Ex-Riccardi Cornerless Bass Copy (formerly attributed to 'Storioni') (SOLD)

[Ken Smith]

I just got some pics from Arnold. The Bass is ready now for varnishing. It's all together and looks fantastic. If not for the upcoming VSA competition, it would not have been this far along considering the other work he has on the bench which includes restoring the original.

Because the bass is being entered in the competition anonymously, I can't show these in-progress pics. The label will be covered up during the judging and only uncovered afterwards. Any foreknowledge of who made what is a possible disqualification. In fact, the rules state this clearly and it's the makers responsibility to mark his work and cover his name for the judging. I do not want to be the person that let the cat out of the bag so to speak on this one.

I promise that when it's all over-with, I will post all the pictures approved by both Arnold and myself. Actually, he has not had much time in the process to take pictures. He spent his time with tools in hand, not a camera. He has been going back and forth between two basses on his personal bench, the copy and the original.

I will say that in advance, I am quite excited about both basses being completed. Stay tuned as this bass will be one to remember for years to come.

[Eric Swanson]

Good luck to you, to Arnold, and to your new bass in the competition. I look forward to seeing the photos and to hearing your impressions when you can play your new bass.

[Thomas Erickson]

Sounds like the bass is coming along; I'm looking forward to seeing it completed.

I missed the initial discussion, but on the subject of the D vs. Eb neck - personally I can go either way; I think that because of the "standardness" and construction aspects the "D" neck is understandable. But - in terms of which one I'd rather play, aside from the fact that I find it annoying switching between the two, I'd rather play the Eb neck and were I to have a bass made (that was to be my primary instrument) I'd want it made that way.

That said, I also have no objection to a longer string length; granted, I'm a fairly large guy with bigger hands and a flexible technique, but I really feel that the shorter string lengths we shoot for today are often a crutch (among several) keeping players from developing technique that would allow them to play a longer length without trouble. Sure, a shorter string length is functional and feels "easier" to play, but I don't think that in terms of tonal precision they stand up and that given the same bass and same player, assuming good technique, there is more potential for a tonally "clear" performance with a longer string length.

There's a reason there is only one row of guys playing bass in the orchestra - not everybody is able or willing to do it - we don't need to compromise the instrument so everyone can play it...

(yes, I know there are other reasons too. )

[Ken Smith]

Originally Posted by Thomas Erickson

Sounds like the bass is coming along; I'm looking forward to seeing it completed.

I missed the initial discussion, but on the subject of the D vs. Eb neck - personally I can go either way; I think that because of the "standardness" and construction aspects the "D" neck is understandable. But - in terms of which one I'd rather play, aside from the fact that I find it annoying switching between the two, I'd rather play the Eb neck and were I to have a bass made (that was to be my primary instrument) I'd want it made that way.

That said, I also have no objection to a longer string length; granted, I'm a fairly large guy with bigger hands and a flexible technique, but I really feel that the shorter string lengths we shoot for today are often a crutch (among several) keeping players from developing technique that would allow them to play a longer length without trouble. Sure, a shorter string length is functional and feels "easier" to play, but I don't think that in terms of tonal precision they stand up and that given the same bass and same player, assuming good technique, there is more potential for a tonally "clear" performance with a longer string length.

There's a reason there is only one row of guys playing bass in the orchestra - not everybody is able or willing to do it - we don't need to compromise the instrument so everyone can play it...

(yes, I know there are other reasons too. )

Thomas, I would like to inform you that 150 -200 years ago, many basses in England or most of them were under 42" string length originally. My Hart with a replaced neck at an Eb-neck is under 42". A Fendt I recently played is under 42". My Dodd was under 42". Also many Italian basses built on the smaller side are under 41". Just because we see some 44s floating around doesn't mean they were all made that big.

As far as pro orchestra bass sections go, you might find a few 43s in the group but most players I know want 42" or less. On sound, I see no problem as my former Dodd was one of the loudest and deepest sounding basses I've ever played.

That being said, the copy bass will start out with a D-neck heel but with enough room to carve down to almost a full Eb. I will try it first at a D'. The access to the upper register of this bass is so easy (as it is on the original) that the Eb may not be necessary but it's still an option for after the competition. The string length I think will be just under 42".

[Ken Smith]

Originally Posted by Thomas Erickson

.... I also have no objection to a longer string length; granted, I'm a fairly large guy with bigger hands and a flexible technique, but I really feel that the shorter string lengths we shoot for today are often a crutch (among several) keeping players from developing technique that would allow them to play a longer length without trouble. Sure, a shorter string length is functional and feels "easier" to play, but I don't think that in terms of tonal precision they stand up and that given the same bass and same player, assuming good technique, there is more potential for a tonally "clear" performance with a longer string length.

There's a reason there is only one row of guys playing bass in the orchestra - not everybody is able or willing to do it - we don't need to compromise the instrument so everyone can play it...

(yes, I know there are other reasons too. )

When I first read your post I thought you were just referring to the copy bass but reading it once again I think you are referring to the original which is in the process over being shortened, correct?

I don't know what kind of experience you have playing bass professionally but large basses are tiring to play on and difficult to play in tune as well. This is not about building chops. It's about playing music that was written after these big basses were made.

I can tell you this, give me a dozen or a hundred basses like this and I will shorten every one of them to 42" string length or less. The bass will be easier to play, the sound more focused and the bass itself more desirable to everyone.

I don't know of a single bass in modern times that was lengthened to over 42" but many that were shortened down to it.

Go buy a 44" length bass and try playing in an Orchestra. Let me know how you do.

[Thomas Erickson]

My post was not really in reference to any particular bass, I just wanted to comment on the discussion of D vs. Eb necks.

The bass will be easier to play, the sound more focused and the bass itself more desirable to everyone.

Perhaps you can elaborate on the first two points -

How does shortening the string length "focus" the sound of the instrument?

And, how does the shorter string length really make the bass easier to play? The way I see it, the issue is with players using a rigid technique of left hand positions that forces stretching over the lower intervals - the shorter string length reduces the intervals making the stretches easier - but it still is more of a technique issue, no?

[Ken Smith]

Originally Posted by Thomas Erickson

My post was not really in reference to any particular bass, I just wanted to comment on the discussion of D vs. Eb necks.



Perhaps you can elaborate on the first two points -

How does shortening the string length "focus" the sound of the instrument?

And, how does the shorter string length really make the bass easier to play? The way I see it, the issue is with players using a rigid technique of left hand positions that forces stretching over the lower intervals - the shorter string length reduces the intervals making the stretches easier - but it still is more of a technique issue, no?

You almost have me confused here. Please, go out and play in an Orchestra for a few years. A community orchestra, for free most likely. Get some real experience with the music. Play all the Rep. and then we can talk. Your comments on playing make no sense to me.

On the bass itself, the shorter the length on a note, the more direct focus it has. Longer = looser in my book.

On the technique comment, I have no idea where you got that concept from. Position playing is very important. Shifting is very important. Intonation is very important. Free hand playing is not very reliable. Playing alone in your house is not the same as playing in a bass section. You need to play in tune, in unison together, in tempo and sound even if possible.

Discuss this with your teacher. If he is a professional orchestra player, he will explain it to you in your next lesson perhaps.

This thread is about the restoration of a nearly 300 year old cornerless bass with a fantastic sound. It was probably made by an Italian Luthier that made Guitar and Lute type instruments as well as Violin family instruments as we see influences of both styles of construction here. The placement of the F-holes shows it was a 3-string gut instrument as suggested as well by the period and the gear box. The shape is graceful and long. The string length is quite long for the bass as it fits a 3/4 bag and has a 5/4 length of vibrating string. This is not something you see on modern instruments. There was no Beethoven or even Mozart being played when this was made. Vivaldi yes, as well as Italian opera and other Chamber and Church music. As a matter of fact, the owner before the last told his son he found it in a Church in Italy. That was before all of us reading this were born. Guitar shaped basses like this were used in the Monasteries back then. The kind of music they played was only a fraction in demand of what is required today. The length back then was not important for the few notes it put out. Perhaps you are in the wrong century and need to go back!.. .. Then you can enjoy a 44.5" string length and tell all the others playing 40" how wimpy they are. .. Regardless, this one's getting shortened, like it or not.

[Eric Swanson]

Thomas,

Longer string length also generally creates more tension, at the same pitch, as a shorter string length.

For example, on my (former) 44" bass, Spiro Weichs felt sort of like Mittels would have on a 41 1/2" or 42" bass.

So, the longer scale, in addition to making open-handed playing harder, makes general left hand tension/effort greater, in general.