|
gj Michelob -> RE: The Schism of the Conde Hermanos Empire (Aug. 16 2010 2:20:31)
|
Hi Keith, good to see you[r post].
At this point, Conde, be it Felipe or Hermanos, is a reference, a vestigial credential of an individual enterprise now evaporated into a "label". As "Ramirez" did, regardless of whether it is Jose I or II or III or IV or Joselita (Amelia). Much to the point Orsonw makes above, both labels define and guarantee fine guitars, steady and reliable, regardless of who makes them where.
On the other hand, however, shouldn’t we cautiously weigh the apparently inherent value of all luthier’s guitars? There are a lot of guitar-makers out there, mostly self-appointed and certainly lacking the excruciatingly long but profound apprenticeship a Manuel Contreras must have undergone at the house of Ramirez. How many did and do that any longer?
I spoke recently to your friend R.E. Brune. I was reverently impressed by his sweeping knowledge of flamenco and guitars. And speaking to him I was compelled to remember the other infallibly critical aspects required to succeed at any craftsmanship, including guitar making, which must add to the steep learning curve of a serious training (and not everyone naturally has): talent, taste, class, ascetic devotion and integrity…. How many of the guitar makers today have proper training (as say Felipe Conde must have) and really have all of these gifts?
Even if a Felipe Conde simply uses his knowledge or experience to supervise someone else’s work he is –just as RE Brune is- one very long step ahead of those who may need to google “how to glue a bridge”.
I have a Conde and I love it. I am advertizing it for sale, but am sending it to Richard Brune next week to see to a “buzz” it developed. I would not want a buyer of such a guitar (if I will ever sell it, ultimately) to inherit anything which may detract from the beauty of sound and playability my Conde has given me.
|
|
|
|
