Sexauer/2020 (Chapter 2)

[Bruce Sexauer]

Thank you for the positive comments about, folks.

I spent a silly amount of time today (It IS Sunday) recording a tune on the Madrone nylon guitar. My skill, such as it is, is with a flatpack, and this is a Swedish fiddle tune. Lemons/Lemonade.

Polska efter From-Olle

[Treenewt]

[QUOTE=Bruce Sexauer;6423482]Thank you for the positive comments about, folks.

I spent a silly amount of time today (It IS Sunday) recording a tune on the Madrone nylon guitar. My skill, such as it is, is with a flatpack, and this is a Swedish fiddle tune. Lemons/Lemonade.

Polska efter From-Olle[/QUOTE

Sounds great to my ears Bruce! Love hearing you play your instruments!

[Bruce Sexauer]

I have been watching the nearby threads on CNC and also Tim's thread on what it takes to make a new guitar design, with some distress. These threads make something that I consider simple and beautiful into things that are to me unnecessarily complicated and/or as though requiring a "fix" to facilitate a "solution".

For me, the beauty of pursuing mastery with hand tools, or hand guided tools, is as much what our work is about as the result itself. My life is not about how quickly I can make a guitar of how many I can make, it is about the quality of life's experience and can be measured by both the instruments themselves, and more so by the ongoing improvement each guitar represents as marker in my own personal development.

I believe (actually it seems obvious to me) that Computer Aided Design (CAD) impairs human aesthetic monitoring to a stunning degree. A typical human with a pencil and sheet of clean paper can draw a beautiful curve with amazing ease, while a talented artist can struggle for hours on a screen and never quite get there. Once the curves are "close enough", Computer aided cutters (CNC) can relict those curves till the tooling fails, but with no feedback whatsoever to the operator, and therefore no "growth", either to the stagnant result, nor to the designer (Luthier in this case). To me, that looks tragic, as it flies in the face of the meaning of my life. Not actually my own life, of course, but the potential of the lives of those who have gone down the other path.

Because I do not actually make the same guitar again ever, let alone twice in row, making new design is trivial for me, it's simply what I do. I need no new templates, tooling, jigs, or tool paths, I simple draw it on a piece of paper, cut it out with scissors, transfer it to a joined guitar top using a pencil, and build the guitar like any other. I know this looks simplistic compared to what Tim is describing (I personally like Tim and Mary, and respect them. I merely fear for their "souls". Which is mutual, I'm sure. ) and it makes a less compelling story, perhaps, but check out my results, if you haven't.

Back to making guitars.

[Jimmy Caldwell]

Originally Posted by Bruce Sexauer

I have been watching the nearby threads on CNC and also Tim's thread on what it takes to make a new guitar design with some distress. These threads make something that I consider simple and beautiful into things that are tome unnecessarily complicated and/or requiring a "fix" to facilitate them.

For me, the beauty of pursuing mastery with hand tools, or hand guided tools, is as much what our work is about as the result itself. My life is not about how quickly I can make a guitar of how many I can make, it is about the quality of life's experience and can be measured by both the instruments themselves, and more so by the ongoing improvement each guitar represents as marker in my own personal development.

I believe (actually it seems obvious to me) that Computer Aided Design (CAD) impairs human aesthetic monitoring to a stunning degree. A typical human with a pencil and sheet of clean paper can draw a beautiful curve with amazing ease, while a talented artist can struggle for hours on a screen and never quite get there. Once the curves are "close enough", Computer aided cutters (CNC) can relict those curves till the tooling fails, but with no feedback whatsoever to the operator, and therefore no "growth", either to the stagnant result, nor to the designer (Luthier in this case). To me, that looks tragic, as it flies in the face of the meaning of my life. Not actually my own life, of course, but the potential of the lives of those who have gone down the other path.

Because I do not actually make the same guitar again ever, let alone twice in row, making new design is trivial for me, it's simply what I do. I need no new templates, tooling, jigs, or tool paths, I simple draw it on a piece of paper, cut it out with scissors, transfer it to a joined guitar top using a pencil, and build the guitar like any other. I know this looks simplistic compared to what Tim is describing (I personally like Tim and Mary, and respect them. I merely fear for their "souls". Which is mutual, I'm sure. ) and it makes a less compelling story, perhaps, but check out my results, if you haven't.

Back to making guitars.

I’m pretty much in agreement with Bruce here. An interesting parallel, I’ve been involved for many years in the home building and design business and went through the transition from hand drawn plans to CAD during my tenure. While CAD does provide some real functionality that the hand drawing system can’t replicate, the bottom line is that the man-hours and other resources required to develop and maintain the CAD system were enormous and very expensive. Bottom line is that it actually increased our costs substantially and our man hours required to produce the same work product we did by hand.

The CNC situation seems to me to pretty much follow this pattern. Unless you’re a high volume manufacturer like Martin, Taylor, Collings, etc. it doesn’t make sense to me. For me, it negates the intuitive process that makes me want to build guitars in the first place. I enjoy the flexibility that the hand building process gives me and it’s really the reason I enjoy building. I prefer to devote my time to he build process itself. I’ve learned far more from actually going through the process than I ever would any other way.

This is not a knock on anyone who chooses to follow this route. I know Tim a little bit, we’ve done multiple shows together for many years and I have the utmost respect for Tim and his guitars. Just a different philosophy, both of which can produce great results.

[alohachris]

Aloha Bruce,

You describe so eloquently above what is also obvious to me: overly-complicated, computerized anything actually defeats the purpose & intent of pure luthierie in making the world's best guitars.

CNC for replication of boring tasks for manufacturers is one thing. Or using it & CAD to make accurate tools like radiussed disks (much easier than routers) is also a good use of that technology. But using that technology to craft or even touch this single best, one of a kind guitar in the world on your bench? Please shun that fellow luthiers.

As we all know friends, wood has a very long memory. You have to keep your eyes, ears, nose & hands on it, & let it rest in between takes sometimes. CNC technologies are fine tools by themselves, but they don't let wood rest. The minds that crave complication will always find such tools in every generation. The learning process in technology is "fascinating" to them. However, the intuitive process of individual luthiers? Priceless.

But crafting wood & chasing tone in guitar making? The best and only tools for guys like Bruce et al. are our hands. Take the time to do it right - by hand. It's all in the tradition of craftsmanship, right Bruce?

alohachris

PS: I got pretty good at using spindle shapers on my necks fairly early in my game ('70's). In the 90's, a friend set me up on his CNC machine. But I really missed shaping customized necks from scratch myself. I loved going back to the spokeshave, end of the stationary sander, & curved scrapers. Customers also said they liked the hand-crafted necks better. Said they felt "right." Took just a "tad" longer - Ha! -alohachris-

[iim7V7IM7]

Bruce, when I do look at a luthier made guitars crafted using basic shop and hand tools I do think about the concept that David Pye (David was a professor of furniture making at The Royal College of Art in the UK) articulated called “the workmanship of risk”.

He referred to this as workmanship using any technique/tool in which the quality of the result is not predetermined and is dependent on the judgement, dexterity skills and care of the artisan as they work. The quality of the result is continually at risk throughout the process of making it so the outcome is not guaranteed. When successful, there is an inherent satisfaction to these tasks.

As players (consumers of these instruments) we frequently think of “craftsmanship” in terms of certainty and uniformity as desiable results. David Pye referred to this as “the workmanship of certainty”. The use of CAD/CAM/CNC in a task would be an example of this. Manufacturing is all about “the workmanship of certainty” and traditions of lutherie are all about “the workmanship of risk”.

As an engineer with a deep background in design, development and commercialization of products, I can appreciate both workmanship approaches, but the “the workmanship of risk” holds a special place for me. There is obviously plenty of gray space between theses two concepts of workmanship where tasks are assigned to both processes.

[Bruce Sexauer]

I am quite sure this current conversation's subject is highly controversial: I certainly didn't want to jump deeply into the adjoining threads as I I'm not it their spirit of things. However, I would not like to be thought of as a luddite, and want to admit to being passingly competent at drafting in the AutoCad program. Also, I used to have some skill with database, and have a medium shallow understanding of Photoshop, and am a bit better yet with my favorite vector graphics program, the long defunct but wonderful Micrographix Designer.

I designed my shop in AutoCad and succeeded at getting the approval of Petaluma's then ultra conservative building and planning departments to build it. I feel I am justified in being proud of this accomplishment. If anyone else wants to replicate my shop, I have the file!

I too can be drawn into the flickering flame of technology, and tried very hard to design a guitar in digital medium, which is how I became aware of how stilted the medium is, at the least for me. The most useful to lutherie thing I have actually done with cad was drawing a 42.5' radius circle, intersecting both ends of a 2' line to the circle, and measuring the depth of chord in the resulting arc. This allowed me to make the dishes I continue to use today to build my tops on. Actually, I drew a number of circles of different radii, and I do have quite a few dishes that I don't use so much as good old 42.5.

[Guitars44me]

Originally Posted by Bruce Sexauer

I have been watching the nearby threads on CNC and also Tim's thread on what it takes to make a new guitar design, with some distress. These threads make something that I consider simple and beautiful into things that are to me unnecessarily complicated and/or as though requiring a "fix" to facilitate a "solution".

For me, the beauty of pursuing mastery with hand tools, or hand guided tools, is as much what our work is about as the result itself. My life is not about how quickly I can make a guitar of how many I can make, it is about the quality of life's experience and can be measured by both the instruments themselves, and more so by the ongoing improvement each guitar represents as marker in my own personal development.

I believe (actually it seems obvious to me) that Computer Aided Design (CAD) impairs human aesthetic monitoring to a stunning degree. A typical human with a pencil and sheet of clean paper can draw a beautiful curve with amazing ease, while a talented artist can struggle for hours on a screen and never quite get there. Once the curves are "close enough", Computer aided cutters (CNC) can relict those curves till the tooling fails, but with no feedback whatsoever to the operator, and therefore no "growth", either to the stagnant result, nor to the designer (Luthier in this case). To me, that looks tragic, as it flies in the face of the meaning of my life. Not actually my own life, of course, but the potential of the lives of those who have gone down the other path.

Because I do not actually make the same guitar again ever, let alone twice in row, making new design is trivial for me, it's simply what I do. I need no new templates, tooling, jigs, or tool paths, I simple draw it on a piece of paper, cut it out with scissors, transfer it to a joined guitar top using a pencil, and build the guitar like any other. I know this looks simplistic compared to what Tim is describing (I personally like Tim and Mary, and respect them. I merely fear for their "souls". Which is mutual, I'm sure. ) and it makes a less compelling story, perhaps, but check out my results, if you haven't.

Back to making guitars.

I am so far from being a Luthier it is silly. But somehow this makes me think of the ongoing quest of players to find the "perfect gig rig" and backing tracks,etc.

I have been playing all my life, and have gone back to as little technology as possible. KISS...

To each his or her own. I always admire Bruce's spunk, and his work speaks for itself!

Play on and stay well!!!

Paul

[Treenewt]

Bruce

I am no luthier. I am barely a woodworker, though I fancy myself one. Your words above resonate with me. I don't disparage anyone who uses modern technology, certainly not Tim or anyone else. However, there is something in me that just says "yes" to the ideas proposed above.

My grandfather was a master furniture builder in the foothills of the Blue Ridge in Virginia. He specialized in solid cherry bedroom and dining room furniture. In my mother's dining room sits an 8 person dining set hand-built by my grandpa. The table legs and the chair legs/backs are all hand-turned by him on a lathe. If you look close, you can tell each chair is slightly different...not massively by any stretch, just slightly. He didn't use a template...he turned each one by hand and by memory. I love that. I love the little differences. I love the personal touch. I can still see him working that old lathe, hands crippled with arthirtis, un-lit pipe hanging out of the side of his mouth, looking out under his safety glasses just a bit to better focus on the work at hand.

That's in my blood.

I began considering attempting to build an acoustic about 5 years ago. Bruce, you were kind enough to respond to some questions I asked you about getting started. Responding to a question about hand tools, you sent me a pic of your chisel with these words: "Here’s a picture, though I assure the point isn’t that this chisel is important, it is that you don’t need many tools to do this work."

Yet again, that resonated. Maybe one day I'll be able to blend the things inherent in my blood from my grandfather with my desire to create a musical instrument to pass on to my kids.

Edit: I hope this doesn’t come off disparaging towards all the many talented luthiers and woodworkers that’s utilize CNC! Their skill set is far beyond anything I could ever hope to attain! I keep thinking about this and it’s similar to the way I prefer a real paper book to a digital one...it just feels right to me. I’m no Luddite, but I do think we are losing some things with the rapid acceptance of tech in every arena.

[Itzkinguitars]

Late to the thread but really love that flamenco you've built, Bruce! The bracing reminds me of a hybrid of Jose Pernas and Marcelo Barbero. I'm sure that thing is full of duende!

[iim7V7IM7]

Duende can be quite elusive if he does not like the home made for him...

[Bruce Sexauer]

Enough philosophy, I'm back to nuts and bolts!

My latest potential Duende abode has gone into finish, and here it is minutes before that happened:

[Bruce Sexauer]

One coat of Varnish over sealer and pore filler:

[iim7V7IM7]

The mahogany is stunning...

[jmat]

Originally Posted by Bruce Sexauer

Enough philosophy, I'm back to nuts and bolts!

I thought you were a HHG dovetail man!