Do classical guitars "wear out"

[brucefulton]

Originally Posted by Aaron Smith

Segovia is not the only data point on this.

To me, Julian Bream's Romanillos was the greatest sounding classical guitar in history. (ok, maybe the player had something to do with it too. It is currently sitting in a museum somewhere, because it is thoroughly played out and has given up the ghost from a tonal standpoint.

Every guitar and player is different. Some may take 500 years to play out, some may take 5. But I think it's pretty well demonstrated that at some point, classical instruments can exceed their useful lifespan.

I'd like to see some documentation that Bream's romanillos was retired because it was played out. Bream's quest for the perfect guitar is well documented (see, for example, http://www.guitarramagazine.com/the-...-guitar-part-3), and he owned and played many more than one. I'm not seeing any documented research that any one particular one of Bream's many Romanillo's was "played out" and therefore donated to a museum. There are a few known guitars that he played for periods of time, but he mostly worked with Romanillos to continually evolve guitar design, so wearing out wasn't an issue according to any sources I know.

See also, "A meeting with Julian Bream in 1969 led to an invitation to use part of a workshop in Wiltshire where he produced a guitar for Julian Bream that he played for three years. In 1973 he made a guitar for him which he played in concerts and used for various recordings for at least twelve years. Romanillos now works from his own premises and his waiting list for instruments stretches into the next century. He is an internationally respected luthier and quoting the Daily Mail, 'the Stradivari of the Guitar'. "
from http://www.ausbcomp.com/~frets/smrom.htm

Bream actually owned several Romanillo's and collaborated with him on guitar design, so this would take some careful research to track down. There is an article on one of Bream's 1973 Romanillos, but it is not commonly available for review except perhaps through ILL from an academic library.

I haven't found any research to show these became played out or that Bream thought they were played out.

[Aaron Smith]

Originally Posted by brucefulton

I'd like to see some documentation that Bream's romanillos was retired because it was played out. Bream's quest for the perfect guitar is well documented (see, for example, http://www.guitarramagazine.com/the-...-guitar-part-3), and he owned and played many more than one. I'm not seeing any documented research that any one particular one of Bream's many Romanillo's was "played out" and therefore donated to a museum. There are a few known guitars that he played for periods of time, but he mostly worked with Romanillos to continually evolve guitar design, so wearing out wasn't an issue according to any sources I know.

See also, "A meeting with Julian Bream in 1969 led to an invitation to use part of a workshop in Wiltshire where he produced a guitar for Julian Bream that he played for three years. In 1973 he made a guitar for him which he played in concerts and used for various recordings for at least twelve years. Romanillos now works from his own premises and his waiting list for instruments stretches into the next century. He is an internationally respected luthier and quoting the Daily Mail, 'the Stradivari of the Guitar'. "
from http://www.ausbcomp.com/~frets/smrom.htm

Bream actually owned several Romanillo's and collaborated with him on guitar design, so this would take some careful research to track down. There is an article on one of Bream's 1973 Romanillos, but it is not commonly available for review except perhaps through ILL from an academic library.

I haven't found any research to show these became played out or that Bream thought they were played out.

I read about this on the Delcamp forum probably 7 or 8 years ago, and somebody provided a citation. It was a discussion about his more famous one with the Moorish Arch rosette. It even had a quote from Bream to the effect that the guitar had been played out. I wish I could remember where that article was now. Sorry I couldn't be more helpful.

[brucefulton]

Originally Posted by Aaron Smith

I read about this on the Delcamp forum probably 7 or 8 years ago, and somebody provided a citation. It was a discussion about his more famous one with the Moorish Arch rosette. It even had a quote from Bream to the effect that the guitar had been played out. I wish I could remember where that article was now. Sorry I couldn't be more helpful.

I wonder if he meant or said worn out instead of played out? Some instruments can suffer from being subjected to extremes and changes in environmental conditions, and the schedule of an international concert musician subjects the instrument to a lot of stress. But the problem is environmental change, not playing. Many musicians tour with instruments other than their one of a kind rarities.

[Aaron Smith]

Originally Posted by brucefulton

I wonder if he meant or said worn out instead of played out? Some instruments can suffer from being subjected to extremes and changes in environmental conditions, and the schedule of an international concert musician subjects the instrument to a lot of stress. But the problem is environmental change, not playing. Many musicians tour with instruments other than their one of a kind rarities.

Hard to say really... if I have some spare time I'll try to find the original reference. If I recall correctly, it was actually a luthier of classical instruments who made the post on the forum.

I don't really have a dog in this hunt. I used to play more classical, and amongst the other classical players I knew, it was a pretty well accepted notion that classical guitars "lose it" after a period of time. It's entirely possible that it is a wives' tale, although there seemed to be some practical experience that supported it. I never really had a hard time believing it; many performance-quality classical guitars are built as lightly as possible to maximize volume and projection, and as you mentioned are subjected to rigors that many steel stringers are not. 6-10 hours of play a day, demanding environmental conditions with touring and the like.

It's funny what different classical musicians believe about their instruments. Many violinists think that instruments less than 100 years old are not worthy of playing. Many harpists think that a 10 year old harp is rubbish, and couldn't possibly play as well as a new one. There are some realities behind what they think, but I think a lot of it is conjecture as well.

Like most things about guitars... I put this one in the category of plausible but unproven.

[RustyZombie]

Originally Posted by Aaron Smith

Hard to say really... if I have some spare time I'll try to find the original reference. If I recall correctly, it was actually a luthier of classical instruments who made the post on the forum.

I don't really have a dog in this hunt. I used to play more classical, and amongst the other classical players I knew, it was a pretty well accepted notion that classical guitars "lose it" after a period of time. It's entirely possible that it is a wives' tale, although there seemed to be some practical experience that supported it. I never really had a hard time believing it; many performance-quality classical guitars are built as lightly as possible to maximize volume and projection, and as you mentioned are subjected to rigors that many steel stringers are not. 6-10 hours of play a day, demanding environmental conditions with touring and the like.

It's funny what different classical musicians believe about their instruments. Many violinists think that instruments less than 100 years old are not worthy of playing. Many harpists think that a 10 year old harp is rubbish, and couldn't possibly play as well as a new one. There are some realities behind what they think, but I think a lot of it is conjecture as well.

Like most things about guitars... I put this one in the category of plausible but unproven.

One thing I did not think of when I conjectured that it was simply a preconceived notion that any changes were going to be bad. I'm sure that is still a factor, but perhaps not the primary one.

I've seen how expensive harps are. I'd hate for that notion to be true if I was a harpist.

[redir]

Originally Posted by frankmcr

according to an article on classicalguitar.net Segovia used to drop by the Jose Ramirez shop at the end of every concert season & trade in the guitar he'd used for a brand new one.

And Ramirez himself said that a guitar was worth about 20 years. I don't know though. I've got some old classical guitars and they still sound really good.

Here is Tatyana Ryzhkova playing a restored Hauser from 1916.



^ don't know why the video wont work but it's worth a look.

[bohemian]

"And Ramirez himself said that a guitar was worth about 20 years."

Which Ramirez?

I'll still go with first hand information rather than parroted pablum.

[bohemian]

"Every guitar and player is different. Some may take 500 years to play out, "

Not many 500 year old (6 string) guitars in existence, and I can't think of a single 500 year old player.

[bohemian]

"Here is Tatyana Ryzhkova playing a restored Hauser from 1916."

Was the guitar restored in 1916 ? Or is Tatyana playing this in 1916?

Or did you mean:

Here is Tatyana Ryzhkova playing a restored 1916 Hauser?

Curious.

[bohemian]

"isn't your direct source actually second hand information?"

Yes, as a matter of fact from a first hand, direct, source over 40 plus years.

If you were in his house and studio, you would know.
If you watched/heard him play you would know.

Hundreds of documents and photos, if not more.

[brucefulton]

Originally Posted by bohemian

"isn't your direct source actually second hand information?"

Yes, as a matter of fact from a first hand, direct, source over 40 plus years.

If you were in his house and studio, you would know.
If you watched/heard him play you would know.

Hundreds of documents and photos, if not more.

Historians would need to know who the source is, have access to verify photographs and documents, and would want to hear directly or through first hand information the source and context of the statements. That's what the provenance process is all about!

[Peter Lovett]

Heavens above guys. This is an internet forum, not an academic peer reviewed journal. Most people post something that they remember reading, not a footnoted citation. Its not as though vast wealth rests on the outcome of whether a classical guitar "wears out" or not. Lets not get too anal about this.

[brucefulton]

Originally Posted by Peter Lovett

Heavens above guys. This is an internet forum, not an academic peer reviewed journal. Most people post something that they remember reading, not a footnoted citation. Its not as though vast wealth rests on the outcome of whether a classical guitar "wears out" or not. Lets not get too anal about this.

This sort of thing comes up all the time on popular shows such as Antiques Roadshow and Pawn Stars. It's not about peer reviewed journals, but about the day to day workings of life. Would anyone pay big bucks for a rare guitar with a famous lineage without documentable provenance? Probably not.

[redir]

Originally Posted by bohemian

"And Ramirez himself said that a guitar was worth about 20 years."

Which Ramirez?

I'll still go with first hand information rather than parroted pablum.

Jose III in his book 'Things About the Guitar.' Hey if it sounds good then play it.

[redir]

Originally Posted by bohemian

"Here is Tatyana Ryzhkova playing a restored Hauser from 1916."

Was the guitar restored in 1916 ? Or is Tatyana playing this in 1916?

Or did you mean:

Here is Tatyana Ryzhkova playing a restored 1916 Hauser?

Curious.

I'm pretty sure they didn't have motion picture in 1916 especially in color. The guitar was built by Hauser in 1916. It was restored on some unspecified date and then Tatyana was recorded playing it. I think it sounds great, different, but that's probably because it's a very different guitar.