Official Luthiers Forum!

Not quite sure how to respond. I learned everything I know about guitar building from reading and asking questions, but had no hands-on help in learning to use tools, sharpen, make molds or jigs, or construction of an instrument. I cut wood, made mistakes, repaired them, and continued. First guitar took just over a year, but was a full education. Even with all that, I don't feel that I was self taught. I might have self learned, but many were involved in the teaching process.

_________________
Waddy

Photobucket Build Album Library

Sound Clips of most of my guitars

Yes
Yes
and
Yes
Apology accepted.

all my relations,
?adma


.........Dis here post has not yet been edited but wait, me might getts around to it later.

_________________
.

Audiences and dispensations on Thursdays ~ by appointment only.


.

To throw an additional thought in here... As a newb, one of the biggest problems is differentiating between ALL the advice available - there are often as many opinions and ways of doing certain tasks (that all have to be learned) as their are folks building... sure fundamental principles seem consistent, but as with any craft, the real skill is in the details and that's where that differentiation is so tricky, whether taught directly by a wizened pro, or through various books, videos etc... ultimately, most will come to discover what works best for them. Usually through trial and error and in part through our own limitations in tools, space, jigs, often there is a need to do something differently to what you might be taught simply because of that mother of invention...

So all really depends on your definition - for me its quite simple. Self taught is without a teacher - as say with studying a language by books, tapes or now on the web, without a physical presence of a teacher, you are in effect self taught, using all available resources. Why this definition? Well having had the luxury of building my first with an experienced teacher present to 'show' - the advantage is huge, and it avoids the trial and usually costly errors of a self taught approach - as good as books, video and internet are, they simply cant replace a good teacher, who can not only share skills, but also guide, support and encourage - the 'softer' side if you like. I think that is both an advantage and disadvantage of being taught. why? Because the 'influence that teachers can have is clearly visible in the work of many who have gone on to start on their own after years of working for one master... quality may be superb, but often design is heavily influenced... of course as a result self taught can mean no wise steadying hand when you think your new 'design' is exceptional... and no one else does

I prefer self learnt.

My first build was done under guidance of another builder, but before that, I had immersed myself in all of the building related reading material I could find. Since then, I have built all my instruments alone, but with massive amounts of help from online courses/tutorials and this forum. While I do not consider myself "self taught", I agree with Filippo, that making one's own choices on which resources to follow or build from, which techniques to attempt to master, materials and tool choices are all personal choices which inform our process and education in this craft.
I love this form of hybridized education and practice because it is so individualized. I do very few things the way I was "taught" during my 2 week intensive build course today, but it was a good foundation for using the tools, and chosing a path to learning.

"Self taught" requires a new definition if reading books and acquiring information is to be considered to have removed that element. Classically, I believe being self taught would be the alternative to being formally schooled or apprenticed. In either case, the post referenced seems overly strident about the issue...perhaps even displaying obsessive humility.

I read one book...Bob Benedetto's book on archtops. I knew there was no book that would truly cover the subject of CNC building thoroughly so I thought I'd read his to see what generic considerations might apply to my endeavor. Very little of that book was useful except some aspects of finishing...but even that was woefully short on detailed information. I'd have to say I was entirely self taught on the subject of building guitars since my methodology is unique. I'm also self-taught on finishing because I haven't applied anything I've read here or anywhere else DIRECTLY...except for manufacturer's recommendations.

At any rate. It's not that important how one learns something. It's important what one produces.

Another aspect to consider is that since those that have published books and manuals seek monetary gain for their knowledge...it's a bit mystical to suggest they are owed more than what they ask for their books. Floating in the air above luthrie is an essence of respect, solemnity, and obligation....the intangibles that people like to assign to their activities. Being practical, I like to to know where I stand with people. These intangibles are variables that do more to obfuscate a secure relationship than clarify it. If I can't trade money or property for another person's knowledge and go my separate way without further obligation, I'm going to learn to avoid that person and seek out a guy like Bob Benedetto. Bob isn't pining away for my respect or affirmation.

I expect Bob was content to take my ten bucks and put it in the bank.

_________________
I read Emerson on the can. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds...true...but a consistent reading of Emerson has its uses nevertheless.

StuMusic

I learned through the school of hard-woods.

I love and hate these discussions. I like that they spark interesting conversation and show me points of view that I hadn’t considered, but I hate that they tend to devolve into notions of superiority of one way over another when really it is all arguing semantics anyway.
If you put a gun to my head and made me choose, I would say that I am self taught but that is not totally fair. I am self taught in the sense that I have had no formal woodworking training. I have never taken wood shop nor had a single person teach me anything face to face. Though today, this is not saying much. Had I been born 50 years earlier, I would not have accomplished anything. I have been fortunate enough to have access to books, websites, fora like this one and internet videos. In many ways, this has been an advantage over learning from one person (one curriculum). In this way I have had hundreds of teachers. I haven’t taught myself anything. What I have done is been responsible (for better or worse) for seeking my own education and deciding what components to adopt. I would love to have someone come and SHOW me how to do x (even as simple as using a hand plane) and be able to give me real time feedback but having a place like this is a good safety net. Had I had a “teacher” I probably would be much further along now but I would not have the extensive trial and error (more error than I’d like to admit) experience.
As I type, I’m talking myself out of the self taught answer (not that I think it matters in the least). It is unfair to say that I am self taught inasmuch as it implies that I was not handed the bulk of what I needed to be where I am; at the same time it is unfair to claim that I was taught by Cumpiano, Carruth or any of the rest of the people who were generous enough to put me in a position to “succeed.”

Thanks to everyone here and elsewhere in internet land. Without you all, I wouldn’t even have attained hack status.

_________________
Bryan Bear PMoMC

Take care of your feet, and your feet will take care of you.

1. I think that acknowledgement of those who I've learned from through books is only an acknowledgement of their contributions. For someone to publish a book, video or web page that shares information in my estimation doesn't mean that the "teacher" is teaching in the traditional sense, since that person provides no real direction for the consumer/builder/student/reader. Having read Sloane, Somogyi, Gore/Gilet, Cumpiano/Natelson, Overholtzer, Kinkead and others to me doesn't mean I studied under them. I could only say I was influenced and learned from them. The teachers who I studied under that have had the biggest influence on my guitar building didn't build guitars. One was a high school auto shop teacher that taught us to work in a neat, methodical and organized manner. Another was a German engineer I worked under whose work was researched, fastidious and thorough. An artist friend of mine demonstrated the importance of self-directed tangible work (not necessarily hand work), as did Matthew Crawford many years later in his book, "Shop Craft as Soul Craft.


2. I don't think the "you didn't build that" rationale applies here. If it did, it would have to apply to all the example sources (Sloane, David Russell Young, etc.). I think to some extent we all cherry pick information and techniques that go into whatever we build. I wouldn't expect anyone who picked up a tip from one of my build threads to give me credit unless it was distinctly my own technique or method, and even then who knows where it might have originated? The information I've gleaned from books, the web, and videos has ended up in a big bucket, and I reach in and pull out what works for me, with the result that one operation may have the influences of ten sources thrown in. Like Frank said, choosing from all the advice available is the challenge, especially since much of it is contradictory.

I'd agree with Filippo that self taught means self-directed, but if I were to say how I learned, I'd say self-taught.

Pat

_________________
formerly known around here as burbank
_________________

http://www.patfosterguitars.com

Answering the question implies one has learned something. I must decline to answer.

_________________
A man hears what he wants to hear, and disreguards the rest. Paul Simon

He is a person wielding a scalpel...the rest are just labels.

Oh ya and Stock, me would delete "on a very unwise volunteer." Shows your persuasion which may colour the results.




..... This post has been officially sanctioned by the Profit and therefor needs no further editing.

_________________
.

Audiences and dispensations on Thursdays ~ by appointment only.


.

Hauser was self-taught. I mean Kaspar, not Hermann.

That's not what I meant, exactly. I've been doing woodworking for 50 years, and getting better at it all the time. I guess you could say I knew how to do woodworking when I started building in 1999, so I wasn't really learning anything, just getting better at something I already knew.

But that's not what I meant either.

I don't have a very good ear, so i have to believe what others(with better ears!) say about "tone". I'll never KNOW if a guitar is superlative from listening to it, I don't have the perception necessary to make that judgemment. Therefore I'll never know if what I build is superlative, which implies I'll never be able to learn to build a superlative guitar.

_________________
A man hears what he wants to hear, and disreguards the rest. Paul Simon

If you say so Todd.

Debatin labels was fun back in Jr high.

The bottom line is simple.

Once consciousness and cellular memory has been programed to preform dis dat or some other action (label) then the ego defines (labels) and measures self accordingly. Getting really blunt here...which end of that measuring stick is the dirty end?

Sorry, duality is an illusion.

After all who really gives a bucket of wet sawdust other than ones ego of how it got programed into looferizem, other than those with vested interests in that label for a profit of some sort or other.




.....Yes dis post was secretly edited while the Profit wuzen't lookin

_________________
.

Audiences and dispensations on Thursdays ~ by appointment only.


.

I would say I'm self taught on the guitar, despite learning bits and pieces from others over the years (and being barely an average player), because I started on my own from scratch. After reading Cumpiano's book, I went on a course with an experienced luthier to build my first guitar in his workshop. Obviously, having made only one since so far, I can't claim to be "taught" let alone self taught, but because everything I know has come from books, forums and my time with Chris (the teacher), I don't think I could ever claim to be self taught. But then I did learn chords from books, and what order to play them in from books. On balance, I can't be self taught (I'm barely taught at all! ).

I suppose, past a certain point of instruction, the practice and experience you gain is, essentially, continually teaching yourself how to do things better.


I agree with Raymond. I like the term "self-learnt".

semantics 101: define self-taught. did you take a pen knife to a log and produce an instrument entirely without any input? did you buy a book yourself and have at it? i've taken online courses with/at MIT but didn't actually go there or interface with any human beings at all. they consider me a "self learner".

1.) no of course not. that's like reading one of sloane's books and then putting upon your maker's label "student of sloane". simplicio actually worked under garcia so he could really do that. that was in an era where the name of your "master" really mattered to how you got on in the world as a craftsman. now nobody cares. you could take one of somogyi's courses and actually say that on your maker's label (if he would let you) but would you really?

2.) again no. they only thing they can claim is to have "influenced generations of builders" (cumpiano & nattleson for ex.) with their text. ghosts come from dead people and they most certainly haven't taken part of anything i've ever built.... that i know of.

re: Padma

Padma, your posts here are non-sequiturs. They simply just don't fit. For example, it doesn't follow that this thread is in any way some kind of unspoken tribute or apology to you; or that the surgical illustration Todd came up with to parallel and clarify the inent of the original question is about the lawfulness of the actions therein. I think you have a pretty unique and creative style about your work and enjoy it when you post your pics, but sometimes you can really take away from the discussions and diminish their value (and I think I just gave you something to latch onto for the next trivial objection).

The question:

I'm comfortable saying that I'm self-taught, though I don't really think of it that way. I think of all the ways this forum has contributed to what I know and the little binder of methods and theories I maintain, and of the ways the conversations and visits with other pros I've had have done the same: but at the end of the day, I've never actually had anyone work with me hand over hand to give me feedback on how I'm actually applying what they've shared. I haven't had any kind of assessment other than my own.

That's a pretty crucial part of the teaching puzzle. In the end, the only person I've been able to get real concrete feedback from has been myself. Friends tell me how nice the guitars sound when they hear them, how they look flawless, etc, but I think that's just part of the reaction they have to the novel fact that their friend builds his own guitars--the craft aspect of it. Friends are almost always impressed by their work product of their friends. And any of you would immediately be able to see how crappy my binding work tends to be.

When it comes down to it, I've never actually been able to work with anyone; get their real time feedback; their you should do it this way's; their I think this is great's, or their this is where you can still really grow's.

On the lower bouts under the tops of my guitars has a standard IEEE Citation Reference style engraved on it for all the techniques used that are not explicitly my own.

Just kidding.

But my wife is writing her PHD dissertation at the moment and it's really quite insane how you have to reference everything. I know what Todd is asking here because of that. If you use more then two words from some one elses paper you have to cite it. So I am always joking to my wife that she is merely assembling a paper rather than writing one of her own.

Yes...but there are regulatory agencies establishing a minimum standards for "surgeons"....one of them is to have attended a FULLY accredited teaching institution. The wisdom of the person receiving surgery doesn't play into it...or at least it shouldn't if the process for accrediting surgeons is reasonably effective.

Lutherie legally ( ) covers the full range from ridiculous hack to master craftsman....both titles being, more or less, developed through consensus opinion. It's that consensus that determines how wise or unwise word of mouth purchases are. On the other hand, having a builder's guitar in your hand and determining its value according to your own standards removes any issue of who the builder was taught by, or how he learned to build.

Knowing a builder's learning history comes into play when buying an instrument over the internet or commissioning an instrument. If the builder has established a good reputation, his influences won't matter much. Without a history of building fine instruments his mentors might help him establish a better reputation but his mentors don't build his instruments for him. I would suggest that people who buy instruments based too much on a builder's mentors are less wise than people who buy instruments they have held in their hands and on which they have made an objective value assessment.

Also...it seems to me that builders that focus too much on their mentors could be attempting to borrow integrity when it's the instrument that should do MOST of the talking.

_________________
I read Emerson on the can. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds...true...but a consistent reading of Emerson has its uses nevertheless.

StuMusic

...and this is an interesting discussion in that I'm just beginning to market my guitars...which means having a choice between trying to convince people to give a fair amount of money to someone with little or no reputation..or trying to get guitars into people's hands so they can make an objective determination of their value.

All my opinions heretofore are subject to change without notice.

_________________
I read Emerson on the can. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds...true...but a consistent reading of Emerson has its uses nevertheless.

StuMusic

Thank you James,

Glad you noticed.

Ya, non linear thinking is a hard one eh.

As no two leggeds walks at the same pace, so consciousness has taken its time to evolve to this point of an emerging 3D holographic thought process going down on the humans of this planet. No big deal.

Me likes to think of it as "cutting to the chase." Sorry if me is a tad too fast.

_________________
.

Audiences and dispensations on Thursdays ~ by appointment only.


.

Linear/random-order thinking is a description of how one generates their thoughts, not how one communicates them. This is about your social skills, not your metacognition.

I think anyone who thinks they are self taught anything much beyond defecating, urinating, and crying should take their ego into the shop for a checkup. Most everything else, someone, somehow had a hand in the mix.
Tom

_________________
A person who has never made a mistake has never made anything!!!

james, it's sort of like a spoiled cat. the more you give in the worse it gets. move on.

Ah skills eh! Who would have thunk dat.

Well James, me can't be pleasen everybody... besides me ain't on this forum to winns a personality contest.
So you don't like what or how me writes...don't be reading me words. Then of course you can always have me hauled out a shot.

Like, how simple can that get?


non the less

_________________
.

Audiences and dispensations on Thursdays ~ by appointment only.


.