#16
|
|||
|
|||
So again we fall into the rabbit hole of aesthetics vs structure vs tradition vs best practices.
For aesthetic purposes, there is little you can't get away with, especially with all the new materials, and adhesives, and finishes, and machinery that is available, even to the smallest, solo builder shops - you see the limits being redefined at almost every guitar show, yet all these new design and ideas are generally rooted in older ideas and designs, that may not have worked because they didn't have the materials and adhesives (etc) before now - From a structural viewpoint, we (again) see all kinds of the above being applied to create a more durable guitar - carbon fiber, stainless steel, cyanoacrylates, and CNC fitted joints - but we are still trying to overcome the same issues that have plagued builders for centuries - moisture, abuse, lack of maintenance, as examples - plus we have to add a new plague, a lack of high quality (traditional) materials - Tradition is frequently assumed to be just doing whats been done before, but if you actually understand the tradition, those are normally techniques or procedures that helped build a better instrument and solve problems (failures) that those builders had seen on the instruments built before. Some of those problems are less of an issue now - we have kiln dried material, and heated homes, and very good cases, as well as consistently produced glues and finishes, and incredibly good fret and tuning machines, at extremely low prices. Where we can best argue is what we would now consider "best practices" - some would say that the bolt on neck is arguably a better way to build a guitar, because it makes it so much easier to do maintenance and repairs. And you can bring that argument to many of the details of building guitars, since so much has changed since those instruments we admire as "exceptional" were built, and even what we expect from guitars, the changes in playing and musical styles and recording and amplification, have changed so much so recently. Binding is not necessary - I would argue that it should still be considered best practice, but since so much of aesthetics is involved in the choice of using it, or what to use for it, I won't push for my personal preferences or beliefs except on my own guitars.
__________________
More than a few Santa Cruz’s, a few Sexauers, a Patterson, a Larrivee, a Cumpiano, and a Klepper!! |
#17
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
For example, "X" bracing and fan bracing were created as better solutions than ladder bracing that were used for centuries. Someone tried something, and felt it was better. History shows it was adopted and was "better". In the 1960's, Kasha created a different bracing with a different "understanding" of the problem - impedance matching, rocking saddle... He stated that in five years' time, everyone would be making classical guitars with that bracing pattern. History shows few did. (I did - don't get me started on that.) My point is that sometimes "changes" that people try are innovation that improve something, sometimes they are just changes: history determines which is which. Most, however, copy what is tried and true - tradition - perhaps with minor tweaks. Quote:
Does Titebond - and similar aliphatic glues - make better instruments than hide glued ones, or is Titebond simply faster and easier to use? Cyanoacrylate glues allow faster methods of work, but do they adhere better than other types for guitar purposes? (Finish repairs can certainly be quicker and easier.) One can argue that UV-cured urethane is an improvement over shellac or varnish - it is faster and tougher. Quote:
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Charles - thank you for the thoughtful and intelligent response to my post - but, a few comments -
I’m not just refering to braz rw or mahogany - its the general loss of most of our old-growth materials, our over-use and increased demand. There are lots of alternatives, but as you note, acceptance is a problem. And if you’re building 10s of thousands of instruments, do you put your emphasis on educating the market, or developing materials that are more easily mass produced? Your point on tradition is well-made - unfortunately, the details of a bracing system are like the many tech details - the general population only is concerned with what they see, and what it costs. Other traditional details, like binding, or rosettes, are highly visible, and when the general population starts to believe that these details are just a decorative tradition, rather than a functional element, you get a market segment that believes there is no reason not to eliminate, or modify them, so they no longer provide the functional benefit they were supposed to provide. Incomplete rosettes, or no binding, are (IMHO) good examples. I certainly do NOT believe kiln drying is better than air drying - quite the opposite - which is why I am so frequently a doubter of the long-term benefits of “baked” tops or whatever. But kiln drying does provide a more consistent material, with far lower storage costs/issues, and greater availability. The same is true with glues and finishes - I agree with you completely, but the fact that you or I can walk into a hardware store or lumberyard and pick up a tube or jar or can of glue or finish that is going to be extemely consistent from batch to batch and location to location - to the point that we can just say most people starting to build never have to learn how to store, or dry wood, or make/store glue, finishes, etc - it wasn’t that simple 100 years ago - And if best practices were easy to agree on, half this entries on this forum would never have been written - ;-)
__________________
More than a few Santa Cruz’s, a few Sexauers, a Patterson, a Larrivee, a Cumpiano, and a Klepper!! |