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.
|
|
|
Why Did Carolos Montoya Give his 1951 Marcelo Barbero to Sabicas?
|
You are logged in as Guest
|
|
Users viewing this topic: none
|
|
Login  | |
|
   
BarkellWH
Posts: 3458
Joined: Jul. 12 2009
From: Washington, DC
|
 RE: Why Did Carolos Montoya Give his... (in reply to etta)
|
|
|
Guitars are very personal, and what is wonderful, even brilliant, to one person may not be so to another. But Carlos Montoya's '51 Barbero is considered such an icon, arguably the most famous flamenco guitar around, that I wonder why he gave it to Sabicas. And Montoya gave it to him; he didn't sell it. Of course, it may be so famous because it was made for Montoya and then given to, and played by, Sabicas. Had Montoya kept it, it may not have achieved the fame that it did.
Nevertheless, my question still stands: Why did Montoya give it to Sabicas after keeping it only a short time. I assume there was something about it he didn't like, but I don't know.
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 Oct. 29 2012 19:30:54
 |
|
Richard Jernigan
Posts: 3430
Joined: Jan. 20 2004
From: Austin, Texas USA
|
|
RE: Why Did Carolos Montoya Give his... (in reply to Ricardo)
|
|
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ricardo
I always identified Sabicas with the Ramirez sound, maybe cuz of photos and later era videos of him.
I have no idea what guitar Sabicas was playing in the early 1960s when I went to New York almost every weekend to hang out at Zambra. I think just about the only names I knew then were Barbero, Santos Hernandez and Esteso. I was probably too ignorant to recognize whatever Sabicas was playing at the time.
Last time I saw Sabicas was in San Antonio, Texas in midsummer 1965. The program said he was playing an Arcangel Fernandez. My fiancee and I were on the front row. The headstock looked like Arcangel.
At that concert Sabicas rocked. He was fairly buzzy, but you could hear the un-amplified notes bouncing off the plastered back wall of the pseudo-Spanish auditorium. I forget how many people it seated--900 or something like that, and it was full.
That's part of the reason why I got interested in my Arcangel blanca when Brian Cohen came up with it for sale. I really like it. Brune said he did too when he appraised it for me. Lotta dough when I bought it in 2000, but the week after I bought it I got offers of 25% more from Japan. When I'm gone my kids aren't going to be sad that their old Dad bought it.
Then YouTube started up. I started seeing videos of latter-day Sabicas with his Ramirez. Jose III's marketing campaign marched on. Wait a minute! I had owned a Ramirez blanca since 1967!! I picked it from the three or four makers I tried because I liked the sound, even if I didn't know anything about guitars. My wife liked it too--she was on a classical piano scholarship when I met her. The Ramirez taught me how to make a flamenco sound.
Still, Sabicas sounded like Sabicas on Barbero, Arcangel, Ramirez, whatever it was in 1962,,,,
RNJ
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Oct. 30 2012 8:06:06
|
|
BarkellWH
Posts: 3458
Joined: Jul. 12 2009
From: Washington, DC
|
|
RE: Why Did Carolos Montoya Give his... (in reply to Ricardo)
|
|
|
quote:
Poker game gone wrong?
I like that, Ricardo. There is something about winning or losing greatly at cards that is appealing. During the late '50s' and early '60s' folk revival there was a song entitled "Ballad of the South Coast," sung by Terry Gilkyson and the Easy Riders, The Kingston Trio, Ramblin' Jack Elliot, and others. It evoked early Spanish California and the area below Monterrey, primarily what today is Big Sur. It concerned a man who won his wife in a card game. The lyrics of the first stanza follow.
My name is Juan Hano de Castro,
My father was a Spanish grandee,
But I won my wife in a card game,
To Hell with the Lords o'er the sea.
It is a beautiful song. I have always enjoyed listening to it and imagining myself in such a position. But then I am an unreconstructed romantic.
I also imagine myself engaging an opponent in a duel, with the two of us entering a tavern as I state my request to the serving wench:
"Swords for two and brandy for one!"
Obviously, there is no hope for me.
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 Oct. 30 2012 14:25:40
|
|
BarkellWH
Posts: 3458
Joined: Jul. 12 2009
From: Washington, DC
|
|
RE: Why Did Carolos Montoya Give his... (in reply to estebanana)
|
|
|
quote:
Those guys were guitar swappers and that guitar was not famous yet. (And I have trouble understanding why it is famous as it sounds ultra buzzy with that action.) Sabicas could have made that record with any guitar and then that guitar would be the icon. I think there is a lot of hype behind that guitar, it's just a guitar.
I agree with you, Stephen, that the Barbero that Montoya gave to Sabicas, while no doubt a very fine instrument, probably is over-hyped. It has reached iconic status because of the prominence of all three names involved. It has achieved legendary status much like "La Inedita," the famous guitar Santos Hernandez made for Segovia in 1935, whose iconic status was achieved, not because of its brilliant sound, but because Hernandez refused to give it to Segovia because he felt that Segovia had insulted his craftsmanship. The story goes that Santos Hernandez kept the guitar until his death, never playing it or giving it to anyone else. Thus the name "La Inedita" ("The Unpublished One").
Still, I would have liked to hear from Montoya what he thought of the Barbero and why he gave it to Sabicas. Perhaps it indeed was a losing hand in a card game, and prudence dictated handing over the Barbero rather than his wife.
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 Oct. 30 2012 23:33:42
|
|
aarongreen
Posts: 367
Joined: Jan. 16 2004
|
|
RE: Why Did Carolos Montoya Give his... (in reply to BarkellWH)
|
|
|
Hi Bill
The story is Sabicas acquired the guitar from Montoya, however that transaction is not known to have been a gift, an equally likely scenario is a sale or trade. Montoya, was in the day, the most famous flamenco guitarist alive, whatever you think of his chops, that was his status. Sabicas worked at Montoya's place, la Zambra and I think it more likely that Montoya let him have the guitar as he could, in his capacity of being Barbero's most famous client, get another guitar no problem.
Sabicas played the guitar for a while and gave it to Fidel Zabal, his friend, in return for some transcrptions he did. Which could have also been a trade depending on how you look at it. Zabal sold it to Robert Schultz so Robert could take Zabal's place on tour with Jose Greco.
I think the issue is more of hindsight clouding the reality of the times. All those guys went through guitars and Barbero was very much an active builder and a young one at that. By the time Bob got the guitar, I believe Barbero had passed but it was very recently. His name did not stir any great level of awe like it does today. To which I will add to all of you guys not to be dismissive of today's builders....you never know.:)
Sabicas owned lots of guitars in his life, a good friend witnessed him selling a Conde he owned.... he was playing it like it was his girlfriend, making all sorts of ecstatic faces and then saying, with his head shaking in regret...."it's such a shame I just can't get used to the neck" Horsetrading at it's finest.
For me personally, Barbero is the best of the old boys. I think of him as a genius, every guitar of his I have seen has had a profound and robust voice with a razor attack and a broad tonal palette. IMO the flamenco equivalent to Hauser. Not long ago I had a client, who happens to be a fine player..come to pick up his 41 Hauser I sold and then restored for him. That is the best (for me) Hauser I have ever heard, very deep and soulful with unlimited tonal range. Next to that I had to show him a client's Bouchet, from '55, likewise the best example of that builder I've seen. My guy has an interest in Bouchet and since I had one to show him, I did. Then I pulled out the 51. This was prior to it's sale, btw. He liked it better than the Hauser or Bouchet. He told me if it hadn't sold by the new year, he would take it. As it turns out another guy beat him to it. Which is how it goes.
You may disagree if you were to see it, but for me the 51 is an iconic guitar beyond comparison. There are others equally fine and a few equally famous but not in the same guitar. But thats my opinion so take it for what it's worth.
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Nov. 7 2012 19:47:45
|
|
BarkellWH
Posts: 3458
Joined: Jul. 12 2009
From: Washington, DC
|
|
RE: Why Did Carolos Montoya Give his... (in reply to aarongreen)
|
|
|
Aaron,
Many thanks for taking the time to describe in detail the various changes in ownership (via trade, gift, or sale) of the '51 Barbero, particularly from Montoya to Sabicas. I have always been intrigued by it. By way of digression, I understand and agree with those who point out Montoya's shortcomings (playing out of compas, too much tremolo, too much ligado) but I will always appreciate him, as it was Montoya who introduced me to flamenco, first via his vinyl albums, and then seeing him perform in person for the first time in Phoenix, Arizona in 1960. Actually, Carlos Montoya could play well when he wanted to, and in his early days played for some well-known dancers such as La Argentinita. But it was Sabicas who really blew me away, and who I still prefer today above all others.
Again, thanks for your reply.
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 Nov. 7 2012 21:33:06
|
|
aarongreen
Posts: 367
Joined: Jan. 16 2004
|
|
RE: Why Did Carolos Montoya Give his... (in reply to estebanana)
|
|
|
Hi Stephen
I agree about Nomex. Simply does not interest me. I am however noticing a resurgence of interest in more "traditional"sounding guitars or at least guitars that have not lost that which is immediately given up at the altar of perceived horsepower. This is a very good thing for me as I have been getting depressed for years about the younger conservatory crowd, and their teachers, being so hot for these modern guitars that sound like plastic and honk like a goosed goose. I just don't get it, esp. when they all play amplified...
It was a special day around here to have those three guitars. Something I could get used to I must admit.
I am pretty sure I told this story before but Dennis related an exchange he had with Julio Prol back in the seventies when he was studying with him. Julio was a great figure in the classical guitar in NYC and an old Spanish Don if there ever was one. Dennis said to him, in tones of awe "You mean, you actually KNEW Santos and Esteso and all those guys...what were they like?" The response was, in a barking deep Spanish accent..."What were they LIKE? I will tell you what they were LIKE. They were MERCHANTS, thats what they were LIKE!"
I never met Julio, sadly enough. We had plans to hook up a few times in my early days of going to NYC, I wanted to show him a guitar very badly. He kept canceling saying his nails were not right, etc...I think it was a case of his playing declining in his own eyes towards the end of his life.
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Nov. 8 2012 12:09:12
|
|
Ramon Amira
Posts: 1025
Joined: Oct. 14 2009
From: New York City
|
|
RE: Why Did Carolos Montoya Give his... (in reply to aarongreen)
|
|
|
quote:
Ramon
Interesting. Perhaps Montoya was a part owner as the story I heard, which I hope I am recalling correctly is that Montoya was the owner. Is it possible that he sold it to Montoya?
Aaron –
This was all before my time, but in the late sixties and seventies when I was a member of the New York Society of the Classic Guitar – Dennis Koster was also a member at that time – I was friendly with our president, Vladimir Bobri, and I learned something of the history of La Zambra from him.
Vicente definitely opened and owned La Zambra, and as he was a vice-president of the Society they held their monthly meetings at La Zambra. However, it’s entirely possible that Montoya invested in the club to help get it started, and thus could have been considered a part owner.
Montoya did live in New York at the time, along with Sabicas and Mario Escudero. In those days flamenco guitar was a much more esoteric instrument than today, and comprised a fairly small circle, so players like myself and Dennis were incredibly fortunate to be able to meet all three in private circumstances, and play with them.
Vicente moved to California in the early fifties, so if Montoya had been a part owner perhaps Vicente sold the whole thing to Montoya when he left.
Ramon
_____________________________
Classical and flamenco guitars from Spain Ramon Amira Guitars
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Nov. 8 2012 14:41:52
|
|
z6
Posts: 225
Joined: Mar. 1 2011
|
|
RE: Why Did Carolos Montoya Give his... (in reply to aarongreen)
|
|
|
I have a guitar with a Nomex sandwich top... and it is delicious, and not in a goosey way. It has a wonderful sound, response, etc., in fact all the qualities we read about that are meaningless when we attempt to communicate those qualities using language. But it's Nomex and it is kick-ass wonderful.
The best thing about it is the way it plays, the neck, the lovely fast feel. It is Nomex but it's still a guitar, and the guy who built it builds beautiful guitars. In fact, the guitar itself 'press-ganged' me into flamenco. The action was so low and easy, and the strings close to the top at the bridge. (Not a guitar for the dry peghead brigade; it has plenty of sustain, the way I like it.)
Of course, with amplification all the hooey about power becomes moot.
I'm interested in your comment that there is a 'resurgence' of interest in 'traditional' guitars. Are 'modern' designs so prevalent that a proper guitar (made out of wood and glue and sweat, etc.... hold the salt) needs a 'resurgence' of interest?
I doubt many people here have a Nomex top. There could be issues with the damage flamenco might inflict on something built with a top like a butterfly wing (I intend to find out... fine so far) but surely even the classical world has not 'flipped' to the dark side en mass? But mine has two 0.6mm 'cedar skins' with a sweet honeycomb center! And I lurv it.
Great builders build great guitars... period. It makes no difference to me how they do it, as long as they do.
I've heard lots of people make disparaging remarks about Nomex/double-top/sandwich tops. I've only ever tried one (mine). If wooden guitars need a 'resurgence' then something real is going on. Classical guitarists may now, due to Nomex, appear hip to new ideas and designs but five minutes ago they were a bunch of rolly-eyed curmudgeons. Something beyond goose fantasies is going on.
Accusing every single one of those guitars of possessing identical, and critical, you would hold, flaws to make them not simply sub-standard, but laughable, does not tally with the anectdotal evidence you yourself have presented in the form of both a laugh at Nomex efforts and a rallying cry for a resurgence of that which must therefore be in need of such a thing.
How could that be? What gives? Anyone else have one of the evil breed at home?
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Nov. 8 2012 17:10:12
|
|
z6
Posts: 225
Joined: Mar. 1 2011
|
|
RE: Why Did Carolos Montoya Give his... (in reply to aarongreen)
|
|
|
Mr. Green, I didn't find your comments offensive in the least. I enjoy reading your comments. Luthiers seem, to me, to be an extremely hard-headed lot who have opinions to match. This is a wonderful thing; it makes you guys build fabulous guitars.
I have to confess to a bias here, I think modern luthiers (whether Nomexed-up or Smallmanized, or doing the 'trad') are building marvelous guitars. I reckon it's best not to get five minutes with a 'classic', otherwise you might get to thinking that even though Sabicas played it and someone else fondled it a little, it's still just another lovely.... but buzzy or quiet or unbalanced or tight old geezer. Seems to me that you guys have learned huge amounts and applied your own touches to mostly surpass what we might otherwise believe to be a supernatural guitar from days of old.
I'm certainly with you in worrying about the problems posed by the difficulty of repair work on a Nomex top. It is a worry. Again, if I were a professsional flamenco player I'd need something I could throw around and batter a bit more.
However, the technology is new and luthiers are finding ways to enact various repairs. The luthier who built mine had a problem as someone had 'mashed' the Nomex with naked golpes. He reckons he fixed it by doing a little surgery. But you are correct. Until these guitars have been around for fifty years we cannot know what will happen to them. My guess is that they'll get better with age, but nobody knows. (Of course, my wishful thinking won't ensure that.)
I wouldn't doubt that the advent of Nomex, as applied to luthery, by Wagner and Damman may, in the future, be seen as an even greater leap than that we are informed Torres instigated. But that can never negate the 'traditional' instrument, nor will it necessarily stop many luthiers from building 'trad' designs that outdo the majority of Nomex jobs.
And, I have to say this, what I absolutely love about the luthery 'community' is that these two guys did not patent it. They shared it. The luthier who built mine told me of Gernot Wagner's generosity with golden information.
Imagine if the Ramirez corporation had invented the Nomex sandwich top? There would be nothing but court battles as Ramirez protected its 'mature' business.
I think though that we may soon see gazillions of factory Nomex guitars hitting the streets. Indeed, your comments about a loud plastic honking sound does seem to be the likely direction of a poorly-built Nomex guitar.
I've never tried a Smallman lattice but, from what I can gather, it doesn't seem appropriate at all for a flamenco. Those things seem more like pianos than guitars (alhough the design looks somewhat like the aforementioned banjo), but John Williams is crazy for them.
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Nov. 8 2012 21:07:26
|
|
 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 |
0.125 secs.
|
Printable Version
With enough ego and some added stupidity it could be set into a great guitar. 
