MOD vs BUILD. OR AM I JUST A BIT OCD?

[GuitarDoc]

I'm developing a really big pet peeve about people who spend 10 minutes replacing a pup in their guitar and call it their "build".

I spend 4-6 months planning, designing, hand picking and buying slabs of wood, making custom templates, cutting, laminating, gluing, drilling, routing, binding, painting, finishing, wiring, etc. actually "building" a guitar. I feel that it is a little degrading and devaluing of all my effort (and others who actually build guitars) to think of such menial processes as changing pups, or rewiring a switch, or repainting a guitar, or even putting together a kit as "building" a guitar (well I guess it would be appropriate to say "building a kit"). I feel, like Rodney Dangerfield, in that "I don't get no respect".

Don't get me wrong. I'm not intending to take anything away from those who step out of their comfort zones and tackle the sometimes huge tasks of modding or upgrading their guitars or trying to create intricate wiring schemes. Been there, done that. And I humbly appreciate all the help and advice I've received from many forum members. One of our purposes here on this forum is to encourage them to get started and to help them along the way wherever we can. And as you know, this is something that I've been doing here for quite a while. We forum members look forward to the opportunity to teach others and even to correcting their errors and/or misconceptions that they've picked up along the way. In taking that opportunity/responsibility seriously, am I being overly sensitive or OCD about this? "Correcting" is not only important, but sometimes necessary for the sake of true communication, eg: referring to a "split" as a "tap". So, is that what I'm doing now? Correcting someone's misuse of the term "building"? Or am I negating their narcissism in thinking they have built their guitar with a pup change?

Anyone else feel like a "build" is a build. And anything less is a "mod" or an "upgrade" or a "remodel" or a "etc"?

OK, I'm ready to get down from my soapbox and listen. Go ahead and be hard on me or slam me if you want, but you better be thick-skinned enough and prepared to take it right back because, to be fair, you can expect me to reply in kind.

Nevertheless, ALL comments are accepted and appreciated.

 

[GuitarStv]

Re: MOD vs BUILD. OR AM I JUST A BIT OCD?

Kinda seems like much ado about nothing.

I've always figured that 'building a guitar' would be the appropriate term for doing the Warmoth type route . . . where you buy a neck, body, pickups, nut, etc. and put it all together. You're selecting parts to build a particular guitar. Never actually seen someone replace pickups on a guitar and call that a build before. I've also never seen someone paint a guitar and call it a build . . . usually the term used is 'refinish'.

You seem very interested in the correctness of words. Part of your post indicates that you don't believe someone who buys parts (neck/body) is actually building a guitar. So, in the interest of correctness it's important to note that you aren't actually building the guitars you work on from scratch - you're buying the wood rather than growing the trees from seed. You're buying the frets/bridge/tuners/pickups rather than mining/refining/smelting your own metals. You're not raising a cow to slaughter so that you can cut a proper bone nut. By the definition that you use then, you're really doing a bit of wood working and then assembling it with pre-made stuff. Granted, it's a step further than what someone who buys a body and neck is doing . . . but it's certainly not building a guitar from scratch.

 

[DavidRavenMoon]

Re: MOD vs BUILD. OR AM I JUST A BIT OCD?

I hate when people use the word “build” as a noun. lol. “This is my latest build...”

No, this is a guitar I made. [emoji16] I think the “build” thing came from software. Or construction.

In my opinion you *assemble* kits. You aren’t a guitar maker assembling kits, but you can put together a nice guitar.

Modding guitars is modding guitars. Not building them.

Lots of us got started modding guitars.

I also start with lumber, although I’ll buy pre slotted fretboards just because it’s one less thing I have to do.

My latest “build” under way... [emoji6]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[GuitarDoc]

Re: MOD vs BUILD. OR AM I JUST A BIT OCD?

Kinda seems like much ado about nothing.

Yeah, maybe it is.

I've always figured that 'building a guitar' would be the appropriate term for doing the Warmoth type route . . . where you buy a neck, body, pickups, nut, etc. and put it all together. You're selecting parts to build a particular guitar.

To "put together" a guitar that someone else has designed and already built, perfected, and mass produced? No, not quite the same thing.

Never actually seen someone replace pickups on a guitar and call that a build before. I've also never seen someone paint a guitar and call it a build

I perhaps used a little poetic license and I MAY have even exaggerated a bit, but you've been around long enough on this forum to see actual posts of what I'm talking about.

You seem very interested in the correctness of words. Part of your post indicates that you don't believe someone who buys parts (neck/body) is actually building a guitar. So, in the interest of correctness it's important to note that you aren't actually building the guitars you work on from scratch - you're buying the wood rather than growing the trees from seed. You're buying the frets/bridge/tuners/pickups rather than mining/refining/smelting your own metals. You're not raising a cow to slaughter so that you can cut a proper bone nut. By the definition that you use then, you're really doing a bit of wood working and then assembling it with pre-made stuff. Granted, it's a step further than what someone who buys a body and neck is doing . . . but it's certainly not building a guitar from scratch.

Yeah, you got me there. I'm not a gardener. I'm not a miner. I'm not an iron worker. I'm not a parts manufacturer. I'm not a rancher. And I don't work in a slaughter house. I'll go try to find some humble pie to eat.

But now you're going a little overboard. To be even MORE correct (by your reasoning) than that, "Mining/refining/smelting your own metals" isn't enough either. You would also have to spend millions of years forming the ore, or designing and forming the tree seeds and the earth which it is grown in. In fact, you'd also have to create DNA and RNA, water, air, and even all the elements on the periodic chart (and probably many that we don't even know about yet). You would also have to establish the laws of physics throughout the universe and create gravity. Figure out a way to make water form ice when it gets very cold, and how to make that ice float so that life can exist and that trees can grow.

No, I don't make the parts, nor the raw materials. I'm not God. But I DO "build" guitars.

Building a guitar from raw materials doesn't require one to form those raw materials in the first place (growing trees, smelting ore into metal, forming that metal into usable parts).

If that were true, then nobody has ever built anything. Henry Ford never built a car in his life! Certainly in the guitar world nobody or no company would have ever "built" any guitar. Gibson or Fender never even came close to building a guitar.

But, again, "assembling" a guitar from parts (pre-cut body and neck), or changing some parts or colors of a pre-made guitar is not the same as designing it and "building" it from wood slabs.

But thank you for your comments anyway. If my primary post offended you to the point that you felt it necessary to go so extreme, I apologize. Like I said in my first post, I don't mean to offend or belittle anyone. (Well, I guess sometimes I do).

 

[GuitarDoc]

Re: MOD vs BUILD. OR AM I JUST A BIT OCD?

I hate when people use the word “build” as a noun. lol. “This is my latest build...”

No, this is a guitar I made. [emoji16] I think the “build” thing came from software. Or construction.

In my opinion you *assemble* kits. You aren’t a guitar maker assembling kits, but you can put together a nice guitar.

Modding guitars is modding guitars. Not building them.

Lots of us got started modding guitars.

I also start with lumber, although I’ll buy pre slotted fretboards just because it’s one less thing I have to do.

My latest “build” under way... [emoji6]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah, I totally get the fretboard thing. There is a lot of work involved in slotting and fretting a board. I actually make most of my fretboards with several types of exotic woods laminated together in various patterns to match/harmonize with the wood-type and designs of my bodies. One of these days I'll get around to posting a few of my builds.

 

[GuitarStv]

Re: MOD vs BUILD. OR AM I JUST A BIT OCD?

Yeah, you got me there. I'm not a gardener. I'm not a miner. I'm not an iron worker. I'm not a parts manufacturer. I'm not a rancher. And I don't work in a slaughter house. I'll go try to find some humble pie to eat.

But now you're going a little overboard. To be even MORE correct (by your reasoning) than that, "Mining/refining/smelting your own metals" isn't enough either. You would also have to spend millions of years forming the ore, or designing and forming the tree seeds and the earth which it is grown in. In fact, you'd also have to create DNA and RNA, water, air, and even all the elements on the periodic chart (and probably many that we don't even know about yet). You would also have to establish the laws of physics throughout the universe and create gravity. Figure out a way to make water form ice when it gets very cold, and how to make that ice float so that life can exist and that trees can grow.

No, I don't make the parts, nor the raw materials. I'm not God. But I DO "build" guitars.

Building a guitar from raw materials doesn't require one to form those raw materials in the first place (growing trees, smelting ore into metal, forming that metal into usable parts).

If that were true, then nobody has ever built anything. Henry Ford never built a car in his life! Certainly in the guitar world nobody or no company would have ever "built" any guitar. Gibson or Fender never even came close to building a guitar.

But, again, "assembling" a guitar from parts (pre-cut body and neck), or changing some parts or colors of a pre-made guitar is not the same as designing it and "building" it from wood slabs.

But thank you for your comments anyway. If my primary post offended you to the point that you felt it necessary to go so extreme, I apologize. Like I said in my first post, I don't mean to offend or belittle anyone. (Well, I guess sometimes I do).

Not offend at all. I agree with you regarding the rabbit hole of nobody ever making anything . . . what was kinda my whole point.

It's ridiculous to get upset at someone for putting together pre-made parts and calling it a 'build' when you're putting together a bunch of pre-made parts (admittedly one step less finished) and calling it a build yourself. If before you started working there were parts and afterwards there's a guitar . . . you built that guitar. Doesn't matter if you carved the neck, wound the pickups, smelted the frets, or carved the nut from a stegosaurus bone. Making a guitar from stuff = build. Now, you can certainly argue that some builds are more labor intensive, or that some require more skill than others . . . but it's a build either way.

 

[Demanic]

Re: MOD vs BUILD. OR AM I JUST A BIT OCD?

I think that the key to resolving the issue is defining the frame of reference for the term being discussed.

Sent from my Alcatel_5044C using Tapatalk

 

[GuitarDoc]

Re: MOD vs BUILD. OR AM I JUST A BIT OCD?

Not offend at all. I agree with you regarding the rabbit hole of nobody ever making anything . . . what was kinda my whole point.

It's ridiculous to get upset at someone for putting together pre-made parts and calling it a 'build' when you're putting together a bunch of pre-made parts (admittedly one step less finished) and calling it a build yourself. If before you started working there were parts and afterwards there's a guitar . . . you built that guitar. Doesn't matter if you carved the neck, wound the pickups, smelted the frets, or carved the nut from a stegosaurus bone. Making a guitar from stuff = build. Now, you can certainly argue that some builds are more labor intensive, or that some require more skill than others . . . but it's a build either way.

I think that we'll just have to agree to disagree, because I certainly disagree with you. There may be some shades of grey, I admit, but it's not just a matter of some of the steps being more labor intensive. Cutting out a body, chambering it, routing out the control cavity, routing out the pickup cavities, routing the neck pocket, carving the top, and drilling and slotting (If I use a Fender type switch) for the controls is a bit more than just a little more labor intensive. I built a kit guitar before where only the body and neck were the "kit", and they were admittedly precut, but I still consider that as "building a KIT" or "putting a guitar kit together", but not building a guitar.

 

[GuitarDoc]

Re: MOD vs BUILD. OR AM I JUST A BIT OCD?

I think that the key to resolving the issue is defining the frame of reference for the term being discussed.

Sent from my Alcatel_5044C using Tapatalk

Of course. We're trying to do that even though I don't thing we're making much progress yet.

 

[ICTGoober]

Re: MOD vs BUILD. OR AM I JUST A BIT OCD?

This goes back to an old argument from the early 80's.... Traditional builders turned up their noses at the proliferation of "kit guitars", and refused to call those who sold or assembled them as "lutherie". The founding of the Association of Stringed Instrument Artisans occurred in the late 80's, and as a charter member who was doing a lot of writing then - I authored an editorial for Guitarmaker magazine that asked the question, "When does not-lutherie become lutherie?", and what standard or measurement was applied to determine that answer?

I explained that I used many accepted lutherie practices when assembling kits to the specifications of my clients. I sometimes applied a custom finish, modded the body or neck, and upon mating the body and neck I applied my setup skills and even repair skills (like a fret level or replacement of the nut) if needed or asked for by the client. All of those operations were deemed acceptable as lutherie in any other sphere, so why not in new construction of a kit? Didn't most agree that my skills of art and craft met the challenge whether it was a new Gibson or parts from Warmoth? (they did).

I concluded my editorial by asking if the members time wouldn't be better spent by getting back to work instead of arguing about who was better?

My editorial soon prompted some pronouncements from on high (the board of directors) that yes - kit guitars were actually lutherie, and that they are assembled - but not built provided the assembler didn't perform the bulk of the woodworking. Shortly thereafter, the board welcomed the Warmoth brothers to the board of directors (Ken is still on the board), which pretty much settled that argument.

So, now - discuss.

 

[Masta' C]

Re: MOD vs BUILD. OR AM I JUST A BIT OCD?

Sounds like an argument for "Building" vs "Woodworking".

Woodworkers are trying to usurp the term "build" out of convenience (I don't blame them). Perhaps there is another term that could be popularized and apply specifically to woodworking?

Kits and parts guitars (Warmoth included) are a form of "Building", but rarely "Woodworking".

"Lutherie" is a gray term, because it simply refers to someone who makes stringed musical instruments. Many ways to do that and at many levels. Cutting nuts, adjusting bridges and leveling frets may be needed with many "kits", for example, so "lutherie" would still apply in those cases.

 

[PFDarkside]

Re: MOD vs BUILD. OR AM I JUST A BIT OCD?

Mod / Assemble / Build

Mod: changes to an existing guitar
Assemble: take various (existing) parts and assemble them into a guitar
Build: ???

If you paint raw bodies and necks and assemble is that a build, or do you need to cut wood for it to be a build? How about machining bridges and winding pickups?

 

[DavidRavenMoon]

Re: MOD vs BUILD. OR AM I JUST A BIT OCD?

Yeah, I totally get the fretboard thing. There is a lot of work involved in slotting and fretting a board. I actually make most of my fretboards with several types of exotic woods laminated together in various patterns to match/harmonize with the wood-type and designs of my bodies. One of these days I'll get around to posting a few of my builds.

I’ve laminated fretboards in layers. This is ebonol (phenolic), maple, and purpleheart.

It makes the board stiffer. I slotted and radiused this one.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[DavidRavenMoon]

MOD vs BUILD. OR AM I JUST A BIT OCD?

"Lutherie" is a gray term, because it simply refers to someone who makes stringed musical instruments. Many ways to do that and at many levels. Cutting nuts, adjusting bridges and leveling frets may be needed with many "kits", for example, so "lutherie" would still apply in those cases.

Originally it was one who makes lutes, as the guitar hadn’t been invented yet. Luthiers were also violin makers.

I separate a guitar repair person from guitar maker. Both are skills in their own right. Many builders don’t repair, and vice versa.

Traditionally it was called “guitar making”

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[GuitarDoc]

Re: MOD vs BUILD. OR AM I JUST A BIT OCD?

I’ve laminated fretboards in layers. This is ebonol (phenolic), maple, and purpleheart.

It makes the board stiffer. I slotted and radiused this one.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nice. Clean job.

 

[Masta' C]

Re: MOD vs BUILD. OR AM I JUST A BIT OCD?

Well, then perhaps you should call it "Making" rather than "Building"

As in..."hey, check out my latest make"

Seriously, though, "building" is such a broad term. Same with "constructing". The argument posed above suggests that those who do not work their own wood are not "building" anything. In the vernacular, most would agree that someone taking a bunch of parts and putting them together is indeed "building" something.

Therefore, it would behoove the "guitar making"/woodworking community to either coin a new term or deal with the fact that they are relying on an ambiguous term to imply something specific to their trade

 

[GuitarDoc]

Re: MOD vs BUILD. OR AM I JUST A BIT OCD?

You've all made some good points.

What about..."made in America (assembled in China)"? Who "made" the guitar. By their own admission, the Chinese didn't...they took all of the pre-made parts and "assembled" them (kinda like putting together a kit guitar).

So maybe we even need to make a distinction between "build" and "make".

When I take planks of wood and other parts, and do whatever is necessary to end up with a custom guitar, did I build it or make it? Either of those also includes assembling it. So assembling cannot be considered as building or making.

 

[Demanic]

Re: MOD vs BUILD. OR AM I JUST A BIT OCD?

Of course. We're trying to do that even though I don't thing we're making much progress yet.

Imagine that [emoji41]

Sent from my Alcatel_5044C using Tapatalk

 

[DavidRavenMoon]

MOD vs BUILD. OR AM I JUST A BIT OCD?

Well, then perhaps you should call it "Making" rather than "Building"

As in..."hey, check out my latest make"

Or; “here’s a guitar I just made” [emoji16]

The thing is, and especially on forums, groupspeak takes over. You want to fit in, so eventually everyone uses the same terms.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JB_From_Hell]

Re: MOD vs BUILD. OR AM I JUST A BIT OCD?

“Here’s a guitar I just played.”