instrument work? And I think that if we can understand that, we can make modifications to the sound, we can please people who have different concepts of sound, people who want the sweetest instrument, people who want more volume, people who want more projection, people who want more sustain, people who want a whole range of things that the musician seeks. And if we can better understand the mechanics, we can make our "recipes" more efficient to achieve the instruments that these people want.

     It is very problematic for me to think that an instrument that I make is going to turn out the way the client can imagine it in his mind. I design my instrument and I can tell you quite frankly, it comes out the way I want it to. It may be that he gives me a little less than what I intended, but almost always my intuition is correct. It means that the craftsman has the ability to control certain mechanical aspects of the instrument to achieve a particular sound. I think that comes naturally with a little time and a little practice, but it can be achieved: of that I am convinced.

 

<How could the Puerto Rican craftsman learn about the science of instrument making?>

 

Basically, what you have to start doing is preparing workshops where artisans and people who have already worked on these concepts come together and freely share knowledge, so that the instrument can evolve. Second, to start a sound laboratory in Puerto Rico, which is one of my particular personal interests, where one can start working from an acoustic point of view. That is why I went to study electronics. I have studied electronics and some acoustics, and I am going to take some additional courses in the School of Architecture on acoustics, to better understand how these instruments work and to discover—no, but simply to reveal what are some of the things that are hidden from us, but which are already well known to other researchers of other instruments. And from which, we are all going to benefit.

     I have a lot of personal interest in doing this, and that is why I am accumulating electronic equipment to be able to do it ... and knowledge, which it takes to understand, in addition to making contact with people who are sound engineers and have much more knowledge than what I may have, so that they can also help me in this process. In the long run, it could become a series of articles and documents that can be used as part of a book or as a text for the construction of the cuatro.

     For years I have been thinking about a construction manual. I know you guys are already working on it, and that's very good. It doesn't matter who does it, what matters is that it be done. I believe that all artisans in Puerto Rico are going to benefit from that.

     As you said, the Puerto Rican artisan is a very fine artisan in his work. They are men, (and there are some women, too) who have made it, through personal effort ... and I have great respect for all of them. I think that all they need is, to know certain aspects—which are precisely what they are avoiding— that they must achieve so that their instruments endure... and that they last, and that the instrument needs very little work in terms of maintenance. You have to give it to them, to avoid expensive repairs, simply because there are certain aspects that are simple to know but that they did not know, because they never had the opportunity to be in contact with that type of knowledge.

     I understand that we who have a little bit of knowledge in this area, without trying to see ourselves as better artisans, that we are not—should bring up this matter, so that it is a matter for discussion among all, and that it can be of use to all of us. A book would be very important at this time. It was supposed to have been done a long time ago.

It has not been done, because some people tend to be jealous, but if we realize that the amount of knowledge that already exists, there are no secrets. What we thought was secret, when we come to see, someone else has already done it twenty years ago.

​

[edited to here]

​

     The craftsman is beginning to look at other instruments ... little by little, after many decades of swimming in a sea of darkness, repeating mistakes over and over again. When the Spanish came to our island they brought their instruments. In a small investigation that I had done, and conversations that I have had with different people familiar with the cuatro, the Puerto Rican began to carve the instrument, since always, very different from the instruments that entered Puerto Rico. All the instruments that entered, no matter how old they may be ... let's think that some vihuelas, some eight-shaped guitars, Panormo type, some lutes ... which is interesting, I don't think many have arrived, because Puerto Rico is one of the few countries in Latin America that have not followed the tradition of building these instruments. However, it is known that the Renaissance lute, in an altered form, is still being built in Mexico, vihuelas and small eight-shaped guitars are still being built with the tradition without fingerboard, with tied frets. Those instruments are still being built.

It means that apparently those instruments did not reach our shores too much. They did not reach Puerto Rico or very few copies arrived, and of which the artisans never got to observe. I imagine that the artisans did observe certain instruments such as the violin, the viola, the cello. And since the Puerto Rican artisan was an eminently carving artisan, it naturally occurred to him to carve the instrument, because it was what he knew. He was a great artisan of carving: he carved agricultural implements, they carved kitchen utensils, they carved yokes for oxen, he carved pylons to wax coffee, to wax rice. So it wasn't strange for them to take a piece of wood and hollow it out and make a concave shape. And all that was left was to put a lid on it and play. Well that's what they did with the four.

This, of course, I cannot prove. But it is difficult to prove things for which we have no records. All we can do is speculate. But speculation sometimes, if we use it scientifically we can bring it quite efficiently to reality.

When we studied the furniture that was built for the time in Puerto Rico, we noticed that it was generally carved furniture where the final art was always carved. And I can't understand, in any other way, that the bending technique was known in Puerto Rico. I believe that bending technology was not known. I think the craftsman never used it because even the apparently bent pieces used in agriculture were cut from a solid piece of wood. They never bent. And it is difficult for me to suppose that if they knew the bending technique they would not use it in the construction of instruments. When you start to observe as a person who works in wood that is the most logical thing, you would definitely think, from the structural point of view of the wood, of the strength of the wood ... bend. Because that's when we have the fiber in its long and full form. When we carve, we have "short grain," which is brittle and easy to break.

So I understand in all honesty, that perhaps it is possible that the dubbing technique was known, that some artisans who worked on the coasts in boats, who worked on wooden boats, who bent their wood, that perhaps even they were bending it to the cold, that they did not do the bending to the steam. Steam bending was already known in Spain for a long time, and in Europe violin makers were steaming. We don't see that in Puerto Rico.

I understand that although the Spanish guitar has great advantages, and those who build metal string guitars solved structural problems in their instruments. And I think we should be looking more towards those instruments, in their internal structure, than towards the guitar. I don't think the traditional guitar fan is strong enough to hold those ten strings. There is another problem: the cuatro is one of the few metal instruments where a bridge is not used to hold the strings, or a metal or wood to hold the strings behind the bridge, so that all that force does not fall on the top. ... where the force falls where the instrument is strongest, which is in the bottom block. That would be like a natural process: like going in that direction. And see if we can achieve an evolved, non-traditional four. Because we are leaving the traditional four. I'm not saying that we should stop building the four, as it is built. But we do need the four to evolve. May the traditionalists forgive me, right ...

But we need the cuatro to evolve to make it a longer-lived instrument, and to achieve more qualities in the sound: more projection, more force, without having to use so much amplification, to be able to bring out and maintain the natural beauty of its sound. Naturally, I don't think classical guitar is the right way. You have to look at jazz guitars, you have to look at the structure of those guitars. The structure. And when I talk about the structure, it's the way the tops, bottom covers, and resonance top are built. I am not saying that we carve it, the way the Jazz guitar top is carved. But certain shapes can be achieved using the beams.

I know a Puerto Rican artisan, Don Mendoza, who has done extensive experimentation with. He is a craftsman who has been educated a lot. He knows the metal string guitar, he knows the violin family very well, and he has built those instruments. He is currently experimenting with fours using, and doing other things. And although his instrument is made in pieces, it is a low-cost instrument for the student who is going to learn, it is interesting how he achieves an efficient sound using that technology.

I think it is important to modify the structure to avoid the loss of very young instruments. Now, I understand that naturally you always have to take into consideration the sound of the instrument. We can't turn four into something else. We cannot change its sound, that beautiful sound it has. I have no problem with the sound of the instrument. I have a problem with the instrument structure. That's what worries me about the instrument. If I could achieve the sound of that instrument and know that it is going to last me fifty, sixty, or seventy years, that that instrument is going to be long-lived, well, look, I have no problems with that. I have no problem with that. But these instruments are currently disintegrating. And that is due to structural problems.

The modern Spanish lute is an instrument almost the length of four, with a slightly smaller box, but with a similar amount of strings, which the Spanish have already been able to solve the problem that we still have with our instruments. Simply because we don't want to make adjustments that would help us. And they are similar instruments in a way. Many metal strings, with bridges. The bridge of us comes out of the guitar, which makes the cuatro have great stresses and structural problems with its top. They fold quickly. These instruments lose volume capacity. They lose "air," as the lid sinks inwards, the instrument has less air capacity to work efficiently. the way they are structurally reinforced and the use of inadequate wood for braces: they use edge wood instead of quarter wood, that is, with the grain perpendicular to the top. Another thing is an impressive amount of strings for very loose bracing. Or fan bracing, which is inappropriate for an instrument that uses ten strings tuned to A ... which is not such a low tuning ... We are talking about almost two tones on top of the guitar.

Also, the wood used for the cuatro on the top, the traditional wood is yagrumo, which is an extremely soft wood. But even so, if it is well reinforced, I understand that it is durable, that it can be used. Because that wood already gives a specific sound. But we must try to use other woods now. I would say in a modern four, maybe try, for example the Alaskan fir, and the European fir. Also try the American cedar, which is a wood similar in hardness to yagumo. Try Redwood, which is the most acoustic wood there is. There are already many people who are using it in Spain. There is a very famous builder, Contreras, who only uses Redwood on his finest guitars, on guitars that go for over four thousand, five thousand dollars. It is a very reliable wood, with which you could start experimenting. I know some builders, like Gilín, who have experimented in this field. Gilín is a person, you have to talk to him. He knows a lot about the action of string instruments, and about the problems with fours, because he has worked a lot in that area and he is a specialist: he was a supervisor at the Gretsch of instruments made of brass strings.

Many people put beam number two, the beam that is below the mouth, many people put that beam flat. Hence, the bridge is flat too. Everything is flat. And what is flat has two ways of moving up and down. I use a technology used by violin craftsmen. There is a given circumference at the base of the bridge, which is going to conform to the top. That projection comes from beam number two. If that projection does not come from beam number two, then it will have a flat beam with a curved bridge and terrible stresses. What we do is we make the lid. The lid is going to bend however you want, and it is going to bend unintentionally. If you put it straight, it will bend where it wants, without control. Well, since I know that, I control the force, I'm going to do what I want the cover to do, not what it wants to do on its own whim. I put those curves on them now.

The lid then not completely flat. It is convex, like the classical guitar. It will be laterally convex and longitudinally convex.

But I think the way is the Martin's earliest small metal string guitars. Starting from there is where you should experiment. And if not, sit down and design a fan for the four. It's going to take a little longer, but I think that efficient bracing can be designed for this instrument. You also have to think that the cuatro does not look like the guitar in its form. It resembles a violin in shape and measurements. It has its little ears and it has the little hole and if we put it it looks more like the violin family than the guitar family. There must be a particular structure for the four. And I believe that it can be determined through experimentation, knowing the mechanics and acoustics of the current instrument, and how we can start from there. Perhaps improve it, or perhaps discover that what is being done is fine, and that all it needs are small changes.

 

<Can you make a four of pieces as good as the one piece?>

 

There is no reason, from an acoustic point of view, why not. Here we are working with two things: first is to ignore the mechanics of the instrument, and second, tradition and prejudice, which the cuatristas already have in advance. That happens with those who play the guitar too: it is a series of prejudices that are very difficult to put an end to. The fact, for example, of a guitar being built in Puerto Rico creates problems for some guitarists. If they are not Spanish, they do not touch them, because they have to be Spanish. It's like a Spaniard once told me that I went to buy a tool at a hardware store. He said, "Why do you want that?" and I say to him, "is that I build guitars." and he tells me, "but you are not Spanish." Those things happen,] see? There are prejudices here too. There are people there who are prejudiced by the construction of four natives. And there are cuatristas who do not play you a cuatro of pieces, nor do they prove it to you. But there are others who are more open-minded and with those we have to work. I think they are going to get a big surprise. I am sure, sure.

The instrument in pieces has more capacity to vibrate more efficiently, it has the ability to be tuned, its parts, from the tonal point of view.

In the whole world, there are very few instruments that are made from one piece only. In the United States there is a mandolin that is made by those who make "bluegrass" mandolins, those of the "hillbillies", the American jíbaros. They are built from a block of northern red cedar. The lid and everything is built from the same. The builder told me, "This is a native instrument, but it is never an 'F-5 mandolin'" It is never like a mandolin made in pieces with the carved tops of the Gibson, a concert instrument. An instrument of much more volume, of more power. So it's a bit of a wrong argument. You have to keep your mind a little more open.

I'm sure they will be able to verify it. I know that Cumpiano is experimenting with that, I will be working with that too, and I know of other people who are also interested in working, and I know that we are going to discover interesting things together. We do not want to destroy a tradition. We don't want to destroy part of the culture. We simply want the wood to be better preserved; that the instrument be better preserved, and be a better quality instrument in every sense of the word.