dpopefiddle - Posted - 07/07/2007:  13:01:06

---

It is frequently said the fiddle bridge is usually flatter than a typical violin bridge to facilitate double stops. My question is: "How much flatter?" I'm sure there is a range of difference involved. I think this may be difficult to describe. Maybe we could start describing it by how much material would be removed from the center radius or peak of the bridge. After which the arc is refigured. There may be a better way to describe this.

What a legacy we leave - a poisoned earth and a malignant mankind.

OTJunky - Posted - 07/07/2007:  13:10:49

---

I'm really interested in this as well for a specific reason.

I've been working on the "double shuffle" bowing pattern for several months now.

I just watched a video about North Carolina fiddlers from UNC. One of the younger Bluegrass players there had this down pat and also said that to do it really fast you need the flatter bridge.

So, I'm within a hair of contacting my local luthier.

But before doing that I'd like to know if there's a consensus that you really need a flatter bridge to nail the Double Shuffle.

-OTJ
"I can barely fiddle on four strings. Why would I want five?"

woodwiz - Posted - 07/07/2007:  13:46:16

---

No you don't really need a flatter bridge. Some like 'em, some don't. All you really need is plenty of clean, focused practice. Classical players play much more demanding techniques on standard setups.

Flatter bridges make string crossings just a hair quicker, but at the cost of making it harder to play single strings cleanly. Playing cleanly can still be done, but requires more skill and finesse. There is also the problem I ran into of playing inadvertent triple stops when trying to get maximum speed and volume. Excess bow pressure after a certain point doesn't really get you more volume, but it's hard to avoid when pushing your limits at a jam.

I set up violin bridges by measuring the string height above the neighboring pairs. For example , I sight across the tops of the D and E and look to see how much higher the A is, and sight across the tops of the G and A to judge the height of the D. My teachers just use their calibrated eyeballs, but I made a little gauge to make the job easier, quicker, and more accurate, since I check a lot of setups, too.

For a standard setup I place the top of each string 1.6 to 1.7 mm above the plane of the neighboring strings. For fiddlers, it varies, but 1 mm or a little over would probably be the practical limit. On my violin, I just lowered the two middle strings a hair at a time until I went too far for me to bow cleanly, and then lowered the outer strings just a hair (0.1or 0.2mm) to bring it back in line. I ended up not very flat, around 1.3 mm.

Michael R

www.kcstrings.com

Abenaki - Posted - 07/07/2007:  14:17:32

---

I agree with Woodwiz, you don't really need a flatter bridge to shuffle, but you may find it easier. If you do decide to experiment, you may want to get a tool called a string lifter which allows you to easily remove the bridge to work on it. Get some blank bridges find a good article on bridge setting and experiment.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Scales, scales, scales. The fish will come later. . .
Aw the heck with it, I gotta fiddle!

OTJunky - Posted - 07/07/2007:  14:47:26

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by WoodWiz

For a standard setup I place the top of each string 1.6 to 1.7 mm above the plane of the neighboring strings. For fiddlers, it varies, but 1 mm or a little over would probably be the practical limit. On my violin, I just lowered the two middle strings a hair at a time until I went too far for me to bow cleanly, and then lowered the outer strings just a hair (0.1or 0.2mm) to bring it back in line. I ended up not very flat, around 1.3 mm.

---

So this sounds like your are playing on a "flatter" bridge than the "standard setup". Or am I just confused?

-OTJ
"I can barely fiddle on four strings. Why would I want five?"

woodwiz - Posted - 07/07/2007:  17:06:15

---

Yes it does, and no, you're not.

I tried flattening the bridge on my jamming fiddle as an experiment several months ago, and left my "good" fiddle with a standard setup. Despite the fact that I have been spending more time on the jamming fiddle, I can still play faster and cleaner on the good fiddle, so next time I change strings, I'm going to put a new bridge on the jamming fiddle and duplicate the setup from the good fiddle. A standard setup just seems to work better for me at the present time, but I'll probably keep experimenting from time to time as my skills progress.

As far as double shuffle goes, I'm working on "Back Up and Push", and it doesn't seem to make any difference which instrument I play. The shuffle part is pretty easy on both of them, but I'm not up to performance speed yet.

Playing level and style has a lot to do with a person's setup preferences. I play Missouri style which tends to be pretty clean and "notey", and I can keep up with the pros on tunes I know well, but I'm way far from being a pro. Currently working on Kenny Baker's versions of Washington County and Back up and Push. Yes, I know he's a Texas fiddler, but somehow he fits right in.

Michael R

www.kcstrings.com

---

Edited by - woodwiz on 07/07/2007 23:01:39

M-D - Posted - 07/07/2007:  17:15:47

---

A flatter bridge will not help with double-stops, per se, because we're still talking about roughtly 11.35 mm between strings, regardless. The difference comes about because of the transit length of the bow, making the crossings easier and quicker, as Woodwiz pointed out. Thus, the bow will be at a higher, or flatter angle when playing the A and E together, or just the E for that matter. Whereas with a standard radius more movement of the bow is required, taking the bow closer to the C-bout.

Think of extremes here, and you can see the situation better. Let us say that we have a 2" circle, and want to move the bow around half the circumference. Starting at a mid-point, the bow tracks around the circumference until it reaches the opposite mid-point, having travelled a distance of 3.14".

Now, let us take a 4" circle and track the same 3.14" distance. Notice we've only moved the bow around 1/4 of the circumference of the 4" circle, thus requiring less rotation of the bow.

So, the shortest distance between two points is a straight line, right? Which line is closer to straight, 42mm radiuas or a 60 mm radius? This distance between strings doesn't change, only the arc does, around which they are arranged.

The inherent problems of a flatter bridge have been correctly noted. Everything is a trade-off. It's just learning to live with what you've traded for, or not.

The standard radius is 42mm, same as the finger-board. I use 60mm, which happens to be that of a normal-sized CD. It's all about what works for you.

_________________________________________________________________

M-D

---

Edited by - M-D on 07/07/2007 17:18:34

OTJunky - Posted - 07/07/2007:  17:30:02

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Woodwiz
Currently working on Kenny Baker's versions of Washington County Back up and Push. Yes, I know he's a Texas fiddler, but somehow he fits right in.

---

I think Kenny Baker might be from Kentucky. If so, he wouldn't like being called a Texas fiddler - though he probably does appreciate Texas fiddling and he does have the chops needed for Texas fiddling - plus some.

As an aside, if you have the time and the recording, you might listen to Clayton McMichen play Back up and Push with the Skillet Lickers. Kenny Baker's version is the one everybody plays these days and it's a fine version. But it's always good to listen to two great fiddlers render a tune. McMichen doesn't double shuffle though. I think he recorded it before anybody double shuffled.

Finally, thanks for spending the time rendering advice on this bridge shaping stuff. I'm going to stick with my standard bridge.


-OTJ
"I can barely fiddle on four strings. Why would I want five?"

woodwiz - Posted - 07/07/2007:  18:22:53

---

Dunno why I thought that. I knew he played with Monroe for years. Oh, well. Wish that was the biggest mistake I ever made..........

I like to listen to everybody and everything, and absorb influences from everywhere but I'm limited on what I can work on. I'm still at the "building chops" stage, and learning Baker's tunes is a great way of building good chops, I think. I've got some Skillet Licker's tracks, will see if back up is among them.

Gather all the info you can, then make your own decisions. Some will work out better than others, but they'll all be informative.

Michael R

www.kcstrings.com

hucktunes - Posted - 07/07/2007:  22:52:18

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by woodwiz
[brCurrently working on Kenny Baker's versions of Washington County Back up and Push. Yes, I know he's a Texas fiddler, but somehow he fits right in.

---

I know Baker's Washington County and Back Up And Push as being two different tunes. Washington County is also my old high school football team's fight song. Back Up is the old song Rubber Dolly.

I've messed with bridges quite a bit and have come to the conclusion that the sharper the knife the more damage I can do. Although I did take a bit of sand paper to my current bridge and am happy with the results.

Beware The Musical/Industrial Complex

woodwiz - Posted - 07/07/2007:  23:02:45

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hucktunes
[

I know Baker's Washington County and Back Up And Push as being two different tunes.

---

Typo corrected. Thanks.

Michael R

www.kcstrings.com

bosco - Posted - 07/07/2007:  23:44:04

---

Here is my bridge. It's not as flat as real old timers like Tommy Jarrell's but much flatter than violin luthier could take.


And here is a good site for bridge fetish:
http://www.violinbridges.co.uk/index.php
Bosco

Konnichiwa, arigato, sayonara

dpopefiddle - Posted - 07/08/2007:  07:20:01

---

quote:

---

And here is a good site for bridge fetish:
http://www.violinbridges.co.uk/index.php
Bosco

Konnichiwa, arigato, sayonara

---

Thanks for the link - way more than I wanted to know.

What a legacy we leave - a poisoned earth and a malignant mankind.

dpopefiddle - Posted - 07/08/2007:  10:02:02

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M-D

A flatter bridge will not help with double-stops, per se, because we're still talking about roughtly 11.35 mm between strings, regardless. The difference comes about because of the transit length of the bow, making the crossings easier and quicker, as Woodwiz pointed out. Thus, the bow will be at a higher, or flatter angle when playing the A and E together, or just the E for that matter. Whereas with a standard radius more movement of the bow is required, taking the bow closer to the C-bout.

Think of extremes here, and you can see the situation better. Let us say that we have a 2" circle, and want to move the bow around half the circumference. Starting at a mid-point, the bow tracks around the circumference until it reaches the opposite mid-point, having travelled a distance of 3.14".

Now, let us take a 4" circle and track the same 3.14" distance. Notice we've only moved the bow around 1/4 of the circumference of the 4" circle, thus requiring less rotation of the bow.

So, the shortest distance between two points is a straight line, right? Which line is closer to straight, 42mm radiuas or a 60 mm radius? This distance between strings doesn't change, only the arc does, around which they are arranged.

The inherent problems of a flatter bridge have been correctly noted. Everything is a trade-off. It's just learning to live with what you've traded for, or not.

The standard radius is 42mm, same as the finger-board. I use 60mm, which happens to be that of a normal-sized CD. It's all about what works for you.

_________________________________________________________________

M-D

---

M-D: you make a great point. To paraphrase: "It is a straight line from one string to the adjacent string and bridge curvature has nothing to do with this aspect."

What a legacy we leave - a poisoned earth and a malignant mankind.

woodwiz - Posted - 07/08/2007:  10:03:32

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by bosco

Here is my bridge. It's not as flat as real old timers like Tommy Jarrell's but much flatter than violin luthier could take.

Bosco

---

You play great, but I couldn't play on that bridge at all. Does it bother you that the D is so much higher than the A?

Nicely cut bridge, but it looks like its getting to be time for a neck pullback or re-set. I could use one, too, but I'm not going to do it until I absolutely have to, 'cause I like the way it sounds just the way it is, and every time you open a fiddle up, it changes.

Michael R

www.kcstrings.com

tiquose - Posted - 07/08/2007:  16:39:24

---

Right now I'm playing with a bridge much like Bosco's. It's my teacher's favorite bridge style. Yes, it looks weird, but after a couple of days with it I'm starting to like it. The string crossing between A and E doesn't seem so severe.

My previous bridge was flattened from a classical bridge because I thought it would help with drones. I can't say, though, that it helped much. But, maybe that's because I'm a novice.

Janet

bosco - Posted - 07/08/2007:  19:19:34

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by woodwiz

quote:

---

Originally posted by bosco

Here is my bridge. It's not as flat as real old timers like Tommy Jarrell's but much flatter than violin luthier could take.

Bosco

---

Does it bother you that the D is so much higher than the A?

---

I never thought about it. Is D suposed to be lower? I guess I keep it as is. So I can say " Gee, I could play much better if my D is littel bit lower!"

quote:

---

Nicely cut bridge, but it looks like its getting to be time for a neck pullback or re-set. I could use one, too, but I'm not going to do it until I absolutely have to, 'cause I like the way it sounds just the way it is, and every time you open a fiddle up, it changes.

---

Thank you for the advice. But I'm not going to do neither, not yet. Now, I can say " Oh boy, I can play much much better if my neck has right projection!"

Konnichiwa, arigato, sayonara

---

Edited by - bosco on 07/08/2007 20:57:20

krugwaffle - Posted - 07/09/2007:  02:19:26

---

I don't understand how a flattened bridge is supposed to make playing double stops any easier. I'm a new-newbie pre-beginner in all this so I hesitate to throw in to the discussion. I just don't understand how filing down the bridge and reducing the arch radius helps.

I can see how it may improve speed in string crossings, taking less time to tilt the bow through less degrees of arc, but its still going to take the same amount of time to establish a double stop. The accurate alignment of the bowhair to touch and vibrate two strings takes just so many milliseconds no matter how flat the bridge gets. Unless it's the secret desire to play THREE strings at once is the motive behind this bridge flattening craze.

I haven't met one single beginning fiddler at a jam yet that hasn't asked if I've cut down or flattened my bridge. If anything, I need a higher arch to help seperate the strings better. I'm constantly dragging the bow on adjacent strings when I don't want to.

Maybe when I get up to the skill of playing double-stop double-shuffle stuff, I'll change my tune but for now, I'd like to just have a bridge that is properly cut to give the best sound and evenly spaced bow angles.

bosco - Posted - 07/09/2007:  03:02:17

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by krugwaffle

I don't understand how a flattened bridge is supposed to make playing double stops any easier. I'm a new-newbie pre-beginner in all this so I hesitate to throw in to the discussion. I just don't understand how filing down the bridge and reducing the arch radius helps.

---

Is it supposed to? I don't think so. Just listen to the good violinist. They make beautiful double stop with conventional bridge.

quote:

---

I can see how it may improve speed in string crossings, taking less time to tilt the bow through less degrees of arc,

---

Yes. I guess I'm just too lazy to make big bow arm movement when I cross strings
Bosco



Konnichiwa, arigato, sayonara

OTJunky - Posted - 07/09/2007:  07:34:09

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by krugwaffle
I don't understand how a flattened bridge is supposed to make playing double stops any easier. I'm a new-newbie pre-beginner in all this so I hesitate to throw in to the discussion. I just don't understand how filing down the bridge and reducing the arch radius helps.

---

A flattened bridge is not supposed to make double stops on easier on any given pair of strings. If anything a flattened bridge makes them a little harder since you might hit an adjacent string that's not in the chord out lined by the double stop.

What the flattened bridge is supposed to make easier is playing one double stop on one pair of strings, then switching to another double stop on the next pair of strings - either higher or lower.

There are some tunes where some fiddlers almost never play a single string note - like "Sally Good'in", "Breaking up Christmas", or "Cotton Eyed Joe". Many versions of these tunes are entirely comprised of "double stops" - where one note in the double stop is an open string. I guess, since in these cases, the open string isn't "stopped", double stop might not be the right term.

Another example would be the "Double Shuffle" bowing pattern used in "Orange Blossom Special" where you really do alternate rapidly between double stops on adjacent "pairs" of strings.

I think there's no doubt that a flattened bridge makes these kinds of things easier. But everything's a compromise, so the only question is whether you'd want to take the bad with the good. A flattened bridge makes it easier to alternate between PAIRS of adjacent strings but could make it trickier to execute single note patterns on the two middle strings without brushing adjacent strings.

So, many people here have argued against the flattened bridge - saying that with a little more practice you can do whatever you want to do on a standard bridge.

-OTJ
"I can barely fiddle on four strings. Why would I want five?"

M-D - Posted - 07/09/2007:  09:59:41

---

The distance between strings is the same, regardless of the bridge arching, so a double-stop/drone is as easy to do on one bridge as it is another, as far as that goes.

Here's why my bridge is flatter. The smaller is the radius of the arch, the more range of motion the bow must go through in order to go from one side to another, even though the distance is effectively the same.

Now, it's one thing for the bow to do this, but it's quite another for the arm at the elbow to do so, especially given the length of the fore-arm. I have long arms, thus the effective range of movement becomes even greater for me.

Add to that the angle of attack on the E-string, or the A and E in a drone. With a higher angle of attack, there is less of the bow's weight bearing on the string(s), but also less weight of the arm.

This necessitated that I compensate in some way. The way required, however, was not a way that I liked. Thus, the flatter bridge, accompanied by the action height at the end of the finger board. The E is nearly the same height as the G, meaning that I can go from E to G and back again with an economy of motion, and close enough of the same amount of bearing forces from bow the bow and my arm. There still must be some slight compensation, to be sure, but I like this arrangement much better.

It's all about what works for you. Everything is a trade-off, a compromise . . . what are you willing to give up in order to have something else? Gee, that's true of life, too, huh?

_________________________________________________________________

M-D

Music is found in the space between the notes -- in the silence between the chords. Get your spaces right, and you've got it. ~ Albert Greenfield

tiquose - Posted - 07/09/2007:  10:08:36

---

Interestingly, the bridge that came with my fiddle had the D and A strings shifted toward the E, leaving a greater space between the D and G strings.

M-D, I'm not suggesting that you yank out your bridge, but if the opportunity ever arises, you might see if a Bosco-style bridge achieves your goals. Seems to me there is less arm-raising required to reach the G string.

Janet

Abenaki - Posted - 07/09/2007:  10:37:24

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by krugwaffle

I don't understand how a flattened bridge is supposed to make playing double stops any easier. I'm a new-newbie pre-beginner in all this so I hesitate to throw in to the discussion. I just don't understand how filing down the bridge and reducing the arch radius helps.

---

Look back to the second post in this thead, a question was asked; "I'd like to know if there's a consensus that you really need a flatter bridge to nail the Double Shuffle".
Some people were addressing this question.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Scales, scales, scales. The fish will come later. . .
Aw the heck with it, I gotta fiddle!

Renaissance_Woman - Posted - 07/09/2007:  11:15:54

---

[quote]Originally posted by Abenaki
Look back to the second post in this thead, a question was asked; "I'd like to know if there's a consensus that you really need a flatter bridge to nail the Double Shuffle".
Some people were a9ddressing this question.

I know I, for one, mentioned (on a different thread) having read about the differences in bridge curvature affecting the speed and type of music played.

However, without altering my bridge, I retreated to my room determined to produce a decent shuffle with double stops. Guess I was pretty well focused that day because by the end of the hour, I was able to play Boil That Cabbage Down in DS.

In hindsight, I think if I did file down my bridge a bit, most likely I'd have to relearn my bowing position and might then have difficulty playing a clear single string again.

Suze ~ who's "letting sleeping dogs lie," isn't "fixing something that isn't broken" and ~
Making music for the JOY of it.

tiquose - Posted - 07/09/2007:  11:38:22

---

My teacher comments that by playing up the fingerboard a bit you can actually get three strings at once, the point being that even with a classically-shaped bridge you can still have flatness if needed.

Janet