Official Luthiers Forum!

Who says that classical guitars need to look the same? I have the Rodriguez book and Making Master Guitars and a couple others. BUT - my primary guitar-making goal is a dream classical with exotic binding, cedar neck laminated w/ebony, concave (as opposed to normal convex curved) bridge, custom logo on the head and a rosette of figured wood mixed with shell inlay.
   It seems to me that none of these 'features' need to interfere with the acoustics but even the most beautiful classicals I have seen are barely distinguishable from my $200 student guitar.
   It seems to me that if you're thinking steel-string you can do almost anything - but, a classical has rigid parameters that seem to be sacrosanct.
   True? Or am I limiting myself to what I have seen others do?

   TFL.

I agree, there is no reason why you couldn't have all your ideas on a classical. I think this topic has been discussed before but it basically boils down to more tradition in the classical world. There are a lot fewer classical players out there, and by nature they seem a more conservative group and very traditional in their guitar choices.

That being said, I've seen every idea you mentioned on good classicals with the exception of the concave bridge (I'm not sure what that is). There are some very progressive classical builders out there, however I think the majority of the market still wants traditional.

Cheers!

John

I've thought about this recently since it comes up on the forum from time to time. It think that the sense of ascetics in the classical world is different. When you go to a classical music performance, the sole object of the musicians is the music they create. To spend any effort on anything else is a destraction from the music. To have an instrument that draws attention to itself is to disrupt the primary goal. Consider the all black Steinway. These pianos could be different colors or have fancy inlay but to do so is to say "Look at my piano" as opposed to "Listen to my music"

Classical guitars have a certain look. If your guitar looks too different than your audiance is not able to pay attention to your music.

This is not true for the venues where steel string guitars are played. There the objective is entertainment. Closer in spirit, in some ways, to a circus than it is to a classical concert. To have the country western singer wear a cowboy hat and have his name inlayed on the fretboard of his guitar is all part of the the package. (Even though he might have come from Detroit)

I'm not saying that classical musicians care more about their sound than other musicians do or that it is of higher quality in some absolute sense. To be really good in either world takes talent and a lifetime of work. The objectives are different.

I build steel strings, but have to agree with the ethos that Mike expounds, to me the 'sound', the music that the guitar makes, is it's sole reason for being. As I've said before, if the sound isn't right then its just so much expensive kindling. I don't think that classical guitars are any less decorative, just look at the amazing mozaic rosettes, you just don't see over the top inlays and pearl all over them. Go look at Joshua's site and see how amazingly beautiful classical guitars can be. My favourite guitars are the ones that let the beauty of the wood and the sweetness of the sound speak for themselves. And you wouldn't catch me wearing a big hat when I play for all the money on Earth!

Colin

_________________
I don't believe in anything, I simply make use of a set of reasonable working hypotheses.

A lot of the formallity of the esthetic in the classical guitar world is relatively recent, and may very well date from Segovia's time. Part of Segovia's self-assumed mission was to get the folks playing the black pianos to take the guitar seriously. Hence 'black' guitars, or, at least, the 'tuxedo' look.

If you look through a book like Evans and Evans you'll see that classical guitars in the past were often quite ornate. Flamencos stayed so (when the owners could afford it) until recently: look at the guitar being played in Rick's bar in 'Casablanca'.

I built a classical guitar a couple of years ago with 1000 or so tiny autumn leaves for the top purfling. Nobody seems to object. I've also had customers request my little pearl owl in the headstock of classicals. I wouldn't make one that way on spec: too likely to meet resistance, but if somebody wants it....

I don't think all classical guitars look the same. There is a different framework for the general aesthetic approach, but it is certainly no less unique between classical makers than steel string makers.

Friederich, Romanillos, Bouchet, Hauser, Ramirez, Smallman, Torres, Simplicio, Jeff Elliott and Tobias Braun are some examples of people's work that is unique enough to identify immediately without looking at the label. [unless copied, obviously.]

There's no reason not to make your guitar just how you want it. Doesn't sound too outrageous to me.

_________________
Instagram: @jfrenchluthier
Web: https://www.jfrenchguitars.com/

have a look at the march issue of acoustic guitar. you will see some classicals which are both structurally and aesthetically non-traditional.

jfrench wrote:
"I don't think all classical guitars look the same."

Well, I know a guy who can tell a French violin from a German one at a glance from across the room. I'm getting better at it, but they all still look like violins to me...

I think the range of decorative treatments in smaller in classical guitars than in steel strings: you hardly see much pearl on classicals, for example. The range of sizes is also less great: a steel strin Parlor will be 13" or so across the lower bout and maybe 18-1/2 to 19" long in the body, while a Jumbo is 17" wide (or more!) and 20+" long. Classicals seldom go much smaller than 14" wide, or much bigger than 14-1/2", iirc, and the lengths follow suit. There seem to be good physical reasons for this, but it's still a restricted range.

I don't think the vaunted 'conservatism' of classical buyers is all that much of a factor. Smallman, Wagner and Dammann seem to be doing well enough. All guitar buyers are fairly conservative, of course, as is to be expected when you're shelling out like that. I had one country player stand and look at one of my oak guitars for probably a half hour or more, and simply refuse to touch it.

One important rule my violin making teacher gave me: "Whatever you do can be all right, so long as it looks like you meant it".

I don't really think lack of pearl on a classical is any more of an issue than the lack of mosaic inlays on steel string guitars.

I like the inlay work I've seen on steel string guitars. There's a guitar in the "Whats on your workbench right now" thread that is downright gorgeous and very tastefully executed. But its still no more elaborate than a Simplicio, right?

We are comparing what - Classicals (which are one type of guitar) to OM, Dreads, Jumbos, and Parlors (which are four types of guitars)?

I tend to think makers should strive to develop their own "style" and that they should stand out somehow and be unique from the norm. But does that style come from inlaying your name in the head or putting a fancy vine on the fingerboard? Or does it come from a consistent and delicately balanced aesthetic sense? Should one look at a guitar and say "Wow, what a beautiful rosette!" or "Wow, what a beautiful guitar!"?

The range of decorative treatment on a classical may seem smaller to some, but I tend to think the difference is just bling bling... as in how immediately obvious the differences are.

I love all the subtleties in a guitar.. if one masters those than no one can copy them accurately. Talk about uniqueness... jfrench38604.8150462963

_________________
Instagram: @jfrenchluthier
Web: https://www.jfrenchguitars.com/

[QUOTE=jfrench]
Should one look at a guitar and say "Wow, what a beautiful rosette!" or "Wow, what a beautiful guitar!"?

[/QUOTE]

As I've said before on this thread just go look at Joshua's guitars on his site, then you'll say "Wow, what a beautiful rosette! AND "Wow, what a beautiful guitar!"

I once had a conversation with a visiting Professor of Aesthetics from Kyoto Univerity and his definition of beauty was something that lifted the spirit. If a guitar lifts your spirit, then it's beautiful.

Colin

_________________
I don't believe in anything, I simply make use of a set of reasonable working hypotheses.

Colin- thanks! I have a tough time responding to flattery... so maybe its just a good time to point out that I don't photograph my shortcomings. ;)

Something that lifts the spirit.... Nice quote. That is my ever easive point, in a roundabout way. If something is well balanced aesthetically it will be beautiful without an explanation as to why, and thats where the esoteric spirit of the instrument begins to thrive... ever picked up an instrument that just seemed like something more than itself?

_________________
Instagram: @jfrenchluthier
Web: https://www.jfrenchguitars.com/

BTW Colin.... I'll trade you for an arch-lute...

_________________
Instagram: @jfrenchluthier
Web: https://www.jfrenchguitars.com/

[QUOTE=jfrench] Colin- thanks! I have a tough time responding to flattery... so maybe its just a good time to point out that I don't photograph my shortcomings. ;)

Something that lifts the spirit.... Nice quote. That is my ever easive point, in a roundabout way. If something is well balanced aesthetically it will be beautiful without an explanation as to why, and thats where the esoteric spirit of the instrument begins to thrive... ever picked up an instrument that just seemed like something more than itself?[/QUOTE]

Joshua, I never give flattery, Flattery is "exaggerated or insincere praise" (OED) I just tell it as I see it.

Colin

_________________
I don't believe in anything, I simply make use of a set of reasonable working hypotheses.