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.
|
|
|
RE: New vs Old
|
You are logged in as Guest
|
|
Users viewing this topic: none
|
|
Login  | |
|
  
Ruphus
Posts: 3782
Joined: Nov. 18 2010
|
 RE: New vs Old (in reply to Anders Eliasson)
|
|
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Anders Eliasson
Ruphus.
Maybe you´re right and maybe its a myth that guitars get tired with age.
BUT, there are a couple of things going against old guitars.
The soundboard is basically flat. The dome is so small that you cant really talk about egg shape. This means that most guitars start to "dish" in front of the bridge with age. With this I mean that the soundboard start to sink. The bridge and the drag of the strings make this worse. Many old guitars have an S shaped soundboard when seeform the sides. When it starts to do so it looses strength.
Either such or for instance the neck bending, like with my old Ramirez blanca where the saddle has come to its end. ( Being fine still, but having no reserve.)
This specimen has probaly not weakened in response, as it being immediate and loud, even in the upper register that won´t soften at all when you go up the neck.
Generally, I have no doubts about thelike deformed shapes to typically be found with older guitars.
But the question is whether such was to be inevitable through time, which I would not think to be the case.
Older guitars will potentially have seen greater incidence of having been through inadequate conditions, like having been stored near heatings or left in trunks during hot summers etc. Me would suspect causa to mainly be laying in thelike climate or impact issues, - unless structure was to be unusual, like with say exceptionally thin tops without extra bracing or so.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Anders Eliasson
Especially stell string guitars suffer this because many owners leave them with old strings on and the tension of steel strings rises when they vibrate and get old. It looses its elasticity.
I always appreciate to learn about such significant facts!
So, do I understand correctly that either:
#
Steel strings lose elasticity ( altering molecular grid structure over time), which will not matter as long as them being slack with the guitar stored away. The moment however that you pitch them up, the pull will be much stronger than with fresh strings.
# Or ist that they only lose elasticity when in use, constantly streching farther while you keep bringing them up to tune in the same time, until they reach the end of their pliability, starting to excert much more pull?
However your reply will be: This must be essential and extremely useful info for anyone who owns steelers.
Guess, I will be much more cautious about old steel strings from now on.
Thank you in advance!
Ruphus
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Jan. 12 2011 18:39:41
 |
|
elgreco
Posts: 247
Joined: Nov. 24 2010
From: San Francisco CA
|
|
RE: New vs Old (in reply to keith)
|
|
|
Keith,
My name is Dino. If you had read my posts more carefully you would know my name and my intentions a little better. I do not agree with you that my views were extreme. The only people that found my opinions extreme were a 2-3 younger generation luthiers and guitar resellers. Do you think that this is a coincidence? So they chose to focus not on what I said but how I said it. I can assure you that I had no intention to hurt people's sensitivities (blood, sweat and tears as Anders put it). Maybe I chose to start the thread on the wrong list. I thought (and still think) it was the ideal list but perhaps I phrased my assumption in a way that could be easily misinterpreted as a personal attack to the most prominent members of this list that apparently have their own rules and expect people to obey them. That was an oversight on my part, but there is no excuse and I managed to piss off the very people that I wanted to hear back from, since they are the subject matter experts. I apologized for that, it was the least I could do. Then of course, there were some of their lackeys that accused me of trolling, unfairly in my opinion. The fact that the admins did not intervene, I think proves that.
What I got from the rest of the people's responses were (generalizing a little bit):
1. Old guitars are not better than the new ones, they are worse. They are just more expensive because of the collectors that push up the prices. What you said is bogus. (Acceptable)
2. Old guitars are better, they have a flair maybe because of the age effect or their history, the wood etc. The younger sons of famous luthiers would rather enjoy their parents fortune than build new good guitars with passion and dedication. (also acceptable)
3. Old guitars are equal to the new ones and there are no secrets that luthiers can hide from their apprentices. I own one of each and I am equally happy with both. (makes perfect sense)
4. Old guitars are better in some things and worse in other things. I used to own an old guitar but now i have seen the light and own a new (also). (acceptable also)
5. Tom said that it is impossible to compare a new guitar to an old one (different design etc) I thought this was a very interesting response but I am not sure what to make of it. 
I think this had an ideal outcome for me because now:
1. I have learned a better etiquette for creating a thread. From now on I won't just say 1 + 1 = 2. I will say:
It is many other people's opinion (not my own) that <paragraph>
1+1=2.
A few more keystrokes, but if it helps people to focus more on the 1+1=2 then so be it.
2. I have definitely reevaluated my belief that old guitars were unfathomed, something that before I considered widely accepted. From my first response to you I said "But I am glad that there are people out there that put my original assumption to the question." An extremist does not really welcome challenges of his assumptions. I also believe that the young luthiers and guitar resellers are now aware of my, extreme as you call it, opinion. It may not be mine but it is definitely someone's that I consider sensible. It is guitar teachers, flamenco friends, local guitarists (professional and amateur) that I have chatted with and exchanged ideas, they are the opinions of a lot forum members, they are even the opinions of the people that I tried to buy guitars from.
I do not think your examples apply. Not all old guitars were played by famous guitarists. But all old guitars are expensive. I do not think all 50s watches and spoons are expensive. Only those touched by Paco or James.
I think this thread is dead but if you think we can revitalize it, let's give it a try.
It is my opinion that old guitars are different in some ways from the contemporary ones. Some of those differences are better and some "maybe" worse. I would like to know why are there differences. Explain to me what sucks in older guitars and why? Was it the old luthiers? Their designs? The wood? Explain to me what sucks in the new guitars and why? Less old school sound? Are there financial incentives for luthiers for adopting some new practices (choosing cheaper (in price) woods etc)? Did the new luthiers develop new techniques and rejected some old ones? How did that affect the sound of the new guitars? Did they -have to- (re)discover some tricks on their own? How did many guitar houses deteriorate? One specific example is wooden pegs. From what I understand old flamenco guitar makers used wooden instead of machine pegs because it was cheaper. Most modern guitars have machine heads. So that is one difference of new vs old. Does that have an effect on the guitar? Does it make it better or worse? How?
It is time to go to bed.
Cheers
Dino
_____________________________
Captain Esteban: Caballeros! I believe you all know each other?
Don Diego from San Fernando.
Don Francisco from San Jose.
Don Fernando from San Diego.
Don Jose from San Bernardino.
Luis Obispo from Bakersfield.
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Jan. 14 2011 7:54:16
|
|
keith
Posts: 1108
Joined: Sep. 29 2009
From: Back in Boston
|
|
RE: New vs Old (in reply to Patrick)
|
|
|
elgreco(dino)--i think the horse is dead and whipping it ain't going to bring it back to life. as to the use of the word, extreme, i actually used your words. when one says they are moving to/have moved to center then the implication is they were coming from a position away from center which implies a degree of extreme. please note that i used the words, your position could be... and did not use the word, was.
there is nothing wrong with saying old is better than new but two conditions must be met. if there is no data to support this claim the phrase, "in my opinion" or better yet, "i like the old sound as compared to the new sound" must be used. opinions are often based on what we like and it is ok to say so. if data exists then it is ok to say, the data says old is better than new as evident by....however, you must be able to prove it. this is basic scientific research in action. just remember though we are talking about an object that makes a sound and the ears of folks have different preferences so all the data in the world may not always be conclusive.
as to your intention--i was unaware of your intentions in this thread was anything other than to have a discussion. as to the outcome, i was unaware that you learned, as you stated, better etiquette. your original statement sounded as if the outcome was people with extreme opinions moved towards center and your opinion moved that way as well. i am not sure if outcome, in this case, was linked to intent.
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Jan. 14 2011 9:40:17
|
|
Ruphus
Posts: 3782
Joined: Nov. 18 2010
|
|
RE: New vs Old (in reply to Patrick)
|
|
|
Opinons
Pretty much all experts I have communicated with showed to be annoyed of guitar forums, saying that there was too much cluelessness.
Being far away from expertise myself, a couple of the thoughtless principles have become obvious even to me, which being that ( especially among American fellows ) there exist some incoherent cliches bound to either fame or sales numbers.
Accordingly, sales numbers were to indicate quality, and great players automatically were to be just as proficient in neighbouring realms, hence highly skilled on guitar evaluation and teaching in the same time.
From there for instance irrational phenomenons like whatever guitar brand used in a performance by a V.I.P, will jump up in price immediatedly ( with only rare exceptions, like with Lester DeVoe who kept his prices almost idle despite customers like Sabicas or deLucia / yet raised sales price a bit just of late ).
The most prominent example of mythological prestige being the Ramirez reputation after Segovia.
( Something I deared to oppose in classical guitar forums after having experienced how this manufacturer overdoes milking his image, by selling prime models for price of a car regardless, even if them showing to be of mediocre quality. - With me thus been under heavy fire in the first years, but much lesser so meanwhile.)
As everyone notes, the internet can be perpetuum mobile for myths, but it can much more than that be quite informing.
I at least am very thankful for its merrits, comparing conditions prior to this wonderful means of communication, when one - apart of his slowly progressing own experience - used to be dependend on specialized magazines ( and their more or less obviously skewed info / sales pitch ) or to sales personal in stores.
Having started out with the latter source in regard of recording gear ( initially buying overpriced, crappy devices ) and later on receiving so much of useful hints and guidelines from international engineers and educated amateurs, I am endlessly thankful for the internet ressource.
Similar with what luthiers and fellow guitar players let me learn about the guitar world ( ways of builds, history, woods characteristics etc.)
As long as one takes opinions within forums as informative guidelines that shall be followed by personal searching and empirics, the forums and their accumulation of user experience can be a tremendously useful support, not remotely as available back in times before this great medium.
-
In sight of Condes ( Felipe ), I remember two experts telling me how these had come down in quality, but seeing the response in this thread it makes you hoping to the contrary.
( The only one I had in hands myself, was a Media Luna model in the mid nineties, which was really nice. - Only not aquired as the shop was unwilling to reduce the price despite a hefty dang in the top. At that time 7 grands in DM were inquired, while nowadays apparently a similar amount in Euros being requested.)
Ruphus
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Jan. 14 2011 10:40:10
|
|
 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
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts
|
|
|
Forum Software powered by ASP Playground Advanced Edition 2.0.5
Copyright © 2000 - 2003 ASPPlayground.NET |
0.09375 secs.
|
Printable Version
