Why I feel private lutheirs are largely over rated.

Why I feel private lutheirs are largely over rated.

First of all, this post isn't for those who are just love to build
guitars for your personal enjoyment or those who build guitars for the
artistic aspect (art guitars). Guitar making techniques passed down
from generation to generation is a beautiful thing and if people
stopped then we wouldn't have a lot of the companies we do today. An
example in point, In the early 1970's if Bob Taylor had decided C.F.
Martin and Gibson had already done everything we would not have Taylor
guitars today and it's reasonable to think that right now somewhere in
the world a great lutheir has an innovative design that takes the
instrument forward and someday their company will be known with the
best of them.

So this is where my topic begins, my problem isn't with the 1-5% of
lutheir's that truely make a difference in the craft and take the
instrument further in terms of a design, it's with the other 95% who
may build an exceptional quality product, but never really innovate
over what's been done before and seldom can match the design of
Fender, Gibson, Martin etc... Now that I've touched on a never, let's
explore the value of the private lutheir to the artist. "The artist"
could be anyone from the guy who composes in his closet songs no one
will hear to multi-platinum recording artist that has toured the world
for decades. The artist doesn't have to be a great guitar player, just
someone who has been a mega-success at selling his or her music. So we
won't exclude the singer-songwriter types or great entertainers. Just
for this post, let's have a look at this group since let's face it
they are the creme of the crop.

So what are the big name players playing? Here's a short list: Eric
Clapton (Fender, Martin), Willie Nelson (Martin), Johnny Cash
(Martin), Merl Haggard (Martin), B.B. King (Gibson), John Lennon
(Epiphone, others), Paul McCartney (Hofner, Martin, Epiphone, others),
Elivis Presley (Martin), Robert Johnson (Gibson), Van Morrison
(Martin), Hank Williams (Martin), George Jones (Martin), Garth Brooks
(Takamine), Dave Matthews (Martin, Taylor, others), Bruce Springsteen
(Fender, Takamine), Steve Ray Vaughan (Fender), John Mayer (Fender,
Martin), Jimi Hendrix (Fender), Chet Atkins (Gibson), Steve Vai
(Ibanez), Joe Satriani (Ibanez), John Petrucci (Music Man), George
Benson (Ibanez), Randy Rhodes (Jackson), Slash (Gibson), Zakk Wylde
(Gibson), Jimmy Page (Gibson)

To tell you the truth, I'm struggling to think of a single player who
uses private lutheir built instruments. Some of these cats have
signature series guitars or play with custom shop models built for
them by these companies, but the fact remains they choose to stay with
big name builder instead of a private lutheir. A good number of them
play with stock guitars from these makers. Billy Gibbons is one guy I
know who I think only plays custom instruments at this point... But in
the above list you'll find some of greatest folk, country and rock
guitarist, songwriters, entertainer to have lived. So the bottom line
is this: If private luthier built guitars are so amazing, why aren't
more professionals playing them?

This question becomes a two edged sword if you are trying to take a
stand against my argument. Because if you say all these professional
players are shallow and willing to take an endorsement's over playing
a quality guitar then you just add fuel to the fire. If you take that
stance, then you're essentially saying the quality of the guitar isn't
that important to the pros and that they've been able to create their
masterpieces and tour with crap, mass produced guitars, so you devalue
the luthier on that argument.

If you agree with me and say Gibson, Martin, Fender, Takamine, Ibanez,
etc... have produced exceptional quality instruments worthy of the
pros (which is an absolute true statement, which is easy to prove by
looking at what the artist listed above are playing) then the question
becomes why wouldn't the pay to have a private lutheir build them a
guitar to their taste.

The answer is the big name manufactures have already met the
professional needs with exceptional product and anytime you buy a
guitar from a private lutheir the risk are fairly high. With any
product you have construction quality and you have the design itself,
both are equally important and completely different. Companies like
C.F. Martin, Gibson, Fender. Although most of them are not under the
same ownership they once were, in many situations they are the only
companies who can by law (thanks to patents) build their instruments
the way they do, they own the design rights.

So as an artist you can choose to buy a C.F. Martin, Fender, whatever
and trust in their heritage and 50 or 150 years of guitar making
knowledge or you can trust papa joe lutheir down the road who taught
himself what he knows and his designs are based on his limited
experience. Can papa joe build a better constructed instrument,
probably... Can he design a better instrument? Most of the time, It's
laughable no he can't. There is what I would guess is somewhere
between a 1-5% chance (that's out my ass, it's probably much less than
1%) that this lutheir will have the scientific knowledge to innovate
and create something unique enough to stand up against the patented
designs of the big name builders (again, their techniques are proven
over trial and error for decades).

In the 1960's Ovation was such a company. In the 1970's Taylor, PRS
Guitars in the 1980's, Parker guitars in the 1990's. Truely great
lutheirs are diamonds among the rough. What do all these companies
have in common (aside from mega-success) they all innovated the
instrument. The lutheirs that started these companies were as much
engineer as they were craftsman.

As a lutheir or want-to-be luthier if you take the instrument further
then by all means keep working at it. If you just intend to create a
higher quality product using the same techniques everyone else is
already doing then at best you'e creating one-off novelity products
and serious musicians aren't going to EVER play with your product on a
stage. What most aritst want is consistency and proven quality.....
Again the instrument is our paint brush, it isn't suppose to be a work
of art, it's support to be a well crafted tool to help us make art. If
as a luthier you can give artist a new type of brush then you offer
something of value, if not you don't. You can continue to build
guitars for your enjoyment for arts sake, but realize where you stand.


Design rises above construction quality. With time and care and a bit
of love a craftsmen can build a quality instrument, but design is
different. To innovate on design takes a deep understanding of why
modern techniques work and a brilliant idea of how to improve on it.
How many lutheirs do you know who fall in this group?

When we get into what is "high quality" the little nuances that we
loose with mass produced guitars are a small price to pay for superior
design and consistency, the list of artist above prove this.

Re: Why I feel private lutheirs are largely over rated.

RMZ <Jeremy.Deats@gmail . com > wrote:
> First of all, this post isn't for those who are just love to build
> guitars for your personal enjoyment or those who build guitars for the
> artistic aspect (art guitars). Guitar making techniques passed down
> from generation to generation is a beautiful thing and if people
> stopped then we wouldn't have a lot of the companies we do today. An
> example in point, In the early 1970's if Bob Taylor had decided C.F.
> Martin and Gibson had already done everything we would not have Taylor
> guitars today and it's reasonable to think that right now somewhere in
> the world a great lutheir has an innovative design that takes the
> instrument forward and someday their company will be known with the
> best of them.
>
> So this is where my topic begins, my problem isn't with the 1-5% of
> lutheir's that truely make a difference in the craft and take the
> instrument further in terms of a design, it's with the other 95% who
> may build an exceptional quality product, but never really innovate
> over what's been done before and seldom can match the design of
> Fender, Gibson, Martin etc... Now that I've touched on a never, let's
> explore the value of the private lutheir to the artist. "The artist"
> could be anyone from the guy who composes in his closet songs no one
> will hear to multi-platinum recording artist that has toured the world
> for decades. The artist doesn't have to be a great guitar player, just
> someone who has been a mega-success at selling his or her music. So we
> won't exclude the singer-songwriter types or great entertainers. Just
> for this post, let's have a look at this group since let's face it
> they are the creme of the crop.
>
> So what are the big name players playing? Here's a short list: Eric
> Clapton (Fender, Martin), Willie Nelson (Martin), Johnny Cash
> (Martin), Merl Haggard (Martin), B.B. King (Gibson), John Lennon
> (Epiphone, others), Paul McCartney (Hofner, Martin, Epiphone, others),
> Elivis Presley (Martin), Robert Johnson (Gibson), Van Morrison
> (Martin), Hank Williams (Martin), George Jones (Martin), Garth Brooks
> (Takamine), Dave Matthews (Martin, Taylor, others), Bruce Springsteen
> (Fender, Takamine), Steve Ray Vaughan (Fender), John Mayer (Fender,
> Martin), Jimi Hendrix (Fender), Chet Atkins (Gibson), Steve Vai
> (Ibanez), Joe Satriani (Ibanez), John Petrucci (Music Man), George
> Benson (Ibanez), Randy Rhodes (Jackson), Slash (Gibson), Zakk Wylde
> (Gibson), Jimmy Page (Gibson)
>
> To tell you the truth, I'm struggling to think of a single player who
> uses private lutheir built instruments. Some of these cats have
> signature series guitars or play with custom shop models built for
> them by these companies, but the fact remains they choose to stay with
> big name builder instead of a private lutheir. A good number of them
> play with stock guitars from these makers. Billy Gibbons is one guy I
> know who I think only plays custom instruments at this point... But in
> the above list you'll find some of greatest folk, country and rock
> guitarist, songwriters, entertainer to have lived. So the bottom line
> is this: If private luthier built guitars are so amazing, why aren't
> more professionals playing them?
>
> This question becomes a two edged sword if you are trying to take a
> stand against my argument. Because if you say all these professional
> players are shallow and willing to take an endorsement's over playing
> a quality guitar then you just add fuel to the fire. If you take that
> stance, then you're essentially saying the quality of the guitar isn't
> that important to the pros and that they've been able to create their
> masterpieces and tour with crap, mass produced guitars, so you devalue
> the luthier on that argument.
>
> If you agree with me and say Gibson, Martin, Fender, Takamine, Ibanez,
> etc... have produced exceptional quality instruments worthy of the
> pros (which is an absolute true statement, which is easy to prove by
> looking at what the artist listed above are playing) then the question
> becomes why wouldn't the pay to have a private lutheir build them a
> guitar to their taste.
>
> The answer is the big name manufactures have already met the
> professional needs with exceptional product and anytime you buy a
> guitar from a private lutheir the risk are fairly high. With any
> product you have construction quality and you have the design itself,
> both are equally important and completely different. Companies like
> C.F. Martin, Gibson, Fender. Although most of them are not under the
> same ownership they once were, in many situations they are the only
> companies who can by law (thanks to patents) build their instruments
> the way they do, they own the design rights.
>
> So as an artist you can choose to buy a C.F. Martin, Fender, whatever
> and trust in their heritage and 50 or 150 years of guitar making
> knowledge or you can trust papa joe lutheir down the road who taught
> himself what he knows and his designs are based on his limited
> experience. Can papa joe build a better constructed instrument,
> probably... Can he design a better instrument? Most of the time, It's
> laughable no he can't. There is what I would guess is somewhere
> between a 1-5% chance (that's out my ass, it's probably much less than
> 1%) that this lutheir will have the scientific knowledge to innovate
> and create something unique enough to stand up against the patented
> designs of the big name builders (again, their techniques are proven
> over trial and error for decades).
>
> In the 1960's Ovation was such a company. In the 1970's Taylor, PRS
> Guitars in the 1980's, Parker guitars in the 1990's. Truely great
> lutheirs are diamonds among the rough. What do all these companies
> have in common (aside from mega-success) they all innovated the
> instrument. The lutheirs that started these companies were as much
> engineer as they were craftsman.
>
> As a lutheir or want-to-be luthier if you take the instrument further
> then by all means keep working at it. If you just intend to create a
> higher quality product using the same techniques everyone else is
> already doing then at best you'e creating one-off novelity products
> and serious musicians aren't going to EVER play with your product on a
> stage. What most aritst want is consistency and proven quality.....
> Again the instrument is our paint brush, it isn't suppose to be a work
> of art, it's support to be a well crafted tool to help us make art. If
> as a luthier you can give artist a new type of brush then you offer
> something of value, if not you don't. You can continue to build
> guitars for your enjoyment for arts sake, but realize where you stand.
>
>
> Design rises above construction quality. With time and care and a bit
> of love a craftsmen can build a quality instrument, but design is
> different. To innovate on design takes a deep understanding of why
> modern techniques work and a brilliant idea of how to improve on it.
> How many lutheirs do you know who fall in this group?
>
> When we get into what is "high quality" the little nuances that we
> loose with mass produced guitars are a small price to pay for superior
> design and consistency, the list of artist above prove this.

I tried to respond in a reasonable way on alt.guitar when you posted
there (under the name MartinGibsonTaylor). There are several advantages
to owning a custom-made instrument. So what if most of them don't
advance the art? They make it possible for you to get an instrument
configured the way you want!

Have you ever worked with a luthier to get a custom-made guitar or bass?
Have you ever considered why some pros (and yes, there are some, I
posted a list on alt.guitar of names of guys that the guy who made my
guitar made some for) do this? To most of us who have gone this route,
it's not an either/or situation. It gives us an option to have all the
features we'd ever want on a single instrument.

You might want to look at this:
* en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority
Your arguments on this issue here (and on a number of other issues on
alt.guitar) fall into this categories. Essentially, they reduce to:
(a) The major manufacturers can do no wrong
(b) If Eric Clapton etc. play it, it must be good.

Unlike you, I own both a custom instrument as well as a number of
"classics" (e.g., 60s-era Gibson SG, Rickenbacker, and Gretsch). You
know what? If I had to take *one* guitar out on the road with me, it
would be the custom job, because it plays easier in my hands (because
the neck was shaped to my specs) and because it's more flexible tonally
(I designed the circuit so it would be). All of my "stock" guitars have
one thing or another I don't like, i.e., they're compromise selections.
But I love 'em all.

You're rant's way over the top, son. It's not credible.

But you didn't address my factual arguments on alt.guitar, and I don't
expect you to here.

Re: Why I feel private lutheirs are largely over rated.


> I tried to respond in a reasonable way on alt.guitar when you posted
> there (under the name MartinGibsonTaylor). There are several advantages
> to owning a custom-made instrument. So what if most of them don't
> advance the art? They make it possible for you to get an instrument
> configured the way you want!

And as my list of professional artist shows, regardless of if a good
number of these pros own custom instruments or not (I'm sure many do),
the point is those custom jobs aren't their main axe, I believed I
listed some of (if not most) of the most important guitarist to have
lived in the last several decades.


>
> Have you ever worked with a luthier to get a custom-made guitar or bass?
> Have you ever considered why some pros (and yes, there are some, I
> posted a list on alt.guitar of names of guys that the guy who made my
> guitar made some for) do this?

Have I worked with a lutheir to get a custom guitar made? Answer: No.
My entire post explains the reason why.
Next question: Have I considered why some pros do? Again, did you read
my post? I've considered why some do, for the hell of it. Because
maybe they want some one of a kind-art guitar to put on their wall.
Who the hel knows, the point is most pros aren't playing with custom
guitars from private lutheirs. That is a fact, I provided a short list
of some of the best known artist who have lived and the guitars they
bring on stage most nights, while they might be custom jobs, they come
from big name companies.


> To most of us who have gone this route,
> it's not an either/or situation. It gives us an option to have all the
> features we'd ever want on a single instrument.
>
> You might want to look at this: * en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal to authority
> Your arguments on this issue here (and on a number of other issues on
> alt.guitar) fall into this categories. Essentially, they reduce to:
> (a) The major manufacturers can do no wrong
> (b) If Eric Clapton etc. play it, it must be good.

Now you are oversimplifying my arguments and trying to discredit my
evidence. Allow me to summarize what you selective decided to leave
out. If you want to challenge these points, please challenge the
points directly instead of trying to backhandedly deduce them.
Frankly, that doesn't help you stance on this at all and I think
you're a bright guy. But to just basically yell back "you have no
authority on this topic... go away" is the stance only a moron would
take. Authority or not, a valid argument is a valid argument and one
doesn't need a certain level of reputation to make a valid argument.
This is true only in circles of ignorant folk who only listen to those
who they respect and assume everyone else isn't capable or worthy of
making a valid point. Why don't you try addressing my points instead
of my creditability. My creditability is as good as anyones here.
Perhaps I work for C.F. Martin, perhaps I'm some bum on street. I
don't judge anyone in newsgroups by some false creditability, or even
by their former postings and I just ask that I be given that same
treatment.

So here are the points to argue (if you can)

(a). It's not that the major manufactures can do no wrong, It's that
the major manufactures have the advantage of patented, proven designs
that put the private luthier in the position of having to create
something truely compelling to be worthwhile in the long term

(b). If hand built guitars from private lutheirs were so much better
than "mass produced crap" as many an ignorant lutheir has mothered off
to me, then the question is why aren't the best players in the world
using guitars from private luthiers on stage. It's not like I just
listed Clapton, I listed Clapton and then a boat load of some of the
best players to have lived. Even if some of these guys have custom
instruments in their collection (and I won't argue.. I'm sure a good
number do), the point is that's not the paint brush (that's a
metaphor) they take with them on stage every night.

(c). Lutheirs who take their time and pride themselves in their
craftsmanship, but have no skill in terms of innovating the instrument
further serve little purpose to the professional artist in terms of
the artist trade (performing, songwriting, recording) and this point
is validated by the list of professionals I provided who do not play
with private luthier built guitars on stage, period.

(d). Only a small percentage of private luithers innovate and take the
instrument further to a point that they become of importance to
musicians (some names I listed: Ovation, Taylor, PRS, Parker).
Everyone else is essentially copying existing techniques created by
one of the big companies, perhaps building a better quality guitar but
without the heritage and within the limits of what one can do without
copying an existing patented design by Gibson, Fender, etc... I ague
that with a private lutheir you may get a guitar with more love and
care put into it's construction, but in terms of design (in every
aspect except perhaps: body shape, headstock, pickup configuration)
it's a copy of someone elses design and probably an inferior copy at
that (again, most professional recording artist seem to think so...
when they want custom they order from Fender, Gibson, Martin, etc...
custom shop)

(e). I argue the difference in build quality vs design, which can be
applied to ANY PRODUCT be it a guitar, a sewing machine, a mp3 player,
a car, etc.... and the way the in terms of build quality the advantage
shifts to the private lutheir, but in terms of proven design the
advantage shifts to the big name manufacturers. I the importance of
the two, but the fact the most recording artist lean on proven design
over the suttle nuances that separate the quality of a private
lutheired guitar to a "high quality" mass produced guitar such as the
high-end product by Fender, Martin, PRS, etc... I back this up with
the only evidence we really need "what are the pros playing". Any
lutheir that would down play the significance of that question has his
head up his own ass. LUTHEIR'S EXIST TO FACILITATE MUSICIANS. If you
can build something innovative that exceeds the proven design of
Fender, Gibson, PRS, Ibanez, etc.. than you might (big might taste are
different) be of some importance to a musician. If you can build me a
one-off novelity guitar, you know like an Axe in shape of Texas then
you might be needed, but other than that what is the point?


What I want is for someone to counter each of these points with an
intelligent counter point. My opinion isn't as fact (although I think
I do present many facts that support my opinion), what I'm saying with
this post is "This is why I feel private lutheirs are highly
overrated", tell me why you think I'm wrong. With a strong argument I
could be convinced otherwise. Forgive me, but it's just a little hard
to respect comments like "I've been building guitars for 30 years... I
KNOW this stuff". and other nonsense.

Re: Why I feel private lutheirs are largely over rated.

MartinGibsonTaylor <Jeremy.Deats@gmail . com > wrote:

> So here are the points to argue (if you can)

Some of the other posters have addressed these points pretty well. I'll
just summarize and add my own comments.

> (a). It's not that the major manufactures can do no wrong, It's that
> the major manufactures have the advantage of patented, proven designs
> that put the private luthier in the position of having to create
> something truely compelling to be worthwhile in the long term

Most guitar designs aren't patented; if anything, they're trademarked.
Also, many private luthiers have worked for the big boys before going
off on their own. There aren't really any big secrets out there. Also,
you're putting up a straw man by implying that a decent luthier has to
advance the state of the art. That's not what most of them are trying
to do.

> (b). If hand built guitars from private lutheirs were so much better
> than "mass produced crap" as many an ignorant lutheir has mothered off
> to me, then the question is why aren't the best players in the world
> using guitars from private luthiers on stage. It's not like I just
> listed Clapton, I listed Clapton and then a boat load of some of the
> best players to have lived. Even if some of these guys have custom
> instruments in their collection (and I won't argue.. I'm sure a good
> number do), the point is that's not the paint brush (that's a
> metaphor) they take with them on stage every night.

OK, so you're overreacting to Keith Adams' posts. He's certainly not
representative of private luthiers in my book. Another straw man ->
most luthiers would not claim that their instruments are "so much better
than mass-produced crap". They offer an alternative for those who want
it.

Also, I'd be inclined to look at what musicans use in the studio, not on
the road, as an indication of quality. People often don't want to take
their best stuff on the road for fear of it being damaged.

> (c). Lutheirs who take their time and pride themselves in their
> craftsmanship, but have no skill in terms of innovating the instrument
> further serve little purpose to the professional artist in terms of
> the artist trade (performing, songwriting, recording) and this point
> is validated by the list of professionals I provided who do not play
> with private luthier built guitars on stage, period.

As I said, they offer an alternative. I see that you've managed once
again to avoid my points about why someone (including a famous pro)
might want a custom instrument. It's not because it's necessarily
"better". It isn't necessarily better, but it can be built from the
ground up to the musician's desires.

Others have pointed out some of the musicians on your list who have
custom instruments and who use them in the studio.

> (d). Only a small percentage of private luithers innovate and take the
> instrument further to a point that they become of importance to
> musicians (some names I listed: Ovation, Taylor, PRS, Parker).
> Everyone else is essentially copying existing techniques created by
> one of the big companies, perhaps building a better quality guitar but
> without the heritage and within the limits of what one can do without
> copying an existing patented design by Gibson, Fender, etc... I ague
> that with a private lutheir you may get a guitar with more love and
> care put into it's construction, but in terms of design (in every
> aspect except perhaps: body shape, headstock, pickup configuration)
> it's a copy of someone elses design and probably an inferior copy at
> that

I wish you could play my custom guitar. You wouldn't think that. It's
up there quality-wise with my '66 Gretsch Tennessean, '68 Gibson SG, '65
Rickenbacker 450, etc.

(again, most professional recording artist seem to think so...
> when they want custom they order from Fender, Gibson, Martin, etc...
> custom shop)

You didn't see my list of people who my luthier made guitars for, I
guess. Just one example: George Harrison used one of his guitars on
the Beatles' Anthology recordings of "Free As A Bird" and "Real Love".
I'm sure others could come up with many other examples.

> (e). I argue the difference in build quality vs design, which can be
> applied to ANY PRODUCT be it a guitar, a sewing machine, a mp3 player,
> a car, etc.... and the way the in terms of build quality the advantage
> shifts to the private lutheir, but in terms of proven design the
> advantage shifts to the big name manufacturers. I the importance of
> the two, but the fact the most recording artist lean on proven design
> over the suttle nuances that separate the quality of a private
> lutheired guitar to a "high quality" mass produced guitar such as the
> high-end product by Fender, Martin, PRS, etc... I back this up with
> the only evidence we really need "what are the pros playing". Any
> lutheir that would down play the significance of that question has his
> head up his own ass. LUTHEIR'S EXIST TO FACILITATE MUSICIANS. If you
> can build something innovative that exceeds the proven design of
> Fender, Gibson, PRS, Ibanez, etc.. than you might (big might taste are
> different) be of some importance to a musician. If you can build me a
> one-off novelity guitar, you know like an Axe in shape of Texas then
> you might be needed, but other than that what is the point?

First, you have a misconception. These big manufacturers don't have a
lock on these "proven designs". There's nothing preventing any luthier
from building a guitar that "looks like" one of the biggies.

In case you didn't see it in earlier posts, here's a pic of the guitar I
had custom made:

* i170.photobucket . com /albums/u267/rpleavitt/IMG_0021.jpg

So here's the story. Its shape is modeled after a Gibson CS-336, but
its based on an Epiphone Casino. Why the 336? Because I wanted
something lighter and smaller than the Casino. But it's almost entirely
hollow, like a Casino (and unlike a 336).

The back of the neck is finished with tung oil. Why? Because I find
with my own Gibsons (I have two) that the nitro-finished neck feels
sticky to me. The tung-oil-finished neck isn't sticky at all.

The neck is custom fitted. Why is this important to me? As I get up
there in years, I find I have trouble with certain necks. My left hand
starts to ache.

And, as I said in another thread, I wanted a three-pickup guitar with
the flexibility that stock models offered by the major manufacturers
don't provide.

> What I want is for someone to counter each of these points with an
> intelligent counter point. My opinion isn't as fact (although I think
> I do present many facts that support my opinion), what I'm saying with
> this post is "This is why I feel private lutheirs are highly
> overrated", tell me why you think I'm wrong. With a strong argument I
> could be convinced otherwise. Forgive me, but it's just a little hard
> to respect comments like "I've been building guitars for 30 years... I
> KNOW this stuff". and other nonsense.

Here's a couple of other things. The number of custom-made guitars
floating around out there is very small compared with stock, name-brand
models. I think if you look at the numbers, you'd find that the
percentage of guitars owned by the "big boys" that are custom-made is
roughly in proportion to the percentage of custom guitars in the market
overall.

OK, so I'm not a pro, but we don't have Clapton and the other guys you
mentioned here telling you the advantages vs. disadvantages of custom
guitars, so I'll have to do. I've been playing for over 44 years. And
I've played enough guitars to know a good one when I've got it in my
hands and hear it. My custom guitar's as good as any of the stock
guitars I have. Is it better? Maybe just a little bit, for me,
because of the factors I mentioned. But I still play the others a lot
too.

I just don't see that it's a conflict to like a custom-made guitar and
like the stock ones I have too.

Re: Why I feel private lutheirs are largely over rated.


"RichL" <rpleavitt@yahoo . com > wrote in message
news:lwVOj.5496$pH4.2751@trnddc06...
> MartinGibsonTaylor <Jeremy.Deats@gmail . com > wrote:
>
>> So here are the points to argue (if you can)
>
> Some of the other posters have addressed these points pretty well. I'll
> just summarize and add my own comments.
>
>> (a). It's not that the major manufactures can do no wrong, It's that
>> the major manufactures have the advantage of patented, proven designs
>> that put the private luthier in the position of having to create
>> something truely compelling to be worthwhile in the long term
>
> Most guitar designs aren't patented; if anything, they're trademarked.
> Also, many private luthiers have worked for the big boys before going
> off on their own. There aren't really any big secrets out there. Also,
> you're putting up a straw man by implying that a decent luthier has to
> advance the state of the art. That's not what most of them are trying
> to do.
>
>> (b). If hand built guitars from private lutheirs were so much better
>> than "mass produced crap" as many an ignorant lutheir has mothered off
>> to me, then the question is why aren't the best players in the world
>> using guitars from private luthiers on stage. It's not like I just
>> listed Clapton, I listed Clapton and then a boat load of some of the
>> best players to have lived. Even if some of these guys have custom
>> instruments in their collection (and I won't argue.. I'm sure a good
>> number do), the point is that's not the paint brush (that's a
>> metaphor) they take with them on stage every night.
>
> OK, so you're overreacting to Keith Adams' posts. He's certainly not
> representative of private luthiers in my book. Another straw man ->
> most luthiers would not claim that their instruments are "so much better
> than mass-produced crap". They offer an alternative for those who want
> it.
>
> Also, I'd be inclined to look at what musicans use in the studio, not on
> the road, as an indication of quality. People often don't want to take
> their best stuff on the road for fear of it being damaged.
>
>> (c). Lutheirs who take their time and pride themselves in their
>> craftsmanship, but have no skill in terms of innovating the instrument
>> further serve little purpose to the professional artist in terms of
>> the artist trade (performing, songwriting, recording) and this point
>> is validated by the list of professionals I provided who do not play
>> with private luthier built guitars on stage, period.
>
> As I said, they offer an alternative. I see that you've managed once
> again to avoid my points about why someone (including a famous pro)
> might want a custom instrument. It's not because it's necessarily
> "better". It isn't necessarily better, but it can be built from the
> ground up to the musician's desires.
>
> Others have pointed out some of the musicians on your list who have
> custom instruments and who use them in the studio.
>
>> (d). Only a small percentage of private luithers innovate and take the
>> instrument further to a point that they become of importance to
>> musicians (some names I listed: Ovation, Taylor, PRS, Parker).
>> Everyone else is essentially copying existing techniques created by
>> one of the big companies, perhaps building a better quality guitar but
>> without the heritage and within the limits of what one can do without
>> copying an existing patented design by Gibson, Fender, etc... I ague
>> that with a private lutheir you may get a guitar with more love and
>> care put into it's construction, but in terms of design (in every
>> aspect except perhaps: body shape, headstock, pickup configuration)
>> it's a copy of someone elses design and probably an inferior copy at
>> that
>
> I wish you could play my custom guitar. You wouldn't think that. It's
> up there quality-wise with my '66 Gretsch Tennessean, '68 Gibson SG, '65
> Rickenbacker 450, etc.
>
> (again, most professional recording artist seem to think so...
>> when they want custom they order from Fender, Gibson, Martin, etc...
>> custom shop)
>
> You didn't see my list of people who my luthier made guitars for, I
> guess. Just one example: George Harrison used one of his guitars on
> the Beatles' Anthology recordings of "Free As A Bird" and "Real Love".
> I'm sure others could come up with many other examples.
>
>> (e). I argue the difference in build quality vs design, which can be
>> applied to ANY PRODUCT be it a guitar, a sewing machine, a mp3 player,
>> a car, etc.... and the way the in terms of build quality the advantage
>> shifts to the private lutheir, but in terms of proven design the
>> advantage shifts to the big name manufacturers. I the importance of
>> the two, but the fact the most recording artist lean on proven design
>> over the suttle nuances that separate the quality of a private
>> lutheired guitar to a "high quality" mass produced guitar such as the
>> high-end product by Fender, Martin, PRS, etc... I back this up with
>> the only evidence we really need "what are the pros playing". Any
>> lutheir that would down play the significance of that question has his
>> head up his own ass. LUTHEIR'S EXIST TO FACILITATE MUSICIANS. If you
>> can build something innovative that exceeds the proven design of
>> Fender, Gibson, PRS, Ibanez, etc.. than you might (big might taste are
>> different) be of some importance to a musician. If you can build me a
>> one-off novelity guitar, you know like an Axe in shape of Texas then
>> you might be needed, but other than that what is the point?
>
> First, you have a misconception. These big manufacturers don't have a
> lock on these "proven designs". There's nothing preventing any luthier
> from building a guitar that "looks like" one of the biggies.
>
> In case you didn't see it in earlier posts, here's a pic of the guitar I
> had custom made:
>
> * i170.photobucket . com /albums/u267/rpleavitt/IMG_0021.jpg
>
> So here's the story. Its shape is modeled after a Gibson CS-336, but
> its based on an Epiphone Casino. Why the 336? Because I wanted
> something lighter and smaller than the Casino. But it's almost entirely
> hollow, like a Casino (and unlike a 336).
>
> The back of the neck is finished with tung oil. Why? Because I find
> with my own Gibsons (I have two) that the nitro-finished neck feels
> sticky to me. The tung-oil-finished neck isn't sticky at all.
>
> The neck is custom fitted. Why is this important to me? As I get up
> there in years, I find I have trouble with certain necks. My left hand
> starts to ache.
>
> And, as I said in another thread, I wanted a three-pickup guitar with
> the flexibility that stock models offered by the major manufacturers
> don't provide.
>
>> What I want is for someone to counter each of these points with an
>> intelligent counter point. My opinion isn't as fact (although I think
>> I do present many facts that support my opinion), what I'm saying with
>> this post is "This is why I feel private lutheirs are highly
>> overrated", tell me why you think I'm wrong. With a strong argument I
>> could be convinced otherwise. Forgive me, but it's just a little hard
>> to respect comments like "I've been building guitars for 30 years... I
>> KNOW this stuff". and other nonsense.
>
> Here's a couple of other things. The number of custom-made guitars
> floating around out there is very small compared with stock, name-brand
> models. I think if you look at the numbers, you'd find that the
> percentage of guitars owned by the "big boys" that are custom-made is
> roughly in proportion to the percentage of custom guitars in the market
> overall.
>
> OK, so I'm not a pro, but we don't have Clapton and the other guys you
> mentioned here telling you the advantages vs. disadvantages of custom
> guitars, so I'll have to do. I've been playing for over 44 years. And
> I've played enough guitars to know a good one when I've got it in my
> hands and hear it. My custom guitar's as good as any of the stock
> guitars I have. Is it better? Maybe just a little bit, for me,
> because of the factors I mentioned. But I still play the others a lot
> too.
>
> I just don't see that it's a conflict to like a custom-made guitar and
> like the stock ones I have too.
>
>

Way I see it, a custom guitar no matter where it's made are usually made to
the artist's spec as to what he wants in reguard to width of nut, fretboard
radius, size of frets, etc. Factory mades usually cover these areas very
well but may have one thing or two that you disliked on a guitar.

I have a guitar custom handmade by a luthier in Montana because he offered a
no frills option of one of his many models for $900 and he made my guitar to
my specs. It fits me like a glove. I've played lots of well known brands and
they're good but I've played some dogs too. Makes me wonder about their damn
QC.

There's one brand I've played with from the cheap to the good models that
showed consistant QC. I'm not going to name it and I'm sure there's other
brands I haven't had my hands on so this is from my own experiences. I can
tell you it's not one of those big boys. :)

It's not Agile either though I got one. :)

Re: Why I feel private lutheirs are largely over rated.

> > (c). Lutheirs who take their time and pride themselves in their
> > craftsmanship, but have no skill in terms of innovating the instrument
> > further serve little purpose to the professional artist in terms of
> > the artist trade (performing, songwriting, recording) and this point
> > is validated by the list of professionals I provided who do not play
> > with private luthier built guitars on stage, period.
>
> As I said, they offer an alternative. I see that you've managed once
> again to avoid my points about why someone (including a famous pro)
> might want a custom instrument. It's not because it's necessarily
> "better". It isn't necessarily better, but it can be built from the
> ground up to the musician's desires.
>

This I agree with "it's an alternative". They offer an alternative, if
I'm playing one day thinking, you know I really need double neck
fretless bass on bottom and peizo based solid body twelve string on
top, in that sort of situation I'd call a private lutheir to build me
something.... If I have some really cool idea for an odd body shaped
guitar, or I want a Dreadnought made of Oak or something then the need
arises.

Re: Why I feel private lutheirs are largely over rated.

On 21 huhti, 07:50, MartinGibsonTaylor <Jeremy.De...@gmail . com > wrote:

> (a). It's not that the major manufactures can do no wrong, It's that
> the major manufactures have the advantage of patented, proven designs
> that put the private luthier in the position of having to create
> something truely compelling to be worthwhile in the long term
>
...which they routinely do. I know several luthiers who've come up
with creative ideas that push the envelope further and further. Then
they get employed by big names and they become part of those. The
thing I don't get is why do you separate luthiers from the makers and
designers of mass produced guitars? What are the designers of those,
robots? Aren't they luthiers also who work for those companies? I'd
consider the luthiers employed by Ibanez for instance as ones
significantly improving 'old' designs, which by the way have
constantly been improved by luthiers working for those companies over
the years. Weren't Jackson and PRS etc. originally luthier-driven
companies, luthiers who've hugely improved on Fender and Gibson
designs?

Also you are taking this stand that these old designs are somehow the
best possible, which I find strange. I can find many things wrong with
the Stratocaster for instance, all the way from the akward switch and
knobs to headstock. Easy to improve on. When I did my 'strat', I
changed pretty much everything about it, even the overall shape. But I
bet it looks just like a strat anyway, unless carefully examined and A/
B:d with original ones.

> (b). If hand built guitars from private lutheirs were so much better
> than "mass produced crap" as many an ignorant lutheir has mothered off
> to me, then the question is why aren't the best players in the world
> using guitars from private luthiers on stage. It's not like I just
> listed Clapton, I listed Clapton and then a boat load of some of the
> best players to have lived. Even if some of these guys have custom
> instruments in their collection (and I won't argue.. I'm sure a good?
> number do), the point is that's not the paint brush (that's a
> metaphor) they take with them on stage every night.
>
You have no idea how much money goes into that kind of stuff.
I personally know a guy who has a Line6 endorsement. He used to play
all-tube custom amps and this luthier-built guitar...but now he only
plays Line6 stuff live. Because he got a shitload of gear from them,
and could sell off most of his gear for good income. And whenever he
needs something, he can ask Line 6 for it.

In the studio and at home he don't play them at all. The gig gear
stays in the bus.

Furthermore, Clapton is a bad example. He's from a time when the Strat
was pretty the best there was available. Also his strat is pretty
heavily modded (by luthiers), neck shape, electronics...of course now
Fender makes his own version.
But having played a similar guitar for who knows how long, why would
he change? It's his trademark by now, for chrissake. And looks are
really important. I'm betting well over half the guitarists out there
rather opt for style than extreme playability etc. A guitar is not
that critical a thing in the chain. If you get what works OK and is
good for your style AND you get paid for it, why not use it.

If I had a Ferrari and still got paid for driving a Ford to work every
day, hell, I'd drive the Ford every day and leave the Ferrari for
weekend spins at a private track. Same principle. All my guitars are
modded at least a little, some a lot, but if I could get gear for
free, hell, I'd adjust myself to playing those just fine. If they were
aywhere near the quality I like.

Also you're simply assuming that players are a actually using the
guitars they endorse.
For instance, from an interview of Slash (who as you know endorses
Gibson and has his own model)': 'I can't get any guitars from Gibson
Custom Shop I like. All my LP's I normally use are built for me by
luthiers'

> (c). Lutheirs who take their time and pride themselves in their
> craftsmanship, but have no skill in terms of innovating the instrument
> further serve little purpose to the professional artist in terms of
> the artist trade (performing, songwriting, recording) and this point
> is validated by the list of professionals I provided who do not play
> with private luthier built guitars on stage, period.
>
Whoa. You're saying Jackson, PRS, Ibanez, never innovated the guitar
further? Or - I see, they never were luthiers?
Again - when does one stop being a luthier and become a mainstream
maker?
There is one local luthier here who builds guitars that have this body
that is basically halved and spring-loaded(hard to explain), very
unique, and has a very characteristic sound. Can't build enough of
them to satisfy the demand. Now if he hires some people and puts up a
company, then he isn't a 'private luthier' no more I take it?

I think your whole argument is basically completely flawed. You need
to establish some ground rules as to what is the gold standard of
guitars you're referring to as ultimate guitars impossible to top by
any luthiers. A Fender Broadcaster? A Strat? '58 Gibson?

> copying an existing patented design by Gibson, Fender, etc... I ague
> that with a private lutheir you may get a guitar with more love and
> care put into it's construction, but in terms of design (in every
> aspect except perhaps: body shape, headstock, pickup configuration)
> it's a copy of someone elses design and probably an inferior copy at
> that (again, most professional recording artist seem to think so...
> when they want custom they order from Fender, Gibson, Martin, etc...
> custom shop)
>
Just as much as every song ever played is just an inferior copy of
Mozart's et al work.
Again, what are you basing your beliefs in? At least for me there is
hardly a spot I would not improve on those basic Fender, Gibson etc.
designs. They are dated, clumsy and difficult. Yes they got the main
lines right but guitars can be sooo much better than Fenders et al.
Yet many many people play them. Why? Well why do people want to own
and drive antique british sportscars? Are they infinitely better than
a new Mercedes? Hell no! But it is NOT ABOUT QUALITY and it is
NOT ABOUT USEABILITY it is simply that these people happen to like
those cars. Sorry about the shouting, but it seems to me you're not
actually listening to anything people are responding with.

And quite often people also like them olden guitar styles.

I can dig that well; I love the Flying-V. I could come up with a dozen
improvements over the original version, but I still keep it pretty
much unmodded, because ultimately it's style and looks are more
important and iconic than the guitar playability and useability. I can
use it just fine as it is - I have luthier-build axes I can use if I
want extreme playability, but on stage I want my guitar to look just
like they did on Accept album covers, screw the practicality.

> head up his own ass. LUTHEIR'S EXIST TO FACILITATE MUSICIANS. If you
> can build something innovative that exceeds the proven design of
> Fender, Gibson, PRS, Ibanez, etc.. than you might (big might taste are
> different) be of some importance to a musician. If you can build me a
> one-off novelity guitar, you know like an Axe in shape of Texas then
> you might be needed, but other than that what is the point?
>
Well, I suppose you're right. What's the point indeed. Why should
people actually even own different houses and drive different cars?
Why should it be allowed for people to drive anything else than a gray
hybrid Toyota and live in a gray hybrid house? I really don't het what
you're aiming at.

People like to look like their heroes; people like to play similar
looking guitars as others. Even stars want to have a certain look, and
they want to use guitars on stage people can buy from stores and
pretend to be stars themselves.That has nothing to do with guitar
innovation or anything.

I'm starting to think that the whole concept of popular music,
marketing and consumer behaviour is completely new to you. Or perhaps
you don't play the guitar yourself?

> What I want is for someone to counter each of these points with an
> intelligent counter point. My opinion isn't as fact (although I think

Sorry, that would require having an intelligent points to start off
with. Otherwise it's just as folly as arguing about religions; if you
truly believe what you write, then good for you. You're not the only
one groping in the dark, and if you're happy in that place, what can
we do. Have a good 'un!

Cheers,

Dee

Re: Why I feel private lutheirs are largely over rated.


>
> You have no idea how much money goes into that kind of stuff.
> I personally know a guy who has a Line6 endorsement. He used to play
> all-tube custom amps and this luthier-built guitar...but now he only
> plays Line6 stuff live. Because he got a shitload of gear from them,
> and could sell off most of his gear for good income. And whenever he
> needs something, he can ask Line 6 for it.

Well, ok... then we get into this question how much does quality of
tools (guitars, amps, etc... ) matter to the artist. Having read quite
a few biographies on these guys from past (not talking about anyone
too current here) but the gear they use matters, it matters a lot. I
think this guy you know is a very bad examples of someone selling out
their integrity as an artist for endorsement money.

I realize this happens, but I also believe many players are
uncompromising on the gear they play on... and if they aren't it just
proves of how little significance the tools that help them make their
music really have anyway.

>
> In the studio and at home he don't play them at all. The gig gear
> stays in the bus.
>

You just said he sold his gear with the Line 6 enforcement money?
Maybe I heard wrong.


> Furthermore, Clapton is a bad example. He's from a time when the Strat
> was pretty the best there was available. Also his strat is pretty
> heavily modded (by luthiers), neck shape, electronics...of course now
> Fender makes his own version.
> But having played a similar guitar for who knows how long, why would
> he change?

Because he's an artist and is always looking for something new? He's
played many Strarts over the years and also when he decided to take up
acoustic guitar do you honestly think C.F. Martin and Fender had to
fight for Clapton's endourcement. Hell no, do some home work on this
and you'll discover Clapton played with both Fender acoustics and C.F.
Martin acoustics on his unplugged album (the Martin's were vintage
from his collection, he choose them without endorsement). Fender could
have hit him up to release an Eric Clapton edition nylon string
classical like the Fender he played on that album, but he didn't do
that and... he choose C.F. Martin.

You're free to believe what you want, but he and others artist have a
great deal more integrity and pride (at least when it comes to their
gear) than you are giving them credit for. I realize there's a need to
discredit them in this area because, we'll because that's the only way
I see anyone could crack my argument, but I just don't see it,
especially in the case of Clapton and these other cats that have been
around for so long.



> Also you're simply assuming that players are a actually using the
> guitars they endorse.
> For instance, from an interview of Slash (who as you know endorses
> Gibson and has his own model)': 'I can't get any guitars from Gibson
> Custom Shop I like. All my LP's I normally use are built for me by
> luthiers'

Slash could be an exception to the rule. Gibson in general I don't
like very much, but that's another thread.

>
> > (c). Lutheirs who take their time and pride themselves in their
> > craftsmanship, but have no skill in terms of innovating the instrument
> > further serve little purpose to the professional artist in terms of
> > the artist trade (performing, songwriting, recording) and this point
> > is validated by the list of professionals I provided who do not play
> > with private luthier built guitars on stage, period.
>
> Whoa. You're saying Jackson, PRS, Ibanez, never innovated the guitar
> further? Or - I see, they never were luthiers?

No I'm not saying that: Jackson, PRS I actually listed, Ibanez (has
been around for a very very long time) these companies were founded by
private lutheirs who most certainly did innovate. I'm just saying
those who do innovate and take the instrument forward represent a very
small percent of total lutheirs. The ones who do innovat are essential
to musicians and to music moving forward.

But must lutheirs don't fit this category. not all craftsmen are
inventors you see.


> Again - when does one stop being a luthier and become a mainstream
> maker?

Never and if they also a custom shop worth anything (which I think
many do) then you're splitting hairs. This is sort of my whole point.


> There is one local luthier here who builds guitars that have this body
> that is basically halved and spring-loaded(hard to explain), very
> unique, and has a very characteristic sound. Can't build enough of
> them to satisfy the demand. Now if he hires some people and puts up a
> company, then he isn't a 'private luthier' no more I take it?

I never said that, he would be. But you see he's also an inventor, he
trying to to the instrument forward. He would be in the minority and
nothing I've said about lutheir's being over rated would apply to him
because he's innovating. Did you read my original post?


>
> I think your whole argument is basically completely flawed.

Based on some of your comments in the reply, I don't think my stance
were communicated (especially the part breaking down design vs build
quality). Your private lutheir who is innovating has a unique design
which makes what he does of great value to musicians. Let's say 10
years down the road, he has a large staff and is using mass production
techniquies, he has distribution to most states. At this point he may
still be a private luthier by special request, but he's transitioned
to being a big name supplier of guitars and he's become that way
because his unique take on the instrument has been proven and has been
accepted on a large scale by musician as something of value.

Those investing in his instruments right now are early adopters, but
I'm not down playing his importance right now. Musician need something
new to inspire them and private lutheired Gibson LP copy just isn't
anywhere in the same ballpark of value as something innovate like
this.

Re: Why I feel private lutheirs are largely over rated.

On 21 huhti, 09:58, MartinGibsonTaylor <Jeremy.De...@gmail . com > wrote:

> I realize this happens, but I also believe many players are
> uncompromising on the gear they play on... and if they aren't it just
> proves of how little significance the tools that help them make their
> music really have anyway.
>
I'd say I'm very uncompromizing when it comes to gear, but for playing
live...pretty much anything works well enough.
I love my tube rig&all, but if I'm going to a gig far away, I'll first
ask if they have a suitable amp there I could borrow and save myself
the roading trouble. In a pinch I could even use a borrowed guitar.

> > In the studio and at home he don't play them at all. The gig gear
> > stays in the bus.
>
> You just said he sold his gear with the Line 6 enforcement money?
> Maybe I heard wrong.
>
Lots of it, not all of course. He had like a dozen amps and twice the
guitars, but now he's sold off quite a few of them.
Kept only the best stuff. He's got for instance a collection of old
Ibanex and MXR stomp boxes that's simply huge.

> fight for Clapton's endourcement. Hell no, do some home work on this
> and you'll discover Clapton played with both Fender acoustics and C.F.
> Martin acoustics on his unplugged album (the Martin's were vintage
> from his collection, he choose them without endorsement). Fender could
> have hit him up to release an Eric Clapton edition nylon string
> classical like the Fender he played on that album, but he didn't do
> that and... he choose C.F. Martin.
>
I'd pick a Martin or something if I had the money, sure. I don't think
there are even very many luthiers building acoustics, and if there
were, I'd still only pick luthier-build if it were clearly cheaper.
Acoustics are a different matter...I'd consider the resale value etc.
Good warranty, they're more prone to moisture damage etc. Personally,
on acoustics, anything with a low enough action to play and OK
intonation is good enough for me. I only care about electrics. On
acoustic, I don't care if I play a nylonstring or a 12string, they're
all the same to me. Kumbayah stuff, they all sound the same, some are
brighter some duller, but it makes little difference to me.

> gear) than you are giving them credit for. I realize there's a need to
> discredit them in this area because, we'll because that's the only way
> I see anyone could crack my argument, but I just don't see it,
> especially in the case of Clapton and these other cats that have been
> around for so long.
>
Indeed. He's played Strats for ages; why'd he change now? Absolutely
no reason to.
I know a lot of older musicians, and many of them tend to stick more
and more to just one favourite axe, be it for any reason. Might be
sentimental, just plain gotten used to it, or it's their trademark.
Like this one guy I know, he's played this old LP Classic or whatever
for 30 years or so, and he said he don't care about changing guitars
because he's so used to it, he'll never change. It even has a single-
piece stopbar he always complains about being crap but he still just
keeps it the way it is, from a force of habit. Another guy I know has
played this Kramer Pacer since the 80's. Never gonna change, alhough
over the years he's modded it quite a lot, scalloping etc...I really
do believe Clapton must be pretty much the same. Once you get used to
something---

Now...how many musicians are there who would be able to start off
their career right off the bat having the possibility to order a
couple of custom-made instruments just for them? Because everyone
needs at least 2 for backup etc. No. They play often 10-20 years while
starving and get used to what they have, and there's not much going
back then.

I know one guy, though, who had 2 guitars built for him right when he
started playing proper, and I've never seen him play anything else.

> No I'm not saying that: Jackson, PRS I actually listed, Ibanez (has
> been around for a very very long time) these companies were founded by
> private lutheirs who most certainly did innovate. I'm just saying
> those who do innovate and take the instrument forward represent a very
> small percent of total lutheirs. The ones who do innovat are essential
> to musicians and to music moving forward.
>
OK, I can agree with that...but what's it got do do with why stars
often play 'regular' factory style guitars?

> But must lutheirs don't fit this category. not all craftsmen are
> inventors you see.
>
An old and IMO a very true saying is 90% of everything is crap. 90% of
musicians suck, 90% of politicians are corrupt, 90% luthiers just do
it for a living. Nothing new. In anything, it's 10% or less who
pioneer things and improve them. Probably also pretty quickly sucked
into big guitar companies, too.

> Those investing in his instruments right now are early adopters, but
> I'm not down playing his importance right now. Musician need something
> new to inspire them and private lutheired Gibson LP copy just isn't
> anywhere in the same ballpark of value as something innovate like
> this.

Yep, I've no argument there.

But why bash luthiers in general anyway?

I think it's pretty simple. People play what they get used to and what
is most sensible in terms of money and image and playability. A simple
fact is that clapton playing a no-name guitar just isn't the same
thing as him holding the very same guitar every time. That's iconic.
If luthier-built guitars were cheap and plentiful, I've no doubt many
more players would adopt them straight from the start, and make icons
out of their guitars, whatever it might be.

Then the luthiers who don't innovate---well, if I need a new neck, do
I buy from Warmoth or have one built when it's the same money either
way? Of course I have it built, so I can affect all the choices in it.
And I don't care if he's an innovator, I just want a good neck.

Re: Why I feel private lutheirs are largely over rated.

"DeeAa" <deeaa@dnainternet . net > wrote in message
news:a765bc56-7076-407c-b75a-4f058757367d@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups . com ...
<anippage>
> I'd pick a Martin or something if I had the money, sure. I don't think
> there are even very many luthiers building acoustics, and if there
> were, I'd still only pick luthier-build if it were clearly cheaper.

I personally know at least half a dozen people who build acoustics in my
area. Gord Barry, Doug Harrison, Linda Manzer, Grit Laskin, Scott
Shepherd, Oskar Graf, Marc Beneteau.

Many of the staff working for Jean Larivee are capable of building on their
own, and do. Enventually many of them set up their own shops.

You may not know about them because their client lists and backlogs quietly
grow and they don't have to advertise.

Generally speaking, private construction is not cheaper than factory.

HTH
-pk


<snippage>

Re: Why I feel private lutheirs are largely over rated.

> > No I'm not saying that: Jackson, PRS I actually listed, Ibanez (has
> > been around for a very very long time) these companies were founded by
> > private lutheirs who most certainly did innovate. I'm just saying
> > those who do innovate and take the instrument forward represent a very
> > small percent of total lutheirs. The ones who do innovat are essential
> > to musicians and to music moving forward.
>
> OK, I can agree with that...but what's it got do do with why stars
> often play 'regular' factory style guitars?

Sort answer: Brand name guitars are from private lutheirs that did
innovate establishing their reputation with musicians around the
world, they become trusted. It's the same reason NBA basketball
players in the US don't have custom shoes made for their feet when
they play, they play with endorsed brand name shoes from the likes of
Nike, etc... Professional athletes are wealthy and in the case of
basketball players having an advantage in footwear could effect their
game which effects their career. Why don't athletes have private
tailored shoes made? Because the big name companies (Nike) have the
experience and knowledge to build a better product for them. What do
athletes and musicians have in common in this scenario, I think they
both want a well constructed, well design product from a proven
company that puts out consistent quality. That consistent quality may
not be the best money can buy, it may not even be the best value for
them. But it takes the risk out of it for them. I think this get sto
the point.


Long answer:
A lot of people responding are saying the answer to this is because of
endorsements, but if as it's already pointed out if you go back to the
60's and move forward endourcements are there on ocassion, but not
always. Probably less than half. The point I was trying to make goes
like this: the creme of the crop private lutheirs; those who innovate
are the ones who transition from little shop to big name company.
Every big name manufacture/luthier I can think of did exactly that in
some way. From: Ovation to Taylor to PRS to Parker. They all added
something new that skyrocketed. Their success is due to these
companies having something worthwhile and new to offer to musicians in
general. I would say the reason all these big name artist are playing
with brand name product is mostly because it's product that has proven
itself and meets their high expectations in what an instrument should
be.

Are the artist as good to judge craftsmanship as someone who builds
guitars, probably not. But they know what feels right and sounds
right to them and that's an individual thing, for better or worse what
the best players play has an impact on the rest of us. Often it does
matter, quite a bit.



>
> > But must lutheirs don't fit this category. not all craftsmen are
> > inventors you see.
>
> An old and IMO a very true saying is 90% of everything is crap. 90% of
> musicians suck, 90% of politicians are corrupt, 90% luthiers just do
> it for a living. Nothing new. In anything, it's 10% or less who
> pioneer things and improve them. Probably also pretty quickly sucked
> into big guitar companies, too.
>

Most musicians would want to play with proven quality or something new
and innovative, most pros want an instrument from the top 10%. This
gets back to the topic title of this thread "Why I feel private
lutheirs are largely over rated".


> But why bash luthiers in general anyway?
>

Well, this all spawned from a few discussions I've had. There is
luthier who hangs out in alt.guitar who is very opinionated and pretty
much hates anything mass produced. At the Dallas Guitar Show this past
weekend I got an opportunity to talk with two other lutheirs for a
while and it seems they all sort of hold to this belief that the big
name companies are evil and unable to product a better product than
they can build and this just doesn't line up with the reality we seem
to be living in if you judge what musicians are playing on and
recording with.

The world delusional comes to mind. So does arrogant but neither are a
perfect fit. Maybe those who can play and those who can't teach and
build guitars? Eh..

>
> Then the luthiers who don't innovate---well, if I need a new neck, do
> I buy from Warmoth or have one built when it's the same money either
> way? Of course I have it built, so I can affect all the choices in it.
> And I don't care if he's an innovator, I just want a good neck.

Well, see this is a good point. My whole post (and i didn't point this
out, I should have) is evaluating the importance of luthiers in
building custom instruments, not in their need of performing repairs.
I wasn't trying to bash what they do in the realm of repair work or
restoration, just trying to ask this question "are their built from
scratch instruments" over rated.

Re: Why I feel private lutheirs are largely over rated.



MartinGibsonTaylor wrote:
>>> No I'm not saying that: Jackson, PRS I actually listed, Ibanez (has
>>> been around for a very very long time) these companies were founded
>>> by private lutheirs who most certainly did innovate. I'm just saying
>>> those who do innovate and take the instrument forward represent a
>>> very small percent of total lutheirs. The ones who do innovat are
>>> essential to musicians and to music moving forward.
>>
>> OK, I can agree with that...but what's it got do do with why stars
>> often play 'regular' factory style guitars?
>
> Sort answer: Brand name guitars are from private lutheirs that did
> innovate establishing their reputation with musicians around the
> world, they become trusted. It's the same reason NBA basketball
> players in the US don't have custom shoes made for their feet when
> they play, they play with endorsed brand name shoes from the likes of
> Nike, etc... Professional athletes are wealthy and in the case of
> basketball players having an advantage in footwear could effect their
> game which effects their career. Why don't athletes have private
> tailored shoes made? Because the big name companies (Nike) have the
> experience and knowledge to build a better product for them. What do
> athletes and musicians have in common in this scenario, I think they
> both want a well constructed, well design product from a proven
> company that puts out consistent quality. That consistent quality may
> not be the best money can buy, it may not even be the best value for
> them. But it takes the risk out of it for them. I think this get sto
> the point.
>
>
> Long answer:
> A lot of people responding are saying the answer to this is because of
> endorsements, but if as it's already pointed out if you go back to the
> 60's and move forward endourcements are there on ocassion, but not
> always. Probably less than half.

It could be argued that in the 60s, Fender and Gibson made better guitars
(especially Gibson). Some guitar makers are just trying to make guitars
like they used to be.

>The point I was trying to make goes
> like this: the creme of the crop private lutheirs; those who innovate
> are the ones who transition from little shop to big name company.
> Every big name manufacture/luthier I can think of did exactly that in
> some way. From: Ovation to Taylor to PRS to Parker. They all added
> something new that skyrocketed. Their success is due to these
> companies having something worthwhile and new to offer to musicians in
> general. I would say the reason all these big name artist are playing
> with brand name product is mostly because it's product that has proven
> itself and meets their high expectations in what an instrument should
> be.

As has been frequently pointed out in this thread, the stars you speak of
are often not playing the same level of instruments you can buy off the rack
at Guitar Center. You can pretty well bet that EC, for instance walks
onstage with a guitar and amp which have been gone over with a fine tooth
comb for any problems, and to insure they meet his specs.

>
> Are the artist as good to judge craftsmanship as someone who builds
> guitars, probably not. But they know what feels right and sounds
> right to them and that's an individual thing, for better or worse what
> the best players play has an impact on the rest of us. Often it does
> matter, quite a bit.
>
>
>
>>
>>> But must lutheirs don't fit this category. not all craftsmen are
>>> inventors you see.
>>
>> An old and IMO a very true saying is 90% of everything is crap. 90%
>> of musicians suck, 90% of politicians are corrupt, 90% luthiers just
>> do it for a living. Nothing new. In anything, it's 10% or less who
>> pioneer things and improve them. Probably also pretty quickly sucked
>> into big guitar companies, too.
>>
>
> Most musicians would want to play with proven quality or something new
> and innovative, most pros want an instrument from the top 10%. This
> gets back to the topic title of this thread "Why I feel private
> lutheirs are largely over rated".

As I said, I believe that Eric, again for instance, plays Fenders from that
top 10% .. make it the top 1% of the instruments they make. Custom shop
guitars are *not* the same as the assembly line stuff. I'm sure it happens
that he finds himself playing a less than stellar instrument in some rare
situations, but he, like many excellent players, could make a Squier sound
good if he had to. But he usually doesn't have to.
>
>> But why bash luthiers in general anyway?
>>
>
> Well, this all spawned from a few discussions I've had. There is
> luthier who hangs out in alt.guitar who is very opinionated and pretty
> much hates anything mass produced. At the Dallas Guitar Show this past
> weekend I got an opportunity to talk with two other lutheirs for a
> while and it seems they all sort of hold to this belief that the big
> name companies are evil and unable to product a better product than
> they can build and this just doesn't line up with the reality we seem
> to be living in if you judge what musicians are playing on and
> recording with.

Ah, so this really is pretty much about Keith. Too bad he got under your
skin so much. As to the other guys, yeah some guys feel that way, but I
suspect it's more that big guys won't make great instruments than that they
can't. John Suhr, David Schecter and Tom Anderson come to mind as smaller
manufacturers who started out trying to make better guitars. I think they
still do, and actually quite a few guys on your list agree.

>
> The world delusional comes to mind. So does arrogant but neither are a
> perfect fit. Maybe those who can play and those who can't teach and
> build guitars? Eh..

Now who's sounding arrogant? ;-)

>
>> Then the luthiers who don't innovate---well, if I need a new neck, do
>> I buy from Warmoth or have one built when it's the same money either
>> way? Of course I have it built, so I can affect all the choices in
>> it. And I don't care if he's an innovator, I just want a good neck.
>
> Well, see this is a good point. My whole post (and i didn't point this
> out, I should have) is evaluating the importance of luthiers in
> building custom instruments, not in their need of performing repairs.
> I wasn't trying to bash what they do in the realm of repair work or
> restoration, just trying to ask this question "are their built from
> scratch instruments" over rated.

I don't think they are over rated at all, but are the necessary or is a meat
and potatoes Fender good enough ... obviously lots of us do just fine
playing a Fender, or whatever, but if I could have my Fender made by hand to
my specification ... trial and error ... by luthiers employed by Fender ...
I'd do that.

Don

Re: Why I feel private lutheirs are largely over rated.


>
> As I said, I believe that Eric, again for instance, plays Fenders from
> that top 10% .. make it the top 1% of the instruments they make. Custom
> shop guitars are *not* the same as the assembly line stuff. I'm sure it
> happens that he finds himself playing a less than stellar instrument in
> some rare situations, but he, like many excellent players, could make a
> Squier sound good if he had to. But he usually doesn't have to.
>>
In his biography, ISTR one of Clapton's recent acquisitions is a white MIM
Strat with gold anodised pickguard that his wife bought him for his birthday
because he was drooling over it in the guitar shop in/near Guildford.

(Just confirms my theory that you start to lose taste and discernment as you
approach pension age) ;)

Re: Why I feel private lutheirs are largely over rated.

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 21:50:48 -0700 (PDT), MartinGibsonTaylor
<Jeremy.Deats@gmail . com > wrote:

>Next question: Have I considered why some pros do? Again, did you read
>my post? I've considered why some do, for the hell of it. Because
>maybe they want some one of a kind-art guitar to put on their wall.
>Who the hel knows, the point is most pros aren't playing with custom
>guitars from private lutheirs. That is a fact, I provided a short list
>of some of the best known artist who have lived and the guitars they
>bring on stage most nights, while they might be custom jobs, they come
>from big name companies.

Many pros get their guitars from the big name companies. But since they are
in direct contact with the luthiers at those companies it usually amounts
to the same thing. For all intents and purposes they have privately built
guitars.

What difference does it make if an experienced and skilled luthier works
for Fender or Gibson, or works for himself?

Re: Why I feel private lutheirs are largely over rated.


"Spender" <Spender@Mars.org> wrote in message
news:3jap041jnb8d230m3kuo1947tc3sjujlo7@news.easynews . com ...
> On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 21:50:48 -0700 (PDT), MartinGibsonTaylor
> <Jeremy.Deats@gmail . com > wrote:
>
>>Next question: Have I considered why some pros do? Again, did you read
>>my post? I've considered why some do, for the hell of it. Because
>>maybe they want some one of a kind-art guitar to put on their wall.
>>Who the hel knows, the point is most pros aren't playing with custom
>>guitars from private lutheirs. That is a fact, I provided a short list
>>of some of the best known artist who have lived and the guitars they
>>bring on stage most nights, while they might be custom jobs, they come
>>from big name companies.
>
> Many pros get their guitars from the big name companies. But since they
> are
> in direct contact with the luthiers at those companies it usually amounts
> to the same thing. For all intents and purposes they have privately built
> guitars.
>
> What difference does it make if an experienced and skilled luthier works
> for Fender or Gibson, or works for himself?

Exactly.