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: what's the deal with this bridge? (in reply to beno)
Besides being ugly as sin, it's not exactly taking advantage of the stiffness that a conventional bridge offers to help offset the mass.
I once saw something similar on a west coast intellectual minded hobby builder's guitar. It was just the tieblock, no wings. I asked him about the weight vrs losing any stiffness and he immediately answered that he took care of that on the inside. Which begs the question as to what he thought he was going to gain. The results did not support any theory other than he gained an ugly looking and sounding guitar. I kept that last bit to myself...
RE: what's the deal with this bridge? (in reply to beno)
Kinda ugly, ok a lot ugly. I don't see what could possibly be gained here. A top is stiffer along the grain already, why give up crossgrain stiffness? To kill some volume? Maybe he was trying to boost the higher frequencies with a bridge that rocks more side to side; although I don't see why. Maybe its a lattice top. I just don't see the point. Manolo Franco played a Jeronimo Pena Fernandez guitar in his heyday, I don't remember seeing this guitar in his hands. It's probably another Andalusional, Antonio Rey type situation.
RE: what's the deal with this bridge? (in reply to beno)
quote:
Nothing new, just multipurpose: 6, 12 or 18 holes. Romanillos tried something similar.
Yes, but I was more after the shape of the bridge, not the holes...
quote:
Which begs the question as to what he thought he was going to gain. The results did not support any theory other than he gained an ugly looking and sounding guitar
exactly. but I cannot tell via Youtube videos. I just thought there's something magical new type of bridge...
RE: what's the deal with this bridge? (in reply to Sean)
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sean
The Kasha bridge never made sense; I blame the parents for not letting them play on a seesaw.
But Sean, don't you realize Kasha was an engineer? He understood these things much better than an ignorant luthier could.
I had the misfortune to hear him lecture and then hear and play one of his guitars (he didn't make them, that was done by Schneider). The lecture was unconvincing and the guitar was unimpressive and awkward feeling although it was nicely crafted.
Posts: 3462
Joined: Jan. 20 2004
From: Austin, Texas USA
RE: what's the deal with this bridge? (in reply to jshelton5040)
We met Schneider at Juan Pimentel's shop in Mexico City some time in the mid-1960s. Schneider was paying Pimentel to teach him guitar making. We went there to meet Pimentel, but on the first try, Schneider monopolized the conversation, telling us his plans to revolutionize the guitar. Pimentel kept working, as he always did, but occasionally raised his eyebrows or rolled his eyes at some statement by Schneider.
We went back that evening, still hoping to talk to Pimentel, but again, no dice. Los Tres Reyes, then perhaps the most popular Spanish language musicians in the world, were at his shop. Pimentel was doing a little setup work on one of their guitars he had made.
The next day we finally got to talk to Pimentel. Modest, taciturn, friendly, highly skilled and scrupulously honest, a wonderful guy. Over the next 20 years I ordered and picked up quite a few guitars from him for friends in Texas, ranging from student models to masterpieces.
RE: what's the deal with this bridge? (in reply to Richard Jernigan)
quote:
ORIGINAL: Richard Jernigan Schneider monopolized the conversation, telling us his plans to revolutionize the guitar. Pimentel kept working, as he always did, but occasionally raised his eyebrows or rolled his eyes at some statement by Schneider.
I met Schneider two of three times and agree that he was definitely loquacious. He was also a fine craftsman and had many interesting ideas.
Posts: 401
Joined: Mar. 5 2010
From: Caves Beach Australia
RE: what's the deal with this bridge? (in reply to beno)
quote:
But Sean, don't you realize Kasha was an engineer? He understood these things much better than an ignorant luthier could.
Actually he was a physical chemist A perfect background to redesign the Guitar ? Engineers are accused of a lot of things, often justified, but we should not be considered responsible for the Kasha design.
RE: what's the deal with this bridge? (in reply to Jeff Highland)
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jeff Highland
quote:
But Sean, don't you realize Kasha was an engineer? He understood these things much better than an ignorant luthier could.
Actually he was a physical chemist A perfect background to redesign the Guitar ? Engineers are accused of a lot of things, often justified, but we should not be considered responsible for the Kasha design.
Attribute the error to a failing memory from advanced age. I swear I remember him being introduced as an acoustic engineer. I bear no malice toward engineers. In my experience they have very organized, logical brains and try to be objective quite the opposite of some luthiers.
RE: what's the deal with this bridge? (in reply to beno)
Gentlemen, this is what happens when people try to use engineering principles to build guitars. Hoping to make something better, they make something worse, and the process create a problem everyone else has to explain.
This design is not new however, it is verbatim the design of separate saddle and tieblock used on the Viola da Tierra from the Azores Islands. So this time it was a case of recycling a design not suited for a modern guitar. A strange evolutionary throwback.
We should all grow tails and gills.
Viola!@
To those who are not guitar makers, as is was pointed out by Aaron Green, the bridge on a flamenco is actually a kind of cross grain brace. It serves the dual purpose of stiffening the top across the grain from side to side and grounding strings.
This design is redundant because it tries to use a wider shorter tie block element to stick to the top while passing the strings over a narrow saddle. It creates a big heavy spot in the middle of the top without adding to to cross grain stiffness. He may have put a strap or contra puente under the saddle to compensate for the loss of bridge bracing across the grain.
In the end it looks more like a gimmick than anything really making an advancement. But Richard told me a story about a guitar maker who worked for Pimentel that had a lot of ideas. Pimentel said of him, eventually he'll use them all up and arrive at a regular guitar design by trying everything that does not work and then returning to the traditional design.
Did Richard already tell that story?
Images are resized automatically to a maximum width of 800px
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