I doubt that since you will recall I did a graft on a similar King. Sorry you didn't appreciate me pulling on your chain.
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 Vintage King Mortone
- Thread starter Dave Burrill
- Start date
Thanks! I was glad you came down, it was a fun hang. And yes, I'm aware that the analogy was far from perfect, but it's the principle of the thing...
Jeff Bollbach
Jeff Bollbach Luthier, Inc.
This poor guy really got his thread hijacked on this one. But I felt the need to expound a bit more on this subject.
Heres the deal. Over the centuries many an instrument has been created. Some are rightly considered great art. Most are just good or average and plenty are doo-doo. Just like anything else. Now there have been luthiers over time that in their arrogance or misguidance irrevocably changed some of the great and good instruments to their detriment. This is what the luthiers credo addresses. No one cares if someone mucks about with the doo-doo. Well, mebbe some do. But to subscribe to the ideology that NO instrument should be altered from the makers intent is just plain dogmatic. The question is well where you draw the line. What is OK to do and on what instruments? Nick and I were talking about filling a Palatino with lime Jello and dropping it off a building at the ISB convention. Then again we talked about a lot of things. Reality got in our way and we got into far less trouble than we had hoped. Had we done it would it have been a sin against art and history? I dont think so. What if we did it to an Englehardt? A Kay? Maybe a financial blunder but not a mortal sin. I would like to go on record here and say that when it comes to factory produced, commercial instruments the luthiers credo is not very applicable. These are mass produced, usually geared towards a different market than who may own them now. For instance, Juzeks were produced generally to satisfy a lower niche in the market, often an institutional setting and were made to withstand the rigors in that setting. Durability was paramount. Now you have a dedicated pro player with one of these basses and he wants the best tone out of it possible and he will take care of it in the best possible way. It is no longer at the mercy of Johnny who took band in order to get out of Home Ec. If you can alter the bass to produce better tone or playability do you? Hell yes! Heres where I go on record and confess my sins. I have regraduated quite a few commercial basses like Juzeks and Thomas. Usually its the ribs. Most of these school type basses mic at about 4 mm on the ribs and most any maker will tell you that that is too thick. Clients have come to me asking me to make their basses better and I have done so. Did I do it for greed? Well if bloodying your knuckles for garbageman wages is greed than I guess Im guilty. These were commercial basses that now play more like a makers bass. Sue me.
Its pretty much a no-brainer when it comes to factory instruments. But what about changing a makers instrument? We have such reverence for these old basses-especially the Italians. Just add io to the end of a name and you can double the price. Well, Ive got news for you, not every old Italian guy was a genius. Plenty made B.S.O.s and P.O.S.s. Now what happens if you have an old Italian BSO that sounds like crap. Do we revere it just cuz its old? What if its plain to see how it could be improved? Oh no! we cant violate the luthiers credo! Just donate it to a museum and forget that you paid 6 grand for it. Cept no museum wants it.
Ive got a bass in my shop right now, a G. Pistucchi made in Naples 1905. A dog of an instrument. This guy was a hack-everything is wrong and hamhanded. It sounds like an ironing board with strings. Literally. The worst thing are the ribs. I posted pics of it some time ago-the c-bouts were plywood. The upper and lower bouts were 7mm thick. This is a thickness that would be almost impossible to bend but the curve was very gentle so it worked. The cs would have been impossible to bend-thats why they were laminated. What do you do with this bass? Restore it for 5k and sell it to a rockabilly player? Cuz the ribs were so thick that you could have stood on them. The owner requested that I thin the ribs and I did. Its going to sound like a real bass when I get finished.
If you can establish the precedent that in some instances it may be necessary to alter a makers bass where do you draw the line there? This is where it will get really sticky. In the end it will be up to each luthier as to what he/she feels comfortable doing. The luthiers credo should influence people to not practice arrogantly but it should also not paralyze those who can see a clear way to improve an instrument.
Heres the deal. Over the centuries many an instrument has been created. Some are rightly considered great art. Most are just good or average and plenty are doo-doo. Just like anything else. Now there have been luthiers over time that in their arrogance or misguidance irrevocably changed some of the great and good instruments to their detriment. This is what the luthiers credo addresses. No one cares if someone mucks about with the doo-doo. Well, mebbe some do. But to subscribe to the ideology that NO instrument should be altered from the makers intent is just plain dogmatic. The question is well where you draw the line. What is OK to do and on what instruments? Nick and I were talking about filling a Palatino with lime Jello and dropping it off a building at the ISB convention. Then again we talked about a lot of things. Reality got in our way and we got into far less trouble than we had hoped. Had we done it would it have been a sin against art and history? I dont think so. What if we did it to an Englehardt? A Kay? Maybe a financial blunder but not a mortal sin. I would like to go on record here and say that when it comes to factory produced, commercial instruments the luthiers credo is not very applicable. These are mass produced, usually geared towards a different market than who may own them now. For instance, Juzeks were produced generally to satisfy a lower niche in the market, often an institutional setting and were made to withstand the rigors in that setting. Durability was paramount. Now you have a dedicated pro player with one of these basses and he wants the best tone out of it possible and he will take care of it in the best possible way. It is no longer at the mercy of Johnny who took band in order to get out of Home Ec. If you can alter the bass to produce better tone or playability do you? Hell yes! Heres where I go on record and confess my sins. I have regraduated quite a few commercial basses like Juzeks and Thomas. Usually its the ribs. Most of these school type basses mic at about 4 mm on the ribs and most any maker will tell you that that is too thick. Clients have come to me asking me to make their basses better and I have done so. Did I do it for greed? Well if bloodying your knuckles for garbageman wages is greed than I guess Im guilty. These were commercial basses that now play more like a makers bass. Sue me.
Its pretty much a no-brainer when it comes to factory instruments. But what about changing a makers instrument? We have such reverence for these old basses-especially the Italians. Just add io to the end of a name and you can double the price. Well, Ive got news for you, not every old Italian guy was a genius. Plenty made B.S.O.s and P.O.S.s. Now what happens if you have an old Italian BSO that sounds like crap. Do we revere it just cuz its old? What if its plain to see how it could be improved? Oh no! we cant violate the luthiers credo! Just donate it to a museum and forget that you paid 6 grand for it. Cept no museum wants it.
Ive got a bass in my shop right now, a G. Pistucchi made in Naples 1905. A dog of an instrument. This guy was a hack-everything is wrong and hamhanded. It sounds like an ironing board with strings. Literally. The worst thing are the ribs. I posted pics of it some time ago-the c-bouts were plywood. The upper and lower bouts were 7mm thick. This is a thickness that would be almost impossible to bend but the curve was very gentle so it worked. The cs would have been impossible to bend-thats why they were laminated. What do you do with this bass? Restore it for 5k and sell it to a rockabilly player? Cuz the ribs were so thick that you could have stood on them. The owner requested that I thin the ribs and I did. Its going to sound like a real bass when I get finished.
If you can establish the precedent that in some instances it may be necessary to alter a makers bass where do you draw the line there? This is where it will get really sticky. In the end it will be up to each luthier as to what he/she feels comfortable doing. The luthiers credo should influence people to not practice arrogantly but it should also not paralyze those who can see a clear way to improve an instrument.
