gtr <x...@yyy.zzz> wrote:
> On 2012-08-31 13:52:45 +0000, Ed Edelenbos iPad said:
>>> Me too. As do many guitarists, I know what my guitars sound like. But the
>>> inanimate objects I own "want" nothing, and do only what I demand of
>>> them. What they're capable of? Each guitarist is likely their only limitation.
>>> As to this last point... I think it's a matter of semantics.
> Let the semantics continue...
>> If you play every guitar the same way, you are going to go through a > lot of guitars to
>> find one that sounds just so.
> That's true, but then it also depends on whether a guitarist that always
> plays "the same way" would have the scope of knowing what "just so"
> really means. Especially in the world of hobbyist acoustic players they
> usually have a very narrow range of approaches. That's a generic view, I
> know, but I also happen to think it works well for most guitarists. One
> only has so much time in life, better to be a crack Blind Blake clone
> than a person that can do five styles poorly.
>> If you are willing to alter your technique a little for an individual >
>> guitar, you can get out of it what you are going for. It is the >
>> difference between letting the guitar or the guitarist be in control.
> I've known a few hundred guitarists in life and find their technical
> capacity almost always to be extremely limited by style or genre
> (somewhat contingent on their age). I play most general guitar types and
> many other stringed and other instruments (reeds, brass, perc. et al), so
> I've always tried to play specific to the instrument so it would perform
> it's function in the ensemble. For example, I've never played nylon with
> a pick, nor on electric bass. And though I finger pick on both nylon and
> various electrics I certainly don't use my left hand the same way; not
> the same angle or attitude or anything.
> *Very generally* I don't find that perspective among many
> non-professional guitarists, and even among many pros I've seen them
> predominantly pursue one approach only. It's just a question of whether
> they pursued diversity or focused on a single approach. The focused ones
> were usually very good at it--and likely better than my discursive "set"
> of styles. That's the trad-off.
> But to your point of "control": My semantic/semiotic perspective has it
> that the guitarist is always in control. Their control may be limited,
> but the guitar has no control whatever. The guitar is no more in control
> than a car, hammer or any other tool.
>> I know what my guitars sound like and I know how to play them to get what I
>> want out of them. If some combination of my lack of skill and the way a
>> guitar is built doesn't allow me to get what I want, I find a different
>> guitar. Very often it's my lack of skill that is the limiting factor.
> Precisely. A very good example are my two primary guitars right now,
> both finger-picked: A solid body (11's) and an archtop (12's). I can't
> really *dig* into the strings on the 11's, they'll "splat"; I have to
> maintain a very senstive touch to make the attack even and the sustain
> consistent. Not the case withe the archtop--and not soley due to the
> strings. There, I do have to dig in with the strings to get a full sound
> and leverage it's inherent acoustic tonal qualities. If I don't, it
> sounds limp and nasal. Additionally I have to change the pitch/rotation
> of my right hand in order to dig without grinding up my nails. With the
> solid body I pick so lightly that I don't accrue much damage in normal play anyhow.
So in other words, you are playing the guitar in the way it wants to be
played in order to deliver what you want out of it.
>> Parsing the distinctions between opinion and interpretation of facts and
>> their vast distinctive utility [in] telling somebody else "You're wrong!
>> I know!" is really lost on me.
> So the actual meaning of words do not matter to you.
A simplistic and errant conclusion. Words and their meanings always matter to me. But sometimes I find people using them for a specific purpose and then their word selection is very much secondary to their intent. "Breaking the cycle of dependency", a very studied example of word choice, uses them to exert emotional context, but it's intent is villifying a specific government program for political gain. I tend to think about it's intent, rather than get caught in it's emotional net.
So I'll try again: The difference between *opinion* and "interpretation of facts" as rhetorical device to jockey for position is a waste of time for "debating" these concepts with me. I disregard the rhetoric when people try to shift tactics with words for rhetorical advantage. Frequently their only objective is to convey the meaning: "You're wrong." What do I care whether they put that in a four-tier cake or cram it in a dumpling?
Especially if I AM wrong! Or in the case of the "ear is the behearer" I'm just as wrong or just as right as anybody else in my unique vantage point. Sure my hearing is different than "the expert", but I will never live with "the expert's" ears so they don't really mean as much to me on a day-to-day basis as my own humble flawed realities.
> And by the way, observation is not the same as interpretation.
I didn't note anyone making that assertion.
On the other hand, everyone has just as personal an observation of complex matters as they do an interpretation of those matters after the fact. And then, they are also given to secondary considerations, biases, and cognitive "noise", such as which person they are emotionally inclined to "side with" or the brand name on the jar, or their long-term use of a product, and so forth.
Or stench! NYTimes science section had a thing regarding the way "observations" of visual data can be skewed by the stink in the room.
> >> When the back and sides _resonate_ they contribute to the sound _in my
> >> personal experience_.
> >In my experience neither resonate. They may "vibrate" but that doesn't
> >produce any part of the sound profile _in my personal experience_, and
> >as I have read about it in various classical guitar magazines some
> >years ago.
> >> Your statements of theoretical attritubtes fail to negate _what I have heard_.
> >....while your personal opinion fails to negate my own. That's what
> >we've said here, again and again.
> HUEVOS RANCHEROS
> 2 ripe tomatoes, quartered
> 2 tbsp. fresh cilantro or parsley leaves, packed
> 1 medium red onion, chopped
> 2 green onions (scallions), chopped
> 3 cloves garlic, minced
> a pinch of dried of 1 tbsp. fresh basil
> 1/2 tsp. sea salt or taco seasoning
> 1/2 tsp. Tabasco sauce (or to taste)
> 1/2 cup canned black beans, drained
> 1 tbsp. apple cider vinegar
> 6 large eggs
> 6 tortillas
> 6 tbsp. shredded cheese blend (Mexican or Italian)
> In the bowl of a food processor, chop onion, scallions, and
> garlic by pulsing 2-3 times to coarsely chop. Transfer contents
> to a serving bowl.
> Process the tomatoes and cilantro or parsley, garlic, Tabasco and
> basil by pulsing 3-4 times until it resembles chunky salsa.
> Transfer to bowl; stir in black beans. Season to taste with sea
> salt or taco seasoning (optional).
> In a non-stick skillet, bring vinegar to a boil; slide in eggs,
> one at a time, being careful not to break the yolk, cooking each
> egg for about 90 seconds, or until the white is firm.
> Add 1/4 cup salsa to each tortilla and top with an egg. Top with
> shredded cheese.
> Servings: 6
> --
> Having Mitt Romney at your cocktail party is the social equivalent of two people not turning up.
> - Timothy Stanley 4/25/12
Can I substitute refried beans or ranch-style beans for the black
beans? And do they go well with an all-mahogany guitar?
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 09:12:09 -0700, against all advice, something
compelled gtr <x...@yyy.zzz>, to say:
>So I'll try again: The difference between *opinion* and "interpretation >of facts" as rhetorical device to jockey for position is a waste of >time for "debating" these concepts with me.
> > > When the back and sides _resonate_ they contribute to the sound _in my
> > > personal experience_.
> > In my experience neither resonate. They may "vibrate" but that doesn't
> > produce any part of the sound profile _in my personal experience_, and as
> > I have read about it in various classical guitar magazines some years ago.
> > > Your statements of theoretical attritubtes fail to negate _what I have
> > heard_.
> > ....while your personal opinion fails to negate my own. That's what we've
> > said here, again and again.
> Without having heard it, you state an opinion about the sound of my
> guitar.
> As sometimes happens, I have direct experience with the sound of my
> guitar.
> It is also my opinion when you think your opinion about how guitars make
> sound is of a weight comparable to the opinion of someone like Lance
> McCollum, at that level you probably don't know what you're talking
> about.
I'd like to have personal experience with your guitars. Please, send
them to me so I can have this experience. It could take a few years
to get the full effect.
Tom (I'm sure I'll come to the same conclusions as yall and will back
ye up) from Texas
> gtr <x...@yyy.zzz> wrote:
> > On 2012-08-30 20:57:28 +0000, Steve Hawkins said:
> >> Lance passed away in 2009.
> > Sorry to hear that.
> >> There's been a lot of study going on with the guitar, Al Carruth is a >
> >> great resource, since "some many years ago". Tapping is a traditional
> >> > method used to evalute tone woods and tune tops.
> > I'm not a luthier nor a connoisseur of vintage instruments. When I tap
> > the top I can hear the qualities of the top, any potential onnerous
> > overtones it produces and, in general, it's personality as a
> > soundboard--a piece of wood. I've never known tapping a piece of wood to
> > generate anything that would help me assess the sides and back as a
> > component in the overall sound of the guitar.
> >> And Like Hank, I know what my guitars sound like, how they want to be
> >> played and what they're capable of.
> > Me too. As do many guitarsits, I know what my guitars sound like. But the
> > inanimate objects I own "want" nothing, and do only what I demand of
> > them. What they're capable of? Each guitarist is likely their only limitation.
> As to this last point... I think it's a matter of semantics. If you play
> every guitar the same way, you are going to go through a lot of guitars to
> find one that sounds just so. If you are willing to alter your technique a
> little for an individual guitar, you can get out of it what you are going
> for. It is the difference between letting the guitar or the guitarist be
> in control.
> I know what my guitars sound like and I know how to play them to get what I
> want out of them. If some combination of my lack of skill and the way a
> guitar is built doesn't allow me to get what I want, I find a different
> guitar. Very often it's my lack of skill that is the limiting factor.
> Ed
> --
> This is posted from my iPad- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
I have a miniMaton that I've been spending some time with lately and
even resting my arm too heavily on the side/top will greatly alter the
sound. It loses a lot of bass and mids, not to mention volume of
sound. I can almost use my arm as a tone knob it is so sensitive to
the pressure. I consciously keep it away from my body so the
Australian blackwood tone can come out.
This is my experience and opinion.... so there.... go suck on that.
No offense... unless ye disagree with me.
Tom from Texas... and Texans (liberal ones anyway) are always right
>> In any case upstream when it still had a minor tether to topic, the
>> discussion was "sounded good" when a master luthier built a paper-mach
>> sides and back to prove that the material of sides and back add nothing
>> significant to the overall sound. In this way we can say, "Sure YOU say
>> it's extremely nutritious, but I have yet to judge, therefore I am not
>> convinced there for in my personal "scientific world" it is a "theory",
>> like global warming, which I can reject without any use of science.
> Wrong conclusion. What the experiment proved is that it is possible to > build a guitar where the back and sides added nothing to a guitars > sound.
That's not quite right. The experiment was to prove that the guitar would sound "good" without side/back materials. We can't know if it "added nothing" without having the same guitar re-construced with read sides/back for comparison. Hell, maybe he had backs he could swap out on that thing for the experiment. I didn't realize I needed to cut out that article and have it framed.
Hell, perhaps my idle acceptance of their conclusions is wrong, however the experiment was configured. But now your conclusion is also wrong:
Without two guitars with extremely similar soundboards, one using paper-mach sides/back and the other with "good" wood, nothing could be "proven". And without the acquiescent ears of a world of experts to "substantiate" one as better or the same as the other, then this too could not be "proven".
In final conclusion: Nothing can be proven to another who is intransigent. We can never prove anything tastes good, gooder, goodest. Nor can anyone prove something sounds good, gooder, goodest. We only have group acceptance, noted experts, sales figures and other such data to "infer" success.
By the way, as for my own proof, I bought a Seagull parlor guitar 10 years ago with plywood back and sides. American Airlines crushed it.
Then--amazingly!--they accepted responsibility for it and reimbursed me. New, it was very cheap then, less than 300 with case as I recall.
So I bought another of the same composition. Sounded just as great. I still love this guitar.
Now, apparently, Seagull is no longer using plywood, but making them with cherry back and sides. Playing them in the store, I hear no aural difference.
Here are some potential conclusions. 1) Plywood produces the same resonant qualites as cherry. 2) Small-bodied guitars make less use of the back and sides than do larger-bodied guitars in the overall sound, so they could be made out of cardboard, who cares? 3) My ears are for shit and I can't tell the difference between Brahms and Iggy Pop.
There are undoubtedly another 30 ways to interpret that data, I'm sure.
> > My first guitar was an 0-18 and I used Super Slinky strings on that.
> > What can I say? It was the 60s. These days it's got .012 - .053 strings
> > which is a light set but it's still a heavy set from what I use to
> > play. It sounds great but the next set is going to be one size smaller.
> That has been my default on all guitars for a number of years. I
> always used to go back and forth between 12's and 11's. For a few
> years I played 13's and 14's. But then lost the will to prove
> anything. Besides, I like to bend strings occasionally.
> > I am concerned about termite damage on this Martin. Maybe dropping a
> > mothball into the soundhole might be a good idea. Old age must be
> > setting in - I'm getting worried about stuff like that.
> Are you serious? Termites really go after guitars? That would be surprising.
change strings?
Yer supposed to do that?
Tom from Texas
PS How did I lose control of this thread? And can ye use thread for
strings?
>> I am only partially sure I understand that syntax, but I think you're
>> serving a logic I don't buy: Somebody else's opinion is supposed to
>> trump my own opinion, because they have some kind of bona-fide's. In
>> this way the experienced professionals well know in an industry tells me
>> that hip-hop is "good music", overly salted foods are "tasty" and so forth.
>> To kick out your underpinning one more time: I haven't heard your guitar
>> so know nothing about it's sound. Smilarly Lance McCollum's opinion
>> about guitars as well as hamburgers and comfortable shoe sizes--not of
>> much value to me in the abstract. If he's recommending I shop guitar X
>> for a full-spectrum sound I'd certainly consider it; I'd consider it if
>> I heard it from a no-name without bona fides.
> I assume that you use the same logic is choosing a physician.
> Expertise does not matter.
Didn't I just say "I'd consider" their opinions above? I just don't reject my own opinion based on an expert's *opinion*.
So you're completely wrong again, with this sad and bogus rhetorical cliché. I wonder why it's always doctors of all things that are used to compare to "expert" guitarists, luthiers, disc jockeys and magazine critics in order to "trump" differing opinions.
Perhaps you discard all your opinions when you read an article about a guitar you played and didn't like. Now that an expert has give you the "truth" you just accept it without further consideration. Not me--I'm arrogant enough to depend on my own ears while living my own life. Audacious, right?
For rhetorical purpose, I'll "assume" you never get a second opinion from a doctor or car mechanic? After all--they're experts, right?
When it comes to food, wine, the sound or playability of a guitar, quality in movies, books and music, I find these all personal matters that I don't need substantiated by experts to validate. Certainly I used all their views in cobbling together a perspective over 50+ years. Now, for whatever reason, I've begun to trust my own thoughts. Call me a free thinker!
On 2012-08-31 15:44:44 +0000, Ed Edelenbos iPad said:
> So in other words, you are playing the guitar in the way it wants to be
> played in order to deliver what you want out of it.
I thought my words worked very well. No. I guitar does not have the capacity for "want'. I do what I do and it works or doesn't work to the degree which the guitar is capable as a tool.
> On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 08:26:39 -0700 (PDT), Tom from Texas
> <trisne...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >Dropped by Fuller's Vintage Guitars while I was in Houston. Tried out a Guild M120. It played well but had a brighter tone than I expected. Might mellow out with a lot of playing. The finish was very shiny and I think a matt finish would suit it better. While I was there, the sage of Fuller's came into the room and pulled down a Martin 000-15 for me to play. It was a much better guitar with a more mellow and deeper tone. He said it was a 24.9" scale but I thought Martin listed them as 25.4"(?). I compared the scale lengths between the two and the Martin did seem to have a shorter than standard length.
> >I tried to work a trade/cash deal on the Martin for a Bulldog mandolin I had with me. Almost pulled the trigger and may still do it later. Need to try some more Guild M120 and M20 models first.
> >Tom from (GAS) Texas
> I owned a Guild M20 back in the early 1970s. What a nice little
> guitar it was! I ended up selling it in the mid 1970s in order to buy
> a Martin 000-28. I'd say it was a good trade, but only because I sold
> the 000-28 to get an even better guitar (a Martin HOM-35). I sold
> that to get, well, the story is a common one.
> I know nothing about the M120 guitars, but I still remember the M20.
> Al
Sounds like a story of mine where I had a '30s Martin 00-17 in the
'70s that I sold to some Brit at the Dallas Guitar Show. I used the
money for a '56 Martin 000-18, that I traded for a '18 Gibson A-1 and
cash; then later bought a '68 Martin 000-18 from the proceeds of a '25
Gibson Jr snakehead.
On 2012-08-31 16:32:57 +0000, Tom from Texas said:
> I have a miniMaton that I've been spending some time with lately and
> even resting my arm too heavily on the side/top will greatly alter the
> sound. It loses a lot of bass and mids, not to mention volume of
> sound. I can almost use my arm as a tone knob it is so sensitive to
> the pressure. I consciously keep it away from my body so the
> Australian blackwood tone can come out.
> This is my experience and opinion.... so there.... go suck on that.
> No offense... unless ye disagree with me.
As said before: The fact that you can stop or limit the vibration of the soundboard by limiting the any sympathetic vibrations of the bank and sides is not contested. It's more or less the same as putting your thumb on the top: You're limiting the tops vibration by limiting the sides vibration.
The question is whether the composition of the sides and back changes the aural qualities of the guitar. This assumes in both cases that neither is limited by a body, a block of concrete, submersion in water or no sides/back at all.
Once last time: Not the limiting of vibration of the material, but the inherent composition of the material in free vibration. In the initial apparently incendiary example, it was paper maché. Paper maché undoubtedly vibrates some way or other, as does plywood, cherry and mahogany.
The question--the ONLY question I've addressed in this issue--is whether they vibrate differently in a way that effects the audio profile of the instrument.
> I'd like to have personal experience with your guitars. Please, send
> them to me so I can have this experience. It could take a few years
> to get the full effect.
> Tom (I'm sure I'll come to the same conclusions as yall and will back
> ye up) from Texas
If we can both wind up at Al & Cea's for a WSSC, then you could have a
short and public affair with at least one of my guitars.
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 08:18:24 -0700, gtr <x...@yyy.zzz> wrote:
>On 2012-08-31 11:48:30 +0000, Wilbur said:
>> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 22:35:34 -0700, gtr <x...@yyy.zzz> wrote:
>>> On 2012-08-31 01:11:37 +0000, Steve Daniels said:
>>>> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 13:34:24 -0700, against all advice, something
>>>> compelled gtr <x...@yyy.zzz>, to say:
>>>>> On 2012-08-30 20:12:42 +0000, gtr said:
>>>>>> On 2012-08-30 19:43:10 +0000, Steve Daniels said:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 11:46:38 -0700, against all advice, something
>>>>>>> compelled gtr <x...@yyy.zzz>, to say:
>>>>>>>> That has been my default on all guitars for a number of years. I
>>>>>>>> always used to go back and forth between 12's and 11's. For a few
>>>>>>>> years I played 13's and 14's. But then lost the will to prove
>>>>>>>> anything.
>>>>>>> I use 13s. Please to be explaining, what is it I'm trying to
>>>>>>> prove?
>>>>>> Perhaps it wasn't obvious from the context, but I wasn't speaking for
>>>>>> you, but for myself.
>>>>> Perhaps you don't know the trade-offs between tension, sound and
>>>>> physical touch.
>>>> Yer Mamma.
>>> Touch !
>> You know who else didn't know the trade-offs between tension, sound
>> and physical touch?
>>> In any case upstream when it still had a minor tether to topic, the
>>> discussion was "sounded good" when a master luthier built a paper-mach
>>> sides and back to prove that the material of sides and back add nothing
>>> significant to the overall sound. In this way we can say, "Sure YOU say
>>> it's extremely nutritious, but I have yet to judge, therefore I am not
>>> convinced there for in my personal "scientific world" it is a "theory",
>>> like global warming, which I can reject without any use of science.
>> Wrong conclusion. What the experiment proved is that it is possible
>> to build a guitar where the back and sides added nothing to a guitars
>> sound.
> That's not quite right. The experiment was to prove that the guitar
> would sound "good" without side/back materials. We can't know if it
> "added nothing" without having the same guitar re-construced with read
> sides/back for comparison. Hell, maybe he had backs he could swap out
> on that thing for the experiment. I didn't realize I needed to cut out
> that article and have it framed.
> Hell, perhaps my idle acceptance of their conclusions is wrong, however
> the experiment was configured. But now your conclusion is also wrong:
> Without two guitars with extremely similar soundboards, one using
> paper-mach sides/back and the other with "good" wood, nothing could be
> "proven". And without the acquiescent ears of a world of experts to
> "substantiate" one as better or the same as the other, then this too
> could not be "proven".
> In final conclusion: Nothing can be proven to another who is
> intransigent. We can never prove anything tastes good, gooder, goodest.
> Nor can anyone prove something sounds good, gooder, goodest. We only
> have group acceptance, noted experts, sales figures and other such data
> to "infer" success.
> By the way, as for my own proof, I bought a Seagull parlor guitar 10
> years ago with plywood back and sides. American Airlines crushed it.
> Then--amazingly!--they accepted responsibility for it and reimbursed me.
> New, it was very cheap then, less than 300 with case as I recall. So I
> bought another of the same composition. Sounded just as great. I still
> love this guitar.
> Now, apparently, Seagull is no longer using plywood, but making them
> with cherry back and sides. Playing them in the store, I hear no aural
> difference.
> Here are some potential conclusions. 1) Plywood produces the same
> resonant qualites as cherry. 2) Small-bodied guitars make less use of
> the back and sides than do larger-bodied guitars in the overall sound,
> so they could be made out of cardboard, who cares? 3) My ears are for
> shit and I can't tell the difference between Brahms and Iggy Pop.
> There are undoubtedly another 30 ways to interpret that data, I'm sure.
I've pretty much lost track of this thread, so I'm lumping a few comments into this one reply - not particularly targeted at you.
Here's thread Tony and you might find interesting re the papier mache guitar:
My favourite bit is the comment about taking his reasons to the grave.
Re string gauges. I believe that guitars were made with particular string gauges in mind. Eg the old jazz archtops were designed for very heavy strings by modern standards. Prewar Martins were designed for reasonably light strings, and when heavy strings became fashionable in the the late 60s they had to go to plain bracing to reduce damage. Now players have gone back to lighter strings, and Martin mostly to scalloped bracing. Some guitars were designed for very light strings, eg the Selmer Maccaferris, and my old rebraced Gibson certainly sounds better with 12s than 13s, the latter seem to damp it. I also have an electric that sustains better with very light strings. However I prefer the tone and feel of 13s on the dreads I have owned. Many dreads come with 12s, but when trying them I very often have the impression that they would sound better with 13s.
You can hear differences in B&S materials provided you choose reasonably comparable guitars, eg, a Martin D-18 and and Martin D-28 (I mostly prefer the former), but the differences are blurred by differences in makes, models etc. If I did a blind test on my Bourgeois I would guess mahogany, not rosewood, based on prior experience with Martins.
Excellent! I haven't read the story, and certainly hope my memories of the issue track close to actuality, but it allows me to wash my hands of it all.
> Re string gauges. I believe that guitars were made with particular > string gauges in mind. Eg the old jazz archtops were designed for very > heavy strings by modern standards. Prewar Martins were designed for > reasonably light strings, and when heavy strings became fashionable in > the the late 60s they had to go to plain bracing to reduce damage. Now > players have gone back to lighter strings, and Martin mostly to > scalloped bracing. Some guitars were designed for very light strings, > eg the Selmer Maccaferris, and my old rebraced Gibson certainly sounds > better with 12s than 13s, the latter seem to damp it. I also have an > electric that sustains better with very light strings. However I prefer > the tone and feel of 13s on the dreads I have owned. Many dreads come > with 12s, but when trying them I very often have the impression that > they would sound better with 13s.
Very interesting history and viewpoints. Duly noted.
>> >>> I don't think I've heard any guitars louder than Lance's, except for >> >>> one
>> >>> large, custom Maccaferri-style instrument custom made for Joe >> >>> Vinikow.
>> >>> African Balckwood back and sides, intentionally conceived to be the
>> >>> loudest guitar at jams. It doesn't have the sweetest tone I've ever
>> >>> heard, but it is the loudest acoustic guitar I've ever heard. Joe >> >>> plays
>> >>> the hell out of it, too.
>> >> My guess is that a loud guitar will have less interaction with the >> >> back
>> >> and sides and will have a cleaner tone with fewer extraneous tone
>> >> coloring and harmonic interactions with the back. I haven't heard one >> >> of
>> >> these loud guitars but it wouldn't surprise me if it was perceived as
>> >> being on the harsh side with an "attacky" sound. It must be a little
>> >> startling to hear something like that being played with other
>> >> instruments.
>> > In the settings in which I heard it, swing jams at Weiser with a half
>> > dozen or two dozen other instruments, it made good sense. <g>
>> I can dig that although it's not my nature to try to stand out in a
>> crowd so just a regular old guitar would be fine with me.
> Those jams are circles of monster players, all with very good
> instruments, digging deeply into standards and swinging them to the high
> heavens. it's something to behold.
> Excellent! I haven't read the story, and certainly hope my memories of
> the issue track close to actuality, but it allows me to wash my hands of
> it all.
>> Re string gauges. I believe that guitars were made with particular
>> string gauges in mind. Eg the old jazz archtops were designed for very
>> heavy strings by modern standards. Prewar Martins were designed for
>> reasonably light strings, and when heavy strings became fashionable in
>> the the late 60s they had to go to plain bracing to reduce damage. Now
>> players have gone back to lighter strings, and Martin mostly to
>> scalloped bracing. Some guitars were designed for very light strings,
>> eg the Selmer Maccaferris, and my old rebraced Gibson certainly sounds
>> better with 12s than 13s, the latter seem to damp it. I also have an
>> electric that sustains better with very light strings. However I
>> prefer the tone and feel of 13s on the dreads I have owned. Many
>> dreads come with 12s, but when trying them I very often have the
>> impression that they would sound better with 13s.
> Very interesting history and viewpoints. Duly noted.
<g> You're welcome - I love being pedagogic, pendantic, whatever about guitar design and construction. Just one further comment, based on experience again. Guitar actions feel different with the same string gauge, some soft, some hard. I'm not sure why, but it is more than action height, possibly springiness of the bridge mounting and neck profile. Resos feel very soft, like the next gauge down, my Bourgeois feels hard, and the other two dreads moderate.
> Those jams are circles of monster players, all with very good
> instruments, digging deeply into standards and swinging them to the high
> heavens. it's something to behold.
>> Excellent! I haven't read the story, and certainly hope my memories of
>> the issue track close to actuality, but it allows me to wash my hands of
>> it all.
Just read this in total and the divergence of views on the details makes the topic that much more interesting and less argumentativ.e
>> Very interesting history and viewpoints. Duly noted.
> <g> You're welcome - I love being pedagogic, pendantic, whatever about > guitar design and construction. Just one further comment, based on > experience again. Guitar actions feel different with the same string > gauge, some soft, some hard. I'm not sure why, but it is more than > action height, possibly springiness of the bridge mounting and neck > profile. Resos feel very soft, like the next gauge down, my Bourgeois > feels hard, and the other two dreads moderate.
Don't I know it. At some point over the last year I decided that I wanted every guitar I had to fell more or less the same so I scurried around putting 11's on every thing I owned. And they all continued to feel suprisingly different: Springy, loosey, full tone,
"splatty". The whole scope.
As with so many things with guitar I just rolled over, said fuck it and went on to my next stupid idea.
>> Excellent! I haven't read the story, and certainly hope my memories of
>> the issue track close to actuality, but it allows me to wash my hands of
>> it all.
>>> Re string gauges. I believe that guitars were made with particular
>>> string gauges in mind. Eg the old jazz archtops were designed for very
>>> heavy strings by modern standards. Prewar Martins were designed for
>>> reasonably light strings, and when heavy strings became fashionable in
>>> the the late 60s they had to go to plain bracing to reduce damage. Now
>>> players have gone back to lighter strings, and Martin mostly to
>>> scalloped bracing. Some guitars were designed for very light strings,
>>> eg the Selmer Maccaferris, and my old rebraced Gibson certainly sounds
>>> better with 12s than 13s, the latter seem to damp it. I also have an
>>> electric that sustains better with very light strings. However I
>>> prefer the tone and feel of 13s on the dreads I have owned. Many
>>> dreads come with 12s, but when trying them I very often have the
>>> impression that they would sound better with 13s.
>> Very interesting history and viewpoints. Duly noted.
> <g> You're welcome - I love being pedagogic, pendantic, whatever about
> guitar design and construction. Just one further comment, based on
> experience again. Guitar actions feel different with the same string
> gauge, some soft, some hard. I'm not sure why, but it is more than
> action height, possibly springiness of the bridge mounting and neck
> profile. Resos feel very soft, like the next gauge down, my Bourgeois
> feels hard, and the other two dreads moderate.
<Sigh> And another. The concept of loud has to be somewhat qualified. Resos are loud in the high registers, muddy in the bass. Some guitars have a loud boomy bass end (which I hate) and are distinctly limp wristed in the high registers. What I really notice in a guitar is presence or absence of hot and cold spots and wolf tones. The Bourgeois is loud, but what I really hear is the tightness and evenness across its whole range. The Maton with cedar top and lam b&s isn't that far behind it, except for being a bit to open sounding for my tastes.
I'm sure I'll think of a few other things to rave about before the morning is over, including the relative merits of black beans.
> <g> You're welcome - I love being pedagogic, pendantic, whatever about > guitar design and construction. Just one further comment, based on > experience again. Guitar actions feel different with the same string > gauge, some soft, some hard. I'm not sure why, but it is more than action > height, possibly springiness of the bridge mounting and neck profile. > Resos feel very soft, like the next gauge down, my Bourgeois feels hard, > and the other two dreads moderate.
> -- > Tony Done
I've noticed that too. No idea why this might be the case. Maybe the body or neck flexes in response to the change in string tension? That's a good one for Al Carruth.
> <Sigh> And another. The concept of loud has to be somewhat qualified.
> Resos are loud in the high registers, muddy in the bass. Some guitars
> have a loud boomy bass end (which I hate) and are distinctly limp
> wristed in the high registers. What I really notice in a guitar is
> presence or absence of hot and cold spots and wolf tones. The Bourgeois
> is loud, but what I really hear is the tightness and evenness across its
> whole range. The Maton with cedar top and lam b&s isn't that far behind
> it, except for being a bit to open sounding for my tastes.
> I'm sure I'll think of a few other things to rave about before the
> morning is over, including the relative merits of black beans.
That's one of the things I don't care for in most classical guitars - too much bias towards the low end. What I look for is some life in the 8th to 12th fret area on the G and the other 2 treble strings.
If your steel string guitar has too boomy a sound, I recommend an O-Port which cuts that down right nicely by creating a secondary resonance. I got mine for about $20 on eBay.
> <g> You're welcome - I love being pedagogic, pendantic, whatever about
> guitar design and construction. Just one further comment, based on
> experience again. Guitar actions feel different with the same string
> gauge, some soft, some hard. I'm not sure why, but it is more than
> action height, possibly springiness of the bridge mounting and neck
> profile. Resos feel very soft, like the next gauge down, my Bourgeois
> feels hard, and the other two dreads moderate.
Mostly it has to do with scale length and string length. Longer scale length means a higher tension is required for a given string gauge at a reference pitch.
String length is the points at where the string terminates. If the scale length and string length are close to each other, you'll have a stiffer feel that's more responsive to string bending. You'll get a looser, more compliant, feel that's less responsive to bending as the string length to scale length ration gets larger - as it would be on an archtop guitar. Well, that's my theory anyway.
> "Tony Done" <tonyd...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> news:k1r7bt$1ej$1@speranza.aioe.org...
> snip>
>> <g> You're welcome - I love being pedagogic, pendantic, whatever about
>> guitar design and construction. Just one further comment, based on
>> experience again. Guitar actions feel different with the same string
>> gauge, some soft, some hard. I'm not sure why, but it is more than action
>> height, possibly springiness of the bridge mounting and neck profile.
>> Resos feel very soft, like the next gauge down, my Bourgeois feels hard,
>> and the other two dreads moderate.
>> --
>> Tony Done
> I've noticed that too. No idea why this might be the case. Maybe the body
> or neck flexes in response to the change in string tension? That's a good
> one for Al Carruth.
> Dave H
Dunno, but that would plausibly explain the effect in resos. The Bourgeois is hard to explain, because the bridge is fairly centered in the lower bout, and it is lightly braced. In any event it works well, because it was primarily designed for playing slide. I recall that Thomas Humphrey mentioned it in an article in AG mag. - That some of his early guitars had too soft and action, and he had to change the design. Unfortunately I can't remember the details.
