Why I feel private lutheirs are largely over rated.

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

On Apr 21, 1:33 pm, mirt54 <mir...@verizon,net > wrote:
> On Apr 20, 11:08 pm, RMZ <Jeremy.De...@gmail,com > wrote:
>
>
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
> > 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.
>
> Suppose Clapton calls Fender's CEO personally and insists on a regular
> off-the-line strat(highly unlikely...I know). The CEO of Fender calls
> the production plant and tells the production line supervisor " send
> Clapton a guitar".
>
> I guarantee you if the production line supervisor wants to continue
> working with Fender, he is going to have his best shop "luthiers" hand
> pick the guitar to send to Clapton.
>
> Production line supervisor then communicates to CEO that Clapton's
> "regular" production guitar is on it's way.
>
> So even if such were the case, it would not be a production model the
> same as you are I get off the Fender production line. :) Marty

You don't think the same care went into his Eric Clapton signature
model Strartocasters that went out to retail? I played on a Clapton
signature start just a few days ago at a guitar show and the feel of
the neck, fretboard and tone were all unique. Are you trying to see
all artist signature model guitars are a scam and substandard to what
the artist themselves play? I think there are cases where that has
happened, but not in many many years. In the 1980's Kramer was doing
that and Eddie Van Halen tells the story of when he found out he
pulled the plug as soon as possible.

All the signature models I've played on I could list on one hand: Eric
Johnson, Eric Clapton (both his $8000 Martin and his $1500 Fender from
years ago), Joe Satriani (Ibanez), Zak Wylde (Gibson), Slash (Gibson).
Had unqiue setup and tone. Really only the Gibson signature models
needed any adjustment at all. Were they exactly what the artist play
with on stage, I don't know. These guys have guitar techs that do-
stuff ok, but those tweaks are minor for most of these I would bet on
it.

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

On Apr 21, 3:59 pm, MartinGibsonTaylor <Jeremy.De...@gmail,com > wrote:
> On Apr 21, 1:33 pm, mirt54 <mir...@verizon,net > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 20, 11:08 pm, RMZ <Jeremy.De...@gmail,com > wrote:
>
> > <snip>
>
> > > 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.
>
> > Suppose Clapton calls Fender's CEO personally and insists on a regular
> > off-the-line strat(highly unlikely...I know).  The CEO of Fender calls
> > the production plant and tells the production line supervisor " send
> > Clapton a guitar".
>
> > I guarantee you if the production line supervisor wants to continue
> > working with Fender, he is going to have his best shop "luthiers" hand
> > pick the guitar to send to Clapton.
>
> > Production line supervisor then communicates to CEO that Clapton's
> > "regular" production guitar is on it's way.
>
> > So even if such were the case, it would not be a production model the
> > same as you are I get off the Fender production line. :) Marty
>
> You don't think the same care went into his Eric Clapton signature
> model Strartocasters that went out to retail? I played on a Clapton
> signature start just a few days ago at a guitar show and the feel of
> the neck, fretboard and tone were all unique. Are you trying to see
> all artist signature model guitars are a scam and substandard to what
> the artist themselves play?

I didn't say that they were a scam at all. I simply said that if a
guitar is being sent from a factory to a guy like clapton, he will
surely not get a "random" guitar off the production line like you or
I.

I think there are cases where that has
> happened, but not in many many years. In the 1980's Kramer was doing
> that and Eddie Van Halen tells the story of when he found out he
> pulled the plug as soon as possible.
>
> All the signature models I've played on <snip>

That's right, the ones YOU played on. I've read in these very groups
guys who were disappointed with the quality of these "signature"
models. I've also read review where folks were thrilled with these
signature models. Same goes for opinions about my $300 Schecter, some
like it, some don't.

I could list on one hand: Eric
> Johnson, Eric Clapton (both his $8000 Martin and his $1500 Fender from
> years ago), Joe Satriani (Ibanez), Zak Wylde (Gibson), Slash (Gibson).
> Had unqiue setup and tone. Really only the Gibson signature models
> needed any adjustment at all. Were they exactly what the artist play
> with on stage, I don't know. These guys have guitar techs that do-
> stuff ok, but those tweaks are minor for most of these I would bet on
> it

I understand that "tweaks" are by definition "minor". So I won't take
your bet, thank you very much.

Marty

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

RMZ wrote:

> 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...

How sad for you to have a problem with people who build exceptional
quality products.

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

RMZ wrote:

> 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?

Many jazz guitarists tend to play instruments built by "private"
luthiers. One person operations are common here. Benedetto, Manzer,
Parker, D'Aquisto are all builders of traditional archtops but who have
all come up with new ideas and can be considered innovators.

I'd imagine that the flat tops you're talking about are a matter more
that those players aren't LOOKING for innovation as much as just a
really good traditional instrument. You also have to understand that
builders like Larrivee and Taylor got lucky being able to sell as many
instruments as they did and it took them years to build up their
companies. The market for a $3500 guitar is small and people are going
to tend towards something familiar that has proven itself so even if a
small builder is innovative and builds excellent guitars the odds are he
will go under before you or I ever hear of him.

SNIP

> 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.

Probably true but not always. I know a guy who builds excellent flat
tops that rival anything out there. Word is getting out but I think he
maybe sold five guitars last year and still has to make most of his
living as a player.
>
> 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.

And where are those guitars today? Ovation has a niche market but isn't
something a lot of players want. Parker sold the company and the its now
static in the its innovations.

> 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.

Ok, but if all these small builders took what you are saying to heart
there would be no John Taylors or Ken Parkers or Jean Larrivees or Ned
Steinbergers that pop up once every decade or so to make a serious
impact on instrument design.

> 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?

How many geniuses are there in ANY field? Something that I think you're
ignoring too is that a guy who starts building copies of Martins or
Gibsons or whatever can over the years grow into building truly
innovative instruments. You think think the first guitars Taylor build
were innovative? I seriously doubt it. By your way of thinking no small
builder should ever set his sights high enough to become an innovator.
Innovators grow into being innovators, they aren't born that way.

> 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've had several solid body basses built and all were basically Fender
type instruments. The reason I went to a small builder was so I could
get minor tweaks done in the body shape that no big company offered and
to get it made out of tone wood that was not available from any big
company. I didn't want wholesale innovation, I wanted minor tweaks on an
existing design to make the instrument suit my needs.

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

jeffb <rigger@shaw.c> wrote:

> Many jazz guitarists tend to play instruments built by "private"
> luthiers.

If one goes back to the list of pro-musicians listed in the first post
in this thread look at the musicians who are missing. Classical
guitarists, jazz guitarists and most tellingly guitarists who
predominantly perform solo are notably absent.

Look who is included. Musicians from Pop/Rock/Country styles,
furthermore most of those musicians are noted as much for their songs,
songwriting and vocal style as they are for their guitar playing. Most
of those musicians developed their styles around mass produced guitars,
most of them are also players in loud or large group settings where fine
subtleties of tone, timbre etc. are lost. These are therefore would
gain little benefit from custom made instruments. This is particularly
true of the acoustic players on his list. It's also worth noting that
most of the players on his list who could have afforded to purchase
luthier made instruments do, actually, own such instruments and many of
them use them on tour.

Musicians who play solo guitar, particularly acoustic guitar, are far
more likely to require luthier made instruments for their live and
recording work.

Not surprisingly a list of solo guitarists would give a different
answer.

Tommy Emmanuel - plays Maton guitars
Charlie Hunter - Novak guitars
John Williams - Smallman guitars
Julian Bream - Romanillos guitars
Pat Metheny - Manzer guitars (among others).

The worlds top solo instrumental guitar players use luthier made
guitars.

This should not be a surprise.

It's also worth noting that many of the worlds top bass players play
boutique or custom made bass guitars (obviously the original poster has
a bias towards skinny stringed instruments even though this was cross
posted to a bass guitar list).

--- Derek





--
Derek Tearne - derek@url.co.nz
Many Hands - Trans Cultural Music from Aotearoa/New Zealand
http :// www .manyhands.co.nz/

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

On Apr 21, 6:35 pm, de...@url.co.nz (Derek Tearne) wrote:
> jeffb <rig...@shaw.c> wrote:
> > Many jazz guitarists tend to play instruments built by "private"
> > luthiers.
>
> If one goes back to the list of pro-musicians listed in the first post
> in this thread look at the musicians who are missing. Classical
> guitarists, jazz guitarists and most tellingly guitarists who
> predominantly perform solo are notably absent.

My discussion is about popular music, not classical or jazz. If you
want to talk about the importance of a lutheir to classical guitarist
that's a very different thread and you won't get any argument from me
that that's the way most of them go. If you think classical and jazz
players are somehow better guitarist overall than rock musicians or
are of more importances WELL we could argue about that, but it's a
different topic.


> It's also worth noting that
> most of the players on his list who could have afforded to purchase
> luthier made instruments do, actually, own such instruments and many of
> them use them on tour.

No they don't. Go down the list I provided and provide examples of
these artist playing some custom job guitar on tour (pictures,
something?), you may can name a few. but those aren't play brand name
on stage. In many cases their (brand name) guitar's have become part
of their stage imagine and without endorsement.

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

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

> On Apr 21, 6:35 pm, de...@url.co.nz (Derek Tearne) wrote:
> > jeffb <rig...@shaw.c> wrote:
> > > Many jazz guitarists tend to play instruments built by "private"
> > > luthiers.
> >
> > If one goes back to the list of pro-musicians listed in the first post
> > in this thread look at the musicians who are missing. Classical
> > guitarists, jazz guitarists and most tellingly guitarists who
> > predominantly perform solo are notably absent.
>
> My discussion is about popular music, not classical or jazz. If you
> want to talk about the importance of a lutheir to classical guitarist
> that's a very different thread and you won't get any argument from me
> that that's the way most of them go.

As I said elsewhere, it is clear that any guitarists who clearly don't
support your argument are ignored. Although all you originally said was
'the big name players' now you mean 'the big name players that aren't
jazz or classical'.

> If you think classical and jazz
> players are somehow better guitarist overall than rock musicians or
> are of more importances...

No, not at all. However, classical, jazz and particularly solo
guitarists do demand more from their instruments. It is hardly
surprising that people who require more from their instruments also tend
towards high quality hand made instruments from specialist luthiers.

I> > It's also worth noting that
> > most of the players on his list who could have afforded to purchase
> > luthier made instruments do, actually, own such instruments and many of
> > them use them on tour.
>
> No they don't. Go down the list I provided and provide examples of
> these artist playing some custom job guitar on tour (pictures,
> something?), you may can name a few.

I went down your list - got to number one - and found that Eric Clapton
plays, among other things, Lowden, Pensa, Suhr, Stahl and Zemaitis
guitars. I also discovered that Dave Matthews road gear includes
Veillette and Jerry Jones guitars. I already knew that Paul McCartney
plays a Wal bass regularly on tour (it was bought for him by his late
wife Linda).

Look, it's trivially obvious that you haven't done your research and
cherry picked your examples. It would be possible, but exhausting, to
troll the internet for pictures of all the musicians you've listed and
find pics of them playing luthier guitars, but it's pretty pointless -
you'll find some additional caveat to claim that the concert photo in
question doesn't count.

Let's just stick to popular music. Astonishingly you missed out Mark
Knopfler - surely one of the most accomplished guitarists in popular
music forms.

http :// www .pensaguitars,com /images/photos/pensa_photos/knopfler_mk2_larg
e.jpg

Here's a bunch of pictures of people playing zemaitis guitars. If there
aren't people from your list on this page then there's clearly a problem
with your list. http :// www .zemaitisclub,com /zemaitis-gallery.htm

Look, it's pretty easy to find pictures of people playing luthier
guitars in concert. If you include bass players, and you've
cross-posted to a bass group so you should, it's completely trivial -
many of the top bass players use boutique/custom basses.

You just haven't looked hard enough, and it's pretty clear that you've
looked away whenever your gaze fell on evidence contrary to your
premise.

--- Derek

--
Derek Tearne - derek@url.co.nz
Many Hands - Trans Cultural Music from Aotearoa/New Zealand
http :// www .manyhands.co.nz/

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

Thanks for those who responded. I wanted an open discussion and knew
some of the replies might get a little heated (from either end), I
respect everyone's opinion even if we don't all agree some of the
replies have made me think about the place of the private luthier.

One person commented that "it's not that they produce a superior
quality product, just an alternative" and that I do agree with. Of
course it won't stop the arrogant, ho-hum backyard lutheir who really
isn't all that skilled from continuing to think he can build a better
guitar than Fender, but there we go again...

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

MartinGibsonTaylor <Jeremy.Deats@gmail,com > wrote:
> Thanks for those who responded. I wanted an open discussion and knew
> some of the replies might get a little heated (from either end), I
> respect everyone's opinion even if we don't all agree some of the
> replies have made me think about the place of the private luthier.
>
> One person commented that "it's not that they produce a superior
> quality product, just an alternative" and that I do agree with.

Now we're getting somewhere. That was me. It's only my view, but
that's what it meant to me....to be able to get the features on a guitar
that were most important to me, which I couldn't find on any
high-quality, brand-name guitar all at once.

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

On Apr 20, 10:08 pm, RMZ <Jeremy.De...@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.

Quite a different view from mine on musical instuments!

Firstly, guitars aren't all that complicated. Probably the toughest
thing about making a guitar is getting the wood for the body right.
After that, it's no big deal.

Secondly, musical instruments are all individuals. No two are the
same. I'm fairly new to guitars, but they are no different than
anything else for that property.

Thirdly, having a good fit between the player, the type of music being
played and the instrument is often, but not always, important..for
reasons other than personal comfort of the player anyways. If all you
are going to do is bang on power chords at high distortion "fit"
doesn't mean much.

Finally; I don't need no stinkin' luthier as I can make and or modify
my own instruments to suit my own desires. I wanted to try a luthier
initially, but the costs are prohibitive for me, I just don't have
that kind of money! I have modified 3 guitars fairly extensively, one
as an "Albert King" type guitar, one as a "Muddy Waters" type guitar
and one as a "Stevie Ray Vaughan" type guitar. The idea is to get a
guitar that plays a certain way soundwise, but fits me, given say the
size of my hands and my technique, among other things. In all cases,
they are modifications of off the rack fairly cheap guitars that I
liked the sound of when I played them in the shop. Still have a tele
type guitar that I want to make into a "Roy Buchanan" guitar.

Now if I had the money, I would definately use a private luthier, but
luthier or not, I want an instrument that is *MINE*!

FWIW, I have a 100% personal custom guitar planned out. I know what I
want and I know how to make it. I just don't have the $2K I need to
complete the project!

Needless to say, I play for my own personal enjoyment!

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

Someone mentioned the book on "Watching Wayne Henderson Build
Clapton's Guitar". I mentioned I'd read this book, but went back and
saw that the person who challenged me with this was trying to imply
Clapton went out of his way to hunt down Mr. Henderson to craft him a
guitar better than his vintage Martin's.

Anyone who's read this book knows that's not the case, but here are
some points to be made: 1. Wayne Henson would be an exception... My
stance "Private Lutheir's are over rated" doesn't mean there are
masters out. Again, my problem isn't with the creme of the crop top
10% that everyone wants it's the ho-hum lutheirs out there. My problem
is with this notion that any hand built guitar is going to be better
than a product from a big name company, which in my experience isn't
true. I have never had a hand built instrument, but I have played on a
few and found them unremarkable to plan bad.

Here are some other points about Henderson building Clapton a guitar.

1. Clapton first played a Henderson while visiting a recording studio,
he liked the way it sounded and then was propositioned with "would you
like one" and it was more of a casual "Yes I would like one of these"
sort of transactions. Clapton can buy guitars like you and I buy a jug
milk and this whole inquery to buy a Henderson is presented in the
first chapter as nothing more than that. It is nowhere implied in the
book that Clapton special ordered this guitar to replace his Martin's
or other guitars.

2. It took Clapton over 10 years to get his Henderson guitar, wow so
this one explains itself. It's a worth-while jem and I'm sure he's
happy to have it in his collection, maybe he's even recorded with it,
but I imagine for Clapton it's just another guitar and one that took
an insanely lone time to get delivered.

3. I got confirmation today, there is no contract between C.F. Martin
and Eric Clapton that says Clapton has to perform, be photographed
with, etc.. with only a C,F Martin in hand when he plays acoustic.
Such a deal may (big maybe) exist between Clapton and Fender, but it
does not with Martin because their artist endorsement deals don't work
that way. If you question this feel free to do what I did, write C.F.
Martin an e-mail and ask, they were rather quick to respond to me. So
this just further validates what I have been thinking, this notion
that it's big name endorsements keeping this artist attached to big
brand names is blown out of proportion and somewhat ridiculously

4. There is no account in the book of Clapton's response to recieving
his private lutheired Henderson guitar and no record of him playing it
live or commenting on it. He has no contract in place preventing him
from doing such, so one has to wonder if Clapton thinks his new
Henderson was worth the wait or the measly $1500 payment.

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

MartinGibsonTaylor <Jeremy.Deats@gmail,com > wrote:
> Someone mentioned the book on "Watching Wayne Henderson Build
> Clapton's Guitar". I mentioned I'd read this book, but went back and
> saw that the person who challenged me with this was trying to imply
> Clapton went out of his way to hunt down Mr. Henderson to craft him a
> guitar better than his vintage Martin's.
>
> Anyone who's read this book knows that's not the case, but here are
> some points to be made: 1. Wayne Henson would be an exception... My
> stance "Private Lutheir's are over rated" doesn't mean there are
> masters out. Again, my problem isn't with the creme of the crop top
> 10% that everyone wants it's the ho-hum lutheirs out there. My problem
> is with this notion that any hand built guitar is going to be better
> than a product from a big name company, which in my experience isn't
> true. I have never had a hand built instrument, but I have played on a
> few and found them unremarkable to plan bad.
>
> Here are some other points about Henderson building Clapton a guitar.
>
> 1. Clapton first played a Henderson while visiting a recording studio,
> he liked the way it sounded and then was propositioned with "would you
> like one" and it was more of a casual "Yes I would like one of these"
> sort of transactions. Clapton can buy guitars like you and I buy a jug
> milk and this whole inquery to buy a Henderson is presented in the
> first chapter as nothing more than that. It is nowhere implied in the
> book that Clapton special ordered this guitar to replace his Martin's
> or other guitars.
>
> 2. It took Clapton over 10 years to get his Henderson guitar, wow so
> this one explains itself. It's a worth-while jem and I'm sure he's
> happy to have it in his collection, maybe he's even recorded with it,
> but I imagine for Clapton it's just another guitar and one that took
> an insanely lone time to get delivered.
>
> 3. I got confirmation today, there is no contract between C.F. Martin
> and Eric Clapton that says Clapton has to perform, be photographed
> with, etc.. with only a C,F Martin in hand when he plays acoustic.
> Such a deal may (big maybe) exist between Clapton and Fender, but it
> does not with Martin because their artist endorsement deals don't work
> that way. If you question this feel free to do what I did, write C.F.
> Martin an e-mail and ask, they were rather quick to respond to me. So
> this just further validates what I have been thinking, this notion
> that it's big name endorsements keeping this artist attached to big
> brand names is blown out of proportion and somewhat ridiculously
>
> 4. There is no account in the book of Clapton's response to recieving
> his private lutheired Henderson guitar and no record of him playing it
> live or commenting on it. He has no contract in place preventing him
> from doing such, so one has to wonder if Clapton thinks his new
> Henderson was worth the wait or the measly $1500 payment.

You seem to want to hang on to this notion that there's a valid claim
"that any hand built guitar is going to be better than a product from a
big name company". That's a straw man. Keith Adams may claim it's
true, but no one else in the group would back him up.

You think 10 years to get a custom guitar is representative? Mine took
4 months.

You're reasoning is that Clapton likes his Martin, so guitars
custom-made guitars made by small luthiers are crap. What nonsense!!

Rather than attempt to rebut the detailed points made by me and probably
at least 20 other people here, you keep recycling the same fanboi
bullshit. So I'm done trying to reason with you. So I'll go back to
what I said originally:

"You're rant's way over the top, son. It's not credible." And it's no
more credible now than it was in your initial post.

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

>
> You're reasoning is that Clapton likes his Martin, so guitars
> custom-made guitars made by small luthiers are crap. What nonsense!!
>

They aren't all crap, just not practical for most musicians given the
risk and draw backs. The advantages don't outweigh the risk, in fact
unless you have an opportunity to get a creditable private lutheier
you're probably getting a worse deal all the way around that starting
with a stock instrument and having a lutheir modify it or doing the
job yourself.

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

On Apr 21, 5:36 pm, "RichL" <rpleav...@yahoo,com > wrote:
> MartinGibsonTaylor <Jeremy.De...@gmail,com > wrote:
> > Someone mentioned the book on "Watching Wayne Henderson Build
> > Clapton's Guitar". I mentioned I'd read this book, but went back and
> > saw that the person who challenged me with this was trying to imply
> > Clapton went out of his way to hunt down Mr. Henderson to craft him a
> > guitar better than his vintage Martin's.
>
> > Anyone who's read this book knows that's not the case, but here are
> > some points to be made: 1. Wayne Henson would be an exception... My
> > stance "Private Lutheir's are over rated" doesn't mean there are
> > masters out. Again, my problem isn't with the creme of the crop top
> > 10% that everyone wants it's the ho-hum lutheirs out there. My problem
> > is with this notion that any hand built guitar is going to be better
> > than a product from a big name company, which in my experience isn't
> > true. I have never had a hand built instrument, but I have played on a
> > few and found them unremarkable to plan bad.
>
> > Here are some other points about Henderson building Clapton a guitar.
>
> > 1. Clapton first played a Henderson while visiting a recording studio,
> > he liked the way it sounded and then was propositioned with "would you
> > like one" and it was more of a casual "Yes I would like one of these"
> > sort of transactions. Clapton can buy guitars like you and I buy a jug
> > milk and this whole inquery to buy a Henderson is presented in the
> > first chapter as nothing more than that.  It is nowhere implied in the
> > book that Clapton special ordered this guitar to replace his Martin's
> > or other guitars.
>
> > 2. It took Clapton over 10 years to get his Henderson guitar, wow so
> > this one explains itself. It's a worth-while jem and I'm sure he's
> > happy to have it in his collection, maybe he's even recorded with it,
> > but I imagine for Clapton it's just another guitar and one that took
> > an insanely lone time to get delivered.
>
> > 3. I got confirmation today, there is no contract between C.F. Martin
> > and Eric Clapton that says Clapton has to perform, be photographed
> > with, etc.. with only a C,F Martin in hand when he plays acoustic.
> > Such a deal may (big maybe) exist between Clapton and Fender, but it
> > does not with Martin because their artist endorsement deals don't work
> > that way. If you question this feel free to do what I did, write C.F.
> > Martin an e-mail and ask, they were rather quick to respond to me. So
> > this just further validates what I have been thinking, this notion
> > that it's big name endorsements keeping this artist attached to big
> > brand names is blown out of proportion and somewhat ridiculously
>
> > 4. There is no account in the book of Clapton's response to recieving
> > his private lutheired Henderson guitar and no record of him playing it
> > live or commenting on it. He has no contract in place preventing him
> > from doing such, so one has to wonder if Clapton thinks his new
> > Henderson was worth the wait or the measly $1500 payment.
>
> You seem to want to hang on to this notion that there's a valid claim
> "that any hand built guitar is going to be better than a product from a
> big name company".  That's a straw man.  Keith Adams may claim it's
> true, but no one else in the group would back him up.
>
> You think 10 years to get a custom guitar is representative?  Mine took
> 4 months.
>
> You're reasoning is that Clapton likes his Martin, so guitars
> custom-made guitars made by small luthiers are crap.  What nonsense!!
>
> Rather than attempt to rebut the detailed points made by me and probably
> at least 20 other people here, you keep recycling the same fanboi
> bullshit.  So I'm done trying to reason with you.  So I'll go back to
> what I said originally:
>
> "You're rant's way over the top, son.  It's not credible."  And it's no
> more credible now than it was in your initial post.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

It's interesting how the "custom" vs "OEM" arguement can be found
anywhere. I've never been a big OEM person myself. I know that in
guitars a lot of people like to think that because they forked out $2K
for a fancy OEM product with a lot of spin associated with it, they
must have a better instrument than some home made guitar, or modified
$200.00 guitar...but the underlying fact is that it just ain't so.

In any event, the player makes the instrument...so if you can't play,
a million dollar best guitar that has ever or will ever be made isn't
going to sound very good in your hands, whereas someone who can play
can pick up a guitar at WalMart and blow you away. The other issue is,
I suppose, the value of the instument. My guitars aren't worth much to
anyone else, but then again I am not buying them for investment
purposes. There isn't a guitar on earth I'd pay more than a couple of
grand for...and in the case of a $2K guitar project I have planned,
the artwork is over $1K and the parts are a little less than $1K.
It'll cost me $2K, and I probably won't be able to sell it for $200,
but that's not the point..,it will mean a lot to me, and that is the
point! In the end, a lot of OEM products of all sorts are bought to
impress others more than to function for the individual...custom
products are all about the individual!

I want the instrument I use to fit me, and the style I want to play. I
love my #1 guitar, a modified standard strat, but there is no doubt
that many other people would absolutely hate it. They don't have to
play it though! I do, and I both love the guitar I play and play the
guitar I love!

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


"RMZ" <Jeremy.Deats@gmail,com > wrote in message
news:918a7cc3-8bd9-42e7-a507-9a378e0bf8df@u36g2000prf.googlegroups,com ...
> 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.
>
>

Most of the guitars produced by these large companies are low cost mass
produced products that are not particularly impressive. Or they buy up
smaller companies that produce a good product and move production to China
and sell the product on the name.

Bob