Official Luthiers Forum!

Everything old was new at one point and everything new now will be old someday. Everyone starts where someone once was and moves forward from there down his own path. This history of progress and spirit of innovation, I believe, is the tradition of luthiers. The historical luthiers we all admire and begin by emulating the ideas of were not bound by the ideas of their time. They were visionaries who broke the mold instead of doing their best to conform to it. Tradition to me is not a simple routine of physical process; it's a spirit and state of mind.

That being said, I believe that before one can move forward, he needs to study and understand the past. Without understanding why the current designs are the way they are, how can you possibly make any intelligent effort to innovate anything? Because of this, I believe that a person should at least begin by adhering to some of the more common existing designs until he has a sufficient understanding of how various structural elements will affect the resulting instrument.

I think when a lot of people think about innovation, they think about some light bulb going off or a random thought coming into their head. While there is a little bit of that, there's a clear difference between random thoughts that have a logical basis and whimsical fantasies that lead nowhere. Innovations aren't dreams-they're solutions.

Just my 2 cents on the matter.

Some times when chasing Tone Faerie they lead me to a lesser taken path
http://www.usd.edu/smm/PluckedStrings/Guitars/Gibson/5992/L1Guitar.html

and then it mixes with a shape I like to use

_________________
"It's a Tone Faerie thing"
"Da goal is to sharpen ur wit as well as ye Sgian Dubh"
"Sippin Loch Dhu @Black lake" ,Kirby O...

Sorry, but as someone who has just finished his first build, I have to disagree. With any 'new' or first try at something I think the two most important aspects are enjoyment and learning new skills - The enjoyment of using different woods from the norm, or designing your own shape or even new bracing is part of the learning process - And in terms of skills learnt from a woodworking perspective, its arguable, but whether working on a traditional shape or a innovative one, standard X bracing or other, the skills developed will be of equal value technically?

I think the most important thing to start with is understanding the tonewood, understanding why things have evolved as standard and what they contribute to the tone.... and then enjoying what you decide to do, whether following in that tradition or departing from it. Most first builders do probably go on and make many more (?) all teh time improving both their technical skills and developing a greater understanding of what influence their changes are making or contributing to the outcome.

I guess I what I am saying is that is there really an argument for building an X braced OM ahead of a Macphearson copy when the skills learned will be the same, with the outcome dependent on tonewood and technical skill?

I like many have been a player for many years, maybe not technically gifted, or that competent, but it never stopped me from appreciating average, good or amazing tone, or appreciating the technical craftsmanship that went into their creation.

Finally what do we consider to be tradition anyway - do we all make lutes or parlour guitars first before moving onto flat tops a la Martin?

Sorry, dont mean to sound like a pain in the ass, but I do think that first time builders should build what they want to build and enjoy it - especially as there is equal enjoyment to be had on the journey as at the destination.

I hear the sound of it in my head but one grumpy Tone Faerie say's there is a reason the design was left behind and I'm a hack.

Of course now I feel the need to build that sound and have faith that I can.

Of course I may be deluded(you try having them arguing in your head!).

_________________
"It's a Tone Faerie thing"
"Da goal is to sharpen ur wit as well as ye Sgian Dubh"
"Sippin Loch Dhu @Black lake" ,Kirby O...

I know exactly what you mean!

I was speaking last night to my tutor about this very thing and we kind of agreed with respect to 'style' traditional or innovative etc, that from a musicians/players perspective its tone that comes first. How this is achieved, whether from traditional styles and builds or innovation, is kinda irrelevent - if you close your eyes and play and it sound great does anything else matter? When you open them its then reality a matter of personal taste. Afterall have we not all sadly discovered that for every amazingly toned mature traditional guitar from the finest tonewoods from the 'great' manufacturers that we play, there are many more equally specced and mature that sound poor in comparison? Same goes for innovative designs that have broken this tradition, some sound amazing, some you question the point - yet what pleases and works for one players style, may be totally hideous for another... Its this mystique and journey into the unknown when you start out building a traditional OR alternative design that is the source of much of the enjoyment ... as well as the pain. But dont we learn perhaps just as much from those designs that ultimately fail than those that dont?

The difference is that if your innovative design fails in the tone department, will you be able to figure out why? This will be difficult if you used numerous departures from the norm. If you only changed one element from a standard Martin/Gibson/whatever style, then you can probably narrow down on the deficiency. If you built a very close copy of a standard, then you really have a better chance of judging your work and determining where to make improvements.

A guitar that is far from the norm will put you in no-man's land. Whether it works or not, it will be difficult to decide the contribution of each element to the overall sound.

You are certainly free to be as experimental as you want. But if you jump into the deep end without learning to swim, there may be some floundering around.

Frank buddy I certainly admire your enthusiasm and drive here but I have to agree with Barry.

if you have no foundation in traditional guitar design it is going to bite you at some point. There is very little in the world of guitar design and construction that has not already been done by someone and the "opportunity" that we all have is to be able to learn from the efforts of others. This is very much what this forum is all about - learning and sharing.

Regardless of if your desire is to be an innovator or to work with more traditional designs how can knowledge gained ever be a bad thing?

I understand that you get the greatest joy from doing and I am always an advocate that people should do as they wish. But..... if you are looking to produce a superb sounding and playing instrument turning a blind eye to the current state-of-the-art and tradition will be a handicap of sorts IMHO.

Lots of good responses, and I don't know how much I can add, but when did that ever stop me from posting?

First, there's 'traditional' and 'traditional', as has been pointed out. Some folks seem to feel that altering the decal on the headstock is enough to ruin an otherwise perfectly acceptible set of material. Try going to a Bluegrass jam with anything other than a Martin. There are classical makers who get uneasy if you change the number of fan braces, although that's less common than it once was. Is it really a 'Torres' pattern if it has nine fans? Other people here might think of anything less innovative than Fred Carlson's latest as only mildly interesting. A lot depends on your attitude.

I figure that the vast majority of the things people play every day are pretty much 'standard' designs, making the usual sort of sound. I'd like to get a handle on that sound, so I stick fairly close to the 'traditional' designs, simply because I know they can be made to work well. As I get more comfortable with my level of understanding I make more changes, and try more 'radical' stuff.

The problem is that the traditional designs really are pretty good! This is not to say that they're 'efficient' or 'perfect' in any sense. Rather, given the constraints, they are reasonably well optimised: they're as good as you could expect them to be under the circumstances. Most of the 'radical'
stuff I've seen, or built, has been, at best, about as good as the usual traditional instrument, with some a bit better in some respects once in a while. But it's pretty humbling when you realize how difficult it is to make a real improvement.

One of the biggest difficulties is being realistic. As Feynman said: "The easiest person for you to fool is yourself". This is why it's so important to subject your experiments to the test of the market, or, at least, to get as many people as possible to play and listen to them in an unbiased setting. What sounds really wonderful to you might not be what anybody else wants.

There's a flip side, though: almost anything that looks reasonably like a guitar will sound pretty much as it should. The actual mechanism of the string driving the top and so on is pretty robust; it does what it does and sounds like what it sounds like. After all, how different physically are a classical guitar and a Les Paul? They still sound like 'guitars' of a sort. If you start with decent wood, build reasonably carefully, and don't go too far afield with the design, you're likely to end up with something that sounds OK. At the risk of being flamed, I'll say that this is more true of steel string flat tops than it is of classicals, IMO. If your target is somewhere on the high side of 'average' performance, there are a wide range of designs that will hit it.

As you go up in standards the constraints get tighter. Again, of course, the 'standards' for sound are often traditionally defined. But let's face it, if your goal is to play an established repertiore, whether that's Bluegrass, Jazz, or Classical, you can't do it if the tone departs too much from what's expected. Bach on a reso might be interesting, but you won't get the local classical guitar society to book you.

So for me, innovation as a goal in itself is not what I'm interested in. There's nothing wrong with it, and if that's what you want top do, have at it. I'd like to be innovative in ways that improve the structure or function of the guitar for the majority of players. As I say, given the skill and intelligence of the people who have gone before me, that turns out to be quite a challenge. I feel as though I'm getting along with it, though. I look at it as a form of job security.

Once again again Alan...WELL SAID!

I guess as much of an inovator as I or anyone thinks or wants to be, in some way they will also be a traditionalist. As long as we continue to use traditional scales, traditional shapes and sizes etc...we are building instruments based on some traditions of the past.

As I move forward, I may try untraditional materials and maybe even designs, but understanding where it all came from will never leave my head. I will try to find ballance.

Joe

_________________
Joe

Hi

Dont get me wrong, I FULLY appreciate what you and others are saying about a good grounding (and for the record to date my deviations from the 'norm' have been simply to add 12 mm to the waist, 20mm to the lower bout and approx 10 mm to teh body depth of a standard OM - oh and a classical style slipper heel neck block ) Unless you call a Maccassar ebony set for back and sides non traditional - So perhaps I am arguing the case for others who knows

I guess what has maybe not come across is that for many first time builders, whilst not having any experience of buiding, do have extensive knowledge of the guitar through years of playing or research on tonewoods, bracing, glue, you name it. And I fully appreciate the argument that getting and even greater understanding of what makes a 1930s OM great by building something similar is natuarlly of great value.

Maybe where my point went astray was that I was arguing more for the the freedom to try whatever you want as what is truely innovative anyway? And what appears novel today (say lattice bracing and floating fingerboards or asimetric bodies) might well be the 'traditional' approach in 50 years time. So when making a first guitar, surely teh first question should be "What am I wanting the instrument to sound like? If a 1930s OM, sure best bet is to try and emulate that classic design, but if you are after a Macphearson why not try that design which is far from traditional in some respects? OK so copying in this way is not innovation. And I think many mistake 'innovation' with 'different' - true innovation is not failure as the word infers some advantage in the outcome - as CNC machines were innovative to increase production and consistency -at a cost to that personal touch for sure, but still innovative from a commercial sense.

I dont have the resources or the time to increase the risk of failure by throwing out the rule book, yet I admire both teh traditional and some of the more 'modern or innovative approaches we have seen in the last 10 years, so Would it not be perfectly acceptable to maybe make a small tweak to a standard model that has proven successful? Are we saying YES if its a small tweak to an OM, but NO to a small tweek to a latice braced 'modern' approach? I know you are not guys and your experience in these things is greatly valued and advice greatly received, but I think we also need to be cautious not to stifle creativity. Sometimes the very fact that someone is unschooled in the tradition can allow for a different uncluttered perspective if one understands the engineering and science that can lead to a new solution - not necessarily better in everones eyes and ears, but an alternative to the traditional problems?

Its good fun though.... and anyway, I was still extremely nervous when stringing up a pretty much traditional first effort, as many have discovered, even with the best woods and finest skills nothing is ever guarranteed with these darn boxes!


Just read Alan's post and its great!

I am basing my comments on having seen many newbies over my years, who start with some wild experiment that has so much going on that it is hard to figure out what went wrong. At the end of the experiment, they often get very frustrated as they have learned little other than guitar building is hard and you will end up with a dud.

I have seen other folks start with a strict Martin copy and they usually end up with an unadorned, but playable instrument with a respectable tone. These folks often go on to a successful building career/hobby.

Obviously, this is a gross generalization and there are always exceptions to this rule, but this is what I have seen during my 32 years of building.

Hi

My response as a Newbie would be ... actually I agree what you are saying as making 'radical' change for changes sake is kinda illogical and certainly the risk of a dud is a hundred fold greater... but 'innovation' is not that approach - Innovation as I see it is having a very logical basis, based on understanding and research for making in most cases small but significant changes to established practises for which there is a specific goal - not a crazy or whacky jump into the unknown.

Now I get the 'impression' and please correct me if I am wrong here, that there is a reluctance from experienced builders to acknowledge that sometimes the 'student' can try something that might actually work - that the only possible way to make such an improvement is by 200+ guitars and 25 years experience? I dont mean to sound disrespectful, I hope my posts on this have not come across that way, but as we know true visionaries and innovators are rare, Torres, Martin who changed construction that has stood the test of time BECAUSE they are the best to date and darn good too come to mind. But who knows there may well be some genius out there who has never even played or built, but who with a different LOGICAL approach say from acoustic engeering, or physics background, or just darn brilliant mind who might be the next creator of tradition, as unlikely as it may seem.... but I am getting away from the point. If doing this as a hobby, for enjoyment, why not agee that there are those whose joy in creativity superseeds that of the frsutration we think they should feel everytime it goes astray - those determined types whose 'thing' is simply the thrill of trying no matter how many prototype duds they produce before they hit what they are looking for, afterall is that not typical of inventors in so many areas?

Despite what I am saying I am far more for a traditional approach simply because of the astetics - my personal taste for the shapes and styles that have stood the test of time and more importantly produce that tone... that said as a player, with my eyes closed if taht tone came from something hideous to look at with a unique and unconventional approach, I would be willing to be won over - well maybe

Frank, You seem to be arguing an idealistic approach that you yourself have not taken. I don't see much point in continuing this. I respect your comments, but we will have to agree to disagree.

Here's and example for you. The first video is of a Chet Atkins tune play on a traditional (for Chet Atkins) instrument. The second is the same arrangement on a somewhat less tradition instrument. Enjoy

Fair enough, I think you are right about the idealistic thing, and its true I have nothing to compare it to. I did not mean to sound like a prize ass (arse as we say over here), as this seemed more of a philosphical thing to me as opposed to a practical one. I guess you guys have the first hand experience of the practical situation with your students doing the 'whacky' thing and the difficulties it creates so I do respect your opinions and experiece in this matter, but it does make for an interesting debate.

Apologies if I caused any offence, that was certainly not the intension, but often things can get a bit confused in forumspeak!

_________________
"It's a Tone Faerie thing"
"Da goal is to sharpen ur wit as well as ye Sgian Dubh"
"Sippin Loch Dhu @Black lake" ,Kirby O...

so Tell the Guys on "who's got talent" that ,when they play the Violins. Nuttin But Strings is there name.

These guys are awesome.,In there own way. Very traditional Innovative combination. But that is a different comparision to what you are asking. But not in this one sentence context.

Just food for thought


Now I know Im crazy

_________________
I'm outside looking in, just farther from the window than most.

Frank Cousins wrote:
"Now I get the 'impression' and please correct me if I am wrong here, that there is a reluctance from experienced builders to acknowledge that sometimes the 'student' can try something that might actually work - that the only possible way to make such an improvement is by 200+ guitars and 25 years experience? I dont mean to sound disrespectful, I hope my posts on this have not come across that way, but as we know true visionaries and innovators are rare, Torres, Martin who changed construction that has stood the test of time BECAUSE they are the best to date and darn good too come to mind."

First: I've learned a lot from my students; sometimes more than they've learned from me, I think. I'll accept thoughtful input from anybody.

Second: Neither Torres nor C.F. Martin I was as much of an innovator as you seem to think, if my memory serves on this. The designs they came up with had ample precedent; they more or less put on the finishing touches. Not that that's not important, mind you! But Stauffer and other Austrian luthiers had used versions of X bracing before Martin, iirc, and I know that fan bracing, the larger size of box, and so on, went back at least 75 years before Torres used the ideas. In both cases they seem to have been able to integrate features and realize thier possibilities more fully which is no mean feat, but not a revolution. Also, of course, neither was an 'overnight wonder': although we don't know as much about Torres' training he clearly was not a rank beginner when he made his advances, and we do know that Martin had served a full apprenticeship, which, at that time in Austria or Germany, was rigorous and tough.

Third: I have nothing at all against innovation, and have tried to facilitate it when I could. Look up the street musician Eric Royer for an example. I just feel that innovation for it's own sake is pointless, for the most part, and innovation without understanding is more likely to lead to failure than success. Maybe you're one of those people who can grasp all the complexities of something like the guitar at first glance, but most of us do need some time to figure things out. Again, if you want to try something different, it's your nickel, but if you ask my opinion on a list such as this, and I am not encouraging, it's not because I don't like innovation; it's because I think it's unlikely to work. If you can prove me wrong, more power to ya!

Hi

I think what has happened here is several questions have gotten mixed up:

1. Are you mainly into traditional approaches or innovative ones?

2. Should anyone attempt somthing new/different when starting out or get a good grounding in the basics first?

3. What is traditional anyway and where does something new stop being new and become traditional.

4. Does Innovation require extensive experience of the standard concepts first

I also seem to have gotten off on the wrong foot with a few of you because of this confusion so whilst somethings are best left alone, I thought I'd clalrify my take on the above so hopefully cause no more offence....

1. Mainly traditional purely for the astetic reasons and style preferences, but the fact reamins that the guitar is really all about tone - we all have that idea of what a style of instrument should sound like eg the a prewar D28, but If someone came up with a innovation that looked wierd but had that tone, as a player I would be interested I guess - or maybe depending on how weird!

2. The tricky one. I think it depends on two things: What your level of understanding of the instrument already is and and what your aim is.

The odds against coming up with something novel that works are hidiously high, even when highly experienced, but I was only asking 'should that prevent someone from trying if thats what they enjoy? Now I would not take this approach, simply because its an expensive process for me and I dont want to risk a real dud, irrespective of how much or little I understand about the many variables and subtulties of the process, but thats my choice. I was really arguing about the fredom to make that choice ...

Also if its going to be a one off and the person gets teh pleasure from the making, why not let them have their choice. Sure advice that this increases the risk of a dud, but sometimes its alos good to learn these lessons neself?

3. Thats a tricky one as well - what are we talking about anyway? Someoe could make a traditonal shape, traditional bracing, but use innovative materials, or vice versa, use all the trad materials but an innovative shape etc ... I guess from what one or two of the experienced posters have mentioned here is that it would best (and I agree whole heartedly) to make small changes that allow you to assess the difference that change has made more accurately, and that is perhaps alsobest left until you have an understanding of what makes the traditional soundin the first place... I would however say that some of that knowledge can be gained from being a player, from reading, from the experience of other builders, and I dont think its necessary for someone to have to have built lots before attempting small changes - I think this is because for many the process is a very personal thing, especially the first and there is this innate desire in many of us to leave our mark on something - be it stylistically or innovatively. (Thanksfully for me it was more about looks so no major departures increasing dud risk )

4. I think true innovation does. Because most innovation as you point out is small but significant steps.... The X bracing may have existed, fan braces may have been around, but someone kinda brought these ideas all together and made it work? And yes this is built on years of understanding of the concepts.

I guess the controversy is about invention - and whilst highly unlikely that someone with no build experience could improve on standard concepts, there is none the less the principle that it could happen, as has been seen in other areas where someone comming in from a completely different field and thus perhaps not burdened (not meant as a negative) with the history of tradition, can be the true inventor/innovator - Material scientists, acoustic engineers etc?

Finally, I am sorry if anyone was offended by ay comment, it was not meant in anyway direspectfully, but this internet thang can easily enflame so apologies. I do believe its an interesting debate though with respect to the whole idea of innovation. For me its really very simple: Its about tone. Whether trad or new if its got it I'lll be interested - but if it looks ugly.... (IMHO) then its more difficult to make that decision!

Remember, if someone says "I think you're wrong", they are disagreeing with what you say. That is open debate and the reason we are here. If someone says "I think you are an idiot", they are making a personal attack and that is wrong. I've re-read all the posts I don't see any personal attacks here. So, there is no need to apologize.

I tend to think of this question in terms of Thomas Kuhn's distinction between normal and revolutionary science. And I think all the "innovation" in acoustic guitars that has been mentioned is just normal science, despite manufacturer's advertising claims about new paradigms. As Al says, all these guitars are still very guitarlike. The closest thing to a revolution IMO was Les Paul's "log," which made the acoustic virtues of the guitar unnecessary.

_________________
Howard Klepper
http://www.klepperguitars.com

When all else fails, clean the shop.

I guess the next logical question then is... What is the purpose of doing things 'innovatively'? My gut feeling on this would be for that elusive thing of being able to create that ultimate tone consistently. Whilst there might be a logical commercial reason for trying to achieve this, I think one of the beauties of acoustic instruments is their uniqueness, the subtle differences between instruments constructed in the same way using the same wood, yet the differences in that wood giving unique character. I can also see the purpose of innovative approaches if designing for a specific purpose, one obvious being the thinline electros etc.... compromising acoustic tone but minimalising feedback and as such they have their place.

Its also a fine line I guess, afterall are those guitars that are successful yet a little removed from the traditional construction, any better tonally, or simply different and unique in character - which will suit some styles of player and playing, but not others?

Interesting stuff.

I'd have to say I'm neither, I'm a copy cat

_________________
My Facebook Guitar Page

"There's really no wrong way, as long as the results are what's desired." Charles Fox

"We have to constantly remind ourselves what we're doing....No Luthier is putting a man on the moon!" Harry Fleishman

"Generosity is always different in the eye of the person who didn't receive anything, but who wanted some." Waddy Thomson

Hi Frank,
I have enjoyed reading your thoughts and the thoughts of others on this thread.

However, I don't think there is a "God" of Luthiery, who will cast you into eternal damnation if you exercise unholy thoughts about guitar building.

We are free to build what we like, when we like, how we like. If it works, that's great. I love new ideas, providing they add an inspiring dimension to guitar building, such as improved tone/projection without affecting structural and playable integrity.

The problem arises when some people will post their erroneous findings on the web and hail them as successes. A bit like one of those Amazon product reviews, posted literally hours after recieving the product. Things need to be time tested, especially guitar technology before it can be proven to be a success and therefore endorsed.

For example, certain luthiers have taken the time to provide lab results of the benefits of adding soundports, and also the optimum glues to be used in construction. In my mind, those findings are accurate and creates viable evolved alternatives.

As I said before, I am open to new ideas, but O boy, I do research them before even picking up the tools.