vic wrote
OK, so let's get back to the original thread..... So what's your verdict....? Is it the wood or not...is it the luthier or not... ??? Is the author off his trolley or not .. ??? ???.
The author has an agenda. He's saying that nothing matters other than the skill of the luthier. He's steering the listener/reader towards the boutique luthiers - of which he is one. His POV is not entirely without merit, but we're not talking about a binary issue here - handmade or not handmade. There is a continuum. Some makers automate some tasks but not others. Larrivee for example automate a good many tasks but insist on the neck being fitted by hand. Most guitar makers use quite a bit of equipment these days, they may press the buttons themselves and press the wood against or into the tool, but we could debate for hours how "hand made" such instruments are. I have a Morgan, a very fine flat top guitar and the production runs are small, but Morgan do not do the finishing themselves - they send their bodies to Larrivee for finishing.
I find his position inconsistent actually. If he's so sure that tonewoods don't do anything then why isn't he using laminates or papier mache with some kind of attractive, exotic veneer for his guitars?
Anyhoo, it's an interesting debate. I think it's worth making the point that he's talking about tonewood - the back and sides. He's playing down the importance of having quarter-sawn wood, but I bet that's not top wood he's talking about.
I think wood does make a difference. But good wood in the hands of a crap luthier is probably going to give you a crap guitar.
I do suspect that sometimes the intent behind the use of exotic, unusual woods is to produce guitars that look interesting and exotic and that will impress people who want an exotic looking guitar. I've played one of these...
I thought the workmanship was impeccable, the looks striking, the sound something less than overwhelming.
So maybe a good luthier and crap wood also gives you a not particularly good guitar - though at least it would be playable, have good intonation etc.
So it all counts. The skill of the luthier does make a difference.
It's a partly subjective issue as well. There are no absolute rights and wrongs. For me we are in a golden age of acoustic guitars because there are so many makers. Some of them seek to reproduce the look and feel and tone of the "golden era" guitars, but many of them are out to embody their own idea of how a guitar should look and sound and be constructed. Lowdens don't sound like Martins. Larrivee's don't sound like Fyldes. Taylors don't sound like Gibsons. Etc etc etc. The chances of the player finding a guitar or brand that gives her/him exactly what they want in order to realise their musical vision are better these days than they were 40 years ago.
