While what Bryce said is technically true, If all other things are equal, a non-repaired instrument will nearly always have a higher value than one that has been damaged and repaired.
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 What exactly IS the "Luthier's Prime Directive"?
- Thread starter arnoldschnitzer
- Start date
Arnold, I can't help but think of one of those cello shaped Prescotts in your "monster" description. Anyway, my Joseph Bohmann bass has those double shouldered "humps" that were a good case for cutting them out. I decided to leave them and learned to play around them. I don't have a problem with cutting down, when it's done buy someone with your or one of our other luthiers credentials. Problem is, most major "cut downs" that i've seen are done by butchers! In the case of a master DOUBLE BASS luthier doing the work, it simply becomes part of the instruments history, and in the case of a sale, this should be verbally "documented"
There's a fine bass here in Denver that the owner had cut down by one of the butchers. The purfling just stops where the cut is, with no attempt to re-purfle the top bout and match the varnish! For a decent luthier, these things are no big deal. The sad part is the player doesn't even know how to play in the upper thumb positions!! ARGHHH!!!
Judging by items I've seen in museums- suits of armor, clothing, beds, furniture, etc., people of 100+ years ago were generally much smaller in stature than we are, which would obviously make it more difficult to handle a 4/4 bass. This, and the minimal respect shown basses and bassists in past centuries may account for the tendancy to cut up an instrument to suit the player. I think most of us have more reverance for the master luthiers and their instruments now than was common 100 years ago.
I'm 6'3" with a 34" sleeve, while I haven't played a bunch of master Italian instruments and don't play well in thumb position, I have played a few very large basses and have yet to encounter one where I couldn't reach the upper registers. Also, it seems there are more luthiers building new top quality instruments now, of all sizes and shapes. A smaller player should have little problem finding a suitable instrument without having to cut down an older one. Leave the bigger basses for the bigger players perhaps?
For the above reasons, hopefully our generations will less often find it "necessary" to make irreversible changes to a valuable, significant old bass.
I'm 6'3" with a 34" sleeve, while I haven't played a bunch of master Italian instruments and don't play well in thumb position, I have played a few very large basses and have yet to encounter one where I couldn't reach the upper registers. Also, it seems there are more luthiers building new top quality instruments now, of all sizes and shapes. A smaller player should have little problem finding a suitable instrument without having to cut down an older one. Leave the bigger basses for the bigger players perhaps?
For the above reasons, hopefully our generations will less often find it "necessary" to make irreversible changes to a valuable, significant old bass.
Paul, your Bowmann is one that I would have to consider historically significant even though if didn't happen to be made to an Italian 2 or 3 hundred years ago. I doubt if any luthier, no matter how skilled, could cut it down without loosing a significant amount of the pure artistry that went into making it.
I'd like to know how one decides if an instrument is "historically significant". Obviously, there is no board of directors which enforces the "prime directive" and passes judgement on individual instruments under consideration for "cutting down". Think about this: People cut down basses to fit current playing styles. Who knows what the style will be in the future? The whole subject is confusing, as on the one hand I have tremendous reverence for fellow makers (past and present), and on the other hand I have certainly seen my share of great-but-unplayable basses.
Arnold, I think you're taking too much resposibility on yourself! Although I haven't played one of your basses, I can tell that you are at the top of the luthier ladder. It seems you're looking for someone of great authority to validate your right to do a major up-grade in terms of todays playing. At the same time wanting to know what instruments would be historically important to even do it. Right?
How about a poll???
How about a poll???
Let's look at it from another angle. Conceptually, I see a similarity between Arnold's question and the whole Wynton Marsalis/state of jazz thing.
Is jazz -- as written and played in a "golden era" of jazz -- America's "classical music", not to be messed with? A tradition to be venerated and respected and taught and performed and all that ("kept alive"), but essentially never changed in any vital way? That point of view is analagous to the luthier's prime directive.
Then there are others who feel a whole lot looser about the "never change" thing. There's a looser analogy there to the folks who might "cut down" a bass.
There's no right or wrong here -- it's a matter of personal preference.
Personally, I'm not a Wyntonite. What in the hell is wrong with a modern person of skill, respect and good judgement going for it and actually making something new in this world?
History and tradition are extremely important but let's not get carried away and despise our own abilities to create things future generations might appreciate.
Is jazz -- as written and played in a "golden era" of jazz -- America's "classical music", not to be messed with? A tradition to be venerated and respected and taught and performed and all that ("kept alive"), but essentially never changed in any vital way? That point of view is analagous to the luthier's prime directive.
Then there are others who feel a whole lot looser about the "never change" thing. There's a looser analogy there to the folks who might "cut down" a bass.
There's no right or wrong here -- it's a matter of personal preference.
Personally, I'm not a Wyntonite. What in the hell is wrong with a modern person of skill, respect and good judgement going for it and actually making something new in this world?
History and tradition are extremely important but let's not get carried away and despise our own abilities to create things future generations might appreciate.
Amen.Originally posted by nicklloyd
You should apologize for even remotely connecting Arnold's thread to Wynton's tyrannical BS.
So what about those basses built for three strings that were modified to accept four?
What about a centuries-old bass that's busted to hell, such as Jeff restored? He had to replace a missing scroll. Is that legal, or should he have left it busted, never to be played again?
Julius Callman discovered worms in his Testore. He made a new back out of boards from a crate used to ship a bunch of clarinets. Legal? The crate was made of willow, the wood Testore used, and the back he made was 3-piece, also a la Testore. Does that make it better?
What about a centuries-old bass that's busted to hell, such as Jeff restored? He had to replace a missing scroll. Is that legal, or should he have left it busted, never to be played again?
Julius Callman discovered worms in his Testore. He made a new back out of boards from a crate used to ship a bunch of clarinets. Legal? The crate was made of willow, the wood Testore used, and the back he made was 3-piece, also a la Testore. Does that make it better?
We all know that if someone wants an instrument cut down, there will always be someone who will do it. The best we can hope for is that, as these instruments, these art objects, come up for sale that individuals or institutions that want to preserve them will be given the opportunity to bid for them or that some wealthy individual will buy them for an institution.
Coming up with an iron clad defintion of historically significant would be difficult if not impossible. I have a feeling that Arnold knows what one is and so does Jeff, Nick, and others here. My definition would be an instrument that crosses over the line between an instrument for just for playing and a work of art. I doubt if anything I make will be historically significant. Probably nothing made by any of us here will meet that definition. Perhaps Daniel Hatchez and a hand full of the best modern makers will. Too many significant instruments have already been permanenly modified. It would be a shame if our grand children were not given the opportunity to see these instruments as they were created. Few people realize that of the 900+ instruments attributed to Stadivarius, Only ONE has survived in its original condition.
Arnold, your question is a good one and deserves a serious reply. Here's an attempt.
I think it is ok to make major changes in basses under certain circumstances. If I own the bass and I know that something's not right with it, it doesn't bother me a bit to regraduate or rebar the instrument, change the overstand etc. If it belongs to a customer, I still think it's ok as long as the customer is in agreement. I wouldn't make any changes without the customers consent.
Before I got into this business, I bought an old bass that had the names of every one who had worked on it written on the inside of the top going back as far as the 1850s. When I got it repaired the repairman added almost as an aside that he "cleaned the top off for me". In doing so he erased all of those names, places and dates. I'm still mad about it, and it's one of the reasons I became interested in doing bass repair myself. That's an example of an improper and irresponsible act. Now, if he had had to do it to make the bass playable, I might have a differrent view.
What I'm saying applies to 95 to 99% of the basses that come through the shop. I would spend a lot more thought on a really valuable old instrument before making or suggesting changes. It would be irresponsible to regraduate a Panormo bass without absolutely considering everthing else first. But what if you found that the Panormo had ribs 1 or 2 mm thicker than what he normally did? Hmmm?
A few years ago I rebared a very famous jazz musician's bass, but I showed the old bar to the present owner first and explained what was wrong with it. It had been rebared in the early 50s with what I can only describe as a bass bar that bore more resemblance to a 2x4 than a proper bass bar, and that work had been done after the "famous" player owned it. I believe I restored it to much more like the original than what was in there at the time. Another example, so that people don't think I'm talking about just making some changes with a chain saw: I've owned two old three string basses that I changed to four strings. I don't think anyone would have a problem with that, and of course it could be changed back. I've regraduated many modern German commercial basses that were just way too thick to produce a good sound. I'm not talking about taking a bass with good thicknesses and reducing them willy-nilly. Many commercial German violins, violas and cellos have the same problems. An article in one of the national magazines stated recently that the Germans started leaving the instrument deliberately too thick in the hopes of avoiding cracking while the instruments were in transit. This was started in the 30s.
Here's another example: many old basses have tuning grears that just don't work. They slip, they're noisey, they rattle. If the gears have histroic value it is sometimes possible to have a new part made in the fashion of the old.
A bass is a tool for a musician to use. All old basses have been modified to some degree for modern use. Several years ago I had an old Bohemian bass with a 44 1/2 string length! I did not feel guilty about cutting it down to 41 3/4.
Perhaps the most famous change to a bass may be the cello shaped Bergonzi that Vuillume lengthened. It was essentially unplayable for modern playing styles. Hundreds of copies of the
bass have been made in Mirecourt and by other French makers immitating Vuillumes changes. There's a picture of this bass in Duane Rosengaards book CREMONESE DOUBLE BASSES.
I think it is ok to make major changes in basses under certain circumstances. If I own the bass and I know that something's not right with it, it doesn't bother me a bit to regraduate or rebar the instrument, change the overstand etc. If it belongs to a customer, I still think it's ok as long as the customer is in agreement. I wouldn't make any changes without the customers consent.
Before I got into this business, I bought an old bass that had the names of every one who had worked on it written on the inside of the top going back as far as the 1850s. When I got it repaired the repairman added almost as an aside that he "cleaned the top off for me". In doing so he erased all of those names, places and dates. I'm still mad about it, and it's one of the reasons I became interested in doing bass repair myself. That's an example of an improper and irresponsible act. Now, if he had had to do it to make the bass playable, I might have a differrent view.
What I'm saying applies to 95 to 99% of the basses that come through the shop. I would spend a lot more thought on a really valuable old instrument before making or suggesting changes. It would be irresponsible to regraduate a Panormo bass without absolutely considering everthing else first. But what if you found that the Panormo had ribs 1 or 2 mm thicker than what he normally did? Hmmm?
A few years ago I rebared a very famous jazz musician's bass, but I showed the old bar to the present owner first and explained what was wrong with it. It had been rebared in the early 50s with what I can only describe as a bass bar that bore more resemblance to a 2x4 than a proper bass bar, and that work had been done after the "famous" player owned it. I believe I restored it to much more like the original than what was in there at the time. Another example, so that people don't think I'm talking about just making some changes with a chain saw: I've owned two old three string basses that I changed to four strings. I don't think anyone would have a problem with that, and of course it could be changed back. I've regraduated many modern German commercial basses that were just way too thick to produce a good sound. I'm not talking about taking a bass with good thicknesses and reducing them willy-nilly. Many commercial German violins, violas and cellos have the same problems. An article in one of the national magazines stated recently that the Germans started leaving the instrument deliberately too thick in the hopes of avoiding cracking while the instruments were in transit. This was started in the 30s.
Here's another example: many old basses have tuning grears that just don't work. They slip, they're noisey, they rattle. If the gears have histroic value it is sometimes possible to have a new part made in the fashion of the old.
A bass is a tool for a musician to use. All old basses have been modified to some degree for modern use. Several years ago I had an old Bohemian bass with a 44 1/2 string length! I did not feel guilty about cutting it down to 41 3/4.
Perhaps the most famous change to a bass may be the cello shaped Bergonzi that Vuillume lengthened. It was essentially unplayable for modern playing styles. Hundreds of copies of the
bass have been made in Mirecourt and by other French makers immitating Vuillumes changes. There's a picture of this bass in Duane Rosengaards book CREMONESE DOUBLE BASSES.
OK Martin. Now that you've said all of that, would you like to chime in with what we are discussing now - namely "cutting down" or otherwise changing the shape of the instrument?
Bob--I was okay with your statement until you broadened out from yourself. Have you inspected and played basses made by Jeff or Nick or Martin or myself? (sorry if I omitted anybody) I was in a room with 17 hand-made basses in Richmond this past June at ISB. At least 10 of those were masterfully made and, IMHO, significant. I agree that Mr. Hachez is among the best modern makers, if not THE best. But consider the workmanship and sound and playability of many of today's handmade basses. I propose that the workmanship and overall quality of basses is generally better now than at any time in the past.
Originally posted by nicklloyd
You should apologize for even remotely connecting Arnold's thread to Wynton's tyrannical BS.
Thanks, Nick. But I LIKE Wynton. I also like modern jazz. I think Wynton has toned it down over the years. I hear he even digs funk...
I don't disagree with what you are saying. I agree that playablity and workingmanship of todays makers is a good as any ever made. I just don't think very many (weather it be yours, mine, Nicks, Jeffs, Martins or most anyone else) are of such a high artistic standard that they will be head and shoulders above anyone else in say 50 or 100 years. Today, we have hundreds of outstanding violin makers, but how many will be placed in the category of Stradivarius, Amati or Guanarius today or in the future? If you read my post carefully, you will note that I said PERHAPS Hatchez may meet that standard. Only time will tell. No offence to Dan, you or anyone else. It's just that your definition of historic significance may be a little different than mine.
If a maker does not strive for "historical significance", why bother making? There are much easier ways to make a mediocre living. Significant or not, I'd be pretty damned upset if someone cut up one of my instruments. I guess that makes it NOT OK. I suppose, though, that when I'm worm food it'll be fine, right? So we're back to the conundrum of when it is OK to cut down a bass...
I totally agree. I wouldn't want to see one of yours or Nicks or Jeffs or mine cut up either. And... I can't think of a better goal than striving to reach historical significance. We may not make it, but hopefully each instrument we make will be better than the last one.
Ok Bob, I'm back on the same page now.
I would not cut down any bass made by an individual maker old or new.
So far as workmanship goes, almost anyone is better than I am. I am however, conforted by the fact that most of the early Italian makers weren't all that good either compared to today's makers. When it comes to violins, violas, and cellos, almost all of the contemporary makers are on a level of woodworking comparable to Stradivari. Most of the other "great" Italian makers would never win a workmanship contest today. However their work is artistic and individualistic, something rarely seen with the cookie cutter instruments being made today. I saw a Tononi cello last week that would be laughed out of a contemporary maker's contest. It looked like the maker was getting pretty heavy into the wine while making that one, but a professional player told me it was the best sounding cello of all the cellos there old or new.
No matter how hard I try I never get the woodworking to a level that I'm happy with, so maybe that's why I like seeing a few tool marks, corners that are all a little different and asymetry.
I would not cut down any bass made by an individual maker old or new.
So far as workmanship goes, almost anyone is better than I am. I am however, conforted by the fact that most of the early Italian makers weren't all that good either compared to today's makers. When it comes to violins, violas, and cellos, almost all of the contemporary makers are on a level of woodworking comparable to Stradivari. Most of the other "great" Italian makers would never win a workmanship contest today. However their work is artistic and individualistic, something rarely seen with the cookie cutter instruments being made today. I saw a Tononi cello last week that would be laughed out of a contemporary maker's contest. It looked like the maker was getting pretty heavy into the wine while making that one, but a professional player told me it was the best sounding cello of all the cellos there old or new.
No matter how hard I try I never get the woodworking to a level that I'm happy with, so maybe that's why I like seeing a few tool marks, corners that are all a little different and asymetry.
Arnold- Wynton's playing is fine. It's his bullsheet I don't dig. And yer thread (this thread) is very far from bullsheet, that's all.
There is a certain amount of "letting go" that makers need to accept. If a player wants bumpers put on his instrument, he will have them installed. If a neck is too thin, and not projecting well over the body, he will pay to have a neck reset. The instrument is out there, and subject to the world it lives in.
I doubt my instruments will be cut down; most modern basses aren't guilty of being too big. As Arnold posted, bass making has "advanced" hand-in-hand with bassist's technique. I don't believe the golden age of bass construction was 100 years ago. However, it's damn near impossible to create a modern instrument that sounds 100 years old. It's a b*tch, innit?
There is a certain amount of "letting go" that makers need to accept. If a player wants bumpers put on his instrument, he will have them installed. If a neck is too thin, and not projecting well over the body, he will pay to have a neck reset. The instrument is out there, and subject to the world it lives in.
I doubt my instruments will be cut down; most modern basses aren't guilty of being too big. As Arnold posted, bass making has "advanced" hand-in-hand with bassist's technique. I don't believe the golden age of bass construction was 100 years ago. However, it's damn near impossible to create a modern instrument that sounds 100 years old. It's a b*tch, innit?
