| Author |
 Topic  |
|
TerryLiberty
Lokahi
USA
207 Posts |
 Posted - 01/06/2012 : 04:48:06 AM
|
| Enjoy! |
Terry
Olympia, WA
Forever a haumana |
 |
|
|
Ambrosius
Lokahi
132 Posts |
Posted - 01/07/2012 : 02:16:21 AM
|
quote:
Enjoy!
Thanks Terry. It certainly is a pleasure to play. Feels better on the picking hand as well. Sounds well, fine balance. |
|
|
|
jkwasnik
Aloha
USA
29 Posts |
Posted - 01/09/2012 : 6:13:08 PM
|
hi, all --
I had the same quest ... finding something with a wide enough nut width. I made the error of buying something I had to capo up to have enough room. Then I found a used Martin DCX1E I could handle.
What struck me was that older guitars (i.e., a 1940s Gibson archtop, but lousy tone for slack key) tend to have much wider nut widths than most modern guitars. Maybe because finger-style was more prevalent then? If anything, humans are getting bigger...
John
Sacramento, CA
|
John Kwasnik
Sacramento, CA
|
|
|
|
GuitarVlog
Akahai
USA
60 Posts |
Posted - 01/09/2012 : 7:28:55 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by jkwasnik
What struck me was that older guitars (i.e., a 1940s Gibson archtop, but lousy tone for slack key) tend to have much wider nut widths than most modern guitars. Maybe because finger-style was more prevalent then?
The guitar evolved to suit the music. Below is an essay written by Eric Schoenberg. Most fingerstylists know him as the one who revived the OM-bodied guitar. You can find his shop in Tiburon, California. It's a little mecca for anyone who wants a really good fingerstyle guitar.
The last paragraph of the essay pretty much tells you what happened. There's been a bit of a renaissance in traditional fingerstyle guitars and I'm thankful for that.
The Golden Age
-- by Eric Schoenberg
The Golden Age, a la Fingerstyle
There's a lot of talk about the golden age of guitar making. Many people say that it's now. I still feel it was 1929-1931. There have been many great monuments to the art of guitar-making before and since, but during those two years qualities came together that made a profound mark on the modern American guitar. Of course, I'm coming from the personal perspective of a player who doesn't use picks, sits down while playing, and isn't eight feet tall. I don't believe guitars should sound like cannons! Therefore I'm talking about the golden age of normal-sized guitars, not those named after battleships or elephants (wait... that was Dumbo... I'm one letter off!).
The guitars of 1929-1931 were the culmination of the growth and development of the American twelve-fret guitar from the second half of the Nineteenth Century and first couple of decades of the Twentieth, and all of that accumulated artistry and finesse was passed on to the new fourteen-fret guitars. Having been meant for gut strings, the small parlor guitars were often built too lightly to withstand a set of light gauge strings, the bridges and fingerboards too delicate for modern setup. Many of these instruments can't be intonated properly for steel strings, since the bridges are too small to take a slanted saddle. Neck shapes are sharp-vee'd to the point of discomfort; and, often, twelve frets just aren't enough. However, the artfulness of guitar-making was fully advanced. Details were exquisitely beautiful: heel shape, perfectly proportioned pegheads, totally tasteful and gorgeous appointments that are even more beautiful now with the added years of patina. The predominant method of playing was fingerstyle, and the wide string spacing was almost perfect for that purpose.
As the Twenties eased out, and steel strings eased in, the modern steel-string was born. Those first guitars retained the breathtaking quality of earlier times, while accommodating the needs of the new music. The vee-shaped necks flattened out to an incredibly comfortable V/U shape, the 000 size blossomed, and two extra frets magically appeared. Neck width was shaved 1/8" at the nut while the bridge spacing was left untouched. If those guys only knew how perfect this combination of characteristics would be for us crazy fingerpickers fifty years later!
Then the flatpick came along, the strings were gigantic, the bodies grew because of all those bass notes the flatpicks were picking. By 1932 the neck shapes starting deepening, the scale length got shorter (on the 000's.) And then, the necks got narrow, both at the nut, to accommodate the swing chords of the era, and the saddle, to accommodate that poor little flatpick, forced to jump around all six strings by itself. |
- Keo |
|
|
|
Ambrosius
Lokahi
132 Posts |
Posted - 01/09/2012 : 11:13:26 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by jkwasnik
... Then I found a used Martin DCX1E I could handle...
... Maybe because finger-style was more prevalent then? If anything, humans are getting bigger...
For my part, - I "hate" the large boxes and especially the D-shape. I wanted a small, preferable the parlor shape and size. Interesting views. They have, haven't they? Been getting bigger? |
|
|
|
Ambrosius
Lokahi
132 Posts |
Posted - 01/09/2012 : 11:54:37 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by GuitarVlog
... Below is an essay written by Eric Schoenberg...
An very interesting essay, and thanks for the link. Very informative.
Something like this - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycbmnI-aaoE&feature=fvwrel That had been something for me.
I am aware there are copies made - http://www.washburn.com/acoustics/vintage-series/ A generous 48 mm nut, and short scale. Unfortunate not for sale here. I could order on net, but it would hit some 1.500 USD before it arrives here, and that is a bit too much for an untried guitar (probably) made under high humidity in Indonesia. |
Edited by - Ambrosius on 01/09/2012 11:56:39 PM |
|
|
|
thumbstruck
Ahonui
USA
2168 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2012 : 05:08:39 AM
|
| One size doesn't fit most. Thus the variety. I've tried Slipry1's 000, sweet. I still play my Dreadnaught. "Style is based on limitation."- John Hartford. Life is what you get used to. |
|
|
|
GuitarVlog
Akahai
USA
60 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2012 : 05:29:52 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ambrosius
Something like this - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycbmnI-aaoE&feature=fvwrel That had been something for me.
The size and somewhat increased portability of 0 and 00 bodied guitars, sometimes referred to as parlor guitars, are appealing but their tone isn't to my taste. They are supposedly "more balanced in tone" but they just sound too thin to me.
EDIT: Please note that I'm referring to volume-production parlor guitars. I have played luthier-built parlors that are very satisfying but these instruments require a substantial investment of cash. The cheapest I was able to find was for $2k and it was used.
So many contemporary slack-key guitarists use big-body guitars that the current palette seems to favor a strong bass. A 000 guitar, OM body, or classical body is the smallest that I would go with.
Interestingly, the Taylor GS-Mini is a small guitar with a pronounced bass (for its size) which I think is due to its Grand Symphony body proportions. Best Buy was blowing them out for a mere $375 during Christmas. That's quite a bargain since they normally sell for $500. I would have bought one but the nut width on these is 1-11/16". I found my fingers tripping on each other. It would have just turned into an expensive wall decoration had I got one. |
- Keo |
Edited by - GuitarVlog on 01/10/2012 05:57:32 AM |
|
|
|
Allen M Cary
Lokahi
USA
158 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2012 : 09:49:10 AM
|
Hey Vlog,
I'm not sure that the body size has that much to do with the bass response. I have built 2 Parlors that both have strong bass, but they often seem to project that so that it is more apparent to the listener ten feet away than to the player. One of the most astonishing bass sounds I have ever heard is from a parlor sized guitar that Dennis Lake built for Keith Marzullo. The bass on this guitar sounds like a piano accompaniment. It is fantastic. The guitar is made of Mango, but I'm not sure of the top wood--maybe Keith can comment.
Aloha,
Allen |
|
|
|
Ambrosius
Lokahi
132 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2012 : 10:21:20 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by thumbstruck
One size doesn't fit most. Thus the variety. I've tried Slipry1's 000, sweet. I still play my Dreadnaught. "Style is based on limitation."- John Hartford. Life is what you get used to.
But thumbstruck, - you handles your Dame like a man of the world, - with passion, elegance and skill. An ukulele man and wannabe guitarist like me, approaching an apparatus like your Lady, is struck by anxiety  |
|
|
|
GuitarVlog
Akahai
USA
60 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2012 : 1:15:43 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Allen M Cary
Hey Vlog,
I'm not sure that the body size has that much to do with the bass response ...
Hello Allen! I amended my previous post a few minutes afterwards to specifically refer to production guitars (i.e. factory-made). Most factory-made guitars seem to have tops that are too thick or too heavily braced to reduce the chance of warranty problems. A good luthier-built parlor will usually have a thinner and/or graduated top and just the right amount of bracing.
I once played a Darren Hippner parlor that had excellent bass response and volume. I believe it was an 0-sized 12-fretter based on a 1918 Martin design. Lower bout measures 327mm and body depth of 96mm.
I can't be certain that the body size has a direct correlation with bass response in production guitars. To be more accurate, I can't be certain that a larger active area of a production guitar's soundboard increases bass response. But it has been my experience that production parlor guitars have weaker bass response. My conclusion is that it's the result of the small body plus being overbuilt.
The ones I've played to date are the A&L Ami, the Recording King RP series (0 and 00), and the Washburn parlors. I think we can lump the Baby Taylor and the Martin LX into this category too. The Martin LX series wasn't too bad though.
These are based on my experiences as a player. I'm not a luthier so you might know better than me. |
- Keo |
Edited by - GuitarVlog on 01/10/2012 1:27:10 PM |
|
|
|
thumbstruck
Ahonui
USA
2168 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2012 : 5:26:20 PM
|
Ambrosius, mange takk!
Rich Smith, a member here, has built some respectable medium-sized guitars. Cyril liked the one he played.
Years ago, I tried a friends' Martin parlor guitar and was impressed by the volume and balance.
Slipry1 used to work at McCabe's. He might have some in-put. |
|
|
|
Ambrosius
Lokahi
132 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2012 : 10:46:16 PM
|
quote:
Ambrosius, mange takk!
And an other thing, you descendant from Olve fra Egge, neither me nor any of my instruments will ever approach a stage. Just for the ... yes the parlor and my own amusement 
For me this is a very informative and valuable discussion. You see, I know myself and I will end up here:
quote:
A good luthier-built parlor will usually have a thinner and/or graduated top and just the right amount of bracing
That will be a lifetime investment, and it better be somewhat close to what you expects. Will the shorter scale handle the drop down without buzzing of strings against the fret-board? Will the small box respond to the lower C, like in Wahine F? This discussion among experienced slack-key players and luthiers gives the answers. |
|
|
|
Allen M Cary
Lokahi
USA
158 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2012 : 12:17:19 PM
|
I just discovered that my walnut-redwood parlor that I built last year, absolutely loves C-Major tuning (CGCGCE). Not a usual slack tuning, but only one note off of Leonards F (CFCGCE). Not sure why, but man, what a great sound! Clearly Slacking the 6th down to C doesn't cause any problems.
Aloha,
Allen |
|
|
|
thumbstruck
Ahonui
USA
2168 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2012 : 3:36:39 PM
|
| Allen, you might also try C Mauna Loa, CGEGAE, a favorite of Dennis Kamakahi. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Nut width
