Choosing the 'right' Bass for you...
 

Hello fellow Bassists. This is a very important subject and dilemma that we all go through. Here is a short list of common situations many of us face.

(a) Most of the time it is a financial decision that helps determine the range of Basses available within ones budget.

(b) Sometimes 'that' bass is already in our hands but for reasons of condition, repairs needed or set-up issues, its optimum capabilities are not fully realized.

(c) Then again, on occasion it is more of a matter of choosing which of the Basses you already own is going to be 'The One'!

(d) Some other reason entirely or a combination of the above...

I have gone through this problem so much lately that I spend more time on picking a bass that I already have than practicing any one of them which is worse than even playing the wrong bass..:eek:

So, lets discuss this very common problem that almost all of us have had at one time or another for one or more of the above reasons.

Let's call this 'Bass choosing' therapy class.. ;)

(a) Most of the time it is a financial decision that helps determine the range of Basses available within ones budget.

That's right. I took out a loan in the late 70's for the Juzek labeled bass that I still find myself playing. Luckily, it's taken me through over 30 years of hard playing, thousands of gigs and well over 1000 recording sessions with an often complemented sound and very little trouble. I outgrew certain aspects of this bass many years ago, but, the family came first and I didn't even bother looking for another bass until a few years ago when my daughter was in college and we decided to downsize.

(b) Sometimes 'that' bass is already in our hands but for reasons of condition, repairs needed or set-up issues, its optimum capabilities are not fully realized.

Well, I did find another bass a couple of years ago. I posted it on the German page when you started this forum. I still own it, it still sounds terrific to me, but I haven't been able to get it to play the way I want it to, so I'm back on the Juzek. I'm either going to make a last ditch effort to get this thing working by taking it to Arnold and maybe a few others out east for their opinions (you too, Ken), or it's out of here and I'm looking again (my Chicago luthier told me to forget that, the Juzek is "my" bass and the grass isn't greener...I think he has a point).

Ken, I think that if I was in your position of having so many wonderful basses to choose from, I would go completely nuts. :eek: From your posts, it sounds to me like the Martini is your "go to" bass and Big Ben is the one for special occasions. Do not touch any of the others ever again! ;)

That's right, send them all to Eric for safe keeping.:D

Financial considerations are probably going to be the number one issue, but there other is finding the instrument that makes you smile within that budget.

When I bought my Juzek (also around 20 years ago), it was from the Bass Viol Shop in Cincinnati. I spent almost all day there, playing every bass in the shop. Everything from cheap $600 plywood (and even fiberglass) basses up to orchestral instruments that were $60K. I had $2000 to spend, and even though there were a number of instruments between the price of the early 60's Juzek and $2000, it was the Juzek that made me smile.

Knowing what I know now, I might well have chosen another instrument. But back then, all I really had to go on was instinct and feel. I guess it worked out - I still like my bass.

lol..
 

So funny but true in a way. When I was at the ISB I asked two guys there for a quick lesson on maybe one thing or two I should work on to just play better. Having been out of playing for so long till just a few years ago and not studying for decades as well took a toll on my 'getting it all back' plan.

Arnold has seen me play and will appreciate this one. The first guy (a pro orchestra player, no names) suggested I slow everything down and practice the notes that I might be missing because I play fast things very fast that I used to play well and didn't re-build my technique back up this time around. I just 'jumped back onto a speeding train', as the say. That was helpful hearing that because although I know that, I know a lot of things I need to do but where should I actually start? Not music wise, but my approach to practicing.

The second guy (an orchestra pro as well as an Electric bass player) went a step further. What we did both times is I just played for about a minute for them to see what stuck out the most about any weakness that was the most obvious.

He looked at the 6 Bass behind me and said I need to pick just one bass and play and practice on only ONE Bass. Four of the six basses were ones I used depending on which was available to me. You know, one in restoration or set-up, one out on trial and I play or choose from what's left at the time.

So, I picked the Martini because of its comfort and because overall, I play it the best. I am not in love with the neck. I like the Hart and Gilkes better. I am not in love with the overall sound either. It is sweet, has low end spread but is a tight projecting tone and not a wide spreading projector like bass. The Big Gamba spits out the notes the easiest but I don't love the neck or the shoulders and I play it a hair flat in the upper positions due to all of the above. If it was my only bass, I would get used to it. But, switching to the others back and forth, I have trouble finding 'home plate' at times.

Of the 4 basses mentioned (Hart, Gilkes, Martini and Gamba) 3 of them have shown better to orchestra pros with the exception of budget. The Martini is usually the least favored of the 'big hitters' because of having a bit less spread power. This concerns me as I want to have my best in my personal hands but then again, I would need to put them all in a blender as no single bass has everything. There, I said it.

When I returned from the Show, I started on the Martini but soon switched around all the basses picking a different one each time. Sometimes for a day or two and sometimes only an hour or two. Then the 2nd or 3rd time around in less than a month (I can't remember anymore) I settled on the Big Boy because of the sound. Then I remembered that everyone liked it and was the best candidate to sell to an Orchestra pro being less money than the two English Pedigrees mainly because of just that, Pedigree.

I had the Gamba in my rack with the Hard beside it as a 2nd if I needed the shoulder reach for a program. Then just the other day onTuesday I was all bandaged up on my left arm, wrist to shoulder from having some elective surgery on my arm. I chose July because it's the time I can most afford to heal up and do less. With several incisions stitched up under the bandages I started playing each bass to see which was easier with my restricted movement. It was not the Gamba for reach and not the Hart for the shoulders but the Martini and Gilkes for their slightly smaller shoulders.

Look, I can cover 3 of them up so I don't touch them and take one home and mark it not for sale. That's the easy part. The hard part is choosing which one will overall suit me best and will be less likely to be sold as I do show them all. The 'sold' part is one I cannot predict. One never knows!

So, in my 2-space rack near my desk are now the Gilkes and Martini. The Gilkes because thats the only space I have for it and my favorite 2nd for comfort and the Martini because that's the one overall I like playing the most. If I was in a major orchestra I might need more sound but at my 2nd lesson my friend pointed out that the Martini is better than all of the Basses in the orchestra he plays in and when he has subbed in the Philly Orchestra, it is also better than a few of the basses over there as well. So, if I was playing in the Philly (not this lifetime) the Martini would still work just fine.

On Wednesday I un-bandaged my shoulder and played the Martini as much as I could being it's a slow week at work. I think until the Stroioni is restored and 3 or 4 others I have out, the Martini will be the one. In about 2 years from now, I will be going thru this all over again.. lol:eek:

By the way, in the 5+ years I have had both the Martini and Gilkes I have used them fairly equally. The Martini for smooth deep blending and the Gilkes for audible power. I measured the bridges and nuts on both of them and they are so close. Overall, the Martini is 1mm wider at the bridge and a hair less arch in the middle. Overall, the Gilkes is 1mm wider at the Nut. That is a 3rd of a mm difference per string in the spacing. The Martini is 41.5" S.L. with slightly sloped shoulders and the Gilkes is 41" S.L. with modified Cello shoulders. The longer Martini with a D-neck is easier to play than the shorter Gilkes with closer to an Eb neck, go figure. The Martini's ribs at the neck and upper shoulders are narrower as well as compared to the Gilkes.

I just wish the Martini had the power of the Gilkes, crunch of the Hart and the bazooka tone projection of the Gamba. Either way, my only hope for an improved bass to play would be the Storioni when it's restored. It played east at 44" with narrower ribs and sloped shoulders with as much sound as the Gamba and sweetness topping all of the above in the tone department.

Now you know why my head is always spinning..:confused::eek::o;)

I had a fairly unusual scenario for trying to find the "right" bass for me. I'm sure you're all aware of my constant talks about my physical shortcomings. For me, it was about finding an instrument with narrow shoulders that had a good amount of slope to them. Also a bass that had a very large neck angle and large over-stand.

so..
 

I am well aware of your situation from reading it on-line. Have you reached the final chapter with this? Bass, set-up, strings, etc? The sound there where you want it?

Hey, it's great to dream. Then at least we know what we really want.;)

For me, it changes by the day. I know what I said earlier today in the above post and then when I came in to the office I played for about an hour on the Martini. I now know that I prefer an Eb neck, period! The Martini and Gamba are Ds and gonna stay that way. The Gilkes is a finger width short of an Eb so just about close enough in that area. The Hart is a dead on Eb and I just love the added reach I can get with it. The two things I don't like currently are the broader shoulders and the edge on the top of the note when playing the Bass. That edge though fades away as you walk further from the Bass. I remember that the best part of this Bass when I bought it was the smooth Italian sounding 'G' string and that diminished from slightly the D, A and E as you went lower. The Top was sunk in, split all over and the Back was off the upper bass-side cornerblock by a 'hand' sized opening. You could literaly reach inside the Bass there.

The sound of the Hart I believe will come back in a matter of time because it just went thru a massive restoration, the last one being done in 1944, London. At that time we believe the Top was overly thinned in a few spots and that partially caused the stressed condition of the Bass 40 years later when it was retired from use. Now that it is all in tip top physical shape but it just needs to be played. Patience on my part and playing it is the only remedy (unless it gets sold..:(). The shoulders are broader than the Martini but they are sloped in more at the Neck area. From the level of the shoulders on the Hart you can reach about a whole tone higher on the fingerboard parallel to that position over the Martini. So the slightly broader shoulders are really the only thing that I have to get used to on the Hart. I prefer that challenge over the D neck issue which cannot be fixed as easily on the Martini nor gotten used to.

Lets see which way the wind blows next week.. lol :D

All kidding aside, I have hardly used the Hart bass but on a handfull of concerts. I was afaraid to take it out most of the time to tell the truth. Maybe if I had this Bass in my hands for 5 years like the Martini the choice wouldn't be as difficult. I used to love my old Italian Bass that I have for 20 years. It was barely a D neck and over 42". Still, I played it almost every day for 15 years and always with a smile. The smile took a few years to come but never went away after that.

For what it's worth, in my situation money is not the factor here because I already have the Basses mentioned above. It's purely comfort. I like my Eb neck Blockless bass more than some of the more expensive D necked pedigrees as well but that's another story. It's just more fun to play.

Fun! Now there's a word we need to put into the official Bass search list. Is the Bass more fun to play or more work. I would venture to say that if it's more work, keep looking!;)

Calvin, what do you mean regarding the last sentence.

I assume it keeps your right and left hands close to your body.

To be honest, I don't think I'm ever going to be completely satisfied with my set-up, strings and sound. I'm quite the perfectionist and it often creeps into how I make music, sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse.

There's always going to be a better set of strings out there or perhaps a slightly better bridge angle. All I can say is, for now I can play the bass without being in pain; this I could not achieve one year ago before I got this instrument.

The sound is very dark, I think I'll have to rest on the fact that it is just a very dark sounding bass, and I'll have to live with that fact, instead of spending more amounts of money on strings and such.

One day, hopefully when I'm in a decent orchestra I'll have the money and knowledge to get a great master instrument that suits my body type, until then I'm perfectly happy playing on a good modern instrument.

The large over-stand helps me reach to the end of the fingerboard. The majority of my playing is solo-playing, so my set-up is very much like Gary Karr's. Not very practical for "orchestra" playing, but that's my style and it's how I express myself best.

How high is the overstand? The bridge?

How would you like me to measure the overstand?

well..
 

Until Arnold gets back on line, place a small ruler on the Top where the bottom of the Neck sits in the Block. From the Top to the underside of the Fingerboard (or the surface of the Neck that the FB sits on) is the measurement you want. That space is called the overstand. How far the Neck is off the Top!

My Basses that were set by Arnold average 34-36mm of space between and described above. Here are some pics for reference;
http://www.kensmithbasses.com/double...ages/hart6.jpghttp://www.kensmithbasses.com/double...ages/fullR.jpg

This big 4/4 Gamba is set out quite a bit more due to the wider shoulders, longer body length and center bout width. I have seen one other large shouldered bass just recently out of restoration that was set out even more than this one and it needed it to avoid being cut!
http://www.kensmithbasses.com/double...ges2/side2.jpg

From the top plate to the underside of the fingerboard at the end of the neck.

...and the bridge from the top in between the A and D string.


Oh I see KS beat me too it, of course.

Neck angle
 

Another thing is the angle of the neck in relation to the back.

I am asking here. If the neck angles back too much it makes it hard for the left arm and the player tends to want to lean back while playing in first position and then forward when going up to the higher positions. Right?

What are some landmarks in regard to this? I might need to do some drawings.

Neck angles and comfort..
 

Not quite off topic but rather a very important comfort factor that is usually not even considered and we take what is given to us. Here are some pics of my basses for the sole purpose of looking at the Neck-to-body angles. I don't know the angles but there is so much else to be considered along with this for playability. The top arch, the center bout width, the back length, the rib depth at the neck and mid upper bout that may touch your body and the top and back lengths respectively with how the neck must be set as one plate is often longer or shorter then the other. Here we go;
http://www.kensmithbasses.com/double...ages/fullR.jpghttp://www.kensmithbasses.com/double...ages/hart5.jpghttp://www.kensmithbasses.com/double...ages2/side.jpghttp://www.kensmithbasses.com/double.../lott_mod5.jpg
http://www.kensmithbasses.com/double...ages/fullR.jpghttp://www.kensmithbasses.com/double...ges/full_R.jpg

Have a look at these and compare. Feel free to ask me which are easier to play standing and/or sitting. I hope I can remember them all otherwise I will have to test them and report back. One of them is out in restoration but I remember it fairly well. Have fun..;)

KS I see you did a lot of work putting up the side views.

I captured these basses earlier and put a straight line from the back up to the scroll to illustrate the angle differences, then I added the front line to create a "box" where the nut sits inside.
I did this last night but didn't post it so here it is. Pretty much the same as yours but with the lines. You obviously don't need the line, you can just look, but it does help define how far the fingerboard is out from the left hand.

Question: Is the distance from the imaginary line up the back in relation to the nut (just where the strings exit the fingerboard, a variable to control? When designing or restoring a bass where the neck will be reset the overstand can be varied by adding some wood to the heel (or removing). A bigger overstand will allow the nut to move more away from the imaginary back line and visa versa.

This reminds me of the old Sesame Street game "One of these things doesn't belong".

interesting..
 

Well, it was not much work for me because they were just from the page shots we took awhile ago. Nothing more than copy and paste for me here.:)

So, as far as you can see, which basses have the least pitch, most pitch or most comfortable 'looking' pitch in your mind for what you can see.

As far as what can be controlled, often in restoring an old bass, the string length is something we try and control in the planning. Making it longer, shorter of keeping it the same. Sometimes they are re-pitched slightly and sometimes not. Some times they are set lower into the block and sometimes just moved out.

All of these steps are possible to do but what ever is practical for each bass to achieve the desired results is what will be done. The optimum achievement can only be done with a blank check so to speak. You cannot do this 'on the cheap'. The bass needs what it needs to get it as good as IT can be for today's playing styles. Sometimes it's very little and sometimes it's everything.

Here is a list (from what I can remember) of the things that have been done to a few of my basses. Some had one or two steps done and some everything;

Scroll/neck Graft, new fingerboard, c-extension, block cut, block expanded, new block, underside heel shim/pitch, re-pitch, fingerboard shim, fingerboard shim/pitch, neck lengthened with graft, neck shortened with graft, bridge moved forward to adjust note stop, heel recarved deeper/smaller, neck recarved shallower, etc.. In other words, what ever it takes to make a particular bass the best that it can be for you. The 'for you' part is a big one. Not everyone wants the same neck or feel.

I can't tell you how many basses with D-necks with 'healthy heels' that I wanted cut down into Eb-necks for my personal taste and was talked out of the idea by Arnold because these were basses for sale in my stock. The modern players are trained to play the d-neck classically but for me playing jazz and classical etc., I prefer the Eb for all around playing. Playing the f/1 and g/4 on the A-string are important for me as well as the c/1 and d/1 on the E-string, and not just playing up the bass on the G and D string. I like my reach over the neck and heel from fingered to thumb positions to be as little a transition as possible. This is what I mean by liking the Eb better personally. Others trained on a d-neck may have difficulty playing in tune in that transitional area regardless of comfort in the long run.

The measurements I concern myself with are the overstand and the bridge height. If the bass has broad shoulders, higher overstand can help a bit with playabilty in "no-man's land" and thumb position. Too high and you reduce the breakover angle at the bridge too much. The bridge needs to be high enough for adequate bow clearance and top pressure, but not so high as to choke the sound, or cause the player fatigue in the bow arm. I don't believe the angle of the back to the scroll is relevant, because basses have all kinds of back tapers. Some have a constant taper from endblock to neck. Some have no taper until the upper bout. Some have a little taper at the bottom and then more in the upper bout (mine). And then there are some with no taper at all.

Thanks! It is a lot to think about. My lines do help me though. Even if the relation of the back to the neck front is not relevant, it shows the angle over the top by the relative position of the nut from the front line.
I better get off the internet, I'm supposed to be packing something up for Arnold. :o

ok..
 

Arnold, how about angle/pitch-back of fingerboard to body? Is this all done with the bridge height in mind?

I have had basses with 6" tall bridges that cleared wide c-bouts and others at 6.5" that barely cleared the bouts of a similar size. Is the top arch something that is added in the formula here. How about overall bout shape and corner types? Also, where the bridge lays in proportion to all of this, the end of the fingerboard and where you play/bow the bass is an equal factor of concern as well, would you agree?

With such a variation in the overall sizes and designs of basses I see that no two basses can be compared with so many variables to consider. I guess just playing them one by one and prescribing the steps for improvement is what's needed on a case-by-case or rather bass-by-bass situation.

Also, I just thought of this. The arch of the bridge and the height of the outer strings (G and E) from the body/top and not the center of the bridge are most important here. The fingerboard curve as well needs to match the proper bridge curve as well. I can't tell you how many basses I have played that everything was fine in the neck area but due to bridge and fingerboard issues played poorly.

SL
 

Also, while making a neck graft the string lenght is to consider.
A longer SL move backwards the middle and high positions.
It help when the bass has long body stop, wide shoulders and-or wide outline at the neck block.
A limit is the stretching of the hand, more in first position.
And, if the instument has a little rib height at the neck a longer heel may be not so nice aesthetically.

ok..
 

Interesting but here in USA we try to play at 42" or less in the SL. I did play one bass used here in an orchestra that was not only an Eb neck but over 42". When I questioned the player he replied "I like it that way". So there, different tastes.

Pino, you are in Italy so I assume you know your Italians. How close to a real Maggini Bass does my Hart/Maggini look like? I mean the shape, back bend, FFs and Scroll. It is the easiset bass for me to play that I have now of 4 good basses in my rack. Not the best tone as they are all good and individual but the best I can play in-tune up and down the neck. I think it is the neck-to-body design and the Eb that makes this one the easiest for me. What do you think Pino?

Hart!
 

I'm sure that the maker drawed his inspiration from Maggini, as the body outline look so similar at a first glance.
But, also, he made an instrument of his own,for the musicians of his century.
He did not intended to make a copy.
Somehow, he took his pleasure from the past he like, and made something new.
At a second glance, the bottom bouts of the Hart are more rounded, the C bouts more long and open, the body stop moved downward ( in Maggini the stop is near the center ).
The rib height of Maggini is huge ( mm230, a bit more than 9 inches ), almost parallel till the bent.
The ff holes are sloped to follow the C bouts outline, with little wings and far enough from the center.
The bigger instruments of Maggini are shorter than the Hart.
Probably a real Maggini would be not so comfortable as the Hart is, for the narrower C bouts.
In fact, the Maggini instruments were probably made to be played like viols, mostly at the neck and with 5 or 6 strings.
The Hart is, for sure, a double bass.
I can't know why you feel easy to play with him, probably there is a good ratio SL/body stop/bridge height/neck overheight/Eb neck/shoulders outline etc
Also, maybe the balance you found matches your own body.
I'm sure that anything was done to put the bass at his best with the sound.
So my hope, if you will play the Hart for some time, is that you will achieve the "it" for that one instrument, to let him play the way you like.
Sometimes is just habit, inconscious movements, little changes...

As a viol player asked me for a little size violone, I probably will make a Maggini model soon. He said "I need deep sound and fundamentals".
Coincidences?

A violone with a deep sound and fundamentals? Perhaps he should reconsider what instrument he actually wants...Violones are built extremely thin and aren't meant to sound like a double bass. Very low neck angle, low bridges, super low tension.

wow..
 

Pino, thank you very much for the observation and professional opinion. At first I was less comfortable overall with this bass over the Gilkes or Martini but one time when playing thru the basses I asked my son for his opinion and he too by my surprise picked the Hart for me. I said "really, the Hart?". He replied "yeah Dad, you play the most comfortably on that one but do what you want". That was over a year ago. The few concerts I took the Hart out for I felt the added reach across the bouts to the neck so that in itself took my attention for the most part. When standing however, when adjusted to the correct height (for me) the Hart is the easiest bass to 'hit' all the notes. The Hart will now see a lot more action now that I've had the time to better test and compare what is overall easiest for me to play.

Best of luck with your Violone project. When you can, please share some pictures of your work with us. It can be this Violone coming up or anything else you have including repairs. Thanks again..

Calvin,
Duane Rosengard wrote a book, “Cremonese double basses”, where I read, from Stephen Bonta,
that Gasparo “Bertulotti” was paid 35 lire to play the “Violone” during the Mass in Bergamo.
The word “Violone” is confusing itself.
From 1550 to 1750 it meant:
the bass viol
any gamba viol
any bass instrument, viol or violin family, cello or double bass register.
What I'm interested in now are the Maggini instruments.
They show a similar body outline of the (his contemporary) Praetorius
“Gros viol de gamba, italis violono oder contrabasso de gamba”.
Are they gamba instruments?
Yes, they are tuned in fourths with a middle third, have flat bented back, frets, 5 or 6 strings, huge rib height.
No, they have F holes, violin corners, high shoulders, wired tailpiece.
At the turn of the century they made new hibrid bass instruments to reach the low register of the organ. Longer than before.
So the strings were thicker, at least to allow the bowing. This increased the tension.
And, the metal wound strings were not available.
So the last strings were really thick.
Thick gut strings are good for the fundamental tone, as they loose harmonics.
I think they discovered the warmth of the low register, and I bet that they were astonished.
This is another thread to talk, anyway, if I will agree with the musician for this work.

If you're interested in Maggini, I can help you. Tafelmusik gave me their G-Violone which is a copy of the Dolmetch Collection Maggini, perhaps the most famous Violone that Maggini made. This instrument has all the original measurements as Grunert made the copy, except the neck angle and bridge height are incorrect.

back on topic..
 

Ok guys, I know it sounds like I can't make up my mind but the truth of the matter is.. that's a good possibility.. lol

As you may have heard before, I always fall back to the Martini as if it's my 'default' bass. Well, it seems that it is. It is the one that fits me best followed by the Gilkes. This is body-to-bass fit mainly. The heel issue of D or Eb is secondary I believe. The bass has to fit my body first. No bass is ever perfect for everything I guess. There will always be something you find fault with in your own personal instrument whether it be a string, a wolf or what have you.

I went back and forth all week playing the 4 basses and although the big Gamba spits the notes out like no other and the Hart has the best Eb Heel-to-Thumb position, the Martini is just easier for me to play overall. If it had the Hart Eb Heel area and the massive sound of the Gamba or the round power of the Gilkes, it would be awesome. But, it doesn't. It probably puts out about 10-20% less sound in one way or another than the other 3 basses.

Now this is not like I am picking a weak bass. To the contrary, a friend of mine has a fantastic English Hawkes Panormo that I helped him acquire. The word was that in the Orchestra it was in before, that Hawkes Panormo was considered unstoppable in the section.

A few weeks ago we A-B'd the massive English Hawkes and the Martini side by side. The Martini beat it hands down regardless of which one of us was playing it. Also, at the ISB while someone was pounding away on the Gamba bass, another person was playing the Martini beside it. The Martini cut right thru the middle of the Gamba as if it bore a hole thru its sound. The Gamba was much louder overall and with more spread but the Martini was sweet and focused and would not take second place in the sound department.

So my personal bass as suggested to me by several others in the past and recently as well will remain the Martini with the Gilkes being my standby when I need more cutting power. The Gilkes is actually louder and rounder sounding than the bigger Gamba bass. Go figure..

I love the Hart and the Gamba sound wise and everything else. They are fantastic basses. They just don't fit me as well personally.

You know, I had a fantastic Prescott and an English Dodd as well that was also more powerful than the Martini. Again, I just didn't play them as well.

I love a good http://contrabbassi.it/eng/archivio.html Martini.

yes, but..
 

That Martini was probably one of his last basses made as he died in 1957. I have seen in person another one like that (not quite as fancy) from around 1946 or so if I recall correctly. On this bass, he was 61 years old when it was made. On mine, he was only about 25-26 years old. He reportedly learned from the great Stefano Scarampella. This was before or around the same time that Gattano Gadda (his only 'recorded' pupil) began training with him. Martini's early basses look quite different than his later ones but look like his hand regardless. I have seen 3 or 4 basses from 1919-1926 and 2 from 1946-1954 as seen above in the link.

Martini was a stout man and a bass player as well, starting his training on the bass at age 14. This bass I have which is his oldest known bass may have been made for himself. The rear back/button carvings are more elaborate than the 1921 and 1926 models I have seen and the ff-eyes on top are wider spaced than another 1926 model that was played years before by a Philly orch. player. The wider eyes allows for a wider bridge and bassbar-soundpost placement resulting in greater depth. The bridge on the Martini is still only about a 155mm size but if it was only able to take a 150, the sound might not be as deep overall.

The Link you show is from Sergio Scaramelli who owned and restored MY Martini back in 1999. He came to the ISB and when looking at 'his' old Martini 10 years later remarked that this was a very early bass for Martini, perhaps the first one made.

I do know this however, if it gets sold anytime soon, it will be missed as I don't have another Bass that feels so comfortable. I do however own TWO cornerless basses, not just the one that you know, the Storioni. The 2nd one was about 42" SL or slightly bigger but a beautiful shape in the shoulders. That Bass could turn out even more comfortable than the Storioni as far as the note reach over the shoulders go. The Storioni has to be shortened from a 44.5" mensur to 42" or less. I haven't shown any pictures of this other bass because it was so far out on the schedule that I didn't want to be answering questions for 2 or 3 years on a bass I had little experience with. Regardless, besides the Martini, the Gilkes is the second most comfortable bass I currently have 'play-ready' but for different reasons. I would go to the Gilkes if the Martini was sold as far as it stands now.

No small challenge there...:D

Huh?
 

Now you've got me confused, why sell the Martini if it's your all around favorite bass?

lol...
 

Arnold, don't forget to add stand-up comedy to your resume..;)

huh..
 

You're confused? lol

Well, it is the favorite amongst those 4 listed and all the others are in restoration. The differences, pluses and minuses are all slight between them. They are just all different.

I could live with any of the basses if I only had one. These are all basically inventory since I started collecting and dealing again like I did back in the 1970s & '80s. It is very possible that one of the Cornerless basses will fit me even better if not one of the others I have out in repair. I also have a modern English Bass that is both a joy to play as well as listen too. If all of the big ticket stuff sells, then I would get a C-extension and it and use that one.

So you see, my dilemma is more of, which one 'in the store' suits me best because I keep switching day in and day out and it's starting to get confusing. These basses I mention are quite different from one another so each require some getting used to.

Are these basses or women? What would Freud say? Ken, is there a local chapter of bass addicts anonymous near you? Bass promiscuity!!! :D

lol!!!! Too funny. :D

lol..
 

Also, on top of all that, it depends on what music I am playing. For Jazz, it might be none of the above so I am strictly talking Orchestra basses here.

Look, come over and buy 3 of the 4 basses listed above. Then I wont have a choice..;)

what I look for in a bass...
 

When I bought my 1982 Pöllmann, it was mainly a question of availability. As a student without car, and in a country with a lot of distance between each bass for sale, I couldn't be too picky. In fact, in order to get a loan for "extra studying material" you had to take the loan during the first half of your studies - within 1,5 or two years. So I borrowed this one from my teacher, and I didn't even really like it - looking back, I didn't even know anything about basses back then! - but at least I realised that it was probably the most bass I could get for my bucks.

I love it more and more. It's sounding better and better, and that's not just my playing. I can take it to any gig and it will do, it's failry sturdy as opposed to some frail old basses which feel like they might fall into pieces (this one hasn't even had a crack!) and it sounds good from top to bottom. I hope I'll be able to keep it throughout my life, but it's not my 'ultimate' bass. The body is larger than the scale might imply, and so the shoulders are a bit too high, and I also feel that it could be easier to reach properly into the E string. Which is where I almost wish I had played French bow... ;)

So, what I'd want in my next bass is basically improved playability. The shoulders are less much of a problem. Of course, I'd be looking into an older bass, for the sound, and hopefully that feeling that somebody has already been playing this bass properly for ages. Actually, there is this bass that I can't get out of my head... the Swedish one over at the Contrabass Shoppe. What's probably the best sounding Swedish built bass (possibly along with a Johan Öberg of the 1700s) just shouldn't have left the country. My teacher went over there to try out some basses, and he also remarked that I should have that bass. Unfortunately, we are talking £50k, and that means debt until retirement, even if I could get a loan...

£50k?
 

This Bass here is £50k? http://www.contrabass.co.uk/2693.htm , The Brock.

That's about $80k U$D depending on the day and rate. Actually, my Martini is in the same range and age almost. I saw a few other Italian basses of a similar age at the ISB that were actually priced quite higher. Gee, maybe my Martini is too low. The classic looking Brock sounds like a great bass and looks great too.

On your Pollmann, I know exactly what you mean. I have owned 3 of them personally and the last was the best I think and the youngest as well. They do a good job in the Orchestra but if you desire that older sweeter mature complex tone, you will have to look further for it I think.

On the Brock bass, you will notice the Krutz tuners on it. I showed Tony Houske my Gilkes pics one day and he came back asking where he could get tuners like those. Well, now we know he got them and put them on a fine bass no doubt. I have them on my Martini as well.