I once wrote a piece about factory built guitars and those built by independent guitar makers.

Well, “luthier” is a term that irritates me no end. When I was younger, there existed guitar technicians and guitar builders. Seems now that the latter are become luthiers. I thought luthiers made lutes. My bad.

Nevertheless, in 1987 my old friend Chris Eccleshall built me a guitar. He was a guitar builder. I think he still is. I don’t recall him referring to himself as a “luthier”.

I’m tempted sometimes, when I come across these luthiers on internet forums and bulletin boards, to yank their chain about their highfalutin’ professional handle - but always hold back in case I offend. Anyway the dictionary.com definition of a luthier is “One that makes or repairs stringed instruments, such as violins.” So be it. Nevertheless, the term smacks of a snobbery that irks.

On the other hand, it may just be me that’s not moved with the times.

        

Alright, I’ll try this again. My last (and to date only) attempt, although successful, didn’t stir the blood. At least mine. I wasn’t sure what podcasting was supposed to do and it takes time to do it properly. Time well spent? I wasn’t convinced. I remember when I was preparing the last one in the studio that I was thinking it would be more worthwhile to record another song, there being so many left to get down.

But I’ll give it another go. Watch this space. Let me know if you would like to subscribe and I’ll let you know where and how.

        

Lurking around online guitar communities one’s bound to come across a variety of opinions on this, that, and the other to do with the best example of this and the best way to do that. It’s all excellent fodder for contemplation and is occasionally informative. Most of what one reads is, though, borne out of ingrained prejudice or the recycling of received wisdom, or reiteration of some pronouncement of this guitar god, or that. This exchanging of views is commendable, no doubt, but fresh insights or genuine authoritative advice is rarely found - particularly for free.

As ever, the most productive time is spent alone in serious study and objective (insofar as this is possible at all) consideration of one’s output. To honestly and objectively appraise the progress of a song under development is a piece of voodoo that I’m only partially successful at practicing. Criteria to use in judging the success of a song is a prerequisite to the process, but is more difficult to arrive at than it might appear at first glance. Consider:

What are the aims of the song? To sound “good”? If so, to whom? The writer? An audience - real or imagined? A prospective publisher / artiste / producer? To an aunt or uncle? Posterity?

Or is the purpose of the song to make money? If so; what is the target market?

Or is it intended to be a piece of art of purely aesthetic value only without reference to commercial appeal or admiration of an audience -.one small part of a magnus opus defined by your entire songwriting output - whose mere existence is its own justification.

Or might It could be written as part of a strategy to charm the pants off some girl? Or is it going to be another page in a musical diary recounting your thoughts, dreams, experiences, hopes, joys and disappointments as you make your own way through the days.

Or could Its purpose be catharsis, or to have some other therapeutic value? A safety-valve less you do some awful deed? Ha! Ha!

Or could it be a means to emulate or imitate a hero / heroin? A three-minute dreamscape in which you can “be” your idol? A means to escape the horror of the hum-drum day after day after day?

It doesn’t matter if, like me, you took to songwriting as a child without thinking or questioning and just did it as naturally as eating and sleeping. With self-awareness and learning about bad, good, and better - and pu-leeease, don’t tell me music is all about personal taste - you will make value judgments about your output. About form and content; about design and execution. So it would be better if we had a clear idea about the purpose of all this effort into writing songs. Without knowing this, how can we judge how successful we are? Because, for sure, different qualities are needed for songs serving the different purposes I mentioned above. And, yes, although I was drawing caricatures in these descriptions I will still assert that clarity of purpose is needed.

“Ah,” (you might say) “but I have to write songs. It’s what I am. I am a Musician. It’s innate. What else is there to say? Thinking about all of what you suggest would do nothing but unnecessarily complicate the process. It might tie me up in knots and even inhibit my songwriting. I would rather not interrupt my free and natural musical outpouring, thank you very much!”

OK. So be it. Rock on.

        

It has come to my notice that my last record has been reviewed rather kindly in a couple of places:

FAME

Minor 7th (a little way down the page!)

You’ll notice that the first reviewer opines that I’m a better player than singer. I won’t argue with that, although some folks have written to me in indignant protestation which is heartwarming! For my part, I long ago decided to do the best I can with the tools I have.

I’m also delighted that the CD has been warmly received by customers - and even more so since many of them had bought the first - Interim Reports - and had come back for more!

What now? On with the next! Several songs are “in the can” although the shape of the collection has not yet formed in my mind. More soon.