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.
|
|
[Deleted]
|
You are logged in as Guest
|
Users viewing this topic: none
|
|
Login | |
|
Shawn Brock
Posts: 271
Joined: Sep. 19 2011
From: Louisville KY
|
RE: Arcangel (in reply to Guest)
|
|
|
I must admit that I haven't had the pleasure of trying out an Arcangel Fernandez yet. I had the same feeling with the first Reyes I played though. Somehow I built the guitar up in my mind and had these high expectations which no instrument could ever meet. Maybe the same happened for you? I'm always guilty of building up instruments in my mind, at least the ones I have never owned. I always think that out there somewhere is this great guitar which will be as loud as a stack when the truth is that such an acoustic guitar can never be made... I also had the same experience the first time I played a Smallman. I thought that the volume would just blow me away, it was loud alright, but it didn't blow me away, and I'm sure I have played a few conventional classicals which had as much volume and a lot better tone... That's the problem I have with the large price tag... As players we tend to think that a $20000 guitar must be 3 times louder and sweeter than a $5000 guitar, but it isn't... Most of us "normal players" could never afford, or would never want to pay $20000 for a guitar, that's where the collectors come in. Nothing is quite like a historic guitar, but if you blindfold a player and make him play 10 guitars, (3 historical and 7 new from good makers), he probably can't pick out $15000 worth of difference. I have my old Ramirez, and that's about all I have in the way of guitar history. Its a great guitar, but I have played better guitars for less money. My first steel string of note was a Taylor 510 which had belonged to my first guitar teacher. At the age of 9 I remember trying to get him to sell me that guitar. Something about it struck a chord with me and I never got over it. When I was 16 he sold it to me. He stopped playing because of some hand problems and wanted me to have the guitar. I went on to own some great steel strings of note, I even had a 1938 Martin HD28 at one point, but no guitar sounded like that old Taylor. After years of buying, selling and trading I only kept 1 steel string and that is the Taylor. To this day I can't find a guitar which compares with it. How much of that is the greatness of the guitar, and how much is just my mind is another question. Still it is a great instrument and I won't sell it for no amount of money. Now if I could just be that happy with a flamenco guitar... Guess I'll keep buying and selling until the day...
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Dec. 2 2011 21:27:36
|
|
avimuno
Posts: 598
Joined: Feb. 9 2007
From: Paris, France
|
RE: Arcangel (in reply to Guest)
|
|
|
Hi Aaron, How difficult is it for a luthier to copy or clone a guitar? I know that a few of the great Spanish builders not only have their very own way of making their plantilla, but they also fine tune the top by making it thinner at certain places. From what I have gathered, this fine-tuning is dependent on the specificities of the wood itself, so the same guitar maker will fine-tune his design differently depending on the wood. I guess that it is for that reason that we can speak of an Archangel sound, a Barbero sound or a Reyes sound to name only those three. Not all Archangel, Barbero and Reyes sound the same but they all have the same DNA... in consequence they vary like the different members of the same family vary. In consequence, I can imagine that it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to literally clone a guitar because it's not just a question of copying and pasting so to speak... it involves a process of learning how to think like the original builder. To give you an example, a friend of mine ordered a Reyes clone from a luthier (who shall not be named) and to be honest that guitar does not really sound or play like a Reyes... I've owned a few Reyes copies myself and I have lucky to try a few Reyes from different eras when I was in Seville this past summer. I would describe a Reyes as having a very balanced sound, with a very sweet top end (Postigo always used the word 'dulce' to describe them)... they are also very expressive guitars and give out what you put in.... they can go from raspy to really dreamy depending on your toque. There's also a sort of hollowness in the mids, this is really hard to explain it has to be experienced, as well as a sort of natural reverb. All this contribute to the expressiveness and the lyrical nature of that design. My friend's guitar on the other hand, although supposedly being a Reyes plantilla, has very predominant piercing highs, a thick Conde-like mid-range and is not expressive at all. The consequence of that I thought was that although it was a nice guitar, it was missing those characters that make a Reyes IMHO... those characters that make a set of experienced ears go 'This is a Reyes!' when they hear one... it's missing the Reyes DNA. I have always wondered what would be an experienced luthier's take on this question... because it does not involve just replicating measurements and woods etc, but it's a question of recreating a very specific DNA. This reminds me of a theory in the philosophy of language that states that a language is a way of seeing and living in the world... as a consequence, learning a new language implies as much a process of learning to see the world as the speakers of that language do, as it is learning the rules of grammar and syntax. I have exchanged a fair amount of emails with Tom Blackshear concerning his Reyes copies, which I think are absolutely ace, but your views would very much interest me. Thank you. Saludos, Avi
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Dec. 17 2011 13:35:50
|
|
aarongreen
Posts: 367
Joined: Jan. 16 2004
|
RE: Arcangel (in reply to Guest)
|
|
|
Hi Avi, You bring up a very good point when it comes to trying to work in the style of another maker. Personally, I don't advocate it unless you have the guitar in question, in hand and preferably for some amount of time. It also helps to have a great player (if you are not one yourself) to try and vocalize what it is that is making that instrument so successful. In other words, working from plans alone is not going to get you all the way there. However as a beginner, it is a very good way to go because a lot of what can be gained from copying something that exists is you don't have to recreate the wheel. However what you will end up with is a guitar that probably sounds like one of your guitars....whatever that might be. The reason is very simple, the architecture of a guitar (or violin) is basically what could be considered "technique" if you were thinking as a player as opposed to an instrument. The architecture is not where the real stuff exists, its a vehicle to whats going on but its very much just the surface. Just like playing technique is not what makes great music. What I mean by that is all the choices that go into how you build the guitar should be very much determined by whats actually going on with that set of wood, that design and of course what you are trying to do. When I am trying to absorb something from an instrument I like, I am tapping and flexing, trying to see how that guitar is working with itself, all those resonances and how they interplay, how the top feels when I tap it, what the resistance is like, how the bridge is affecting the top (flexible top with a stiff bridge, stiff top with a flexible bridge etc..) What studying an instrument can tell you, depending on your sensitivity to such things is what the choices the builder made and the results with that set of wood, in that particular example. I totally agree with Sean about using the term "inspired by" as opposed to a "copy". I am inspired by a great number of guitars I've studied over the years and try to incorporate what it is I like about them into my own approach and therefore create something that is hopefully unique to me. I have yet to build a "copy" because I am a narcissist in the end. As much as I love all the great guitars I've been fortunate enough to study and get to know....I really think I can stand on their shoulders if I listen and learn what they have to teach. Thats progress and thats how it should be. But sometimes those old guys set the bar real high.... In the case of my friend/apprentice....we are in a unique position in that I am very familar with a guitar (the Barbero) that most people have never seen or heard, other than Flamenco Puro. It is a stellar guitar, far and away the best Barbero I've encountered. So it would be fun to actually build some guitars that are "copies" in the most accurate sense of the word. He's carving the headstocks right now, very much in the style of the original, which is to say it's a bit fast and furious. Barbero did not waste any time on being overly fussy but he still had enormous style and grace.
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Dec. 18 2011 0:28:18
|
|
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 |
0.1875 secs.
|