Official Luthiers Forum!

That wasn't my experience.. He answered every question we asked.

I took it last November. The class was $5k for 8 days. We were in class for 70-80 hours over that period. I think charging a big fee is a filter.. You are there to learn and you are going to pay attention!

The origanal post was asking for feedback from people who had attended a Somogyi workshop.

If you haven't...

I've read Gore's books backwards and forwards. I've read Somogyi's books backwards and forwards. And I took Somogyi's class last November.

Geez, for the first time in recorded history, I'm as qualified as anyone on the OLF to answer a question.

To start, Ervin is charming, engaging, fun and a tremendous teacher. Maybe we just had a good group (7 of us), but the comments and questions were flying so fast that it could be hard to keep up.

I could go on and on, but I think there's only one question that needs to be answered. Will you be able to build appreciably better guitars as a result of taking Ervin's course? For most everyone in my class, the answer has been "h*ll yeah!".

I haven't quite finished my first post-Somogyi guitar, but the body is bound, scraped and sanded, and when you tap the top, it "bongs" and sustains like nothing I've ever built before. I can't wait to get some strings on it.

Ervin's a lot of fun, but he's obviously serious about what he does. 2 examples.

One of our "homework" assignments was to build a model using foamcore that reflected the relative stiffness of various types of bracing. If you've read his books, you've seen one of them, with incredible peaks and valleys rising out of a guitar-shaped base. Thankfully, one of the guys whipped up a spreadsheet on his laptop, so I didn't have to do any math. But there was assorted friendly b*tching that this grade 3 level arts and crafts project was keeping us from our well-deserved beer at the end of a long day.

After a few of those well-earned beers, one of the guys who was staying at Ervin's decided that if we had to do grade 3 stuff, well, he was gonna go whole hog. I showed up the next morning, and just about wet myself laughing when I saw his model, covered with glued-on macaroni, stickers and stars, like any classic grade school craft project. The guy who got the biggest kick out of it though, was Ervin, who immediately put it up on a place of honour on the wall.

Stuffy? Hardly.

But he is serious. Another example.

Our final homework assignment was to design a guitar to fulfill a specific need. Mine was to design a parlor guitar that delivered great bass. Bracing, scale length, everything.

Now you have to understand that my default mode is smart*ss.

So the next morning, I'm showing and defending my plan to the class. I explain that I've used traditional parlor bracing, along with an undersaddle pickup that goes to a preamp with the bass and mids turned up to 10. Thank you. The end. I'm expecting laughs, but what I got was a very ticked-off Ervin who thought I had blown off the assignment. Before he got too far into his reaming, I interrupted, flipped my foamcore around and explained that I did actually have a plan and that the amp was a joke. I explained my thinking, we argued about it, and everything was fine. But boy, was I glad I had actually done the assignment.

Long story short, I had a great time and can't wait to string up my next guitar. And perhaps more than that, I'm now much more inclined to ask myself, "what happens if I do this?" Long term, that may well be the most valuable thing I got from the course.

If you've got more questions, feel free to call.

Steve
416-690-0207

P.S. I see Michael Colbert posted while I was writing this. Don't believe a word he says. He can't be trusted

Oy!!

Oy vay iz mir

thanks, steve for your input. I may give you a buzz if I don't get charged for calling canada haha

I took the same class as Kent, David, and several other OLFers, and I agree with most of Kent's assessments. The class gave a few good nuggets but it was quite frustrating at times. A lot of Ervin's presentations were information I had read before. The most useful stuff was the hands on, but even that had limitations. The real kernal of the class was watching him voice a top but the top was from a former student who had built it incorrectly so he had to stop before completing it. Also, too many students were in the class and we were quite crowded and getting in each others way.

I have built 3 guitars with Somogyi's methods and they turned out with the destinctive "Somogyi sound". My clients really, REALLY like them but I am not so sure. Strong monopole sound, but it only sounds good to someone standing close and in front of the guitar. They sound mushy to the player and the sound does not project far. A class confirmation of this was a blind listening test of a dozen guitars including one new Somogyi. Not a single person in the class thought the Somogyi sounded good, but I believe that was due to the semi-large hall and the distance we sat from the stage.

I have just purchased the Gore/Gilet books and the science/math explains a lot of what is going on behind Somogyi's methods. They really have consolidated a lot of the current science of guitar building into a cohesive approach and give solid techniques to measuring and controlling a guitar's sound. But then again, maybe I am just infatuated with the new kids on the block. Time will tell.

Kent, Barry, that was not my experience at all. I do concede that Ervin was guarded about his own methodology -- for example, I would have liked to listen to a completely voiced top, and feel its stiffness in order to better gauge the limits of the system, something the course was lacking to its detriment. I am decidedly not trying to build one of Ervin's guitars. What his methodology about how bracing plays a part in the shaping of the sound I think does apply, even to traditional bracing. For example, Ervin emphasizes coupling. This is decidedly not a traditional approach, which is highly decoupled. In my building, I was able to play with those concepts to get a balance between coupling and an emphasis on the fundamental by varying the height of the finger braces and lower tone bars at the intersection with the X brace. Allowing those to be equal pushed the presentation toward Ervin, but allowing the X brace to take more of the load and that end of those secondary braces to do less, I pushed the sound away from Ervin's.

I don't think that Ervin was proposing that participants adopt his approach whole hog, although many folks went in that direction with very thin plates and so forth. I did not. For me, I found it more productive to apply what I learned from where I was an proceed in an orderly manner than to abandon ship and go in a completely different direction. I think the class is better served by having participants who have more than a few instruments under their belts -- this is for both the advantage of the class, and the participant. I don't think a builder with only a few instruments can get as much out of the course because so much of what they already do is concentrated on the basics of getting an instrument built -- they don't have enough instruments under their belt to understand what they're doing themselves to incorporate someone else's methodology. Better to get a handle on what they're doing first.

David, do your current methods allow you to use tap tuning while carving the braces as Somogyi uses? (I don't see how this would be possible if you are not using a really thin top and tiny braces. And the tap tuning was the real key to his approach). But nothing wrong with that, and I applaud your ability to use what you need and combine it with your approach. As for me, it wasn't a lack of experience, as I have been building since '75, but more of a result of my nature to go "all in". I wanted to do the full Somogyi to see if I could replicate his results, and I believe that I came close enough. But in retrospect, it was not fully satisfactory to me. I did achieve some benefits from the class though and will still be using a voicing form and perhaps some tap tuning with the Gore/Gilet methods. So I guess I am synthesizing things to a small degree. But I think that Somogyi's class is not for everyone, and I also believe that he could change some things about the course to make it shorter, cheaper, and better, without removing the crown jewels.

So the net net of this is that micah will get a benefit out of the class, but how much benefit is open for discussion.
Personally, I would take a less expensive, hands on building class first, then move on to a more intense class like Somogyi's course.
Cumpiano's class is supposed to be excellent. Al Carruth teaches classes as well,http://www.alcarruthluthier.com/Classes.htm

Might be worth a shot. You could probably even talk to him about covering the specific areas you want help in the most. A heck of a lot cheaper too! I may have to go visit him!

My point, Micah, is that while you might learn a lot from Ervin, if you are looking to hone your chops at building in general, you might be better served with a different class first, then take Ervin's class later. Just some food for thought.

_________________
http://www.CostaGuitars.com
PMoMC

For those who have the books and have attended the class, how well do you think the books cover the material he presents in class?

_________________
Jim Watts
http://jameswattsguitars.com

Glad to hear it. Just curious, did he show you his guitars and talk specifically about his own voicing?

Aside from not talking about his guitars, the main question he refused to answer was about structural integrity. As most people know, he's a proponent of building light. "On the verge of collapse" is the phrase he uses or something similar. I didn't want to jump head first into his methods only to have all my guitars come back to haunt me 5 years down the road. The only direct answer I got (and I asked several times in several ways) was something to the effect of "as long as the glue holds, even an un-braced top will not fail".

Now Ervin is clearly a very smart guy and I'm sure he had a good reason for giving a BS answer like that. But I still don't know what that reason is.

And to be clear, I'm not bashing the class. In spite of the frustration, I like Ervin and the class was worth the money. And if he is indeed more forthcoming now, all the better. But I think participants and Ervin will benefit if they have a better understanding of what they are getting into.

_________________
http://www.chassonguitars.com

Barry, my tops are somewhere around the target deflections we dealt with in the class. I have always, even before Ervin, voiced my tops on the rims. I'm not sure why you could not do that on the rims, just as Ervin does even if you are doing traditional bracing.

I understand that his class is only for voicing and its something I would like to do. the main reason I want to take the next class if I do it is, bc it seems every year the class goes up a $1000 and the dude is 70. Lord knows how much longer he will be doing this. thats my thinking.
yes, I would like my construciton and craftmenship to go up and other building things, but I'll learn that as I learn to build a better sounding guitar all at once.

I'd just say you have folks commenting in the thread who felt they were ready to take the class 5+ years ago, and others who started building altogether fewer years ago than you can count on four fingers. What do you hear the pro's telling you?

Put it this way. If I lived in the States I'd buy the Gore/Gillet book and head over to Al Carruth's place.
He has the experience (a LOT). Takes a scientific approach. He certainly has the chops. It's more than reasonably priced.
What's not to like? Just my thoughts.

that guy teaches two days a week for 4 hours and lives a couple states over from me. for learning how to build better and faster, i've been thinking of doing the online obrian classes. I've heard good things about those classes.

I bet that would be great.

You know, with each guitar I reflect on the things I struggled with, improved on, and what I'd really like to nail on the next one. SMART goals. Are there specific things you'd like to nail that aren't as of now living up to your standards?

I would like to nail down neck carving hahaha. not my strongest point in guitar building.
The reason I want to take the class is to have a better understanding of voicing. learning what to do to get
the sound I want. right now I know I can build a good sounding guitar, but I want to make a great sounding guitar and know
how I did it. or at least have a good idea of how I did it. their is another thread going about tone, a lot of guys are saying they
didn't and idea of what to do after the 50th guitar. If their is a way I can speed that up and learn faster, then I would like to do it.

I was pretty green when I went with only six guitars under my belt, and anyone at that class could tell you my #6 was not a good guitar by any real measure. I surely could have used a little more experience before going and probably would have gotten more out of it after a few more builds. A big reason I went though was to figure out why my #6 did not work so I don't know if I would have gone later on, and though I struggled a little with some subjects, I did get an awful lot out of it and felt like I left with a great foundation on which to build.

If I had any criticism of the class... as a tangent, I think Kent makes a very good point that Ervin seemed reticent to talk about structural integrity and real world durability when building light, which would have been very helpful to me in particular. Since the class I've pushed the limits of light building on a handful of personal guitars to try to find the breaking point of tone vs integrity. Fortunately I found that tone falls apart before the structure does, and even the most delicate of those guitars has somehow held up over 5 or so years. That said, there's no way I'd trust one of my very light builds to survive long term in the hands of a touring pro and I'd be awfully reluctant to build that kind of guitar for a customer not knowing if it would last out in the wild.

As far as I know there are just two ways to do that. The touchy feely intuitive way, otherwise known as years and years of experience. The other method is to apply some science. I suppose the two together isn't a bad approach either. I think that is Al's approach, although he does seem very clued up on the acoustics.

After spending a couple of weeks with my nose buried in the Gore/Gilet books, I really feel like they have one tool that every builder should be using no matter what type of guitar you build. That is Resonance Frequency measurement/graphing. Cheap and easy to do and it shows the actual frequencies of the main vibrating modes and their relationships to each other. I am here to tell you that this is a real game changer.

So, what is it you're saying Michael?

I was at the Somogyi voicing lecture at Healdsburg 2009, the one that was video'd. The cameraman was about 2 metres from my right shoulder, so if you watch the video, you'll see pretty much what I saw. I don't know if it's in the video (I didn't buy it), but the feeling at the end seemed, let's say, uncomfortable.

Here's Ervin playing one of mine:

And here's someone else, better known for his playing:

I've spent hours talking to Ervin about lots of different things. He's a nice bloke. But also guarded in some of his answers, just as many have said. My question was about seeking to understand. Now I understand.

_________________
Trevor Gore, Luthier. Australian hand made acoustic guitars, classical guitars; custom guitar design and build; guitar design instruction.

http://www.goreguitars.com.au

Our combined experience is pushing 60 years. How long do we have to be in this game to have been around for a while?

_________________
Trevor Gore, Luthier. Australian hand made acoustic guitars, classical guitars; custom guitar design and build; guitar design instruction.

http://www.goreguitars.com.au

Cool.. Thanks, Trevor

What is it about Ervin that somehow there is an expectation that he should drop his shorts for everyone? There's not a professional builder I know that isn't somewhat guarded about how they do things and some things that you simply do not ask them to reveal. Why should we expect Ervin to be any different? I know in one instance in which a builder wasn't so much as asked to give up something they spent a lot of time developing -- it was arrogantly expected that they would give it away.

I agree with Barry and Kent that Ervin could have answered the question of failure better, but that particular issue does go deeper and more directly into his personal approach to building at the very edge and one that could be viewed as being outside the parameters of the course. His course has never been billed as the "How to build the Somogyi Guitar." If that's how you view his course description then you're allowing yourself to read more into the course than he promised. The course is designed to give you the tools to explore your building, and that it provides. What it lacked when I took it was a baseline finished voiced top for the students to consider. He didn't have to build a current top of his, but he could have built a baseline median voiced top, just as he gave the class a baseline deflected top from which to begin their new journey.