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: Gerundino played by Ricardo?
|
You are logged in as Guest
|
|
Users viewing this topic: none
|
|
Login  | |
|
   
Ricardo
Posts: 14861
Joined: Dec. 14 2004
From: Washington DC
|
 RE: Gerundino played by Ricardo? (in reply to Arash)
|
|
|
quote:
However, don't you agree that there are many "bad" Condes on the market?
No. It seems that way because they are in high demand, so everyone is trying them out and sure it increases the chances of finding "bad" ones. But honestly, a "bad" any type of guitar, might be great for someone else.
quote:
Don't you agree that you must be really lucky to find a real good one worth the price?
I consider myself lucky for certain reasons, but I have played SO many good Condes that others owned, I wished were mine. "Finding" the guitar is not the lucky thing in my eyes.
quote:
Ok....this applies to all guitar brands but i think in case of Conde, you must be more carefull than other brands.
Not a fair assumption. Like I said you will come across MORE condes out in the world, and therefore more good AND bad ones. But to assume a guitar might be amazing just because it is handmade and NOT a conde, well, doesn't make sense. There is a reason most Pro flamenco's gravitate towards Conde and certain other flamenco makers, not because of "hype" or mediocre quality.
quote:
Well maybe because i am not good enough to know how to play a Conde and to get out that magical sound
Not good or bad or playing level even, but personal style has a lot to do with the type of guitar you prefer. Also what you get used to is part of it.
Ricardo
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Jan. 13 2007 18:46:36
 |
|
Anders Eliasson
Posts: 5780
Joined: Oct. 18 2006
|
|
RE: Gerundino played by Ricardo? (in reply to Arash)
|
|
|
Legrec
Its a very beautifull guitar. I would say that the cypress has enough density to work as a bridge, but you are right. I know you say the same. Its Very difficult to find cypress like that. I´ve had a few pieces in my hand but I did not think of making a bridge out of it. Maybe next time. In general Cypres tends to be soft and when dense it cracks relatively easy. Not a very strong wood. But it sounds and smells wondefull.
quote:
There is a reason most Pro flamenco's gravitate towards Conde and certain other flamenco makers, not because of "hype" or mediocre quality.
Bob bob Ricardo.... We all know this Gitano thing with Gold, Mercedes Benz and Condes....... Its called show off...
Just joking. I mean this discussion we´ve had a million times. Some of you guys just love to say: Condes muy muy malas!!!! while others yell: Condes muy muy buenas..... 
Of course there are many good Condes. Before you read further read this line again. I said. Of course there are many good condes. Now you can continue.
I will repeat myself again and say, that I cannot compare a guitar like the one Legrec has posted, which is a very personal and very artesan piece of art with a Conde. Not even a Felipe V and I´m not talking about sound and playability.... Its two different products and for me, a Conde Hermano is a Serial Product ..... You dont even know who made your guitar. (I wonder how long EU legislation will allow them not to put the builders name on the guitar....  )
It does not have to be important.... if you only look for a good guitar. But if you like me and others here value the culture of guitar building, the effort and hard work of the individual makers, the ones that have created the modern guitar, then you go for something else. Something like the one Legrec posted.
I will fight for this culture and not only because I build myself. No, because I find it to be very important in this mass produced society, with a lot of mass produced products of poor quality, that there are people working the other way, trying to survive keeping an old tradition alive. Without culture, history and tradition we´ll just be consumers and we´ll turn into the same as we consume. Mass production of poor quality.
And I havent turned religious, I just thought that since its a new year and everyone has started this new year with repeating themselves, I should do the same...
Happy new year..
_____________________________
Blog: http://news-from-the-workshop.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Jan. 14 2007 7:17:54
|
|
legrec
Posts: 248
Joined: Jan. 26 2006
From: France
|
|
RE: Gerundino played by Ricardo? (in reply to Anders Eliasson)
|
|
|
I really agree with your thoughts Anders...
Yes, under the "condes are good/condes are bad" binary, there is a HUGE problematic, and you've clearly pointed it.
I would call this the "ecological issue". It's not only biological ecology, but also "economical ecology" (and you can apply this to politics, information, whatever).
There is a real ecology of producers/sellers and customers.
And it's hard not to see that things are getting as worse here as in biological ecology : on one hand there are already "obese" makers/producers/sellers (condes, for exemple ; humans in the biological ecology). They're getting and "consuming" almost all the ressources available ("everyone" is buying condes ; humans are over-feeding with natural ressources).
And on the other hand (yes, I know, it's "binar", but still valid on the whole) there are "endangered species" - I'm sorry Anders, you're part of the endandered species. But I'm sure you already knows that.
They are living on what remains out of big business (like animals are living on the few we left). That is to say really not much nowadays, in all domains. And it's not a "global plot" thing. It's economical facts and statistics. Concentration of economic power had reach an unbelievable level (revenues inequalities are matching the 17th centuries datas in "modern" USA. Go figure how this is possible), but no politic seems to have the guts and "room for manoeuvre" to do the littlest thing about that, so I guess it's now a "citizen" (better saying "consumer") issue.
The problem is that even this "last chance" is wasted : most consumers have a "sheep" or "lemmings" behaviour. If it's available and famous, then let's buy it !
So I guess we really have a problem here, Houston.
And it's beyond the simple "conde are good/bad" debate (that is like when you're hesitating to take this or that mobile phone company. False choice, wrong debate).
Guitar business is not a very good exemple, because it's still one of the most balanced market out there. But the whole point seems still to be valid :
Normally, in an ecology, there is room for everyone, for Condes and for Anders, for Micros$ft and for Linux, for wallmart and for the small grocery, etc.
BUT, this is true at the condition that there is a general balance between everyone.
And, let's realize that the balance is really threatened, in biological, economical and even in guitars ecology. So, as we're just begining to understand it for nature (50 years after the researchs stating this clearly), we have a responsability, things to do, and things to avoid in this whole mess. I know that lots of people don't give a **** to that, or even are not thinking it's a real problem.
In another domain, but still connected, i've just have to think that I earn 7€/ hour to be an university teacher/researcher and that a lovely french businessman called François Pinault earns 13000€/ hour. Yes, it's not a typo mistake. I've just seen an interview with him. The man worked hard all morning (not much harder than me, as I could saw). Said some clever things to his work mates (not much clever than what I'm saying, as I could hear). And then, said "ok, it's time for a little entertainment after all this hard work" and he went to golf for the afternoon. I couldn't believe that this cool chap was still earning 13000€/hour to play golf. 8 times my MONTHLY salary per HOUR, to play golf when he's tired. And I've made 10 years of study to get there. And I'm trying to make students more confident in themselves and society, more clever and wise, etc. And making researchs that could perhaps, one day, help some people to be better.
But for sure all this must be **** compared to what this great guy is making for humanity. One could always say that "he deserves it" and that I deserve the ressources I'm getting. And that we can't do something to rebalance things, it will stop economic growth and the will to work hard.
It's pure ****.
This man would still "work hard" for only 500€/hour. And if he would quit for this amount, I'll kick him in the ****.
And any rational and objective study would conclude that is not fair or balanced, or even "normal". Is this guy making 1857 times my work per hour ? Does this man is "worth" 1857 workers ? ha-ha-ha
Don't get me wrong, I'm not jealous. I would feel totally ashamed and dishonored, as a human being, to accaparate so much ressources given the fact that we are sharing these ressources and I already feel that what I'm earning is far enought to make me happy, given that hapiness does not resides only in money.
My point is that I'm totally frightened by the lack of balance of the whole system. It's clearly dangerous. When a system is unbalanced to this point, fear for your ass. There must be rich and poors. But not so much poors for so few richs (and so unbelievably richs), if it's the case, the system will break.
Same with guitars. There must be Condes and Ramirez. And Anders and Donadey. But not so much condes and ramirez. Because it could kill Ander's and Donadey's. Lots of good small builders have to stop at one time because they can't make it, in money terms strictly. And instead of making wonderful instruments with their specificity, they go and make finishs for condes. Pure waste for everybody, because of an unbalanced system and mostly because the "sheepy" behaviors of customers.
And in the end even condes and ramirez or burguet would "die", because they are becoming obese, and are forgetting the real point of guitar making (could be selling strings or yogourght as long as it's profitable).
Buying condes, buying at wallmark, buying a hummer, a jacket for 30$, a bottle of wine for 3$, Micros$oft programs, Hollywood movie$ and Britney Spear$. Hey, what the point ? I'm free, no ? I don't hurt anybody and I WANT the "best deal" !
For sure you can't see who's your hurting, what you're breaking, and the future crap you're favorizing. It's potential and indirect harm. Not so obvious. Hey, we're into the 21th century. Things have gone a little more complicated than in the bronze age.
So, I'm sorry if it looks i've gone off track, but here is the link :
When conde is selling twenty guitars, Anders is selling one. Michel Donadey is barely making a living with his art, and his guitars are killing all the condes I've played. Nonsense.
&
Sheepness.
Because there is a bunch of Conde available, because of the hype, because of quality also, most will buy a conde. "Power of imposition", the most important thing in modern economy. It does not really matter in the end if you're really that good and if your prices are fair and even less if you respect workers and environment. The key is the "power of imposition". Be everywhere, hold every brain, give guitars for free to pro players and you're sure to win the lottery. Wallmart strategy. The breeding of sheeps "by force" instead of the gentle gathering of clients because you're good, your prices are fair and you have a social and environmental politic, in a truly competitive market.
So, when you buying a Conde, you're helping a little to unbalance even more the system. I'm not saying you're responsible for the whole disaster, you're just "sheeping" a little in the dangerous path (please excuse my words, all conde buyers).
Like when someone buy a hummer and says "hey, it's nothing, just a little pollution - I'm not responsible, just a little drop in the ocean. And I really wanted BAD this hummer, Arnold Swartznegger has one, and it's a great machine".
And people would tell me : you missed the thing, big companies have financial troubles, they have many workers, advertising to do, etc. We must support them also, they're in competition, lots of jobs will disapear, etc. Funny - it's the same argument mine owners told to miners back in the old days : "If I raise your salary just by one pence, I will have to close the mine. I simply can't. It's pure economics. It's undiscutable". And the guy was coming home in his castle, laughting with wife and friends how much these poor miners are credule and stoopid, spilling Chateau-Margaux all over the handmade tablecloth and planing to buy another rolls-royce for the wife because one is not enought when you're high.
Don't forget flamenco had always be on the side of the miners...
So if I want to be flamenco-coherent, I will never buy a conde. It's a bit rought, but I feel it's right.
And if in ten years, Eliasson's guitars are replacing condes on the market, in terms of industrial scale, I'll flame down Anders, no worries. But I know it won't happens. Not because he's guitars are not as good, but because it's not him, not his mind, and not the reason why he's here on earth (selling guitars like pure marchandises and choosing to have an industrial scale).
So, in the end, I can find a better guitar, for the same price or even lower with ease of payment, from a small builder. And it will be a unique guitar. And I will learn a lot in the process, meet a good man, and see my baby growing. Priceless. And last, but not least, I will help a little to rebalance the ecology of guitar makers.
When ethic and moral meets rationality and pleasure, the only question remaining for me is how could so much people still buy condes or ramirez ?
I some domains, endangered "working species" are not any more "endangered". They simply have disapeared. And a big friendly trust have replaced them. You now have the choice between the blue and the orange product from this firm. They called them under two different names, to give you a "feel of choice". Great. Choose the right color and don't think at anything else. Ecology is just a stupid idea brought by post-communist and ****ing useless and annoying intellectuals.
There is no danger.
Believe me.
Buy an orange Conde.
(Not the blue one, it has been made by the non-original conde factory. But you have the choice, powerful consumer that you are).
(I know a lot of you here have bought Ander's guitars. So you could be proud chaps, you're helping the whole ecology of flamenco guitars and preserve guitardiversity)
Feel ashame of such a long and political post. I'm sorry I just can't help myself. Perhaps a picture will help forgiving :
Images are resized automatically to a maximum width of 800px
 Attachment (1)
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Jan. 14 2007 14:36:38
|
|
Ricardo
Posts: 14861
Joined: Dec. 14 2004
From: Washington DC
|
|
RE: Gerundino played by Ricardo? (in reply to Anders Eliasson)
|
|
|
quote:
(I wonder how long EU legislation will allow them not to put the builders name on the guitar.... )
Like I said, I saw at least ONE Conde that had the Sanchis Stamp inside, on the soundboard.
quote:
My point is that I'm totally frightened by the lack of balance of the whole system. It's clearly dangerous.
There are plenty of makers that are not so famous as Conde, that have waiting lists, meaning, they get some money just for saying you will one day get a guitar that MIGHT be good. Ramirez set it up where he could get the guitars MADE because people want them and need them. No way was he going to be able to make all the guitars everyone wanted or needed, by himself. When a maker gets good and people want that instrument for whatever reason, they either get a huge wait list, or they contract out. Waiting 8 years for a Reyes, then it turns out to be so-so and you sell it or trade it for a Conde (true story). There is a reason why the market is that way, it is totally not fair to say that people who ever purchased a famous guitar that is mass produced, is contributing to a "dangerous miss balance".
In the end, sorry, it really is about the individual buyer's personal prefrence. You can't say the guitar maker X is making guitars better than Ramirez or Conde. You can only speak for yourself and others you know that claim that. That does not mean there is miss balance in the market. Only there is miss balance in people's taste and preference. But it is not so bad in the classical world. There are lots of choices. And plenty of flamenco choices too, I don't see what is the big "miss balance". I mean, it surprises me how many classical/flamenco guitars are sold period! I mean, do that many people really know how to play? They can't all be collectors, because I personally don't know hardly any flamenco guitar collectors, that don't sell guitars for a living.
Any new maker can give their guitar for free to Paco de Lucia, Vicente Amigo, Gerardo Nunez, Tomatito, Chicuelo, etc. In fact that has happened for sure. But how would it balance the market if the pro shows up on stage with the same old famous guitar? PDL put his name on an instrument he does not even use regularly. And don't think that these guys are necessarily playing on stage with a guitar that was "free". I know Gerardo bought his guitar, and have read from Reyes that Vicente bought 2 and had to wait for them like everyone else.
Ricardo
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Jan. 14 2007 19:55:24
|
|
legrec
Posts: 248
Joined: Jan. 26 2006
From: France
|
|
RE: Gerundino played by Ricardo? (in reply to JasonM)
|
|
|
Hi Jason,
First, please don't call me professor  , I know I may sound like one even if i'm trying not to do so. But no one is my student here and I'm sure i'm one of the less knowledgeable people here...
You'll find equality in most "untouched" ecosystems : it means the less numbered species (or apparently "weakest" species) still have the "right" to be there and to hold their place, because there is a general balance. So it's apparently "inequal" because of the number of specimens, but truly equal because each holds it's place and is not endangered (except when there is some natural catastrophe, which could endanger some or most of the species of the ecosystem). "True equality" is an inequality which allows everyone to hold it's place and makes a good working and "rich" (creative) whole system.
I feel that in the long run it's the same for human and cultural things : richs & poors, with a sort of balance in the inequality, because this inequality is tolerable. Condes & Eliassons, etc.
You CAN divide the pie evently, with the help of morale and less greed. It don't means everyone will receive exactly the same part. It means everyone will receive a part which is satisfing him (Am I right, Anders ? Is your goal producing 500 guitars a year, and not to touch wood anymore but your phone and PDA and to become a business man with a few Jaguars in your garage ?)
You remember the exemple of the 13000€/hour man ? The equality is reached in my opinion if this guy "only" earns 500€/hour, for exemple. He will still be very very rich compared to most people (so will "work hard, invest a lot, bla bla bla" for this). But will not "eat" as much ressources than he is now.
This stays in the limits of morality and rationality.
This would be humanily and socialy tolerable and sustainable.
It's the same for environmental issues : getting back to old days, without any polluting tool or activity ? Nope, but limiting the polluting artefacts we are using, and getting them back to a tolerable level for nature and for ourselves.
For sure, one may argue : who are you to declare the limits of morality and what is "satisfying" ? And he'll be right, I've not got any privilege to define this alone.
It's a collective decision.
But I'm sure you're getting my point : inequality for sure, but within certain boundaries. Inequality is "normal" when at a "normal" level. If not, it becomes a poison. It's the dose that makes the poison, not the thing itself.
I believe it's the only future of economy for human kind, If I'm enought mad to believe to what I'm saying. A sort of capitalistocomunism.
And, my whole point was that our societies are now poisoning themselves with inequalities and "over-feeding behaviors" of all kinds, because there are no social or individual movement strong enought to keep these into boundaries. It does exist, with certainty, some dark periods in which the "balance" is really threatened, with big and nasty consequences, as everyone knows.
And that's why humans, as opposed to animals, have the moral obligation to think and act in these periods, to help a little re-balancing systems.
I don't feel I am a catastrophist or some sort of "always against" guy : If we were living in the "glorious 30" era, I really believe I would not think and speak like I am now.
But our era clearly lacks of counter-power to slow down inequalities and over-feeding behaviors of all sorts becoming poisons, for individuals and for nations.
We must simply think about the fact that revenue inequalities in the USA now are matching those of the 17th century...And it's linked to "concentration process" of all types.
That why I DONT WANT TO BUY A CONDE AT THE SHOP.
Rather, "My kingdom for an Eliasson".
Ok my conclusion is a bit rought and funny, but I would speak too much if I go on. You get the point.
I agree that the guitar market is not as weird and amoral as the coffee or petrol market for exemple. We still have some choice, but I personaly feel a responsability, within my own means (I've saved during three years to buy my guitar), to try to make the good decisions taking in account the whole mess I've talked about... As we saw plenty of "untouchables" business going right into the Wallmart strategy (I'm thinking just about wine, drugs or spirituality, to give a few exemples among many), I won't be the one who will bet it won't happen with guitars, because of some "special" protection.
Thank you all for the answers, BTW, I was swearing no one would take the pain to read such a long post...
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Jan. 14 2007 21:00:38
|
|
legrec
Posts: 248
Joined: Jan. 26 2006
From: France
|
|
RE: Gerundino played by Ricardo? (in reply to Jim Opfer)
|
|
|
Jim,
I'm not saying that everyone musn't buy condes, new or old. It's just that I feel for myself I don't want to add on their big list of customers. And it's not snobbism, I've explained it enought I believe in my posts.
And for the second-hand wonderful Conde, yes I would personally consider buying one if it was so good, but would still better like to spend this money on an individual builder instrument for the reasons I've stated, if the quality is comparable.
And sure, this Donadey is strange ! The cypress bridge and the head makes it original. It's really a great guitar. Powerful, growling, precise, lyrical. Tasty. I'm sure some condes are matching or over this one (for my taste). But what I've just had in my experience is three rather bad condes ("de primera") on three tried, and two killers Donadey's on two tried. So for me, with the whole "ecological point of view", you know what i'm thinking..
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Jan. 14 2007 21:13:34
|
|
Arash
Posts: 4495
Joined: Aug. 9 2006
From: Iran (living in Germany)
|
|
RE: Gerundino played by Ricardo? (in reply to legrec)
|
|
|
Vincent sorry, i guess i was too fast reading all the long posts , overlooked that.
Well i have no "watching list".
After thinking it over again.....i think what i will do is go to the Flamenco Guitar shop here in Germany and try out guitars that they have, choose the best for me and buy it.
I think it is better for me not to order a guitar from someone where i have to be on a waiting list first to get my guitar after 3 , 4 , 5 years.
First : because i want it soon , Second: imagine . the guitar is built , i try it and i don't like it for some reason. What shall i do then?
Too risky for me!
(I only speak in my behalf and this only applies to me ...no offend those famous and good guitar builders, please do not misunderstand)
Saludos, Arash
P.S. I think they have one new Blanca from Eliasson for 2900,00 Euros. i will try that one too.
And another question: Anyone knows the new model from Sanchis Lopez Model "Rafael Cortes"?...it is a new Model and they say this has really a special and own sound. The last Cd from Rafael Cortes is recorded with this Guitar. I do not have this CD. Price is about 2400,00 Euro including Case.
_____________________________
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Jan. 16 2007 15:40:40
|
|
legrec
Posts: 248
Joined: Jan. 26 2006
From: France
|
|
RE: Gerundino played by Ricardo? (in reply to Arash)
|
|
|
Arash,
You're speaking about MundoFlamenco, right ?
Yes they have an Anders for sale, and if I would be you I'll probably give also a try to the Maldonado's. They have just lowered their price some weeks ago.
But on the whole, like all "pro seller", I would say that their price are much higher than the second-hand "private" market (i would say 30-50% higher). They have initially put for sale a second-hand Eladio Fernandez for 3500€, and I feel everyone in Spain would say that it's really too high.
But obviously, if you can go at MundoFlamenco with no costs, you'll be able to try several guitars at one time, escape for shipping fees and be a little more confident in the sale than with a private seller.
From my side, I've tried to avoid "pro" sellers - It really depends on your budget and the ability to go and try guitars from private sellers. As mine was rather tiny, I went for the private market, and got a wonderful deal for my Devoe...I've had several "good" deals like that (a 59 reyes in good cond. for 3000€, a bellido for 1800€, a Manzanero for 2500€, etc.).
And about ordering a guitar, I would say that not all the builders have a such long waiting list ! I don't think Anders has reached the 3 years for the moment (you notice, I've said "for the moment" ) and I know that lots of builders will take 6month to one year (Benito Huipe, Matthew Morello, etc.). But for sure, the problem of disliking the guitar when made is still there, like Ricardo explained it in a previous post... For sure it's always better to be able to try the guitar you're buying...
I'm sure you've already thought a lot about these questions...
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Jan. 16 2007 16:22:57
|
|
 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 |
9.423828E-02 secs.
|
Printable Version
Strange but true. The comercials where I used his guitar was to promote dance. I just used this guitar coz my friend is in holiday and didnt took his guitar with him. I wanted to test it by playing it for dance.