Welcome to one of the most active flamenco sites on the Internet. Guests can read most posts but if you want to participate click here to register.
This site is dedicated to the memory of Paco de Lucía, Ron Mitchell, Guy Williams, Linda Elvira, Philip John Lee, Craig Eros, Ben Woods, David Serva and Tom Blackshear who went ahead of us.
We receive 12,200 visitors a month from 200 countries and 1.7 million page impressions a year. To advertise on this site please contact us.
|
|
|
RE: Building guitars - art or science???
|
You are logged in as Guest
|
|
Users viewing this topic: none
|
|
Login  | |
|
   
BarkellWH
Posts: 3458
Joined: Jul. 12 2009
From: Washington, DC
|
 RE: Building guitars - art or science??? (in reply to Richard Jernigan)
|
|
|
quote:
Having been personally involved in one of those mistakes, and believing that many present day disasters stem at least in part from some of our mistakes, I think the USA has some things to apologize for. If I tried to describe our overarching policies, I fear you would find a degree of cynicism in my description.
If we were to consider United States post-War actions and policies, we might very well disagree on whether a particular action or policy was even a mistake. You might believe it was a mistake and I that it was not, and vice versa. (And i am sure that we both could offer compelling arguments to support our respective positions.)
Just one example of my thinking. in my opinion George Kennan's post-War overarching policy of "Containment" of the communist threat was the correct policy. Nevertheless, it led us into some mistakes, the biggest of which was the Vietnam War. The Vietnam War was fought largely within the context of Containment, but it need not have been.
By and large, however, the policy of Containment did exactly what it was designed to do: It was a long and bitter struggle, but it eventually led to the fall of communism and, particularly, of the Soviet Union (which, turning Marx on his head, collapsed because of its own internal contradictions). To sum up, the Vietnam War was a mistake, but the overarching policy of Containment was a success.
Bill
_____________________________
And the end of the fight is a tombstone white,
With the name of the late deceased,
And the epitaph drear, "A fool lies here,
Who tried to hustle the East."
--Rudyard Kipling
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Sep. 25 2014 21:43:28
 |
|
BarkellWH
Posts: 3458
Joined: Jul. 12 2009
From: Washington, DC
|
|
RE: Building guitars - art or science??? (in reply to Ricardo)
|
|
|
Agreed, Ricardo. But Britguy's original question was: Is building guitars an art OR a science? Without having any luthiery skills or experience, I rejected such a binary approach to the question and suggested, intuitively, that guitar-building involved both art and science. There were a couple of comments on this thread that suggested it was neither art nor science; rather, it was a "craft." I still say it involves both art and science (science expanded to include your definition), and the total effort and result could be called a "craft" while still involving both art and science.
Bill
_____________________________
And the end of the fight is a tombstone white,
With the name of the late deceased,
And the epitaph drear, "A fool lies here,
Who tried to hustle the East."
--Rudyard Kipling
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Sep. 25 2014 23:09:43
|
|
Richard Jernigan
Posts: 3430
Joined: Jan. 20 2004
From: Austin, Texas USA
|
|
RE: Building guitars - art or science??? (in reply to Ruphus)
|
|
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ruphus
quote:
ORIGINAL: Richard Jernigan
From what I have seen, most of our mistakes have been bungling, not criminal conspiracy.
It would be interesting to learn about this interpretation in view of examples like the overtrhowing of Mossadegh in Iran or of the Contra instigation against the Sandinista in Nicaragua, just to name two cases.
How can those have been unsuspecting mistakings?
Thank you in advance, Richard.
Ruphus
A poor choice of words on my part.
I have little or no knowledge of international law, but I suspect both of your examples were illegal.
However I have had a few conversations with my daughter on criminal law. For example, the crime of murder depends, in some jurisdictions at least, on the state of mind of the perpetrator. Absent a certain degree of malice, the crime of killing someone is manslaughter, even if done intentionally. It was a surprise to me to learn this.
Texas notoriously imposes the death penalty. I am not in favor of it, because an error in the judicial process leads to irremediable harm of the worst kind. But I was surprised at the following conversation:
Me: "So if I get really p1ssed off at some guy, get drunk and announce to the guys at the bar that I'm going to kill him, lie in the bushes across the road with my hunting rifle and shoot him when he comes out to get into his car to go to work, I don't get the death penalty?"
My Daughter, a prosecutor at the time: "Premeditation and lying in wait are going to look bad for you, but you wouldn't get the death penalty. If he was a cop, or if you killed his kid on purpose, yes, you would get the death penalty."
Me:"But if I missed the guy and hit the kid by accident?"
My Daughter: "You would be facing an angry jury, and it would be nearly impossible to prove, but theoretically, if it was an accident, you would skate--I mean on the death penalty. You would definitely do some hard time, maybe life."
When the Reagan administration decided to fund the Contras, they thought they were doing the right thing, trying to free the Nicaraguans from an evil communist regime. I know, I know, but bear in mind that Ollie North thought he had covered his financial tracks by using American Express Traveler's Cheques to fund the contras, and nobody checked up on him. It was beyond the comprehension of the Reagan administration that the Nicaraguans might actually want the Sandinistas in power. (Later they got tired of the Sandinistas, later still they got tired of the alternative and voted the Sandinistas back in, all with no help from the USA.)
So in criminal law, the mental state of the Reagan administration, misguided as it may have been, would have been an extenuating circumstance, probably reducing the seriousness of the charge, almost certainly reducing the sentence if convicted.
Furthermore, the Iran-Contra affair was a clear violation of a law passed by Congress expressly to prevent such an adventure. But this violates the over-arching policy of containing communism. The turf battles between Congress and the President over foreignd policy have been going on ever since the Constitution was ratified. The President has kept the upper hand, pretty much.
I have to admit, though that the Iran-Contra episode was a criminal offense within the USA, violating a law passed by Congress, and I would be very surprised if it weren't a violation of international law. As hard as it might be for you to believe, I think Iran-Contra was not motivated by malicious intent--by the lights of the people who did it. I believe they thought they were helping the Nicagaguan people escape the oppressive and godless rule of communism.
Personally, having participated in an earlier U.S. adventure in Latin America, and having come away from it feeling severely disillusioned, I thought the Reagan administration were a bunch of idiots to try to pull off Iran-Contra, and I thought Vice President George H. W. Bush was probably lying when he said he was "out of the loop", despite the fact that he was a friend of my father, and there had never been a whisper of scandal about him in Texas. After all, he was head of the CIA before he was Vice President. But maybe Bush's definition of being "in the loop" was as narrow as Clinton's definition of "having sex with that woman--Ms. Lewinsky."
As far as any of our perceived adversaries bringing up the subject of Iran-Contra, the superpower status of the U.S. would have easily backed up a response of "You talking to me, buddy?"
So yes, I think the U.S. committed criminal offenses. It probably continues to do so. Read "Good Hunting", the autobiography of Jack Devine, the former Associate Deputy Director for Operations of the CIA. He was in charge of all covert operations. He shows no compunction whatever about violating another country's sovereignty. He at least is sensible enough to point out that "covert" operations will inevitably come to light eventually, so they ought to be in the national interest, and politically supportable when they become public knowledge.
You may be certain that the Soviets, their proxies the East Germans and the Bulgarians, as well as the Chinese on their own hook got up to their own skulduggeries during that period. I have found that for most people the moral implications of this depend largely on a their national loyalty.
I am pretty loyal to my country. To the politicians? Not so much.
An imaginative, but widely held view of the formulation of U.S. foreign policy:
A less imaginative, and less widely held view of the formulation of U.S. foreign policy:
(No disrespect is meant to the foreign policy establishment. My view is that we as a race are incapable of avoiding occasional disasters, no matter how hard and how intelligently we may plan to avoid them.)
RNJ
Images are resized automatically to a maximum width of 800px
 Attachment (2)
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Sep. 26 2014 0:40:58
|
|
Richard Jernigan
Posts: 3430
Joined: Jan. 20 2004
From: Austin, Texas USA
|
|
RE: Building guitars - art or science??? (in reply to Jeff Highland)
|
|
|
The physics of the guitar is well understood: the forces the strings apply to the bridge, how they are transmitted to the soundboard, the modal response of the soundboard and the air resonances--even the contributions of the back and sides--valid and well tested theories apply. But predicting the actual behavior of the instrument is complicated, due to its complexity.
The Saturn V rocket that carried the astronauts to the moon was designed with the aid of the first big finite-element stress analysis computer models. Airliners like the Boeing 787 and the Airbus 380 are designed entirely on the computer. Fairly large scale subassemblies are built before any structural tests are run. A lot of money is bet on the computers being right.
But the aerospace materials are simple and uniform, compared to wood. The designs are made to be confidently analyzed, while the guitar is the product of several generations of evolution at the hands of expert craftsmen, with feedback from musicians.
Even if the response of an individual instrument were accurately predictable (I contend that it is not), we don't know how to correlate the measurements with an evaluation of the guitar's musical quality in a reliable and predictable way. As Al Carruth says, "We can tell good guitars from bad guitars, but we can't tell good guitars from great guitars.
So scientific principles can aid in guitar building. But the intuition and experience of the skilled luthier contribute more to a high quality instrument than any scientific approach, in my opinion.
RNJ
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Sep. 26 2014 1:27:21
|
|
Richard Jernigan
Posts: 3430
Joined: Jan. 20 2004
From: Austin, Texas USA
|
|
RE: Building guitars - art or science??? (in reply to Ruphus)
|
|
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ruphus
quote:
ORIGINAL: Richard Jernigan
I wholeheartedly agree that whatever the flaws of the West, it has been vastly preferable to the alternatives.
"Alternative" in its original meaning means a single other choice.
Why should the pseudo socialist regimes have been the alternative to US hegemonism?
The Soviet union was the alternative because it was the only other super power. They backed up their avowed goal of world domination by their actions.
quote:
What about all those attempts to democracy ( if left untpouched / not sabotaged)? Do they just not count?
Is there nothing possible other than either industrial imperialism or fake socialism?
And why must other ways be suppressed before even realizing?
Ruphus
The Cold War arose out of the ruins of WW II. Every leader of a major country at the beginning of the Cold War was either a veteran of WW II leadership, or had a front row seat on the greatest carnage in human history. In WW II the major countries felt their survival was at stake. People become savage when their backs are to the wall. I suspect that's why neither my father nor my eight uncles who were in combat would ever say a single word about it.
Compared to the enormities of the first half of the 20th century, in pursuit of ideological goals, military conquest, or desperate self defense, the oppression of inchoate democracies in the Cold War were mere taps on the wrist. But they were carried out due to a toxic mixture of fear and hatred, plus rational responses to threats from powerful adversaries.
If you are looking for rational explanations or ethical justifications, I can't supply them for either side in the Cold War. But having lived through it, and having had a close but not particularly desired look at human reactions on both sides, I think the actions of both sides in the Cold War were not out of character for the human race.
Larisa lived in the Soviet Union until she was 13, then she came to the USA. She's glad the Cold War turned out the way it did.
Now we're seeing the blowback…from a veteran of the Cold War.
RNJ
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Sep. 26 2014 1:50:06
|
|
estebanana
Posts: 9352
Joined: Oct. 16 2009
|
|
RE: Building guitars - art or science??? (in reply to BarkellWH)
|
|
|
quote:
Agreed, Ricardo. But Britguy's original question was: Is building guitars an art OR a science? Without having any luthiery skills or experience, I rejected such a binary approach to the question and suggested, intuitively, that guitar-building involved both art and science.
Exactly, it's not and either or proposition.
Take the Picasso sculpture posted as an example. At that time Picasso and Braque were interested in the work of African masks and Cezzane and extending Cezzanes formal language in painting. What Cezzane did was begin to distill painting from a language of emulating the surface of reality into a theatrical stage of light and color on a flat panel that tricked our brains into thinking it has depth and space, into a language of space and form that wanted to describe objects in space as geometry. Spacial geometry. Cezzane's language of form looked for geometric constructions in nature and reconstructed them in away that does not give one object value over other objects.
He accomplished his language by carefully taking nature apart and putting it back together after looking at it from several sides, or in the case a land scape from slightly different viewpoints. He was a scientist of seeing, and his vision was based intuitively on modern studies in optical science. Other painters like Seurat took up science too, but used color theory to make the work happen. Cezzane was interested in the geometry found in nature and used human visual phenomena like paralax ( cover one eye and see the image from a slightly differt vantage point- that is paralax- the over lapping vision of both eyes creates a synthesized vantage point in our brains, but covering one eye erases that. ) Cezzane wanted to create a grand art that was universal and his way of doing it was not to pick themes from religion and philosophy as had been done in the past, his way was to look at nature and see the very construction of it and think about how to make that manifest by looking for the common geometric language of objects. It is a very democratic idea.
Picasso came along shortly after and built on the foundation of Cezanne's grappling with natural solid geometry. He extended that language by opening it up and using radically divergent view points of looking at one object. Cubist pictures and sculptures were questioning the nature of how and what wee actually see based in Cezzane's overlapping viewpoints that are sewn together to make a picture space. They just took it farther by looking at an object from the front and the back and the bottom etc. at the same time. And they noticed African mask makers were doing the same thing quite out of an intuitive approach. The cubists were not looking at the primitive or savage impulses of exotic others, they were looking at artists whose conception of vision was parallel to their own and they were quite awed by it.
So to draw a conclusion that a Picasso guitar is a disorganized mess is to not see what it is actually doing. What Picasso wants you to see is the relationships between objects in space. And a good guitar makers artistic side takes this into account along with the science and craft aspects. They want to make sure they have looked at the guitar as an object in space and that is displaces that space in a unique way that brings the viewer into the consciousness that this object has been looked at and seen from every place by the maker. And most importantly that the maker understands the object not only from the stand point of surface and finish, but from that of the rightness of proportion and that it holds a state of solid grace. That is what makes guitars interesting to us as objects.
So the Picasso guitar sculpture, besides being Spanish for our flamenco delight, metaphorically ( or really) embodies both ideas of science and art, and holds them inseparable in one object that occupies real space and time.
_____________________________
https://www.stephenfaulkguitars.com
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Sep. 26 2014 2:42:01
|
|
Ruphus
Posts: 3782
Joined: Nov. 18 2010
|
|
RE: Building guitars - art or science??? (in reply to Ruphus)
|
|
|
Thank you, Richard, for explaining your perspective.
Like always I like your sincere approach, and you mention points that make me agree partially. However, there is still too much suggestion of upright and ethical intensions regarding US regency.
- And just to point out in between:
quote:
I am pretty loyal to my country. To the politicians? Not so much.
I am all with you on that. And if either the polls were genuine or the people actually informed about what is going on, the majority of American people with greatest certainty would had never allowed the adminsitrations ( and slim / ridiculous political range of two parties, that make in fact for no actual choice) they have had / are having. -
You are too forbearing in the examples, and thus come to omitting major contents while pondering about the illegal aspects of above mentioned instigations. Be that how a subjective dismissing of a societal form cannot morph into justicial nor into ethical justification for foreign operations and sabotage, or how the Iran-Contra affair would have been illegal for the essential involvementt of cocain dealings alone.
( A "Just-say-no!"-state that ships and sells drugs en gross to then buy weapons from which again will be supplied to massacring low-life ... And that only to prevent another people´s society of choice ... How on earth can there ever been tried to interpret anything of human concern and integrity in such an unspeakable action and agenda? ... Honestly, Richard!  )
If the American admin´s concern about `socialist´states and for that matter any even just remote approach to a people´s sociietal form had been for worries about people´s freedom and democracy as you suggest, the American constitution would had laid down for direct democracy in the first place.
Further the American societal form would had never been lackey of a plutocracy, but instead a howsoever struggling or flourishing kind of people´s state, - which after all noone in his right mind would try to paint the American and any country´s state as.
( Everyone should be knowing to whom existing variations of states belong.
Not a single one is actually what it is displayed to be, ergo a state of and for the people. And the USA reigning is among the last in the descending rank of democratic listing, far after examples of alikes say in Scandinavia, the Netherlands, or several in Latin America.)
The truth behind the American policie´s hysteria against all hypothetical authentic democracy is the threat that a democracy and fair society as a lively example would be presenting to the US oligarchy.
The oligarchs in the USA are well aware about the American majority´s original sense of justice, which after all once gave the big landowners and financial aristocracy strenuous opposition.
A solidarity and vehement rebellion that the US´ upper crust since traditionally dreads like nothing else in life. From there undermining nothing as aggressively as a democratic societal form that could remind American people of what they were once heading to in a land of the free.
Nothing ever warded off like it.
Not even ancient violent mysthicism that demands all other kinds of conviction and belief to be wiped off from earth.
Rather has such a lethal beast been fed than allowing even just the labelling "socialist" on an even just strategically worthless spot at the Hindukush.
You are mistaking masters from Boing, Lehmann Brothers or Unilever with people´s representatives, Richard.
I remember well how German people and administration were downplaying the Third Reich and the power behind it. Our history school books that were reducing the cruelty to the SS and claiming that the Wehmacht had no notion of the progroms, etc.
And I know that some time not too far in the future American people will realize and acknowledge the US goverments´ending / post WWII underhandedness as what it actually was. From Fat Boy over Ukraine and further, to the fullest.
The Navajo have just been ( howsoever meagerly, with in the end altogether 2,5 billion bucks for all Indian tribes jointly. Ashaming sum and gesture still) compensated, and blatant injust finally been officially admitted.
The disingenuousness from after the last World War shall not be taking as long to be finally confessed.
Ruphus
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Sep. 26 2014 7:32:39
|
|
Escribano
Posts: 6415
Joined: Jul. 6 2003
From: England, living in Italy
|
|
RE: Building guitars - art or science??? (in reply to britguy)
|
|
|
Getting back on topic, for me the expression "there is an art to it" covers this question. The design, creation, tuning, finishing and aethestics of lutherie certainly lean towards a form of art.
Following a plan precisely or devising and measuring tolerances for a functional outcome is more scientific.
Indeed, playing a guitar is accepted as an art form, but there is some practise of science in learning how to do it; study, theory, repetition, learning from mistakes, peer review, demonstrations etc.
_____________________________
Foro Flamenco founder and Admin
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Sep. 26 2014 9:54:21
|
|
Ruphus
Posts: 3782
Joined: Nov. 18 2010
|
|
RE: Building guitars - art or science??? (in reply to Ruphus)
|
|
|
It´s an interesting topic, actually, indeed.
When exressing my admiration for enchanting luthiery I often times talk of the maker as artist and his product as art. It is bowing to the phenomenon, whilst never actually thought through / suspecting my understanding of art to not exactly / directly meet the object per definition.
The guitar specially to me is a miracle. If I was a follower of mysticism I would definityl expect it to be a unique gift from the almighty. My love for it lets it appear like the most complex effecting man-made product that is in the same time so humbly structured. And the people who have figured out how to make a concert level axe are just kind of heaven sent.
In view of art I think my old art teachers description hit it perfectly, when he used to say that art takes two things: Proficiency and idea. And taking into consideration the function of art and artwork, I would add a third criterion which is conveyance. Art is traditionally if not to say anthropologically there to communicate something.
Is an accomplished guitar maker typically having ideas? Is he communicating something?
Maybe the wonder of producing something as simple yet as efficient like a fine guitar, is communicating something. Possibly in the way of: "Look how I can make your heart whirr with just a box that has strings on." "How I can take profan materials and create of it delight beyond words". "See how my hours of contemplation can bring dead material to life and to your horizon a sparkling shooting star that lasts for years or decades."
And if that won´t count, maybe what the guitar communicates will count as a maker´s conveyance. The guitar can communicate whatever you may put through it. In major, minor, elegiac or roaring, singing or rocking; and even simulate a whole orchestra. It´s the swiss knife of the musical tool kit.
Maybe that makes the builder an artist. I don´t really know ( and after last night without sleep can hardly wrap my head around something anyway).
All I know is that people who make overwhelming instruments deserve such gratefulness and praise, and if that be with an exquisite term like "artist", guess personally I don´t mind.
Having said that, for a change - hehe  - I agree with John who pointed out that "craftsman" and "artisan" are no little honoring titles on their own already.
-
Besides, last night did not end on account of the beauty of a guitar. Heavenly sounding as it can be one can be having a hard time with putting an axe back into its case. All the time thinking: "Just a few more minutes ..."
Ruphus
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Sep. 26 2014 17:19:46
|
|
Ruphus
Posts: 3782
Joined: Nov. 18 2010
|
|
RE: Building guitars - art or science??? (in reply to Ruphus)
|
|
|
Thank you, Bill. :O)
I think it is accepted that no other instrument has such an option of modulation, such a broad range of potential usage and portability and all, etc.
Which is not to say that other instruments weren´t really beautiful. That buzzing cello, for certain. The piano, ... the alt clarinet and its sonor humming. The mouth organs complaining and purring ...
Psst! Come with me sneaking to the corner so that Anders may not hear me ... But that squeeky little violine ... As if the muse forgot to fertilize that dang.
Dunno, it touches me only every other time, unless it is about a furious Paganini style or some earthy virtuoso Mississippi fiddling, or some completely slanted Dylan squak. Also some folk and pop acts like Pentangle, Steeleye Dan or Magna Carta whom I used to enjoy a lot in my Cambrium. ( Too bad actually that the turntable has gone down on me.)
Admittedly, the Irish know how to engage that Quasimodicci forte.
Ruphus
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Sep. 26 2014 19:44:00
|
|
estebanana
Posts: 9352
Joined: Oct. 16 2009
|
|
RE: Building guitars - art or science??? (in reply to Anders Eliasson)
|
|
|
quote:
Maybe its strange, but I dont feel this thread has anything to do with me and what I do for a living.
This is just cerebral exercises and need for typing. In another word: artfarting
You're always so above it all, sensei.
The format online is typing and people type because we can't communicate telepathically yet, so we type and type and type. But I think Britguy got his question answered so it worked.
If there are not major fights and people are writing each other notes then the Foro is functioning, just because it's not about any one persons work or exclusively about guitar making does not mean it's useless farting.
Farting relieves pressure, and there is a lot of pressure here so everyone keep farting out words. Should we just ban all people who don't make guitars from making comments? Nah. I feel like this is a place where people come to visit my shop and then start telling stories, it seems like an extension of shop visits
with a few people I know and like, and some I just tolerate because in order to be here. I actually have to work really hard to not get super pissed off at people who say idiotic stuff, so it serves the purpose of helping me learn to be patient with idiots. And there others I would like to have more dialog with, but they get cut off by numbskulls.
May this be an equal opportunity farting space. Farting talk is another way of saying we're having a more or less democratic dialog. I've come to the conclusion that it is good for this Foro to be expansive and messy, because to fight this mess is just dumb and a waste of brain power.
Hey, Bill, I finally got the book about Hirohito. Let's bend this thread into a book chat! Britguy willing.
_____________________________
https://www.stephenfaulkguitars.com
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Sep. 28 2014 12:04:57
|
|
Anders Eliasson
Posts: 5780
Joined: Oct. 18 2006
|
|
RE: Building guitars - art or science??? (in reply to estebanana)
|
|
|
quote:
Guitar making in theory is really boring to me at this point.
I've reached a plateau that makers get to where you know a LOT of stuff, but to articulate it to others who don't make guitars does not always pay off. At this point I have to work really hard to move to another higher level. In the beginning you can move really fast, because there is lots to learn and lots of ground to cover, but after a while the progress becomes slower and more hard fought, you have to work twice as hard to learn half as much.
It does not have much to do with science or art, or craft, those are just names. It is more about just going to the shop and doing what I know how to do and paying attention to it with all the focus I can muster in each moment. It's simply being present with your materials and your focus from moment to moment for several hours a day. After you reach ten or fifteen years of this it's harder to make big leaps, and big leaps don't mean as much to me. Now I have the information I need, it's a game of putting it together in the right way and paying attention to details that will make the guitar sound correct. It's not science or art or anything really, it's just a way of being from moment to moment and it results in a guitar being made.
fart fart fart fart
It helps building other instruments (I know you do) Even though violin making has very little to do with guitarmaking, building violins has helped my guitarmaking.
I cant express it with (typed) words, and maybe its just because its something arty ¿?+¡!= 
_____________________________
Blog: http://news-from-the-workshop.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Sep. 29 2014 7:19:54
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts
|
|
|
Forum Software powered by ASP Playground Advanced Edition 2.0.5
Copyright © 2000 - 2003 ASPPlayground.NET |
0.09375 secs.
|
Printable Version
