What's a luthier?

[asingardenof]

13 hours ago, SimonK said:

There are some job titles that are "protected" in the sense that you cannot legally call yourself that title, for instance "Chartered" professions, or HCPC/GMC registered medical professions, but for everything else it's entirely down to marketing and reputation. So if you call yourself a luthier, and other people treat you as a luthier, then I guess you are a luthier!

Indeed. I'm a chartered engineer and sometimes shake my head at some professions whose practioners call themselves "engineers". In some countries the base title is actually protected without a qualifier (e.g. engineer would be protected without having to say one was a chartered engineer, professional engineer, etc.). I guess buyer beware and all that for professions like this with no protected titles.

[asingardenof]

32 minutes ago, Stub Mandrel said:

 

By US standards he would be considered an electrical engineer.

He wouldn't have been able to legally call himself a professional engineer though.

[Stub Mandrel]

11 minutes ago, Hellzero said:

And I'm the pope.

 

Continental Europe has different standards for defining an engineer (as I mentioned above). The UK and USA don't have the same restriction (a European engineer would be a chartered engineer in the UK).

 

(Incidentally my grandfather was an associate member of both the Institution of British Engineers and the Institution of British Radio Engineers. When he was elected to the latter he was training aircrew at Cranwell).

[asingardenof]

Just now, Stub Mandrel said:

a European engineer would be a chartered engineer in the UK

Equivalent to, certainly, but one can be either or both. 

[neepheid]

Shouldn't you reprobates be playing bass or something?

[JoeEvans]

Personally I would only use the term 'luthier' to describe someone who makes hollow-bodied acoustic instruments. The skills and processes involved in making electric guitars and basses are just too different - a violin-maker could probably have a decent stab at making a cello, but someone who makes electric basses is working in a completely different zone to my mind. 

[tauzero]

1 hour ago, Hellzero said:

Leo Fender was NOT an engineer at all, but an accountant and was a radio repairer hobbyist, nothing more...

 

But sure he was an inventor

 

Wouldn't "experimenter and designer" be a better title? The electric bass had already been invented, he designed a specific electric bass for easy mass production.

[Hellzero]

1 hour ago, tauzero said:

 

Wouldn't "experimenter and designer" be a better title? The electric bass had already been invented, he designed a specific electric bass for easy mass production.

 

An inventor is someone who, of course, invents things, but is also someone who imagines something new ("he designed a specific electric bass for easy mass production").

 

The second part is what Leo Fender did all his life, while listening to musicians demands, hence, for example, the Stingray and his active circuitry.

[Stub Mandrel]

1 hour ago, asingardenof said:

Equivalent to, certainly, but one can be either or both. 

 

Yes I meant equivalent.

[BassAgent]

Oh boy how I love semantic discussions.

[Stub Mandrel]

11 minutes ago, BassAgent said:

Oh boy how I love semantic discussions.

 

What did you think this thread would be about? 🤣

[OliverBlackman]

4 hours ago, zbd1960 said:

Part of that is likely to be not wanting to buy specialist equipment / facilities, and part because they don't think that aspect is something that they are good at

But I wouldn’t say that makes them any less of a luthier, which is why I thought it was an interesting point because for me that means a luthier is centred around the woodwork and design.

[BassAgent]

17 minutes ago, Stub Mandrel said:

 

What did you think this thread would be about? 🤣

The craft of woodworking, of course.

[Bone Idol]

3 hours ago, Rosie C said:

 

Especially back in the day making round-backed lutes. I'd love to make something like this, but my woodworking skills extend only about as far as putting up a batten for a curtain rail!

 

"Where's that 'effing lute player?...... Where's that 'effing lute player???"...

Oh I'm terribly sorry.... It's my 'pre-minstrel tension'

[SimonK]

4 hours ago, asingardenof said:

Indeed. I'm a chartered engineer and sometimes shake my head at some professions whose practioners call themselves "engineers". In some countries the base title is actually protected without a qualifier (e.g. engineer would be protected without having to say one was a chartered engineer, professional engineer, etc.). I guess buyer beware and all that for professions like this with no protected titles.

 

If you think it is bad/annoying with engineering you should pity psychologists. My wife is a registered Clinical Psychologist which is a protected title, but almost anyone can call themselves a small p psychologist, or therapist, counsellor, psychotherapist etc. It dupes all the poor people desperate for professional help given you can't access mental health support from the NHS at the moment. Compared to this (where people kill themselves due to poor care) who is considered a luthier seems a bit trivial, as the worst that will happen is a bass or guitar gets destroyed!

[Dankology]

18 minutes ago, SimonK said:

 

= given you can't access mental health support from the NHS at the moment.=

Without wanting to get further into semantics: it isn't so much that one cannot access NHS mental health support but rather that so many people are currently accessing it that wait times are ever increasing.

 

An important distinction, I think.

[SimonK]

28 minutes ago, Dankology said:

Without wanting to get further into semantics: it isn't so much that one cannot access NHS mental health support but rather that so many people are currently accessing it that wait times are ever increasing.

 

An important distinction, I think.

 

Sadly not - they risk assess and if you are not in immediate danger you don't even get on the waiting list, even if there are known therapies that will stop people's health deteriorating further. Essentially they are waiting until it's mostly too late before any help is offered. Alternatively they offer CBT therapy conducted by half qualified therapists for conditions where it is known to only help less than half of the referred conditions. Mental health support in the UK is shockingly appalling.

 

[Dankology]

49 minutes ago, SimonK said:

 

Sadly not - they risk assess and if you are not in immediate danger you don't even get on the waiting list, even if there are known therapies that will stop people's health deteriorating further. Essentially they are waiting until it's mostly too late before any help is offered. Alternatively they offer CBT therapy conducted by half qualified therapists for conditions where it is known to only help less than half of the referred conditions. Mental health support in the UK is shockingly appalling.

 

 

Again, I think we need to be careful about stating what "isn't available" vs what a system isn't currently able to supply. People in crisis/at high risk have to be prioritised, of course, and the system as it stands is saturated.

 

Add to this the number of people who are referred for psychological and talking therapies who subsequently fail to engage fully/at all, people who don't take medication consistently/for long enough to be effective, the influence of coexisting drug and alcohol issues, people who are unable to distinguish between mental health problems and social/financial issues and an ongoing push to limit funding and you have a system primed for someone to say "this isn't working" and thus pave the way for a private provider to promise the earth - with all the inevitable consequences that brings.

 

I'm not arguing that the system is perfect or even working anything like it should but I am very wary of blanket statements such as " one cannot access NHS mental health support" when there is a whole silo of vested interests who want people to buy into that mindset rather than the infinitely more nuanced real-life situation.

[SimonK]

50 minutes ago, Dankology said:

 

Again, I think we need to be careful about stating what "isn't available" vs what a system isn't currently able to supply. People in crisis/at high risk have to be prioritised, of course, and the system as it stands is saturated.

 

Add to this the number of people who are referred for psychological and talking therapies who subsequently fail to engage fully/at all, people who don't take medication consistently/for long enough to be effective, the influence of coexisting drug and alcohol issues, people who are unable to distinguish between mental health problems and social/financial issues and an ongoing push to limit funding and you have a system primed for someone to say "this isn't working" and thus pave the way for a private provider to promise the earth - with all the inevitable consequences that brings.

 

I'm not arguing that the system is perfect or even working anything like it should but I am very wary of blanket statements such as " one cannot access NHS mental health support" when there is a whole silo of vested interests who want people to buy into that mindset rather than the infinitely more nuanced real-life situation.

 

Nope, I'm standing by the "one cannot access mental health support" statement.

 

It may be semantics, but if it is something like for every 100 people who need a type of support there is only one place available (again it depends on the service and region, but certainly in many areas you cannot even get on waiting lists). I suppose a 1/100 availability is not a 0/100 availability and thus technically support is available, but if there is little chance of getting it I think one could fairly say "one cannot access mental health support".

 

Should probably point out this isn't about party politics per se, although we have a Labour government at the moment who aren't addressing the problem, the Tories seemed just as incapable of grasping the nettle. The problem is that mental health is a long term and not very popular issue, and doesn't fit into the five year election cycle very well hence it doesn't get addressed.

 

On the bright side, and getting back to topic, luthiers seem far more available so at least you can get a dodgy bass fixed in the UK at the moment 🙂!

[prowla]

2 hours ago, SimonK said:

 

Sadly not - they risk assess and if you are not in immediate danger you don't even get on the waiting list, even if there are known therapies that will stop people's health deteriorating further. Essentially they are waiting until it's mostly too late before any help is offered. Alternatively they offer CBT therapy conducted by half qualified therapists for conditions where it is known to only help less than half of the referred conditions. Mental health support in the UK is shockingly appalling.

 

Can't they just make them wait in the corridor like other patients?

[Steve Browning]

6 minutes ago, SimonK said:

 

Nope, I'm standing by the "one cannot access mental health support" statement.

 

It may be semantics, but if it is something like for every 100 people who need a type of support there is only one place available (again it depends on the service and region, but certainly in many areas you cannot even get on waiting lists). I suppose a 1/100 availability is not a 0/100 availability and thus technically support is available, but if there is little chance of getting it I think one could fairly say "one cannot access mental health support".

 

Should probably point out this isn't about party politics per se, although we have a Labour government at the moment who aren't addressing the problem, the Tories seemed just as incapable of grasping the nettle. The problem is that mental health is a long term and not very popular issue, and doesn't fit into the five year election cycle very well hence it doesn't get addressed.

 

My partner works in the NHS with child trauma, mainly arising from the home environment. 

 

They are recruiting but have had no applicants for the roles. This has been the case for years. 

[SteveXFR]

There is a desperate shortage of mental health workers (and all other health care workers) in the NHS. 

If only they could work out why no one wants to train for years to earn a terrible wage. It sure is a mystery. 

[Bone Idol]

Just now, SteveXFR said:

There is a desperate shortage of mental health workers (and all other health care workers) in the NHS. 

If only they could work out why no one wants to train for years to earn a terrible wage. It sure is a mystery. 

They must be raving...

[Dankology]

25 minutes ago, SimonK said:

 

Nope, I'm standing by the "one cannot access mental health support" statement.

 

You really shouldn't.

 

Even with my relatively modest population of c9500 patients, I can see hundreds benefiting (to various degrees) from GP contact, in-practice mental heath workers, crisis teams, A&E liaison teams, community mental health teams, health coaches, care coordinators, drug & alcohol services, in-patient wards etc etc etc - this really does not equate to not bring able to access support and you do hard working staff a serious disservice by parroting this reductive (and really quite inaccurate line).

[SteveXFR]

I have two friends waiting to be assessed for ADHD. The wait for that is two years and while ADHD is not a mental illness, living with it and not getting help with it can cause mental illness. 

In this area, the wait for CBT is two months and then you only get four sessions. It's really poor.

 

 

Is it just me or has this one gone off topic?