|
|
#16
08-09-2010, 09:50 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Thanks for the nice words everyone. I'm glad you all like the shape. It's easy to be in my shop all alone and convince myself something is cool looking, it's another thing all together for a objective eye to think the same.
Quote:
|
|
#18
08-09-2010, 11:37 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
LC
__________________
Still crazy after all these years.
|
|
#19
08-09-2010, 11:44 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Main goals I've got in mind for the model:
Responsiveness; I want it to respond, with authority, to a light touch. Playability; Neck shape that fits in the hand well (obviously different for different players) and action that is low enough to feel good, but not so low that it sacrifices tone/dynamic range (also player specific). Balance; I want even response from all aspects (low/mid/high) of the sound with good, but not over the top, overtone content. Enveloping; I want the player to be immersed/engulfed with the tone Projection; While not as important as up close tone I still want the guitar to project it's tone well So you have a guitar that is ultra responsive, engulfed you in a rich balanced tone, projects well, and plays very smoothly/easy. Sounds kind of generic I suppose, but these things were foremost in my mind while creating this. My standard models all do this too to a point, however with this model I feel I've taken it to a different level. This model takes me considerably longer to make as well. It's not so much that it's better than my other guitars, but that it's built specifically for a different purpose. While the proto's I've done some good strumming on and they sound great that way too, this isn't a bluegrass guitar. Also there are certain traits I feel I can manipulate via woods, and style to give more, or less, of certain features such as overtone content, sustain, projection ect. That, of course, is handled on a case by case basis as lots of sustain, for example, may be great for one style, it may not be for another.
|
|
#20
08-09-2010, 02:54 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Thanks John. I agree with you assesment of a great fingerstyle guitar, for ones personal use sitting in your living room.
I am wondering if you have given any thought to the perfect amplified finerstyle guitar? LC
__________________
Still crazy after all these years.
|
|
#21
08-09-2010, 03:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Well it would have many of the same characteristics however one would want to focus on increasing the long dipole action (longer distance projection) at, perhaps, a bit of the expense of the cross dipole (up close projection). Depending on how the guitar was to be amplified, as well as the setting, one might want to cut back on the uber light touch responsiveness (while still retaining that direction) in order to reduce feedback prone-ness. Of course this can all be completely ignored if the guitar were used in certain situations such as solo fingerstyle in a smaller setting as one could just mic the guitar and not have to worry about a other instruments around. It's a balancing act and the guitar would have to fit the player and his/her use for it.
|
|
#22
08-09-2010, 04:00 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
 With your standards being so high, for those that don't measure up, I can't help but wonder if you could not put any identifying marks on them at all, and donate them to someplace where they would be treasured. I mean, even if a prototype was only half as good as the guitars that bear your name, they would still be light years ahead of some I've seen being used in schools, shelters, halfway houses, camps, etc., not to mention some being played in less developed countries. It's your business, of course, and I understand why you wouldn't want experiments that didn't pan out to bear your name. Still, it's worth a moment's thought perhaps. I doubt it would take me very long to find a good, appreciative home for a guitar that's playable, even if it's not a bona fide Mays. Even if you didn't want to do this, do you think that any other builders might like to? Or is the way of the blade the only way to go? (I'm not volunteering as much as I am wondering...) cotten
|
|
#23
08-09-2010, 04:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
A fire is more fun, at least for me 
__________________
woody b politically incorrect since 1964
|
|
#24
08-09-2010, 04:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I let my wife bash one like a rock star. They don't quite explode like the do in WWF! It was actually kind of anti-climatic as it took her a dozen or so swings to really demolish the entire thing.
As to Cotten's question. That is a good idea, and I have done something similar. However it did not work out well. Problem was the guy who got the guitar, directly from me, played it for a year or two and decided he needed money more than a guitar. Rather than give the guitar back to me as I told him not to sell it he decided to sell it anyway. So when he went to sell it he advertised it as a guitar I built, and ended up getting quite a bit of money for it. So now there is someone out there who has a reject that I would normally never let out the shop. I'm ashamed enough of my first few dozen guitars that I don't need a total reject out there being passed off as my normal work. So maybe that is an aberration, but I've never let another one out like that and I never will. I suppose one could,like you mention, remove any logo's, signatures, ect, but it's inevitable that the guitar would show up somewhere, maybe like this forum, with the person saying "What kind of guitar is this?" And of course all the knowledgeable people could look at headstock designs, bridge designs, body shape, rosettes, ect and most likely figure it out. Then we are back to where we did not want to be....with a red-headed stepchild of a instrument out there bearing our name in one form or another. I know it's a waste, but sometimes there must be destruction to have beauty born from it.
|
|
#25
08-09-2010, 07:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I have to whole heartedly agree with Bobby here, my MJ55 is insanely wonderful. This particular guitar(lutz and honduran mahogany) was described by John to me as being an all around guitar for just about any style music-not the best for any one style, but able to sit in on anything. I'm finding it very appropriate for the music i play(99% fingerstyle and i'm thinking of learning to flatpick soon). Very responsive, can be nice and loud, can be nice and quiet-all the time with superlative intonation(i have not been used to that in other guitars), and easy playability. As of late i've dove into DADGAD and immediately found this MJ at home there and just right. I had tried a few Lowdens before purchase of the MJ, but there were simply too many overtones for my personal feel. With the right strings on the MJ(and i've found it very particular to strings), you can have hard hitting punch(80/20 bronze), or if i want sustain and alternate tunings(phosphur bronze). Tonite in fact i intend to stick some med gauge Daddario's to be used in DADGAD. I need to do a more indepth review and intend to with pictures and soundclips, just need to spend more time with this lady and see the developement. Just thought i'd come on here to say i'm very happy and this is pretty much the most all around guitar i've found. Oh, and light! I love light guitars, my MJ comes in at 3.6 lbs. thanks John! (thanks Bobby for the guidance) daryl Last edited by darylcrisp; 08-09-2010 at 08:58 PM.
|
|
#26
08-09-2010, 07:33 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Nice looking body, even if it does have one of those nasty pointy looking things on it (did I mention that I really detest building these)?
 Are you using a bolt on FB extension? We are looking forward to seeing your smiling mug once again at HB. We've missed you!
|
|
#27
08-09-2010, 07:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#28
08-09-2010, 07:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
John, with this being the ultimate fingerstyle guitar, how well will it handle strumming? I love fingerpicking, but when I sing I just love digging in and bashing the hell out of my guitar (figuratively speaking of course). So will this guitar be more of a "designed for one purpose but a jack-of all trades" type, or more of a "designed for one purpose and one purpose only, and while it can do other things decently, it mostly shines when played the way it was designed to be played" type?
|
|
#29
08-09-2010, 08:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
No kidding right? Sharp cutaways are vastly harder, imo, to build than a soft cutaway. So many miters!! I see why some guys don't bind/purfling the cutaway point, and heel block edge....Quite frankly I need some practice doing it too... I rushed through it because I didn't want to spend much time on the external details and it kinda shows!  Yes still using the same neck joint. I did some experimenting with glued in tenon's, dovetails, even Ervin's style of tenon, but in the end I did not notice, or could not contribute any tone difference to the joint. So I'm still using a variation of Dana Bourgeois awesome neck joint. Last edited by JohnM; 08-09-2010 at 08:40 PM.
|
|
#30
08-09-2010, 08:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Another way to explain it would be to put a contrived number on it. Say this guitar would score a 100 for fingerstyle (0 being a piece of MDF with chicken wire strung tight, and 100 being fingerstyle bliss) on the same scale it would be like a 85 for light strumming, 70 medium strumming, 50 hard strumming, ect... arbitrary numbers made up to convey the point....
|
