estebanana -> RE: Specs in a guitar plan (Feb. 12 2018 0:23:37)
|
quote:
quote: ORIGINAL: estebanana In the book 'The Flamenco Guitar' by David George there is an interview with Herr Reyes. He, Don Reyes, extolled the virtues of Santos as the master of the form and says he modeled his instrument on Santos. Then he tells him he as a beginning maker sent a guitar to Madrid as part of a correspondence with Barbero for Marcello's opinion on his work and to evaluate how faithful his work was to the spirit of Hernandez's work. Unfortunately Barbero died before the correspondence could advance to the point of Reyes getting Barbero's feedback. It's pretty safe to say that anyone who's anyone in Spain who made flamenco guitars had to deal with Santos one way or another. Which us why his work is such a brilliant place to begin. Almost all the lessons are in Santos, instilled in his work by 1925. Bypassing Santos early work is like trying to play chess without learning the Ruy Lopez opening. I compared Santos to esteso from the same period.....Santos felt a little better, especially that particular neck/bridge set up...soundwise I prefered esteso however. Clearly they were both on to something they learned from Manuel Ramirez...who for me was the true innovator for flamenco guitars IMO. You get my point, partly. Yes, Manuel was important too. However, Santos became the gold standard and Esteso also important. The point is NOTHING CHANGED after them, but people today act like it did. The flamenco guitar was fully developed in 1925, everything else is an esoteric personal stamp. So my point is why begin the discussion with a far reaching esoteric version when it's more solid to begin with the UR version and teach/learn the fundamental structure and let everyone go off and figure the rest out? Esteso and Santos built essentially the same guitar, the reason they are different is because they are TWO different people. If you teach or learn the basic design principles you'll make a guitar that reflects you because you will make choices that only you will make. Pushing this or that sound based on later iterations of design is ok, but why? WHY? It just creates problems. I'm against plans for beginners because beginners should learn to DRAFT their own plans based on the fundamentals, not have some shiitty pre-drawn concept marketed to them. Plans are useful AFTER you can draft your own plan because it tells you dimensions of someone else's design, it does NOT tell you the information you learn by Drafting your own plan first. Ranty part* So now we have guys that drop plans of this or that guitar and then run away from explaining how it goes together, when if they would just teach how to draw the basics with a compass, a triangle, and a yard stick on fuuuucking paper, but NOOOOOOOOOOOO, we live in a culture of lazy mother Fuuuuckers who want everything handed to them, because GOD FORBID anyone ever pick of a GOD DAMMED pencil. I still own the drafting set my Grandfather gave my step father, who in turn gave it to me, and I'm apparently the only fuccker who remembers what a mother fucckkiiiiig pencil is. TEACH PEOPLE TO F-ING DRAW!!!!!!! ..........................Not ram plans at them. Ranty part over* Would you like me to clarify? LOL The truth is we've lost any sense how to design these things because today it's all spoon feeding and missing the answers that are visible by drawing it yourself. If I were to write a book about guitar making it would be an anthology of makers essays, not one point of view, but the opening would be learning to draw the plan yourself, not copy a guitar 70 years removed from the primary source. Get it now? You understand the design of the guitar by drawing a line three feet long. That is the string. Under that you draw the bridge. Follow the string to the nut, it stops at a certain scale length....How high off the top do you want the saddle? Now draw in the rest of the guitar. The problem solves itself once you draw the guitar beginning with the bridge. And by an extension of the act of buying plans we're also losing a fundamental idea in creativity, it's become focused or fixated on someone else's sound, not exploration and discovery of your own natural sound. Everyone has an individual sound, and chasing other sounds is only part of learning. We're bordering on a decadent kind of aesthetic that requires only Official sounds or Historically correct sound, because makers are encouraged to work by jumping in mid stream, and that can be very beneficial, but it's bypassing the concept of basic design. Basic design teaches the better questions to ask and also sets up the idea that there is a natural sound that everyone has, not a forced manufactured sound. Guitar making will get like violin making soon enough, it will reach the point where there are only a couple sounds permissible because the market fixates on signature sounds of past makers. The market signifies off of big names, and all these guys began with a simple basic concept, then the individual sounds grew out of their exploration; now you can buy a pre-packaged 'set' of ideas, but it misses the place they started and does not chart the moves they made to arrive at that iteration of the basics. Jumping in midstream might put you on some great makers shoulders, but it's also a long way up off the floor where the essential lines are drawn in the dirt. Of course my view point is totally ignored, and thats ok. I have all the sashimi.
|
|
|
|