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

[Roger Dowsing]

Thanks Mark, that looks to be a better solution than cutting up old strings to use the brass ferrules. I guess the harder metal bridge plate should give improved sustain and note clarity as it will not cushion the string vibration. I might make one - I am retired engineer and used to work here in the UK for that famous USA turf machinery company Toro so it should be simple to try especially as Gary Fried posted some pictures at the beginning of this thread of the MK series bridge plate from inside the body.

I am still using the original rosewood bridge pins and have tried to find some Tusq or bone pins to fit the holes but without success. I bought some to try but as they did not fit I put them in a Fender acoustic in place of its plastic ones and improved the sound of that guitar!! I also put a Tusq bridge saddle in and improved the sound even more.

I enclose a picture of the Tusq saddle I made for the MK 72.in case anyone else wants to revive an old MK series guitar with this modification. If anyone has not heard of Tusq before then it is supplied by Graphtech of Canada and they make precut saddles, nuts and pins. They also sell blanks for you to cut and shape yourself. 

This is the first discussion site I have joined and I am impressed by the knowledge and interest out there.

I have a Fender Japan Jazz Bass that I have modified so one day I will start a discussion on that but for now Thanks.

[Peter Poyser]

Quote: "My client was apologetic to me because when I first started working on his it had at one time been the recipient of vomit and bong water...  I don't mind the bong water but the vomit was a bit much..."

 

 

 

This made me laugh!

It reminded me of a friend of mine, a Record Producer who was invited onto a Yacht to meet Recording Star, Brian Adams.

My Pal was wearing a Vividly Loud Hawaiian Shirt along with his Short Pants, and I'm not sure if it was the Motion of the Boat, a Negative Reaction to the Sight of the Loud Shirt, or the fact that Brian had been consuming a Copious Amount of Beer

Probably all three. For as they were introduced, and in the middle of a Hail and Hearty Handshake, the Boat suddenly swayed, causing Brian to react by lurching forward towards my Pal, whereupon he Spewed Up all over him and his Loud Shirt. Perhaps as a Sensitive Man and Performer, it was some kind of Artistic Statement.

The Worst Problem of this type I know of, is years back, in the old days, when Graham Nash was with the Hollies and Touring in the U.K. They were foolish enough to be Sharing the Bill and a Dressing Room with a Crazy Comedian called Freddie Starr. When everyone was out of the Dressing Room, Freddie loosened the Strings on Grahams Gibson Acoustic, Happily Defecated into the Sound Hole, and then helpfully Re-Tightened and Tuned the Strings, before putting the Guitar back precisely into place for Graham to find.

You had to have a Good Sense of Humour to work with Freddie..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVbslxmDzfU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AoUFF6T1KQ

 

 

At least, your Client was Apologetic!

I remember Englebert Humperdick coming out of his Dressing Room rather upset.

It turned out, Freddie has been in there, and gone into the Wardrobe where he kept all his Smart Stage Costumes... To Urinate in the Corner of the Wardrobe!

He was always lots of fun...

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnN3nD6pCus

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7nI_5AoHvc

 

 

 

I have a slightly different take on these Guitars.

And remember well the time when they were Launched onto the Market.

Being a Great Believer in Scientific Research, one held out Great Hope for the possibilities of this Model.

However, Innovative Ideas and  Scientific Research in and of itself, is simply not enough. This has been proven time and time again by Manufacturers .

That Research has to be Incorporated into a Larger Program of Product Development to be of Effective Use, and then Implemented into a Well Conceived, Properly Engineered Concept for Practical Series Production, to Market an Attractive, Well Designed Product.

 

 

My take on it, is that in an Era of Scientific Breakthrough.

When Competitor Manufacturers like Ovation where having Considerable Success, Marketing "Stadium Solution" Instruments, utilising Radical Materials and Construction.

Staying at the Forefront of the Guitar Industry meant coming up with Scientific and Technical Solutions, to Impress and sometimes Bamboozle the Hoi Polloi. A Good Gibson Execution of which was for example, the Bass Player in a Band I was Conducting had a LAB Series Amplifier with Moog Designed Active Electronics in his Gibson Bass.

I liked all that and thought they were extremely Good Sounding used Together as a Single Unit. But here we are talking about a straight forward Acoustic Guitar. In other words, I am suggesting that although Good Scientific Principals were underlying the Guitar. The Owners of Gibson themselves had no Genuine Dedication to The Pursuit of Scientific Truth as and of itself.

This is always where the Men are separated from the Boys, whereas Companies I have "an interest" in, Fund Pure Scientific Research Programs that seemingly have no link to any Direct Commercial Gain, which later turns out often to have a Valuable Use. Gibson "Contracted In Scientific and Technical Expertise"  and saw both the Science and the Scientists as nothing more than Providing an Expedient Excuse and Opportunity to Push Through a Marketing and Sales Drive that could Entice and Attract Consumers away from their Successful Competitors Products. I am not one of Life's natural skeptics, but base my evaluation on, the Then Owners of The Company. So that was my take on it.

 

 

Richard Schneider, an Excellent Luthier, was used to Add Verisimilitude to the Concept.

But without taking away anything from the Gentleman's Tremendous and Renowned Skills and Talents. They don't really make him an Ideal Development Engineer, or at all and most especially, a Factory Process Engineer.

One who can tell and show everyone how to Manufacture the Product using Existing Tooling Solutions wherever possible, and do that not only to a High Quality and Solidly Reliable Consistency. But of course, most especially, in a way that provides the Owners of Gibson, with the most Substantial Profit Possible. This is really what it all was about. Selling Guitars and Making Profit.

 

 

I have to come completely clean with everyone here.

It's just my view. But although The Scientific or Innovative Idea underlying a Design Concept is Extremely Important, perhaps the Single, Most Vital Element, Involved.

In my experience, the Place where a Product is Made or Broken, is always at the Development Stage, where the Product is exhaustively put through its paces and Has to Prove Itself.

And do that to people with the Experience and Intuitive Nouse to appreciate what Changes need to be Enacted to bring the Product to Complete Fruition as A Mature Design, fully capable of Trouncing the Competition.

So although Gibson would obvious lay great emphasis on people like the Scientists and Luthiers in their Promotion of these Instruments, personally, what I would always want to know was, who was involved in the Practical Implementation of the Factory Processes, and everything about, that to me, seemed something of a "Fish Out Of Water Scenario".

My understand was that Richard Schneider was pretty unhappy about Gibson's Final Implementation of his Design Ideas. And the kind of Scenario that springs to my mind, is that of Manufacturers that take a Sound Design Idea, and gradually, By Committee, strip it so bare and removed from the Original Concepts of the Main Figures involved, that it becomes "Lost" in terms of its Virginal Purity, its Real Self Identity.

 

 

Although few were made, along with the Factory Production Models, The Mark Series did feature a Top of the Range, Hand Crafted, Luthier Model.

There were altogether, eventually Five Models in all, of which the Bottom of the Line Model was the Mark-35. Peoples experience of these Guitars may differ widely, dependant on which of the Models they have encountered.

Usually they mostly remember them simply as a Mark Series. I see that Lack of Identification as a Problem. The Bottom of the Series were Manufactured with Mahogany Backs and Sides. The Middle Models of the Range featured Maple Backs and Sides and the Top of the Range had Rosewood Backs and Sides.

Some of the Better Models came with a variety of Extra Bridge Saddles, Manufactured from a Variety of Materials. Along with an Additional Stick On Pickguard should in future one ever be required, but which was virtually guaranteed to wreak havoc with your Finish, with cheap double sided Circular Blobs here and there. Perhaps that Improved the Sound?

Usually, there were Three completely different Bridge Saddles, supplied with these Higher End Models like the Mark 99 and Mark 81. So along with the Saddle fitted to the Instrument as Standard, a Micarta Saddle was included along with a Bone Saddle fitted to an Ebony Insert that slid into the Bridge Slot. The Bridge Saddle Inserts appear to be an attempt to provide "Alternative Tonal Tailoring" to accommodate the Most Demanding of Guitar Owners with preconceived  expectations.

 

 

The thinking amongst us might be wondering, Why, if the Guitar was So Good?

Was it necessary at significant additional cost, to provide these Extra, Alternative Tonalities, to make the Instrument Acceptable to Potential Purchasers?

By Direct Comparison to the best Traditional Designs of the Day, did the Instrument Not Sound Distinctly Better? And Required "Adjustment" to Accommodate the Demands from People whose Musical Genre and Timbre are well Established by Recording Traditions.

Furthermore, the really brilliant amongst us, will be wondering? As The Whole Science behind "The Jet" Bridge, The Bridges Plate, and the Bracing of that Whole Area of the Top, was supposed to be Scientifically Determined "Impedance Matching" of the Respective Parts, to attain a Superior Performance previously unobtainable from the Instrument.

An "Idea", by the way, with which I have no quarrel with, in principal. How that Significant Improvement in Dynamic Mechanical Efficiency is Accomplished or even Enhanced By a Significant Decoupling of the Major Components involved, and placing Vibration Inhibiting Barriers, between those to Change the Sound to make it better meet Players Expectations of Timbrous Response, I don't know? Neither does anyone else in my experience.

They can only make the Transfer of Vibration, Less Efficient, so Debunking the Entire Illusion of Science and Technology upon which the Entire Product Range and its Marketing was Based. I see that as another problem.

If someone here can explain to me, how Placing this Additional Mass of Differing Saddle Material at the Bridge, Given that Reducing Bridge Mass is usually the Route to Efficient and Optimal Performance?

And THAT being the Whole Principal of the Science behind the "Jet" Design of Bridge? How it is in any way possible for this Implementation of the Design Concept, to be More Efficient?

Than a Well Designed, Optimally Structured Traditional Bridge.

I would be very interested to Learn.

 

The Whole Execution of a what was essentially a Great ldea.

Actually Contradicted Itself, by means of its Implementation.

 

 

Does this mean it was a Bad Instrument?

No, not in my opinion, and the opinion of Session Musicians that tried it.

The Tamed Boominess and General Tonal Character solved certain common Micing Problems.

So for people that want to Mic a Guitar that "Sits in the Mix" well whether Recorded or in Live Performance it would seem useful.

But such problems could always be Solved in Other, Cheaper and Easier Ways with Traditionally Designed Guitars anyway, that already provided "The Right Sound" as long as the Recording or Live Engineers were up to Snuff.

 

 

Two Aesthetic Design Aspects that were a great mistake in my opinion.

Was messing with the Overall Shape and Design of the Headstock. This is a Brand Trademark.

And a considerably valuable Marketing Asset. I would have immediately sacked anyone who suggested altering this.

Now if you understand the Science behind this Design correctly, you will realise that it calls for Some Differences in the Headstock.

The Idea behind the Science, suggests that by adding Extra Mass to the Headstock, and Improving the Necks Vibrational Characteristics.

The Transfer of Tonal Quality via the Vibration of the Strings and Neck to the Acoustical Body of the Instrument, can be Further Increased in Efficiency.

All this is O.K. with me, I have no problem at all with that Idea in principal, but the Issue I have, is Gibson's Headstock is a Factor, that makes Gibson's Identifiable as Gibson's.

It is a Straight Forward Marketing, and Legal Protection of Registered Trademark  World Wide Issue for the Company. And a Consumer Brand Marque Identification Issue for Loyal and Potential Customers.

Heck, I worked for a Company once that spent a cool £1,000,000 in looking for a Name for its next New Product. It's funny how many words like "Elegance" in one language Translate to )@X& when you want to Market the Same Product in another part of the World.

If you examine the Portfolio's of most of the Huge American Corporations that struggle with Huge Losses on an almost cyclical basis. And you see just how many Different Brands, Marques, Trademarks and Models go up to make their Impressively Huge Portfolio's. You can understand, how confusing Brands and Trademarks are and all that can quickly become foxing to the Consumer, when they are considering a New Purchase.

 

 

Own A Great Trademark.

Keep it Absolutely Consistent.

And Build on Quality & Reputation.

Whilst Enforcing Protection World Wide.

 

 

This is something some Great Guitar Manufacturers have Learnt only by Hard Lessons.

O.K. I'm waiting for someone to shoot at me, but Gibson have produced, several Six in a line, Fender Style Models.

Again, I would have sacked anyone that suggested we Sell Guitars, by Advertising our Fiercest Competitors Products, on our very own Headstock.

Can you see? How utterly stupid this whole idea is, when you think in terms of Brand Consistency. Establishing a Clear Brand Identification to a Large and Growing Consumer Market.

 

 

From a Brand Trademark point of view.

It is rather akin, to Shooting Oneself in the Foot, with Both Barrels of a Shotgun.

Reloading, whilst stood on one leg, and using Both Barrels again on the Other Foot, for Good Measure!  

 

 

Now I realise that some people will Own and Love Gibson Instruments.

With Modern Headstocks that have been Widely Accepted having been around for a Great Many Years.

Furthermore Gibson Owners coming from Fender Style Instruments may well be used to and even prefer the supposedly Straight String Pull Idea.

None of that is an Issue, neither do I take issue with anyone with such a Preference. One Company I have "an interest" in, has had the same Trademark throughout virtually its entire life, and the same Advertising Slogan for its Brand for over 35 Years.

 

 

That's Brand Identification and Consistency.

When you mess with that, you create unforeseeable problems.

And without realising it, put at great risk, the future well being of your Company.

 

 

The other Aesthetic Design Aspect I didn't like was a Plastic Sound Hole Rosette.

In an area Traditionally Reserved for Hallmark Shows of Great Craftsmanship and Skill.

It was DOOMED to Disappoint and disaffect all Traditionalist Artists, at a point following a period when (courtesy of Ace Craftsman Mike Longworth), Martin had already redefined "Guitar Bling".

The Plastic was a "Nod "to New Materials, and Innovative thought, and perhaps a "Royal Wave of the Hand" to Competitors like Ovation, but itself completely against the whole Ethos of Traditional Craftsmanship.

Heck, I can't even stand the Yamaha Plastic Sound Holes, even Today, let alone the Plastic Backs. At that time, I think you have to see it as another Design Implementation Disaster, for if you think about it, it's a repeat of the earlier problem.

Gibson were Marketing these Guitars, as involving the Great and Indubitable Skill of ACE Luthier Richard Schneider, so tremendously increasing expectation of an Up Market, Premium, High End Work, whilst Producing an Instrument that Featured a Cheap Plastic Ring in the very area one would expect to see Inlaid Work by a Craftsman.

Can you see? The Design Ideas and Marketing, Directly Contradicted the Factory Produced Implementation of the Concept.

 

 

When someone tries to Sell You an Idea.

If they Appear to Directly Contradict Themselves.

In Finality. How Strongly are you Likely to Believe Them?

 

 

Putting Cheap Parts on a Guitar.

That is Supposed to be "Special" is never a Good Way to Go.

If you Charge a High Price for a Better Level of Quality, people don't mind, IF they get Quality.

The Extra Premium to the Customer allows for the Extra Cost in Manufacturing, so there's No Excuse for this in my Book.

It is just Bean Counting, Plain and Simple. Save us from the Surfeit of Managers that Can't Manage, Administrators that Can't Administrate,  Bureaucrats and Bean Counters.

 

 

This is a Simple Matter of Lack of Leadership in the Company.

 

 

Clear Ideas.

Properly Implemented.

By the Steering of Clear Leadership.

 

 

Lastly.

Overwhelmingly,  Consumers do not buy Guitars.

Because of some Scientific or Technical Innovation, unless its Genuinely Helpful in a way that is Practical.

In others Words, it Solves a Problem, like Ovations at a time when Artists were Appearing to Huge Audiences in Stadiums, not designed for Acoustical Concerts.

Now most of the people that bought Ovation Guitars, did not Play in such Stadiums. But none the less found the Easy Amplification of Acoustic Instruments, to be a Very Useful, Additional Facility.

Most people buy Guitars as an Emotional Purchase. Perhaps because they Associate the Brand of Instrument, with a Great Artist or Performer they Aspire to Emulate and Increasingly Become, More Like in many Respects.

They have Hero's, and believe that owning the same Brand of Instrument and Equipment as the Artists they Admire, will significantly help them to Sound and Perform Better, additionally, sending a Bold Statement to others, Regarding their Personal and Professional Stature in the Industry.

 

 

They are Bathing.

In a Kind of Reflected Glory.

Majestically Shone from the Talent of Others.

 

 

But few, if any at all, Great Artists used these Instruments on Recording or Stage.

Clearly preferring the Traditional Instruments that had the Recorded Sound Quality Gibson was Renowned Throughout the World For.

This Gratifying Validation by the Greatest Artists and Performers of the Day, is the "Missing Link" that potentially could have launched the Product into the Stratosphere, but then as today, remains "A Missing Link".

To those that feels my post is Critical of the Product. That is not my Intention as the Last Guitar I purchased, was indeed a Gibson. Rather, I do wish to be Historically Accurate whilst keeping my response as concise as possible, but always have been and remain, a Gibson Fan.

The good news is, that if you can find a well looked after example. For a Parsons St. Kalamazoo Instrument, Manufactured with Highly Sought After Brazilian Wood, this Instrument  Range is very much on the Cheap Side of what you might otherwise expect to Pay. If you are prepared for the Tonal Difference, with the possibility of a Fast Neck that may seem Ideally Suited for an Electric, and fitted with Jumbo Frets.

A Collector of Guitars, and every Good Guitarist has something of that in them.

And could find they Pick up something of a Bargain.

That's how I would look at it.

 

 

Mark Knopfler has the Best Example I have come across.

But it has a White Inlaid Dot either side of the Bridge, so probably screwed.

The main thing is, not to get placed in a similar position, if you decide to buy, these Instruments.

 

Happy New Year to Everyone!

 

 

P

P.S. Roger I have distant relations in Ipswich.

And some Close Relations in nearby Woodbridge Suffolk.

With Pal's in Martlesham Heath where they make BBC Vision Mixers etc.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/03/26/geeks_guide_adastral_park/

[lowatter]

The Kasha fan bracing and bridge design has always intrigued me and at one time I was intending to try my hand at building one but did not follow through. From the majority of the reading on them they usually had side or offset soundholes which may have been part of the downfall of the MK-35. There seems to be alot of acoustic thoery on the subject albeit with some controversy. As with anything experimental, I would think that it would take decades of refinement to meet the standards of the majority of players to not be just a passing novelty. I like the "thinking outside the box" aspect. 

I did a search and this was one of the websites dedicated to the Kasha design. Interesting reading...

http://www.jthbass.com/guitars.html

http://www.jthbass.com/kasha.html

 

[lowatter]

OR perhaps I should've said: thinking "inside the box" aspect.

BTW...there's a '76 MK-35 on fleabay for a BIN of $1,100

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Gibson-Mk-53-1976-Near-Perfect-/27135837497...

[Jeff Highland]

Michael Kasha, whilst undoubtedly a brilliant man, was a chemist not an acoustic expert, and was neither a player, nor a builder.

His concepts were proposed to improve the classical guitar and were translated into physical guitars by Richard Schneider.

By the time the steel string guitars were produced by Gibson, they were probably little more than a fashion statement.

[Roger Dowsing]

Happy new year to all that have replied and continued this thread.

Peter, your name is familiar to me but I cannot put a place or face to it.

Have you lived in the Ipswich area and have you ever worked for BT at Martlesham - I have many friends who worked there, some in very senior positions.

All the discussion and information has surrounded the theory, the folly, the aesthetics, the quality and the politics of the Mk series guitars and for those of you who do not have one I guess it is a fascinating piece of guitar history. For those of us who have one that has not imploded or has generally disintegrated we are proud to own a piece of guitar history.

Now this discussion was generated by Gary Fried who had a MK 35 in need of some TLC. I guess there are still some owners out there who may want to rectify these issues. I know from 35 years of owning one of these that if the darn thing stays together then it can produce a very loud and a very balanced full fat acoustic sound.

Someone else mentioned that when playing it, especially when standing up, the sound seems poor and i fully agree with that observation. If however, you play it in a "lively" room you get the radiated sound bounced back to you or if you get someone else to play it (I don't let just anyone play it) again you get the full radiated sound.

The history has been great and thanks for that.

I shall continue to tinker with its construction, play it daily and to polish it after every gig. At 66 years old I don't expect to replace it. It has a few scars from 35 years playing it on small stages but if you look at the picture i attached in an earlier posting it still looks good.

So thank you all for your contributions and just for a laugh I enclose a recording made of me playing it in 1988 without me knowing in a large room with a microphone at the back of the room and a second shot of me the following day on an old borrowed Gibson acoustic in a 400 seat theatre (with only 100 people in it but hey that's show business at my level anyway) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXmnr6ubcXs

All the best

Roger

[Ned Knepp]

Peter,

 What I remember of these from personal experience is pretty limited. The small town music store I frequented as a teenager had a single model 53 which was too rich for such a small store. It hung around for years behind the counter where it was out of reach of penniless kids.  I got to play it for a few minutes once because the owner was not in and his son, a friend of mine, was minding the store. He allow my brother and I a few minutes with it. I loved it but it was WAY beyond my price range being in the "buy a car, buy a guitar" decision range. I didn't touch another until many years later, a MK- 35 which was not as exciting. 

My understanding of the line is that Gibson's management forced some design and production "decision" upon the designers which were not in the best interest of bringing success to the line. One of the decision was to produce them with a 14th fret neck rather than the intended and designed 12th fret neck. This single change practically insures that the line would not produce sonically.  I also remember reading that the line was rushed into production before all of the production processes were worked out and that this coupled with the less than stellar build quality that was the hallmark of Gibson at the time, insured very spotty quality for the line. ( I also think I remember that all of the MK-99's were hand made by Schneider. ) 

All in all, I liked the look of the lineup, particularly the head shape, and would have happily bought the MK-53 that my local store had in stock if it had been priced in anything like a reasonable fashion. I think this was the final nail in the line's coffin; they cost way too much. I don't think the pricing was anything like competitive even if the other problem were not an issue. 

Today, I wouldn't mind having one if for no other reason than to have an opportunity to get a greater understanding of it's design and construction. I still like the look and I'm completely intrigued by the design. I have sometimes wondered what influence the line might have had on acoustic guitar design if the Gibson company of the '70's had been as interested in sound quality as the Gibson of the '50s had been. I don't believe the design would have supplanted the X brace but it might not be the niche market design it is today.

Lowatter,  I've thought about this too and seen plans for Kasha design ukuleles on a few sites.  I know that GAL has one and I think a Google search will turn up others. It may be a simpler/quicker place to start. 

[lowatter]

I'm sorry for derailing this thread soo much but I felt in defense of the Kasha/Schnieder bracing designs I had to point out how beautiful these guitars can be asthetically from the inside as in the case of custom guitar builder Ray Whitaker's creations. I think that any luthier can appreciate his builds. Please note that the entire top is utilized for tuned sound projection and the scaffold style top to side bracing is inticingly unique. I especially think that the portal tuning aspect is beyond cool...

 

more on his builds here...

http://handmadeguitars.tripod.com/kasha2.html

http://handmadeguitars.tripod.com/

[Thomas James]

I did a 'bridge area' overhaul on a MK-35 last year.  Bridge base peeling-up.  Warped bridge plate, etc.  The biggest one was that most the string holes bored partially through the original main brace brace that runs under the bridge. There was a good amount of forward bridge rotation. I flattened that out. Shortened two or three of the rear braces. Increased the bridge plate size. Sistered the brace. Filled and re-drilled the string holes... and onward ... like squeezing a ballon.  Thank you to friends with patience and money.

That big ridged plastic rosette design is a shame. Looked okay without it, but they didn't even cut the sound hole round! 

[Peter Poyser]

Quote: "Have you lived in the Ipswich area and have you ever worked for BT at Martlesham - I have many friends who worked there, some in very senior positions."

 

 

Hi Roger!

No, I have always lived in Oxford apart from when Recording, Broadcasting or Touring which I have done Internationally, years ago. Often visiting other countries for a whole day.

Some of the BBC Technical Equipment has involved Research and Development at Martlesham, and I have got to know some people there over the years. One of our boys gave a Demonstration to the Top BT Big Wigs, just before Christmas.

I have always been a great admirer of Tommy Flowers from Dollis Hill (The previous Research and Development Centre) and feel his contribution to the success of the Colossus Project at Bletchley Park, has largely gone unrecognised by the Nation. Tommy Funded the project initially. This led to the Breaking of the Enigma Codes on WWll but is little known.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossus_computer

http://www.colossus-computer.com/

After my Father died, my Elderly Mother moved to Woodbridge Suffolk to be close to my Sister who lives there with her Family. She seems very happy there, it is like England used to be in the 50's, which I like. The last time I visited there was a Punch and Judy Show entertaining all the Children. It is like a step back, through a time warp!

Norwich, is the place closest to you in which I Conducted a Concert. And I know Recording Studio Owners and Mastering Studio Owners in that part of the World.

I have been interested in Charitable Work that has involved School Children in the Suffolk Area. Like this in the Movies below.

The Idea behind the Project run for several years, is to Raise Funds for Clean Water in African Villages.

Turn your Sound Up!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeUFHPG0NjY

 

My Nephew Plays the Lead Guitar on the next Tracks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNGsYy9TD4M

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrzrE3w5_SI

 

Here's what it's all about featuring some of the Children in Africa that have been helped.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRkuIksnbWM

 

10,000 primary children saw the project assemblies given to in schools across Suffolk

4000 CDs and DVDs sold

10 concerts performed with 18 piece live band, dancers, soloists, sketches & 200 strong children’s choir

16 places across Suffolk and in Malawi featured in location filming during summer and autumn 2012

150 ‘extras’ and 34 children featured on location video filming across Suffolk

7 large-scale children’s recording and filming sessions held across Suffolk (plus other areas & Malawi)

120 Stewards helped at the recording sessions & concerts

200 teachers attended the recording sessions & concerts

20 studio musicians, 30 studio core vocalists, 9 adult & 11 child soloists performed on CD & DVD

15 dancers & 21 actors performed on the DVD and on stage at the concerts

40+ strong technical and support team involved in the recording & filming sessions and the concerts

10 new songs written specially for project

500 viewings of the final 3 concerts streamed live on the internet

CD & DVD also features children from Chimadzimadzi Primary, Jasi Village, Malawi, recorded and filmed on a Tearfund visit to Malawi by some of the project team

Each concert evening featured a live interview with Eagles (Tearfund partner) in Malawi

 

It's great to see all the School Children and Everyone Else involved, giving their Time and Energy to Make the World a Better Place.

A Very Happy New Year to You.

And Everyone Here!

P

[Kerry Krishna]

Loewater, I have not seen a single word here deriding Kasha's work. I would doubt that a single regular poster here does not know about him and his wildly eccentric  axes. He was a Master Luthier and many of us would have loved to have spent time at his side learning what he had to teach... 

[lowatter]

I didn't mean to imply that anyone was knocking Kasha's designs, I was trying to reason out in my own pea brain as to why the Gibson MK-35 is not the best sounding guitar to some people.

I'm relatively new to forum and definately not a luthier(I've scratch built 2 electrics and I've done some repairs) but I really enjoy reading about repair and building techniques and designs. His work and those that do builds like this have always intrigued me.