Official Luthiers Forum!

attacks on their credibility.

What good is a forum if we are not asked to explain our view? If I come here and say that, oh, let's see.., that East Indian RW is not a good tonewood, that it should never be used, should y'all not question why? And if I don't ansswer 'why', and keep insisting that to build with EIR is a mistake, when everyone points out all the millions of great guitars built with EIR, and I get angry and toss virtual grenades at y'all, and keep insisting that EIR is bad, should you just let it be?

What good would this forum be then?

This was no different. When we pointed out thousnds of historical examples of great guitars that, according to the idea presented should be bad, we got attacked. He turned it on us. He tossed me the grenade, please remember, thank you. I answered with a playful "you missed" and placed a smiley in it. He then continually personally insulted me, Bob, and others. I never made a personal attack that I am aware of. I have tried to point something solid out in every post. That it gets turned around is quite frustrating.


You all liked the "world is flat' example. Well, has anyone disputed that it is flat, since it's been proven that is is indeed round? Of course not. Even the staunchest of flat-thinkers had to, at some point, say 'gee, it really isn't flat, after all". That doesn't mean their flat bed they laid on every night suddenly became round. Of course not, it was still flat. Just the thinking changed. Same here. Scott gets results; that won't change. But he should perhaps stop and re-think his reasoning behind why it works.
Mario38750.0495601852

Mario,

Your example, in my opinion is poor. And it actually goes against your own arguement in my opinion. Could these great old guitars be great old guitars because they are only...good guitars that are...old? And have nothing to do with brace shapes but were just the better of the bunch when they were new? We all know that guitars improve with age, as do 300 year old violins in my opinion. Could someone like Scott take one of these 'great old guitars' and make them sound even greater by 'hotrodding' them? Coming from a less formal science background in field fisheries research, I agree absolutely with John's comments, you often learn much more by the failures than by the successes as it is often the number of failures that lead to the few successes. You made your point about Scott's explanation. You didn't do me any favours by saying what you said a bunch of times, I was quick enough to get it the first time. I often agree with what you have to say but not always how you say it. It isn't your fault that Scott removed his posts, that was his call alone, it is just unfortunate that the "DISCUSSION" couldn't have went better.

Shane

_________________
Canada

Could these great old guitars be great old guitars because they are only...good guitars that are...old?

Actually, that question has been asked many times in the vintage market. Were the great ones always great, or was it time that did it?

The answer is, from those that were around when these guitars were new or fairly new, that they always stood above.

And history backs that up, because even in the 50's and 60's, professional players who needed the loudest and brightest guitars(because stage amplification was so poor, the instruments had to really work hard, and guitars had to compete with banjos, fiddles, mandolins and an upright bass, often in the same mirophone at the same time!) sought out the pre war Martins.

So, we have living person with first hand experience being backed up by historical data. Hard to refute.

And we have great guitars being built today, that very most likely put out more power than Scotts modified ones. If these were that strong and great, the word would have got out by now. Every pro player on the road would love to be able to leave their expensive or beloved guitars safely at home, and take to the road in a affordable and replacable Taylor Or Larrivee that's been modified. He's been at it long enough that the word would have gotten out.

I'm sure he can take an average guitar and get a lot more out of it. Of that I am positive. But I don't for a minute believe these creations are the holy grail of acoustic guitars. The one I played was fine, and way, way better than any Montana Gibson has a right to be, but nothing to get overly excited about. And again, read the above. Where are the pro players?

Wow. Well, that didn't go as planned. I can understand why Scott just figured 'screw it, I'm not going to bother with any of this', although I do hope my statements were taken in the spirit in which they were meant, as inquisitive, and explaining my point of view, not agressive. Both sides here phrased things in less than politic ways.

[QUOTE=John Elshaw] I’m going to play devil’s advocate here and offer an alternative view . If you’re going to argue the philosophy of science, then it is quite possible Scott is doing exactly what should be done according to Karl Popper (one of the critical thinkers in the philosophy of science). Anyhow, he suggests that there is no such thing as induction. Everything is deductive and you can never prove something as absolutely true. You can only prove something that is not true. Therefore, the Popperian school of thought says to get as many hypotheses out there and let the scientific community falsify them. According to Popper, Scott is doing a great service by introducing new ideas and hypotheses because it allows the rest of the community to prove them false if they truly are. Scientific knowledge only grows through trial and error-elimination. It would be a disservice to tell somebody not to offer an opinion because there is no empirical evidence to back it up. In order for science to grow, we should all offer bold conjectures , even if they run a great risk of being false. Science progresses by trial and error and usually learns a lot more by falsification of theories. Once the ideas have withstood severe tests, then it is closer to being corroborated (not confirmed).[/QUOTE]

..and to be fair to Mario, what, precisely, was he doing other than attempting to falsify his theory through contradicting examples? I find Popper interesting, if somewhat limited (at times) in what he considers scientific knowledge..

[quote=Dave White]I can see why Scott boogered off then. A bit like telling Paul McCartney to go and study music theory and composition so that he can "really" explain why the Beatles music was so great. "It's for your own good Paul, you really want to be remembered for ..." [/quote]

Er, Dave, it's only the same if Paul McCarty claimed to have a hypothesis that really explained why the Beatles' music was so great. That speaks to the core of this discussion: one side viewed method and model as seperable, and evaluated them seperately, the other did not. Friction arose.

Short of using some slightly less inflammatory language, perhaps, I don't see what anyone really should've done different.

MattiaMattia Valente38750.1615046296

[QUOTE=RussellR] You might think reactionary, but remember what you were discusing to some of you maybe some theory that was a different than you own experience, but to Scott you are talking about his lifes work, quite easy to see why he might get upset and delete his posts. Remember intially he was just trying to share his experience with some one who asked a question.

As for winners and losers surely in a format designed for the sharing of ideas, there should be neither.[/QUOTE]

That's surely true. I think the chief problem was one of communication, though; Scott was thinking and discussing one way, and me, Bob, and Mario another, and there was no room for meeting in the middle. But we did get some snide remarks here and there.

Sadly, now, we all lose out, because no matter what we thought of the validity of 'sound is round', it was an interesting, thought-provoking discussion.

Mattia

Some Scientists were examining a trained spider. "hop!", one of the scientists says and the spider hops. The scientist then pulls off one of the spider's legs. "Hop!", says the scientist and the spider hops. This is repeated six more times and each time the spider hops on command. There is only one leg left and the spider still hops. Finally, the scientist pulls off the last leg and gives the hop command. The spider does not move. The command is given again and, still, the spider does not move. After considering the data, the scientists come to the conclusion, "If you pull all the legs off of a spider, it goes deaf".

It is possible look at data and come to a completely wrong conclusion.

As for personal attacks, I really didn't see any in this thread. It is not a personal attack to disagree with someone. It is not a personal attack to question accuracy of their observations. It is a personal attack to accuse someone of lying or falsifying their data or to call them a charalaton. I didn't see any of that here. It is a personal attack to call someone stupid and this is the area where the line is a bit hazy. A person can question the conslusions that another person has drawn and that other person takes that to mean that they were called stupid. Communications breaks down at this point and feelings are hurt. When this happens, I tend to side on the critic and feel that the offended was being too sensitive. (as the Dutch say: lange tenen)

I know, i'm a sensible heart, i quit reading this great thread a couple of days ago but could not resist coming back to it and feel saddened about what i see here.

Communication can also be a science or an art in itself. I'm not going to point any fingers here nor will i play the devil's advocate for no one, i think each participant will learn if they look inside themselves for introspection.

As a grizzled Newbie, i'm saddened that "almost" no common ground were sought and that it looked like 2 camps were confronting. But as an eternal positive guy, after the rain, will be sun and i just wish that my OLF brothers will reunite in other threads for the sake of any newbie who doesn't know where he's at, needing both schools or should i say every school of thinking that balances this great forum so well usually.

I'll end this message hoping it will help heal each of you because i really enjoy being a 40 y/o kid learning with you all.

God bless

Serge

John,

Just what this thread needs, a devil's advocate!

Not sure where you got the idea I suggested proof was possible, I sure didn't. I've read Popper and Kuhn, and the potential for paradigm shifts always makes me grin. What you're overlooking is that new ideas have to be framed in a way that they can be tested, or they are forever to remain just another idea. Those are just fine but their lack of falsifiability leaves them with some real limitations. (String Theory anyone? Guitar String Theory?) The ideas we have been discussing are in fact testable. That's what I and a few others were after, a way to generate a test.

If I have an idea, the onus is NOT on the rest of the world to disprove it; that's on ME! Ideas are cheap, reliable data are much harder to come by.

Instrument building is a wonderful mix of science and art, which is part of why I love it. But art takes a back seat to engineering only because the first thing a guitar has to do is to be built to withstand string tension and still make music, or it fails. Virtually all of us start with a foundation established by previous generations of builders, and the design parameters of a guitar are pretty narrow, pretty well established, and pretty darn effective. Alter as you wish but stay close to those parameters and you'll be fine. Call those smallish alterations art if you wish.

I'm a newbie to this group (as far as posting at least)
but have been around the internet/luthier circles for
several years. Let me say this, nobody should feel bad,
this Scott guy would have blown up eventually. No wrong
was done to him here by calling his spade a spade. I've
seen many others come in with cockamamie ideas, have them
shot down and then take thier ball and go home.

Removing material from braces and bridges is a sure-fire
way to change the response of a guitar, nobody doubts
this. I'll even give him credit and say that he knows
exactly where to remove material to effect certain
frequencies. His own website says, "there is no one else,
anywhere, who can perform the miracles I do". OK, so I
guess he feels he's pretty dang good at it.

What several here doubt is the 'voodoo' reasoning for WHY
it's happening. Scott was saying that rounding over
square bracing was *releasing* trapped energy when what
is really happening is that he's simply giving the
strings more potential by lessening their load (the
weight/stiffness of the braces and/or bridge). No big
mystery here scientifically, but that's pretty boring
isn't it? Much more fun to make a myth out of it (like
the mojo of Hippie God's rubbing off on you) and claim
some proprietary/mystical abilities. Reminds me of the
guitar company that calls the balsa wood they use as
center blocks on semi-hollow electrics 'Luthite'. "Oooh,
it's 'Luthite', must be special and expensiveMike Dotson38750.4671180556

Sorry, I was quaffing pints by the bandsaw! I shouldn't post under such conditions but the trigger finger gets itchy. I'll try to offer something more constructive next time.

Kurt

I think what irked many here are unsubstantiated claims and over-the-
top hype. Maybe it's my European sensibility, but exaggerated self-
promotion makes me uncomfortable and always smells like a lot of BS.
Yeah, the website is a joke… And the whole the world-against-me
attitude, I've always been an outsider blah blah blah… Please…
The issue is not about science vs art, nerds vs hippies (that one made me
laugh…), tradition vs innovation or this against that.
There are many different and valid ways to do things, and woodworking,
making musical instruments in particular, could never be approached by
an artisan in a 100% scientific way satisfactorily. It involves senses,
experience, intuition, sensibility and all that can't be quantified. But a
good footing in tradition and experience -as Bob says in other words- is
what shapes a system for a maker, obviously that involves being able to
reproduce a given feature, that's where a somewhat scientific method, or
consistency and the ability to understand (and explain) clearly how things
work, come handy. No need to be an official scientist or have a Ph.D., just
the ability to back up claims (IMHO). I'd say you can wait for those
recordings.
And differences in building do not have to be mutually exclusive. Just
"because" is never a valid answer.
Any builder or repair-person on this forum can claim to have the most
satisfied customers in the guitar world, that doesn't make their particular
methods/instruments more valid than any other.
Also the claim that a "well-known" builder put out a dud, to be ultimately
saved from the wall-hanger and made alive by whatever unique method…
I have to laugh at the claim and… I don't know, maybe other builders felt
insulted by this. I would have.
That an artisan does not always meet all of her/his expectations on every
instrument is probably true, but to put out a dud seems to me like suicide
for a well-known, or beginning, builder… Word of mouth goes fast.

_________________
Laurent Brondel
West Paris, Maine - USA
http://www.laurentbrondel.com/