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.
My guitar comes from a town in USA, whose name i have never heard of and wouldnt know where it locates but it sounds better than i can play.
Olé
tghere must be some kind of school we havent heard of over there... Madrid school, Granada school, Condes and the mystical Amerian school.
LOL my post was inspired by your "The provincial difference has IMO disappeared like so many other things because of modern world acces to try things, in this case guitars, from various points of the world." WEll its the perfect instrument for me. It would make no sense to buy a 3000€ guitar for myself, coz i wouldnt be able to mobilize its full potential with my technique.
well, i wouldn't say that this thread is hijacked by conde "freaks". i would say it is hijacked by conde haters, if you compare the posts and read some extreme views.
i just posted some facts to show that it is somehow funny and ridiculous to say that all the people who buy and play a conde, are suckers, whereas nearly every professional guitarist is or has been playing with a conde.
so, you have to accept a reaction to such sweeping blow.
---
however, despite some sarcastic comments and and some assertions without substance, i couldn't find any convincing argument.
of course, there could be many bad condes too, many overpriced condes and condes built by other builders, as we all know. but still they seam to be the most prefered flamenco guitar. this is fact. live with it.
btw, Anders: habichuela, Cortez and Rodriguez also play a conde. i already mentioned that some guitarists ALSO play a conde and not only a conde.
yes, you can write your email to the few ones which you found and ask them whatever you like.
and i will write my emails to the 1000 others and ask them why they like their condes
if we disagree, that doesn't mean that we are against someone personally.
these are just sometimes heated discussions, but nothing personal.
Anders, Ron, etc.....all these people are nice guys, we agree on some subject, and disagree on some others and "fight" on some others. but thats all nothing against the person, just against the views.
btw, buleria74, thank you for editing you last message (outsourcing Toilets ) sounds friendlier now. appreciated
Dont worry, this thread is very civilized compared to many others we´ve had and I personally cant see anyone that is passing the uncivilized limit.
Things are, that we´ve been through this conde thing over and over and over and over again, and the Conde lovers (freaks ) always get so "nervous" and need to convince each and everyone all the time.. So its kind of fun to push them a bit.
The Madrid-Granada discussion has been up many times as well, but I think its the first time it turns into a simple Conde discussion.
Anyways, In the end, a good guitar is a good guitar. Never mind who made it.
The thing is before going into this subject topic I used to share an opinion a bit like Anders that everyone should ignore the hype and go for a hand made guitar by a luthier with his own label. I also agreed that Conde were overpriced and trading unfairly on their name. I also voiced an opinion that the practice of putting your own label in someone elses instrument is a fraud in almost any other business except making guitars.
quote:
I am certain most people here agree with me, it is wrong putting your label in a guitar when it is not made there by yourself
At the time it was posted that this was common practice, that everyone did it especially on lower models, that even guys like Ramirez outsourced to other luthiers and you should base your decision on the guitar and not the maker. Based on that advice I actually bought a couple of A26s which turned out to be phenomenal instruments. Saying that I tried out at least a dozen others which were not very good at all. Had my decision been based on those second rate instruments I would have gone for another maker. I would never have turned to buyng a Conde had those instruments not been so good to play.
To go back to the topic of this thread I have a F. Manual Diaz 1a. and I have owned a Moreno, a Marin and an Aguilate and my experience was those guitars were much drier in tone than the Ramirez and Condes I have owned.
I agree with most things you said, it's true some guitarreros outsource lower models so does Conde, the issue is that they have sold instruments not made by themselves telling clients it was made by them personally and this is wrong.
By the way, what did you think about Aguilarte guitar ? I was at his taller in 2009, his guitars sound good but the finishing was not acceptable, he does not pay much attention to details.
_____________________________
Flamenco no tiene mas que un escuela, transmitir o no transmitir !
the issue is that they have sold instruments not made by themselves telling clients it was made by them personally
Exactly....that is fraud in my opinion.
As for the Aguilate I had , it was a blanca with a beautiful rosette of pomegranates (Granadas). Very pretty, light and punchy sound. I dont know if he finishes the instruments himself. That could explain the rough looking finish. Personally I prefer that to a shiny instrument plastered in laquer that doesnt project.
i am not a "Conde Lover" (meaning that i only like Condes and no other guitar).
I still don't even own a Conde ! (surprise!) but my next guitar will be one. So you can see, that this was kind of a development during the years.
i like many guitars (Maldonado, Manzanero, Reyes, Sanchis Lopez, etc....), and Condes included.
so, unlike you, i have an open mind, and i don't think that you are a sucker, just because you don't like Condes and prefer other brands.
i just think that you made a stupid generalization in your first post, and that comment needed to be answered. if that answer makes me a Conde fetishist or a marketing manager of Conde, in your eye, then thats your problem.
it is interesting that you and some others ignore the list of 100s of guitarists and somehow desperately refer to the few with which you want to prove and show that Condes are bad guitars.
and even the guitarists you mention, still own and/or play a Conde or did that in the past.
nino de pura
Jose Antonio Rodriguez recorded his album "La Leyenda" with a 2002 Conde which he still owns. (he would be a "sucker" acc. your theory, because this is a Conde after 90s)
Tomatito at his best, played a Conde.
so even, the few you picked up, don't have anything against Conde, but they also have other guitars and play them. go and tell them that Condes are generally bad guitars, and you will get your answer.
its funny, you want me to comment on the one concert Anders mentioned, but you don't comment on 100 other concerts/guitarists/videos and totally ignore them LoL
btw, i know Johannes and his view about Condes and i don't need an education from him. he is a nice guy, with lot of experience, with a personal preferance like everyone else, and he runs a business with hundreds of other guitars! we had many discussions in his old forum on his page which is not active anymore.
of course, it can be that the newer Condes are not always that good. seams like the elder ones were better. and also that the business model is very questionable, etc.
but still, a good Conde (old or new) has something in the sound and feel, which many people are looking for and they are not all doing that because of hype (a pro. doesn't give a s..... about hype, he wants a good guitar which suits him), etc. (maybe in sanchis lopez guitars you find the same thing too)
but as mentioned, it is ridiculous for someone with your extreme anti-Conde attitude, to mispresent me as someone with a close mind, whereas you call everybody a succer who buys a Conde (excuse me: i mean Condes dated after 2000, as per your second post)
however, i am really getting tired in this thread.
bottom line: anders is right, a good guitar is a good guitar, never mind who made it.
i hope you dont include me in the Conde haters club, because I really like a good one. BUT, I might have played 15 - 20 (all top models, no f4 et) and only some 4 or 5 were really that good. Quite a few were really far from what I consider a good guitar, and the good ones were all pre 1985 guitars.
But in the end its all a personal taste... I just find all this hyping extremely boring and not fair to other good builders.
hey anders, i am sorry. i think things got a little mixed up in the thread and a bit too extreme (from all sides). i think i was a bit too harsh too. yes, of course i believe you that there are many questionable Condes out there. and i really appreciate that builders like you are so honest with no suspicious business models like some others and that everyone buys a guitar from you with a good and secure feeling because he knows that you are the only one involved and do everything yourself alone, etc..etc.. this has to be more appreciated.
Also, I am certain most people here agree with me, it
is wrong putting your label in a guitar when it is not made
there by yourself. It would be wrong by any guitarrero dont you think?.
Hey guys sorry to reactivate this thread, but I had read it days ago and could not respond with some of my thoughts until now.
Regarding this, it seems a lot of folks into guitars are very resentful about this practice of having a guitar built by someone else, yet the label reads and can even be signed by the more famous luthier. While I understand the feelings involved, it should be pointed out, and respected I personally feel, that this has been standard procedure for like 100 years just about. And I am talking about even primera guitars.
The legendary story of Segovia and his Manuel Ramirez is a good example. (According to Ramirez III's Book). The guitar was built by Santos Hernandez (1912?), and meant for a pro guitarist who wanted to bargain for the price. Manuel Ramirez gave it to Segovia in hopes to get some fame, a sort of stab at the original player who was supposed to buy it, but wanted it cheaper. Segovia played if for years and it became famous for Ramirez....even though Santos built it. Sure, now Santos is famous and collectable too, but when segovia gave it to santos to repair, he wanted to stick his OWN label in there.....but segovia wouldn't let him. Now do you guys think history would have been so different regarding guitar value if say Esteso had made that guitar instead (he also built "manuel Ramirez" guitars)? Or manuel HIMSELF?
Jose Ramirez III seemed to have no problem with having a shop full of guys that built PRIMERA guitars for him. He made a point in his book to simply list them all, and not give any specific feelings about the individual makers, but was confident that all guitars with his signature were as he would want them. He did not think it was "fraud" at all, and pointed out he felt what he did in terms of guitar building was more like engineering, and it did not matter so much that actual hands that built what was HIS design.
I understand why someone like Anders might have problems with that mentality, and anyone else who really likes to take care of each part of the guitar himself. I also understand the difference between ONE GUY building to a master's design, vs a factory where you have specialists dealing only with certain parts of a guitar. But my main thought on this is that this business of outsourcing a guitar, even a primera, to another guy who is an expert at the master's design, is not a new thing, or even looked at as "lets rip people off and make em think this was built by ME". It is simply the way it has been done for a long time.
The worst kind of hype, for me, is when people say "an original Faustino..." etc. Ramirez book is mainly about himself trying to win over Segovia with his guitar design. After many failures he finally succeeded. He doesn't admit it but I have heard that some of those success guitars were built not by himself, but by one of the many guys in his shop. The proof could be some of those guys would stamp their own initials in there, not sure if Ramirez III knew or cared about that. Anyway, I have seen an Atocha conde a Sanchis Carpio stamp inside. Seems like bad business, but that how these guys have been doing it.
Faustino perhaps had brilliant design concepts, like Ramirez and others, but do we really believe he built all those Conde's from 60's-70's into the 80's???? Lets be real. And now we jump on the nephews for doing the same thing as they learned from parents and great uncle.....right on back to M. Ramirez and perhaps even before that time. What if PDL's favorite esteso he has used since 1984 is discovered to have been hand built by Carpio? Does it really change anything?
For me the only thing that matters is the sound and feel for a guitar to be good or bad, and the age for perhaps vintage value and collectability. After this a guitar gets a reputation, regardless who hand built it or not, the others with the same label have an obligation to live up to their reputation.
Perhaps some day in the far future there will be a line of "anders guitars" built to specific design because the professionals of this era prefered it. I am sure there are living luthiers somewhere that could copy an anders today and even impress the master builder. Would it matter so much WHO that luthier was, or is the fact it was an Ander's design that is most important? Some food for thought.
When I am trying to play my best for dancers, singers or just solo guitar, I don’t care about the label inside the guitar, about whether anyone will recognise the head design as being from a famous maker or about how many bumps and scratches there are on the front of the guitar. What concerns me is whether the guitar is the best for achieving what I am trying to do. That means the feel of the guitar. The qualities of the sound are secondary. I have bought and sold quite a lot of guitars over the years but it is not the guitars of best known makers or the most expensive guitars that I turn to when it really counts. It could have been, but that is not the way it worked out.
If I was looking for another new guitar (probably not at my time of life), I would try to find a “thinking” luthier with a vision (that I shared) of how the guitar should turn out and the skills to achieve this with a reasonable amount of consistency. I have a couple of guitars by Manuel Bellido and although they have quite different internal construction they are remarkably similar in the way that they feel. I like that.
If you choose a luthier whose guitars are very variable you are taking a bigger risk. However, I once visited Antonia Ariza (the old man) when he was still fit enough to attend his tiny place at Cuesta Gomerez in Granada. He had a few guitars of variable feel and I didn’t like any of them. He then produced another with a few cosmetic faults and I just loved it. I bought it for peanuts and still play it regularly. Some years later, I found a picture of us with the guitar outside his shop in the book by Luis F Leal Pinar. I often wonder if he knew just how good this guitar was (well good for me I should say).
The Madrid builders started having shops with builders building their instruments in the workshop.
Later on they started importing them from outside Madrid and just put labels in them. Maybe one day Ramirez, Conde etc will import from China and put their own labels in them. Its a lot closer to what you might think.
To me its about honesty and love to a traditional craft that´ll disappear if everything is going to be build in the far east (or Mexico) Flamenco is very much a Spanish (read Andalusian) artform and I hope that some of the instruments will continue to be build here. IMHO, Tradition and history is not something that should be treated lightly.
Flamenco is very much a Spanish (read Andalusian) artform and I hope that some of the instruments will continue to be build here. IMHO, Tradition and history is not something that should be treated lightly
I fully agree with Anders, I hope flamenco and classical guitar makers
always continue their job traditionally with high quality woods, in Europe
specially in Spain and Andalucia. Tradition is highly important.
We have lost so many good things since
Chineese rubbish goods got into our markets, seeing the traditional guitar making
overtaken by Chineese is the last thing I would like to see, I hope it does not
happen in my life time.
Good luck to Anders and all honnest hardworking guitarreros in Andalucia,
and rest of the world.
_____________________________
Flamenco no tiene mas que un escuela, transmitir o no transmitir !
Darn, you guys are too nice. I was hoping some one would offer up that what M. Ramirez, and Jose Ramirez III, just might have been really "wrong" thing to do, and the hands on the instrument DO matter very significantly, and the age old practice was always fraudulent....oh well.
I also wish the purity and flavor of andalusian guitars (no not that...) or at least guitars made in spain, continue in the traditional manner forever as trees last, with each and every flamenco guitar that a tree becomes.
But the hard truth is, unless spanish builders are willing to build higher quality instruments at very low price (beginners inquire about yamaha monthly, so please try to beat em...) the business of outsourcing to china with models from cheapest to as far up to primera they can get away with, will continue.
The problem is the concept of "cheap crap from China", it just sounds like an attack when in fact the more frustrating thing is, the yamaha is really NOT that bad. ToddK made a recording years ago with one to prove a point to classical players how much was the player, not the instrument interms of quality of sound. Frustrating but true. I personally always push beginners on a budget toward Cordoba, but it is still not as cheap as yamaha.
Man, I think it was a significant thing, Segovia not letting Santos put his label in there. That singular event COULD have ended the practice that has resulted over time to this factory thing. Imagine if every Conde or whatever had to print the factory location on the label??? "I will take a Sanchis made conde over Adalide in most cases..."
Ricardo, I agree. Chineese doesnt have to be crap. Loads of the tools I use for building guitars are from China and they are both cheaper and better than their Spanish counter parts.
But , a flamenco guitar is a very delicate instrument created and researched in close relationship with an Andalusian tradition. I´m pretty close to 100% sure that if you take that away and just build according to some meassurements from mrX in Madrid, Granada or even Huelva then this finely tuned piece of handcraft will degenerate slowly but securely. If the Chineese or Mex or whatever builders go serious, work together with the players or even better start to play serious flamenco themselves, then maybe they´ll start producing first class instruments just like the american, swedish, english etc. builders doing the same.
i just buyed a conde a26 year 1991,and it the best guitar ever played!
the guy who sold me had a lester devoe blanca more expensive than the conde. well good finition and confortable for play,but totally ridiculous sound,i have tried 1500 euros guitars with better sound. and the conde is ten times more potent.
i have tried much granada guitar,and for me i like just some marin montero and jose lopez bellido(his brother manuel no!).
it's difficult to compare my bellido negra and my conde blanca,but the conde is more flamenco.
i read in this thread ,the conde after 2000 are bad,i say it's wrong manuel parrilla ,diego morao,manuel valencia and other players have conde after 2000 ,there are great guitars. (listen the disc or youtube)
finally except for the sound,many pro play conde because no guitar for granada can rivalise to conde for the pulsation and it's very important for good players.
what the problem nealf? this thread is madrid vs granada. i have one madrid and one granada,i give my review and you call me troll? you are strange guy.
I am professional in my country,i played lot of guitar. i am sincere,and for me no guitar from granada can beat my conde,and i am not the only guy who think that.
for the devoe,i tried in the same place same day,the two guitars with same new set off strings. i know never in my life i will buy a devoe blanca.
There are great Condes for sure. But saying Condes from the 2000's are great, just listen to albums and Youtube, how weak is that argument? Anything that's ordered by a great guitarist is built with a lot more care than regular instruments anyway.
There are great Condes for sure. But saying Condes from the 2000's are great, just listen to albums and Youtube, how weak is that argument? Anything that's ordered by a great guitarist is built with a lot more care than regular instruments anyway.
I dont' think most pros "order" a conde...they just pick em and play em. Most of the ones I have played that were owned by professionals were pretty normal stock. I find the "bad conde" thing to be more hype than the opposite. It's just that most people don't understand why a professional would use such a guitar over other options and assume things like the good ones are special or saved only for the top players. The plain truth is one guys lemon is an other guys dream guitar, and the reason conde is popular is because they are not too expensive but have similar feel and sound that most players with a similar technique and style look for.
Printable Version
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