GIBSON MK-35 Advice/Thoughts

[Gary Fried]

Hi, 

I currently have this Gibson MK-35 in my shop for some intonation issues.  It also has a worn bridge plate that could use replacement or reinforcement.  The problem is that this guitar evidently used some odd construction techniques that complicate the potential repair. I have attached some pics of the bridge plate and the bridge area of the guitar. It appears that someone has already re-glued the bridge and didn't take the time to position it correctly.  I appears that the bridge was re-glued about 1/8" closer to the nut than should have been. I was wondering if anybody on this forum has had any experience with these guitars and if so what advice you can give. I am honestly thinking that this repair will be more headache than anything else. And yes the bridge plate is smothered with glue.

 

 

Thanks

[Peter Poyser]

Throughout  this Thread , I've been trying to pull together a whole bunch of Facts, Reactions and Deeper Thinking about these Guitars and the People that devised them, that have been rattling around in my mind.

In doing so, I'm extremely sensitive to the knowledge that these Highly Controversial Guitars Inspire Admiration, and almost a Cult Following, from those who Heartily Embrace Revolutionary Design on the one hand.

Whilst simultaneously Stimulating, a Knee Jerk Reaction of Horror that is Instilling of a Profoundly Deep Rejection of Everything about them, from many people that are Strongly Conservative and Solidly Traditionalist, on the other hand.

Not wishing to offend  the Finer Sensibilities of anyone on either side. Yet wishing to be both Historically Accurate in Factual Information and Truthfully Honest in addressing both Objective Detail and Subjective Opinion, I have walked along a Tightrope.

 

 

If the Gap between Enthusiasts and Opponents of these Guitars is too wide to be Bridged.

My hope is that through this Thread, each side will have at the very least, an altogether better View, Appreciation and Overall Perspective, of the Land on the other side of the Valley.

I do believe the Product Marketing was so Technologically Focussed and Fixated so Heavily in Praise of the Expertise of the Main Proponents of the New Design, that All Awareness of the Individual Models of the Range was Lost to the Guitar World in General.

They just remember it was a "Mark Series Guitar", so enthusiasts apart. By and large, Guitarists are not knowledgeable of the Various Differences between the Various Models. Yet there is such a Wide Disparity between the Quality and Character of the Best and Least in the Range, that one can't but help conclude this, to be a Contributory Factor in the Divergence of Views regarding them.

On the One Hand, mainly in Kalamazoo. Schneider is Involved in Research for a considerable time, and later, again in Kalamazoo, Hand Crafting kudos building Top Models, both for Gibson at Kalamazoo and Kasha Design Instruments for his Own Workshop, which by this time had been relocated to Kalamazoo. Whilst, on the other hand, in Nashville. A New Hard Tooling Factory was being Built. And the Mark Series was the first Acoustic Instrument to be Built there, with Experienced Craftsmen mixed with Green Labour Production Operatives during the Ramp Up of the Factory to Full Series Production.

Under such circumstances, It would be Highly Surprising, if different examples of the "Mark Series Range" did not both Exhibit and Extract, Completely Different Opinions, purely and simply based upon the Singular, Particular Example, that any given Individual Guitarist might have encountered. And Few People have encountered Many. It would Explain some Differences. I think that's Entirely Reasonable, and I trust a quite helpful, way in which to take a Panoramic Overview of these Deeply Controversial Guitars.

 

At Kalamazoo, Schneider was contracted to spend so many days a year, working specifically for Gibson.

He made his presence felt, not only in and through his devotion and commitment to the Kasha Instruments. But helped Better Organise Production Procedures at the Factory by sharing many of his Ideas and Methods. For instance, he introduced Four Distinct Levels of Grading Wood to be better utilised for different purposes within the Factory Build, for All Guitars.

Both Visually for Appearance, as well as Stiffness. Today, it seems crazy to us and beyond our comprehension that better utilisation of Basic, Raw Materials did not appear to Routinely Occur for All the Material going into the Factory.  But I'm sure we have all encountered or heard of Great Wood being Painted Over on Les Paul Models, and similarly, Unimpressively Grained Wood being utilised for Stained Wood Finishes, in a manner that appeared to make, no Rational Sense.

 

 

But I would like if I may, to Focus on the Era from which, these Guitar Designs Emerged.

It followed a Period of the most intense Acclamation and Belief, that Scientific and Technological Advancement could Solve all the Problems of Humankind.

I should state that. Personally, I do not believe this. In point of fact, I actually Believe that essentially, Humankinds Fundamental Problems, all lay within and stem from Humankind itself.

Which brings me neatly onto my next point about Schneider. He was reading and very much into what years ago, P.G. Wodehouse would have euphemistically called "An Improving Book" and Totally  Captivated by Cutting Edge, State of the Art, Emerging Ideas.

The Range of Topics they covered, included Novel Ideas regarding the Mental Processes involved the Highest Forms of Creativity,  some of which seemed rather like dabbling in Psychological Processes. But Schneider was Catapulted by these, and many other Notions from Books. Driven towards Formulating New Ways of Thinking and Doing.

These, not only concerned themselves with the then, latest, widely banded idea or ethos, "Form Follows Function" but additionally, in regard to Form. Schneider was Completely Cavalier about the Abandonment of Traditional Guitar Cosmetics, and favoured Radical Re-appraisement of every Design Aesthetic of the Instrument, that was already Established and Proven to be Acceptable.

Personally, I think he bit off more than he could chew with that. But then Confidence in their Mission and Destiny, were not qualities lacking in either Schneider or Kasha.

 

 

 

Given that Schneider  was not an Academic, it is my Personal Belief, that his Partaking of Such Material, Spiritual Proximity to, and Continuously Deepening Devotion to such Horizon Edge Thinking.

Made it Sociologically far easier for him to Relate to, Mix With and Work Together with people that would normally be seen as existing in entirely Different Worlds. Be it Kasha himself, the Executives at Gibson, and the other Specialists they encountered during the Research; or of course, the General Management and Workforce at Kalamazoo.

Schneider said of himself, that he is not a Guitar Builder.  "I don't make Guitars, I make Guitar Makers." To me this is highly significant. Is it an admission of failure to become the World Transforming Luthier, he longed to be Recognised As? Or Indicative of a Guru like, Internalised Self Image? He was already, Fully Equipped with the Necessary Beard!

The relevance of the latter point, is that one wonders? Given his lack of Academic Accomplishment, and the Failure or Lack of Acceptance of the New Product Range. Given his strong Personal Drive towards State of the Art, Emerging, Cutting Edge Ideas.  Given his Complete and Utter Devotion to their Creations, that would brook no Criticism or Well Intended Advice regarding them..  Whether, in point of fact, he was Actuated and Sustained by a Profoundly Deep Seated, Inferiority Complex.

And this Revealed Itself. Most Clearly in terms of a Range of Compensatory Factors. These Demonstrate, a Strong Propensity to place himself, Head and Shoulders Above many or most of his Direct Peers. Form Partnerships with others from Completely Different Worlds, in Higher Planes of Society, far outside the Realm of the Art of Luthiery. My reason for writing this, is Not, in any way to disparage the man, but rather, to Completely Understand Him in Real Depth.  What was his Motivation that people who met him, described as Complete Obstinacy, where even the kindliest intended words regarding his Work, from the friendliest people, were Directly Interpreted as Damning Criticism?

 

 

His commercial adventures with Gibson, having Miserably Failed. He Claimed the Design had been Misapplied to the Wrong Instrument.

Prior to involvement with Schneider, Kasha had worked with another Luthier, purely on Nylon Strung Classical Models, and eventually Schneider once again turned the Focus of his Efforts, stubbornly back to this Point.

Seventeen times he bothered Segovia, to badger him to try out, and hopefully Endorse his Instrument to No Avail. Schneider Produced Six Different Irritations of the Kasha Design to present to Segovia. The last of which, when finally worn down, on the Eighteenth Encounter Segovia Accepted from him, with becoming platitudinarianism, seemingly to bring his torment to an end. Of course, that was not how Schneider and his Supporters interpreted it.

Segovia never Performed with such an Instrument, whilst (and this is the Salient Point to Take On Board) being Completely Open and Encouraging New Innovation in Guitar Design Amongst Luthiers, and indeed Performing on Recordings and On Stage in Concert with a Completely Revolutionary, Ramirez Design.

So it cannot be successfully claimed that Segovia was in any way Conservative or suffered from a Luddite Perspective towards New Technological Advancement, in the way perhaps Schneider would view many of those Traditionalists, he plainly regarded as opposed to his Instrument. Whilst it is true Segovia was Dictatorial, regarding Playing Technique.

Having Created the Acceptance of the Classical Guitar as an Orchestral Instrument. Having Defined and Made Widely Acknowledgeable the Classic Instrument and its Repertoire. Allowing Segovia the privilege to prescribe Details of Performance, is the very least recognition that should be paid to the Great Debt, All Exponents of the Instrument, Owe to Him.

 

 

Interestingly, although we know Schneider made Prototype Guitars for Baldwin and Gretsch, we don't see Prototypes of Kasha's Gibson Implemented Design about, do we? Undoubtedly, there were Completed Guitars, placed in Anechoic Chambers for Research Purposes.

Again, undoubtedly, there were Completed Guitars, placed in Environment Chambers for Research Purposes at Gibson's Kalamazoo Factory. What we don't see, is an Stepped Evolution in Constant and Continuous Improved Guitar Design enacted by a Series of Ever Progressing Prototypes.

By Contrast, Stradivarius, the Greatest Stringed Instrument Maker that has ever lived. Was Continually Improving his Instruments by Evolutionary Processes, that Introduced Marginal Change. With which, could then be made, Direct Comparisons to Evaluate and Substantiate Progress. In Effect, each and every Instrument Produced, was a Form of Prototype.

Schneider himself. In effect, dismissed the methods of the Greatest Stringed Instrument Maker that has ever lived, discouraging Young Luthiers from making Series of Developmental Prototypes. He said that "This was like hitting your Head against a Brick Wall"  and Claimed that at best, "Through random trial and error", "Only a Marginal Improvement could be made in that Way".  He actually Believed . No Detectable Difference or Able to be Heard Change, could thereby be Introduced.

 

 

But oddly enough, that Method seemed to have Worked Successfully for Stradivarius!

 

 

However.

Therefore. Individual Guitars were Worked Upon Until, it was Felt they were Fully Optimised. Quite understandable really, for Someone appearing from a Small Workshop Situation.

But for a Factory, that depends on Prototype's Evaluation, for Planning, and Process Formulation and Adherence.

Such an Approach would inevitably leave a Company and Everyone Else Involved.

Without the Necessary Devices Available for Direct Comparisons.

Too Much, becomes Too Dependent Upon.

Too Few Individuals.

 

 

If you think it's a Good idea.

To have School Children Mark their Own Course Work.

Or to Take Exams, and then Award Themselves, the Marks they Believe  they Deserve.

 

 

The Methods Utilised, will no doubt, appear to be, Eminently Sensible Indeed.

 

 

Regardless.

What Schneider sought.

Was some Great Undiscovered Principal.

A Revolutionary Underlying Concept, that could Inform and Shape.

The Massive Improvement in Design, that would Delineate and Trigger, very Many Small Changes.

The Sum Total of which, Taken and Enacted Together as a Complete Revolution of the Instrument, would Ultimately Register, in Universally Recognised Acclaim.

For Kasha and Schneider, Themselves Personally! And as a result ,the Massively Improved Instrument they would thereby Create, which would Inevitably Produce, Substantial Wealth as a Direct Consequence. A Prospect Which Gibson also Sought.

Schneider already Believed that the Intersection of Two Great Forces were the Catalyst that Generated such Sea Tide Change, in Creative Human Events, and the Respective Personalities and Interest's Involved must have certainly been Deep Substantiating and Reinforcing of each other's Viewpoints, if not to say Delusions.

 

 

Let's be Clear.

To make an Improvement in the Design of the Guitar.

Is not at all, what they were all about. They wanted to Strike the Motherload and Hit Gold Dirt.

Although many Great Luthier's didn't agree with his conclusions. According to Schneider, His Kasha Design Guitar's, Sounded Superior to Traditional Designs of Guitar

However, according to Schneider, to Produce One, Single, Kasha Design Guitar. Took Four Times as Long and Involved Four Times the Cost, of Producing but One, Single, Traditional Guitar.

Now, if I said to anyone reading this (presuming anyone got this far) All Other Factors being completely equal. If a Guitar Maker Spends Four Times as Long, Making a Single Special Instrument, as he does making a Traditional Instrument. At Four Times the Expense, would you expect, the Far More Expensively Produced Instrument, to Sound Better?

I Believe most reasonable people would.  Furthermore, quite irrespective of the Actual Construction Methods Utilised, if an Ace Craftsman spend Four times the Hours, and Four Times the Expense, working on any Instrument however it was made, I would expect it to Sound Better than a Traditionally Manufactured Instrument in a regular Number of Hours at a Standard Cost. Wouldn't You?

I think so! Now here, I am not simply writing about the Period when Schneider was in the Early Stages of the Emergence of the Instrument. This is what he said, years later, after actually making an enormous amount of them, when all the Manufacturing Processes had long been clearly defined, and the Building of these Instrument should have been a very Straight Forward Business Indeed.

Yet despite Schneider's View, and our kindly predisposition towards Expecting Improvement, the Most Authoritative Voices in the Guitar Manufacturing Industry and the Music Industry at Large.

Did Not Agree At All!

 

 

Although I am certain.

Many people here could easily list the various singular aspects of the Instrument that are Widely Accepted as being Disliked.

I have struggled to Analyse what the Fundamental, Underlying Issue was, that could Enable One to Enjoy, a Proper Sense of Perspective in regard to all the many other Smaller Problems.

It is my Belief, that the Effect of the Enacted Changes to the Instrument, could best be Summarised as Introducing a Higher, Basic, Fundamental Resonant Frequency, at which the Instrument Sensitively Responds.

This would, as appears to be the case, add Clarity to the Bass, and Increase Projection of the Instruments Volume of Tone. Furthermore, when Played Quietly, it would seemed Louder to the Ear, which is Predisposed to be More Sensitive to Frequencies, the Closer they Move Towards the Mid Range of Human Hearing.

The Guitars is an Instrument Voiced in a Low Register, so one might reasonably conclude that such a Shift in Fundamental Resonant Frequency, could be Safely Enacted without Great Detriment to our Perception of the Instrument. Yet The Ear, seems to be a most acutely Sensitive Organ. Whilst The Experienced Ear of a Devoted Guitarist, incredibly more so, in Relation to That Instrument.

To Such a Musician, The Traditional Warmth and Resounding Depth of Tonal Voice is Missing.

And it is that Deep, Hallmark, Characteristic,  of Fullness of Tonal Voice.

Which is, as very much in the Case of the Cello.

Where the True Power Of Its.

Emotive Voice.

Lies.

 

That is my Personal View.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=681NvqpO2eU

 

 

Additionally.

What Schneider was Seeking.

What he was Looking for, it seems to me, is "Validation".

Quite often, people offer me Recordings of theirs, they have made to Listen to.

They want me to Comment on the Quality of their Recording or some Performance to get Helpful Feedback.

Usually such people, Appear to be Exceptionally Open, equally receptive of Admonition or Praise alike, or so it would seem.

This is an Issue, I have discussed at some Great Length with Renowned Audio Designer/ Producer/Recording Engineer, George Massenberg.

And we both very much agree in our thinking about this, and both of us normally politely decline such offers, and interestingly the reason for our actual reluctance to opine, is this.

Although such people usually state they are after an Honest Opinion  of their Recorded Work, our Considerably Experienced  Observation is that Subconsciously, Underlying that, what they are really after, is "Validation".

 

 

An Authoritative Voice.

Of Recognition to Substantiate.

All that they Believe of Themselves.

 

 

When we consider Schneider's Continual Badgering of Segovia.

And we tie that together with the earlier comments, Regarding a Deep Seated Inferiority Complex.

Considering that being the Motivating Factor, that Drove Schneider to Display Many Compensatory Factors.

The Shaping of His Own View of Himself, the Kind of People from Academia He Worked With, and Those He Sought After.

To me, the Void like, "Missing Ingredient", throughout his Whole Life, he seemed to be Seeking After, is some Authoritative Voice, of Vindicating Recognition.

A Substantiating Authoritative Figure, who could Validate, and thus Force Universal Recognition by the World at Large, and the Global Host of Guitarists he felt Rejected By.

 

 

 

In point of fact, I think most Guitarists, Highly Regard his Skill as a Luthier. I certainly did and do.

What they Really Rejected, was his Feverish Devotion to a Clearly Lost Cause, which many Regarded as both Obstinate and Obsessionalism.

Schneider, characteristically thin skinned, was Unable to Make the Clear Distinction Required between the two, Reactively Rounded On the Most Kindly Comments, People made that wanted to Encourage him.

As in the case of a Great Many Artists and Performers, who are often Deeply Riddled with Insecurities Themselves!  A Negative Force which they can by the Mysterious Force of Compensation, Turn to Advantage to become a Legendary Rock Star.

 

But they.

Get Worldwide Recognition.

Stood on Stage, Bathed in Open Displays of  Love.

If One has Never Experienced this, then it may be Difficult to Comprehend.

But there's an Incredible, Life Confirming Force, in the Sheer Power of Fan's Massed Adulation.

By Contrast, an Acclaimed and Accomplished Artisan, Schneider was Unable To Get any Authoritative Voice to Endorse His Novel Ideas or any Convincing Degree of Recognition, for his Revolutionary Work.

 

 

Does this mean that his Work was Valueless?

Not at all! Today there are those that Admire and Appreciate his Work.

And no doubt, also those who Remember Schneider with Great Affection, I would sincerely hope.

But I would argue, the best place for these Instruments is as they have become, in the Hands of the Great Boutique Guitar Makers.

They Serve Well, the Size of Market the Instruments Draw and Furthermore, Guarantee the Detailed Attention and Quality Enthusiasts of the Kasha Instrument Seek.

 

The Market as Always Determine such Matters.

And is Superbly Provided For.

So All is Well!

 

 

P

[Roger Dowsing]

I have read all the contributions to this thread and at times and, as a player I have thought that the focus has shifted to the two men rather than the four guitar models in the series so I would like to bring it back. 

I have to be honest that the aesthetics are not to most people's taste.

Some have said that "it does not sound like  a Gibson". A Guild does not sound like a Gibson. A Taylor does not, a Martin does not, yet they sell hundreds of guitars so this is not a valid criticism.

A player buys a guitar because he likes the sound amongst other attributes.

So now we come to the sound. I tried Guilds, Martins and Fyldes (a well known UK make of hand build guitars. My MK72 blew them all away when I tried it out.

Now mine is a later model MK72 as I have seen some that are described as less ornate. Mine has a w/b/w/b/w binding to front and back with a large white insert at the strap button.

It has an ebony/rosewood/ebony fretboard. the neck shape and fingerboard radius are a dream to play on.

It has a rosewood veneered headstock fitted with diecast "Gibson" tuners not the pressed steel cased versions that I have seen on some models.

The serial number is 06181621 and was bought from a UK shop that had imported a load from Manny's in New York.

It has beautiful figured rosewood back and sides and a really fine grained spruce top.

I am not saying that it is great guitar because it looks pretty.

It does appear to be a later model as I said before and just maybe Gibson had started to get it right.

Some people may have been put off by the poor sound that the player hears and I can confirm that when played standing up and no amplification it sounds awful. Get someone else to play it (as I did in the shop when I bought it) and it really sings with a bell-like ring to it. If I sit down with it and kinda lean over it it is deep and full like a piano string wit great sustain.

So just maybe Gibson killed it by producing crap to start with but when they had got it right it was too late.

I really love mine and I have seen discussions where others have the same experience as I have had so like it for what it is - the model had its problems but when you find a good one it is a good one.

I hope this thread has run its course unless anyone has some great ideas on overcoming some of the weaknesses that 35 years of regular playing have revealed.

Peter, I enclose that picture of mine again and still in its original case just to finish and thanks for the vast amount of background info even though ..................I've said enough.

Roger

[Jeff Highland]

Peter, it is interesting to read your musings on the thought processes of  Schneider and Kasha.

I am coming at this from a different position

As well as repair, my focus is on building high performance acoustic guitars, moving beyond the X Braced paradigm established by Martin and Gibson.

The Kasha bracing system would actually be easier to construct than what I an currently using, but I don't find the Kasha approach of dividing up the soundboard into bass and treble zones to be convincing, I doubt the "science".

The radial bracing (from all builders) also seems to be inherently prone to excess bridge rotation and the associated bridge failure.

All builders have to decide which path they will follow, some go towards reproducing "golden era" instruments as accurately as they can, others seek to improve on this and innovate. The Kasha design seems to have been left behind for the most part.

[Peter Poyser]

Quote: "the focus has shifted to the two men rather than the four guitar models in the series"

 

 

Thank you for your courageously novel thoughts.

 

 

With Respect.

Although you are a Mark Enthusiast.

In the Wider Interest of a Degree of Historical Accuracy.

There were Actually Five Models in the Gibson Mark Acoustic Series, not Four.

These Guitars had Two Proponents, and the Guitars were the Product of their Minds, Imagination and Understanding.

I Don't Believe it's Possible to Understand the Concept of These Guitars, and Why They Are like they are, without Some Depth of Appreciation, of the Men who Originally Devised Them.

 

 

You might as well Study American History.

Without an Appreciation of Abraham Lincoln.

Ones Grasp will Always be Lamentably Lacking.

 

 

Quote: "Some have said that "it does not sound like  a Gibson". A Guild does not sound like a Gibson. A Taylor does not, a Martin does not, yet they sell hundreds of guitars so this is not a valid criticism.

 

 

Thank you for your strikingly breathtaking  thoughts.

 

 

With Respect.

Clearly, the Salient Point Missed.

Is that the Guitar is SOLD to the Public as a Gibson.

That being the case, Musicians naturally expect it, to Sound like a  Gibson.

Personally, I do not at all believe, that to be, an unreasonable, Professional, Expectation.  

Cornflakes, do not taste like Rice Crispies. Neither do Shreddies, Wheatabix, Puffed Wheat or Coco Pops.

But I guarantee! The day one rips open a Packet of Cornflakes, to find a pile of Scotch Porridge Oat Flakes, Tumble into the Bowl.

 

 

One WILL have Valid Cause for Complaint.

 

 

The Underlying Issue is Identical.

It's Simply a Matter, of Entirely Logical Reasoning.

 

 

Quote: "now we come to the sound. I tried Guilds, Martins and Fyldes (a well known UK make of hand build guitars. My MK72 blew them all away when i tried it out."

- Snipped for Shortness -

Quote: "Some people may have been put off by the poor sound that the player hears and I can confirm that when played standing up and no amplification it sounds awful."

 

 

Thank you for your amazingly fascinating  thoughts.

 

 

With Respect.

These Two Statements appear to Directly Contradict Each Other.

One Asserts that the Gibson Mark Series Guitars is Superior in Tone to C.F. Martin Instruments Manufactured during a Highly Sought after Period.

 

This may be hard for some to Accept and Believe, and is certainly outside my Personal Experience of the Sweet Toned Martins.

But the Essential Point is. You Expect the Luthier's here  to Believe That!

 

 

Another, Asserts that the Gibson Mark Series Guitars is Superior in Tone to Guilds, A Brand that Many Professional Artists and Luthiers alike, Regard as the Most Majestically Toned, Acoustic Guitar Marque, Produced.

 

This may be hard for some to Accept and Believe, and is certainly outside my Personal Experience of the Magnificently Toned Guilds.

But the Essential Point is. You Expect the Luthier's here  to Believe That!

 

 

The next, Asserts that the Gibson Mark Series Guitars is Superior in Tone to Flydes.

For our American Friends, here are some links to Flyde Guitars, Indubitably the Top English  Brand. Do Click on the Photos, and have a Good Look at the Superlative Craftsmanship.

http://www.fyldeguitars.com/art_of_guitar.html

http://www.fyldeguitars.com/guitar_as_art.html

http://www.fyldeguitars.com/players1.html

 

This may be hard for some to Accept and Believe, and is certainly outside my Personal Experience of the Exquisitely Handsome and Playable Flydes.

But the Essential Point is. You Expect the Luthier's here  to Believe That!

 

However, it's impossible not to Admire your Tremendous Skills in International Diplomacy.

Having Rubbished The United State Of America's, Most Historically Prestigious Guitar Brands, you go on to Rubbish, England's Greatest Brand, too! This does reveal a certain Even Handedness, which I'm sure will be warmly appreciated by everyone throughout the World. Terrorists in Particular will be Highly Gratified.

 

 

Unfortunately.

You go on to Make it Clear, that The Sound, The Player Hears, is "POOR"

And Confirm that its Acoustic Performance "SOUNDS AWFUL" particularly, Playing Stood Up.

You will no doubt appreciate, that I choose to use The Very Words, You Have Chosen to Describe the Sound You Encountered, when You Actually Played the Instrument, Yourself!

I have to thank you, for making me aware of a Classification of Guitar Type, of which I was previously unaware, that of Guitars which have Good or Poor Sound, depending on whether one is Sat Down or Stood Up.

 

 

One Learns, Something New, Every Day.

 

 

The Problem is.

If the Gibson Mark Series Guitar.

Truly does as have you Stated, "Sounds Awful".

And to the Players Hearing, its Acoustic Performance is "Poor".

But this Lamentable Sounding Guitar, "Blows Away" C.F. Martin, Guild and Flydes.

It really doesn't say much at all for the Sonic Performance of the Manufacturers of these Top Ranking Guitars.

 

 

This may be hard for some to Accept and Believe, and is certainly outside my Personal Experience of these Great Manufacturers Instruments.

But the Essential Point is. You Expect the Luthier's here  to Believe That!

 

The Precise Correlation between the Information you Communicated.

And the Facts in so far as they can be Determined and Demonstrated, is Such.

As to cause Epistemological Problems of sufficient magnitude, to lay upon the Logical.

Semantic Resources of the English Language, a heavier burden than they can reasonably be expected to bear.

 

 

Have you considered, that by making these points, in the way you have?

It might be possible, that you have conveyed the impression, of Possessing something of a Credibility Problem?

And that by Directly Contradicting yourself, Readers might justly conclude, that as an Owner of the Gibson Mark Guitar, you might simply possess, a Personal Bias?

Notwithstanding the Fact that your Considerations, could Conceivably Encompass certain Concomitant Appreciations of a marginal and peripheral relevance, there is a Countervailing Consideration of infinitely Superior Magnitude.

Involving your Personal Complicity and Corroborative Malfeasance, with a consequence that the Taint and Stigma of your Associations and Diversions could Irredeemably and Irretrievably Invalidate your Position and Culminate in Revelations and Recriminations of a Profoundly Embarrassing and Ultimately Indefensible Character.

 

Look!

Some Instruments.

Like Some Concert Speaker Systems.

Are Designed to have a "Long Throw" and Project their Sound Right into the Midst of a Large Hall.

I was Performing at The Royal Albert Hall with American Star Pat Boone some years ago, and Walked in Front of the Martin Long Throw P.A. Speakers.

The System had come from and was run by Experts from RJ Jones Studios, yet from where I Stood  they Sounded like there was Nothing to the Sound at all and Not Much was Actually Going On. In Fact they are Great Systems and RJ Jones, the Best in the Business.

http://www.rgjones.co.uk/18/special-events

For a Speaker System used in a Large Concert Hall, all this is Quite Acceptable.

For a Concert Guitar that us to be used Acoustically, in the Best Sounding Enhancing Concert Halls, perhaps with Other Acoustical Instruments, again its Quite Acceptable.

But for an Acoustic Guitar that is to be used by a Person, who WILL Require a Mic to Increase the Level of their Singing Voice. The Ownership of any Guitar that Only Sounds Good, if you use it in Precisely the Right Sort of Room, and will Sound "Awful" in Every Other Type of Room, would appear to be a Most Severe, Limiting Factor, regarding its True Usefulness.

Bearing in Mind. Your Point made so persuasively earlier, that the Instrument Sounds "Poor" when Played Stood Up. Thus presumably, only able to be Played Sat Down. With the Greatest Possible Respect. Any Instrument which By Cause of its Originality and Innate Design, can Only be Heard to Sound Acceptable to a Player, when Played Sat Down, and Astoundingly, in the Correct Type of Room, out of all the Types of Room that Exist. Would Appear to Reasonable People, to be Most Severely Limited in its Genuine Usefulness to the Average Player.

And makes Traditionally Designed Guitars, that can be Played in any Position, and Sound Great in any Room, Appear All the More Desirable than Ever.

It's so much More Convenient, if the Performer and the Guitar to be Played can be Together, in the Same General Vicinity.

 

 

The Following.

Was subsequently Edited Out from the Original Post to give a more moderate and different Tone.

But as I was beyond This Point and Finished in my Response, when the Edit Occurred, I continue to Respond to the Post as it was Originally Written.  I Saved the Post to the Desktop, as it was Getting  Late.

 

 

Quote:  "out of my brain!!!

 

 

Quite.

I appreciate your Candour.

Is it possible, this "Out of Brain" Experience you admit to.

Is the Reason for the Clear Contradictions and Highly Apparent, Confusion of Mind Displayed.

 

 

It's just a thought..

 

 

Quote: "Get someone else to play it"

- Snipped for Shortness -

Quote: " and it really sings with a bell-like ring to it."

 

 

Clearly.

You are a Philanthropist.

Few people can afford to Buy a Gibson.

That Sounds Bad to them, when Playing it Themselves.

So Buy a Gibson for Other People to Play, so that they can Enjoy Listening.

 

 

With all Due Respect.

Is it at all within the Bounds of Possibility?

And Please Appreciate, I am Attempting to Write with the Utmost Tact.

Looking at it, By and Large, Taking One Thing with Another, in Terms of the Average Experience.

In the Final Analysis, it is True to Write That, at the End of the Day, you would Find, in General Terms that, Not to put Too Fine a Point On It, As far as One Can See, at this Stage.

 

 

The Different.

Quality of Experience in Sound?

Could Be Accounted For, by the Quality of the Player?

 

Quote Jeff: "I doubt the "science".

 

Jeff!

Strangely Enough.

The Physicists at the Acoustical Society of America.

Told Kasha, Directly after his Demonstration to them, that he was using "Bad Science".

I didn't know Precisely what that Meant, and would have been Unable to Accurately Explain the Term.

 

 

So Earlier Omitted that Fact!

 

 

Anyway, what would they Know?

After All, they are Merely Eminent Physicists.

However, I have The Strongest Possible Suspicion That.

They would Completely Concur, Absolutely With, Your Sentiment.

 

 

Quote: "The radial bracing (from all builders) also seems to be inherently prone to excess bridge rotation and the associated bridge failure."

 

 

Yes!

I have Encountered.

This Phenomenon on Mark Guitars.

It is a Rational Explanation for Additional Undergirding.

And the Subsequently Added Screws placed in the Bridge at Either Side on Some Guitars.

 

 

P

 

P.S.

I am a Musical Instrument Lover.

And as The Queen is Utterly Apolitical in Politics.

I remain an Ardent Admirer of All, Great, Musical Instruments.

And am not Opposed to Attempts to Redefine the Already Seemingly Perfect.

A Company I have "an interest" in, has recently Invented an Entirely New Type of Wheel.

 

Amazingly, by Scientifically Studying, How Trees Grow.

 

That's the Absolute Truth.

 

 

P

[Tim Mace]

I've always liked this g'tar except for the headstock....if Gibby hadn't been involved it would have been a much better instrument(imo)....plastic bridges on wooden guitars was the beginning of a sharp quality decline.Too bad what mass deconstruction can accomplish....

[Ned Knepp]

Respectfully, Peter, in my opinion you have been somewhat harsh on Roger's views. 

First, I believe that a lot of your position / posting is concerned with the production of "factory" guitars and that you may forget that many of us are more focused on individual instruments. Even the best manufacturers make bad guitars and in rare instances, the worst makers can stumble around and ship a good instrument. When it happens in the first instance, everyone think "Yeah, it happens." and in the second, everyone tends to think "Yeah, right."  I used to live in Arkansas, sometimes the flash in the shovel is a diamond, not broken glass. 

I seems to me that you missed some things in his post. When I read Roger's post, I understood him to say that the difference in sound that came from sitting or standing was in relation to the player's ear. Sitting, he can keep an ear closer to the front of the guitar and is better able to hear what an audience will hear. I can understand that playing the guitar for himself while sitting would be satisfying and he can be confident that the guitar sounds good to his audience when he is standing even if he can't hear it as well in that position. My thinking at the time I read this was that this guitar may benefit from a sound port in the side which seem to be something that I see a lot in newer Kasha based designs on the Web. It's not the first guitar that I've heard of that sounds much better to listeners than to the player.

In my circles, it a well known fact that a lot of guitars sound better when the listener is setting in front of the instrument. I routinely allow others to play my guitars so that I can hear them in this way. It's been my habit to take multiple guitars to my "group" so that they can get some play time. They sound good when I play them but they all sound better to me when I'm not behind them.

Sound system/ amplification? In an age when a singer doesn't even have to be capable of singing in tune to preform live, all bets are off.  If someone is willing to spend enough cash, a box with piano wire on it can sound good. It's a different paradigm.  

You made some comments about the quality of a couple of brands of acoustic guitars which I won't disagree with except to say that, IMO, the "quality" of any given guitar really boils down to what the player think of the guitar in hand. I liked a lot of guitars of different brands. Currently, one of my players is an old Kay archtop. Is it a "great" archtop? No, but I like it nonetheless. I've played plenty of "brand" guitars that left me flat. I've also come across the occasional "cheap junk" (my term) guitar that left me wondering how often my prejudices have caused me to miss a gem in the rough. Tim Mace likes old parlors with ladder bracing and tail pieces. I don't/haven't liked them much but he has me wondering...

Gibson does and has built guitars for many different type of players. The idea that all Gibson's are the same except for the Mark Series doesn't align with my experience. A B-25 doesn't sound like a J-200 which doesn't sound like a LG model which may sound different from other LG models, none of which sound like a B-25. Yes, I understand the idea of Branding and creating a "feel" or other marketing tools but this returns to the idea that many of us are not concerned with a manufacturing line up. nearly as much as we are with how a single instrument preforms.  I  also completely agree that the Mark series was a marketing disaster with a design that is a matter of taste and dismal build quality control but, even with my limited exposure (two guitars) I have come across one that sounded good, played well and was completely desirable to me. ( BTW, at that time my favorite guitar was a sloop shoulder J-45. ) Given the poor quality control conditions at Gibson at the time, it was probably more a product of chance than anything but, personally, I don't have a problem with the idea that a few of these guitars may have turned out to be decent instruments. I like that idea that it looked and sounded different. I already had "the Gibson sound" available to me. Later I owned an LG because it didn't sound like a J model.  ( BTW, You lead me to believe in the post before this that you find 12 fret necks to be, maybe, extraneous. My Martin is a 12th fret model which sounds and plays wonderfully. I do, sometimes find things a bit cramped but to my ear it's more than worth the loss of fingerboard space. (I believe that the bridge placement coupled with the scalloped bracing on this mode is the reason that this guitar responds so well to light strings I prefer rather than the medium strings Martin usually recommends.) 

 

 I think the real point is that Roger likes the guitar. Beyond that, does anything else matter?  

[Roger Dowsing]

Hi Ted

Thanks for your response to Peter's comment. I respect you earthly viewpoint!!!

I have always approached this thread from the position of a 65 year old guitar player of 50 years playing acoustic 6 string and four string bass guitar (standing up and sitting down). Peter does not say how long he has played guitar or which brands he owns or has tried so I don't know where he is coming from with his assessment of this guitar.

I will stand by my comment that the Gibson MK72 that I tried and subsequently bought blew away the Guild, Martin and Fylde models that I tried. They were not top end models but were on sale at a similar price and so were directly comparable.

I regularly play in a band but also in purely acoustic pub nights and people often bring in big name instruments, We always play seated so I sit slightly hunched over my guitar and it still gets praise for its richness of tone so I am not alone in thinking that is a good one

Now I have not played a top end version of a Taylor, a Martin or a Guild but I guess these should sound pretty good. To make it clear, I did not rubbish all the American manufacturers but simply rubbished the examples that I tried prior to selecting the Gibson on merit.

So Peter, as much as I respected your input on this subject, I live in the real world of being a mediocre semi professional guitarists who has played or listened to many different makes, many different models and examples, materials of construction, playing techniques and musical styles over many years that I know I have a very good example of a variable quality model that failed to set the world alight (except on some owner's bonfires).

And I even like its looks!!!

Bye

Roger

[Ned Knepp]

I hope I didn't overstep. I have a lot of respect for Peter and his different point of view. I enjoy his posts but there are some times when I think that we come from very different "places" which can bring about misunderstanding.    

If I inferred that either of you was malicious in any way I did not mean to. I just think that there are some of us in our community that have radically different backgrounds and therefore different perspectives.  Sometimes I need to be reminded of that and I'm just self-assured enough to think that others may need to be reminded from time to time too. 

If I offended either of you, I apologize. My intent was more along the lines of bring that appeared to be two different views into better sync.  

 

[Jeff Highland]

It was a fair call Ned, and well put

[Peter Poyser]

Here is a Helpful Analogy..

And of course,  my purpose in writing is intended to be helpful.

To encourage a broader understanding of these Instruments, and a deeper appreciation of why they were made the way they are.

That in a single instance I have chosen to do so, using the witness testimony of a proud owner as Solid Evidence. Utilising their very own written words as Attestation to Clearly Highlight the Strong Discrepancies and Powerful Contradictions, these Instruments Generate in even their own Strongest Advocates.

I believe THAT above all, to make a Powerfully Compelling Case, Regarding these Instruments.

Albeit, an Inconvenient Truth, to some.

 

 

For me, there is nothing personal in this whatever.

Although I do of course have personal experience of the Instruments.

I have no Bias from Pride of Ownership, no Ego to be Dented, no Axe to Grind regarding the Instruments. I'm Simply. But Effectively. Making a Point! And that is All.

 

 

So Here, is the Helpful Analogy...

Today, most people here, climbed into their Cars, turned the Ignition, Pressed the Starter and Listened, Happily Reassured  as their Engines Roared into Life.

As they Travelled along, Peering into the Distance through the Windscreen. They utilised a Wide Range of Sensory Information, in order to appreciate what was happening to the Vehicle and how best to Control it, on the Road.

At one time they looked at the Rev Counter, and a host of Technical Dials. But those days are probably long gone. For Today, if their Car is Any Good.  They Feel the Dynamic Handing Characteristics of the Vehicle, and the way the Rubber Tyres, are Responding to the Challenges of the Road; Directly Through the Steering Wheel, The Sound from the Engine, and by the Sensations of Movement, they Receive, from the Seat of their Pants.

 

In others words.

Direct Feedback from the Vehicle.

And the Way it Responds to the Road, as it Travels Along.

Informs, Guides and Directs the Driver, as how to Optimally Control the Vehicle.

 

 

Sound is a Big Factor.

On a Good Vehicle, every component within the Design will have had its Tonality Tailored by Experts Sound Engineers to Specifically Meet the Target Consumers Expectations.

For instance, if the electric motors that enable the windows to open, gave out a whirring noise that was somewhat grating on the Ear. The Consumer would conclude that cheap components had been used to Build the Vehicle, and Subconsciously would Directly Project that Opinion onto All the Parts of the Vehicle, they Cannot See or Hear, and that would Negatively Guide their Formulating Evaluation.

Whereas, if amongst a whole host of features, this example just being one, the window motor operated in a way that was gentle, smoothly sounding, very controlled and in a Highly Refined Manner. The Consumer would justifiably, but subconsciously  conclude that All the Parts they Cannot See or Hear, that had been used to Build the Vehicle were of a Superlative Quality, and conversely, that would Positively Guide their Formulating Evaluation.

Engines are a Good case in Point. A Well Designed Engine is not one that simply Performs Expected Functions Reliably, its Tonal Characteristics would have, by Design, been Shaped to reflect the Type of Vehicle it is used in. A Thrusting Sporty Model might be expected to enjoy a Forward, Brassy Sounding, Trumpet like Rasp, that so many Sports Car Fans, Desire and Seek from their Vehicles.

Yet, were that Sound, to be too intrusive, especially on a Long Drive, this type of Sound could easily become wearying and taxing for the Driver who needs to be fit and alert. So the Balance between providing Potential Consumers what they Desire, and What is actually Best, for Them and the Safety of their Passengers, across a Wide Range of Driving Conditions and Circumstances, has to be Optimally Balanced. And all this forms Part and Parcel of the Design.

Whereas, A Classy, Highly Refined Executive Model from the same Brand, that had been So Well Built, and thus the Engine, Road and Wind Noise, so Strongly Suppressed. It might become necessary, to find an Artificial Way to Re-Introduce the Sonic Feedback that the Driver Requires to Inform his Senses. To enable them to Properly Understand, How the Vehicle is Responding to the Demands of the Road, and thus, How Best to Optimally Drive the Car. So important is this matter to Driver Performance, that Some Vehicles even have Microphones built into their Exhaust Systems, that pick up the Tonality of the Vehicles Power Pack, and Directly Feedback that Sound to the Driver by Acoustical Systems in the Passenger Compartment that can be heard, mainly directed to the Driver as a Sensory Aid.

 

 

What has this got to do with Guitars or Musical Instruments?

It is my Personal Belief, that Artists and Virtuoso Performers (the equivalent of Drivers by virtue of Analogy).

Need Direct Positive Feedback from the Sound of their Instrument, to Aid and Facilitate their Performance and Enable them to have the Confidence to Play at their Very Best.

If a Wise Driver is unsure of the Conditions, they will Slow Down. Their Forward Progress and Development will be Inhibited by their Lack of Confidence. In Precisely the Same Way, A Great Artist or Performer or even an Average One for that matter

Unable to Hear their Instrument in a way that will Inspire their Confidence, Hear it Respond to their Touch and Deliver to their Ear a Great Sound. Will thus Lack the Innate Fundamental Confidence , Absolutely Necessary, to All Great Stage and Recording Artists.

Thus, be Inhibited in their Performance, and will not Achieve All the Full Potential, they are Truly Capable of. Their Senses are not receiving the Optimally Prioritised Information that will Enable their Playing Instincts to Respond with Direct Immediacy and the Artist and Instrument, Work Together as a Single, Strongly Cohesive, Symbiotic Unit. To Deliver a Powerfully Compelling Performance for their Audience.

 

 

Getting the Right Feedback, direct from their Instrument.

Whether the Artist is a Guitarist, a Vocalist, or any other kind of Musical Performer.

Is an Utterly Essential Element, that is Entirely Necessary and a Prerequisite to them performing at their Very Best.

Allow me to give you some examples. A friend of mine was just starting to Record Linda Ronstadt one day, when she suddenly tore the Headphones off and shouted to him, "What's that Geeky Thing you are Doing to My Voice?"

There was a Latency Problem in the Digital Recording System being used that meant there was a Monitoring Delay in the Signal. Happily I was able to explain that by using Direct Monitoring through Analogue Equipment, the Artist could get the Direct Feedback they Require.

Although they always appear that way in Pictures and Films to Look "COOL", Often it is the case, that if a Vocalist, actually wears Headphones whilst Recording, they cannot get the Direct Natural Feedback to the Ear, they are used to when they hear their Voice. Often, when there is a Disjunctive Movement, (usually in a downward Motion) they will thus Sing the Note Flat.

When as a Child, you first learnt the Alphabet. You did so by learning a Little Song. ABD.. DEFG.. HIJKLM.... Now each of these Letters, had a Note attached to them. And when you Sang the Song, you also Learnt by Rote to also Sing a Pitch. Not all Countries are totally alike, but Certain Countries have a Distinct Tunefulness in their Patterns of Speech. The Pitch of Words as they are Spoken in Everyday Life, Rise and Fall with the Letters the Words the people are using.

This is an almost completely, a deeply instilled and unconscious instinct. Thus, for such an Artist being Recorded, and suddenly unable to Directly Hear their Voice, through Natural Mechanisms. But encountering in the Music a Disjunct Fall in Pitch, whilst delivering a Lyric whose Word at the End of the Line would feature a Letter that would usually be Spoken with a Fall in Pitch. The Artist Lacking the Correct Direct Feedback, will Sing the Notes Correctly but Add the entirely Subconscious, Instinctive, Additional, Downward Movement, they Always Correctly Apply to the Letter Involved. This makes it inevitable that they SING FLAT.

Now I have to tell you, that now I have disclosed this to you. As Luthiers, you are in Possession of Knowledge of a Matter that has Confused and Bamboozled Singers and Artists, Producers and Recording Engineers Alike. You see, they have the Ability to Hear and Recognise on Playback the Problem. But of Course Don't actually understand HOW and WHY such Problems Happen. When you explain it to them, it is like a Light Bulb Going Off in their Heads. It is a Veritable Revelation. How do Artists and Producers usually get around this Problem? Well What they Do is to Reinforce the Inclusive Direct Feedback from the Voice to the Ear. So Get the Artist, to Sing into the Mic, wearing Headphones but with One Ear On  and the other Ear Off. This Enables them to Hear Playback of the Backing Track, including their Own Voice, whilst also Simultaneously hearing the Performance of their Voice in an Entirely Natural Manner, Delivered by Direct Feedback to their Ear.

They may Still make a Mistake in Performance whilst Recording , (So I believe my own, Personal Way of Working with Artists as Described Above to be Superior), however, it is never the less the case, that the Artist will Immediately Realise their Mistake, because of the Improved Direct Feedback, from the Instrument of their Voice, to the Ear, now occurring in a more Natural Way. As a Conductor, and Producer I have worked with Hundreds of Singers, Thousands if you count up all the Choirs. Just as Thousands of Guitars have passed through my Hands during my Life. But the Essential Salient Point is, Better Direct Feedback of their Sound to the Artist or Performer, Tremendously Enhances their Quality of their Artistry and Performance, on Stage and when Recording.

 

Yesterday, someone I met.

Brought up the subject that Ace British Racing Driver Jenson Button had been to visit me.

Most of the World's Greatest Racing Drivers, from Michael Schumacher down, have for convenience, a Home in Oxford, as Most Racing Teams are based in the Region and at the very least, work with Companies based in the Area.

Some Formula 1 Racing Team Owners also have Homes here as the Industry has this Area as its Technological Epicentre. Some of you may be amused to learn that Eddie Jordan played the Drums, when he Owned a Racing Team and his Team did badly, he would go Home and Beat his Drums to Bits in the Aftermath. In this way, his Drumming Ability has Improved Vastly over time, for Every Cloud has a Silver Lining.

But at one point, his Team could do nothing right whatever, and in desperation he turned to a Company I had "an interest" in and we let him use one of our Anechoic Chambers for his Formula 1 Car. What we did for him was to detect and isolate the various Forms of Resonances (some of which were also Electrical and Magnetic) which were interfering with the Transmission of Telemetry Information from the Car to the Paddock at the Pit Stop Wall.

For our American Friends, who may be unfamiliar to Formula 1 Racing. Basically every element of the Driver and Cars Performance can be Analysed and Assessed by virtue of the Wireless Transmission of Telemetry Information. So for instance, on a Racing Track where there were a lot of Left Hand Corners, the Driver was taking the Corners Wide, Braking Hard, a Component Overheating, A Potential Racing Failure Looming, by receiving this Information at the Pit Wall, the Driver can be Advised as to the Best Course of Action by Radio, and Frankly a Lot of Races are in that way, Won or Lost, through the Driver and Racing Team having the benefit of Superb Direct Feedback regarding Performance on Track.

 

 

This, is Reality, is no Different in Principal.

To an Artist or Performer or a Musician Playing an Instrument.

Top Performance is only possible, when there is present a Good Form of Feedback.

So important is this, that that I have a friend, who used to Record Barry Manilow.  As well as Riding the Faders on the Recording Console, he would tweak the Level of Barry's Voice in his Headphones.

Alter it, to Subconsciously Manipulate Barry, to Hold Back and Restrain his Voice at certain Points or Push his Voice Harder, at other Points. This was a very Subtle Adjustment indeed, undetectable to the Artist. But the Point is, Better Feedback of the Artists Performance, Directly to the Artist Concerned. Resulted in a Superior Performance on Record.

 

A Well Designed and Constituted Musical Instrument.

Will Directly Feedback to the Artist, in the Moment of Performance.

In a Optimal Manner, that is Entirely Natural, and Instinctive to a Great Musician.

When the Cohesion Forming, Interaction of Feedback between Performer and Instrument Occurs in an Ideal Manner.

This Directly Inspires the Artist.  It has Immediate,  Confidence Building Effect.  It is Performance Enhancing Musically as every Nuance can be Heard to be Communicated.  It Validates the Artists Performance, Instantaneously. In Real Time. 

This can Lift the Artist to Another Level Entirely. It can Completely Elevate the Level of their Vision. For this is an Enabler of Excellence. A Faithful Servant and Conductor of Superlative Execution of Performance.  It Encourages Great Artistry and Creates Great Performance, as this above all, Facilitates a Musical Delivery from the Performer with Verve and Aplomb!

 

 

In my Experience, at its Best.

The Optimisation of the Direct Feedback of Performance between Artist and Instrument can cause a Performer to Excel Themselves.

Delivering a Quality Of Art that Surpasses hitherto, their own Abilities and Expectations and Enables them to Grow. To be the Very Best that they are Capable of Becoming. To Achieve not only, their Full Potential. But to Blossom and Mature as Artists and Performers, in a Manner that is nothing Short of Life Transcending.

They have Stepped Beyond. Into a New, Empowered Dimension of Performance, that will Lift them to become the Legendary Artists that, In Reality, they Truly Are.

 

 

Surely, this is what it's all about.

And why Great Musical Instruments are Made, and Sought After in the First Place.

So let me be absolutely Crystal Clear, a Superbly Designed Musical Instrument, of whatever type one might Wish to Consider.

Will Deliver a Great Sound, Directly to the Ear of the Artist, to Stimulate their Senses, and Inspire All their Creative Juices and Facilitate through Direct Feedback , Top Notch Performance.

 

 

Conversely.

A Poorly Designed and Constituted Musical Instrument.

Will Fail to Engage,  Fail to Directly Communicate with an Artist or Performer in the Manner I have Described.

Thus the Musician will Fail to be Inspired by the Sound they Hear of their Own Playing. They will Fail to be Encouraged and Uplifted, by the Sound of their Performance, as its Happening, in Real Time.

Many Great Artist are Famed for their Deep Seated Inner Insecurities anyway, but now, Confidence and Creativity will be swept away. Actively Inhibited by a Tide of Poor Sound. Suppressed and indeed Limited by the Unsatisfactory Quality of Sound of the Feedback, they Hear of their Own Playing Performance.

 

 

To any Reasonable Person.

This is Self Evident.

 

 

What have we been Informed?

By a Proud Owner of a Middle Range, Gibson Mark Series Guitar?

So a Good Example to take, by which to Judge the Qualities of the Overall Series, as a Whole.

What has been Explained to us regarding the Character and Quality of Sound Directly Feeding Back to the Performer?

 

 

We are Told.

By an Enthusiastic Owner.

That Strongly Admires these Instruments.

That the Sound the Player Perceives is "Poor" and "Sounds Awful".

 

 

So if you Properly Consider the Earlier Outlined Criteria and Importance of the Feedback to the Performer.

To my way of thinking, such an Instrument is Poorly Designed, Failing to Possess the Hallmark Characteristics, Top Performing Artists Require of their Instruments.

And it is this, which I believe, goes a Long Way towards Enabling Us to Fully Appreciate and Understand, Why No Major Artist or Performer, following the Launch of the Series, ever Endorsed or Used Them.

 

 

Now, matters of Standing or Seating, have been Raised.

Along with Various Positions and their Direct Relationship and Relevance to the Position of the Human Ear.

Honesty Compels me to State that in this Respect, I posses a Critically Disadvantageous Topography to other posters on this Subject.

As my Personal Viewpoint is Severely Limited, being Subject to the Necessity, of Being Completely Guided, by Scientifically Verifiable and Provable Facts.

Perhaps I should explain. That a Relative of mine, a Distinguished  Professor led the team that Developed the Model of the Human Ear, that is utilised by all Scientific Researchers, Surgeons, Medical Practitioners, Doctors, Audiologists, Audio Equipment Designers etc.

You may be interested to learn that Expert Scientists at EMI's Research and Development Establishment at Hayes Middlesex was involved along with this. Designing a Specialised Custom Set of Speakers, with a Dead Flat Linear Response over a very Wide Frequency Range to Facilitate the Testing of Myriads of Subjects. KEF Manufacturing Created them as a One Off. There are no other Speakers of this Type in the World. (As well as Collecting Musical Instruments I also Collect Speakers, so we Retain these Speakers in my Family, thought they have Huge Cabinets).

The Essential Point, is The Professor is One of the World's Leading Authorities on the Human Ear and How it Works. So you may Appreciate, that by Virtue of that Relationship, I Possess a Tiny Modicum of Insight into How Musical Sound is Transmitted, and How the Human Ear Works.

 

 

The Guitar, is A Forward Projecting Instrument.

All Traditional and  Conventional Designs, Project their Sound, in a Forward Direction, Towards the Audience.

All Acoustic Guitarists, Playing such an Instrument, Perceive the Instruments Sound, Off Axis to the Direction, of the Instruments Direction of Projection.

Whether they are Sat or Stood, on One Leg or Two, their Ears are always Positioned on their Heads in Such a Manner, that their Perception of Sound is always Off Axis to the Direction, of the Instruments Actual Projection.

These are Entirely Unassailable Facts.

 

 

It is Inevitable, that there will be a Differentiating Timbre.

Whether the Sound is Heard by a Listener, On Axis or Off Axis to the Direction of the Projection of the Volume of Tone of the Instrument.

However, in my Experience, although such Differences Exist with All Instruments whatever they may be, the Best Designed, Most Well Constituted Instruments, Absolutely Minimise the Distinctiveness of that Effect.

Most Especially, The Best Designed Musical Instruments, Sound Good from the Primary Direction of Tonal Projection as well as Sounding Equally as Good to the Carefully Listening Player, whose Ear remains Off Axis to the Fundamental Direction of Sound.

In other words, Great Designs of Musical Instrument, Feed Directly Back to the Player, Copious Amounts of Highly Reliable Information, that Facilitate and Enable the Artist in Performance to Accurately Gauge all the Nuances and Subtleties if What the Audience will Actually Hear.

 

 

To my mind, this Aspect of Instruments Design is a Highly Desirable and Critically Important One.

It really doesn't matter too much where you Stand, Sit or Lie Down, Whether you are Playing or Purely Listening, the Instrument Sounds Great, Regardless.

And an Overriding Reason as to Why Traditional Guitar Designs, have by and large, Become Deeply Embedded, Strongly Focussed upon a Small Number of Highly Successful Body Styles that Work Well.

 

 

Here's a Neat Little Trick.

Used by myself and friends of mine who are amongst the World's Top Recording Studio Equipment Designers and Highly Successful Record Producers.

When you make a Piece of Equipment or Mix a Multi Track Recording, when you've Finally Finished the Mix, don't stand in the Optimal Position to Perfectly Hear it. Stand anywhere but that.

Wedge the Control Room Door Open. Leave the Room Completely, and Listen to the Balance of Sound, from along the Corridor. Does it still Sound Balanced?  A Good, Well Constituted Mix will Continue to Sound Good. Wherever and However you Listen to it. On a Super Hi-Hi System, a Consumer Level Audio System, In a Car, on A Boom Box, Over the Radio.

A Well Designed, Properly Shaped, Superbly Constituted Mix will Sound Great Regardless, And that's True of Both Stereo And Mono Recordings, because a Sound Engineer Mixing in Stereo, should if they are any good, be Regularly Switching to Listen for Mono Compatibility as Many Radio Broadcasts throughout the World, continue to be heard by the Listener on their Sets in Mono.

 

 

To me.

An Instrument that Sounds Good in One Place to One Listener.

But Bad in Another Place to Another Listener, and most especially if that Listener, is the Actual Player.

Is an Instrument that is either a Completely Failed and Misconceived Design of Musical Instrument, or an Design of Instrument that has been Launched with Insufficient Research and Development prior to bringing it to Market.

 

 

Either way it's a Sure Cause of Failure.

 

 

However, I would like to continue for a little while, along the notion that On Axis and Off Axis Sound from any Instrument is, though hopefully not to too far a degree, Somewhat Different in Timbre.

Producers and Recording Engineers alike, take advantage of such Timbre Differences when Placing Mic's in the Near Field of the Instruments Voice to obtain a Different Sound, as may be required on the Track.

Virtuoso Instrumentalists in the Control Room, Listening to Playback are Sometimes Unhappy with the Sound they Hear, it doesn't Sound Right to their Ears. Mic's are Moved to alter the Sound, Different Mic's are Swapped out, Different Settings on the Equipments are tried, but all to No Avail.

In this Type of Situation, that does arise from time to time, I always advise (Quite Regardless of the Mic Position and Particular Techniques that are employed), Placing an Additional Mic. on a Boom Arm, over the Shoulder of the Player and Position it Close to Their Ear. In this way the Timbre of the Instrument they are Most Familiar with. What to them is it's Characteristic Hallmark Tonality can be Captured, and usually, just a little of that Off Axis Sound, Unique to the Player. Added to the Forward Projected, Recorded Sound, can be enough to bring the Widest Possible Smile to Great Artists and Performers.

So I do Acknowledge and Completely

 

 

But the Salient, Essential, Unassailable Point is.

Whether Listened to On Axis or Off Axis to the Instruments Direction of Projection.

With a Good Player and a Well Designed Instrument,  an Enjoyably Good Sound should be the Result, utterly regardless of where one Stands.

 

 

If it isn't

Then, to my way of Thinking About This Matter.

And To All my Personal Values and Sensibilities Regarding Music, Instruments and Sound.

 

Something Deep, Profound, Essential and Fundamental to the Process of Music Making is Wrong.

 

 

P

[Peter Poyser]

Quote: "I believe that a lot of your position / posting is concerned with the production of "factory" guitars"

 

 

As 99.99% of Guitars Made and Sold

Happen to be Manufactured in Factories around the World.

It's Probably a Good Idea for Someone to have a Little Inkling in What goes on in such Places.

With the utmost respect, the idea that Luthiers should concern themselves with Bespoke Instruments Alone.

And have no Real Grasp of How Manufacturers Build their Instruments, would, to my mind place such Luthiers in a Distinctly Disadvantage Position in their Professional Capacities.

 

Learn All you Can.

Teach  All you Can.

Become All you Can.

 

 

Quote: "I used to live in Arkansas."

 

 

Good for You!

I have a very old Pal, who was born and grew up in Arkansas, who was Educated here a while, and still comes here on a Very Regular Basis.

He Plays a Musical Instrument a bit, and that is how we came across each other, and I was able to be of some Personal Service to Him in his Formative Years. 

He and His Wife were and still are most certainly both Good Music Lovers, they even named their Daughter after a Popular Song, but the Musical World was not was his Profession. He is retired now, but still keeps pretty busy. He was here last year and gave a Mind Blowingly Authoritative Lecture.

The really important thing most people don't realise, is that although he worked in a Different  Profession, far removed from the Music Industry. He none the less, used his Position and Influence to Create the Conditions and Possibilities for the Deeply Struggling American Guitar Industry, to Compete on more Equal Terms with Foreign Competition, and Additionally Relocate to New, Start Up, Factories, just beyond the American Borders, under Special, Highly Favourable Economic Conditions where it was Convenient and Easier to Form a Stable Base of Operations for New, Kudos Branded, Desirable  but Affordable,  Middle Priced Instruments.

Things have moved on. The Global Competition has Intensified. But he Created Breathing Space for some of the Great Historic Brands as well as the Emergent Guitar Brands of the Latter Half of the Last Century, a Classic Opportunity to Fight Back for an Industry under Great Economic Pressure.

 

 

Whilst many years ago.

I also worked on Music Projects here that involved an Artist who Originally Hailed from Arkansas.  He had just Married at the Time.

It was a Very Happy Time for me, and He was a Tour de Force, Widely Loved and Admired and the Wonderful Memories Remain. Sadly, that Artist is no longer with us.

The only trouble was, if you were walking along the Street at Night and decided to cross the Road Together with him, it was always difficult for Motorist to Spot Him because of his Dark Clothing.

 

 

 

P

[Ned Knepp]

Well, Peter, I read your book. In the interest of full disclosure, I must admit that I skimmed parts of it in the interest of time.  There is much I could say in reference to your material but little of it would be applicable to the topic at hand. So, in the name of time and space ( space/time?) , I will cut directly to the chase;

 I believe you have almost completely missed the point.

 

I don’t disagree with you on many of your points, I simply don’t have the economic clout to live as you obviously live. Most of us don’t have the wherewithal to go through “thousands of guitars” to find the ONE.  Besides that, everyone’s taste is different and everyone has a different idea of what is acceptable in their instrument. I’m truly baffled that you appear to have such trouble accepting this idea. To use your analogy to make my point; Some of us actually like vintage cars with all of the course, unplanned mechanical sounds generated in such vehicles. That doesn’t make either of us wrong, just different.

 

 Quote Peter; “As 99.99% of Guitars Made and Sold  Happen to be Manufactured in Factories around the World.  It's Probably a Good Idea for Someone to have a Little Inkling in What goes on in such Places. With the utmost respect, the idea that Luthiers should concern themselves with Bespoke Instruments Alone. And have no Real Grasp of How Manufacturers Build their Instruments, would, to my mind place such Luthiers in a Distinctly Disadvantage Position in their Professional Capacities. “

 

Peter, I really don’t understand why you think that the residents of this forum are not aware of these facts. I remember that I made comments about this but I actually know much more about large scale production than you appear to think. My experience is obviously more limited than yours but I'm not really ignorant on the topic and I doubt if most of the other residents are either.

What I was trying to point out is that, while most instruments are massed produced, most of us evaluate them ONE AT A TIME. When it comes to purchasing an instrument, each instrument stands on it’s own merit. This isn’t something you don’t already know so you might understand why I am so surprised that you don’t seem to be able to accept that the rest of us do the same thing. Maybe the difference is that you don’t seem to have the same economic restrictions most of the rest of us have. When we looking for a personal instrument we are looking for one that we like well enough AND one that we can afford. That last idea can be pretty restrictive. I can’t stress this enough, we play what we like best selected from the available pool of what we can afford.  

 

There are two points here. One is the economic reality that most of us deal with that doesn’t seem to be such an issue in your life and the other is that everyone is different.    

Roger is, apparently, comfortable with the guitar and since no one is insisting that you play it why question it?  As I already pointed out, Rodger likes the guitar. What else really matters?