Is the Gibson design really better than Neapolitan mandolins?

[DavidKOS]

I've been watching various youtube videos and reading articles and such, and I hear over and over again how Gibson "improved" the mandolin with the carved archtop design so well know today.

My question?

Is it really in improvement?

Somehow I still prefer the Italian sound of a good bowlback. So for me, I am not sure that the Gibson IS an improvement or just different. BTW, I love archtop guitars.

So that's my question, not trying to cause a fight or anything, but:

Do you think the archtop mandolin is "better" or "just different" than a well-made traditional Neapolitan (or Roman) bowl-back? (Try to imagine comparing instruments of similar quality)

[tkdboyd]

Just different.
I really like the sound of the new German bowlbacks, and have been salivating over the Calace that is in the classifieds/Ebay for the more "traditional" sound. I think they are all wonderful tools, and I am doing my best to fill my tool box while being able to stay married!
;-)

[allenhopkins]

Sound: different, not better. "Better" sound is a function of taste. However, in some ways majority rules; if what most people here is the sound of a carved-top, flat-back mandolin (usually with f-holes), those people will develop an idea of "what a mandolin's supposed to sound like," which will be the sound of the carved-top flat-back. (Note: this only applies to those people who are listening -- usually a minority; the rest are drinking and/or trying to hook up with someone.)

Playability: a vote for the flat-back, not necessarily Gibson. Just answered an e-mail from a friend who's trying to learn to play on a pretty nice George Bauer bowl-back from, say, 1895. He complains that the bowl rolls around in his lap, and that his right hand is taxed with simultaneously stabilizing and picking the instrument.

There have to be reasons why the carved-top "Gibsonian" design has become so dominant, outside of the specialties of classical and Euro-ethnic music. Fad and fashion, sure, and the example of influential mandolinists, but there must be more. I think ease of playing is a contributing factor.

[DavidKOS]

However, in some ways majority rules; if what most people here is the sound of a carved-top, flat-back mandolin (usually with f-holes), those people will develop an idea of "what a mandolin's supposed to sound like," which will be the sound of the carved-top flat-back. .....
There have to be reasons why the carved-top "Gibsonian" design has become so dominant, outside of the specialties of classical and Euro-ethnic music. Fad and fashion, sure, and the example of influential mandolinists, but there must be more. I think ease of playing is a contributing factor.

I'm pretty sure it's because that is what Bill Monroe used!

That set the sound for what a "Bluegrass" mandolin should be to most people, and since that is the music that kept mandolin alive, other than the few classical and ethnic (uh, me!) mandolinists out there. Also, the midrange punch of the archtop is pretty useful in that style of music.

I guess flatbacks are easier to play, but I began on a bowlback, and am used to holding them, so they are just as easy to hold for me.

Thanks.

[James Rankine]

Mike Marshall likens the difference to that between a harpsichord and a piano and given that his wife is a classical mandolin player one suspects it's a frequent topic of conversation around the dinner table. Some music sounds better on the harpsichord - particularly baroque music written before the invention of the piano. Much of what I like to play is written with an arch top f-hole in mind - bluegrass inspired rhythmic chops and well defined melodic lines. Doesn't mean I don't like to pick up the bowl back from time to time but in contrast it sounds like I am playing in an empty church hall - and the chop wouldn't cut it down at the local bluegrass jam. So for me an f-hole is better, because it suits my needs better most of the time but then I've got an arch top oval, flat top and bowl back for when it doesn't. Justifies the MAS.

[Steve Ostrander]

I'm pretty sure it's because that is what Bill Monroe used!

That set the sound for what a "Bluegrass" mandolin should be to most people, and since that is the music that kept mandolin alive, other than the few classical and ethnic (uh, me!) mandolinists out there. Also, the midrange punch of the archtop is pretty useful in that style of music.

You answered your own question. Better for bluegrass. Of course, BG had not been invented yet when the Loar F5 was introduced. But Lloyd Loar set out to improve the sound of the classical mandolin. To his ear, he succeeded.

[Tobin]

Of course, BG had not been invented yet when the Loar F5 was introduced. But Lloyd Loar set out to improve the sound of the classical mandolin. To his ear, he succeeded.

Yup. The heyday of Gibson's new mandolin design happened long before bluegrass was invented (peaking in the late teens or early twenties?), so its popularity had nothing to do with Bill Monroe or Lloyd Loar or bluegrass music. The Gibson mandolins of the early 1900s were mostly played in mandolin orchestras and other settings where they proved to be what people wanted.

One could argue that Gibson's advertising and marketing campaign was part of this great success, hooking people on the idea of "progress". So it's not that the new design by itself was all there was to it. But still, for whatever reason, the Gibson design proved popular enough to "sweep away the potato bugs" (per Gibson's advertising) fairly effectively.

Personally, I can't say one is better than the other. I haven't yet found a bowlback that's playable or worth playing. If I ever do, then perhaps I can make an informed decision.

[FLATROCK HILL]

Yes.

[Beanzy]

I've found I prefer my bowlback for classical, baroque and early music, irish traditional tunes, many scottish tunes, english folk tunes, italian pieces, some jazz & many blues numbers, ensemble / orchestral playing and some old time playing.
I like the arch-top F hole for BG, Irish folk, slower jazz pieces, accompanied singing, and it's definitely my go to for jams etc.
So I tend to think "better? better for what?"

They were quite derided by the cognoscenti when they first came out, even being described as a "lumber yard" for their lack of lightness of tone and chunky sound, the very thing that they are often most prized for since. Along with the Gibson advertising they were able to get many famous early endorsees, but a large part of why that stuck must mean they were delivering what the customer wanted, not to mention they can put up with neglect a bit better.

I played both of mine for some friends a while ago and they preferred the sound of the arch-top where I prefer the Neapolitan one. I think it all comes down to context, taste and expectetations of the listener.

[jmp]

Clearly Gibson thought it was "better" than bowl-backs for classical.

[Bluegrass has very little to do with the Gibson design and sound because BG came many decades after the Gibson design]

Let's take a look a copy of the 1917 "Gibson Mandolin-Guitar Company" catalog and see what they said:

"The 'Gibson' Mandolin proves, regarding tone and sound, that it is a decided improvement in comparison with the older models. Especially the G string, the proof positive for any instrument denotes a decided improvement, a very full and beautifully moulded tone. But also the other strings show a marked improvement in richness of tone, which so far could not be noted with any other kind of Mandolins. The carrying capacity of these tones is remarkable."

"What is further to be commended is the even sounding of the tones in all the keys. The purity of tone is probably the most satisfactory so far produced, and without equal."

http://www.acousticmusic.org/userfil...atalog%20J.pdf

Or the 1923 Catalog pages for the Gibson Master Mandolin Style F-5:

"The 'Strad' of Mandolins"

"The Master Mandolin with its superb tonal qualities and remarkable carrying power, has opened a new vista of musical opportunity to Mandolinists."

"A tone of marvelous richness and power is the result of these changes and improvements"

See page 11 for a blow-by-blow breakdown of Gibson's "exclusive construction features"...very interesting read.


http://www.acousticmusic.org/userfil...atalog%20N.pdf

[DataNick]

Dave Apollon, who was around waaay before Bill Monroe, had chosen the Gibson F5 Master Model (Loar) mandolin as his main axe, and he played everything from classical to show tunes. Orville Gibson's design had been entrenched since 1894, and by the time Lloyd Loar designed his F5, the arch top mandolin was almost 28 years old! This has NOTHING to do with Bill Monroe. Artists playing other genres of music have different preferences for mandolins, and as already pointed out, the common usage for the Gibson by 1921 was classical music.

David, I would like to respectfully submit, that when you bring Bill Monroe into a subject that really has nothing to do with him, the next invariable progression is to the interminable bluegrass vs. every other type of music discussion; which btw is soooooooooo played out!

[JeffD]

I first fell in love with the bowlback.

I now love both, and if well made and in good condition are equally impessive to me.

I dont play the bowls quite as much only because mine are very finiky. If i had a modern high end bowl it would see a lot of attention.

[DavidKOS]

Mike Marshall likens the difference to that between a harpsichord and a piano and given that his wife is a classical mandolin player one suspects it's a frequent topic of conversation around the dinner table. Some music sounds better on the harpsichord - particularly baroque music written before the invention of the piano. Much of what I like to play is written with an arch top f-hole in mind - bluegrass inspired rhythmic chops and well defined melodic lines. Doesn't mean I don't like to pick up the bowl back from time to time but in contrast it sounds like I am playing in an empty church hall - and the chop wouldn't cut it down at the local bluegrass jam. So for me an f-hole is better, because it suits my needs better most of the time but then I've got an arch top oval, flat top and bowl back for when it doesn't. Justifies the MAS.

So I tend to think "better? better for what?"
.......
I played both of mine for some friends a while ago and they preferred the sound of the arch-top where I prefer the Neapolitan one. I think it all comes down to context, taste and expectations of the listener.

Well said, both of you, and that makes sense. I suppose if I ever did get into Bluegrass, I'd be buying some sort of F model for the reasons you mention.

Like Jeff, I first played bowlbacks, no one else locally was playing much Bluegrass in New Orleans in the early 1970's, so my taste leans to Italy.

Clearly Gibson thought it was "better" than bowl-backs for classical.

(cut catalog text)

See page 11 for a blow-by-blow breakdown of Gibson's "exclusive construction features"...very interesting read.

Dave Apollon, who was around waaay before Bill Monroe, had chosen the Gibson F5

Apollon was one of my favorites and yes he used the F5 to great effect. But:

He wasn't Italian, he was Russian Jewish and I have no idea what he learned to play on! Also he worked in vaudeville, and needed the latest loudest instrument he could get, and that worked well for him, obviously! BTW, one of my favorite videos from the playing to the caftan.

As to Gibson's claims, perhaps they were trying for a big sound for the American market of mandolinists, often playing in large ensembles. They may have succeeded in their terms.

But obviously the Italian, French, and German classical players did not agree, and still play other design mandolins.

Perhaps the difference was in the music- a lot of the American mandolin music as not like the Italian and classical music, and the "new" sound went with the "new" music being played in the US.

Thanks for the link, jmp - the whole website looks interesting and informative - lots of articles and research.

David, I would like to respectfully submit, that when you bring Bill Monroe into a subject that really has nothing to do with him, the next invariable progression is to the interminable bluegrass vs. every other type of music discussion; which btw is soooooooooo played out!

Point well taken, sir! (but it was the obvious and correct answer) so I'll never post the question "where would the mandolin be without Bill Monroe and Bluegrass?"

[mrmando]

No, it's not an improvement. A bowlback holds more beer.

[allenhopkins]

Dave Apollon, who was around waaay before Bill Monroe...

Dave Apollon, 1898-1972.

Bill Monroe, 1911-1996

Not exactly contemporaries, but only 13 years apart. Apollon was a "prodigy" who was performing professionally at age 14 (1912), one year after Monroe was born. Monroe also started early, playing with "Uncle Pen" as a teenager, so, say about 1925 or so.

Wonder if their paths ever crossed?

[August Watters]

Lloyd Loar set out to improve the sound of the classical mandolin.

I remember a couple of years ago teaching a workshop to a roomful of Italian classical mandolinists, and explaining to them the idea that the Gibson F5 was designed as a better classical mandolin. They were incredulous -- they couldn't imagine that anyone would consider the F5 an adequate replacement for an Italian classical mandolin. And as far as I can tell, the carved-top mandolin still hasn't gained a foothold in that world. OTOH, most American classical mandolinists play the carved-top instrument (although that may be changing, as Italian and German designs become more popular).

Seems to me they're different tools, with different strengths and weaknesses. Is a hammer better than a screwdriver?

[DavidKOS]

I remember a couple of years ago teaching a workshop to a roomful of Italian classical mandolinists, and explaining to them the idea that the Gibson F5 was designed as a better classical mandolin. They were incredulous -- they couldn't imagine that anyone would consider the F5 an adequate replacement for an Italian classical mandolin. And as far as I can tell, the carved-top mandolin still hasn't gained a foothold in that world. OTOH, most American classical mandolinists play the carved-top instrument (although that may be changing, as Italian and German designs become more popular).

Seems to me they're different tools, with different strengths and weaknesses. Is a hammer better than a screwdriver?

Yup different tools. And I guess I really am Italian then! (my folks family is Sicilian, Genoese and Sardinian, the rest German)

[DavidKOS]

Not exactly contemporaries, but only 13 years apart. Apollon was a "prodigy" who was performing professionally at age 14 (1912), one year after Monroe was born. Monroe also started early, playing with "Uncle Pen" as a teenager, so, say about 1925 or so.

Wonder if their paths ever crossed?

Somehow I doubt it, I don't think Monroe worked the same vaudeville circuit, particularly New York, nor those odd clubs and such Apollon played, not to mention Las Vegas, where Apollon played near the end of his life.


It would have been an amazing thing to have witnessed, though.

Oh, wikipedia says Apollon began on violin and then "abandoned the instrument after taking a fervent interest in an old bowl back mandolin". Supposedly he was cremated with that bowlback.

[JeffD]

My bowls are all American from 1900 give or take. They are temperamental, but when cooperative they are a joy. Two of them are real loud, all of them are beautiful sounding. I routinely play them at home and not infrequently take them to old time jams.

My other mandolins are generally less finicky, and my theory is that the bowls just don't age as gracefully. I could be totally wrong, I hardly have a representative sample.

My best bowl is a 1911 Martin Style 3. It has a real authoritative sound, and is not at all delicate. And beauty and grace for all that. I think of Dianna Rigg as Emma Peel, feminine without compromise, strong and deadly without compromise.

On the top of my MAS list is a solid quality first rate recent build Italian or German bowlback that I can count on 100% all the time.

You are invited to check out my entire staff, if you are so inclined.

[JeffD]

I think the term "better" is a problem. Better for what? How measured? Setting aside the stereotypes of classical and bluegrass for a second, a well made bowlback can do it all. Everything you want a mandolin to do.

To dispel some rumors, a well made bowlback in good condition can be as loud and punch as any other mandolin that is not a resonator. It can be played as fast and brilliant or slow and mournful as any. The tone tends more to the beautiful (and in the extreme, glorious) side rather than the focused percussive side.

All the rest is tradition, preference, individual taste, individual experience.

To pick two extremes of the music, I have heard classical on bowlbacks and on F5s, from the greatest players on the planet, and I have heard old time music on bowlbacks and F5s, from the greatest players on the planet. I cannot say that there is a compromise on either side with either mandolin, or conversely that one was "better" or more "appropriate" than the other for any kind of music.

The only exception in all of this, to my ear, is bluegrass. Its a minority genre, I admit, but it has its adherents. And while a bowlback at a bluegrass jam could work, can be heard, and can chop in its own way, the sound is clearly not in the tradition. And I have no problem with that, I like tradition. I just don't confuse tradition with mechanical or acoustical necessity. I am fully convinced had Bill picked up a bowlback, that's how the tradition would have unwound, and that's what we would have now. He didn't, but I find nothing inherent in the bowlback that necessarily precludes it from bluegrass, except that it didn't happen that way.

So.. if you mean better in the way of "more inherently suitable" for this or that type of music, I would say no, the Gibson innovation and descendants are no better than the bowlbacks. More or less appropriate in this or that tradition, well of course, but that is a different question.

[DataNick]

...Oh, wikipedia says Apollon began on violin and then "abandoned the instrument after taking a fervent interest in an old bowl back mandolin". Supposedly he was cremated with that bowlback.

So apparently at some point Dave Apollon concluded that for the type of music that he played (multiple genres before the existence of bluegrass) that the Gibson F5 was the best tool for him. He supposedly kept at least 2 with him when he played live per breaking strings, etc.

[DataNick]

Bernardo De Pace was an Italian mandolin virtuoso who also "used" the archtop mandolin.
It appears you'd have to go back and either talk to or get a hold of some kind of correspondence or interview people who knew them to find out why some guys preferred the arch top vs. the bowlback...

[Dave Cohen]

I wrote about this topic in my chapter in the book, "The Science of String Instruments" ed. by Tom Rossing (Springer, 2010). Neapolitan or bowl back mandolins have their strengths, as do arched plate and flat plate mandolins.

In Neapolitans, the first mode of vibration in the top plate or "table" does not occur until about 500 Hz or above. The bowl doesn't do anything until about 1.4 kHz or higher, and has nothing like the main mode in the top plate. The main air resonance in a bowl back is down around 140 Hz. All of that means that the coupling between top plate and air is not strong. The consequence of the weak plate/air coupling is that Neapolitans/bowlbacks are not very good soundhole radiators. On the other hand, they are very low mass, which has some definite advantages at higher frequencies.

All plucked string instruments radiate sound by a combination of two mechanisms. At lower frequencies, the radiation is a combination of soundhole radiation (from the coupling of plate motions and air motions in the soundhole and inside the body cavity) and radiation caused by air around the outside of the body being moved by the body motions. At higher frequencies, ca at and above ~1.5-3kHz, the radiation is primarily of the second type, i.e., outside air moved by the body motions. Mass is not as much of an impediment to sounbdhole radiation as it is to the 2nd type. OTOH, low mass is generally good for the 2nd type of sound radiation.

Both arched plate and truly flat plate mandolins are better soundhole radiators than are Neapolitans. The active back plates generally mean more interaction between plates (both of 'em) and inside air. In oval hole archtops, the main air resonance occurs around 210 Hz, and the main plate mode for both plates) occurs first at around 200 Hz, and again at around 350-400 Hz. That means much stronger coupling between those plate motions and the first air resonance, and in turn much stronger soundhole radiation. In ff-hole type mandolins, the main air resonance occurs around 280 or 290 Hz. The main plate motions (both top and back) occur first at around 250-300 Hz, and again at around 350-400 Hz. So again, the coupling and consequent soundhole radiation is stronger. On the other hand, as mentioned above, both type are much heavier than are Neapolitan mandolins, and the 2nd type of sound radiation is not as strong throughout as it is in Neapolitans.

The physics is telling you the same thing as do your ears. Neapolitans are generally brighter, and come into their own at the upper end of the playing range (2nd type radiation). Arched plate and flat plate mandolins can be warmer, with more volume and "punch" at the lower end of the playing range (soundhole radiation), but less brilliance and projection than Neapolitans at the upper end of the playing range. You can also see the difference in decay times ("sustain"). Neapolitans have moderate sustain up until the top plate starts moving, around 450-500 Hz. Above that, the decay times get much shorter in a hurry. In arched plate and flat plate mandolins, the decay times don't vary as much as they do in Neapolitans, but go up and down as the frequencies of the notes are closer to or farther from the peak frequencies of the body (i.e., plates) modes.

[DavidKOS]

So apparently at some point Dave Apollon concluded that for the type of music that he played (multiple genres before the existence of bluegrass) that the Gibson F5 was the best tool for him. He supposedly kept at least 2 with him when he played live per breaking strings, etc.

Bernardo De Pace was an Italian mandolin virtuoso who also "used" the archtop mandolin.
It appears you'd have to go back and either talk to or get a hold of some kind of correspondence or interview people who knew them to find out why some guys preferred the arch top vs. the bowlback...

Another of my favorite cool videos.

My assumption is that the sheer volume is what made vaudeville performers like the F models. It was similar for the tenor banjo players, they soon added resonators and such for more volume. Resonator guitars were built for acoustic volume in those days too, finally leading to the electric lap steel and other early amplified instruments.

Those guys wanted to be heard in the last row of the cheap seats.

[DavidKOS]

I wrote about this topic in my chapter in the book, "The Science of String Instruments" ed. by Tom Rossing (Springer, 2010). Neapolitan or bowl back mandolins have their strengths, as do arched plate and flat plate mandolins.

(cut good explanation)

The physics is telling you the same thing as do your ears. Neapolitans are generally brighter, and come into their own at the upper end of the playing range (2nd type radiation). Arched plate and flat plate mandolins can be warmer, with more volume and "punch" at the lower end of the playing range (soundhole radiation), but less brilliance and projection than Neapolitans at the upper end of the playing range. You can also see the difference in decay times ("sustain"). Neapolitans have moderate sustain up until the top plate starts moving, around 450-500 Hz. Above that, the decay times get much shorter in a hurry. In arched plate and flat plate mandolins, the decay times don't vary as much as they do in Neapolitans, but go up and down as the frequencies of the notes are closer to or farther from the peak frequencies of the body (i.e., plates) modes.

Thank you for explaining it scientifically.

I love that sort of thing, it takes the mythology out of it and makes the issue logical and verifiable. I'd love to read that whole chapter...and book.