Official Luthiers Forum!

Forgot to include this in my recent post. My two favorite quotes regarding Torres.

In a personal letter from Ramirez III to Jose Romanillos:

"I have never, in any way, followed the Torres standards; the structure of the soundbaord of two bars either side of the soundhole and various numbers of struts is centuries older than Torres. I wanted to break with this scheme several times, without success and will keep trying."

And one from Pepe Romero (http://www.hillguitar.com/scripts/frameit.cgi?/website/news /articles/pepe_romero.html)

"The guitar is perfect as Torres made it. The closer you stay to it the closer you stay to perfection."

I am cautiously not commenting on these quotes, but needless to say I agree with Pepe Romero 110%.

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

Joshua,

I love that quote from Pepe, and I try to keep that one in mind whenever I am at the work-bench.

I am very inexperienced, and lack much hands-on experience, but I must agree with what Pepe and Joshua have stated. I have been pouring over every text I can find concerning classical guitar building and builders. The deeper I go, the more I keep coming back to Torres. I think it is hard to accept that a pinacle may have been reached so long ago, but I am beginning to wonder if it is not true. Of course sound is subjective, so who is to say what is "best". I can only discern that for myself, and that is leading me towards the Torres "style", if that is possible.

I only had a brief chance to meet John Mello at the Northwest hand made musical instrument makers show, but I read a very interesting article on his website, where he discusses Torres.

Jeff

John Mello Article

[QUOTE=Jeff Doty] I think it is hard to accept that a pinacle may have been reached so long ago, but I am beginning to wonder if it is not true.[/QUOTE]
It wasn't and it isn't. Listen to a Humphrey Millenium or a late Schneider and you may change your thinking. Please don't think me too harsh, but Torres' designs are not perfect, despite maestro Romero's statement. He's a gifted guitarist whom I admire greatly, but good ears are not restricted to great players. There was and is work to be done after Torres.

Now, let's talk about violins... CarltonM38835.0028125

Carlton,

While I agree mostly with what you said in the other related thread, I have to disagree with you here. Have you ever heard a Torres in the flesh? How about an Santos, a Garcia....

Ultimately, it is not the design that needs improvement, its the execution. Guitar makers nowadays take the depressing approach that the guitar as Torres made it is a underengineered piece of crap. To me this is nearly a form of Hubris. In most cases judgements are made on the "Torres system" based not on the work of Torres, but others.

I think we as guitarmakers tend to strive to be on the cutting edge of things, but in reality there still is nothing new under the sun, and the designs of old were usually founded on the kind of experience we never gain in our modern lifetimes, despite our "advanced" technological minds.

I have a hard time believing someone's mind would be even slightly changed comparing a Millenium or a Kasha guitar to a real Torres. What are you comparing these to that changed your mind?

Any lingering illusions I had that that Torres' design needed improvement were immediately shattered the first time I genuine Torres.

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

I always liked that name "Pepe"!
Huhm! Pepe Thomas!
One doesn't hear that one too much any more! Sounds friendly!

As for violins, what's all this talk, I hear, about violins on television?

_________________
Billy Dean Thomas
Covina, CA

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

What are the criteria for perfection? Obviously, this is a
rhetorical question.

When a design change is widely seen as an *improvement*,
it will be demanded by players, adopted by builders, and
we will have a *new tradition*. That's how it works.

If you talk to the recitalists playing Humphrey Millenia,
Dammann double-tops, or Smallmans, they will tell you
one thing: it's louder- to the audience. However, most
players are not recitalists, and many recitalists do
not care for the sounds of the above-mentioned guitars.
They will often mention going back to a more traditional
guitar as 'a relief'.

The Schneider guitar was mentioned in a post above also,
but I don't know of a performer who plays on one, other
than Kurt Rodarmer- the exception proving the rule, maybe.

The performing guitarists I've met are always seeking a better instrument- but thankfully in the case of the classical guitar, are seldom willing to give up beauty of sound for other attributes.

I hope the debate on this topic will continue, in good spirit-   Best, Carey.

I too marvel at the enduring legacy of the original Torres design. But it is worth noting that, during Torres' day, there were other builders of guitars who also used a fan-style bracing system. The design of Torres' just seems to have been enough better to be the one that has endured. But even prior to the fan, there was the ladder, and it was also -- still is -- a great design.

A few months back, I had the privilege of listening to a guitar built about 1820 at a local guitar society meeting. I apologize, I don't remember the name of the builder. But it was French, and it was built much in the method of LaCote and others, namely that it had a ladder braced top. What I most vividly recall is the sweet yet earthy quality of that guitar. Quite different from the "Spanish sound," but no less captivating. And it had a surprising amount of volume.

I recall a lecture I attended last year, given by Dennis Cinelli. It was on the topic of the evolution of the guitar and concentrated mostly on the instruments built during the first half of the 19th century. Cinelli, at one point in his lecture, compared the ladder braced instruments to the fan-braced ones as being more raw and elemental, explaining that fan bracing acted more as a filter, refining the sound. He stated that, once one learns how to adapt to the vagaries of the earlier instruments, the tonal pallette one could extract was superb, and that most of the better examples actually were quite loud, even when compared to more modern designs. That little French guitar I heard bore his points out well, I thought.

Best,

Michael

_________________
Live to Play, Play to Live

We've rehearsed this discussion here before. As with nature, where if you look back at earlier lifeforms you can see features of modern organisms in proto-form, I believe that the same holds true with bracing patterns. No one believes that Torres woke up one day with the fan bracing system fully developed without reference to earlier instruments, just as the Martin X-brace is just a refinement of earlier patterns.

On this 1780s London made guitar, though ladder braced, you can see the start of one half of the X with the sloping brace. By the way, this is the sweetest sounding guitar I have ever had the pleasure of playing, probably due to its 220 year old thin Euro spruce top.





On this 1760 Brunner you can see that a type of fan brace was used behind the bridge probably to distribute the strain of its 25 strings. On the Torres style guitar the ladders still exist as harmonic bars and the fans have grown. But it's still just an evolution.



Colin

PS I'm lucky in that I own an original Torres and an original Rembrandt, unfortunately, Torres couldn't paint and Rembrandt built lousy guitar! (apologies to Tommy Cooper)

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

Sounds like a very interesting lecture/ demonstration, Michael. I like small-bodied guitars in general. I heard
David Starobin give a concert on a Stauffer copy, playing
the Regondi etudes in the first half, and some Giuliani
in the second half. It was an ear-opener. That music needed
that instrument, I think! The sound projected very well,
the tone colors seemed more limited than on a Torres-style
instrument, but it all worked together. Tremendous player,
Starobin..   Best, Carey

    I love the Torres method and design, but would have to say that in order to make a clear conclusion that it was "perfection", we would have to be able to compare it to all of the variations that have been offered by builders since, but only after they have been given the same time to age and achieve their potential that only time can complete.

    It's not fair to say that a Millenium or a great Kasha style braced Schneider guitar isn't as good since we have no idea what the Torres sounded like when new...nor will we be able to hear what the Millenium or Scneider guitar will sound like in several hundred years. Time is what creates much of the mystique of a great instrument as it matures, dries, settles in and is played into its potential. Without it being allowed to pass, it's just impossible to make an objective judgement in ether direction while comparing instruments.

   Enjoy the old masters' instruments, but don't discount the possibility of some of the modern builders' guitars becoming as good as them or even better with equal time under their belts.

    I had a 1980 Ramirez Cantenario for almost 20 years before selling it to a close friend. It was, and still is, spectacular, but did improve in tone, volume and response over those years of long hours of playing. I can only imagine how it will sound in 200 years.

   Just my opinion.

Regards,
Kevin Gallagher/Omega GuitarsKevin Gallagher38835.5703472222

[QUOTE=jfrench]Ultimately, it is not the design that needs improvement, its the execution. Guitar makers nowadays take the depressing approach that the guitar as Torres made it is a underengineered piece of crap. To me this is nearly a form of Hubris. In most cases judgements are made on the "Torres system" based not on the work of Torres, but others.[/QUOTE]
Joshua, you are absolutely correct, and thanks for bringing me back to reality. I still had the sound of Ramirez guitars in my head as I was typing my mini-rant above. Of course, a Ramirez ain't a Torres. As is often the case in lutherie, architecture, art, etc., an innovator's followers just don't get it right.

[QUOTE=jfrench]I think we as guitarmakers tend to strive to be on the cutting edge of things, but in reality there still is nothing new under the sun[/QUOTE]
Generally, yes, but I think that occasionally someone makes an evolutionary jump forward to such a degree that it can be considered something new. I think that the Kasha bracing system is an example. Was there ever an access panel in an acoustic stringed instrument before Abe Wechter designed his? It doesn't change the sound of a guitar, but it does enlarge the options of how they're built and repaired.

[QUOTE=jfrench]I have a hard time believing someone's mind would be even slightly changed comparing a Millenium or a Kasha guitar to a real Torres. What are you comparing these to that changed your mind?[/QUOTE]
Every fan-braced classical that I've ever heard. Now, don't misunderstand me, many of those sounded quite fine, and I'd be proud to have built one that was that good, but I hear flaws that must be endemic to fan-bracing--the worst of which is overdriven mushiness when chords are strummed or single notes are played loudly. I don't hear that in the Humphrey or Schneider guitars that have pushed air at me. In fairness, though, I don't believe that I've ever heard a Torres in person. Sure would like to though, because, no doubt I'm missing something special.

BTW, I've used Humphrey and Schneider/Kasha as examples in the same sentence, but they sound quite different from each other. Each has its own exceptional voice.

[QUOTE=Carey] If you talk to the recitalists playing Humphrey Millenia,
Dammann double-tops, or Smallmans, they will tell you
one thing: it's louder- to the audience. However, most
players are not recitalists, and many recitalists do
not care for the sounds of the above-mentioned guitars.
They will often mention going back to a more traditional
guitar as 'a relief'.[/QUOTE]
Well, we like what we like, and that's certainly valid, but my discussions above were meant to be about concert-quality guitars. Also, I think that lumping Humphrey with Smallman and other double-top builders is an error. Humphrey's approach is very different from those other "high volume" guys, and it results in an instrument that has superior projection and, most importantly, controllable, colorful timbre. Not every step forward in volume results in a step backward in tone.

[QUOTE=Carey]The Schneider guitar was mentioned in a post above also,
but I don't know of a performer who plays on one, other
than Kurt Rodarmer- the exception proving the rule, maybe.[/QUOTE]
That's really the fault of players, not Schneider or Kasha. The problem, if you want to call it that, of Schneider guitars is that they feel different from what professional guitarists are expecting when they pick up an instrument. They're heavier (for specific design reasons), their dimensions are just a bit different than "standard" classicals, and their notes sustain to such a degree that it requires an adjustment in playing style (extra attention to string damping). The reward, if a player is willing to step a bit outside his comfort zone, is a loud, rich-sounding guitar that has an unequalled evenness of tone across and along the fingerboard.

BTW, Kurt Rodarmer is a fine player (a former math/science and music prodigy) who would have an international reputation for excellence if he chose to make music his main career.

This (and the related thread) is turning into a great discussion, with some great point being made.


Colin, those are great pictures and your comments help illustrate them in a candid way. Easily, if one were to stretchthe bottom of that lute upward through those transverse bars we'd have asically a Torres style bracing like we see in guitars. Interesting. That instrument is of English origin?

I can beat it only by one year. To the best of my knowledge, the earliest instrument with fan strutting is a 1759 Francisco Sanguino Vihuela.

Kevin - I respectfully disagree with your statements. We have not only the written impressions of both prominent guitarists and critics/reviewers, but also the nearly immediate cultural impact that accompanied Torres' work. If a Schneider/Kasha were as good or better than a Torres when the Torres was new, then Pepe Romero would give up his Eddie Blochlinger (Torres/Hauser style, with Tornavoz) and play a Schneider despite the preachiness of Segovia. Much like Miguel Llobet and Francisco Tarrega cared little for the recommendations of Aguado and fell in love with Torres guitars.

And even further to this, one could easily draw reasonable conclusions being that today's most sought after makers won't even give the design the time of day. Customers have little to no demand for it, the majority of makers don't seem to believe they'd be making better guitars if they implemented it (otherwise, I argue, they'd be using it), and to most it is but an interesting sidenote in guitar history.

Whereas Torres' - who others are right to acknowledge did not "invent" the system he implemented, but rather refined it into a cohesive whole - were played by the most prominent guitarists in Spain, copied by many important makers even to the point of blantant forgery and changed the course of the guitar from there on out, speaks volumes. I'd say his resume far outweighs that of Dr. Kasha, and even further to this reflects a spirited creativeness as opposed to an arrogant "scientific" analysis that has little basis when applied in reality.

Dr. Kasha once criticized Humphrey's design, concluding scientifically that it would produce little bass response. This was much to the surprise of many millenium owners who are less swayed by what they read than what they hear.

My point is, when the Torres design took over it did not require "time". At the risk of sounding like a staunch traditionalist (while I am listening to the new Ministry album no less....) I think it would an enormous leap of faith to even consider that in time the Kasha design will prove itself any less forgotten than it already is, at least for classical guitars. I hate to be so critical, and hate to sound like such a zealot, but the proof is in the pudding. One is a historical footnote, and one is a historical behemoth.

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

Carlton- I agree that Kurt Rodarmer is a very fine player.

As for it being "the fault of the players, not Schneider or
Kasha" that the players are not playing the Schneider guitars..   filling the needs of the music and the player
is the luthier's historical function. If the Schneider or
any other guitar does a better job of filling those needs,
recitalists and other players will buy those instruments.
Gary Southwell has made some quite unorthodox concert
instruments (as well as historical copies), and quite a
number of top performers play them: Starobin, Tennant,
Tanenbaum, to name a few.

I haven't played a Humphrey Millennium, only heard the
Assad Brothers play them live, so I can't comment
from a player's perspective. If it's an advance to you,
that's what matters, isn't it: Beauty is in the eye
(or ear)of the beholder..
                               Best, Carey.

" Never mind"- Emily Litella -SNL (I'm either the only one who caught it-or-the only one lowbrow enough to pluck it out of an otherwise noble and studious discussion.MT

[QUOTE=Miketobey] " Never mind"[/QUOTE]
Indeed. Sigh...

In the past I have played a Schneider which although looking a bit out of the norm for a classical was really nice sounding guitar. I have played 3 Humphrey's, I pre- millenium design and 2 newer...they have the projection that I admire and a very nice tone but still not a spanish sound that I am striving for.

The first guitar I learned on was an older Rameriz that was actually made by Simplicio. I have played Santos, Barbero, Garcia, Hauser I & II and other great guitars.

I have played 4 Torres over the years, in varying states of original/repair and still remember those as having the sound that was the most memorable.

If you want a very interesting recording which has very good classical guitarists playing period music on original instruments of the period the music was written at that time is available from James Westbrook at http://www.theguitarmuseum.com/.

If you were at the last GAL conference he was there with an entire collection of historic guitars. On his website he has details about the guitars in his collection as well as a book and recording of those same instruments. In it you will hear not just the sound of a Torres but also the difference in sound of a Panormo, a Fabricatore, a Bouchet and others...very interesting.

Shawn,

Thanks for the interesting viewpoint. I'm convinced--I'm really missing something by not having heard a Torres in person.