Here’s a history question I’ve been wondering about forever: Why did the shamisen develop with a removable bridge? I’ve never had it explained to me, but as far as function goes I’ve always figured it helps avoid putting a permanent kink in the skin. But that’s only a problem for the cat/dog-skin shamisen we know today. How did these to features develop historically? I know that the immediate predecessor to the shamisen, the snakeskin Okinawan sanshin, uses a fixed bridge, but I can’t tell about its predecessor, the Chinese sanxian (also snakeskin). Any of you instrument makers our there able to elaborate? And while we’re on the subject, does anybody know of any other instruments with removable bridges? I guess there’s the koto family, but that’s a little different.
Jamie,
It’s never occurred to me to wonder why, but now that you ask it seems like an obvious question! Why haven’t I wondered why before? I don’t have the definitive answer, so I’m just thinking it through here.
Your question is specifically how the shamisen developed a removable bridge, given that the sanshin has a fixed one. I’m not sure that the sanshin’s bridge is fixed in the same way that, for example, a banjo’s bridge is. I don’t own a sanshin, but I leave the bridge on my kankara sanshin, so I see what you’re getting at. The relatively low string tension on the sanshin, and the ease with which you can completely take away that tension, makes taking the bridge out pretty easy. I would think if you were carrying it around in a soft bag you might take the bridge out in case it fell out on it’s own. I have a duong, a 2-string Thai fiddle, that constantly loses it’s tension when I take it somewhere, so I remove the bridge just so I don’t have to hunt around in the bag for it when I go to play it.
But, as you point out, the shamisen is a different case – removing the bridge after playing is as much part of the process as putting the bachi away. Shamisen bridges are more delicate than sanshin bridges, so leaving them in puts both the skin and the bridge in danger. It’s definitely safer for both the bridge and the skin to do this. But beyond this, players generally own a number of bridges that they switch out depending on what they are playing, so there is a need to be able to remove the bridge easily.
Also, since it’s fretless, you don’t have to worry about completely throwing off the intonation as you would with a fretted instrument like the banjo. Historically, fretless instruments predate fretted ones, so the shamisen’s fretlessness is just a condition that allows for a removable bridge. I’d bet that fixed fret instruments almost invariably have fixed bridges.
There is a kind of chicken and egg thing happening here – there seem to be several good reasons to remove the bridge, but are they the result or cause of the removable bridge?
I wonder if bridge removal became common once they switched to the much more responsive cat skin, and began to understand the timbral possibilities of changing the weight, height, thickness, etc of the bridge.
The Sanshin also has a removable bridge too. I don’t know the history behind that so I am sorry. But one of my guess is that in the sanshin, there may be different size bridges so it is needed for replacement. Maybe it affects the sound?
Also, since the Sanshin is historically made from snake-skin, leaving the bridge on it might affect it in some way similar perhaps to the Mainland Japanese shamisen.
Oh, I guess I was wrong about the sanshin. A friend let me play around with his once, and I coulda sworn the bridge was fixed into the scales of the snakeskin or something. Can’t really find a good picture on Google that fits the image in my head, though, so maybe I just saw it completely wrong.
And interesting theories, Gerry. Some good food for thought. By the way, why did they switch to catskin, again? Not a lot of snakes on the mainland?
You know, it seems maybe the fixed bridge is a relatively new thing. Developing along with, as Gerry implied, fixed frets. All the old world stringed instruments I’ve ever played have had floating, if not exactly easily removable bridges. Turkish baglamas and tanburs (see avatar) have frets but they’re tied on and adjustable, not fixed, thus neither is the bridge. Basses, cellos, and I assume violins and violas as well also have floating bridges. So maybe that’s just the way it was done once upon a time as they had no reason to afix the thing until instruments like, say, the guitar came along? (Yet jazz guitars have floating bridges. Interesting.) But I’m just speculating. I haven’t actually studied the subject or anything.
Snakeskin couldn’t stand up to the aggressive Japanese playing style. Or so I’ve heard.
Yes Gerry, Gabby and Chet all make good points here. My Shamisen teacher always told me the reason was simply to preserve the life of the skin. As we all know skins break from time to time. So my understanding is simply that keeping the bridge on overnight ( or for long periods when you are not playing/practicing )will put extra pressure on it and thus will significantly hasten that awful moment we all dread when we go to play and find a depressing tear through the kawa.
Like Gerry though, I never really put much thought into this topic so it is interesting to hear the various speculations regarding the historical background and reasons etc.