|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
||||
|
||||
Ex-Riccardi Cornerless Bass Copy (formerly attributed to 'Storioni') (SOLD)
Hi, after considerable thought on the matter I have decided to go ahead and have the Riccardi 'Storioni' copied. We don't really know what makes this bass sound so good even after taking it apart but if I were to have a bass made, I would want it to sound and feel like this.
This bass will start construction this Spring and be completed within 6 months or so. Even though I have a good idea of what I want as far as the degree of the copy stage and modifications as well I thought it would be interesting to discuss it out here and see what you folks think of the idea. Also, if this were your bass being made would you copy it 100% as it is now or modify it in some way. Please share your thoughts.. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
I'd put some little violin corners on it so you can pick it up, and also to increase its marketability.
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
humm...
Quote:
What kind of woods should we use for this? I mean, to get close to the sound besides just the archings and measurements we should try and match species and grain widths and densities as close as possible. Right? As to Arnold's post on the Corner issue, I always had to find a place on the stage to lay the bass down rather then lean the corner on a chair beside my stool as I usually would with any other bass. So at least upper corners were on the menu for this. As far as lower corners, they are not needed for the 'copy' part but for marketability, something small with a shallow block inside would be the least interruptve as far as vibrations go. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Laminated Ribs
We've gone back and forth a bit about how the ribs look laminated and, lo and behold, are in fact laminated.
I suspect that has a noticeable, perhaps even substantial, positive influence on the tone -- worth thinking about including in your reproduction. Have fun and let us know what's up! |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
hey!
I just had an idea that might be fun for some of you guys. If you like, post a photo-shopped image of the Bass with corners added. Use the Back so it's easier. The Top will be harder as the FFs are getting moved up and spread out more and the edges are quite curved and not as easy to draw over. I already submitted a basic drawing so whatever gets posted will mostly be for fun but hey, you never know.
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
corners
why not leave it cornerless and put a wood slat on the rib so it can be picked up more easily
|
#7
|
||||
|
||||
wood slat?
Quote:
Here is a pic of the Scalloped outer Block bass we call 'Scallopini'! Now, an important thing Arnold mentioned was marketability. For an Italian Bass over 200 years old made as it was made and with the reputation of sound being well known and rememberd by all that have heard it in the last 40 years we can accept this particular Bass for what ever venue the player brings it to. For selling it, it is a known classic Italian Bass with a sound to die for. In making a brand new Bass today and keeping the re-sale thought in mind, putting corners on the 'modified' copy along with several other changes to the original Bass to meet todays needs in both playability and marketability. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Good for you Ken, that will turn out nice I think.
Last edited by Ken McKay; 02-03-2010 at 08:16 PM. |
#9
|
||||
|
||||
smiles...
Quote:
I have used the original in Symphony concerts so I know very well what I would like if I owned a twin with the desired modifications. This is it, the twin, modified! You would need wood from the same boards as this to make it exact but even then, it wont be. Only the exact is the exact. I know David's copy BUT, to my eye it is more of an inspired copy than a copy copy. It was made with Walnut, different Scroll, different FFs and, he didn't have the original apart in his hands at his disposal to copy from. Arnold has heard the Wiebe copy and it doesn't sound like the original. Perhaps nothing will. The original has been re-graduated within the last 100 years or so and we have to 'guesstimate' what the original thicknesses were. Actually, the bass is currently 'reverse-graduated' The bass is thinner now in the middle and thicker (original) around the outer edges as the center was cut up quite a bit. We will use something more traditional and maybe tap tone the Top along the way making it to the actual wood chosen. We will have to ask Arnold when all is done how he arrived at the final thicknesses. I say we but 'I' am not the maker here. Arnold Schnitzer is. The 'we' is us, maker and player/designer but without 'me' commissioning this, it would never happen. On the Ribs, they will be solid, not laminated. We can see now how cross grain Spruce against Maple reacts after 200+ years. Not something I want to see in my lifetime. I will however have the Rib depth and top to bottom tapers copied. This will not be a very deep bass at all. It tapers 7 3/4" to 5 3/4" Block to Block. I asked Arnold to copy as close as possible and make the same Purfling as well. I also want that Scroll/Pegbox copied. It might get slightly extended in length if it helps fitting the C-Extension as this was a 3-string. How would this maker have made the Pegbox if it was to be a 4-string originally? This is in thought for now. We can use the Original to measure from and decide from there. Maybe we need to have a mini-convention of all the recent Cornerless Bass copies and inspired models which this one actually is. I am not all that concerned how much the corners will affect the sound. The inside lines of the Bass will flow in the manner of mainly a Guitar form. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
I am sure it will be fantastic.
I forgot about that string length. You can't really leave it that long, can you? Last edited by Ken McKay; 02-03-2010 at 08:18 PM. |
#11
|
||||
|
||||
link..?
Quote:
As far as measuring, I don't know what is involved there. Maybe you can ask him. I am confident with whatever he does concerning the copy-making process. By the way, this bass is #24 for Arnold. Nice even number, 2 dozen! I am sure some of the sound comes from how the Ribs are made and how free they are as well as how free they are not! My Martini (here I go again..) has less then 8" of actual Rib depth and has wide flat outer linings as well stiffening it even more. The inside Linings are about the same as the outer Linings in width. That makes the 'free' part of the Ribs just over 7". The Storioni Ribs are close to 7 5/8" or so for the most part so they have more free Rib width than the Martini. The Martini however is deep into the floor type sounding. The Ribs and Back are Oppio, soft Italian Maple. The Storioni is hard maple like Sugar Maple or Yugoslavian/Bosnian Maple. We will be using Bosnian I think for this Bass, nicely flamed. The Top wood will be fine grained light weight but strong Spruce, I forget the exact species he mentioned. The Storioni Top was made in 6 pieces, this will be two. I don't think anything can ever be copied 100% when it comes to an instrument but all things considered, this Bass will be like "what if the original was made like this?" kinda thing. So an inspired copy with a 'wish list' of modifications. Arnold will try staining the figure like this one was done to bring out the flames. I remember a few years back playing a bass he had just made while my Martini was there in the shop and comparing them. I was quite impressed how well his brand new bass held its own beside my nearlky 90 year old (at the time) Martini as far as tone and power. I think that bass of his after 90 years will at least as good if not better than the Martini, maybe sooner and maybe not! You never know but it's worth a chance to try. All basses were once new! |
#12
|
||||
|
||||
link..
Ok, I opened it in Windows Media but there was no sound. What do you suggest?
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Modify
Ken,
As you have the "real thing" open for restoration, I would trace the outlines of the plates on the same sheet of paper. Then I would draw a centre line, and the perpendicular lines at the upper and lower width, at the C width, at the stop, at the eyes of the F holes,etc. I would also trace the given back braces. Then I would play a bit with numbers, looking for proportions among the given measurements. I don't pretend that this is a way to know the original maker ideas about the design, but it may be helpful to get one's own insight of a given object, and sometimes it's funny (sometimes it's frustrating too). The danger is to cut the foot to fit the shoe... Anyway, if something is to modify, I would do it thinking of the founded proportions (if any!) |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
sorry I changed my mind.
Last edited by Ken McKay; 02-03-2010 at 08:18 PM. |
#15
|
||||
|
||||
humm..
Ok guys, A few current facts about the bass and the changes need to be spelled out.
On the original, the Top was thinned out to the danger point in the middle and lower bouts. The Top has 'sunk' in these areas as well. On the original in repair it is obvious it will need some breast patching to bring 'up' the thickness in spots and then, level the graduations to the norm, what ever that is. So, tapping a tone now may give a false read as to what to make on the Copy bass because we are changing it from the start. The Back is flat on the original with a center brace and 3 very shallow cross braces about the depth of a patch or cleat. The Copy bass will be round, not flat and will have a center brace as well. The Top will have a similar arching system to the 'restored' original. The upper F-eyes and the F's all together are spaced too close. The original should have a 145mm bridge at the most but had a 170mm or bigger when I got it. The bridge foot on the 'G' side was crushing the Top inwards. The first night I had the Bass I cut about 5mm off the outer leg of each foot of the bridge and moved it up about 1/4" and this not only relieved some of the pressure, it made it sound deeper. The Copy bass will have the F's moved up to match the desired string length within the same size body as the original and the F's moved outwards as well. It will get at least a 165mm bridge and the bar like on my Mystery bass was, might be in a bit from the upper F-eyes due to their wider width spacing. So, we are copying the outline and Top archings (the way we think it was) and making the graduations the way we think is best. The Back is being changed from flat to round/carved but following the Top. The Ribs will be the same widths and taper as the original but in 6 solid pieces with small corners instead of two 2-ply continuous pieces without corners. The Purfling and Scroll will be copied from as well but the pegbox might need to be longer for the 4-Gears to fit comfortably and the C-extension to fit without too much length protruding over the head. The original was a 3-stringer and the current gears are tight in there. So, not an exact copy but a basis in which to center the design from. Questions that arise in all of our minds might be; 1- how will the sound be at 41.5" from 44.5" if all else was left alone? Well, we are shortening the original so I will know somewhat the effect. Also, I had in the past stopped the string to 42" and re-tuned it to check the depth and if it was still there. It was and with even more focus so I know it's ok. 2- going round from flatback, how much change in sound or rather departure from the original sound characteristics will there be? Who knows? But, I am doing it. Flatbacks are just too much trouble to deal with. Round with a center brace is the way to go in my mind. The best combination. 3- how will the bass sound with the corner design change and with solid maple vs. 2-ply opposing grain ribs of maple and spruce? Well, in looking at the totally blistered 'blistered flatsawn maple' outer veneer, I hope structurally it will not be an issue or ever come to the condition the original has. As far as the sound goes, I have played many old bass with Organ like tone that were made like this, flat or round back so I am not worried. The original Ribs will be repaired as best they can be but some restorers I am sure would opt for new Ribs entirely. The Copy should not have to go thru this split decision 200 years from now when it goes under the knife for a restoration IF it does! Since the original is under a massive restoration at the same time the Copy is being made, it's not the same way other copies in the past have been made. Usually they get made from an 'in-tact' original with little or no modifications done to it and not taken apart either for corrective repairs. Looking 2 and 5 years down the road, the restored original will be breaking back in from its massive surgery and the copy will be just spreading its wings. THEN, and only then will we know how well we did on both the restoration and the copy attempt. I know the sound of the bass from before and so do many others so I will not be alone in judging the repairs and modifications to the original. Making a Copy to the modified and repaired original before it's repaired is a big challenge in itself. Maybe making the Copy now which will completed before the restoration of the original might help the actual restoration/modification as far as insight goes to what changes are in mind to clean up the original. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
I look forward to hearing more about this, Ken, as it progresses. Of all the basses in stables, this is the one that I enjoy looking at the most. I don't know all the technical terms to describe it's features, I just know that it moves me every time I look at it. And good call on copying the scroll. Of all the scrolls I've seen on the interwebs, this is my favorite.
|
#17
|
||||
|
||||
Scroll, etc..
Quote:
The Copy Bass will not start for a few months. Other than a few drawings there wont be much in reality to report on for at least 6-8 months. The original bass restoration will not be completed until next year sometime. For now, we just sit and wait and talk about it! |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
I would like to point out that the instrument Ken and I are planning is not a "copy" per se, but a bass "inspired by" the one in Ken's possession. There are many changes that will be made, to produce a bass suitable for modern usage and for simply moving it about. To Ken M. and Pino, I appreciate the suggestions, but after 22 successful basses, I have a way of doing things that works for me. As far as thumping on the top and ****yzing the result; we're dealing with a plate with multiple open cracks, large patches, and excavations, as well as mishandled regraduation efforts. It would hardly produce a reasonable sound in its current state. Not to mention the fact that few world-class instrument-makers rely on free-plate tuning nowadays. Some use it as a tool, and I respect that, but Stradivarius, Amati and their peers did just fine without it, and I think I do as well.
|
#19
|
||||
|
||||
yup..
Quote:
The sound of the Bass it-self before restoration is breadth taking. The Ribs have multiple splits, partly due to its construction. The new Ribs will be solid and 6-pc in total instead of 3. The Back has several splits/cracks as well. Partly from being a typical Flatback and partly from being used in the N.E. USA. The modified Roundback planned for the new bass will hopefully fix both of these issues in the long run. All of this will be a change from the original and the sound difference will take 200 years to compare. Volunteers? .. Gee, I hope my cell phone number still works in the 23rd century... I have played several of Arnold's handmade basses. I am confident that between his workmanship, build style, model to copy and my personal design requests this will be his masterpiece to date. I would also like to mention if I may that this will be the most expensive Bass Arnold has custom made to date. I am totally ok with that because I know very well what is going into it. I am happy that Arnold has accepted the project. Now, would someone PLEASE Photoshop a demo of this? I will tell you what corrections to make as we go. Ofcourse Arnold's drawings will be final as we deciede together what it will be but having a little fun on-line along the way seems like fun.. |
#20
|
||||
|
||||
missed this one..
Quote:
I was always able to hear the sound loud and clear (I think) thru the Ribs as I played. It's hard to tell where all the sound came from. Also, it is impossible to know how the sound would be with solid Ribs in Guitar form rather than the 2-pc laminated. Still, to avoid problems in the build and in the future, we will go with traditional Ribs. With so much surface area to glue, laminating or rather 'doubling' the Ribs leaves room for hidden voids. That is definitely something I don't want to run into, new or old. The original will be restored as it is but the new model will be modified. |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|