Official Luthiers Forum!

Sorry for all the non-build related building questions.

As I venture into my second and third builds as well as work with others who are also building, I get met with lots of criticism over trying non traditional ideas or materials for traditional tasks. I do understand learning tradition before inovation. I personally feel well studied in tradition.

It seems that for some the phrase: "that is how its been done for years" is the golden rule. For others; "think outside the box" is the rule. There are at least two camps to building instruments. The traditionalists and the inovator... and some that fall in between. I would honestly say I consider myself more of a traditionalist. I like traditional shapped guitars. I prefer traditional color schemes on instruments. I don't like lots of gaudy inlays. But at the same time, I am always looking for alternative ways and materials to work with. Partly because of finances and partly because I like to think outside the box. I am an engineer by day..and love to design.

The traditionalist would say you must use XYZ because it has been done that way for years. The inovator would say I wonder if I can get ABC to work in the place that we have used XYZ for years.

Which are you?

_________________
Joe

OK Joe my friend I'll weigh-in here........

I would describe myself as a minimalist traditionalist who also appreciates contemporary design......

When I started building I had no interest in reinventing the wheel or the guitar. Instead I knew that very good guitars have existed for many decades and I was keen to study why these guitars were so very outstanding. I also knew that you can't swing a cat without hitting a guitar builder so I was after something more then fit & finish, playability, and bling. I wanted to make very open sounding guitars that one does not have to die from old age and pass on to a few generations before the darn thing opened up............ I was always an impatient sort.......

Personally I think that Martin nailed (figuratively speaking of course...) a minimalist design (fewest possible parts) long ago which produced light weight, stiff, open sounding instruments. I'll add some Gibsons to this statement too. And I greatly appreciate these vintage guitars.

But I also greatly appreciate the work of Ryan, Somogyi, Fox, Klepper, Mario, and others.

As for non-traditional materials I like the sound of spruce and rosewood but again I appreciate those who would be innovators.

It's all good!

For me it really depends on what aspect of a guitar I am dealing with. For instants lets take French polishing. This is to me a subject that I believe many don’t really understand the objective, procedure and effect of each process as well as the effect each process has on the following process. I have read and experimented with many different so called one day French polishing methods that claim to eliminate time and energy. Most will produce a good finish but I have to say most fall short in at least one attribute or the other when compared to traditional French polish process as a hole.

That said I do try them and if I find that they have merit I will incorporate in some form or another but I never put them in my paid for work till I have proofed them out to my satisfaction.

So I guess I am inbetween

good topic Joe, should get lots of replies.

I don't know which I could classify myself as, the majority of my commissioned builds would indicate innovator, but I really like some of the traditional styled instruments. When I started building I wanted to offer 3 or 4 rather standard models (traditional), and just vary a bit like most others builders, but seems I keep getting these requests for rather unique guitars and they are paying the bills, so I lean more toward innovator.
I get the same remarks tossed at me as you indicate, for trying different things and using different materials, etc.. But I figure tradition only lasts as long as traditional thinking. I am always testing and comparing different woods and techniques, glues and finishes. Not to try and re-invent the wheel, but to satisfy my own curiosity about how people arrived at the standard, accepted means of building practices. I can't accept age old reasoning without applying it and finding out for myself.
Advances in every other area of life occur daily, so what's to say one day some one won't advance guitar building beyond the traditional method.
I like to think outside the box, lately my thoughts have been "inside" the box, different bracing designs and a minimalistic approach to sounding.
Anyway, this is just one peons opinion, tucked far away from most people in the wheat fields, trying to start a fire with water.

_________________
Nehemiah Covey
www.coveysacoustics.com

I'm both. For me and most others, sound comes first but that's a given, then design. I like classic designs but focus on a mixture of both classic and new for my own. I don't however try to go over the top and make radical instruments as far as shape is concerned, unless is sounded extraordinairy. As far as appointments, i.e. inlay, I do some very interesting inlay but it's all themed, meaning is goes with what that particular model or custom represents. I try to stay away from inlay that is out of place but means something to one person only.

As far as construction I'm an engineer so I'm always innovating my construction techniques although I started 20 years ago and have made everything by hand, but now I tend to build automation into everything I can. I have a hard time trying to voice what the difference in building a better jig and CNC is, there's no difference it's just a progression to an easier method to a problem -- it's called evolution or progress (your choice). I think most people who argue CNC is not hand building is usually insecure. That's not to say a factory with 20 CNCs are handmade. I believe I have the hand skill and have done so but tend to CNC alot of stuff but I am the only person touching the instrument. If it goes through an assembly line it's not hand made. I mean a cnc is just a tool.

Innovation will become Tradition !
Soon!
The fast pace of today will dictate the future!

I think??

_________________
Mike Collins

Mike I like that statement.

What is a traditional method anyway? it is a previously innovative method, time proven to be affectively efficient.

I've always got one foot in each camp.

I always TRY and build a traditional instrument, but I keep tinkering with this or that aspect, and then it comes out non-traditional in some way. Whatever that way is, its my way. I've tried to not let that happen, but it keeps happening.

I should add, for background, that I'm an artist by training and inclination, so I'm screwed no matter what.

_________________
Expectation is the source of all misery; comparison the thief of joy.
http://redrivercanoe.ca/

I do the same thing! I used to call them mistakes, now I'll call them innovations!

_________________
Billy Dean Thomas
Covina, CA

"Multi famam, conscientiam, pauci verentur."
(Many fear their reputation, few their conscience)

My guitars are pretty traditional but I'm not dogmatic about it either. I use a bolt on neck and an A brace instead of a Popsicle stick. That's related to the instrument itself. Building techniques are a different matter. I like to come up with new ways to do each of the various operations in the hope that the new way may be easier and, more importantly, more accurate. I've tried a lot on bad ideas but have found a few good ones too.

That being said, it's pretty unlikely that all of those who came before me were either mis-guided or fools. Although, it did take Martin eighty years to figure out that you really do need an adjustable truss rod.

Joe,
Remember that there is a difference between being criticized for trying new ideas and having the idea itself criticized. If another builder says that a particular idea won't work, they may have a good reason for thinking so that goes beyond "Torres didn't do it that way". In either case you shouldn't read into the criticism that you shouldn't try new things.
Mike

I would consider myself a "New Traditionalist" (sorry, love Devo).

Believe it or not, there's a very strong two camp system in the bandura world as well. There's the hardcore dudes that think that it's got to have gut strings and you can't truly be a player unless you make your own instrument.

Luckily for me there's a larger group that wants instruments that sound good and are easy (er) to play. Most of the banduras that have been built to this point (the instrument's really only a couple hundred years old) have been pretty junky. Using many new ideas I was able to make an instrument my first try that sounded better than probably 80% of the instruments out there (although it did look like it was constructed by a kindergartner ). On the other hand, the improvements I've gotten since that first instrument have been achieved by applying traditional techniques to the instrument....but not traditional bandura techniques - I've been using a lot of guitar making techniques and my instruments keep improving....so I guess I'm an innovative new traditionalist

_________________
http://www.birkonium.com CNC Products for Luthiers
http://banduramaker.blogspot.com

I think you can be both and both equally valid IMHO. I took a very simplistic approach when building my first - What was I hoping to achieve tonewise? I love OMs but wanted a bit more bass (eg Martin J) so started with a OM plan and adapted the waist and lower bout and depth but kept everything else the same eg standard forward shifted X bracing... I do like teh Macpherson neck join though and having played a couple there sems to be a great deal of consistency in tone and projection from that design - then again it could be more to do with tehir bracing pattern - I think being a modest player but with what I like to consider a reasonable ear, for me its alays been about tone If it sounds great, I am hooked whether tradditional in construction or highly innovative - but then you add astetics and thats really down to personal taste I guess...

I like to try new and innovative techniques because it keeps the craft fresh. However, I think new builders are doing themselves a great disservice if they start out with anything other than a traditional design. My first guitars were very traditional and I think this allows you to learn from the gained wisdom of those that went before you. If you start off with innovations, you have no basis to judge their effectiveness. Also, you will not get the full benefit of learning the traditional tools and techniques, which become essential when you start blazing your own trails.

The way I see it, I can't truly carry on the tradition without being an innovator. The tradition has always been about integrating what's been done before with new ideas. Tradition and innovation are not mutually exclusive at all; quite to the contrary, they go hand in hand.

Incidentally, I see traditional music the same way.

Also, my motivation comes largely from my need to be creative, so I start at the drawing board, design my own instruments, dream up new possibilities... all the while studying the many great instruments of the past and present.

_________________
Todd Rose
Ithaca, NY

https://www.dreamingrosesecobnb.com/todds-art-music

https://www.facebook.com/ToddRoseGuitars/

Barry,

With respect that's a pretty sweeping statement. It depends on the character, attitude and motivation of each and every builder and I certainly don't think in my case I did myself any disservice with the first instrment I made.

I'd also love to see what each persons definition or interpretation of "traditional" design actually is - be it steel or nylon string. Stringed instruments have been made for over a thousand years but it seem to me that for steel strings most people seem to use Martin/Gibson first half of the twentieth century as the definition of "traditional". How can I tell if the instrument I makes breaks "tradition"?

If I chose to make a ladder braced guitar as my first one would that be "traditional", or a Larson Brothers inspired creation, or a Howe-Orme variant?

_________________
Dave White
De Faoite Stringed Instruments
". . . the one thing a machine just can't do is give you character and personalities and sometimes that comes with flaws, but it always comes with humanity" Monty Don talking about hand weaving, "Mastercrafts", Weaving, BBC March 2010

I'm also with Barry on this one. Build your first one(s?) in the "traditional" way so you have an appreciation of why it's "accepted practice". I know it's hard - I'm guilty too (my first ever in '95 was a cutaway! - dumb - it's still sitting on the shelf!)
Too many brand new builders boast how they'll change this & that on their first & how wonderful it will be, when they don't have any building foundation on which to base. I'll add this to a favorite saying...... "first get good, then get (creative and) fast"

_________________
Dave
Milton, ON

By that definition, I doubt that there are any traditionalists.

_________________
Howard Klepper
http://www.klepperguitars.com

When all else fails, clean the shop.

"outside the box...". What box?

_________________
Freeborn Guitars
and home of BeauGuard©

Exactly.
There are instruments which are considered traditional, by virtue of the fact that the builders are trying to reproduce a certain look and feel of an old instrument, and some come darn close to the originals, sans headstock logo of course. Many of the folks making these use some modern construction methods, i.e. tooling, cnc, etc., but intentionally stick to using hide glue, triangular kerfed linings, dovetail joints, red spruce, and brazilian rosewood or mahogany etc. to nail down the total look and feel of the vintage instrument, yet brand new.

Much of what is being built out there today is in some way like that, or a variation on a theme. Lots of guys build SJ's, based loosly on the Gibson J-100, but with slight differences to the shape. Traditional would also go back to which period a person is trying to replicate. Traditional Pre-war Martin era? Traditional Stauffer/Martin era? Gibson? Maccafari/Selmer? Washburn? So much to choose from, and they're all different yet similar.

To be totally traditional in your building, you would have to choose an era, seek out the exact materials that were being used, and utilize the same tools and jigs etc. that were being used as well. But that brings up another point, which is the inevitable technological advancements that most builders and factories move toward in an effort to build better and faster. My suspicion is that a lot of factories like Martin during the pre-war era (or even before) would have used much more advanced technology and machinery if it had been available to them, or even invented at that time. Knowing that, and thinking in those terms, *traditional* as we refer to was based solely on what was available in those years. At least in the steel-string guitar world. Classical guitars are a whole different animal, but even they have evolved through the years to where many build with bolt-on necks and lattice braced tops etc.

Much is the same about the wood that was used. It's no mistake that they chose Brazilian Rosewood, because it does have a fantastic tonal quality and was readily available at the time. But had East Indian Rosewood been the readily available rosewood at the time and not Brazilian, that would be the wood everyone covets today and considered to be the traditional species.

_________________
"I want to know what kind of pickups Vince Gill uses in his Tele, because if I had those, as good of a player as I am, I'm sure I could make it sound like that.
Only badly."

Thanks for all the great responses!

I am unfortunately stuck in the middle of both. I also AGREE and DISAGREE with Barry. I think you must have a good foundation of what tradition is and why it was done that way. BUT: I am not sure that I must repeat history a bunch of times before I understand it or am ready to try something a little non-traditional. Everyone else has already proven that the traditional instrument building designs have worked. So at some point, the only thing I am proving by building a traditionally designed instrument is that I have the talent and skill to emulate/copy that design.

If I understand Barry and Dave's position it is that: first make sure you understand and can build an instrument based on proven variables. This way you will know if you succeded by being able to compare it to other instrument with the same design. It also allows forums or groups like this to offer assitance to the builder based on understanding what the beginner is trying to accomplish. If you change things on your first instrument and it does not come out well, you will not know if it was your inability to build a quality instrument or the fact that you changed parameters of the instrument that caused poor results. Makes good sense!

I guess time will tell whether I went about this all wrong or not! #2 is on the bench. It will also be another archtop. It will be somewhat traditional in design but will have some nice twists to it...I think. I may continue to use Aspen as the top wood. Not quite the taditional top wood, but the results are promissing on #1.

Thanks again!
Joe

_________________
Joe

Hi Chas,

I am not sure if your question is sincere or a poke at the guitar box...which is pretty darn funny too! I was trying to imply thinking beyond what has already been done in the past (traditionally) to try and move this craft forward.

I am obviously not very good with words. Evertime I post a question, I get a bunch of people reading into the questions way deeper than they are meant. Often folks spend more energy to poke holes in a theory/question than they are trying to understand it. I guess that is the nature of the forum.

Anyway, I guess in the case of guitar building I should have stated thinking "Inside the box".

_________________
Joe

Hey Joe,
No joke or disrespect meant. Look at my "Freestyle" model on my site and you'll see.
I'd link pics, but I'm in Europe at the moment using an iTouch..
-C

_________________
Freeborn Guitars
and home of BeauGuard©

Ah Yes! YES! YES!!!

Your right! What box? I didn't see any box!


I have written a bunch of responses and then did not post them. But I think that if tradition and inovation can be blended together..such as the "freestyle", then the craft will continue to move forward. I am not quite ready to move that far forward in my designs yet...mostly because I want to get a few more uses out of the current jigs and forms I have already made. So I will be using different woods, changing bracing and sound hole paterns etc in the short term.

Thanks again!

_________________
Joe

Not sure where I fit in on this, most likely I'm just Crazy

so here's my idea of traditional meets innovation, Or maybe I am crazy




Mike

_________________
I'm outside looking in, just farther from the window than most.