| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Russell Letson
`Olu`olu
USA
504 Posts |
 Posted - 01/12/2012 : 07:45:21 AM
|
There is no universal "best" guitar formula for slack key--there's only what works for each player. I've played fingerstyle for more than fifty years and slack key for fifteen, and I switch instruments all the time. As a result, I'm comfortable with necks as narrow as my Baby Taylor's or as wide as my Marin classical. Most often I play my old Guild (1-11/16"), but it's because of its voice, not its neck. The questions are always: are you comfortable and can you play what you need to?
Just a terminological niggle: the current practice of calling anything smaller than dreadnaught or grand-concert size a "parlor guitar" ignores the term's history. I first encountered it twenty-some years ago, when it referred to sub-0 (to use the Martin sizing system) instruments. At the time, the 12-inch-and-under guitars were very rare (I think you could special-order a Martin 1 or 2 size), so you looked for old (generally pre-1930s) instruments by Washburn or Bruno or other manufacturers. They were called "parlor guitars" because the myth was that they were played by ladies in their parlors. If you look at old photos, though, these are the guitars you see being played by picnickers, farmers, woodchoppers, and such--including Hawaiians. The 12- to 13-inch size was the most common size up to 1920 or so, though at the turn of the century Washburn and later Martin did offer bigger models.
Sorry to come on all schoolmarmish, but this is a particular pebble in my shoe.
Or is it a bee in my bonnet? I get confused.
|
Edited by - Russell Letson on 01/12/2012 2:14:23 PM |
 |
|
|
Ambrosius
Lokahi
132 Posts |
Posted - 01/12/2012 : 09:07:47 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Allen M Cary
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
Allen, that is very interesting. Say ... you shouldn't have a picture or two of your beauty around in the house somewhere? And what scale did you use? |
|
|
|
Allen M Cary
Lokahi
USA
158 Posts |
Posted - 01/12/2012 : 3:26:24 PM
|
Aloha,
the scale on the Parlor (Russell, the plans I used said Parlor Guitar--LMI) is 24.9" 12 fret.
I have a picture or two. I'll try to post them, but they aren't on this computer.
Allen |
|
|
|
Russell Letson
`Olu`olu
USA
504 Posts |
Posted - 01/12/2012 : 5:44:03 PM
|
And the networks have something they call "reality shows." I'm just sayin'. . .
|
|
|
|
Ambrosius
Lokahi
132 Posts |
Posted - 01/12/2012 : 11:43:38 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Russell Letson
...
Just a terminological niggle: the current practice of calling anything smaller than dreadnaught or grand-concert size a "parlor guitar" ignores the term's history. I first encountered it twenty-some years ago, when it referred to sub-0 (to use the Martin sizing system) instruments. At the time, the 12-inch-and-under guitars were very rare (I think you could special-order a Martin 1 or 2 size), so you looked for old (generally pre-1930s) instruments by Washburn or Bruno or other manufacturers. They were called "parlor guitars" because the myth was that they were played by ladies in their parlors. If you look at old photos, though, these are the guitars you see being played by picnickers, farmers, woodchoppers, and such--including Hawaiians. The 12- to 13-inch size was the most common size up to 1920 or so, though at the turn of the century Washburn and later Martin did offer bigger models.
...
Thanks for joining. Your outline of the history is probably highly correct. However, - been browsing a few of large and smaller manufacturers sites lately, I'd say that the term 'Parlor' is now widespread. What body-sizes the various manufacturers connects to the term, I don't have the full view of. It seems to be 'the smallest they have to offer'.
Seagull (although they don't use the term 'parlor') has the lower bout of 13". For my part I started here (A&L AMI, same manufacturer, different brand) looking for a comfortable size, not considering the neck before I'd tried it for a while and found it restricting. Take Seagull, - the seems to standardize on a nut-width of 1.8" except on their 'parlor' size, they step down to 1.72". (All A&L got this neck, though). Why the step-down? Smallest people, smallest guitars? Like a bit scale-down?
Apart from the size, my impression is that the term is connected to the shape as well, the shape many will see as 'old fashioned', rounded shoulders, a clear waist and, in proportion to the lower bout, a larger upper bout.
Terms aside. There seems to be a demand in the market for smaller guitars at present, which benefits me looking for one. |
|
|
|
Ambrosius
Lokahi
132 Posts |
Posted - 01/13/2012 : 12:06:55 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Allen M Cary
Aloha,
the scale on the Parlor (Russell, the plans I used said Parlor Guitar--LMI) is 24.9" 12 fret.
I have a picture or two. I'll try to post them, but they aren't on this computer.
Allen
The scale Seagull uses is in that range, - 24.84" (although on all their models). The set-up on my present guitar gives an action on the 12th fret of some 5-6/64 inches (2.1 mm), - not bad. Even with light gauge strings, I can slack down to the C on 6th string without fret-buzzing. Is the conclusion that slack-key can be played on shorter scale guitars without problems?
As stated by Russell:
quote:
If you look at old photos, though, these are the guitars you see being played by picnickers, farmers, woodchoppers, and such--including Hawaiians. The 12- to 13-inch size was the most common size up to 1920 or so, though at the turn of the century Washburn and later Martin did offer bigger models.
Did these pre-1920 guitars have shorter (shorter like shorter than 'standard' 25.5" or 650mm) scale? They were certainly played on a variations of open tunings. |
Edited by - Ambrosius on 01/13/2012 12:42:06 AM |
|
|
|
Russell Letson
`Olu`olu
USA
504 Posts |
Posted - 01/13/2012 : 08:11:54 AM
|
My turn-of-the-century Washburn parlor (officially, an "1897 style" Model 101, 12.5" lower bout) is put away, but Hubert Pleijster's book Washburn Prewar Instrument Styles puts their scale length at 24.25".
Here's the standard data for Martin's small-body 12-fret guitars:
Size 0: 13.5" lower bout, 24.9" scale
Size 1: 12.75" lower bout, 24.9" scale
Size 2: 12" lower bout, 24.5" scale
I own Martin 0 and 2 guitars from the 1920s and a pair of Washburn-built model 101s (one is labeled Mason, but it's a Washburn-built 101 equivalent) and have played slack key on all of them and on my Baby Taylor (~22.75" scale) with no problems. I'm pretty much a taropatch picker, so I don't slack down to C, though if I did, I'd just bump the sixth string up a gauge to compensate.
|
|
|
|
Ambrosius
Lokahi
132 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2012 : 03:28:23 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Russell Letson
My turn-of-the-century Washburn parlor (officially, an "1897 style" Model 101, 12.5" lower bout) is put away, but Hubert Pleijster's book Washburn Prewar Instrument Styles puts their scale length at 24.25".
Here's the standard data for Martin's small-body 12-fret guitars:
Size 0: 13.5" lower bout, 24.9" scale
Size 1: 12.75" lower bout, 24.9" scale
Size 2: 12" lower bout, 24.5" scale
I own Martin 0 and 2 guitars from the 1920s and a pair of Washburn-built model 101s (one is labeled Mason, but it's a Washburn-built 101 equivalent) and have played slack key on all of them and on my Baby Taylor (~22.75" scale) with no problems. I'm pretty much a taropatch picker, so I don't slack down to C, though if I did, I'd just bump the sixth string up a gauge to compensate.
Russel, that pretty much rounds up this thread in a neat way. For me this discussion has many aspects, - historical, cultural and of course a technical one.
That said, - I'm aware that going down in size of the sound-box, you will loose something. After all, there was a reason for the development towards larger sound-boxes, starting in the 1930s. Probably the clarity and projection of the bass. Listening to music performed by one of the Hawaiian masters, there is an impressive bass response in the recordings.
If you all will bear with me for one more thing, - I assume your historic guitars has a wider string spacing at the nut, then the 'standard' scale guitars? I have been very comfortable playing my ukulele. Before this thread, I did try to find out what fret-board and string-spacing I should find equally comfortable on a guitar by adding two strings to the ukulele's nut, - ending up with the nut-width of a classic guitar, 52 mm. That felt wrong.
This thread has lead me to understand that if I shall compare, I shall compare string-spacing at frets of equal sizes. I have to go down to the 7'th fret on my present guitar, to be equal to my tenor (17" scale) ukulele's first fret in size (length). So? - the string-spacing on my ukulele's first fret is exactly the same as the string-spacing on my guitar's (24.9" scale)7'th fret.
Did this make sense to more than myself? 
Thanks. |
|
|
|
thumbstruck
Ahonui
USA
2168 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2012 : 05:29:45 AM
|
| Ambrosius, you're on your way to being a luthier. BTW, the bigger bodied guitars were made for accompanying other instruments. It's often forgotten that the 4 lower pitched strings are in the 'cello range and that written music for the guitar is played an octave lower. |
|
|
|
Russell Letson
`Olu`olu
USA
504 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2012 : 07:14:45 AM
|
Guitar design is interestingly complicated. Size matters, but not in isolation. One might wonder why the classical guitar--which traditionally has had to get along without amplification in concert halls and ensembles--has remained at pretty much the same size for so long. Luthiers have tackled the volume problem in a variety of ways (bracing, exotic top design) that keep the soundbox the same size. The steel-string guitar family, on the other hand, grew bigger and even changed fundamental soundbox structure (the archtop, the Selmer-Macafferri design), but along with those design changes came big changes in the sound character of the instrument.
In the flat-top part of the family, the big-box dreadnaught found its niche in country-music ensembles, where it could be heard *under* the fiddle and the banjo--not unlike the niche and function of 17- or 18-inch acoustic archtop in the big swing band. The popularity of the dreadnaught and the jumbo (e.g., Gibson J-200 or Guild F-50) flat-top among folk players from the late 1950s onward strikes me as partly tied to non-musical matters, including which folk hero played a particular model. Rev. Gary Davis played a J-200, so many of his students did too. (Asked about why he chose a Gibson, the Rev is said to have replied, "Because they play good in the rain.") In this, they're stage guitars as much as anything else. I've heard some examples of dreads and jumbos that sound mighty dead next to a Martin 00 or even my 0-18. It's all about the total design/construction formula.
String spacing--at the nut and bridge--seems to matter more to some players than others. As I wrote before, I'm used to a range of geometries, but I know fingerstyle pickers who really don't care for, say, the Guild formula (1-11/16" at the nut) and others who find the 1-7/8" of a couple of my guitars uncomfortable. I don't notice anything until I get down to 1-5/8 or so--and I do find my tiny Kumalae soprano uke harder to manage than my Martin concert past first position.
|
|
|
|
Ambrosius
Lokahi
132 Posts |
Posted - 01/18/2012 : 06:28:00 AM
|
quote:
Ambrosius, you're on your way to being a luthier.
Not in this life, thumbstuck. However, like most ladies, the Seagull I ended up with is starting to behave rather nicely with a little care, like they all do. A little lemon oil to the fret-board, new and light Elixir phosphor bronze with nanoweb coating, a new and fairly lower tusq saddle. Now glissandos up and down the neck without squeaking like an old cat. She sings just nice.
At the very same day receiving mr Kotani's book 'Guitar Playing Hawaiian style', which I were recommended by this forum, - no technical difficulties, just plenty of sound, harmonies and an easy fret-board to deal with.
I enjoys it very much and it is rewarding. |
|
|
|
TerryLiberty
Lokahi
USA
207 Posts |
Posted - 01/18/2012 : 08:07:35 AM
|
Ambrosius:quote:
...a new and fairly lower tusq saddle...
I'm curious. What are your string clearances (bass and treble) at the 12th fret? My Seagull still feels high at 3mm and 2mm.
quote:
I enjoys it very much and it is rewarding.
Sounds like you've arrived at where we all want to be in out journey. Now, we need to begin seeing some You-Tube results of your efforts!! Maybe Auntie Wanda will put them on Mele Monday! |
Terry
Olympia, WA
Forever a haumana |
Edited by - TerryLiberty on 01/18/2012 08:09:29 AM |
|
|
|
Ambrosius
Lokahi
132 Posts |
Posted - 01/18/2012 : 09:41:25 AM
|
quote:
I'm curious. What are your string clearances (bass and treble) at the 12th fret? My Seagull still feels high at 3mm and 2mm.
Terry, I bought a blank in tusq and stepped down gradually till now 1.8 and 1.2 mm. (Didn't want to mess with the original saddle). No buzzing of any kind, even with the 6th string tuned down to a C. Anyhow, I think changing the factory strings to the nano-coated Elixir(Light .011) did as much for the playability.
The guitar shop manager recommended them to me, should be great sounding with cedar tops. True, they sounds much better, but much easier to play on as well. |
|
|
|
GuitarVlog
Akahai
USA
60 Posts |
Posted - 01/18/2012 : 10:11:14 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by TerryLiberty
My Seagull still feels high at 3mm and 2mm.
Taylor's standard is 6-and-4-out-the-door. That's 6/64" and 4/64" (about 0.095" and 0.065", or 2.5mm and 1.6mm). That's an average which supposedly works well for most styles: pick strumming, fingerpicking, fingerstyle.
I've set both of my guitars to that standard. My understanding is that lower action can also reduce the volume of a guitar. Whether that reduction would be perceptible? I don't know. |
- Keo |
Edited by - GuitarVlog on 01/18/2012 10:16:40 AM |
|
|
|
TerryLiberty
Lokahi
USA
207 Posts |
Posted - 01/18/2012 : 10:54:41 AM
|
Mahalo, Ambrosius and Keo for your responses. I've got to tackle mine and see what I can do as soon as the "backup" saddle arrives from Seagull.
Regards. |
Terry
Olympia, WA
Forever a haumana |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Nut width
