Alternative Designs

[Jim Hilburn]

I've reached a milestone where I can do about whatever I choose (no more list).
I've had some idea's for non-traditional mandolin designs and have thought about going back to the days when I did this as a hobby and would do any crazy thing that came to mind, although I never got too crazy.
But I still need to sell what I make. I'm wondering what others think about the market for something less than traditional. Obviously smaller but does it exist?

[thistle3585]

If Bill Bussman can sell an instrument shaped like a wedge of cheese or a slice of watermelon then I guess just about anything is possible.

Seriously though, I've found that there is always a buyer for something unique but it may take some time for the buyer to come along and find it. Brian Dean and James Condino seem to have gained fair recognition for building outside the norm. Go for it.

[sunburst]

Good question!
I still have a list, but I have something "crazy" on the drawing board. I figure I'll eventually try to build it and just not necessarily expect to sell it.
Bill, Brian, James and those folks have developed somewhat of a reputation for "thinking outside the box" type designs, but I haven't, so I basically look at the project as a creative outlet and perhaps a rather poor business decision.
Perhaps you can let the rest of us know what the market for "crazy" stuff is like by wading in ahead of some of us!

[JEStanek]

Hans Brentrupp was outside the box too and sold his Eclipse mandolins. I'm always very excitied to see new ideas (as are most all of us) however, I'm not in the market (as are many of us). The trick I think is to find that match of buyer and builder. If you can sqeeze in the new build, it might find a buyer as you go. Then you can see where that takes you. I'm sure it will be beautiful and compelling based on your other work showcased here.

Jamie

[j. condino]

...a creative outlet and perhaps a rather poor business decision....

!!!!

The biggest headaches of my career have always been as a result of someone who went out of their way to track me down as a modern builder and then spent the entire rest of the process trying to dictate how I should build the instrument every step of the way.

The most blissful and satisfying moments were when even I didn't try to interfere and I stepped back and let the internal forces that drive me create what they already knew was there...

Build it!

j.
www.condino.com

[Skip Kelley]

Jim, I think it is an excellent idea! Build what is on your mind and enjoy the journey. We would love to see your creativity at work and on display. Someone will more than likely love what you build and buy it.

[Jim Garber]

Obviously, builders like Monteleone, Brentrup and Giacomel and others have stretched the parameters of modern mandolin design. Personally I do enjoy the photos of the ultimate Loar copies but I am equally intrigued by some of the off shoots of that design as well as completely new designs as well. I say go for it.

The other offshoot to me that it interesting is those who have taken the lesser designs of the past such as Kaykraft, Knutsen and Regal reverse scrolls and modernized them to make some high quality instruments. I know a few luthiers who copy the lowend guitars of the past but make high end copies.

[man dough nollij]

I haven't built my first instrument yet, but I sure admire the work of Brian Dean. From faithful representations of Lyon & Healys, to one-off original designs, he has made some very cool stuff. I like a lot of the outside-the-box stuff that James Condino, Lawrence Smart, and Dr. Cohen have done, too. How about a ten-string fan-fretted bowlback?

[billhay4]

There are two different aspects of this quest to get outside of the box. The first is design, which has been commented on here. The second, however, is technical. Many design changes are due to aesthetic preferences, but others are due to a desire to push the technical bounds of the instrument. Dave Cohen, Brian Dean, Lawrence Smart, James Condino, and some other are just as concerned with technical innovation and "experimentation" as with aesthetics.
I encourage you to go beyond your current work, and to do so in both of these areas.
Bill

[fred d]

So do a lot of others National with their resonator someone here with a bedpan mandolin 4string 5,6,10 ect with pickup with out How about one with strings on both sides different tuning two songs at once????

[Charlieshafer]

I love the "avant-guarde" designs out there, and think the desire to pursue them is fantastic. There's no law that says all the great innovations in instruments have been already accomplished. I think the only cautionary note is that the principles of whatever it is you come up with have to be based on sound acoustic principles, and of course playability. There was a great article in the recent Fretboard Journal on Alan Beardsell's work and designs, and all his concepts are firmly rooted in a desire to make great instruments even better. I especially like his concept of a really stiff rim, in order to let the soundboard ring more, with less energy soaked up by the rims themselves. I've often toyed with the idea of making a rim out of machined aluminum, aside from the obvious attachment issues.

From a marketing standpoint, keep in mind that all the greats previously listed came up with their designs, perfected them, and stuck with them, so they've become iconic in their own way. You can't keep trying different things and expect anyone to jump in with a check in hand. It's got to be a signature design, it's got to be really good, then I don't think there will be a marketing issue.

[Graham McDonald]

Jim,

Why not do both. Build what you can be pretty certain of selling, and build some prototypes of the different ones. I have been slowly refining an F5ish design for a few years, but I have a day job at the moment, so I am not dependant of instrument building to pay the bills and can afford to experiment and do some R&D. You certainly sound as if heading off in another direction is want you want to do...

cheers

graham

[Jim Rowland]

I think you have a good chance of finding the right person today,mainly due to the Cafe. Years ago,I ventured a tiny step away with a two point "A" style copied from a picture of Jethro's Gibson. It was built with good materials and looked good. It sounded and played well,but didn't have a real Bluegrass sound. I put it on eBay at a ridiculouly low price just to cover my investment and got NO action of any kind..no inquirys,no bids,no nuthin'. I think the fact that I am a no-name luthier and mentioned in the copy that I didn't consider it a good iinstrument for Bluegrass killed any chances from the get go,but I also think that today it would draw some interest.
Jim

[Ivan Kelsall]

The builders of arch-top Jazz Guitars have never been afraid to 'think outside the box' when it comes to building. I'm thinking of the wonderful collection of Blue Guitars from the Chinery collection when i say this. Of primary importance of course,is the playability & the 'sound' of the instrument.The most wonderful designs will go nowhere if they sound & play poorly,but within limits,& provided that an instrument doesn't look too 'freakish', then if it sounds really good,i think that many folk would love to own a 'different' looking instrument,i most certainly would.
There was a thread on here (i think ?) quite a while ago, that showed several instruments built by student luthiers,many of them with quite radical styling & well away from the 'norm'. I thought that they looked great,although one or two didn't appeal to me personally,
Ivan

[Rolfe]

Since my "list" has been gone for a while, I've been concentrating on going "outside the box," but instead of radically changing the body design (which would need new molds, etc.), I have gone the Laskin route of trying to create "art" mandolins on my established design. Primarily, this involves creative inlay work, as inspired by Grit Laskin. Several examples are on my website. I use the finger rest from Moose (one) as my signature logo. Right now I am working on Moose Fore (involving mooses and a golfer) and Moose Fifth (can you imagine drunken mooses?). A Phoenix version of an A-5 was another effort. These go to dealers on consignment and sell slowly, but they do sell.

[martinedwards]

I've had far more satisfaction making things for myself (and maybe selling them later) rather than making commissions.

I've made and sold about 30 guitar shaped mandolins, and my one of my last builds was a Gibson Explorer shaped acoustic bouzouki. I LOVED designing and making it, it got a real following on a couple of fora where I did a step by step as I built it, then I sold it with no difficulty at all.

I've also made double neck acoustic guitars which sold with no difficulties.

go for it, just expect to get less for them until you make a real name for yourself as an avante guard builder

[sunburst]

Jim, personally, I think you should proceed with whatever design you want to build, but I can't help noticing that there are lots of responses here saying things like: "if it's sounds and plays well, someone will buy it", and very few saying things like: "if it sounds and plays well I'll buy it".
To me, the most prominent mandolin builder to make "alternative" designs in recent memory was Rigel, and it was a long hard road to success followed by... well, we all know what Rigel's success was followed by. I think people as individuals like the idea of different and various designs, but I think that people as a collective (the market) are less able to pull the trigger on deciding to buy something unusual with their hard-earned dollars. There sure are a lot of guitar builders still making dreadnoughts, mostly rosewood and mahogany, because that's where the market is. One might think that electric guitar buyers would be more open to alternative designs, but the Parker Fly guitar had a similar trajectory to that of Rigel, buried by Les Paul and Stratocastor look-alikes.

So anyway, I really don't want to be discouraging, as I said, I'd really like to see you build something "unusual", but I think it is best to consider an alternative design to be a therapeutic exercise for the luthier, a creative outlet and show piece for creative thinking, a fun project, but not necessarily a way to make money. You might have it sold before it's even finished, but I just think it is healthier for the luthier to know that his/her alternative design must make it's own market rather than just fall into place within the existing market.

[JeffD]

I am particularly interested in the false back ideas, so that the sound doesn't get dampened when the back is pressed against me. Incorporating the tone guard concept in the permenant design of the instrument.

Another idea I have seen that could be expanded upon: side ports. A small sound hole on the side of the instrument, on the bass side. Let the sound out towards the player as well as towars the audience.


I played an old harp mandolin several weeks ago. What a hoot. Got my MAS into gear.

So yea, there's lots of room for innovation.

[first string]

Jim, personally, I think you should proceed with whatever design you want to build, but I can't help noticing that there are lots of responses here saying things like: "if it's sounds and plays well, someone will buy it", and very few saying things like: "if it sounds and plays well I'll buy it".
To me, the most prominent mandolin builder to make "alternative" designs in recent memory was Rigel, and it was a long hard road to success followed by... well, we all know what Rigel's success was followed by. I think people as individuals like the idea of different and various designs, but I think that people as a collective (the market) are less able to pull the trigger on deciding to buy something unusual with their hard-earned dollars. There sure are a lot of guitar builders still making dreadnoughts, mostly rosewood and mahogany, because that's where the market is. One might think that electric guitar buyers would be more open to alternative designs, but the Parker Fly guitar had a similar trajectory to that of Rigel, buried by Les Paul and Stratocastor look-alikes.

So anyway, I really don't want to be discouraging, as I said, I'd really like to see you build something "unusual", but I think it is best to consider an alternative design to be a therapeutic exercise for the luthier, a creative outlet and show piece for creative thinking, a fun project, but not necessarily a way to make money. You might have it sold before it's even finished, but I just think it is healthier for the luthier to know that his/her alternative design must make it's own market rather than just fall into place within the existing market.

Those are all fair points to be sure, but I do think it is important to point out that Rigel and Parker were both production shops. When it comes to the former, I would say that it is probably pretty difficult to keep a production shop going selling nothing but mandolins. Weber is the closest thing I can think of, and even they have branched off into other instruments. Gibson definitely makes a lot more money selling guitars, and I'm betting Collings and Breedlove do too. I think the mandolin market was probably just too small for Rigel. And as to Parker...it might never have exactly taken off, but the fly is still in production. And Ken Parker seems to be doing alright for himself as a one-off archtop maker, given the prices his guitars go for.

Of course, my assessment may be colored somewhat by the fact that I am someone who would like to see more innovation in luthiery. The Stradivarius may be the pinnacle of violin design, but I am willing to bet that the D45 is not the peak of guitar design, and that the F5 similarly leaves room for improvement. Given the limitations inherent to plectrum instruments, I think they stand to benefit more from the efficiencies that are theoretically possible with modern materials and construction techniques, than their bowed counterparts.

Which is not to say that a new design will necessarily be embraced. Bluegrass musicians, who I would venture to guess make up most of the mandolin market, do tend to be fairly conservative when it comes to instrument selection. But I definitely think there is room for other designs, especially if they are focused on achieving a different sound, rather than just a different aesthetic. I think Ken Parker and Greg Smallman are on the right track, and I expect to see more instruments along those lines as time goes by.

[Rush Burkhardt]

Hey, Jim!
I agree with the tone of John Hamlett's response. I am a mandolin player and vintage musical instrument acquisition victim of about 50 years. My livelihood, however, comes from business consulting. Here would be my opinion, based on what I heard you say...forgive me if this is not an encouraging message. It's all about money! If you depend on selling your creations to eat, build what people will buy first! One of the downsides facing almost all artistic-type, entrepreneurs is their desire to be creative. That's a downside because an artist's off-spring's beauty has to be based on the eye of the beholder! The beholder has your money in his pocket! A wise man once told me to protect my personal production, in all things related to generating revenue! I would say to you, if you depend on selling your creations for you and your family to eat, build what they (the beholder) will buy! After you've got a monetary cushion, then you can exercise your creative juices! Too late to make a long story short, one of the best mandolins I own is a custom-made Rigel G-5. Pete Langdell builds a wonderful, very creative mandolin...and I never saw one that didn't sound and play great, right off the workbench! Although I'm sure he sells everyone he builds, I'll bet he has orders and deposits, first! That's free advice, and it may be worth exactly what you've paid for it! All my best! Rush

[Dave Cohen]

John, I beg to differ re the Parker Fly. Anyone who has ever met and spent any time w/ Ken Parker knows that he is a genius - a wacky genius, but a genius nevetheless. The Fly is highly regarded by a number of jazz guitarists of my aquaintance. Ken (like Charles Fox before him) made the mistake of partnering w/ an offshore company, and that company eventually stole Ken's interest in the operation. What killed the Fly commercially was that Ken Parker is Ken Parker, but that offshore company was not Ken Parker.

http://www.Cohenmando.com

[Rick Turner]

A few observations...

Bluegrass...love it, but the genre has some of the most conservative, up-tight, and locked-down musicians on the planet, and they want F-5s, Mastertones, and D-28s. And they're willing to pay for what they want.

That D'Angelico "Shark Fin Guitar" is one of the ugliest archtops I've ever seen. There is simply no balance in the design. It's hideous.

Thank you, David Grisman, for using Giacomel's mandos on stage. That's what it takes for a builder of original instruments to be noticed and accepted.

Ken Parker's major mistake was in doing the Fly as a guitar. He'd have found much more acceptance in the electric bass market. I do agree with Dave re. Ken's genius; I used to have a regular pre-NAMM single malt at the Marriott bar in Anaheim with Ken every year. He's up there with Ned Steinberger.

I've been making "original design" instruments for 40 years now, and it's really hard to get a new design off the ground. Then it's equally hard to go off and do something entirely different from what you have become known for. People want so much to lock you into a box once you've defined it. Try thinking outside of your own original box; that's really fun, and that's what I'm up to these days. Some of it involves collaboration with old designers (who are dead!)...my Buddy Holly guitar project; and some of it is taking what I've learned about production and helping a very original electric guitar designer, Graham Henman, achieve his vision while injecting little tweaks of my own into it. All this while keeping my own stuff going and thinking about new designs.

www.buddyhollyguitarfoundation.org

www.henmanguitars.com

[Willie Poole]

A different shape mandolin might not sell to bluegrassers but what about jazz or other forms of music? I once bought a mandolin that didn`t look anything like a mandolin and my bluegrass friends laughed at the thing but I took it to work one day and a jazz player begged me to sell it to him...SO, I say go for it and test the market, if it is really off the wall some "kook" will buy it just to be different, I see a lot of things now days that people buy just to be different.....Good luck with the project.....Willie

[RJinRI]

So yea, there's lots of room for innovation.

I'm a hobbyist builder and my last "planned" F style ended up as an A-1pointer, due to fact I kept breaking the side maple wood & was running out of it. Ended up with a nice sounding & easy playable insrument. The local jam reviews have been encouraging, to boot.

[Andy Miller]

Yes, the market exists, and is even smaller than the market for A's and F's (and maybe even GBOMs!). But I think you've got a pretty good rep and a pretty good forum for advertising your work right here on the Cafe. I bet you'd have to get pretty far out there before you ended up with an instrument sitting around with no interest. Besides, we know you don't build them in big batches anyway, so you're not risking the family farm by trying it. Go for it!