 |
||
 |
||
 |
|
|
|
||
 |
||
|
||
 |
||
|
||
 |
||
|
||
 |
||
|
||
 |
||
|
||
 |
||
|
||
 |
||
|
||
 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
PRESS REPORTS |
|
|
The Secret of the Well Known |
|
download this article  |
| Thoughts from Ermanno Chiavi (Zürich) about aesthetics in guitar-construction and a self-portrait. Suggested by Oliver Primus (Zürich, 1st of July 2000) |
 Ermanno Chiavi: It is important for me to develop my sensibility constantly and to support knowledge and experience in an objective way. Because of this every guitar gets it’s own report with many details. Someone could have the impression that I am constructing my guitars with the help of a computer. I don’t. But to compare the real sound results with all precise facts of construction, also many years later, is basic to gain a lot of very valuable insights.A guitar is changing not only it’s sound but also physically. After a while I have a look on my sheets: How were the conditions in the beginning? Because of that I am getting a better control about the duration of materials. Already in the very beginning I was measuring. Today those results are not useful anymore because they were not precise enough but that was the starting point of a perception training, to realize which are the most important things. This process developed in different phases. Always I tried to have an aim – with my first guitar I only wanted a person to open the guitar’s suitcase saying: “Ah, this is a guitar!” So this was a low-level aim. After that I read a book at the Zürich lake: “How to make a guitar”, written by an author who did it parallel to the constructing of his first guitar. Not too bad. Then I sent many letters to guitar constructors asking for possibilities of being apprenticed. I got two no-answers… Later somebody told me about Gerold Hannabach. I travelled to him at Bubenreuth and showed him my first guitar. He was hesitating what I can understand today after my own experiences with volunteers who wanted to learn in my workshop. Never before he did not train anybody which is a responsible task and takes a lot of time. So he suggested me to join his “workshop for repairing guitars” which I did during several years. After that I asked him for a sort of apprentice-ship paid by myself. Through this I also met with Margarethe Brunswicker in Frankfurt besides the lessons with Hannabach. Both helped me a lot for which I feel very thankful until today. In Switzerland the profession of a guitar constructor has no recognition. This is different in Germany. To be in contact with the German guitar constructor’s scene which I think is lively is very important to me. At that time I also realized how precise and unmistakable the German language is . In the Italian language which is my mother tongue especially expressions for technical terms tend to have many meanings. This apprentice-ship was a solid ground for my development. 
At that time I had a concrete aim for every year. One thing was to be able one day to get my necessary income through guitar constructing – and to make instruments at that level I had learned to do. During that time I did not focus on details of sound; I thought: What is the use of my sound ideals while my handicraft abilities are not advanced enough? According to that I sold my first guitars very cheap. After a while somebody came – an important guitarist – and told me: “Your guitars are too cheap. That’s not good for your reputation.”When I had started to be a guitar constructor at the age of 29 I wanted to cut off the way back. For a lot of money I bought machines and tools and made an official registration as a guitar constructor. The years before I went through many different experiences. In my first profession I had been a primary school teacher. After that I was working with handicapped people, then with children and as cultural animator for Pro Helvetia. Besides that I went to the Swiss Jazz School in Bern during some semesters but soon I realized that I am not a musician. In my first workshop in Zürich I repaired many instruments. And because of this I hold many great instruments in my hands: Fleta, Ruck, Romanillos, Friedrich, Rubio and so on. I was measuring a lot, was astonished… but the most important thing was to understand the philosophy behind everything. Each instrument is a thing which was developed out of a specific language and has to be understood in a deep sense, not just the technical “how to”. When a guitar is good everything fits together. If you change one thing it will have consequences for the whole instrument. The question how everything is a harmonic part of the whole thing always was very important to me. At that time I could not recognize many details and there existed only a few books about guitar constructing. I always had the impression that many descriptions are not complete in a way – so as the strength of the struts would not be as important as their arrangement on the soundboard. Again the idea that everything has to fit together and nothing should be neglected. One is looking at an object realizing three elements – and ten we don’t see because we are not trained enough. The same thing as in life. Hannabach told me many times the way how someone is doing something is not so important – if the achieved aim is correct. This encouraged me to find my own way. Until today I kept up details of construction from that time with conviction; others I changed totally. Actually I am learning slow because of observing many things at the same time. I am obliged to our time but in spite of respect to the tradition of the old masters I think it is not correct to contempt today’s violin- or guitar construction in comparison to historical instruments. Because of the same reasons I think not only a collector should judge an instrument. To be more precise: This is a way of putting values – which is doubtless important to preserve values – but judging instruments of our time concerns mainly the guitar constructors. In the same way as players and audience have to judge the sound. My personal ideal of sound is getting more and more clear – and never reached in one sense – but I think we have to observe the origin of aesthetic ideas in their own time. Possibly one could say: I invented nothing, everything was already invented. But all elements I put together in a different way. The old masters knew that also; the difference is that we have more precise instruments to our disposal. But the laws of nature did not change! In this sense there are no secrets. And the process of developing a personal sound ideal is going on always. I find it very difficult to formulate this in a general way. Just to separate each sound parameter and to find words for it… supported by physical knowledge and handicraft experience. Well, the subject of models… from many guitars with high reputation I made plans. After comparing construction with sound it became more and more a need to me to find out my own way – I did not want to copy because there was no model which convinced me totally; some details were fantastic. But there was always missing something important. Saying this I don’t want to judge - also copying might be a very important process. Actually I use every device as a training for my perception and as a sort of objective judgement. But during constructing the manual work – to look, to listen, to feel – stays to be the main thing. Machines just do the routine work. 
Here I want to say something about materials. Today it seems doubtful to me to measure instruments of old masters and reconstruct them one to one. The characteristics of every used material and it’s process is also very important because wood is organic. And because of this it is single - in nature every piece of wood exists only once. To achieve my ideal of sound I have to work on every piece of wood according to it’s conditions. Because of this I am measuring statics and dynamics at every soundboard (values about the power of bending and resonances of frequencies). This data I have to collect and actualize so that I can compare them later. At least the way I am coping with a soundboard, the way of putting the straws, is a personal decision of that moment.I think it is an important task to find out the criterions on sound, to define and formulate them. Because very soon there are limits in the language itself. For example: When a guitarist speaks about a “round” sound – what does this mean? Very often the words which describe sound are just defined in a subjective way, incompatible to the language of another musician. So we have to solve a problem of language. This difficulty seems to me very specific for guitarists. The person who is tuning the piano for example – if she is really capable – does it in the way the player wants it. In this case the words are defined more clear. Not at our instrument: Depending of the used technique of the right hand, the shape of the nails and the characteristics of the strings the result of sound is always different when ten guitar players play on the same instrument. So first of all I try to find out the meanings of the words a player uses for his sound ideal. They are basic for my work. Sometimes the words are congruent, sometimes not… very often they are figurative: a “round” sound, “misty”, “out of centre”, “thin”, “thick”, “with stomach” etc. If I am able to translate them to the areas of frequencies it is possible to start the work and to construct those parts which correlate to the specific sound. But everything is much more complicate because very often it is not easy to realize what is an effect and what is a reason. 
Today there is a tendency on the market to construct loud instruments for bigger concert halls. Very often this is achieved with a loss of sound colours. The energy which is transmitted from the strings to the instrument is taken from the material (ca. 3%), reflected and coloured in a specific way. The trial to minimize the loss of energy with the help of making bottom, neck and frames more stiff so that only the soundboard can swing, a part of the colours of sound are also lost. It must be added that because of this the guitarist who is sitting behind his instrument is less supported by the guitar; he feels it less. It’s an error to think that “loud” instrument will be heard better.It is one of my most important aims to construct a guitar which is modest in a way but responding very sensitive – so that a player has more access to the different areas of sound to realize more precise his interpretation.” This article is published in “Gitarre aktuell /// / 2002, Hamburg”. |
|
|