Yes. This is the nature of any relatively open listserv or electronic forum with some longevity. The personal experience and knowledge base of individuals simply vary; not everybody knows what you may take for granted or has enjoyed your own diversity of experience. As new folk cycle through, they are also perhaps unaware of what's gone before and don't necessarily know enough to search for peripheral details in archives. Minutiae can vary with time as well (new discoveries, shifting popular opinion, etc.) and are sometimes worthy of revisiting. Somebody asked a question, and discussion unfolded from that point. Sometimes points are revisited as seems appropriate to context. That simply seems to me to be the nature of conversation.
There are vast threads that span dozens of posts on topics that resurface repeatedly here. So be it. I will read those of potential interest as time allows and occasionally reply. I delete the others without ceremony or consideration of content. . . . And now this thread has also diverged about as far afield as possible. . . . And so it goes. Best, Eugene -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of timothy swain Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 3:42 PM To: Braig, Eugene Cc: [email protected] Subject: [LUTE] Re: Spruce for lute vs guitar. I find it hard to believe many of the discussion points that come up; Robert Lundberg (lute builder, who died of cancer in 2001--he was a good friend--& deserved person of great respect about lute building) talked a lot about the very same subjects that people still discuss (as if they're unaware, or the topics had never been discussed before). Where I live is in Oregon: yew grows here, as do many evergreens--Bob used to talk about certain species becoming harder to obtain, & foresaw times when certain species of wood would become very difficult to get. It strikes me that many of the points being discussed are beside the point--(many, many are excellent & deserve attention)--or maybe I misunderstand the purpose of the discussions. At any rate, they're somewhat interesting to follow, although not of permanent interest! But many of the subjects have come up again & again & yet again... Timothy Swain On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 1:14 PM, Braig, Eugene <[email protected]> wrote: > -----Original Message----- > > On 17.01.2015 20:54, Herbert Ward wrote: >>> Do lutes and guitars compete directly for tone wood supplies? >>> >>> In other words, do lute builders and guitar builders use the same >>> criteria in selecting spruce lumber for soundboards? >>> >>> >>> >>> >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On >> Behalf Of Markus Johann Mühlbauer >> Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 3:08 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: [LUTE] Re: Spruce for lute vs guitar. >> >> There seems to be a lot of confusion about what tonewood is supposed >> to be. Some use the term only for wood that is especially suited to >> be used as soundboard, others use it for any wood that can be used to >> build a good instrument. >> >> I've looked up some properties of soundboard woods in a book and >> found that there seems to be a difference in desired growth ring >> distance depending on the type of instrument you want to build. I >> guess guitars are not so much different from lutes, so there should >> be much difference for the physical properties of the tonewood. This >> leads me to the assumption that the desired growth ring spacing is >> the same for both instruments. >> >> Another much more interesting aspect is the species of tree used. >> Usualy Lute soundboards are made of Picea abies (Norway Spruce). >> Guitar soundboards can be made far greater choice of softwoods >> (mostly new world woods not available in Europe at the times lutes were >> played). >> Some of those "substitutes" like Sitka spruce are as good or somtimes >> even better than Norway spruce. >> >> So technically one could say they compete, but guitar builders have >> more possible sources for tonewoods. >> >> Regards, >> Markus > > > I certainly agree with your bottom line, Markus, that "guitar builders have > more possible sources for tonewoods." However, Picea abies is still in very > high demand as soundboards for modern classical guitars (marketed to US > luthiers under many trade names, perhaps most commonly as "European" or > "German spruce" (although I believe very little of the current supply comes > from Germany). Given the relative volume of guitar production, even > considering "classical" guitars in comparison to steel-strung incarnations, > I'd wager there is a pretty substantial competition with lute builders for > quality timber. That's only an assumption and I have no idea how what kind > of influence that has on markets and production. > > Sitka (P. sitchensis) is really only prized in high-tension, steel-strung > modern acoustic guitars. I've only encountered a few classical builds in > Sitka. Of the North American spruces, Engelmann (P. engelmannii) is probably > the most popular for classical instruments. . . . And of course, western > red cedar (Thuja plicata) is also prized as classical guitar tonewood, > although its favor seems to wax and wane a bit in comparison to spruce(s). > > I actually have a vihuela that Chad Neal, a local luthier friend, rebuilt > using hybrid Lutz spruce (P. x lutzii) which is actually a white (P. glauca) > x Engelmann spruce hybrid. I think it works very well in context. > http://4.bp.blogspot.com/__F-xZ4YNaFk/SsLPMHXvD_I/AAAAAAAAAAU/wFEGYRuL > xOc/s1600/IMG_5096.JPG > > Very slow growth--closely spaced grain--seems the most highly prized feature > of soundboards whatever the timber (assuming an absence of flaw/defect like > runout, etc.). However, the very few well-made (and sometimes very old) > instruments I've encountered with widely spaced grain bring the rationale for > that status quo into question. > > Best, > Eugene > > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
