thetyreman
Established Member
thought this would be useful for people who still believe in the 10,000 hour rule https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MgBikgcWnY
Experience, efficiency and enjoyment.
- Thread starter Cheshirechappie
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
Tasky
Established Member
So numerous different definitions then, any of which can be the primary focus depending on who you talk to.D_W":2pakxpe8 said:
In your arguments you tend to infer that speed is a focus, for example. Speed of executing a technique, speed of making a joint, sopeed of churning out work, etc... Others might argue that expense or effort is the focus.
It's very subjective, especially in this context.
Well, if you're able to chop mortises without having to switch to a different set of chisels, or even buy a set specifically for mortising, then that's effort-efficient and cost-efficient, as defined right there...D_W":2pakxpe8 said:
The other definitions are equally subjective, too.
Did I say there was??!!D_W":2pakxpe8 said:
I said this is what many people *think* efficiency is which is why, by definition, it is not errant.
Uh-huh... so when I said the same thing, with the very specific words that this is "what many people consider to be efficiency"... you just decided to ignore the point and create a strawman argument?D_W":2pakxpe8 said:
Are you using your body to do this?D_W":2pakxpe8 said:
Is it a physical skill?
Yes?
Then micro-tensions will always be a factor.... unless you are not actually human, or are using telekinesis to manipulate your tools.
You name me any physical activity, microtensions will be present. Even sitting there reading this on your computer, you will have them. You have them when you sleep, you have them when you walk, you have them when you take a bath - You WILL have them in woodworking.
It's not even a new concept, either - People have been writing about this since at least the 1500s!!
Ye cannae change tha laws o' physics, Jim!!
Case. Point. :wink: =D>Jacob":2pakxpe8 said:
I really don't like Ted Talks usually, but enjoyed that one lots - I'm going to show it to my kids when they get home. Thanks.thetyreman":fng97x4e said:
edit - and from a woodworking perspective, I'm only really looking to learn to do a few things (chords) well - from there, I see it as a question of what I can do with them.
I think this is a very interesting discussion and I've been mulling over it while at the bench today. I've come to the following (proposed) conclusion: efficiency is achieved through the application of acquired skills and/or knowledge in the light of experience to achieve acceptable results in a timely manner.
A couple of examples: I'm inefficient at doing through tenons on pine (see other thread) because a. I never tried making them until a week ago. b. I've not yet acquired the skills to deal with pine well.
By contrast I've just taken a piece of poplar, planed it square on all six sides to a fairly high degree of precision, ripped it into three pieces of more or less equal width and sawn them to length. This was done efficiently because a. I have learned to work poplar fairly well and have acquired planing and sawing skills to the necessary degree b. I have enough experience to to know where "more or less" is fully acceptable (in this case two sides of each piece have to be bang on parallel to each other and the other two just have to look tidy).
So my work on the pine is inefficient because the results are not acceptable and timeliness has gone right out of the window whereas the work on the poplar is relatively efficient because the results are what I set out to achieve and were achieved in a time that was acceptable to me.
I suspect that where opinions might differ is what constitutes an acceptable standard of result and even more, what is an acceptable amount of time, although the hobbyist clearly has the luxury of being able to define the latter whereas the pro might find that his accountant gets to define it.
A couple of examples: I'm inefficient at doing through tenons on pine (see other thread) because a. I never tried making them until a week ago. b. I've not yet acquired the skills to deal with pine well.
By contrast I've just taken a piece of poplar, planed it square on all six sides to a fairly high degree of precision, ripped it into three pieces of more or less equal width and sawn them to length. This was done efficiently because a. I have learned to work poplar fairly well and have acquired planing and sawing skills to the necessary degree b. I have enough experience to to know where "more or less" is fully acceptable (in this case two sides of each piece have to be bang on parallel to each other and the other two just have to look tidy).
So my work on the pine is inefficient because the results are not acceptable and timeliness has gone right out of the window whereas the work on the poplar is relatively efficient because the results are what I set out to achieve and were achieved in a time that was acceptable to me.
I suspect that where opinions might differ is what constitutes an acceptable standard of result and even more, what is an acceptable amount of time, although the hobbyist clearly has the luxury of being able to define the latter whereas the pro might find that his accountant gets to define it.
Tasky is too far into thinking things in music transfer to things in woodworking. It's not similar. Nobody asks for an audio tape of the mallet strikes and checks for tempo or dynamics. Tension isn't an issue, except for rank beginners, because it causes soreness, and every beginner will work through it. Most good amateur musicians still have a problem with it. It would be useful to stop talking about music and assuming that it's relevant for woodworking. Certain things are, but this feel discussion is getting really absurd (it was from the start).
Last night, I mortised a plane handle. I mortise everything in a plane by hand. I don't know if I could keep the same standard and introduce anything else and go any faster (it takes 20 minutes to mortise a plane to the point that the mouth needs to be drilled - one overcut with a drill press and all is lost, I've never found it faster except in the case where someone is not good at mortising).
So, the plane handle mortise is about an inch deep, probably about five inches long and I want a square front. I don't check roundness on my handle profiles, so the mortise is made to the handle profile rather than a gauge (this is an efficiency that does not affect results negatively). I use a chisel that is about a 16th less wide than the handle so that I have a little wiggle room to clean the sides of the mortise. It would be faster to try to make the handle the same width as a chisel and make a mortise without cleaning sides, but there would be little gaps all around the handle, and no ability to clean the walls of the mortise to get a good glue joint or adjust the sides mildly for vertical. That would be lowering standards, not efficiency. It would be faster, though.
When I mortise, I mortise the full width of the cut in one pass, and I'd estimate about 3/16ths of wood at a time. I do not pick the plane up and turn it around, I turn the chisel. I say I do this because I'm lazy, but it's efficient. Turning the plane back and forth would just be dumb.
I have noticed over three years of having videos on youtube that I often get comments about "that's a great idea, you don't ever move the plane when you're mortising or walk around it".
This is a single example. I can almost guarantee, except for someone twice as strong as me, that anyone who builds five planes and will do this whole process slower than me. Anyone who builds 500 will do it much faster, and they may do things differently than I do. I will be able to *see it*, just like the people who remark about not unclamping and turning their planes all the time can see that I don't do it. This is not just a speed issue, it's also the case that it is much more pleasant to work like this. At the risk of flattering Jacob, this mortise is pretty much made on the vertical (but riding the bevel) and without regard to cleaning it or faffing around. Place the chisel and hammer, place it again, hammer.
Establishing this routine also makes the results safer - getting too cute with something like this can lead to an overcut or surface grain at the mortise chasing out into an open area and splitting off. That would be disastrous.
I have seen a video of a professional maker doing the same thing I'm doing, but quality standards had dropped to the point that it was acceptable to have a machine cut mortise and machine cut handle (rounded everywhere). However, the mortise sidewalls still needed to be fitted, and the professional did so with a heavier hand and wider chisel than I use.
How important is it for someone else that they do a plane handle mortise like this if they have the same standards and want the same results? Probably not that important, but a whole gaggle of details would apply elsewhere, such as trimming the sides of a mortise without spending inordinate time doing it, and without risking torn grain at the edge of a mortise in a visible area.
If one just "gets by" each time they do something and doesn't make these small incremental improvements, sooner or later, the work will just cease instead, or standards will drop to do something else. That'd be a shame.
There is only one non-visual thing to learn by watching someone do work like I'm talking about above - in this case - and it's not feel. It's the sound that the chisel makes when it hits the bottom of the previous cut. You get one more strike, and the mortise gets progressively deeper with each cut until you've reached your target depth. One flip of the chisel to go back the other way and extend the mortise depth as desired in the part of the cut that didn't yet reach it, and you're done.
There are a whole lot of other discussions around this that correlate with increased standards, but I'm sure that they'll be lost on the board. Just one as an example, finishing cuts in carving. It is efficient to make them in one stroke where possible. A beginner wouldn't grasp that yet, because they'll feel unsafe, but they need to work toward that or their carvings will all either end up with amateurish looking interrupted cuts, or they'll have to sand them and scrape them to death. Visually, either of those will stand out, and not in a positive way.
Last night, I mortised a plane handle. I mortise everything in a plane by hand. I don't know if I could keep the same standard and introduce anything else and go any faster (it takes 20 minutes to mortise a plane to the point that the mouth needs to be drilled - one overcut with a drill press and all is lost, I've never found it faster except in the case where someone is not good at mortising).
So, the plane handle mortise is about an inch deep, probably about five inches long and I want a square front. I don't check roundness on my handle profiles, so the mortise is made to the handle profile rather than a gauge (this is an efficiency that does not affect results negatively). I use a chisel that is about a 16th less wide than the handle so that I have a little wiggle room to clean the sides of the mortise. It would be faster to try to make the handle the same width as a chisel and make a mortise without cleaning sides, but there would be little gaps all around the handle, and no ability to clean the walls of the mortise to get a good glue joint or adjust the sides mildly for vertical. That would be lowering standards, not efficiency. It would be faster, though.
When I mortise, I mortise the full width of the cut in one pass, and I'd estimate about 3/16ths of wood at a time. I do not pick the plane up and turn it around, I turn the chisel. I say I do this because I'm lazy, but it's efficient. Turning the plane back and forth would just be dumb.
I have noticed over three years of having videos on youtube that I often get comments about "that's a great idea, you don't ever move the plane when you're mortising or walk around it".
This is a single example. I can almost guarantee, except for someone twice as strong as me, that anyone who builds five planes and will do this whole process slower than me. Anyone who builds 500 will do it much faster, and they may do things differently than I do. I will be able to *see it*, just like the people who remark about not unclamping and turning their planes all the time can see that I don't do it. This is not just a speed issue, it's also the case that it is much more pleasant to work like this. At the risk of flattering Jacob, this mortise is pretty much made on the vertical (but riding the bevel) and without regard to cleaning it or faffing around. Place the chisel and hammer, place it again, hammer.
Establishing this routine also makes the results safer - getting too cute with something like this can lead to an overcut or surface grain at the mortise chasing out into an open area and splitting off. That would be disastrous.
I have seen a video of a professional maker doing the same thing I'm doing, but quality standards had dropped to the point that it was acceptable to have a machine cut mortise and machine cut handle (rounded everywhere). However, the mortise sidewalls still needed to be fitted, and the professional did so with a heavier hand and wider chisel than I use.
How important is it for someone else that they do a plane handle mortise like this if they have the same standards and want the same results? Probably not that important, but a whole gaggle of details would apply elsewhere, such as trimming the sides of a mortise without spending inordinate time doing it, and without risking torn grain at the edge of a mortise in a visible area.
If one just "gets by" each time they do something and doesn't make these small incremental improvements, sooner or later, the work will just cease instead, or standards will drop to do something else. That'd be a shame.
There is only one non-visual thing to learn by watching someone do work like I'm talking about above - in this case - and it's not feel. It's the sound that the chisel makes when it hits the bottom of the previous cut. You get one more strike, and the mortise gets progressively deeper with each cut until you've reached your target depth. One flip of the chisel to go back the other way and extend the mortise depth as desired in the part of the cut that didn't yet reach it, and you're done.
There are a whole lot of other discussions around this that correlate with increased standards, but I'm sure that they'll be lost on the board. Just one as an example, finishing cuts in carving. It is efficient to make them in one stroke where possible. A beginner wouldn't grasp that yet, because they'll feel unsafe, but they need to work toward that or their carvings will all either end up with amateurish looking interrupted cuts, or they'll have to sand them and scrape them to death. Visually, either of those will stand out, and not in a positive way.
Tasky":p13msouw said:
I get the sense that you've done a lot of instrument playing, and not a lot of woodworking - at least not a lot of hand tool woodworking. The kind of "microtensions" that you're talking about just don't amount to anything. Ergonomics on a larger scale does, perhaps (not putting boards on the far side of the bench to plane - nobody will have to tell you why that's no good) and not gripping chisel tips with a pencil grip, despite the popularity with beginners. However, those things are already well discussed.
Also, you're pointing the discussion of efficiency toward lowering standards, as are others. It's bunk. A pure definition of efficiency is just achieving the same standard (or amount of work) with less effort or a better standard with the same amount of work.
Relying on Jacob's quote is extrapolation. The same areas of focus don't apply to each. Tension may be an issue in music because you're doing something that requires relatively little physical effort and some level of concentration. We don't talk about tension with bricklayers or farmers throwing hay bales - tell me why that is.
With all of the different immaterial diversions that you've proposed, I wonder how much you could improve if you just spent that effort watching someone who is better at woodworking than you are. Probably a lot. While the next person nails down details like those I suggested above in cutting a plane handle mortise, you'll still be arguing about how much tension they have at the end of your first mortise - they will have cut three. Probably to a higher standard. Or two, or five. You could have, too.
Physics has nothing to do with this, at least not in verbally discussing material areas for improvement in technique. You have so many immaterial diversions that I think you should choose another hobby and not attempt to distract anyone else with them.
thetyreman":1ml8p26v said:
I do believe in the 10,000 hour 'rule' though I'd prefer total it a rough estimate, but I also agree with all that was said in the TED talk. This was addressing the basic 'get going' level, with which I agree fully. In fact I just had to learn a complex programming language, MatLab, for my research, after doing no programming for about 25 years, and after 20 hours I am reasonably competent and at the self-corrected and improving level. But this is a world short of the masters and innovators in this programming language, and that is the level the 10,000 hours tries to address. If anyone takes home the message that 20 hours is enough to learn anything they are greatly deluded. A particular skill (e.g. four chords, or a mortise-and-tenon joint), yes; a field of knowledge, ability to build any furniture, ability to play any music put in front of you, ability to speak a language fluently, nope. But yes you can get going.
On my own experience, 10,000 is a bit light for mastery, but I may be a slow learner
. However, being a slow learner, means that in my late 70s I am still improving! As Casals said when he was in his 90s.So Jacob, good to hear you are getting great enjoyment out of your music, and keep improving!
Keith
who'd have thunk it - nearly twenty years ago following a tour around West Virginia with my missus I confidently told her I was going to learn the banjo, and tbh not a lot of progress has been made since then
Thanks to this thread I am seriously thinking about giving it a go. I have zero experience with musical instruments (other than enjoying listening to them!) - is there such a thing as a 'beginners banjo'?
Thanks to this thread I am seriously thinking about giving it a go. I have zero experience with musical instruments (other than enjoying listening to them!) - is there such a thing as a 'beginners banjo'?
Ttrees
Iroko loco!
You can be really bad at skills regardless how much you practice ...
Some people ARE naturally skilfull, and as allready mentioned, they normally have a
lesser desire to be motivated .
Take Skateboarding for example ...there's so many reasons I was barely able to do it.
Likewise with playing music.
Anyone can do really fancy work with none of those born skills, if we employed techniques
to aid us.
This suggests that there's a few ways it seems to do woodworking efficiently...
To have talent, be skillful and efficient by putting the time in practising, and becoming fast...
Or to have no talent, but employing jigs and aids to make the same thing, but basically without hardly
any experience
Both in my opinion are not shortcuts, and can be weighed up by the amount of time doing either
practising or studying
Not trying to include the old days, making 10 tables in 20 mins kinda thing
Just to make something in an efficient (ish) manner, as most folks these days do this for fun, or the
blood sweat and tears of it.
Tom
Some people ARE naturally skilfull, and as allready mentioned, they normally have a
lesser desire to be motivated .
Take Skateboarding for example ...there's so many reasons I was barely able to do it.
Likewise with playing music.
Anyone can do really fancy work with none of those born skills, if we employed techniques
to aid us.
This suggests that there's a few ways it seems to do woodworking efficiently...
To have talent, be skillful and efficient by putting the time in practising, and becoming fast...
Or to have no talent, but employing jigs and aids to make the same thing, but basically without hardly
any experience
Both in my opinion are not shortcuts, and can be weighed up by the amount of time doing either
practising or studying
Not trying to include the old days, making 10 tables in 20 mins kinda thing
Just to make something in an efficient (ish) manner, as most folks these days do this for fun, or the
blood sweat and tears of it.
Tom
Ttrees
Iroko loco!
Duplicate post
Sorry folks
Sorry folks
Jacob
New Luddism. Awake and resist!
There are loads of 5 string banjos out there from about £150 new but some of them are rubbish. The build quality tends to be OK but the sound can be really bad. Either try a reliable old school music shop or just take pot luck. Avoid Barnes and Mullins, Tanglewood cheapos, though their better ones probably are better. Countryman seem OK I've been lucky with several.nabs":phf8jxta said:who'd have thunk it - nearly twenty years ago following a tour around West Virginia with my missus I confidently told her I was going to learn the banjo, and tbh not a lot of progress has been made since then
Thanks to this thread I am seriously thinking about giving it a go. I have zero experience with musical instruments (other than enjoying listening to them!) - is there such a thing as a 'beginners banjo'?
Mel Bay Banjo method by Neil Griffin is good. There's a lot more to 5 string banjo than bluegrass and there are masses of books
Tasky
Established Member
Pick ANY skill that makes use of the human body, it will work along the same principles.D_W":3hrnoybw said:
A N Y physical skill.
Go ahead, pick one. Any one you like.
Go ahead. I'll wait....
No, wait, pick two. Pick five. Heck, pick a hundred.
Swordfighting, archery, wall climbing, brick laying, sewing, driving, motorcycling, handwriting, computer gaming, typing, modelling, dancing, boxing, plastering.... and yes, even the hallowed woodworking, supposedly unlike anything else on the planet. It's all the same, because it's using the same human body, whether you like it or not.
Again, that's the point - You will not work through it, because it's part of what causes all the bad habits and forces you to compensate, which throws your work off.D_W":3hrnoybw said:
You can still improve, but you will forever be limiting youself by tying yourself up in microtension.
It's basic, inescapable biology.
One instrument.D_W":3hrnoybw said:
Done a lot more swordfighting, target sports, and generally a lot of the stuff listed above.
Also spent some time in H&S courses, having to learn about things like fatigue and repetitive strain injuries, specifically the causes, symptoms and preventative measures. Biggest cause of incidents resulting in lost man hours begins with microtensions, and those can develop from even the smallest misalignments in your fingers.
As a result, I'm usually quite aware of when I'm introducing tension in my posture or whatever position I'm working in, so when I come to the wood bench a lot is quite evident.
But again, even if I'd never even seen a bench chisel, the mechanics of the human body do not change.
If you say so. Good luck with that.... I'm sure your chiropractor will be delighted with his third yacht.D_W":3hrnoybw said:
The HSE disagrees, certainly to the point of conducting a fair few studies on the matter. They even mention that carpenters working inside on benches do not regard their work as physically demanding and are often completely oblivious to the strains on their musuloskeletal system, concerning themselves more with general safety issues... which you're so far exemplifying *quite* well.
I'm sorry you don't like the science behind it or, like so many now suffering from various injuries, don't even relise that you're doing it... but it remains an inescapable fact
End of the day, it's your lower back and your tendons, so your call.
And yet again, not what I said, despite me even explaining it to you in the last post......!!!!D_W":3hrnoybw said:
Underpinned by techniques that rely on the human body and how it works.... but that doesn't matter with Woodworking, I'm sure you'll tell me.D_W":3hrnoybw said:
Because they're laid up with backache or RSI and can't get to the PC, I imagine. Certainly in the brickie's case. The farmer is likely toussling Tara Two-Tractors in the aforementioned hay.D_W":3hrnoybw said:
Incidentally, studies from 1994 and beyond show that bricklayers, plasterers and then carpenters were the trades with the highest annual prevalences of musculoskeletal injury.
Since I'm doing this at work while waiting for file transfers to complete and don't have access to a profesisonal woodworker's workshop during such moments, not a lot... unless you wanna post up some videos of yourself, for all us mere mortals to learn from?D_W":3hrnoybw said:
But then, instead of missing the points, misreading posts and arguing against strawmen, you could probably have made a dozen new planes by now. Maybe that's how you can increase your own efficiency?
Physics has.... You WOT, mate???!!!!D_W":3hrnoybw said:
Yeah, OK, if you say so.............
Might as well tell me wood grain doesn't make any difference, next!
You're right. I think I'll move into selling back supports and joint braces.... I'll certainly make a fortune off people like you.D_W":3hrnoybw said:
bugbear
Established Member
profchris will correct me if I''m wrong, but the easy way to build an instrument is to overbuild it - make it STRONG, make the materials THICK. This makes for a reliable production process (and a robust product, ideal for kids) with little risk. But the instrument won't vibrate or resonate nicely.Jacob":da9t65fq said:
BugBear
Ttrees
Iroko loco!
There's little to go wrong on a banjo it seems...
I presume the body is made to spec and so the neck, I have not studied them, but
presume it would be like guitars in the way we've got a few standard shapes, or styles.
With little string tension compared to an acoustic guitar, there would be no reason to diverge from the standard spec.
I have a Tanglewood banjo and it seems ok...
I had to remove and floss some material off the heel to get the action where it needed to be, no prob.
I have to make a new bridge though or laminate a strip on top as it has deflected into a concave shape
because of the skin deflection from the floating bridge.
This becomes more of a problem when the action is low as there is buzzing from this deflecting bridge.
As with plenty of fretted or strung instruments, the lower the action is, the more noticeable or
often problematic things become
I presume the body is made to spec and so the neck, I have not studied them, but
presume it would be like guitars in the way we've got a few standard shapes, or styles.
With little string tension compared to an acoustic guitar, there would be no reason to diverge from the standard spec.
I have a Tanglewood banjo and it seems ok...
I had to remove and floss some material off the heel to get the action where it needed to be, no prob.
I have to make a new bridge though or laminate a strip on top as it has deflected into a concave shape
because of the skin deflection from the floating bridge.
This becomes more of a problem when the action is low as there is buzzing from this deflecting bridge.
As with plenty of fretted or strung instruments, the lower the action is, the more noticeable or
often problematic things become
StraightOffTheArk
Established Member
nabs":fyxuqi9d said:who'd have thunk it - nearly twenty years ago following a tour around West Virginia with my missus I confidently told her I was going to learn the banjo, and tbh not a lot of progress has been made since then
Thanks to this thread I am seriously thinking about giving it a go. I have zero experience with musical instruments (other than enjoying listening to them!) - is there such a thing as a 'beginners banjo'?
As in tools, buy the best you can afford - for the same reasons! However, it's important to remember that it's easy for an experienced player make a pile of rubbish sound quite dazzling to the unaware. So it's best to buy 2nd hand from someone knowledgeable you trust or take someone knowledgeable that you trust to the music shop to try out the instrument (someone who won't gain from the sale). The problem with learning on a sub-standard instrument is that you'll never sound good and possibly blame it on the instrument rather than technique - the only (slight) upside I found when I first got a decent instrument was that suddenly I sounded better and certain techniques that I had never been comfortable with became much easier.
The other differences with woodwork tools is that what you want is much harder to define, and of course, an instrument that is excellent for playing in one style, may be unsuitable for another, with no visible differences.
HTH and don't let any potential difficulties put you off, instruments can be sold if you're not happy with them after all.
Cheers,
Carl
bugbear
Established Member
So true - a friend is a rather good guitarist, and has (as usual for guitarists) a number of excellent guitars.StraightOffTheArk":auoah9ic said:
But he found a second hand guitar of the make and model he'd always longed for when he started out (which is, of course far inferior to any of his current collection).
He bought it, enjoys playing it, and makes it sound wonderful. As he points out, that fact that the action and intonation are HORRIBLE doesn't matter if you're capable of playing a good slow blues and bending every note...
BugBear
A lecturer on the physics of music, who was a keen amateur violinist, once said: "There is one similarity between Yehudi Menuhin and me. He will make his sound on my instrument, and I will make my sound on his."
What BB says about student instruments is pretty accurate for acoustic string instruments. I don't know about electric guitars but i suspect the strings and components have the greatest influence. For woodwind instruments, the wall thickness and weight is pretty similar across all the makes (but it is the keys that are the main component of the weight). The differences are in the quality of the materials, the precision of the bores and the degree of custom/hand fitting and finish.
Keith
What BB says about student instruments is pretty accurate for acoustic string instruments. I don't know about electric guitars but i suspect the strings and components have the greatest influence. For woodwind instruments, the wall thickness and weight is pretty similar across all the makes (but it is the keys that are the main component of the weight). The differences are in the quality of the materials, the precision of the bores and the degree of custom/hand fitting and finish.
Keith
Cheshirechappie
Established Member
Sorry to be boringly on topic, chaps, but;
I like that! Pithy.
That just leaves enjoyment. There's enjoyment to be had in learning, but there's also frustration at being slow and not achieving a decent standard. There's also enjoyment at developing skill, and in finally producing something to a standard you can regard as acceptable. There's enjoyment in pushing skills to a higher level doing something not previously attempted. Come to think of it, there can be enjoyment in just pottering about without any pressures for a while.
For the pro, there's enjoyment in getting the cheque, but I also think there's more to it than that. I'm not so sure that a skilled craft is just something people do for money only any more; I think there must be some other motivation as well as payment to keep someone going. There must also be some satisfaction in the work.
Andy Kev.":10ja50dk said:
I like that! Pithy.
That just leaves enjoyment. There's enjoyment to be had in learning, but there's also frustration at being slow and not achieving a decent standard. There's also enjoyment at developing skill, and in finally producing something to a standard you can regard as acceptable. There's enjoyment in pushing skills to a higher level doing something not previously attempted. Come to think of it, there can be enjoyment in just pottering about without any pressures for a while.
For the pro, there's enjoyment in getting the cheque, but I also think there's more to it than that. I'm not so sure that a skilled craft is just something people do for money only any more; I think there must be some other motivation as well as payment to keep someone going. There must also be some satisfaction in the work.
Cheshirechappie
Established Member
Jacob":tz1j8f9i said:
Sorry Jacob, but I can't agree. Humans are all different, with a huge range of innate abilities and aptitudes. If we were all equally gifted, we'd all be Test standard cricketers, or physics Nobel laureates, or Grinling Gibbonses.
profchris
Established Member
On the banjo question ....
Bugbear is right that I'd normally say build light, but this is apparently not so for banjos! Those in the know seem to like heavy. I think this is because the skin head is about as light as you can get, and so needs to be in a very stable support to work at its best.
What I'd look for in a "beginner" banjo is much what has been said above:
1. Don't worry too much about "tone". All banjos are pretty loud and make similar sounds. Most of the tone comes from playing technique. Once you're good enough to recognise that your banjo's tone is sub-optimum, you'll be good enough to justify trading it in for a better one.
2. The most important thing is that it should be properly set up. Cheap factory instruments tend to have the nut slots too shallow, which makes playing on the lower frets hard work and not properly in tune. They also have high "action" (the height of the strings above the frets at the 12th or higher frets). The neck needs to be straight (and a banjo neck is long and thin, so tempted to move around) and have exactly the right amount of curve pulled into it by the strings (this is known as "relief", if you hold down a string at, say, the 1st and 12th frets, there should a little space between it and the frets at the 6th fret; but only a very little). If these are all wrong, only a very competent player can make the instrument sound good, and they will be working hard to do so. A beginner needs these right, so that the playing can be concentrated on. The woodworking analogy might be cutting with a blunt saw.
3. The construction needs to be sound, so the neck is firmly attached and the rim doesn't flex excessively, and so that it can be adjusted as needed.
Most of the £150 banjos can be sorted out if enough time and effort are spent (though some are probably beyond hope), but how is the beginner to know which ones, and how to fix them?
Two options I think:
a. Find a good player and take her or him to the shop. Once you've bought with your eyes, get the good player to play every one of that model which is in the shop. One will be better to play than all the rest, buy that one. With luck the player will be able to say "This one only needs the nut slots taking down and a tweak to the truss rod, and I can do that for you". Beer will need to be supplied.
b. Buy a second hand banjo from a good player whom you trust, on the basis that they will have set it up properly. Bit of a leap of faith, but most of the good players I know are rather concerned that beginners shouldn't start on badly set up instruments.
Bugbear is right that I'd normally say build light, but this is apparently not so for banjos! Those in the know seem to like heavy. I think this is because the skin head is about as light as you can get, and so needs to be in a very stable support to work at its best.
What I'd look for in a "beginner" banjo is much what has been said above:
1. Don't worry too much about "tone". All banjos are pretty loud and make similar sounds. Most of the tone comes from playing technique. Once you're good enough to recognise that your banjo's tone is sub-optimum, you'll be good enough to justify trading it in for a better one.
2. The most important thing is that it should be properly set up. Cheap factory instruments tend to have the nut slots too shallow, which makes playing on the lower frets hard work and not properly in tune. They also have high "action" (the height of the strings above the frets at the 12th or higher frets). The neck needs to be straight (and a banjo neck is long and thin, so tempted to move around) and have exactly the right amount of curve pulled into it by the strings (this is known as "relief", if you hold down a string at, say, the 1st and 12th frets, there should a little space between it and the frets at the 6th fret; but only a very little). If these are all wrong, only a very competent player can make the instrument sound good, and they will be working hard to do so. A beginner needs these right, so that the playing can be concentrated on. The woodworking analogy might be cutting with a blunt saw.
3. The construction needs to be sound, so the neck is firmly attached and the rim doesn't flex excessively, and so that it can be adjusted as needed.
Most of the £150 banjos can be sorted out if enough time and effort are spent (though some are probably beyond hope), but how is the beginner to know which ones, and how to fix them?
Two options I think:
a. Find a good player and take her or him to the shop. Once you've bought with your eyes, get the good player to play every one of that model which is in the shop. One will be better to play than all the rest, buy that one. With luck the player will be able to say "This one only needs the nut slots taking down and a tweak to the truss rod, and I can do that for you". Beer will need to be supplied.
b. Buy a second hand banjo from a good player whom you trust, on the basis that they will have set it up properly. Bit of a leap of faith, but most of the good players I know are rather concerned that beginners shouldn't start on badly set up instruments.
