Anyone build bowl backs anymore and why have they lost favor?

[Gregooch]

Just wondering if any luthiers out the are building bowl back mandolins. I'm sure some European luthiers must be making them but they seem to have lost favor in the US. Is it because they are much harder to build, take longer or are they just not as appealing? They do seem to have great tone.

[Eric Michael Pfeiffer]

I don't find them particularly comfortable to play and they are fairly "quiet" in my opinion not having much volume or projection at all. I also think the market for that style of mandolin, which is normally associated with classical music, is just so small at the moment, alot of builders aren't building them because they can't sell them and there is little demand compared to standard arched-top F and A models. Just my 2 cents worth
Here it's bluegrass, jazz, country, folk...and I just don't think bowl-backs would hold up well in those situations volume and projection wise especially. If they did, they'd be all the rage and demand would be high. I think they are great little mandolins and have nice tone and would be great to learn on or play by ones self....but in an ensemble situation especially in bluegrass or other styles with loud banjos, electric guitars, even drums in some situations, they'd get buried in the "din"

[bmac]

I believe that the lack of popularity among builders has several elements.

The nature of the bowl back require a level of skills not common today. and few would be willing to pay for the skilled labor required to put one together successfully. But more important the bowl back is tonally not popular in this country today with the emphasis on the bluegrass sound. If you listen to a quality bowl back and compare with a comparaby priced bluegrass instrument the difference in tone pretty obvious with the bluegrass instrument offering a much more percussive punch. The bowl back being more focused on a melodic approach, perhaps more classical sounding.

Not that current builders "couldn't" build quality bowlback mandos...hey could, but there is little demand and little financial incentive to do so..

I think the majority of bluegrass pickers would find the tone of a bowlback not to their liking and since bluegrass players dominate the market bowlbacks enjoy proportionally little demand.

[Gregooch]

I tend to think they project better than American style. Listen to this by Antonio Colsalaro, I think the projection is awesome, maybe I'm wrong?

The one pet peeve that I have about bluegrass style mandolin is that it seems that bluegrass pickers are trying to make the mandolin sound like a guitar using all the same styles and techniques, where most of the rythm should just be left to a guitar player, where Europeans tend to make it sound like a mandolin and don't try so hard to imitate the guitar.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FlNBuS7YgM

[JEStanek]

Brian Dean makes them (in Canada) quite well and beautifully. There's a bunch of them (many with links) on the Eye Candy section.

I can't speak to them being harder or whatever to build than arch tops. I can say there are far more bluegrass, Americana, folk, celtic and pop bands using archtops or flat topped mandolins than there are mandolin orchestras or classical players rushing to the stores to get their mandolins. However, if a bowlback is the right tool for the job, there are still plenty of luthiers building them. There are plenty of old inexpensive ones on the used market as well from the the bargain US manufacturers from the early 1900s.

Jamie

[pfox14]

In retrospect, I think Orville Gibson proved that the bowlback or "tater bug" was an inferior design. His innovations were such a giant leap forward that everything that came after that copied and/or improved on his original designs. One of the basic problems with the bowlback design is the back doesn't produce any sound. It's just a rigid platform for the top thus producing a much more muted sounding instrument. Gibson's idea of using violin construction techniques for mandolins has proven to be "the" way to go.

[allenhopkins]

Different instruments: is the steel-string guitar "better" than the classical guitar? Is the solid-body electric guitar "better" than the carved-top hollow-body "jazz" electric guitar? For certain kinds of music, yes -- and for others, no.

If one is playing bluegrass, blues, old-time (mostly), folk-rock etc. the carved-top, "flat"-back mandolin produces the kind of sound that is expected in those genres. Celtic players seem to prefer canted-top oval-holes, though not universally. Classical and certain ethnic stylists like the sound of the bowl-back,

I'd venture that building multi-staved, lute-bodied instruments is a specialized skill that many contemporary luthiers -- and nearly all larger-scale mandolin manufacturers -- don't care to develop. Still, the Suzuki bowl-backs made in Japan aren't that rare, Eastman has made some bowl-backs in China, and the bowl-back is still the staple of Italian mandolin production. There are stave-backed, though not bowl-back, mandolins made in Germany and eastern Europe as well.

One of the realities of bowl-back "production," to the extent it exists, is that so many bowl-backs were made a century ago, that there's a huge supply of "vintage" instruments that the bowl-back buyer can purchase -- some of them very well-made, fancy instruments. And the types of music where the bowl-back sound is preferred, are not the most common styles played in this country. So the market for a prospective bowl-back builder is quite limited.

I think discussion of "better" and "worse" is misplaced. My ball-peen hammer won't pull nails like my claw hammer, but that doesn't make it "worse." Some styles of mandolin are better suited to certain styles of music, but you should pick the style of mandolin that works for you.

[AndersLiljeström]

Hi
I agree with most being said. It takes the skill and techniques of a lute maker ti make bowl back mandolins.and in that way is truly different to most makers today. But the beauty of a bowl back is somtin else! I have one italian bowl back from 1881 in our shop right now and the tone is quite beautiful too.

[Jim Garber]

As a fan of all mandolins, I think the bowlback is not inferior at all just different. Saying that would be the equivalent of saying that the classical guitar is inferior to the steel string. I think you are just reading too much of early Gibson propaganda Paul (among others).

Also, American makers essentially flooded the market during the mandolin craze in the late 19th and early 20th century. So there are lots of junky lowend mandolins or else better quality ones that suffered the ravages or time spent in attics or basements or over fireplaces.

There are high quality American vintage bowlbacks: Martin, Vega, early Regal and Washburn among them. And in Europe there are some very high quality italian made instruments. I have owned quite a few and decided a few years ago to school myself on what makes a good or excellent one. I have also consulted with quite a few European experts on the subject.

OTOH I do appreciate the excellence of the standard Gibson-inspired mandolins. But I do not consider them necessarily superior just different. More later, I am sure, on this topic.

[Jim Garber]

Hah! I just read Allen's post above and i realize that I said just about the same thing he did. Great minds are in the same gutter... or something.

---

To add a few other thoughts: I think the general feelings about lack of projection and quality of tone has to do partly with:

• expectations of a certain tone that is achieved with a carved instrument
• a different technique and a playing approach that brings out the full potential of the instrument
• proper setup in addition to particular strings and picks

[JeffD]

Just wondering if any luthiers out the are building bowl back mandolins. I'm sure some European luthiers must be making them but they seem to have lost favor in the US. Is it because they are much harder to build, take longer or are they just not as appealing? They do seem to have great tone.

As to being less appealing I would hazard a guess that in all the world, more mandolin family musicians are playing bowlbacks than not. Its probably close and getting closer, for a bunch of reasons, but I don't think the bowlback is a minority instrument in the family of mandolins, world wide.

In Japan, for example, playing (Western and Eastern) classical music on the bowlback mandolin is huge.

Have they lost favor in the US? They are certainly in the minority here. But I don't think its because of the decline of the bowlback, I think its due to the ascendance of bluegrass and related folky forms of music which have adopted other mandolins.

I am not sure how to compare harder or easier to make. Different skills I suppose, and when you get really really experienced and adept at one you probably are less adept, by definition, at making the other. But the building of anything is magic to me.

They do have a great tone, almost magical to me. Just holding a bowlback, and being able to make some music with it, has a weird kind of transcendence for me. The history going so many centuries back, and all the imagery from great art, and that so many angels are depicted playing them, I don't know, its a heady experience to look down and see one in my hands.

[JeffD]

I don't find them particularly comfortable to play and they are fairly "quiet" in my opinion not having much volume or projection at all.

I seem to have had no trouble getting comfortable holding them. I started on a bowlback, way long time ago, and never lost my love for them. I find that I cannot be as sloppy as I can with a flat top or arch top mandolin, in the way I hold it, but if I keep my back straight, and one leg up and treat it seriously, I can and have played a bowlback for many hours consecutively without any discomfort or fatigue.

As to volume, I can from direct experience, correct you. I have played more than a few, and I own two, very loud bowlbacks. Every bit as loud and louder as anything else I have, with the exception of the resonator.

I think in the US, and perhaps elsewhere in this hemisphere, our exposure to bowlbacks is mostly 100 year old American made instruments, many of which have lost much of their volume over time, if they are not indeed compromised in more specific ways that argue against anything but ultra light strings.

The few modern bowlbacks I have played have been as loud as I could want.

[Bernie Daniel]

Kind of odd to me that this topic came up just now. Less than 30 minutes ago I returned from watching the Christmas concert of the Dayton Mandolin Orchestra. Most of the members play American style carved top mandolins (Webers. Gibsons. Eastmans, etc.) both f-hole and oval hole. But there were a few bowl backs in the group and I had no trouble pick them out -- they had plenty of projection. I'm lazy right now but later I'll download a few pics from my cell phone of the concert.

[Kerry Krishna]

Gregooch, There are thousands of these 100 year old instruments around that are now nothing more that wall hangers. Their reputation for not being able to stand up to actually being used for decades worth of real life playing is pretty darn obvious. Probably the most important reason for that is the 15 feet ( I am guessing here folks) of wood to wood seams that were glued together at the factory. Wood can be incredibly flexible, so alllll those seams in combination with humidity changes and 120 pounds of string pressure have not made for a good combination.

Mr Dean is a friend of mine from long back when we both used to live in Montreal . I have a pretty good idea from talking to him how hard these axes are to put together too. It is an amazing amount of tiny niggling details that goes into one of these instruments, which makes the 'Build Hours' really add up. He is one of THE most patient men I have ever hung out with, and if not for his formal education in the wood industry, I do not know if he ever would have given these axes a try, but this is just my opinion, and I don't speak for him.

So add to all this the smaller voice , the fact that these axes are incredibly hard to repair (to the point that many Luthiers will not even consider repairing them), uncomfortable slippery handling, the fact they are almost impossible to be played while standing up, and generally smaller scale (I have that right do I not Jim Garber?) they are pretty much a No Go for most Luthiers/players.

So there are some pretty good reasons for this style of axe to be relegated to our Great-Grandparents time.

I am pretty sure that the learning curve for making one would be a super hard road, short of spending some considerable amount of time being mentored by someone who has a few dozen under their belt.

I am sure that some mandolin Luthier on this Forum has decided to give it a try, and would love to hear what they have to say about it.

[JeffD]

I think its too simple, and too early, to relegate the bowlback to history.

While I play most everything sitting down, I can and do play the bowlback standing with little trouble.

I know that in the US and perhaps Canada too its hard to find luthiers willing to work on bowlbacks. But I can't believe that can be said about Italy, Germany, Greece, Japan, etc., where there are so many more players that need them fixed.

I think its the popularity of bluegrass and its folky related genres that have made other styles of mandolin so popular here. Not so much any structural infirmity, or inherent difficulty to repair, or inherent compromise in sound attributable to the bowlback. If Bill Monroe had picked up a bowlback that had some killer volume to it, the whole world would be different. And I see no reason not to think he just as easily could have.

[JeffD]

A well made, well taken care of, well set up bowlback has just as much mandolintegrity as any other mandolin, and it is quirks of style and fashion that have made them less popular in this corner of the world.

I like that word, mandolintegrity.

[Bob Clark]

While they might not be as common as the modern-types here in the US, I think there is a segment of the playing public that really loves them (and for good reason), and another segment that likes to have one to add to their available tonal palette. I have arch top and flat top mandolins and am now looking for the right bowl back to add into the mix. I just made a space for one on my mandolin rack, I've played a few beauties lately, and I expect to be picking one up shortly. I agree with you Gregooch, they do have great tone. And JeffD, great word! Mandolinintegrity will potentially find a bunch of uses here, if it just catches on. Let's hope it does. Maybe you should start a thread looking for a proper definition for it. Could be a bumper sticker or tee-shirt in the future as well.

Best wishes, Bob

[buchrob]

The instrument Pantheon tends to be populated by the tools used by very popular performers of the day. To pick an analogy with roughly the same popularity of the entire mandolin universe, in terms of guitars, you can pretty well discount anything Epiphone other than the Casino and relatives. Not the "real" Gibson apparently, even though they were a separate company entirely in that era. Hofner bass of no interest unless it's the same model McCartney played. Ric 325 (John Lennon) 3x the price of a new "normal" one built to more reliable & exacting standards with CNC equipment and modern electronics.

The obverse of the coin is that if you have a double neck 6/12 Epiphone or Gibson SG, you had better be as good as Jimmy Page, have a full head of hair and love to play Stairway to Heaven.

There are no local heroes for asian/european bowlback mandolins, let alone the oft-neglected Ovation hybrid which is a fine instrument for the money, but has a character all its own.

You can find all the used/"vintage" suzuki etc. bowlbacks you want for under $150 shipped to your door. How much value added can a luthier put into this type of instrument to justify his time and materials?

I know that it galls that this type of workmanship put into a piece of 1789 furniture would bring $$K at antiques roadshow, but mandolin buyers are more interested in ...

[Bernie Daniel]

Here is a Gibson Loar signed F-5 being played on the same stage as a fine classical bowl back mandolin I don't think any one can really say the bowl back does not hold up its end of the piece? Yes!

[Jim Garber]

So add to all this the smaller voice , the fact that these axes are incredibly hard to repair (to the point that many Luthiers will not even consider repairing them), uncomfortable slippery handling, the fact they are almost impossible to be played while standing up, and generally smaller scale (I have that right do I not Jim Garber?) they are pretty much a No Go for most Luthiers/players.

Okay, Kerry... I think you make way too many assumptions here:

"Smaller voice"? "uncomfortable slippery handling, the fact they are almost impossible to be played while standing up"?

I think this video (among others) refutes those notions:


Ferdinand Binnendijk standing playing an Embergher bowlback playing solo with a full string orchestra.

"generally smaller scale"?

The "violin scale" is preferred by many classical players to play some rather difficult passages. It is the same reason why some classical players prefer the Lyon & Healy mandolins -- shorter, 13 inch scales. They do not have to be built that way but are to appeal the the desires of the players who want to p.

Any luthier worth his salt -- and I include you, Kerry -- would be able to repair a bowlback. I am sure, tho, that it might take some different techniques to do so and the willingness to do it. Of course, if you look down on these as viable instruments than you may very well not want to deal with them. Kerry, I have even read on these same pages of people who dismiss KayKraft instruments as not worth fixing.

Essentially what I am hearing here is that these are antiquated instruments which have been eclipsed by the much superior carved ones. As I noted above, I play as many kinds of mandolins as I can and enjoy each for what they are: different colors of the tone palette.

I am certainly not trying to convince any luthier that they should build or repair these against their will nor do I think that every mandolinist should own or play one, but I do think that there are many people who do not understand that these are viable instruments and might enjoy them for what they are.

As to the paucity of current makers of bowlback mandolins: check on this page. And there are more makers of these, for instance, in Japan and elsewhere, who are not listed on that page.

[JeffD]

Lots of bowlbacks in that pantheon, just not here in the U.S.

[labraid]

Anyone interested in the process of bowlback building may visit my Flickr page for some insights in how they are built.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/l4braid/

Regarding projection, If you play a wall hanger and compare it to a professionally constructed instrument, guess which will have better tone and better projection? Mandolin A could be a Gibson style and B a bowlback, or vice versa, it doesn't matter. There were very few dedicated bowlback luthiers throughout history that didn't resort to overbuilding, and Luigi Embergher's factory was probably the one that stayed true, and which gained the greatest reputation.

A bowlback requires fluting on the back to have the best possible tone. If you play a non-fluted model and judge all bowlbacks by that sound, you're in for a surprise. Fluting takes the back down so far that light will shine through. A bowlback should be light enough to almost float away. That takes a considerable amount of time and effort to achieve. Also imagine how quickly you could ruin a month's work from a moment's inattention. It takes approximately one week to put 34 staves together. It takes another week to flute them and line the bowl (spruce shavings on the interior). It takes another week to final sand. This is how a professional bowlback, made for a concert performance, is made.



The sharp flutes also help keep the instrument from sliding around on your belly. They have tonal and practical uses.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQjELdoFK2s

Lastly, they are extremely durable if one is careful. Believe it or not the lighter built, fluted instruments are more resilient because they "give", assuming they do not encounter sharp blows. I can depress and flex my backs with moderate thumb pressure. Not so with a poorly built instrument, which does not have chalk-fit joints, which was eyeballed for quickness, which is poorly lined with cloth, which probably was not fluted. The triangulated design of the top cant, also, provides for great durability. A great bowlback will sound loud and rich with light strings. It does not need much to actuate the tone. You can breathe on the strings and make sound. But overstring it with too much pressure and it will be destroyed in time.

One only has to train their ears to enjoy the bowlback sound. Everything takes effort if you are not accustomed to it. That does not mean, like learning a new language, that it is not an extremely rewarding experience. I grew up listening to my grandfather's Greek records, which featured, you guessed it, lots of bowlback instrumentation. It is a delicate, subtle, and yet forceful tone when properly handled on a carefully constructed instrument:



Here is an example of nyl-gut strings, again with no amplification:


http://chrisacquavella.com/

Best Wishes.

[MikeEdgerton]

In retrospect, I think Orville Gibson proved that the bowlback or "tater bug" was an inferior design. His innovations were such a giant leap forward that everything that came after that copied and/or improved on his original designs. One of the basic problems with the bowlback design is the back doesn't produce any sound. It's just a rigid platform for the top thus producing a much more muted sounding instrument. Gibson's idea of using violin construction techniques for mandolins has proven to be "the" way to go.

I'll start out by saying that I'm not a fan of "playing bowlbacks" personally, my preference is elsewhere, but if Orville's innovations were as great as they were touted to be then I wonder why Gibson abandoned the construction method that was a big part of his patent? That's a rhetorical question, I know why they abandoned it. I think Orville showed that a great mandolin could be be built in a different style and the Gibson marketing department knew who their competition was and reacted accordingly. I don't take that as proof positive that the Gibson design was better.

[brunello97]

Just wondering if any luthiers out the are building bowl back mandolins. I'm sure some European luthiers must be making them but they seem to have lost favor in the US. Is it because they are much harder to build, take longer or are they just not as appealing? They do seem to have great tone.

The troll strikes again.

Mick

[Jim Garber]

Lots of bowlbacks in that pantheon, just not here in the U.S.

As you can see from the negative opinions of bowlbacks, in the US especially there is a definite bias against them. BTW in addition to the illustrious Brian Dean/Labraid, Peter Sawchyn also builds the German style instrument.