Somogyi Vid

[Rick Turner]

Dennis,

The Steinberger/Grimes guitars have not proved successful in the market place. Steve has pretty much give up on that design; I've talked to him about it.

The Larsons and Tilton's work was mainly the longitudinal brace from tailblock to headblock. The Tilton guitars (which were, by the way, made by several different builders) with tailpieces sound like crap.

I think it is possible that flat topped guitars sound like flat topped guitars in part because of the pull and torque on the top, which may seem to be a bad thing, but which in fact may just help define the sound that people buy. There are physical effects from that "bad" stress both static and dynamic that affect harmonic content. Get too far away from that, and you may change the sound of the guitar too much. I know all the reasons why a "stressless top" seems like a great idea. I just haven't heard one that killed me like a good 1934 OM with a screwed up distorted top and in need of a good neck reset. I think that if we go too far away from traditional design, we run the risk of "throwing the baby out with the bath water."

The only flattops I've heard with tailpiece construction that I really like are old Stella 12 strings.

[Allen]

Seems I've been off the radar on this for a couple of days, so missed out on some of the discussion.

However my books showed up today and I'm pretty impressed with what I got. They are large and high quality hard cover books. I know a few people that have had books published, and it's no small feat to put that much work into something that large and professionally done.

It's going to take some time to work my way through them, and I'm hopeful that there will be something in them that gives me a "Eureka" moment. If nothing else, they do look bloody good on my "Luthier's Book Shelf".

Oh, and Rick. that shirt is just way cool. Please bring that to Cairns. I really should have got one from David Hurd when we were in Albany. My loss.

[Dennis Leahy]

Rick,

It seemed that my original point was on-topic and that to keep going in this direction (within this thread) would be tangential. You're an innovator, and if anything brutally honest (about your own work as well as others), and have a healthy skepticism. That's good stuff. So, I respect where you're coming from, and only in-the-flesh proof will sway you. All the more fun to (eventually, somehow, somewhere) hand you an instrument and show you what I'm talking about.

I also don't want to leave the (sour grapes) impression that the Somogyi books are not awesome - they probably are. My point was that they probably do not contain anything resembling a "master class" in how to build guitars like Somogyi guitars, and that the techniques that Somogyi uses to milk every drop of sound from the wood that he can are not terribly innovative - "just" masterful rehashing of standard techniques. I think enough people have posted their impressions/reviews of the books so that luthiers who buy the books will not be disappointed - they already know what is not in there, and will surely enjoy what is.

Dennis

[Rick Turner]

Clearly Ervin is a master craftsman and a true artist. I guess the real question is whether or not his approach can lead to mere mortals being able to achieve consistent sonic results that help sell musical tools. I suspect it's hard for many to separate the visual splendor of Ervin's guitars from the reputed sonic benefits. Then it may be that the sonic benefits are so much in a particular direction as not to be useful for every luthier or every guitarist.

There is a kind of amusing, "drank the KoolAid" or "didn't drink the KoolAid" aspect to this whole discussion. Ervin has certainly promoted the Cult of Ervin thing well...

[Allen]

He's also managed to spin another avenue of income into a very difficult way of making a living. There are damn few luthiers making a good living out of their craft. My hat's off to him, and others that have been in the trenches for years and managed to accomplish what so many of us can only dream of.

[Nick]

There is a kind of amusing, "drank the KoolAid" or "didn't drink the KoolAid" aspect to this whole discussion. Ervin has certainly promoted the Cult of Ervin thing well...

His marketing techniques certainly can't be faulted & more power to him if they work, which they appear to because he's still in the business and, either in a good way or bad way,people are talking about him & his instruments. As Oscar Wilde was famously quoted, "There's only one thing worse than being talked about & that's not being talked about."
He certainly is a marketing illusionist, whether he does it on purpose or not I'm not sure. I've watched both the vids in the series originally posted (original "pulled" video is back up now by the way, copyright argument has obviously been resolved) & sat there being pulled into what he's saying and been thoroughly interested. It's not until after the video's finished and I start thinking about what I have just seen & learnt that I realised there has been nothing specific given away, just his general observations and how he would approach thinking about the build, voicing-wise which, we all do in a fashion anyway. I'm no marketing genius but would say that's a marketing mantra..."give them little but leave them hanging out for more".
I will be interested in hearing your thought's on the books Allen & Martin once you get the chance to read and absorb. Hesh & Waddy's views have been added in the positive column it will be interesting to see where you place them.

[jjh]

The books are like that too!

[simonm]

As of Weds 30th the vids are back. Apart from the books there is also a one week course which is of course a tad more expensive that the books.

[jjh]

I should qualify my last post with there is nothing like these on the market, I feel they are designed to give you the info then leave you to place it into your own experiance, or The Responsive Guitar does anyway I've yet to start the Making book, so far I've not found anything other than deflection testing which I would change my style of building. So if you've got a few under your belt and are stuck in a rut and feel you need something to push you in a fresh direction these are for you, if your just starting out like me follow kinkade with cumpianos up to date bolt on neck and read all the build posts on the many forums that are out there

[Rick Turner]

I'd like to point out that unless you're working in a complete vacuum, deflection testing is not particularly new, nor is it exclusive to Ervin. I'd suggest that guitar makers look around a bit and, for instance, look at what's going on in the mandolin world. Also check out the work of Alan Carruth in the more "scientific" world of guitar making.

There are at least two or three "schools" as far as measuring guitar and other instrument tops go, and guiding final plate graduation and brace carving. There's deflection, there's Chladni pattern testing, and there's "tuning" as per Siminoff following Loar.

Ervin, in part due to his very high level of craftsmanship as well as his obviously Mesmerizing influence on accolytes who are willing to sign non-disclosure agreements, has indeed become a cult figure. That does not mean I don't respect him or his guitars; but he has re-introduced the concept of "secrets" into the modern world of free exchange of ideas lutherie. He's a throwback to the 18th and 19th century crafts guild way of doing things. His apprentices pay him to learn. They agree to hold his secrets. Said secrets are embedded in imprecise and obscure language. It does become a cult of personality.

And he makes guitars that sell for $25,000.00. Who wouldn't want to know the secret of that?

[Hesh1956]

I have an email in my in box this morning from a friend who lives in Ervin's area and attends the monthly meetings of their group of builders. Attendees can include Howard Klepper, Ervin, Siminoff and other top shelf, internationally known builders.

What I hear is that each month someone will host the meetings and someone, perhaps the host, will do a presentation. The level of sharing that has been described to me is a very high level of sharing and this includes Ervin.

My buddy wrote that he can't believe how many negative comments he has read in this thread alone (he is lurking) from folks who have not even read Ervin's books.

Now don't get me wrong I am not dissing the dissenters here at all and I too can certainly understand how it feels to be brought to the brink of learning something potentially useful and then left hanging..... Not good.

But, and not to disagree with you Rick, I would suggest that there is a lot of misunderstanding surrounding all matters pertaining to Ervin. Some of this misunderstanding Ervin has willingly or unwillingly played into.

First I am not sure that there are any NDAs (nondisclosure agreements). I have heard from some of the 10 or more folks that I know who have taken Ervin's class that he tells his students to feel free to photograph anything that they can find in his shop for their own use. He does ask that they not publish their photos and this includes posting them on the Internet.

I can understand this completely and can see how this may not be an attempt at secrecy, although it could too, but it could just be a request from a guy who wants to have some control over how his own work is represented. Would we want someone else taking shitty photos of our work and posting them where ever they wish perhaps missing what the goal is and explaining the photo in a manner that misses the point?

I have also heard that he asks his students to endeavor to brace their guitars unlike how he braces his own. I am on the fence about this one again because I am a believer that form can follow function and its possible for two folks to come up with the same bracing independently not unlike how the jet engine is now credited to two inventors who at the same time came up with similar ideas with no coordination.

The so called golden age of Lutherie IMHO is an exercise in a lot of us fooling ourselves that folks are indeed freely sharing what they know... My own belief is that sure there is a lot of sharing happening but I would suggest that you read some threads on the forum of your choice and apply the "correctness" test to the info shared. Not all of what is being shared is even accurate in some cases... It's easy to share BS and I am sure that I am guilty of this too so no offense intended to anyone.

In the past several years I have had various Luthiers contact me privately and tell me that what we are talking about on a forum is incorrect. They instead offer their spin to me and ask me to use the information in my guitars but not to share it.... Golden Age Of Lutherie - I think not.

I have apprenticed for a top repair guy mostly because Rick got me thinking that it's all about the players (thanks Rick!!) and that a nicely built and sounding guitar that is set-up incorrectly is just a GLO (guitar like object). When Rick first shared this fact on the forums I was offended but as the days wore on I kept thinking about his message. It actually haunted me and as much as I did not like the delivery the message was absolutely correct and I will add priceless too.

So I apprenticed in a busy shop for no money and learned more in a shorter period of time than I have ever learned just building my own stinkin guitars.

The Luthier who I apprenticed for has what you could call secrets too. Techniques, tools, methodologies that he has developed and that work. No one ever asked me to shut the hell up about what I was exposed to in his shop but I most certainly do keep this stuff to myself. Why? It's not mine to do with as I please and out of an enormous amount of respect for the Luthier I keep what I saw and learned to myself. Secrecy or respect?

When considering Ervin there is also the "credential" aspect of the game. Let's face it some of us are hobbyists who may consider turning pro at some point. Problem is that you just can't "turn" pro as much as some seem to miraculously transform into a "Luthier" over night and because their web site says so.... Cynical here Heshie? Yep...

Although there is no governing board who can anoint one a "pro" or a "Luthier" in my opinion it's also something that seems to be abused in its usage and in a pretty disrespectful manner too. A guy gets laid off form his job, builds a guitar that he sells to a friend for $200 and low and behold he is now a Luthier.... Howard Klepper once joked about this writing something like, and this is not an exact quote, the guy runs out in his yard and yells into the sky that he is a "Loothier".....

Back to the idea of a credential. So a hobby builder wants to become a Luthier but lacks any formal training. Studying with Ervin, Fox or any of the well known Luthiers is a way to obtain a credential which they will invariably use on their web sites indicating that they studied with a master. This newly obtained credential cost them dearly in $$$ and time and they are reluctant to just give away what they learned as a result. IMHO they also may have acquired a greater appreciation for the idea that there is a LOT to this Lutherie thing so much so that the learning never, never, never ends.

Some of the folks who have studied with Ervin do seem to clam up afterward and in some cases even drop off the forums. Me thinks that this contributes to the furtherance of the idea that there is great secrecy surrounding Ervin. Interestingly many of his students are simply going away and really thinking about what they have learned, trying to put it into practice, and now too busy to be a forum rat.

Anyway I am rambling here and I am sorry for that. I do think that Ervin gets a bad rap and the point that some who further this bad rap when they have not been exposed to the real Ervin bothers me too. But I'll get over it and it's not likely to ever change anyway so who cares...

In my opinion Ervin does share and his books will be evidence of this sharing for decades to come. All that we write and exchange here will be lost at some point and the level of info that any forum freely exchanges is not, IMHO, the VIP lounge quality of information but it is still very important, useful, and above all it represents sharing which is always a good thing.

[Kim]

Hesh,

With all due respect, surely a nicely built and sounding guitar that 'is' set-up correctly is credential enough, one does not need anyone's stamp if they have that. No 'trained under' badge on Mario Proulx's desk to qualify him, none needed, his instruments do all the talking. Also I doubt that the guitar buying public would give too much measure to anyone attempting to validate their own qualification by suggesting they had been groomed by another luthier. I suspect that should the masters name be enough to make a measurable impression upon a prospective buyer, then their money would have been attracted to the master in the first place.

Should it be argued that the customer may not have been able to afford the masters work so was drawn to the student, then it is likely that the students work would be assessed by the prospective buyer as just that 'student work', and with that, he immediately goes back into the huge pool of unknown builders with nothing but a welcome sign hanging on the wall of their shop and instruments that will be assessed on fit, finish, sound and playability. With that i would suggest the best investment toward increasing ones credentials is hands on experience and development of instruments that are uniquely your own.

Also i struggle to see where your buddie found any great level of negativity being directed toward Ervin in this thread. No one has questioned the mans ability as a craftsman here, i have however questioned his marketing approach and suggested some possible motives and that would seem reasonable given the secrecy and copyright issues that have occurred. I have also questioned the validity of his 'air pump' theory, and I still do. As far as i am concerned, this is all good healthy discussion which forms the very basis of a good forum because it encourages yet more ideas and exchange.

Maybe it's a cultural thing AU v USA but I for one will not be drawn into dancing around the point in contention for fear of being perceived disrespectful to the master, stuff that, i hope the ANZLF never falls into that stifling dead end, 'end of discussion' trap we have seen develop and prevail elsewhere. I also hope your lurking friend will take the time to join in our discussions and make their feelings known in person. If he/she has something to share or a point they feel should be made about this, or any other thread here at the ANZLF, they will be made to feel just as welcome as any other member.

Cheers

Kim

[jjh]

I've had some rather nasty private emails before hesh and I do believe there is a very dark side to him, but that said after he's apologised we've had good dealings. I would respect him much more if he didn't cry wolf with videos and the net as much to me these seem to be put up with the idea of selling his courses and I quote from a private email here, where I asked about deflection testing

Also, as far as my classes go, I can't 'sell' my students information that's published in books and freely available. I need to keep something for them to feel that they've gotten their money's worth. I feel I've gone as far as I can go in revealing proprietary information in a public way. I've gone Waaaaaaay past other books in that regard as it is.

So he freely admits to withholding information

That said I respect the guy for his work

[Hesh1956]

Hesh,


With all due respect surely a nicely built and sounding guitar that 'is' set-up correctly is credential enough, one does not need anyone's stamp if they have that. No 'trained under' badge on Mario Proulx's desk to qualify him, none needed, his instruments do all the talking.

Hi Kim no need to indicate respect I completely agree that you and I are fully capable of being in disagreement without there being anything disrespectful about any of it. Please don't call me Shirley though...

I agree and I never said that one needs credentials to build great guitars. Beyond Mario there are many others who are self taught and some of these guys are also huge names in the guitar building world.

My point was that some folks who may not have a lot of time in the craft find the idea of a credential as something that will make their guitars more marketable. This has been said on the forums too. If you dispute this or anyone does check out the web sites of some of the folks that you know studied with Ervin - they mention it. If one values this credential and has paid time and money to obtain the credential it's clear that they see it of value. Is it required to build great guitars - I never said that it was.

I also struggle to see where your buddie found any great level of negativity being directed toward Ervin in this thread. No one has questioned the mans ability as a craftsman here, i have however questioned his marketing approach and suggested some possible motives and that would seem reasonable given the secrecy and copyright issues that have occurred. I have also questioned the validity of his 'air pump' theory, and I still do. As far as i am concerned, this is all good healthy discussion which forms the very basis of a good forum because it encourages yet more ideas and exchange.

The primary point of my friend's email to me was that he found it rather odd that there are so many opinions being expressed here about Ervin and his books by some folks who have not read them.

I agree wholeheartedly with this point and personally I would never engage in a discussion about a film, book, etc. that I had not been personally exposed to myself. Mind you I am not saying that you or anyone else does not know what you are talking about but what I am saying is that I think, my opinion, that a better discussion would result if all parties were on the same page so-to-speak in having read the materials in question. After all this thread is about Ervin's new books.

Reading on I see that you have an opinion on what a good forum will endeavor to do/provide. Me too my friend and I agree with your point here too. I don't think that any forum would remain successful if unhealthy discussions were the soup of the day.

Having been one though who has at times and for a lack of knowledge on my part discounted something that a pro offers on a forum as time passed I understood more about why I was wrong to do this. There is very little for the few pros who participate on these forums and they do have skin in the game in as much as they make their living at Lutherie. Having a moron such as myself put the pro's ideas in a poor light or get personal with them is a losing proposition for the pro again because they have skin in the game, many of us do not.

I'll add that my own stint as an apprentice taught me one thing above all else and that is that we cannot know what we just don't know. With this said I am willing to give the established pro the benefit of the doubt with the thinking being on my part that maybe I just don't understand enough about the topic to be able to properly evaluate what I read, heard, etc.

Where I agree with you Kim is that so long as the discussion does not get personal I am all for a very lively debate. My hope remains that folks don't take things too personally which can and has resulted in some divisive fighting that ultimately is counter to why we are here. Mind you I see nothing that would qualify in this thread as getting personal.

Maybe it's a cultural thing AU v USA but I for one will not be drawn into dancing around the point in contention for fear of being perceived disrespectful to the master, stuff that, i hope the ANZLF never falls into that dead end, 'end of discussion' trap like we have seen develop and prevail elsewhere. I also hope your lurking friend will take the time to join in our discussion and make his feelings known himself. If he/she has something to share or a point to make about this,, or any other thread here at the ANZLF, they will be made to feel just as welcome as any other member.

Cheers

Kim

I'll ask my friend to join the ANZLF.

Maybe it is a cultural difference Kim but I would not go so far as to call it a cultural difference between AU and USA I've had the pleasure of partying with Bob.... There are lots of folks who we know on other forums, Americans, who's thoughts regarding Ervin seem to mirror your own. Actually instead of being cultural perhaps I just have a very high level of respect for some of these guys (men and women) who are successful at Lutherie and build great guitars. I am not saying that you don't Kim, far from it M8. But what I am saying is that in my own comfort zone I am possibly less willing to want to be critical of a master. Perhaps this is a problem for me. I'll add that I have a number of seniors in my life too and as such I have had to learn to deal with them a bit differently... So I am sensitive to the idea that Ervin is an older guy, he does not do Internet very well and told me so on the phone, and of course we don't see him on the forums either.

Questioning everything that does not make sense to you or is not clear is certainly appreciated by me Kim. I can't tell you how often other folks ask the hard questions and these are questions that were on my mind too but for one reason or another I was unwilling to ask them myself.

Waddy wrote in one of the gallery threads that he hopes that I will tell him when I see something untoward about his guitars. Not that I ever noticed anything wrong with Waddy's guitars mind you I will admit to being the sort who is not comfortable saying anything that is going to possibly be perceived as unkind, overly critical, nit picking, etc. about the work of others. Unfortunately I have strayed from this before too and I am deeply sorry for having done so. Instead I find that my value may be encouraging folks to keep building and sharing their excitement when they accomplish something. This is my hope. I am sure that you recall that I spent some years clapping away when folks posted pics of a completed guitar. Maybe they appreciated this, maybe not. Personally I have always appreciated the comments that folks have shared with me about my own guitars.

After rereading this I think that everyone has every right to perceive Ervin as they will. My post that I believe that you are responding to was an attempt to provide my own view and I also endeavored to present a balanced view as well. Please remember that I was potentially critical regarding the "don't make your bracing look like mine" stipulation that I have heard that Ervin tells his students.

John's post is a pretty good example of what I may be trying to convey here.

We read an excerpt from an email from Ervin and John's conclusion is that it is evidence of secrecy.

I read the very same text and took it completely differently - not that I am right either mind you. My read is that Ervin has shared more in his books than anyone else ever has in their books. I also take it to mean that Ervin feels a duty to the students and apprentices through the years to protect what they have learned too and any value that he believes has been conveyed to them.

So guys we are in disagreement here on some points but in my view not all points. I don't see where there is any secrecy but I do understand that Ervin sees his life's work as including some things that are proprietary to him. Maybe when we all have decades of experience behind us we will understand?

I understand the frustration too but I personally am more grateful for what is contained in the books, what I can learn, than for what might be reserved for students, apprentices or never revealed at all.

[Kim]

All very good points Hesh and thanks for taking the time to offer your insight. Your and your friends comment seem to assume this topic has been based upon our impressions of Ervin's books, however the thread was initiated by Nick in order to make folks aware of the youtube videos, the first of which was called "The Air Pump".

As mentioned I do not believe the air pump theory to be accurate, nothing disrespectful to Ervin, no need to read his books to comment on that as the statement was in the video, i just don't think that a guitar works that way. I sincerely hope we all continue to question the pros and not just sit in a circle to listen like children, especially given your earlier comment about PM's you have received telling you that a lot of what is being shared in the golden era is bullshit.

BTW, Just in case there is any confusion, my comment re: the cultural difference was directed at the stifling i have seen take place on a USA forum rather than at our members from the USA who join in here at the ANZLF.

Cheers

kim

[Rick Turner]

Hesh, maybe I'd been spending too much time in Australia, and the direct and blunt factor had taken hold!

That is one thing I've come to really appreciate about Aussies...they tend to tell it like they see it, and if there's a bit of offense, they get over it pretty quickly.

Here's a funny example of Aussie bluntness: Over here in the US, when you want to relieve yourself you "go to the bathroom". Well, out in public, you'll never see a bathtub in that room with all the porcelain. Where's the bath in the bathroom? What you'll see are toilets (and urinals for us blokes). When Aussies need to go pee or poo, they "go to the toilet". Simple, direct, blunt, and honest...no prevarication, no embarrassment, just a simple statement of fact.

[Allen]

I think Rick finally gets us!

[Hesh1956]

My friends thanks for your thoughts and thanks too for putting up with me.

Kim upon rereading the original posts here you are completely correct in that the topic is broader than just Ervin's books - my mistake. I can't comment on the air pump vs. not an air pump because I am clueless regarding this topic but I certainly enjoy the contributions of those who have thoughts about this debate.

I also agree with you Kim that it's important for us to not take something conveyed by a pro as fact unless it can be substantiated as fact and of course the data that led the professing party to any conclusion is repeatable for others too. I believe that is the nature of the scientific mind and you Kim have a great scientific mind my friend.

At some point I would like to talk about, in another thread, why we believe that there is so very much sharing happening these days because as mentioned my experience had been a bit different. What is shared seems to me to be the basics that one can find in other ways but the information that really gets into how a guitar does work AND optimizing a guitar for sonic qualities seems to be few and far between. Perhaps, just perhaps it's because no one really knows?

So thanks Kim for hanging in with me and I feel as if we have a meeting of the minds here even if we don't completely agree on everything.

Rick my friend I could not agree with you more. Even though I don't have the feet on the ground experience that you do with our Aussie bros my sense of the Aussies that I have interacted with on the forums is that they are superb representatives of their nation and culture and very good folks indeed.

As some of you know the current health care debate in the US has been on my mind... When I asked and the folks here told me how Australia handles health care it was just one more reason for me to respect Australians to the very high degree that I do.

In my view and after being a part of this on-line AU/NZ community I believe that your beautiful land is a place where the directness is indeed a good thing. It's a place where the men are men and the sheep are nervous....

Thanks guys

[jjh]

Money on the table guys by the books then comment I have a love hate email relationship with Ervin and at times we love to hate each other I was again asking questions and mentioned debates on forums he's said he's read the debate here and

It's a hoot to read, and very impressive for the generally high level of thinking and being articulate about various points under discussion. I'm rather impressed, overall, by this one (which I've not seen before) compared to some others that I've had experience of. I was impressed, I laughed at some of the postings, and I was disappointed by the sheer meanness and lack of imagination of some others.

I asked permission to share the content and he's agreed though some of it won't make sense as it's about my question so I'll filter hat out and make it specifically orientated around this thread

One of the discussion threads that had some heat is that, contrary to my opinion, the guitar is not an air pump. Actually, it is exactly and specifically an air pump. It moves air molecules. It obviously doesn't move them across the room in the way that a fan pushes air across a room; if that were the case then we could bypass our air conditioners on a hot day and simply play our guitars, and the savings in electricity would be phenomenal. I don't think that anyone would quibble with the proposition that a soundbox that excites more air is likely to be more successful than one that moves less air. Doesn't it seem that way to you? Finally, it is certainly possible to label the guitar as something other than an air pump: it's an energy system, an acoustic generator, etc. But to want to quibble with my wording, in an oppositional way, does a disservice to the point that I try to make when I use that language. Finally, if one is going to flat out disagree with something someone has said, it would be helpful to articulate the matter with more light and less heat.


It annoys me to have my books criticized by people who have not read them. And it annoys me to have myself characterized as a rapacious profiteer who is in this only for the money. That's sooooooo blatantly ignorant. The books are actually the best things that anyone in this business will ever read this year, or any year until something better is available. IMHO. (NOTE: I am aware that it is easy for people to dismiss one's reports of one's own work, while if a third party were to make the same claims a line would immediately form to buy the product. But that's EXACTLY how ad campaigns that hire any well-regarded public figure to tout the product work.)


More to the point, these books took me more than eight years to write. They grew out of an initial intent to write a single more modest book. Translation: I sat for one to six hours most days, every week, every month, for about 100 months, to produce these volumes. They are my legacy, culled from more than forty years of hard work, attention, failure, success, learning curve, problem-solving, and thinking about the guitar endlessly. The effort includes not only the writing itself but also the endless rewriting, organizing, research, adding new materials, photography (I have yet to hear any comment about the 1,000 photographs and figures in the books; anyone who knows anything about photography will know that this means that at least five times that many photographs will have been taken . . . over a very long period of time), editing, page layout, trying to find a publisher or backing for the project's expenses (I failed but it was not for lack of trying; but that's another story), fact checking, endless correspondence with many people, archiving data, creating endless printouts and asking quite a few people to proofread them, corrections of all types, finding a printer and everything that involves, and finally paying for the whole thing out of pocket.


If I may say so, the massive effort this project took is simply beyond the imagination of many of the people whose postings I read. You'd have to have taken on a challenge of some comparable size and depth. The plus side of the fact that I published these books myself is that I was freed of the need to meet anyone else's deadlines, editorial requirements, size limitations, design budget, etc. I could write the book I really wanted to . . . for . . . ah . . . you and people like you, who are -- like me -- friends of the guitar. Finally, any one who knows anything about how much work the writing of such textbooks drains out of you, and also the hoops an author has to jump through to get almost anything published in our printing culture, will know that there's no money in writing textbooks. Finally, I wasn't on sabbatical: I was trying to make a living while doing this! My costs iin writing these books must also include the income I forewent by not putting the time into making instruments I could sell. So the formula is: give up income in order to spend a lot of time and money to create the product. And the product in this case is a pair of major textbooks, not just how-to manuals. My attitude is that people should view my books from this vantage point and show some respect to indicate that they are worthy of my effort.


In the spirit of 'writing the books I really wanted to', you should know that my books are about The Guitar in all its forms, and contain a great deal of information about both the nylon string guitar and the steel string guitar. And of course I describe exactly how I construct my guitars as well, with the understanding that these are descriptions, not prescriptions. It not only took me decades to figure out, understand, and master the things I write about, but much of the information is available nowhere else. I have included entire chapters on the following specific topics, which to my knowledge are original within the canon of musical instrument making bibliography and iconography:


marketing and selling your work
a useful common vocabulary for sound and tone
fixing the inevitable mistakes you will make in your lutherie work
the principles of dynamic action of the soundbox
the functions of bracing in the modern guitar
the "X" brace and its functions
the functions of alternative common bracing systems: ladder, lattice, fan, Kasha, and radial
the dynamics of projection in the guitar
the dynamics of sustain
doming the guitar top
traditional European methods vs. American methods, and what they signify
two separate chapters on the specific techniques of voicing that I use
two separate chapters on French polishing
a philosophy of guitar making
the principal vibrating modes of the guitar's face
the settling-in and maturation of woods, and their effect on tone
the functions of the bridge, and variables in bridge design
the functions of the guitar back
the specific challenges to the luthier in making Spanish and steel string guitars
the flamenco guitar
the problems of intonation
the tonal dynamics of 12-fret vs. 14-fret guitars
the dynamic functions of the soundhole
the problems of guitar design and aesthetics
the problems of cutaways
the physics and engineering concerns of using guitar materials
an excellent index, reference section, and glossary


. . . and much more.


One can see that there's a lot of information to take in, evaluate, and use in different ways. To my mind lutherie is fully analogous to chef's work, where the chef knows the uses of each tool and each spice but only uses certain combinations for certain results. It also illustrates that there cannot possibly be one way to make a great guitar, any more than there is only one way to prepare a great meal. And I'm trying to train master chefs here, not short-order cooks.


There's some griping about the fact that I hold information back. I don't see how this can be said by anyone who knows me: I've participated in more than a hundred guitar shows as exhibitor and lecturer, I've taught guitar making at every level for most of my professional life, I carry on active correspondence with lots of people, I answer the phone and talk to people, and I've written more than a hundred articles over the years on every aspect of musical instrument making. The information in my books is presented as clearly and unambiguously as I could, based in a lifetime of hands-on work, and in the process making plenty of references in acknowledgment of help, information, input, etc. from others.

I regret some of the posts I made in this light but I that's how I felt at the time and removing them would seem like I don't stand behind what I said

I read some comments about how several website videos about me have been yanked off the web, and how this suggests my more nefarious machinations. Well, hardly. Those of you who have knowledge of such things will know that in matters of business it is essential that the people involved understand exactly what is being proposed, and what is being agreed to, and what is not being agreed to. These contractual concerns (agreements) often involve limitations or specifications of time and geography, specific media use, and who gets to do what and when. And often there are misunderstandings, misinterpretations, and forgetfulnesses. These matters must then be re-examined, and more clear understandings and agreements have to be arrived at -- or the project does not go forward. These things are why so many lawyers are busy. Anyone out there who has not had a difference of opinion with a colleague or co-worker, please raise your hands now. More to the point: anyone who has loaned money to a friend and had any reason to wish they'd been more careful, raise your hands.


It is true that most of the forum participants have not met me. They probably never will; there are too many thousands of miles between us. But I wanted to tell anyone who is interested some things about myself. (There's a lot of pertinent biographic information about me on my website www.esomogyi.com, for starters.) I have been told all my life that I tend to sound professorial and perhaps even a bit snooty when I speak and write. I'm far from either of these, in fact, but I do sound as people report. This is because I grew up in Mexico, Cuba, Austria, and Hungary, and only learned English after I already spoke Hungarian, German, and Spanish. I learned English while growing up in Mexico, by reading it but not by speaking it or hearing it: I only arrived in the U.S. when I was fifteen. So I absorbed a very literate English (written English is very different from colloquial, spoken English. And I'm stuck with it). Then to compound the crime, I got a degree in English from the University of California, and that pretty much welded classical written English (Shakespeare, Donne, Milton, the classics in translation, etc.) into my brain.


As for my professional work, my remarkable accomplishments, my world-class reputation, my transcendent craftsmanship, and my personal brilliance and sexual magnetism . . . well, I'm pretty smart in my way, and I am educated in my way. But mostly I'm a nerd who has spent a lot of time alone with my woods and chisels and strings -- just as Mr. Smallman surely has -- and who has made LOTS of mistakes (my early guitars were . . . well, better not say. There are laws against public use of such language) but stuck with it long enough to learn, and keep on learning. I've written my books for anyone who wants the benefit of my lifetime's experience with guitars; these books really are my legacy, and once I'm dead (I'm not that young any more, and I had heart bypass surgery a while back) they will remain behind. Aside from that, I'm not feeling as though I have a whole lot to prove these days. And as far as I'm concerned they have been written in a spirit of great intellectual and spiritual generosity that merit respect.


Which brings me to one final point about discussion forums. They serve multiple functions, the most worthwhile ones being the creation of a community and the exchange of information. Along with that comes a certain amount of posturing and acting out: the anonymity of the web encourages that. One thread of this that I'm really not fond of is how the owning of a computer and logging onto a website encourages some people to feel entitled to certain information simply because they want it, or to disburse opinions simply because they can do so. To my thinking, being on the computer does not correlate nearly as well with real accomplishment as turning the computer off and actually doing something.


I've said that I look at these books as my legacy. Personally, I hope that they will become THE textbooks in this field of work for the next generation. Will that actually happen? Who knows? Will I get rich off this? Ha ha ha. The relatively high cost of my books is a concern to many people, of course; I can only say that I consider them to be the cheapest bargains to be had if you want to make guitars, and they cost less than a lot of people will freely spend on wood. In a pinch, I'd say that they are absolutely worth saving up your money for.


Finally, I met the very nice people behind Thomas Lloyd guitars in Melbourne two months ago at the Healdsburg guitar festival. We got into a discussion about their sometime bringing me to Australia to teach one or more classes. It would take some preparation and organizational work, but it could be interesting for me to make that trip and have that experience. Until I was introduced to this discussion forum I had no idea what kind or size of lutherie work or interest there is in that part of the world; it would be useful to know what amount of interest there would be in my doing something like that.


Cheers, Ervin Somogyi

If anyone here wants a full copy pm me with your email address and I'll forward it on

[Allen]

Thanks for posting that.

And after a quick browse through my set (have too much on my plate right now to really get into them) I must say that I'm really impressed with what I see inside in the way of quality pictures, diagrams and commentary.

There is no doubt that this was an undertaking that took untold hours and for me is worthy of the price of admission.

[jjh]

For me the books were a huge investment months of saving mowing lawns and extra stuff to save and at the moment I'm nearly through the responsive one and am a struggling to ratify in my mind various maverick bracing layouts that luthier I know use in their construction, For me as a beginner I think I should of started with the making then read the theory perhaps

[Rick Turner]

I'd like to perhaps clarify my own position on Ervin. I don't particularly fall on one side or the other here, rather I think that in a particular direction, Ervin's guitars are really pretty amazing. They are certainly built at the highest level in our craft using the finest in materials. I just don't see them as being the only way to build great guitars. I have seen enough of them to think that the backs are scary thin...so thin as to be very difficult even to rub out without fear of cracking the rosewood. I think that is one of the things that makes them responsive...to a player. I know that the tops and backs are "tuned" quite low, and that the woods are low damping timbers, so there's going to be impressive bass response with decent trebles. I suspect that these sonic qualities make for very seductive instruments for solo players, and especially players not using amplification but rather either playing truly acoustically or using microphones. These sonic qualities also happen to make for easily salable guitars for serious amateur players who will mostly play in living rooms...and that's the demographic that doesn't take $25,000.00 guitars on the road or to outdoor music festivals.

So I think that Ervin knows his potential clients really well. They can afford very expensive guitars; they probably do come from a fairly academic background so Ervin's intellect is something they are buying into; and they probably don't take these guitars very far from home very often. Ervin is building really great guitars...for his particular client base.

For another perspective on the design of steel string flattops (well, almost flat), check out Stefan Sobell's guitars...which are about as far from Ervin's style as you can get, and yet they are also incredible instruments...but so different...

[kiwigeo]

My ES books sitting waiting at home......I just GOTTA get off this rig!!

[Dominic]

I got my books on Friday and I am very pleased. These guys (Rick included) have taken years to learn this stuff. I don't have that time so any investment I can make in learning I believe is well spent. That includes reading what other think about various resources. It's all good.

Rick said-When Aussies need to go pee or poo, they "go to the toilet".

I applaud your growing ockerism Rick but I think you might be hanging out with overly polite Ozzie aristocracy. Most people I know will happily provide far more detail about what they plan to do when they actually get to the crapper.

As in guitar making, it is the details that count.
Dom

[liam_fnq]

i've been following this thread since its inception and all i can say is cheers!

there's no better way to learn (i'm a big fan of learning) than to assess all side of an argument.

if someone states their theories and everyone just nods along does anyone really learn anything?
most university students know that you need to have multiple sources to complete an essay.
also, we need to remember that critiquing and criticism are not the same thing.
so keep it coming people i learn more with every post.

p.s. i prefer the term "dropping the kids off at the pool"