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  | |
|
   
Tam DL
Posts: 21
Joined: Jan. 1 2011
|
 RE: New vs Old (in reply to elgreco)
|
|
|
quote:
My perspective is that there is no need for a luthier to abstain from power tools, wherever these can spare him manual work without quality loss on the workpiece.
I think that is where we are. But it is far from clear to me there isn't any loss.
First of all "quality" is a very flexible term. If I made square guitars, because it was faster, and I made them really well, there is no reason why by normal measure they would have less quality. A really good spray lacquer job, and a really good french polish job, can both represent quality, but they are not the same. The reality is modern guitars are different than older instruments, and what would be gained by not using machines, is for the most part not being explored because it does not make economic sense.
I have something just short of 30 large machines in my shop, and like 100 hand planes, so I know both sides of the street. Machine work is largely work done with machines. For one thing, holding onto the materials is dangerous. It is hard to believe that the time spent with the materials never translates into better guitars, or something. What's more, with hand tools one would have the versatility to adapt the guitars to clients and materials. Applying mechanized methods leads to conclusions about models and shapes that are driven by the process not the instrument. Separating the body and neck being a notable example, or reducing to one the body shapes used.
I'm not saying using machines is bad, or that the guitars produced that way are not good. Though there is evidence of that kind of thing. I certainly don't believe the results are neutral. And really there is nothing about life around me that would suggest that there aren't compromises imposed by machine. Clothing would be an example, shoes another. We put up with horrendously shoddy crap. That is why we have "hand made" guitars, and luthiers. Everyone has to draw the line, but it isn't credible to suggest there is no difference in guitars on where we draw the line. There are a number of areas where the actual efficiency has been rejected, and people are returning to the old ways. Hide glue, and shellac come to ming, VS Titebond, and nitro.
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Jan. 20 2011 7:12:41
 |
|
Ruphus
Posts: 3782
Joined: Nov. 18 2010
|
|
RE: New vs Old (in reply to Tam DL)
|
|
|
Hide glue undoubtedly, as it allows repairs; but shellack ...
Dunno; Though him possibly not being the best example ( as I have my doubts on his standardized manufacturing method ), José Ramirez I couldn´t find a difference in sound between laquer and shellack, and hence eventhough being colported as being picky in QC, offered both versions of finish ( still common with that brand today ).
Also a good amount of top notch instruments are being delivered with ( thinly applied ) nitro.
From there with the two FPed specimens that I have, I am not sure whether they really give me a distinct difference other than the botherings of ruining the shellack finish through skin contact in summer times.
Please note that I have not been meaning entirely machine-made guitars.
What I meant was that there are instances in manufactury where manual work would mean no advantage. Consequently, those instances to better be executed by means of powered tools, and the spared time dedicated to where manual work counts.
Secondly, I wouldn´t put machine work and handwork grossly into obligate categories.
There exist manufacturing instances where machines are being clearly superiour to handcrafting. Espcially in terms of predefined precision and miniature work.
In my consequential estimation there being no sense in e.g. cutting blanks by hand, but instead in starting manual work / thinning and bevelling sheets yet of a nicely even, machine-cut blank.
Or how about joints, like the one between gear head and neck where it needs absolutely even surfaces for the glueing. Why ever should one prefer a hand saw for such an instance.
Apart of that, in general regard of machines strength, computers for instance would still be big in size, as making wavers could had never be done manually the way it is. Also, I certainly would feel safer in a car of machine-built precision parts than in one of all hancrafted items, etc. ( Before you opt: Expensive "handmade" frames for motor bikes to decisive degree are still being mashine made.)
I conclude machine work and handcrafting to be having their individual strengths, and that in pragmatical production of high-quality products, both might be enaged in complementary ways.
Ruphus
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Jan. 20 2011 11:18:08
|
|
Tom Blackshear
Posts: 2304
Joined: Apr. 15 2008
|
|
RE: New vs Old (in reply to Tam DL)
|
|
|
quote:
I have something just short of 30 large machines in my shop, and like 100 hand planes, so I know both sides of the street. Machine work is largely work done with machines. For one thing, holding onto the materials is dangerous. It is hard to believe that the time spent with the materials never translates into better guitars, or something. What's more, with hand tools one would have the versatility to adapt the guitars to clients and materials. Applying mechanized methods leads to conclusions about models and shapes that are driven by the process not the instrument. Separating the body and neck being a notable example, or reducing to one the body shapes used.
I don't have half the machinery you do but what I have I use for the benefit of better thickness and faster, more precise work. I have a three router set up to do my guitar heads with and I use a gig set up on my radial saw to cut the tapered side slot for my heel, and to tell the truth, if I had a machine to carve my heels with, that would be better than my having to hand carve them. I run my tops, sides, and backs through my performax sander to get a much better and faster thickness than I could do by hand, (the thickness sander takes a few minutes compared to all day by hand).
These time saving techniques work much better for me but the bottom line is to do most of the finishing up by hand and I think this helps me to stay in tune with the instrument. The head has to be finished off by hand, as does the box, after I've routed out the binding, purfling for the sides. After these issues, I mostly work by hand to finish off the guitar. The fine tuning comes last but not least to the finished product. It's my own final tweaking process that sets my guitars apart from other builders works of art.
I French polish all of my guitars.
And this is what helps maintain a certain fine touch to my building process.
So, I'll say that if a builder has the mind to machine most of his work, then the more power to him, no pun intended :-)
_____________________________
Tom Blackshear Guitar maker
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Jan. 20 2011 14:07:46
|
|
Tom Blackshear
Posts: 2304
Joined: Apr. 15 2008
|
|
RE: New vs Old (in reply to Anders Eliasson)
|
|
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Anders Eliasson
quote:
But many builders today want to do their own thing, so it will be next to impossible to get them to build a replica of the old Spanish masters.
Why should we build replicas. I know and have known quite a few Spanish luthiers. Some of them would be called masters.
They NEVER made replicas themselves and ALWAYS made their own designs. Designs based on tradition but nevertheless their own designs.
This with making copys and replicas is mainly an american thing. You guys like very much to copy. But thats not tradition Tom and I would allow myself to say that the way I build is more traditional and closer related to Spanish tradition than what you do.
Each and everyone their ways, but please dont make a patent on something which has nothing to do with reality.
With due respect, I build with my own ideas, as every guitar builder will do, but to completely build something new due to my own inherent abilities to do this, is by far not my cup of tea. I think it's actually harder to get into the head of the master builders and imagine what they do to make the sound, than to create my own voicing. The reason I say this is that not many guitar makers can do this with any accuracy. This is the reason that I'm called a dedicated copyist of the old masters.
I've also been accused of being a keeper of the tradition when it comes to the Miguel Rodriguez guitar dynasty, as I have been instrumental in building his patterns for the past 30 years. I've also tried to help the builders profession by presenting guitar plans to those who would like to try their hand at building guitars, and as far as I know, I'm the first person to have printed a fine tuning concept into a flamenco guitar plan of a master builder. All of this is not necessarily bad but one avenue of adding helps to builders world wide, which I have done.
And for anyone to say this is not necessary because of a long line of tradition that states we must build our own designs, is missing the point that we all copy from the general status of design from the European registry of makers who have gone before us. In other words, there is nothing new under the sun, just a repetition of design that has already been done before. And when we get to the point of being our own master with the trade, then we can talk about how information of the world's top builders has contributed to the greater tradition of the ART. This is my calling, as I'm sure you have yours, as we are all called to be what we should be.
_____________________________
Tom Blackshear Guitar maker
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Jan. 21 2011 20:31:19
|
|
Anders Eliasson
Posts: 5780
Joined: Oct. 18 2006
|
|
RE: New vs Old (in reply to Tam DL)
|
|
|
quote:
And for anyone to say this is not necessary because of a long line of tradition that states we must build our own designs, is missing the point that we all copy from the general status of design from the European registry of makers who have gone before us. In other words, there is nothing new under the sun, just a repetition of design that has already been done before. And when we get to the point of being our own master with the trade, then we can talk about how information of the world's top builders has contributed to the greater tradition of the ART. This is my calling, as I'm sure you have yours, as we are all called to be what we should be.
I agree, but the difference is that you always consider yourself to be special and different from the rest of us. This you´ve pointed out so many times.
I´d say that you are just doing things your way and so you are no different from Aaron Green, Barba, myself etc.
On the photo you see the bracing system that I´ve used the most. Its soooooooooo traditional and you can clearly see where I have my inspiration from. But its not a copy. I´ve worked my way through some 30 - 35 guitars with this system, changing very small things in order to understand how it works. Its my safest system and the one I use for orders.
But since I always search for something different , and since some 5 piece braced guitars have a sound and attack thet I like a lot, I´m working on a new system. If I like it, I might show it on my building blog one day
Images are resized automatically to a maximum width of 800px
 Attachment (1)
_____________________________
Blog: http://news-from-the-workshop.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Jan. 22 2011 8:48:24
|
|
gbv1158
Posts: 410
Joined: May 29 2009
From: Italy
|
|
RE: New vs Old (in reply to Ruphus)
|
|
|
In my opinion to make a copy or imitate something, in any form of activity that has to "build" the same kind of thing, can only be useful if you do it to learn how to do that thing well.
I remember when I went to university, I studied -very in depth- architecture from classical treaties and monumental examples, I have learned the RULES in composition applied on the different components of this ART and trade ( at list I believe so! :-) ) . So many times I had to re-draw monuments and buildings considered best and important ones. But as an important Italian architect wrote (Giorgio Grassi) , we have the duty TO BEGIN from the best examples, but if we limit ourselves to imitate and copy them, we will not make a step forward and betray the principle underlying those examples … after all they were a step ahead of those who preceded them.
In the construction of musical instruments, in my opinion, the best ones should not be imitated or copied but studied with the aim of making another perhaps best.
Raphus, for the rest……. I am also convinced that the "modernity" does not always mean progress all the times; often, especially in architecture, we see the abuse of materials and forms that serves only to make somebody rich ( industrialists, builders, …. ), nothing to do with the principle of art as proportionate to the real needs and a deep sense of beauty .... and this, especially, in a capitalist system.
ciao
Giambattista
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Jan. 22 2011 10:58:05
|
|
Tom Blackshear
Posts: 2304
Joined: Apr. 15 2008
|
|
RE: New vs Old (in reply to Anders Eliasson)
|
|
|
I have no problem with different designed patterns, and I think you are just looking for a way to argue the point when there is no argument from me. We are all different in our mental break downs for even being in the guitar building business :-)
And this you should accept with no argument.
Here is a short excerpt from my website front page that has been up for quite some time, if you ever bothered to read it...........
Just thinking how to gain clarity with "the perfect sound" drives us to search for a way to capture its essence. Sometimes clarity comes in unexpected moments and is lost in the same breath. This is what makes guitar building challenging. When the fan bracing of the top communicates in perfect sequence, the instrument responds in total harmony. But we must first gain exposure to the most valued examples of guitar sound before we can achieve this tonal purity. I have spent years experimenting with fine-tuning, and although there are alternate ways to tune a guitar, there is but one way to achieve greatness: poco a poco.
In this age of instant gratification, it's difficult to imagine spending so many hours learning rudimentary guitar building skills. But it is my belief that if guitar builders are thoroughly equipped in learning the basics of the historical luthier's standard designs, they can then move on to alternate designs with more proficiency. Understanding the past will help us gain clarity for the future. With each instrument that he builds, the luthier grows to understand more completely his calling.
With this information, I'm willing to share my techniques with others in the hopes of building a lasting impression of the necessity for the Spanish arts. Certainly we can go on to other things, but first let us learn from those who have set a foundation for excellence.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Anders Eliasson
quote:
And for anyone to say this is not necessary because of a long line of tradition that states we must build our own designs, is missing the point that we all copy from the general status of design from the European registry of makers who have gone before us. In other words, there is nothing new under the sun, just a repetition of design that has already been done before. And when we get to the point of being our own master with the trade, then we can talk about how information of the world's top builders has contributed to the greater tradition of the ART. This is my calling, as I'm sure you have yours, as we are all called to be what we should be.
I agree, but the difference is that you always consider yourself to be special and different from the rest of us. This you´ve pointed out so many times.
I´d say that you are just doing things your way and so you are no different from Aaron Green, Barba, myself etc.
On the photo you see the bracing system that I´ve used the most. Its soooooooooo traditional and you can clearly see where I have my inspiration from. But its not a copy. I´ve worked my way through some 30 - 35 guitars with this system, changing very small things in order to understand how it works. Its my safest system and the one I use for orders.
But since I always search for something different , and since some 5 piece braced guitars have a sound and attack thet I like a lot, I´m working on a new system. If I like it, I might show it on my building blog one day
Images are resized automatically to a maximum width of 800px
_____________________________
Tom Blackshear Guitar maker
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Jan. 22 2011 13:42:13
|
|
BarkellWH
Posts: 3458
Joined: Jul. 12 2009
From: Washington, DC
|
|
RE: New vs Old (in reply to gbv1158)
|
|
|
quote:
nothing to do with the principle of art as proportionate to the real needs and a deep sense of beauty .... and this, especially, in a capitalist system.
Especially in a capitalist system??? Aaaah yes. Are we to remember with nostalgia the "principle of art as proportionate to the real needs and a deep sense of beauty," one found in Soviet art and architecture? The type of Stalinist architecture that was once prevalent all over the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe? The type of shoddy construction under a socialist command economy that led to the disaster at Chernyoble? I lived for two years in the mid 1970s in Sofia, Bulgaria, under the great socialist command economy of Todor Zhivkov. I assure you, nothing met the physical and aesthetic needs of the population in any sense that we would consider adequate.
That there is greed and shoddy art and architecture under capitalism is undeniable, but there is also great beauty and much that fulfills human needs, both physical and aesthetic, under capitalism as well. I will take capitalism, with the good, the bad, and the ugly, any day compared to the alternative of just the bad and the ugly. By the way, let me know when someone designs a system and a society that is comprised of only the good.
Cheers,
Bill
_____________________________
And the end of the fight is a tombstone white,
With the name of the late deceased,
And the epitaph drear, "A fool lies here,
Who tried to hustle the East."
--Rudyard Kipling
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Jan. 22 2011 15:48:40
|
|
Ruphus
Posts: 3782
Joined: Nov. 18 2010
|
|
RE: New vs Old (in reply to Tam DL)
|
|
|
Hello Bill,
That scientifically undefined thing named "intelligence" leaves me clueless and fascinated ever since.
In sight of human cognition more so than with examples of fellow species, there is that mystery of how much of refined specialization being possible, yet simultaneously stunning incapability in neighbouring realms.
Like that sheer incredible labelling devotion commonly outdoing whatever of wordly information and empirics there be on the other hand.
Remember that hype about first digital audio / introduction of CDs?
And how it took about ten years until first specialists and finally consumers too discovered the shortcomings of the new means; with the studio guys recruiting their now expensive analog gear which they had tossed out for peanuts?
Let me tell you this: It needs hardly basic understanding of what the term "socialism" includes for to realize that there has not been any such thing around in late historys urban societies. And as shocking statement being on the way anyway now, allow me to point out one other similarly absent circumstance:
Eventhough over 200 countries being labelled "democractic", there exists no such actual thing among late historys urban societies.
And the paradox believe that a societal order cutlivating capital as votiv could ever be of service and justice to any kind of social being and culture, only shows how far irrationality and systematical brain wash can go.
Thelike dogma being about as congruent like meat powder fed cows. Which, trust me, won´t stand for adequate circumstance.
-
Hey ya, Estebanana,
I am a fan of what I have seen of Irish people. So hearty and humorous. :O)
There was an Irish girl named Elgin. She used to take my breath, so endlessly beautiful. Yet absolutely without being vain, and so elated and friendly.
Suppose she must have felt that I didn´t want to be just a pal.
Though not too fond of rainy places, I should visit Irland some time.
Ruphus
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Jan. 22 2011 21:24:12
|
|
Tam DL
Posts: 21
Joined: Jan. 1 2011
|
|
RE: New vs Old (in reply to Tam DL)
|
|
|
Machines, and hand work, at some level it is just words, and if one works with this stuff one knows all the ins and out of it, and knows how consistent or inconsistent prevailing ideas are. I'm certainly not trying to hammer anything home on the point.
That said. I was recently re-reading a GAL article, on a neck build. The builder had all kinds of beautiful jigs to make the piece, and maybe he always had perfect wood... As it happened, I had just been going through my neck stock that afternoon, not a whole lot of it left. One piece had obvious run-out grain, and I just noted it, and moved on. But later while reading the article, it occurred to me that this guy's methods would not work with that piece of wood. I will take that piece and lay the neck out on it at an angle, and get it centered. A person working with a lot of jigs, and maybe some outside labor, would not have that luxury. Of course there are all kinds of way of dealing with that. One would be to get onto my wood dealer, and make sure they never sent me another time wasting piece of wood like that...
It does make me think though, what if we had a machine where a guitar would come out, instantly. Would it mater that no time was taken in building it? If one thinks so, how much time is enough? would ever more time be better. Once you know what you are doing you can get stuff done with efficiently, and with nearly zero pondering. But could a better result still be achieved with more time? Or might it be worse. I think back to a few stories I have read where people where making something like guitars, that sold for about 1K, and then along came an enthusiastic client with deep pockets and said he wanted a 10K version. What do you do, other than some spurious decoration.
Anyway, back to the cave. Gotta sell some machines to make some space. The machines I have are not directly to do with making guitars. I have all the woodworking stuff, though I sold my drum sander. D'oh! I have a lot of metalworking machines, it is starting to look like a collection, which is not my intent.
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Jan. 24 2011 8:47:25
|
|
 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 |
0.140625 secs.
|
Printable Version
