One of the driving forces that got me into building guitars in the first place was the desire to innovate. I have a sketch book full of designs that I was toying around with then. But as a newbie builder I had no perspective -- at least when it comes to building some of the designs, and what I could expect them to sound like. I had a great deal of perspective as a player, however.
Still, I didn't the let lack of building experience stop me altogether. My second guitar was an "out there" design, especially for a classical. It taught me a lot about what NOT to do.
But it was successful enough where I wasn't willing to give up on the design completely, so I tried again, but this time retaining only the basic principles of the design. Everything else about the guitar was very traditional. This second prototype was surprisingly good sounding, albeit a bit strange looking. But it proved the merits of the design well enough for me so that I offer this model now to anyone brave enough to step outside the box, and give it a go. So far, no takers -- but the guitar has received favorable comments from everyone who's tried it.
Acceptance of innovation within the classical community is quite slow, I find. And I'll wager, as Brock has suggested, that it is almost as slow withing the steel string community. Classical players are much more likely to be willing to buy a guitar that might be quite innovative on the inside, but which still looks and sounds like a classical. Those guitars that depart from the "look and sound" are slow to receive acceptance. I think, in particular, of the Kasha-Schneider collaboration, which began in the 1967 and continued until Schneider's death in 1997. I've never played one, but by all accounts I've read and heard, especially the later ones that Schneider built were excellent guitars. There are a number of other builders who build in the Kasha-Schneider style, but still, this design has hardly caught the classical world on fire.
A couple of years ago, while visiting a local guitar shop, I tried out a couple of guitars that were built entirely out of composite materials -- carbon fiber bodies and tops, etc. (Sorry I don't recall the maker's name.) They were dreadnaughts, and both sounded surprisingly good. They weren't cheap, either. But when I compared them with a couple of Martins and Taylors, I could hear the difference. They just didn't have the warmth and depth that wood has. And because they were built from composites, my sense then was that they would never develop this warmth either. What you hear is what you get, in all likelihood.
To me this reinforced the importance of an instrument's sound. It isn't enough for it to have good volume, and even balance, nice basses and singing trebles. To gain acceptance, it must also sound like what a guitar like that is supposed to sound like. Dreadnaughts that don't sound like dreadnaughts, and classicals that don't sound like classicals will most likely not be popular among the buying public. Preconceived notions drive this market, it seems to me.
So the big challenge with innovation, the way I see it, is, at a minimum, to retain what it is that people like to hear, and hopefully to improve upon this quality. But even so, if the appearance of the instrument departs radically from tradition, acceptance will be an uphill battle.
I can't help but wonder why this is the case, though. Look at automotive styling, for example. Take the big car shows, where the manufacturers put new and innovative concept cars on display each year. They're pushing the envelope constantly. I realize it's more than a bit like comparing apples to oranges, comparing automotive technology to acoustic instruments, but still it seems to me that a bit more of a view toward innovation, and doing so for the sake of pushing the envelope, shouldn't be shied away from among acoustic builders.
For me, nowadays, and I reckon for many of the other folks here, I don't have the time I would like to work on some of the designs that are still bouncing around in my head. With a waiting list, I feel obligated to focus my time and energies on commissioned instruments. Maybe I should set aside weekends or something (yes, I have no life
) for the experimental guitars.
Best,
Michael
Login
Register
FAQ
