whats the deal with Brazilian rosewood?

[redir]

When I first started building guitars in 1990 you could still get sets of BRW for reasonable prices. Man do I wish I bought some more of it! But also at the time the general consensus was don't learn how to build guitars with BRW! Save it for when you are an accomplished luthier. Well almost 30 years later I'm getting ready to build my first BRW guitar.... I hope I've learned the skills to pull it off

So... I think there is something to be said about experience and wood and the combination there of. The good wood is typically reserved for the better guitars even in the factory settings. So is it the wood or is it the experience of the builder? Perhaps it's both? I think it's both and in any case I'm looking forward to finding out.

[mcduffnw]

Originally Posted by gitarro

Clips cannot impart the experience of actually playing the actual guitar concerned. Also, if u r getting a Taylor, i dont think the braz will be worth it as it is a factory and they do not take into account the particular wood set's unique characteristics in deciding how thin the wood should be cut and they do not individually voice the guitar.

Martin in 1930's and 1940's was, as they are now, a guitar factory, and their guitars from that "Golden Era" created this reputation/mystique that Brazilian Rosewood now so mightily enjoys.

Martin did not take into account the particular wood set's unique characteristics in deciding how thin the wood should be cut, other than they wanted it to be quartersawn as much as possible...and they did NOT individually voice the guitar.

And yet, for all this individual attention Martin did not pay to the wood, or the "quote/un-quote" voicing process they did not do...which is primarily for the top of the guitar anyway...even today, their guitars set the standard for what a Brazilian Rosewood guitar is supposed to sound and respond like, and the tone of their Golden Era Brazilian guitars, especially the dreads and OOO/OM models is literally the stuff of legend now.

All that from a, "build em all to the same basic spec's", guitar factory.

duff
Be A Player...Not A Polisher

[ljguitar]

Hi DaveyO

The best 2 guitars I EVER played were Brazilian Rosewood/German Spruce.

One was an OM and the other one size smaller than that.

They were also built by 2 of the best guitar builders in the world, Ervin Somogyi and Gerald Sheppard.

And these two guitars were better than any others I've played built by those builders. Amazing instruments they are…

Wood selection and luthiers are extremely important.

[LeftIsRight!]

Originally Posted by gitarro

Sets of brazilian rosewood are not too difficult to find for a scarce resource - virtually every major manufacturer and luthier would have their own stash or access to sets of the wood. Also it is not illegal as those sets would have entered usa prior to 1993.

My comment was to highlight how things become mythological around these issues.

Anybody that has smoked an embargo era cigar knows how exaggerated the whole thing with cuban cigar really was. They were really good cigars but not that much different from other good cigars.

Same thing with this brazillian rosewood thing.

If one day honduran mahogany or whatever tonewood goes through the same issues, another myth will be created and so on.

Originally Posted by Goodallboy

It’s more amazing how popular and acclaimed it was in the 40’s........

Indeed

[gitarro]

If i understsnd what i have read correctly, the 1930s are not the same as the methods today.

The standardisation today has a lower chance of getting it the optimum lightness because the limits are alwaya set far too high for warranty purposes. Today much more is known about building for steel string from a long life perspective and so safety margins are set a lot further away from the danger zone. That does mean that all the factory guitars start out seriously overbuilt.

On the other hand the 1930s Martin's were built too lightly as Martin was transitioning from gut to steel strings. In fact martin was spending the 1930s and 1940s progressively correcting their mistakes and learning as they went along to make their guitars more heavy built. Thus most if not all of the prewar martins.were built either just right or too light to start with and so many guitars simply did not survive over the years. The survivors are therefore by the process of elimination more likely to be the ones built at the right junction between light build for tone and heavy enough to survive 80 years and yet it and been said that many of the vintage prewar martins that are being sold today do not actualy sound that great.

Originally Posted by mcduffnw

Martin in 1930's and 1940's was, as they are now, a guitar factory, and their guitars from that "Golden Era" created this reputation/mystique that Brazilian Rosewood now so mightily enjoys.

Martin did not take into account the particular wood set's unique characteristics in deciding how thin the wood should be cut, other than they wanted it to be quartersawn as much as possible...and they did NOT individually voice the guitar.

And yet, for all this individual attention Martin did not pay to the wood, or the "quote/un-quote" voicing process they did not do...which is primarily for the top of the guitar anyway...even today, their guitars set the standard for what a Brazilian Rosewood guitar is supposed to sound and respond like, and the tone of their Golden Era Brazilian guitars, especially the dreads and OOO/OM models is literally the stuff of legend now.

All that from a, "build em all to the same basic spec's", guitar factory.

duff
Be A Player...Not A Polisher

[Bruce Sexauer]

I am in my 52nd year of lutherie, and I have used BRW since the beginning. Some where Near a third of my guitars are made from BRW, and the rest are spread across about 30 other tonewoods. My methods and results are closer to closer to preWar Martin’s than the majority of today’s makers, and I am fortunate enough to have put up more BRW that I am likely to be able to use in what is left of my career, nearly all of it of a quality that compares favorably with the best that ever was. People who want the best seek me out partly because I have the wood that many others do not. My opinion is that BRW is completely without peer among the Rosewoods.

Last week a fellow who owns one of my Mahogany dreads came by to order a new guitar, and told me before he arrived that it was to be a BRW dread. We spent a few hours in the shop looking at wood and playing the guitars I have on hand. One of the guitars spoke to him so clearly that he considered buying it on the spot, despite it being merely an L00, as it had the dry clarity he is looking for, and a volume and punch well above its weight. But he stuck to his guns, bluegrasser that he is, and his dread will use the same kind of tonewood as the L00, which is Pernambuco.

[mcduffnw]

Originally Posted by gitarro

If i understsnd what i have read correctly, the 1930s are not the same as the methods today.

The standardisation today has a lower chance of getting it the optimum lightness because the limits are alwaya set far too high for warranty purposes. Today much more is known about building for steel string from a long life perspective and so safety margins are set a lot further away from the danger zone. That does mean that all the factory guitars start out seriously overbuilt.

On the other hand the 1930s Martin's were built too lightly as Martin was transitioning from gut to steel strings. In fact martin was spending the 1930s and 1940s progressively correcting their mistakes and learning as they went along to make their guitars more heavy built. Thus most if not all of the prewar martins.were built either just right or too light to start with and so many guitars simply did not survive over the years. The survivors are therefore by the process of elimination more likely to be the ones built at the right junction between light build for tone and heavy enough to survive 80 years and yet it and been said that many of the vintage prewar martins that are being sold today do not actualy sound that great.

Martin didn't make a mistake per se' in building their guitars too lightly...they had an understanding of how to build a guitar to make it sound as good as possible.

The problem they had, and perhaps they did not realize at the time, was that the country players who would make the bulk of the Martin players, were switching to using heavy gauge strings to match volume and "cut" with the banjo, mandolin and even piano. Also those guitars were not babied, and were lugged about in cars and buses, and exposed to a lot of heat and cold and both low and high humidity...so they had a rough but rewarding musical life, but they suffered structurally because of it.

So Martin had to make adjustments in the structure of their guitars to compensate for the issues that arose. And they kept trying to make the smallest changes/adjustments that they could, probably because they knew that lighter was better, and what would happen as the structure got stiffer and heavier, so they kept trying to keep the fixes as incrementally small as possible...but alas...the heavy gauge strings and rough life on the road kept winning out, so Martin had to keep pushing up the structural changes, thicker and heavier. And yes...Martin's bottom line $$$ was a consideration here, as were other factors at Martin as quality waned a little bit in the 70's, but iff better mic's and or pickups had been available in the 30's, 40's, and 50's, and the calibre of strings we have today...maybe we would not be having this discussion.

As far as how many old Martins survived...quite a few more that you are giving credit to did...thanks in great measure to the repairmen of the 60's, and 70's who were around at the beginning of the vintage guitar re-discovery/boom, and who saw all the old Martin's, come out of the closets and attics and cellars, and out from under the beds, that needed repairs and restorations, and those repairmen did the work and brought them back to life.

Alas...many of them...and many of the very very best...went to collectors overseas in Europe and the Orient, and here in the US...and so disappeared off of the market publicly...only to be re-sold privately collector to collector...but they are out there in great numbers, and maybe with us Baby Boomers aging out and passing on...these old Martins will finally come back to see the light of day, and a whole new generation of players will discover them anew.

duff
Be A Player...Not A Polisher

[olmorton71]

My first build is a pre war Martin OM. It is very light....the finish is thin....the sound is magnificent.....so much so I’m selling my other guitars.

[LeftIsRight!]

Originally Posted by Bruce Sexauer

I am in my 52nd year of lutherie, and I have used BRW since the beginning. Some where Near a third of my guitars are made from BRW, and the rest are spread across about 30 other tonewoods. My methods and results are closer to closer to preWar Martin’s than the majority of today’s makers, and I am fortunate enough to have put up more BRW that I am likely to be able to use in what is left of my career, nearly all of it of a quality that compares favorably with the best that ever was. People who want the best seek me out partly because I have the wood that many others do not. My opinion is that BRW is completely without peer among the Rosewoods.

Last week a fellow who owns one of my Mahogany dreads came by to order a new guitar, and told me before he arrived that it was to be a BRW dread. We spent a few hours in the shop looking at wood and playing the guitars I have on hand. One of the guitars spoke to him so clearly that he considered buying it on the spot, despite it being merely an L00, as it had the dry clarity he is looking for, and a volume and punch well above its weight. But he stuck to his guns, bluegrasser that he is, and his dread will use the same kind of tonewood as the L00, which is Pernambuco.

I always wonder how relevant this obsession with tone woods really is in the real world outside of guitar player circles.

Most audiences do not really know or care to know about the specific materials used in their favorite musician’s instruments. They just want to be entertained.

Great many songs that have touched generations have been performed with guitars made of all kinds of woods.

[Mycroft]

Originally Posted by LeftIsRight!

My comment was to highlight how things become mythological around these issues.

Anybody that has smoked an embargo era cigar knows how exaggerated the whole thing with cuban cigar really was. They were really good cigars but not that much different from other good cigars.

Same thing with this brazillian rosewood thing.

If one day honduran mahogany or whatever tonewood goes through the same issues, another myth will be created and so on.


Indeed

Honduran Mahogany already is. But what you are overlooking that some sometimes a myth has a basis in fact.

[Mycroft]

Originally Posted by LeftIsRight!

I always wonder how relevant this obsession with tone woods really is in the real world outside of guitar player circles.

Most audiences do not really know or care to know about the specific materials used in their favorite musician’s instruments. They just want to be entertained.

Great many songs that have touched generations have been performed with guitars made of all kinds of woods.

Actually guitar player circles are a part of the real world. So are audience circles. You, though, seem to speak of them as if they are wholly distinct from each other, and do not effect one another. Do audiences care what woods an acoustic guitar is made from? Probably not; an acoustic guitar is a wooden box with strings. They also don't care if the microphone being used is a Shure SM 57 or a Neumann KM 184. But the residents of the guitar players circle do care, because they know that it effects not only how they sound, but how they play. It is completely relevant that an audience may be better entertained by a guitar player who is inspired by the tone of their instrument than by one who is not.

[macmanmatty]

The deal with Brazilian rosewood is you can't import it and people want what they can't have. It's rare and that is the main attraction to Brazilian rosewood. People who have a Brazilian rosewood instrument can say my guitar is Brazilian rose wood and when they do that, it's like saying I'm better than you or I have more money than you. They just like to show off. In my opinion it has so many overtones that it sounds like mud when strummed or finger picked. East Indian rosewood in my opinion is 100x better sounding than Brazilian rosewood. Less overtones , more clarity, and more bass on East Indian rosewood make it a far better tone wood the Brazilian Rosewood.

[Dirk Hofman]

Originally Posted by macmanmatty

The deal with Brazilian rosewood is you can't import it and people want what they can't have. It's rare and that is the main attraction to Brazilian rosewood. People who have a Brazilian rosewood instrument can say my guitar is Brazilian rose wood and when they do that, it's like saying I'm better than you or I have more money than you. They just like to show off. In my opinion it has so many overtones that it sounds like mud when strummed or finger picked. East Indian rosewood in my opinion is 100x better sounding than Brazilian rosewood. Less overtones , more clarity, and more bass on East Indian rosewood make it a far better tone wood the Brazilian Rosewood.

Couldn't disagree more. Brazilian's main difference is that it fairly obviously offer a distinctly different sound than Indian Rosewood, generally. It's much more complex, much clearer and less dark and murky. This is a tremendous advantage on larger-bodied guitars which can suffer from being a bit dark or muddy with IR.

I personally think the tone is far more interesting, generally, and I would much prefer to have it than IR on Martin-style dreadnoughts. I can't or rather won't pay the premium for it, and instead chose a Madagascar-backed dread as my prize, main, instrument. Also far more complex and clear than IR.

Whether one prefers BR or values it more than IR is, apparently, somewhat subjective. That it's rare is unfortunate. That it's different is unequivocal.

I think your post has some fairly inaccurate and pejorative...overtones. It takes a rare case, the poser/jerk/rich guitar owner and applies this mythology to all owners of BR. I have not found this to be the case....at all. I am not one of those owners, but I get it for those who are. Brazilian is fantastic.

I don't begrudge you your preference at all, but come on.

[ljguitar]

Originally Posted by LeftIsRight!

I always wonder how relevant this obsession with tone woods really is in the real world outside of guitar player circles.

LIR

As a player, I think obsession with particular tone woods is neither mythical, illusionary, elusive nor irrelevant. Different tone woods in the hands of an experienced master luthier become magical.

If tone-wood is not your passion, then you will find life more affordable than other guitarists to whom specific tonal expectations are 'essential' to their styling.

Those outside guitar player circles are not determining what we who are part of those circles enjoy or pursue.

[mcduffnw]

Originally Posted by LeftIsRight!

I always wonder how relevant this obsession with tone woods really is in the real world outside of guitar player circles.

Most audiences do not really know or care to know about the specific materials used in their favorite musician’s instruments. They just want to be entertained.

Great many songs that have touched generations have been performed with guitars made of all kinds of woods.

LeftIsRight...how "right" you are!

Outside of us guitar nerds...all the minutiae about woods and designs and body shapes and geometry and build spec's and glues, and this and that are of little to no relevance to anyone...audiences or casual players.

You are absolutely positively correct...audiences and casual players...unless it is an audience or jam group of guitar nerds...don't know, and don't care...as you said, they just want to be entertained, or have fun making music.


duff
Be A Player...Not A Polisher