RE: Fastino Conde 1986 without signature? (Full Version)

Foro Flamenco: http://www.foroflamenco.com/
- Discussions: http://www.foroflamenco.com/default.asp?catApp=0
- - Lutherie: http://www.foroflamenco.com/in_forum.asp?forumid=22
- - - RE: Fastino Conde 1986 without signature?: http://www.foroflamenco.com/fb.asp?m=240619



Message

jshelton5040 -> RE: Fastino Conde 1986 without signature? (Sep. 1 2013 14:25:35)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rogeliocan


-and one for Tom Blackshear to talk about how good he is


[:D]



keith -> RE: Fastino Conde 1986 without signature? (Sep. 1 2013 15:06:32)

I like the idea of two categories:

Guitar building and repair as it directs members to ask questions and/or post about the mechanics of building and/or repairs.

Guitar history and market as it directs members to ask questions about guitar prices, legitimacey of labels, etc.

I am not sure if we need a separate category for Condes but given the love affair many have with Conde then maybe



El Burdo -> RE: Fastino Conde 1986 without signature? (Sep. 1 2013 20:06:11)

quote:

Guitar building and repair

Guitar history and market


+1



gbv1158 -> RE: Fastino Conde 1986 without signature? (Sep. 1 2013 21:02:15)

quote:

quote:

Guitar building and repair

Guitar history and market



+1



+2

:-)
ciao
giambattista



orsonw -> RE: Fastino Conde 1986 without signature? (Sep. 1 2013 21:49:02)

quote:


quote:

quote:

Guitar building and repair

Guitar history and market



+1



+2


+3



estebanana -> RE: Fastino Conde 1986 without signature? (Sep. 2 2013 0:20:43)

+4



machopicasso -> RE: Fastino Conde 1986 without signature? (Sep. 2 2013 8:45:17)

quote:

+4


+5

For what it's worth, I'm another one of those who knows little about guitar-making and has no plans to build one. Still, I respect the craft and enjoy learning about it from time to time. The luthiers' discussions make the foro a better place. Measures to promote (and/or protect) those conversations are good both for luthiery and for the site.



Escribano -> RE: Fastino Conde 1986 without signature? (Sep. 2 2013 8:47:06)

I am a bit busy today but I will have a look at this. Thanks for the feedback.



mark indigo -> RE: Fastino Conde 1986 without signature? (Sep. 2 2013 13:12:51)

quote:


Guitar building and repair

Guitar history and market

+1

+2

+3

+4

+5


+6

quote:

For what it's worth, I'm another one of those who knows little about guitar-making and has no plans to build one. Still, I respect the craft and enjoy learning about it from time to time. The luthiers' discussions make the foro a better place. Measures to promote (and/or protect) those conversations are good both for luthiery and for the site.


while I agree with this, the reality is as a player rather than a builder I would probably more likely to dip into a "guitar history and market" section than the luthiery section, which I rarely visit. The Conde questions, and other Conde threads should definitely (IMO) go in a "guitar history and market" section, not have their own section!



Ricardo -> RE: Fastino Conde 1986 without signature? (Sep. 2 2013 17:12:15)

[:D]

SMH

So set up feel and sound, where does that go?

Whatever you guys want. might as well break up General section too, Guitarra flamenca/Cante/FUsion/old school/modern etc etc...



estebanana -> RE: Fastino Conde 1986 without signature? (Sep. 3 2013 1:44:16)

quote:

So set up feel and sound, where does that go?


In a section for nuts and bolts building.



krichards -> RE: Fastino Conde 1986 without signature? (Sep. 3 2013 8:10:53)

Not convinced about this. We have a lot of categories already and more may just mean more posts in the wrong place.



rogeliocan -> RE: Fastino Conde 1986 without signature? (Sep. 3 2013 12:52:22)

Yeah, the 2 categories, don't cover everything. And I think you are right and stuff gets put in the wrong subject. I think many of the luthiers would like the luthier thread was just left to stuff related to the subject of physical guitars.

So stuff like the Conde post and the guitar marketing should have ended up in the Flamenco category?

If you want to isolate guitar (the instrument) related subjects the 2nd category aof History and market is too limiting, should just be... everything not luthery...



Ricardo -> RE: Fastino Conde 1986 without signature? (Sep. 3 2013 17:11:44)

got an idea. Just a section called "Guitarra Flamenca". Leave it at that.



estebanana -> RE: Fastino Conde 1986 without signature? (Sep. 4 2013 0:10:21)

I still think it would be better to separate the sections in guitar making.

After all under the heading of Playing there is a:

Falseta Tab section

Audio Video section

Recording Advice section.

How about if those sections get combined and you call it Guitarra Flamenca? See, your area of expertise is already subdivided into sections which keep things from getting confusing, but it is all an aspect of playing.

All I'm saying is lets treat guitar making the same way so those who build can enjoy the same level of organization that those who want access to playing information have. Having three distinct sections to organize different aspects of playing does not seem to hinder those discussions, it seems to make them better.

I continue to advocate for separation of Luthery into sub sections which properly categorize the varying subjects within luthery. I continue to believe it will generate more succinct conversations and alleviate the problems guitar makers have been suffering due to cluttering and misuse of the luthery section.



Ricardo -> RE: Fastino Conde 1986 without signature? (Sep. 4 2013 11:54:15)

quote:

How about if those sections get combined and you call it Guitarra Flamenca


I mean as the sub category under lutherie ... guitarra flamenca (the instrument).... can cover all details of the guitar, and sure some technical things like sound feel set up, but all the rest (connoisseurship market etc) can be in there.

The subcategories that seem to be about playing guitar are really set up that way because of the types of media that might be presented, not necessarily because the flamenco guitar is so important and needed separate categories. Here's how I see it.

General=flamenco anything.
Recording= technical side of recording sound and video, not necessarily flamenco or guitar related.
tabs= truly should just be musical scores and transcriptions, standard notation, tab or other.
etc,
So you have the Guitarra Flamenca section broken into
Lutherie=building and repair (classical and flamenco guitars and lutes and violins cellos etc)
Flamenco guitar (the instrument)= all the rest we talking about.

or Lutherie can be the big section broken into:
Building and Repair
Guitarra Flamenca (the instrument)



gbv1158 -> RE: Fastino Conde 1986 without signature? (Sep. 4 2013 13:02:55)

quote:

I continue to advocate for separation of Luthery into sub sections which properly categorize the varying subjects within luthery. I continue to believe it will generate more succinct conversations and alleviate the problems guitar makers have been suffering due to cluttering and misuse of the luthery section.


I am not a liuther and not a professional guitarrist, but you Stephen are 100% right because I believe you reppresent thoroghly well the complex theme of "gutar costruction" to wich the "luthier" section belongs.

ciao,
giambattista



z6 -> RE: Fastino Conde 1986 without signature? (Sep. 4 2013 16:58:29)

Bananaman, does that mean you want more places for you and Ruphus to roll about on the floor?

You could close it off to mere mortals like they did on Delcamp. Then we could really test this new-fangled way of ensuring only the right subjects may be broached. Noise man? You 're joking right? The noise is often the best part and if you're not the noisiest then you must be on vacation.

Think about the liquidity as well as the content. Just tell people who get on your nads to effoff, like you did to the unsigned Conde guy.

Seems fine to me the way it is. I'd like to not be locked out but how could such a 'restructuring' stop you yourself causing a rumpus with Ruphus or Tom or yourself?

It's fine the way it is. Or we could just all have a section each? Are you sure you didn't just devise this in a bad mood? And now you're locked into it? Man, you could argue the hind legs off a donkey. When did you ever hold back on a thread about top thickness then give the best arguments I've ever heard defending the loopiest strains of modern art?

And you might have got away with it if Ruphus hadn't put his equally, if quite strange to read, case?

But reading above I can see negotiations are already at an advanced stage.

Is this post noise? How could anyone know? What's up with telling people for the hundredth time that the rosette has no effect on the sound?

But if it's a smaller club it may end up a private club. And without the rest of us to remind you that a room full of nothing but luthiers is a dubious ambition, the section may lose its vibrancy.

None of my business.



estebanana -> RE: Fastino Conde 1986 without signature? (Sep. 5 2013 1:23:20)

quote:



quote:

I continue to advocate for separation of Luthery into sub sections which properly categorize the varying subjects within luthery. I continue to believe it will generate more succinct conversations and alleviate the problems guitar makers have been suffering due to cluttering and misuse of the luthery section.



I am not a liuther and not a professional guitarrist, but you Stephen are 100% right because I believe you reppresent thoroghly well the complex theme of "gutar costruction" to wich the "luthier" section belongs.

ciao,
giambattista


Giambattista,

Thank for your kind support of the idea, and also Orson and others who seem to get what I'm talking about. I was not intending to frighten anyone into thinking this would be a private club or exclusionary in anyway. I was simply voicing my opinion about the need for organization to help with clarity and topic placement.



orsonw -> RE: Fastino Conde 1986 without signature? (Sep. 5 2013 9:03:17)

quote:

Building and Repair
Guitarra Flamenca (the instrument)


On the home page the sections under the "Discussion" heading could be,

Lutherie Building and repair.

Guitarra Flamenca Anything else related to the instrument; history, valuation, market etc..

I'm sure there will still be errant posts, though I think it can be interesting when things go off on a tangent. I would like it if this was still allowed to happen. Maybe set a frame work but not get too rigid?



Ricardo -> RE: Fastino Conde 1986 without signature? (Sep. 5 2013 12:05:41)

quote:

I was not intending to frighten anyone into thinking this would be a private club or exclusionary in anyway.


....but, NO CONDES ALLOWED. [:D][:D][:D]



estebanana -> RE: Fastino Conde 1986 without signature? (Sep. 5 2013 13:06:52)

quote:

quote:

I was not intending to frighten anyone into thinking this would be a private club or exclusionary in anyway.



....but, NO CONDES ALLOWED.


Dude, I'm going to build a guitar just like a Conde' and put my label in it and paint it with that hideous baby puke orange color those monkey's like to use. Then I'm gonna make a fake Conde' label out of plastic that gets a sticky with static electricity and let it stick over my label. Then every Conde' loving chode will cream their jeans over it and then it will be revealed that it's not a Conde'.

I've already mixed the baby puke orange and am testing it now.



estebanana -> RE: Fastino Conde 1986 without signature? (Sep. 5 2013 13:20:26)

quote:

On the home page the sections under the "Discussion" heading could be,

Lutherie Building and repair.

Guitarra Flamenca Anything else related to the instrument; history, valuation, market etc..

I'm sure there will still be errant posts, though I think it can be interesting when things go off on a tangent. I would like it if this was still allowed to happen. Maybe set a frame work but not get too rigid?


This sounds reasonable to me, it would allow for the building and repair discussion to be more liberated from non intrinsic crosstalk. Of course if someone makes an comment about history of guitars or the origins of nomenclature of guitar parts or tools or other more esoteric things in context with a building project that is cool. I just want to see the building talk stay focused so we can keep an intensity in guitar making.

I've got projects I want to share and I can learn a lot more here..and teach a few things. I'd like to see the building get more serious. I'm a funny irreverent person when I want to be and I think flamenco attracts that kind of person, but I don't always want to be the joker you read on your iPad while on the train. There's a place for fun & games and a place to be focused and studious, they can intersect, but lets keep it clear.

Hopefully Escribano will find this a beneficial idea, and even though he's as busy as anyone, at some point might be able to grant the added sections as he sees fit.



mark indigo -> RE: Fastino Conde 1986 without signature? (Sep. 5 2013 15:10:34)

quote:

Dude, I'm going to build a guitar just like a Conde' and put my label in it and paint it with that hideous baby puke orange color those monkey's like to use. Then I'm gonna make a fake Conde' label out of plastic that gets a sticky with static electricity and let it stick over my label. Then every Conde' loving chode will cream their jeans over it and then it will be revealed that it's not a Conde'.

I've already mixed the baby puke orange and am testing it now.


how much? how long is the waiting list? [8D][:D][:D]



Ricardo -> RE: Fastino Conde 1986 without signature? (Sep. 5 2013 15:20:13)

quote:

Dude, I'm going to build a guitar just like a Conde' and put my label in it and paint it with that hideous baby puke orange color those monkey's like to use.


Finally!! where do I send the down payment? Hope you don't mind, but if you could ship it directly to Blackshear first, I need it fine tuned before I waste my time testing it.[:D]



rogeliocan -> RE: Fastino Conde 1986 without signature? (Sep. 5 2013 16:35:54)

quote:

Finally!! where do I send the down payment? Hope you don't mind, but if you could ship it directly to Blackshear first, I need it fine tuned before I waste my time testing it.


Wouldn't you also want him to first also send the braces to Tom for salting prior to building the guitar? Hold on, did Conde use salt or did they just use ketchup?



Ruphus -> RE: Fastino Conde 1986 without signature? (Sep. 5 2013 18:32:57)

What are you making fun of poor Tom.

A flash of lightning shall hit you bad boys while on the loo.

Zorro X



Mark2 -> RE: Fastino Conde 1986 without signature? (Sep. 5 2013 18:47:04)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ricardo

quote:

Dude, I'm going to build a guitar just like a Conde' and put my label in it and paint it with that hideous baby puke orange color those monkey's like to use.


Finally!! where do I send the down payment? Hope you don't mind, but if you could ship it directly to Blackshear first, I need it fine tuned before I waste my time testing it.[:D]



Awesome, I want one too. Love me some orange. [:D][:D][:D][:D]



estebanana -> RE: Fastino Conde 1986 without signature? (Sep. 6 2013 0:45:52)

Maybe you missed where I announced my new Japan shop is housed in a former salt storage warehouse?

Simply building them there imparts the essence of salt and sea.

___________

The salt joke is quite played out and I do actually like Tom. I had an awakening when I came here and looked for a studio to work in. I asked what the building was for when it was built. "Oh" they said, " it was a salt cellar for our family salt supply business, but we sold the business and now we have this building waiting for you."

Surprise, surprise, as Gomer Pile would say.

This dovetails perfectly with the dream I had while I was dating the Jungian analyst a few years ago:

I worked in a shop where Carl Jung himself was a guitar maker and we worked at this long bench like a big picnic table. We were making orange varnish and putting in on violins.

One of the classic ways to interpret dreams is to look at the dream a place yourself as every person an thing in the dream an see what it says. So I realized I was Carl Jung and the picnic table meant it was my office. The orange liquid we put on the violins was the blood of Christ and was formulated from a dream recipe taken out of the gnostic gospels that Jung had been interpreting.

My conclusion was that I should go forth and seek the holy grail, which we all know is a wooden vessel called A Conde'. But which Conde'? No one knows which Conde' is the holy grail, so guitarists search endlessly to find it trying one Conde' after another.

Since my dream has revealed the true nature of the grail I had dedicated myself in secret to learn how to mix the sacred blood orange varnish as a way of supplicating and paying homage to those guitar players who search for the grail without ceasing to have faith that the One Conde' Grail exists and they will find it to save the souls of men. Now you all know I am searching too and that my own guitar making is funding my search. Day job, making Stephen Faulk guitars, the rest of the time, searching for the Conde' Grail. It could be in Japan. You never know, some Japanese player may have been entrusted to bring it here i the 1960's under the supervision of Faustino himself.

Which brings me to my next suggestion that we organize the Luthery section into three parts, like the holy trinity:

Conde' Grail Search



Building and Repair

History and Aficion



constructordeguitarras -> RE: Fastino Conde 1986 without signature? (Sep. 6 2013 3:00:23)

Hey! It is not a 1986! It is a 1968!

I don't think it is a factory made guitar with a luthier's label stuck in. I think it is a segunda meaning that it was made by a jorneyman luthier in the master's shop under the master's supervision. It may be worth more than the 1986 that you are talking about that doesn't exist.



Images are resized automatically to a maximum width of 800px



Page: <<   <   1 [2] 3    >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software powered by ASP Playground Advanced Edition 2.0.5
Copyright © 2000 - 2003 ASPPlayground.NET