Martin's Thomas Humphrey
Alex
Any feedback appreciated (providing it doesn't exacerbated my tinitus).
Alex
Randy Wimer
wood.
Randy
"Alex" <arogow...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:B8A96A6F.1418%arogow...@earthlink.net...
John E. Golden
I tried a new one at Elderly Instruments in Lansing, MI. I found the
sound rather dull.
Also, I did care for the aesthetics--the rosette, purflings and tuning
machines are, in my opinion, not very attractive and the finish is
also dull.
John E. Golden
Steve
many other guitars from the US and Spain. The Humphrey was noticeably
lacking in sparkle compared to others in its price range. It seemed
heavy. They may have changed things from then. My tendency these days
would be to try that experiment again with a tape recorder and see if
I'm missing something. But from my one contact I would not consider
one.
Steve
On Mon, 04 Mar 2002 23:16:24 GMT, Alex <arogow...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
>> This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
>this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
>
>--MS_Mac_OE_3098110585_158935_MIME_Part
>Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
>--MS_Mac_OE_3098110585_158935_MIME_Part
>Content-type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
>Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
>
><HTML>
><HEAD>
><TITLE>Martin's Thomas Humphrey</TITLE>
></HEAD>
><BODY>
>Sorry if this is an old question, <B><I>but</I></B>--- what is the consensu=
>s on the C. F. Martin version of the Thomas Humphrey Guitar?<BR>
>Any feedback appreciated (providing it doesn't exacerbated my tinitus).<BR>
>Alex <BR>
><BR>
></BODY>
></HTML>
>
>
>--MS_Mac_OE_3098110585_158935_MIME_Part--
>
Randy Wimer
We all know how subjective these opinions are but, first, I have no
objection to factory guitars, my two work guitars are an old Hirade #10 and
an Asturias flamenco - I love them and they are both factory made. Second,
when this topic has been raised before, yours is virtually the only positive
voice. I've only seen 4 of the Martins, two of the lower priced and two of
the spruce top. All 4 were strung with high tension strings and all 4 could
have been blown away in volume and tone by the $600 La Patrie. I'm just
curious, what guitars have you sat down and played these Martins with side
by side? I love the design of the Millenium. I was truly hopeful when
Martin announced their intention to build them. I just haven't seen one that
lives up to its promise.
Randy
"Scott Daughtrey" <scottuns@travel_HYPHEN_net.com> wrote in message
news:3c85742e...@news.supernews.com...
negative
> comments are from those who refuse to believe a "factory built" classical
will
> sound and play well.
>
> I love them. Best bang for the buck I've ever found in a classical guitar.
> Warm, very responsive, lots of volume and projection, the neato angled top
> allows easy access to the higher frets without the compromise in tone; I
also
> think the angled top creates an "arch" which enhances the projection,
similiar
> to the design in violins etc. The lower priced model is louder and has
more
> bottom end (very thin satin finish and cedar top), excellent for concert
use.
> The more expensive model has a spruce top and has a much thicker finish.
The
> result is a quieter but more balanced sound, with high end notes that
sustain
> amazingly (La Catedral is a breeze on one of these compared to others I've
> tried). I'm thinking there was some consideration put into deliberatley
> voicing the two instruments differently. The less expensive one is
excellent
> for live performances (mondo projection, and being less expensive better
> suited for the potential casualties of touring and performing live) and
the
> more expensive better suited to recording or very intimate concerts. I
think
> the feedback Thomas received from the Assad Brothers and Ricardo Cobo (all
> stating the cedar top Millenium was their preference for performing and
the
> spruce top for recording) may have influenced the guitars.
>
> As for the Sting Model, it's my personal feeling compromisies were made
for
> this to be an amplified guitar. It comes with the pickup installed
already,
> and to my hands and ears it appears it was made "deader" to allow more
> gain-before-feedback in live situations (possibly thicker top, more
bracing,
> and the exotic tonewood used; Koa maybe?). Not a compromise I would
personally
> choose to make, as I find the un-amplified tone not nearly as appealing as
the
> cheapest Millenium model at one-third to one-half the price.
>
> Concerning all three models, I think one impressive thing I've found is
> consistancy. The intonation is truly remarkable. I've had several local
> luthiers also comment on this saying they've never seen the quality on
> consistant intonation in an under-$1500 classical before. Surprising words
> from competitors!
>
> I also have found the level of "showroom" support pathetic. I've seen
these
> guitars strung with normal tension strings, in music stores. Duh! The
manual
> clearly states high to extra-high tension, and I find the tension critical
in
> allowing the guitars the proper feel and projection. A few weeks ago I
> accidentally purchased normal tension strings (actually, the clerk handed
me
> the wrong ones but I neglected to check) and found myself in Cornwall,
just
> before a wedding, with these strings. So on they went. It was horrid. It
felt
> like the guitar had been tuned down a tone or two; no RH spring, and the
tone
> was, well, anemic comes to mind. It's like trying to drive a truck with
the
> engine from a lawnmower.
>
> You can hear a rather mediocre example here:
> http://www.travel-net.com/~scottuns/Nocturne.mp3
> that was recorded using the cheaper cedar top Millenium; no EQ at all,
> completely flat (but a little too much ambience, sorry). And for you other
> curious readers, I just put on new strings and cleared my schedule: gonna
do
> some recording this week so I have somthing to sell at gigs...anything to
> supplement the income (!). $80 for a performance can easily become $250 if
you
> have CD's to sell when you play. I'll be sure to post links for some
> critiquing; I found the last round of feedback very helpful indeed. And
then
> I'll have something to contribute to the RMCG MP3.com site.
>
> ST
>
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
Thanks for the detailed info. The only one I saw was at Mandolin Brothers. I
had no idea they had 3 models.
This is one of those de gustibus situations. The one I saw I believe they
were asking about $3500. for. I didn't like it. Then again, the angled top felt
strange to me, so it may be a familiarity thing. The sound didn't seem so great
to me, though as you say it may not have been set up or stringed right. Mando
Brothers is certainly not a primarily classical guitar oriented shop (you may be
familiar with their archtop room though, which is drool city). I did score a very
sweet 0016C from 1965. I probably overpaid slightly at $1150, but I love it
anyway.
Steve
Scott Daughtrey wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Mar 2002 23:16:24 GMT, Alex <arogow...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
http://www.dentaltwins.com
John Wasak
> Thanks for the detailed info. The only one I saw was at Mandolin
Brothers. I
> had no idea they had 3 models.
> This is one of those de gustibus situations. The one I saw I believe
they
> were asking about $3500. for. I didn't like it. Then again, the angled
top felt
> strange to me, so it may be a familiarity thing. The sound didn't seem so
great
> to me, though as you say it may not have been set up or stringed right.
>
I've played three of these new Martin classicals in the last year or so, two
at a Sam Ashe store and the other, very possibly the same guitar that Steve
played, at Mandolin Bros in Staten Island, New York. Usually I like Martin
steel strings, at least their better models, owning two myself - even toured
the Martin factory twice- so I almost hate to say this but without a doubt
these new Martin classicals miss the mark by a long shot. As a matter of
fact, I don't know if I've ever heard a worse sounding nylon string guitar.
Too bad. Hopefully Martin will either improve them or have the good sense
to stop production. There are enough lower priced, good quality classicals
out there to make passing on these Martins an easy, and smart, thing to do.
JW
Alex
Wasak at mr...@earthlink.net wrote on 3/5/02 11:50 AM:
Thanks all for your input but the feedback is getting a bit shrill. Isn't it
possible that Scott D. just happened to get a good 'un? The amazing thing is
that sometimes-- just sometimes-- all the right mojo comes together with a
manufactured guitar and -- voila! -an instrument is born that is just right
for the guitarists' purpose. Anyway, so far I've just been talked out of
doing anything wacky like searching for one of these guitars on eBay---I'm
still curious enough though to take a drive up to Lansing (where I know one
is) to check it out.
More input Please (and Thank You),
Alex
John Wasak
> Thanks all for your input but the feedback is getting a bit shrill. Isn't
it
> possible that Scott D. just happened to get a good 'un? The amazing thing
is
> that sometimes-- just sometimes-- all the right mojo comes together with a
> manufactured guitar and -- voila! -an instrument is born that is just
right
> for the guitarists' purpose. Anyway, so far I've just been talked out of
> doing anything wacky like searching for one of these guitars on eBay---I'm
> still curious enough though to take a drive up to Lansing (where I know
one
> is) to check it out.
> More input Please (and Thank You),
> Alex
>
Anything's possible, which is exactly why, especially since you're amenable
to this theory of "possibility", you should take that drive up to Lansing
where you know one is and check it out. It may be that those of us here who
have been less than enthusiastic about the new Martin classicals are the
only people in the world who feel this way. Perhaps we all chanced upon the
same bad batch. It's possible. One thing's for sure, you've go to get the
guitar in your hands and play it. Otherwise you yourself will never know.
Which is why as an idea, asking total strangers opinions about how a
particular guitar sounds is largely useless.
Attention Joshua Weage: If you're not a robot or a zombie then please
include this line in your FAQ under a section on which guitar to buy - Get
the guitar in your hands and play it. Otherwise you'll never know.-
(If it's already there, then pardon me - I've never read the FAQ)
JW
John W. Blossick
>From: Alex arogow...@earthlink.net
>Date: 3/5/02 10:56 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id:
Wrote:
>Thanks all for your input but the feedback is getting a bit shrill. Isn't it
>possible that Scott D. just happened to get a good 'un? The amazing thing is
>that sometimes-- just sometimes-- all the right mojo comes together with a
>manufactured guitar and -- voila! -an instrument is born that is just right
Yes..It _is_ possible..
But why waste a bunch a time when there are makers/factories out there, who
know what they're doing, building consistently (for the most part) decent
classical guitars for a better price? Unless you just enjoy the adventure and
want to sport a Martin T- shirt to go with your Martin guitar.
I custom ordered a Martin N-20 back in 87 or so. I hated the thing from the
minute I opened the case to look at it..It played OK after the neck was tweaked
(twice, with savage heat), and I adjusted the action on it. It sounded half
decent when recorded..The guitar just didn't project as well, nor have the
volume as the 300 dollar Takamine under my bed..
The N-20 would project all right, when you strummed it with a pick. Like ol'
Willie..! That soundboard was thicker than a tall stack o' flap jacks...Just
needed to get it a movin'.
Also, the b note on the second string, 12th fret just flat plain _died_, and
would produce a "thud" sound. That was all I could take of it after 10 years. I
traded it in on a Ramirez.
What does this have to do with the Martin Humphry model..?..Heck, I dunno..I
just remember a guy telling me to be careful of martin classicals a long while
back .
I should have listened.
It sounds like the guys building the Humphrey knock off, are the same ones that
built the N-20..
What I _do_ wonder is, if a luthier could make some adjustments under the sound
board on the Martin Milennium models to make them sound a bit better...
There has to be a luthier out there that owns a hatchet.
JohnB
.
Matanya Ophee
>What I _do_ wonder is, if a luthier could make some adjustments under the sound
>board on the Martin Milennium models to make them sound a bit better...
>There has to be a luthier out there that owns a hatchet.
there is, or there used to be. Duglass Ching used to do micro surgery
to guitars by other makers and usually improving them. Last I heard of
him he was being sued by somebody for doing that. Maybe just a nasty
rumor.
Matanya Ophee
Editions Orphe'e, Inc.,
1240 Clubview Blvd. N.
Columbus, OH 43235-1226
614-846-9517
fax: 614-846-9794
http://www.orphee.com
John W. Blossick
>Date: 3/5/02 1:46 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id:
Wrote:
>there is, or there used to be. Duglass Ching used to do micro surgery
>to guitars by other makers and usually improving them. Last I heard of
>him he was being sued by somebody for doing that. Maybe just a nasty
>rumor.
>
Let's pray its a rumor..!
I hope Buick doesn't get wind that I replaced the OEM Goodyear tires on my car
with B.F Goodrich.
Tom Blackshear talks a little about tuning up a soundboard on his web site...
http://tguitars.home.texas.net/Web%20frame%20opening.htm.
Click on guitar construction. Interesting read.
JohnB
Dawn and Todd Tipton
Matanya Ophee wrote:
>
>
> there is, or there used to be. Duglass Ching used to do micro surgery
> to guitars by other makers and usually improving them. Last I heard of
> him he was being sued by somebody for doing that. Maybe just a nasty
> rumor.
>
Yep. I have had the opportunity to watch him do this. I heard
the guitar -before- and -after- and...what can I say? The
instrument sounded much better after Ching worked on it. It
wasn't -my- guitar, but it was still a little frightening
watching him, with knife in hand, ramming his hand deep into the
guitar. It only took a couple of minutes.
Todd Tipton
Minneapolis, Mn.
612-735-5865
http://toddtipton.homestead.com
"I do not feel obligated to believe that the same God who
has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has
intended us to forego their use."
--Galileo Galilei
Dawn and Todd Tipton
Dawn and Todd Tipton wrote:
>
>
> Yep. I have had the opportunity to watch him do this. I heard
> the guitar -before- and -after- and...what can I say? The
> instrument sounded much better after Ching worked on it. It
> wasn't -my- guitar, but it was still a little frightening
> watching him, with knife in hand, ramming his hand deep into the
> guitar. It only took a couple of minutes.
>
>
After reading my post again, I thought I should clarify that what
I witnessed was an "on the spot" correction that someone had
requested; time was precious. I am sure a two minute "surgery"
is not what one would normally encounter in his shop. BTW- I
have had the opportunity to play a few of his guitars and every
single time I was playing a remarkable instrument.
Matanya Ophee
>After reading my post again, I thought I should clarify that what
>I witnessed was an "on the spot" correction that someone had
>requested; time was precious. I am sure a two minute "surgery"
>is not what one would normally encounter in his shop.
BTW, do you where is his shop now? he used to be in Michigan, then in
Maryland. I tried to reach him some months ago without much success.
Dawn and Todd Tipton
Matanya Ophee wrote:
>
> Dawn and Todd Tipton <dawntod...@mn.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >After reading my post again, I thought I should clarify that what
> >I witnessed was an "on the spot" correction that someone had
> >requested; time was precious. I am sure a two minute "surgery"
> >is not what one would normally encounter in his shop.
>
> BTW, do you where is his shop now? he used to be in Michigan, then in
> Maryland. I tried to reach him some months ago without much success.
>
>
I was under the impression that he is now in Virginia. Jeff
would certainly know; he was recently playing one of his
guitars. I can ask him if you like.
Steve
a Hill "Munich" model I had. Night and day. Done very carefully. I
now do similar things to violins; so little wood makes so much
difference!
However, I suspect one would start on a Martin Humphrey with Bailey
No. 5 Jack plane.
Steve
On Tue, 05 Mar 2002 17:15:02 -0600, Dawn and Todd Tipton
Ray Kelly
http://www.maui.net/~rtadaki/ching.html
Mr. Ching appears to be in Chester VA. now.
Ray
"Steve" <who...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3c854ffa.6368505@nntp...
Hunkahunkalove
It's obvious you have some sort of interest in promoting this Martin
Millennium. What are we a bunch on morons? Please don't insult those of us who
actually have an ear with your long winded diatribe on the splendor of this
mass produced over marketed "camping guitar". If you think the Millennium is a
high quality instrument then you really need to circulate a bit more.
You know I really get tired of the obvious marketing and PR work that goes in
this newsgroup.
Norman
Randy Wimer
for around $500. In checking the web for prices I came across several
reviews of the instrument on Harmony-Central where the writers paid around
$500 Canadian for the guitar. Perhaps the store you worked at didn't stock
them. If you're checking the Acoustic Guitar back issues look for an article
a few years back on classicals under $1500. The Collection was a favorite.
My intention was not to promote the La Patrie as a concert instrument -
that's simply ludicrous. The La Patrie is a student guitar. It's a student
guitar that was louder with a more balanced tone than the much more
expensive Martin that I played in the same store.
As John said earlier, all this is moot. If someone is interested they should
get the guitar in their hands. That's the only way.
Randy
"Scott Daughtrey" <scottuns@travel_HYPHEN_net.com> wrote in message
>
> >Thanks all for your input but the feedback is getting a bit shrill. Isn't
it
> >possible that Scott D. just happened to get a good 'un? The amazing thing
is
> >that sometimes-- just sometimes-- all the right mojo comes together with
a
> >manufactured guitar and -- voila! -an instrument is born that is just
right
> >for the guitarists' purpose. Anyway, so far I've just been talked out of
> >doing anything wacky like searching for one of these guitars on
eBay---I'm
> >still curious enough though to take a drive up to Lansing (where I know
one
> >is) to check it out.
> >More input Please (and Thank You),
>
noticed
> the negative comments were vague and in some cases quite inaccurate, as
I'm
> sure you'll soon discover yourself. I have pointed out some measurable
> differences below. I find it disconcerting when people give such
undetailed
> responses to something you will ultimately give serious consideration
about,
> and something that represents a fair financial investment. Responding
"crap"
> or "not worth the wood" seems rather unprofessional to me, and none seemed
to
> address any shortgivings in any detail whatsoever, neither did any
responses
> seem to eminate from others who might have spent any substantial time with
the
> Martin's.
>
> I wanted to point out a few things. I'm convinced I didn't get an
"exception"
> to the rule. At Lauzon Music (where I taught for two years until recently)
we
> sold Martin guitars, as well as La Si Do among other makes. I had the
> opportunity to play several of both Humphrey models and found the
consistancy
> excellent, although one was sent back because of an unacceptable twist in
the
> neck. However, the tone, intonation and projection were very consistant.
I'm
> amazed at some of the responses; it appears some haven't played them at
all.
> One comment concerned volume. The Millenium is a vey loud guitar. Having
the
> satin finish and low density gives it enormous projection. Some would find
it
> too loud, I think. Comparing it's volume to a La Si Do (La Patrie) is
> surprising, and in my opinion the La Patrie is a student guitar; even
their
> high end model (incidentally they make nothing over $400 Canadian so I
have no
> idea where a $600 American quote is coming from) is in no way suitable as
a
> Concert guitar, it simply hasn't the projection. I own and sell both and
the
> Millenium is substantially louder. I can understand how tone would be
> subjective, but volume is not...this is an extremely powerful guitar, I
have
> never actually played any other classical guitar with the projection of
the
> Millenium. It is not my intention to insult anyone or be rude, but when I
see
> a comment which seems so extremely contrary to my experiences as a
> player/dealer/owner of both makes, it makes me seriously question the
review.
>
> Further verification of the comparitive quality of something like a La
Patrie
> can be found in the Budget Classical Guitar Shootout by Acoustic Magazine,
> performed by Lawrence Ferrara, John Gilbert and Tim McCoy, three respected
> names, October 95.
>
> The La Patrie (LIST PRICE $392 US) :
> "Unfortunately, we all agreed that the tonal balance, projection, and
sustain
> were below average".
>
> They were comparing the guitars to similiarly priced Yamaha's, Aria etc. I
> still feel in Canada, where the La Patrie is only $350 Canadian (about
$200
> US) versus an $800 Aria (which of course is only $400 in the States due to
> import/export differences) is an excellent buy. But it is _not_ a
professional
> instrument by any stretch of the imagination.
>
> Another very odd comment concerned weight, and again was quite inaccurate.
> Unfortunately, such information is not subjective, like tone. Weight is
> weight, and if someone is inaccurate, their claim becomes questionable.
The
> Millenium is an extremely light giutar, I can say with confidance it is by
far
> the lightest classical I have ever picked up. For someone to claim
otherwise
> seems very surprising to me. The more expensive Millenium is slightly
heavier,
> but the bulk of the weight is in the neck and fingerboard adding increased
> sustain in the high register notes. Mine weighs in under 4 lbs. versus my
> Yamaha and La Patrie which weigh in at well over 5 lbs. Without exception
> every player I have handed my guitar to has said "wow, is this ever light"
> before they played a note. It is so light it stands out as noticeable,
which
> is what makes me question the other review as well.
>
> I would have been happy to not mention another word, but unfortunately I
feel
> mis-information has been presented and might lead you or others to take
such
> inaccurate comments into consideration without taking the time to give a
> Martin Millenium serious consideration. Don't let the profile throw you
off
> when you finally see it, and make sure you have a room to spend more than
five
> minutes with it, along with a few other comparable guitars. And take your
> kitchen scales :-)
>
> ST
Hunkahunkalove
Well, hopefully it's made the original poster and others who follow this list
aware that the answers they receive here may have a bias other than that of a
simple enthusiast.
<<1) Owned a Martin Humphrey>>
...one born every minute. I see that you "owned" a Martin Humphrey. Did you
actually pay for this guitar? Be honest now. Teachers in a music store have so
much influence you know.
<<2) Posted a recording, which incidentally, garnered numerous comments
concerning the tone (all positive) . No one at the time was aware it was a
Martin.>>
Well I can't dispute that one. We all know how recordings are such perfect
mirrors of the actual instument.
<<The few negative comments come from the same few people I have never been
able to verify as even being capable of
playing a guitar. Questionable.>>
Should we all submit you a tape Scott?
<<Everyone has an opinion, but is it of any relevance if it is fabricated and
distributed on an emotional level?>>
Yes of course. Does an opinion have any more relevance if it's fabricated and
distributed on an intellectual level? I find that "distrbuting things on an
emotional level" is often a wonderful way of getting someone's attention and
cutting through the crap. You certainly snapped to.
<<Now Norman, where might I verify your credentials and hear some of your
music?>>
My credentials? LOL Now who's posurting?
>You know I really get tired of the obvious marketing and PR work that goes in
>this newsgroup.
<<No one is asking you to read it.>>
Well there you go folks. Sounds like an admission to me.
A little note to all you fresh young whipper snappers out there, the guitar
world is cramed full of BS and sometimes you can't even trust your own teacher.
If you're searching for a guitar and you have a wad of dough, play as many as
you can. Go to a hundred different places, listen to everyone you can (sort out
the bias), play a thousand different guitars, then buy the one you really like.
Watch out for self serving authorities with great "credentials" like Scott.
Norman "Madman" Taylor
James Messick
The entire discussion seems moot, because Martin isn't making those anymore,
are they?
"Hunkahunkalove" <hunkahu...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020306083403...@mb-mo.aol.com...
John Wasak
> Please don't insult us with emotional, vague posturing with no
substantiation.
> The original poster asked for information, and requested such unrelated
> jibbersih be kept to a minimum. What actual contribution has your post
made?
>
> I no longer even work at Lauzon Music, I am a self-employed teacher and
> performer. As for the opinion, so far, I am the _only_ person here that
> expressed an opinion who has:
>
> 1) Owned a Martin Humphrey
>
Are you saying one needs to own a guitar before rendering an opinion? I
would think by then it would be too late. Most of us who disliked the sound
of the guitar in question were quick enough, and I'd add, wise enough, to
put the thing back before committing the error of such a purchase.
> 2) Posted a recording, which incidentally, garnered numerous comments
> concerning the tone (all positive) . No one at the time was aware it was a
> Martin.
>
I've never heard this recording. If you suggest that people should judge
guitar quality by how they sound on recordings, then it is now my turn to
LOL.
> 3) Has ever posted recordings which would warrant considering their
opinion as
> eminating from a professional player. The few negative comments come from
the
> same few people I have never been able to verify as even being capable of
> playing a guitar. Questionable. One comment came from someone I know as
> publically stating he used two-year old strings, yet they spoke about tone
and
> projection <bg>. LOL
>
Yesterday, in another thread, I pointed out the cyclical nature of this NG
when trying to get to the bottom of statements that suggested it's dead. We
see here in this post of Scottunes the re-emergent evidence of that cyclical
quality, for once again, we have ScottTunes coming out to attack me without
any provocation on my part.
As usual, there is the same old wiggling with words. I love this line: "The
few negative comments"! Obviously, Scottunes hasn't been reading the
responses very carefully. In fact, rather than a "few" it was_ "all"_ of the
comments with the singular exception of Scottunes that were negative in
nature.
Then we have the always amusing assertion of his designation as
"professional player". How exactly do we define "professional player"? If
this terminology means that one is paid for musical services or performances
then such definition means next to nothing. I started playing the guitar at
age 10. When I was twelve my friend and I started a band and played pop
tunes in a corner of his uncle Tony's Pizza parlor on Saturday afternoons.
He paid us five bucks. I suppose that was the start of my professionalism.
I'd like to add that I learned almost all of those pop tunes by EAR! By
these standards of professionalism anyone who takes their guitar, heads down
to the local park, opens the case and has the good fortune to have someone
drop a dime in it is a "professional player". I certainly performed
professionally in such capcity myself many a time in my early guitar days.
After classical and jazz guitar lessons which I began at the age of 15, I
found myself at the age of 18 in that very place that Scottunes has often
exalted in this NG - Berklee College of Music in Boston - and studying under
the same person, then head of the Guitar Department -Bill Leavitt - a person
who Scottunes has often accredited in this NG as having authored and given
all guitarists wonderful instructional methods. At one point in all this,
like Scottunes, I too once taught, but only very briefly, in a music store -
an experience I can count as having been one of the worst of my life.
Afterwards I was a "professional player" for a few years. Eventually the
thrill of being a "Professional Player" began to wear thin as I was usually
more hungry than happy. So I decided to turn to different fields of
endeavor, though I've never lost my interest in music and the guitar.
As for the old strings, this should draw an even finer point on my critique
of the guitar in question. If a guitar with new strings on it fails to
sound better than a guitar with old strings, can it really be considered a
wise purchase?
JW
Alex
scottuns@travel_HYPHEN_net.com wrote on 3/6/02 1:29 PM:
>
>> ...one born every minute. I see that you "owned" a Martin Humphrey. Did you
>> actually pay for this guitar? Be honest now. Teachers in a music store have
>> so
>> much influence you know.
>
> Own. Still. Love it. Bought and paid for with my hard earned dough.
>>
>> <<2) Posted a recording, which incidentally, garnered numerous comments
>> concerning the tone (all positive) . No one at the time was aware it was a
>> Martin.>>
>>
>> Well I can't dispute that one. We all know how recordings are such perfect
>> mirrors of the actual instument.
>
> Recorded flat, no Eq as I said.
>>
>> <<The few negative comments come from the same few people I have never been
>> able to verify as even being capable of
>> playing a guitar. Questionable.>>
>>
>> Should we all submit you a tape Scott?
>
> Please do, yes. Or post an mp3 on this vast web, or is that simple little task
> beyond your abilities? This group, in fact, has an mp3.com site...clearly you
> can use your modem, so, what's the problem?
>
>> <<Everyone has an opinion, but is it of any relevance if it is fabricated and
>> distributed on an emotional level?>>
>>
>> Yes of course. Does an opinion have any more relevance if it's fabricated and
>> distributed on an intellectual level?
>
> I have no idea, but someonething on a _factual_ level is clearly more
> relevant. I notice every arguement of yours avoids facts.
>
>> I find that "distrbuting things on an
>> emotional level" is often a wonderful way of getting someone's attention and
>> cutting through the crap. You certainly snapped to.
>
> Snapped? Wrong, just clarifying with factual information, as opposed to
> trolling with fabricated info as you are doing.
>
>> <<Now Norman, where might I verify your credentials and hear some of your
>> music?>>
>>
>> My credentials? LOL Now who's posurting?
>
> Where did you receive your degree? Where may I see you perform? Where can I
> hear a recording of yours? How is asking for credentials posturing? I can see
> how offering none IS posturing...
>
> No credentials, no music to share, no facts and lots of unfounded
> animosity...sounds like someone I would seek advice from <BG>.
>
>>> You know I really get tired of the obvious marketing and PR work that goes
>>> in
>>> this newsgroup.
>>
>> <<No one is asking you to read it.>>
>>
>> Well there you go folks. Sounds like an admission to me.
>
> Yes, well you're clearly not to good with your ears :-)
>
>> A little note to all you fresh young whipper snappers out there, the guitar
>> world is cramed full of BS and sometimes you can't even trust your own
>> teacher.
>> If you're searching for a guitar and you have a wad of dough, play as many as
>> you can. Go to a hundred different places, listen to everyone you can (sort
>> out
>> the bias), play a thousand different guitars, then buy the one you really
>> like.
>> Watch out for self serving authorities with great "credentials" like Scott.
>
> I have posted my credentials, numerous times.
>
> ST
OK! Thank You!
Now, everyone: GROUP HUG!
Alex
Bob Ashley
>
> >The La Patrie Collection model lists for near $600 in the US - usually sells
> >for around $500. In checking the web for prices I came across several
> >reviews of the instrument on Harmony-Central where the writers paid around
> >$500 Canadian for the guitar. Perhaps the store you worked at didn't stock
> >them.
>
> I've worked in several stores that carried La Patrie guitars, but no, I had
> never seen the Collection model at such high prices. I only get to see the
> selling price :-)
My local dealer (Halifax Folklore) told me that the La Patrie people are
patriotic, all Canadian dealers securing superior deals than anyone else
in the world. It's a like a self-regulated tariff. Of course, from a
business standpoint, too, domestic business is much less involved,
therefore less costly, than foreign trade.
It's actually cheaper for an American to buy a La Patrie from a Canadian
distrubutor. Our local guy has sold quite a few to American military
people when their cruisers, gunships, aircraft carriers, and other
warboats visit our port (which is quite often).
If there are any American (or Brit or Aussie or Swahili) prospects out
there, I'd be happy to put you touch. I like the owner, he never having
steered me wrong.
******************************
rib
John Wasak
> No, I wouldn't assume one needs to own a guitar before offering opinion. I
do,
> however, think that someone who has spent hundreds of hours on an
instument as
> a performing professional and teacher is more likely to give a realistic
> review than someone like yourself, John.
>
Nonsense. This "performing professional" stuff is a meaningless piece of
wool meant to be draped by you over the eyes of any sheep in this Barnyard
who will fall for it. I have known, and know plenty of "performing
professionals". Having been one myself. Quite a number of them are not very
good musicians. Playing at parties hardly requires great musical ability.
Most of the attendees of the usual party wouldn't know the difference
between Barrueco or Estaban or the three chord strummer.
Forgive me if I'm incorrect in this but did I not read in one of your posts
at one point that you are fairly new to the world of classical guitar?
Something like one year, I believe. This no doubt gives you a large memory
and experience data base from which to draw your "realistic review".
[snip]
> Great story: perhaps you play like a mangled monkey, as long as you refuse
to
> post anything besides opinion we don't know. How does this give any
> credibility to your opinion?
>
My story was never intended to provide credibility for my opinion. I've
already said that your recommending the guitar and my not recommending the
guitar are both meaningless to the inquirer, any such "credibilty" is a
useless thing in the case of guitar recommendations by complete strangers.
The story was meant to illustrate the essesntial worthlessness of the term
"performing professional".
JW
John Wasak
> >Nonsense. This "performing professional" stuff is a meaningless piece of
> >wool meant to be draped by you over the eyes of any sheep in this
Barnyard
> >who will fall for it. I have known, and know plenty of "performing
> >professionals". Having been one myself. Quite a number of them are not
very
> >good musicians. Playing at parties hardly requires great musical
ability.
> >Most of the attendees of the usual party wouldn't know the difference
> >between Barrueco or Estaban or the three chord strummer.
>
or
> anyone else at face value. I'll be inclined to give someone's views more
> consideration when I can assure myself the person passing info has some
actual
> ability. My abilities are not at question; whether one likes my playing or
not
> it is at their disposal to decide. You on the other hand, remain a
faceless,
> music-less person who has demonstrated nothing to me but his ability to
type
> and argue.
>
Well, as I've said and demonstrated here in the past I'm not faceless at
all, having a presence, by dint of visible visage, in cyberspace.
Music-less....well as I've also already explained, I don't make recordings.
That you like to make recordings means nothing more than the fact that you
like to make recordings. This confers upon you no special "professionality"
whatsoever. What it tells me is you're a guy among many thousands, maybe
millions, who like to make recordings of themselves playing.
BTW, to me you are most certainly faceless and since the recordings you
display on the web are mp3 I am unable to hear them, because I don't seem to
have a player that will play these things properly, so unfortunately, and
certainly through no fault of your own, to me you are also music-less.
> The incredible gaping hole in your poorly postulated theory is the fact
> Barrueco, Esteban, a three chord strummer who is actually a professional,
and
> I, all play and record...we are "accesible" to be listened to, unlike
> yourself, John.
No gaping hole in what I've said at all. Though in your reply you
demonstrate remarkable facility for misunderstanding. Nowhere does the term
"professional" mean one who makes recordings. A professional can be one who
conforms to certain technical or ethical standards; and/or one who
participates for gain or livelihood in an activity or field of endeavor.
If we accept, as I postulated in an earlier post, that a professional is
someone who gets paid for performing then there is no requirement that I
know of for said paid professional to make recordings.
>My recordings are very accesible. My performance was
> nationally broadcast on CTV. And yours?
Again you're confusing making recordings with ability. There are thousands
of recordings out there by both professional and amateur alike that
demonstrate a complete lack of musical ability or the ability to do much
with the guitar at all.
As I've said in my previous post, this "professional performer" stuff that
you wish to hang your hat on is nothing but fluffery, puffery and wool
pulling. This 'requirement" you wish to foist upon us in this NG, this
making of recordings, is nothing but pure chicanery.
>
> I will take Carlos Davilla's, Jim Graham's or any public performers
opinions
> over yours (or any of the musically-anonymous) posters anyday. At least I
can
> listen to them and decide if I feel their abilities warrant the advice
they
> might offer.
>
Good for you. this is certainly your right.
> >
> >My story was never intended to provide credibility for my opinion. I've
> >already said that your recommending the guitar and my not recommending
the
> >guitar are both meaningless to the inquirer, any such "credibilty" is a
> >useless thing in the case of guitar recommendations by complete
strangers.
> >The story was meant to illustrate the essesntial worthlessness of the
term
> >"performing professional".
>
> Well, it fell short of illustrating anything to me.
>
That is quite obvious.
JW
Margaret Wilson
classicals at Elderly, and I wasn't impressed either..... I thought they
sounded rather "tubby." There's a Raimundo there for just under ~$1000 that
sounds pretty good though. So be sure to play every classical in the store!
:-)
Regards,
Margaret
"Alex" <arogow...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:B8AA7F18.168B%arogow...@earthlink.net...
John Wasak
> Shrill comments or not, I must confess that I've played these Martin
> classicals at Elderly, and I wasn't impressed either..... I thought they
> sounded rather "tubby." There's a Raimundo there for just under ~$1000
that
> sounds pretty good though. So be sure to play every classical in the
store!
> :-)
>
Careful Margaret, before you know it ScotTunes will be demanding to see your
'professional performer' papers and a record of all your recordings.
You do have them, don't you?
Remember, even though it might seem the whole world dislikes the new Martin
classicals, this is hardly to be taken into consideration . After all,
ScotTunes is a 'professional performer'... therefore he knows better than
you or I or anyone using their own ears to form an opinion. In ScotTunes
world there is no room for dissenting opinion!
Unless of course it's _his_ lone dissenting opinion....Then that's the only
one that counts!
Ya got that?
Good.
JW
Margaret Wilson
those Martins.... I'm sure I'll love the sound now that you've explained it
to me! ;-)
Regards,
Margaret
"John Wasak" <mr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:K9Ch8.42114$0C1.3...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Dan Sebastian
disappointed. No response whatsoever!! It's a fine looking instrument
but I believe you're right when you say the top is too thick.
I hope Martin gets feedback on these instruments from amateurs and
professionals to make their classicals more competitive with the lower
to mid Spanish and Japanese guitars on the market.
Dan
John W. Blossick
>Date: 3/7/02 7:53 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id:
Wrote:
>I just played a used N20 (1971) at a local music store and was deeply
>disappointed. No response whatsoever!! It's a fine looking instrument
>but I believe you're right when you say the top is too thick.
>
I'm not surprised..The N-20 is no longer available for order on a custom basis
except for the Willie Nelson "Trigger" model. It will be a nice collectors item
for thse willing to fork out the big bucks.
>I hope Martin gets feedback on these instruments from amateurs and
>professionals to make their classicals more competitive with the lower
>to mid Spanish and Japanese guitars on the market.
I'm sure they are aware of the feedback.
Sadly, I don't think any of the big steel string guitar manufactures will ever
_seriously_ go after the classical guitar market. Not their thing, nor does the
$'s invested, justify potential small future sales figures.
Taylor just introduced their hybrid version nylon string, with mixed
impressions..mostly negative. Their targer market looks to be the crossover
musician, not the purist.
I think Martin's collaboration with Humphrey was a step in the right direction.
With the exception of one poster to this NG, the guitars are not very
impressive for their price range when compared to most other guitars
..
The guitars _need_ more Humphrey in them than Martin.
Until a steel string manufactuer decides to hire on a trained/experienced
luthier from the classical guitar making world to oversee the construction of
each classical guitar that rolls out the factory doors, they shall be mediocre
at best.
Sure, the occasional "good" one will appear, but exceptional classical guitars
are far more than a bunch of pieces glued together cut to spec.
JohnB
Dawn and Todd Tipton
Martin/Humphrey and do not have an opinion. A friend of mine,
who is an acoustic guitar luthier and also a past
employee/luthier of Martin, told me point blank: "the instrument
is a piece of crap; its all about marketing."
Dan Sebastian
I think you hit the nail on the head when it's all about the $$.
Obviously Martin's bread and butter are their steel-strings and I'm sure
the classical market is just an afterthought.
After reading the negative consenses of this thread on the Martin
Humphrey model, one must wonder what Mr. Humphrey thinks of it???
Dan
John W. Blossick wrote:
Greg M. Silverman
> John,
>
> I think you hit the nail on the head when it's all about the $$.
> Obviously Martin's bread and butter are their steel-strings and I'm
> sure the classical market is just an afterthought.
>
> After reading the negative consenses of this thread on the Martin
> Humphrey model, one must wonder what Mr. Humphrey thinks of it???
Wow! After reading through this controversial thread, I too was
wondering the same thing! I know for example that Sharon Isben plays one
of his creations, not a Martin with his name on it, and she does
produce some wonderful sounds using it, so I would think (do not read
this as factual!) that his creations are better made then the Martin
equivalent.
Regards,
Greg--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
easily be able to hire the talent. The conventional wisdom is that their classical
guitars are poor; certainly their public image is important enough to remedy this.
I am saying this, again, as someone who really likes his Martin 0016C--but it
is from 1965, and there's a lot of water under the bridge, and I'd be the last to
claim it is better that a student grade guitar.
Steve
"John W. Blossick" wrote:
--
John W. Blossick
>From: Dan Sebastian djseb...@noSpamrogers.com
>Message-id:
wrote:
> I think you hit the nail on the head when it's all about the $$.
>Obviously Martin's bread and butter are their steel-strings and I'm sure
>the classical market is just an afterthought.
I'm not _exactly_ sure what the companies thoughts or intentions were/are
concerning the line of classical guitars..I wasn't in the board room..:)..nor
did they invite me to attend.!
In the manufacture/production of any product cost must certainly be a factor.
Moreover, a company must also consider what segment of the market they are
going to penetrate.
When a CG has a price tag around the 3K mark, we're getting into the realm of
many luthiers work...A production instrument in that price range, has to come
pretty close to "handmade" sound, and workmanship, to stay competetive ..or,
offer added vlaue in the price of the guitar that makes its shortcomings easy
to overlook, such as, dealer support or warranty terms.
_Name_ alone will not keep sales climbing.The product needs to be good too.
Name _will_ get folks to take a look.
I think Kenny Hill has done a fantastic job with the line of guitars made in
Mexico. Reasonably priced, nice, interesting guitars that enter the market
under luthiers prices, and a step up from the $800 to $1,500
instruments...Some of them are pretty darned good too. I can't afford a "real"
Hauser, but a replica sure would be fun.
>After reading the negative consenses of this thread on the Martin
>Humphrey model, one must wonder what Mr. Humphrey thinks of it???
Yes, I wonder that myself..You could always e-mail him and ask..)
JohnB
John W. Blossick
>Date: 3/7/02 10:46 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id:
wrote:
<snip>
>Sharon Isben plays one
>of his creations, not a Martin with his name on it, and she does
>produce some wonderful sounds using it, so I would think (do not read
>this as factual!) that his creations are better made then the Martin
>equivalent.
I have seen the Assads in concert.
Their Hunphery guitars sounded excellent to my ears. One spruce top, the other
cedar. Both had a distinct, and very beautiful tone...Both guitars sounded far
superior to the Martin N-20 I used to own.
JohnB
John W. Blossick
>Date: 3/7/02 11:54 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id:
Wrote:
>Why do you suppose this is true?
I don't know, to be honest. I can't figure it out myself.
>A large, wealthy company like Martin should
>easily be able to hire the talent. The conventional wisdom is that their
>classical
>guitars are poor; certainly their public image is important enough to remedy
>this.
I agree with you completely. It just doesn't seem to be the case..Maybe there
_is_ a project manager in there...screwing things up.!!
Perhaps the CG market _is_ so small compaired to the S/S, a few hundred CG duds
out there are of no consequence..It won't hurt their S/S market
Maybe their bottom line isn't _as _ healthy as we think...Upper management has
no vision.?
.
I really wish I knew.the reason, because _if_ the Martin Humphrey was
_consistently_, 3/4 the guitar the real Humphrey is, I would buy one tomorrow.
JohnB
John Wasak
> Why do you suppose this is true? A large, wealthy company like Martin
should
> easily be able to hire the talent. The conventional wisdom is that their
classical
> guitars are poor; certainly their public image is important enough to
remedy this.
It is a little strange that CF Martin has never been very succesful at
making anything but flat-top guitars. But Martin made archtops that didn't
do well in the market also, and even these days have little collectable
interest other than their being Martins, and certainly don't command the
prices that D'Angelico, Stromberg or old Gibsons do. Martin even made some
electric guitars as well as a solidbody electric. these were failurres as
well. Martin also tried with mandolins but were never at all a serious
threat to Gibson in that area.
> I am saying this, again, as someone who really likes his Martin
0016C--but it
> is from 1965, and there's a lot of water under the bridge, and I'd be the
last to
> claim it is better that a student grade guitar.
>
Steve, I've played some '60's 0016C's and 0018C's. While I personally don't
think they make the "right" sound for classical guitar music, I do think
they have an interesting sound quality. The one's I've played all had a very
warm sound which might work for certain situations. I certainly wouldn't
say in terms of pure sound that they sound "bad" at all. I would say, and
have said, though, that those new Martin classicals do sound bad.
The classical guitar is a different animal - Martin has yet to figure out
how to capture it.
JW
Dick Schneiders
>making anything but flat-top guitars.
Almost true, but their ukuleles are considered to be excellent - especially the
vintage ones from the 1930's, 40's and 50's. They made, and still do, the full
gamut of ukes: soprano, concert, tenor, and baritone.
>But Martin made archtops that didn't
>do well in the market also, and even these days have little collectable
>interest other than their being Martins, and certainly don't command the
>prices that D'Angelico, Stromberg or old Gibsons do
Or vintage Epiphones. Part of the problem with the Martin archtops was that
they either didn't have arched backs or if they did, then they were only arched
by heavy bracing and not carved like the above makers. This gave them a
totally different sound character from the better archtop makers and didn't
endear themselves to the jazz players at all. I really don't have a clue why
Martin went against the norm in their design of their archtops. Perhaps the
same person managed that effort that is now in charge of their classical
guitars. :-) They might have simply been striving for a different sound
quality from the competition. Keep in mind that they made these archtops from
the early 1930's until the early 1940's only. While the other makers mentioned
above were all going strong in the 1930's, the archtop guitar used for jazz
music was really in its infancy and any standards for making these guitars were
still being developed.
>The classical guitar is a different animal - Martin has yet to figure out
>how to capture it.
>
>
>JW
Yes, but I really don't understand why that is the situation. Practically all
of the Martin guitars made prior to 1928 were made as nylon stringed
instruments (actually, gut strings). Martin was certainly one of the best, if
not the best American guitar maker at that time. Anybody that really studies
American guitar making will of course dispute that with the name of the Larson
Brothers from Chicago. While I agree that the Larson Brothers guitars are
typically better sounding than the Martins of the same period, they are simply
too rare in comparison to where most guitarists have never heard of them let
alone played one. One sidenote here is that the Larson Brothers guitars were
made for steel strings almost from their beginning, which predated Martins and
Gibsons using steel strings by about 20 years. Anyway, since Martin has a long
history of producing gut/nylon stringed guitars way before they became known
for their steel stringed flattops, I really can't understand what happened to
them to produce such dogs these days. Again, as I speculated with the
archtops, perhaps they really weren't attempting to compete with the *real*
classical guitars and weren't trying to gain acceptance with classical players.
Perhaps all they were trying to do was to produce a cross-over instrument with
nylon strings that steel stringed players would play. Why else would they have
delayed in converting their designs to steel strings for so long after others
were producing them. They did dally in some steel stringed guitars in the late
teens and early '20's, but these were rare exceptions. Anyway, using
Humphrey's name and design seems to indicate that they now are also trying to
reach out to the classical guitarists.
A real puzzle to me and quite a disappointment.
Dick Schneiders
Gutmeier
of the Martin guitars made prior to 1928 were made as nylon stringed
instruments (actually, gut strings). Martin was certainly one of the best, if
not the best American guitar maker at that time. >>
I have an 1892 gut string Martin (strung with nylons) that still sounds
wonderful. How in the world they could get such deep basses from an "X" braced
guitar that's only 12 1/2" wide at the lower bout is just incredible.
Personally I think the main reason the quality of a lot of modern day
production guitars have gone down is because they're overbuilt to reduce
warranty problems and because the thick, rock hard, catalyzed finish (which can
be buffed out an hour after it's sprayed on) kills whatever potential the
guitar may have ever had. If these manufacturers keep riding exclusively on
their reputation to sell guitars and continue to sacrifice quality to make a
few more bucks, pretty soon they're not going to have much of a reputation
left. It's no wonder Kenny Hill is doing so well with his guitars the market is
wide open for something decent. Word of mouth is doing good things for Kenny
Hill and eventually it's going to kill Martin. Take heed Martin guitars.
Ross
Evan Pyle
I'll let fly anyway.
I don't recall if this was from a published article or an online discussion
with Tom Humphrey himself...either way the topic was what to do about the
Martin/Humphrey guitar. Tom was clearly dissatisfied and could understand
why they wouldn't put a bone nut and saddle on a guitar of that level.
Chris Martin (current CEO and good guitar guy) was quoted as saying he knew
the guitar wasn't "there" and that Martin hadn't figured out classicals yet.
Nice candid comment. But remember getting the impression that he was
committed to getting it right. According to Scott they may have indeed
finally gotten it right.
--From the dust bin of my memory...
Evan
"Greg M. Silverman" <gmsN...@umn.edu> wrote in message
news:3C87B588...@umn.edu...
John Wasak
> >It is a little strange that CF Martin has never been very succesful at
> >making anything but flat-top guitars.
>
> Almost true, but their ukuleles are considered to be excellent -
especially the
> vintage ones from the 1930's, 40's and 50's. They made, and still do, the
full
> gamut of ukes: soprano, concert, tenor, and baritone.
>
That's right, Dick. I'd forgotten about the little buggers but the Martin
Ukes are indeed held in high esteem. (at least by those
tip-toers-thru-the-tulips!)
Yes, this striving for a different sound seems plausible. But still, when it
became obvious that they were not in line with the more popular sounding
archtops, you would think Martin could've turned it around.
> >The classical guitar is a different animal - Martin has yet to figure out
> >how to capture it.
> >
>
> Yes, but I really don't understand why that is the situation.
>
The big mystery. It's kinda like the Bermuda Triangle. :-)
JW
John E. Golden
Martin is a fine company and I would certainly like to see them build
a really good classical guitar.
IMHO, what Martin should do is just copy the Antonio Torres "Segunda
Epoca" Design, headstock and all. Why piss around?
Forget about 00-16C, 00-18C, 00-28C, N-10, N-20, and this Humphrey BS.
The Torres Design is perfect! Just Do It!! But don't make the top too
thick and don't brace it too heavily. And note that Torres guitars
were not "flat tops," rather slightly arched tops (and backs).
John E. Golden
Margaret Wilson
him, I'd be pretty unhappy. Someone else mentioned that Martin is no longer
making this guitar. Perhaps Mr. Humphrey was not so happy either???
Just some idle speculation,
Margaret
"John E. Golden" <johnis...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:72e4a1d1.02030...@posting.google.com...
Dawn and Todd Tipton
Scott Daughtrey wrote:
>
> I suspect you are speculating.
>
Good work detective.
John W. Blossick
>Date: 3/8/02 12:40 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id:
wrote:
>Good work detective.
Son..! He digs in deeper than an Alabama tick..Don't he..?
JohnB
Margaret Wilson
And while I'm speculating, I just might wonder why you seem to be the only
"credentialed" guitarist on this newsgroup who has to browbeat the rest of
us mortals with tired opinions. Yawn....
Margaret
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Daughtrey" <scottuns@travel_HYPHEN_net.com>
Newsgroups: rec.music.classical.guitar
Sent: Friday, March 08, 2002 3:39 PM
Subject: Re: Martin's Thomas Humphrey
> On Fri, 8 Mar 2002 10:32:37 -0500, "Margaret Wilson"
> <catm...@nospam.msn.com> wrote:
>
> > Just some idle speculation,
>
> ... I suspect you are speculating.
Dawn and Todd Tipton
Margaret Wilson wrote:
>
> And while I'm speculating, I just might wonder why you seem to be the only
> "credentialed" guitarist on this newsgroup who has to browbeat the rest of
> us mortals with tired opinions. Yawn....
>
>
Please allow me to speculate further. I don't think Scott
actually -reads- the posts he replies to, nor does he -read- what
he types. I don't wish to retract my statement about technique,
mechanics, methodology, pedagogy, etc. only being good if it
communicates to the audience; I still believe it. However, it is
my belief that my words were -not- the complete jarbled mess he
made them out to be.
There was the opportunity for good discussion to those who may
have had interest. Every attempt to make a step forward was, in
reality, taking 2 steps back. The best solution would have been
to strive for the truth. In order to do that, -ideas- must be
evaluaded. In order for an idea to be evaulated, it must first
be -comprehended-. Merely continuing to repeat one's stance,
rather than evaluating, is -not- discusion, but is rather
clownery like one sees with politicians in "debates." The best
thing to do is to just let it go.
As far as his "credentials," I have a vague memory of cg being
something new to him: certainly nothing wrong with that -in-
-and- -of- -itself.- I am -also- reminded of an anectdote of
Segovia according to Graham Wade. After Segovia heard Django
Reinhart play for the first time, Segovia was -not- impressed.
James Messick
I didn't know the model number and had trouble finding it in Martin's
online catalog.
"Scott Daughtrey" <scottuns@travel_HYPHEN_net.com> wrote in message
news:3c8a1fcb...@news.supernews.com...
> On Fri, 8 Mar 2002 10:32:37 -0500, "Margaret Wilson"
> <catm...@nospam.msn.com> wrote:
>
> >I'm less concerned with "Mr. Martin" than I am with Mr. Humphrey. If I
were
> >him, I'd be pretty unhappy. Someone else mentioned that Martin is no
longer
> >making this guitar. Perhaps Mr. Humphrey was not so happy either???
> >
> >Just some idle speculation,
>
> Judging by the fact Steve's Music (6 Locations in Canada), The Folklore
center
> and Lauzon Music, the closest three retailers, all have none in stock and
in
> fact generally sell each C-R1 in under 7 days, combined with the local
Martin
> representative's claim they are selling as well nationally, and her
assurance
> no plans had been made to discontinue the line, I suspect you are
speculating.
>
> All three stores are in the phone book, btw, if anyone wishes to confirm.
>
> ST
John E. Golden
John E. Golden
Margaret Wilson
> On Fri, 8 Mar 2002 17:08:31 -0500, "Margaret Wilson"
> <catm...@nospam.msn.com> wrote:
>
> >And while I'm speculating, I just might wonder why you seem to be the
only
> >"credentialed" guitarist on this newsgroup who has to browbeat the rest
of
> >us mortals with tired opinions. Yawn....
>
> making an art of cutting my posts to suit your perspective. Secondly, who
said
> anything about me being the only one with credentials? Please tell me
which
> post states this. Or are you just blathering what you've seen implied by
> others?
I think you missed a key prepositional phrase.
> What's wrong posting two public reviews? What makes my opinion any more
> "tired" than your's? Personally, I get tired of hearing people spew
gargabe
> that has no substantiation.
I think the key here is "browbeat."
Todd must be correct. Either you don't read ... or you don't comprehend.
Too busy trying to rattle cages, I guess.
Margaret
John Wasak
> "Scott Daughtrey" <scottuns@travel_HYPHEN_net.com> wrote in message
> gargabe
> > that has no substantiation.
>
> Todd must be correct. .... you don't comprehend.
Plenty of substantiation for that conclusion, Margaret!
(How's that for artful cutting of posts to suit perspective?!) - ha-ha!
JW
John Wasak
> On Fri, 8 Mar 2002 17:08:31 -0500, "Margaret Wilson"
> <catm...@nospam.msn.com> wrote:
>
> >And while I'm speculating, I just might wonder why you seem to be the
only
> >"credentialed" guitarist on this newsgroup who has to browbeat the rest
of
> >us mortals with tired opinions. Yawn....
>
> First off, nice snappage. Like a few others in the group, you seem to be
> making an art of cutting my posts to suit your perspective.
First off, nice Freudian snap!...I mean snip...no, no...I mean slip!
>What makes my opinion any more
> "tired" than your's?
Probably your consistently presenting tone of being singularly persecuted
and trespassed against. Snipping posts in reply is a common occurence that
befalls all of us participants in this NG.
Sometimes the scissors are sharper than other times.
JW
John E. Golden
John E. Golden
"I feel obligated to believe that God has not endowed Mr. Tipton with
much sense, reason, or intellect."
Dawn and Todd Tipton
ashamed.
Todd Tipton
Dawn and Todd Tipton
Scott Daughtrey wrote:
>
> Wow, look Ma, three ass-umptions in one.
>
Rather than be that way, why don't you just work on it?
Steven Murphy
I bought a C1R directly from Tom Humphrey when I was fortunate enough to
meet him about 1.5 yrs ago (I couldn't afford a "real" Humphrey). He sold
it to me with the urgent request that I let him refinish the guitar.
I played it for a month and then let him have it to refinish. The great
part of that span of time is that he loaned me one of his own guitars while
mine was being refinished. I was afraid that I would not want the C1R back
after playing a "real" Humphrey. Tom stripped the top of the C1R and French
polished it. He removed the bridge, finished it and re-glued it directly to
the body (Martin's "finish" actually interferes with the bridge's contact
with the guitar body). He also replaced the saddle and nut. The results
were impressive. The first month I played the guitar my wife said the sound
was in there but it was muted. When I got the guitar back, the true sound
was no longer muted. It was much more mellow and VERY resonant. The
difference was remarkable. I had a really good guitar.
Tom was so affected by the results that he was beside himself with
frustration that he couldn't get Martin to do what he did to my C1R.. Since
that time he had resigned himself to the fact that Martin would never change
the finish much less the saddle and nut.
I know from a reliable source that Martin has just discontinued the C1R and
will only send to market the few hundred C1R's that are currently in
production. I think Tom is glad. The "Millenium" guitar is more than just
the design. It is the design of a total guitar. Tom is a dedicated,
innovative luthier. The guitars he's building today have advanced beyond
the Millenium design.
To all owners of C1R's - have a competent luthier refinish the guitar as
described above and you will have a great guitar at a good price.
Steven Murphy
"John E. Golden" <johnis...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:72e4a1d1.02030...@posting.google.com...
Margaret Wilson
Regards,
Margaret
"Steven Murphy" <smu...@hvi.net> wrote in message
news:u8tbte7...@corp.supernews.com...
Steven Murphy
The appearance was more transluscent than anything. I thought it looked
cool but it didn't sound cool (or warm). The refinished guitar was much
more glossy but not overly so and it sounded great.
Steven
"Scott Daughtrey" <scottuns@travel_HYPHEN_net.com> wrote in message
news:3c8ebd0a...@news.supernews.com...
> Steve, I'm curious, what was the appeaerance of the finish before it was
> altered ie. was it translucent, visible, gloss etc. Can you give a
> description?
>
> I've heard the term "French Polish" many times as well. How does this
differ
> from a standard finish in terms of appearance (I'm familiar with the
different
> approaches in terms of material used)?
>
> ST