminium tube. It al seems doable.
Well....there are plenty of people around here with far more experience than I have, but thanks for the mention.
I make all kinds of tailpieces, across the spectrum of instruments from tiny little few gram things on mandolins, up to traditional heavy bricks of ebony on double basses. Two things that seem to matter the most are the individual bass that is getting fitted and likely even more, the old geezer playing the instrument in a particular style. I usually have a half dozen or so different tailpieces in the shop of varying mass and construction. The only way to tell which one is best for a particular situation is to clear off a workbench, hand over the string winder, and let someone change out the strings five or six different times and see what appeals to them. With this and almost all other setup issues, I try to remain neutral and unbiased. My opinion is pretty much worthless because at the end of the day, the owner will head home and live with the choice so I want them to make the decision.
If I was to make a generic call on the effects of tailpiece mass, I would say that for lighter basses played primarily pitz, they tend to like lighter tailpieces and respond better; even more so if you tune down to a dropped D, but for more solidly built basses that are played arco, the extra mass of a heavy traditional tailpiece seems to have a positive effect on dampening some of the unwanted overtones. I like light responsive basses, but I tend to be a Samsonite gorilla pounding the @#$% out of them every week on loud gigs, mostly rowdy pitz jazz and Django with a bit of overexcited slapping at certain moments, and at least medium Spirocores. Push that too hard with a bow and you may have a flurry of overtones and a few wolfs; too much of a good thing. Take the same bass and try to play it arco with a heavy right hand and a heavy tailpiece keeps it much more in line and orderly.
On a personal level, my number one complaint about tailpieces is why do so many folks make tailpieces with a traditional string "keyhole" with a hole that is too small for the string ball to fit through, so you have to completely unwind the strong ng and pass the whole string through rather than pop it out in three seconds???????????
On many days, people come in and already think they know exactly what they want from spending too much time on the internet and whoever writes the check gets what they ask for....and then they come back in three days and ask for the exact opposite......
j.
www.condino.com
www.kaybassrepair.com
I make all kinds of tailpieces, across the spectrum of instruments from tiny little few gram things on mandolins, up to traditional heavy bricks of ebony on double basses. Two things that seem to matter the most are the individual bass that is getting fitted and likely even more, the old geezer playing the instrument in a particular style. I usually have a half dozen or so different tailpieces in the shop of varying mass and construction. The only way to tell which one is best for a particular situation is to clear off a workbench, hand over the string winder, and let someone change out the strings five or six different times and see what appeals to them. With this and almost all other setup issues, I try to remain neutral and unbiased. My opinion is pretty much worthless because at the end of the day, the owner will head home and live with the choice so I want them to make the decision.
If I was to make a generic call on the effects of tailpiece mass, I would say that for lighter basses played primarily pitz, they tend to like lighter tailpieces and respond better; even more so if you tune down to a dropped D, but for more solidly built basses that are played arco, the extra mass of a heavy traditional tailpiece seems to have a positive effect on dampening some of the unwanted overtones. I like light responsive basses, but I tend to be a Samsonite gorilla pounding the @#$% out of them every week on loud gigs, mostly rowdy pitz jazz and Django with a bit of overexcited slapping at certain moments, and at least medium Spirocores. Push that too hard with a bow and you may have a flurry of overtones and a few wolfs; too much of a good thing. Take the same bass and try to play it arco with a heavy right hand and a heavy tailpiece keeps it much more in line and orderly.
On a personal level, my number one complaint about tailpieces is why do so many folks make tailpieces with a traditional string "keyhole" with a hole that is too small for the string ball to fit through, so you have to completely unwind the strong ng and pass the whole string through rather than pop it out in three seconds???????????
On many days, people come in and already think they know exactly what they want from spending too much time on the internet and whoever writes the check gets what they ask for....and then they come back in three days and ask for the exact opposite......
j.
www.condino.com
www.kaybassrepair.com
Last edited:
