[LUTE-BUILDER] Re: Following up - does one need to play to be a good builder?
On Sat, May 31, 2008, Timothy Motz [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Well, to each his own Dana, but I find that for myself there is no substitute for doing. I dont see where we differ on this last; my point is that there is considerable value to taking it in stages, all at once is overwhelming. Formally apprenticed persons are slowly introduced to each craft technique in a way that ensures some profit will be made by the shop while they learn; experienced craftspersons bring some useful skills and experience to the workbench needing to learn how to apply it to luthierie; doing repairs before building from scratch is one reasonable way to begin. Note, my own history has been a mixture of both. And it's been fun and relaxing. Dats a good ting! :-) -- Dana Emery To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE-BUILDER] Re: Following up - does one need to play to be a good builder?
Well, to each his own Dana, but I find that for myself there is no substitute for doing. Copying and scaling a rose is as simple as punching some buttons on a copy machine. The rose on my present lute is copied from the return address logo on the Guild of American Luthiers envelopes. I picked a fairly simple rose pattern for my first effort. In general, I started as simple as possible and have been increasing the level of difficulty with each instrument I build. I started out using inexpensive violin pegs rather than making pegs myself, for example. None of my instruments is a masterpiece. But each one has been playable, and several have a very nice tone. And it's been fun and relaxing. Tim On May 31, 2008, at 12:54 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, May 30, 2008, Timothy Motz [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Considering that even a cheap lute of the southeast Asian variety is now running $400-500, buying one sounds like an expensive way to learn what not to do. depends on how you look at the expense. Consider the rose, just designing a rose takes time, even if you copy the design you have to get it scaled and printed; then you make/ purchase the chisels, scalpel, punches etc to carve it, and some practice wood, and then its what, maybe 20 hours of work? Yes, you have the radio playing nice music to cover the occaisinoal epithet when you mess up the over/under interlace or break off another bit of short grain... The cheap instrument you purchase will probably need somw work to improve its action, they arent always going to be hopeless, some will need less work than others. The first several instruments from any new luthiers bench will have similar issues to be solved. Just as when practicing a new piece, sometimes its best to begin at the ending. Several aspects of building require each builder to solve fabrication techniques - thicknessing thin stock, turning pegs, working with hide glue, triming the bowl, shaping small pieces that have no parallel surfaces (bridge, pegbox sides, neck, neckblock). In so many other fields, the large project is best split into smaller ones, each of which is more easily learned; confidence is built slowly and surely, with the strong possibility of some fun along the way if you can keep the new toy functional inbetween work sessions. You can make a couple of lemons and learn more than by playing someone else's mistakes. That is quite true, but does it hurt to do both in succesion? -- Dana Emery To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE-BUILDER] Re: Following up - does one need to play to be a good builder?
Ehud, I'm afraid I disagree with Jon. Considering that even a cheap lute of the southeast Asian variety is now running $400-500, buying one sounds like an expensive way to learn what not to do. I think that, even buying tuning pegs, materials for the lutes I've built cost under $200; probably closer to $150. And you can build one with a minimum of specialized tools in a borrowed workshop space. All of the lutes I've built so far have ribs made of thin wood from a hobby store (the next one will be different). I used a handheld sander to thickness the soundboards on most of the ones I've made, and you can make an inexpensive thickness gauge to guide you. Much of the work can be done on a kitchen table, as long as you're not married. Now that I'm thoroughly addicted, I've built a thickness sander and am investing in other tools, but it was pretty rudimentary at first. You can make a couple of lemons and learn more than by playing someone else's mistakes. The Lute Society in England leases lutes. It's too bad there isn't a way to do that in the US. Of course, I have no idea where you are located. Tim On May 28, 2008, at 10:57 PM, Ehud Yaniv wrote: On 5/26/08 1:04 AM, Jon Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If I may make a suggestion, try buying a cheap Paki or Indian made lute on EBay. Use it to learn what is wrong with it. In effect that is what I did with my flat back, I now know what the lute should be. BTW, Ronn McFarlane played my flat back once, after I'd modified it, and declared it a sweet sounding instrument. I think that might have been a damning with faint praise, but I'll still accept the compliment. When playing a cheap instrument one must accept that the tuning may not hold - and that one must at times accept a bit of discord - but it is better to learn the basics of play before venturing into the construction and finding out that one has made some primary errors. I still can enjoy playing my flat back, but I really anticipate the play of my planned lute. Best, Jon BTW, I'm primarily a harpist and psaltery player, but the lute is a lovely thing and once I make a good one I'll be torn among the instruments. Hi Jon, Thanks for the suggestion. At one time, I did order a cheap southeast asian flat back lute - even had it ordered and all. In the end I cancelled it when I read about the work needed to make one of these even remotely playable. It just seemed to be easier to make one. That said, I will consider it as a possible option as I sit, think, and plan. Ehud To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE-BUILDER] Re: Following up - does one need to play to be a good builder?
On 5/26/08 1:04 AM, Jon Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If I may make a suggestion, try buying a cheap Paki or Indian made lute on EBay. Use it to learn what is wrong with it. In effect that is what I did with my flat back, I now know what the lute should be. BTW, Ronn McFarlane played my flat back once, after I'd modified it, and declared it a sweet sounding instrument. I think that might have been a damning with faint praise, but I'll still accept the compliment. When playing a cheap instrument one must accept that the tuning may not hold - and that one must at times accept a bit of discord - but it is better to learn the basics of play before venturing into the construction and finding out that one has made some primary errors. I still can enjoy playing my flat back, but I really anticipate the play of my planned lute. Best, Jon BTW, I'm primarily a harpist and psaltery player, but the lute is a lovely thing and once I make a good one I'll be torn among the instruments. Hi Jon, Thanks for the suggestion. At one time, I did order a cheap southeast asian flat back lute - even had it ordered and all. In the end I cancelled it when I read about the work needed to make one of these even remotely playable. It just seemed to be easier to make one. That said, I will consider it as a possible option as I sit, think, and plan. Ehud To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
