Ruphus -> RE: fine tuning a top (Oct. 27 2012 9:32:41)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Richard Jernigan People's knickers seem to knot up over the salt business. What Tom says is that the water softens the brace. The salt is supposed to draw the water back out of the wood. ... you need to test something before you accept it....or before you contradict it, unless you have a perfectly airtight theoretical case against it. Well said! So much opposing conviction / burning of witches before actual evaluation it seems. If treating components with peanut butter was part of Tom´s procedure to make guitars like that, I would probably spend a deeper thought on the method before rejecting as a luthier. ( As it obviously won´t hurt at the least.) Here is what I had in the deleted post above, regarding foregone posts at that time: Though some points may sound controversial, it appears to me as if each and every bit that´s been said was valuable and only complementary to the intention of this thread. Clueless about potential criteria; better to say: Even irritated about what subtlety it is that makes a good build, whilst on the other hand proving so stable in the same time ... You know, when guitars will stay performing fine though their top be loaded with a plastic sheet, be cracked, and even bound up with patches after crack repairs ... When corpuses are severally circumsized by cutaways, with some performing stunningly well nonetheles, when necks are mounted loosely ... There seems to just remain little to no individual specifics that could be nailed down as requierement. ( Quasi confirming the `many ways lead to Rome´premisse.) Yet, I dare to assume ( deriving from other subjects ) that eventhough many ways may be used to produce a good guitar, them may not all be of same efficiency in efforts and results. And that making available diverse techniques / preserving them can only be doing good to the vocation of luthiery. Eventhough it appears to me as if more and more good luthiers were emerging lately, it might just be sorts of a renaissance after decades of lost tradition and vocation. For, the dull antique specimen you find on the flea market might not inevitably be representative for former luthier standards. A corresponding quote taken off a link from AG forum: quote:
In order to change the sound, the design gradually changed over time, and due mostly to the popularity of the players in the late 19th and early 20th century, the Spanish design took over. It is best to refrain from declarations of judgement, to say one is "better" than the other. It is also not fair to compare an antique instrument to a new instrument and conclude the new design is louder, since some differences may be due to age. It is more valid to compare modern replicas, and clearly the romantic guitar design holds up. A Vihuela is not "better than" a Lute, and a Classical guitar is not "better than" a Flamenco guitar, or vice versa. Today's historically informed players realize that the pre-Torres classical-romantic guitar is a different instrument, with different characteristics that should be appreciated on its own terms. - He interestingly also says that our contemporary basic structure was NOT invented by Torres, besides. - Anyway, I think a sharing thread like this to be great and a service to the art and the community. Rock on, builders! Ruphus
Images are resized automatically to a maximum width of 800px
|
|
|
|