View Single Post
Old 03-24-2013, 02:56 PM
justonwo's Avatar
justonwo justonwo is offline
Charter Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 6,071

Originally Posted by Teleplucker View Post
I stand by what I said. You will get a great guitar
Originally Posted by Howard Klepper View Post
If someone said to me that he or she wants a "modern" sound, I would not think without a bunch of further discussion that I knew at all what was wanted. I've heard the word used to describe guitars that I consider to be on opposite ends of the tonal spectrum (e.g., Somogyis and Taylors). "A modern interpretation of the vintage sound" would just muddy the waters with an oxymoron.

In the discussion of Juston's Kraut, I saw a few people call that guitar "bright," when to me it was the opposite (from what I could hear). I would have called it dark.

I try to steer the tonal discussion to terms that have some objective meaning, such as frequencies, treble, midrange and bass, fundamental and overtones (although these get misused, too), attack or rise time, and sustain. I also find it very helpful to ask people which maker or manufacturer's guitars they like and dislike, and why. That can tell me a lot about how they use the language.

I am confident that John will build a great guitar; he is an outstanding builder. Whether he will build a guitar with a "modern" sound or a "modern interpretation of a vintage sound" as Juston intends those descriptions, I have no idea.
Right, which is why when I describe the tone in detail to John, as I did with Ray, in a very descriptive document using what I believe are fairly unambiguous terms, I will not simply say, "Please build me a modern interpretation of a vintage guitar." I will describe in great detail what I think that means . . . just as I have always done with builders. And I will expect John to ask questions about my descriptions. And I will further expect there will be extensive discussions back and forth until we are both clear what the other means. You are making an incorrect assumption about how I will communicate what I want to John and have therefore created a phantom issue.

We have already had some of those discussions and I think we both have a pretty good idea of what we heard from our one common point of reference (the HGF 00-12). Construction will not begin for some time and we have many, many discussions ahead of us, and I still need to write my formal design document where I lay out in painstaking detail what I want. Of course, wood decisions are subject to change over the next couple of years if we both come to the conclusion that we're headed down the wrong path. I will also be doing what I can to play more Circas to jog my tonal memory. So there are some very incorrect and presumptuous conclusions being drawn about how sophisticated and involved the discussions will be with John. I have always, and will continue to go to a lot of trouble to communicate my goals using objective terms that both parties can agree on.

I am not in the slightest surprised at the attempts to use this thread to stir the pot about the Kraut. Nor am I surprised by the obvious misrepresentation/oversimplification of the issues that arose during that build and the subtle negative inferences, particularly given the sources.
Reply With Quote