Traphagen Steel-String & Classical review
Thomas Mitchell
I was up at Dake Traphagen's shop today picking up my long-awaited new
classical. As we were going over the details, I noted how much I liked the
Rodgers tuners and that I was planning on having a steel-string set made for
the Kim Walker I recently commisioned. I told him the spec's: 00-12 fret,
wide/flat fretboard... and he said he had just finished a very similar
instrument!
I had no idea that he built steel-strings guitars and asked for more
details. Turns out, he occasionally builds them for strictly fingerstyle
playing. I'm assuming they are very lightly braced. So I had to ask which
was harder to build. It took him about .5 seconds to answer that there is
no comparison, the classical is much more difficult to build correctly. He
commented that on the infrequent occasions he builds steel-strings, he is
always surprised how easily they come together. Based on the quality of my
new classical, I guess I've got another luthier on my steel-string short
list...
Just in case anyone is interested in the nylon-string, it's pure heaven. I
was all prepared to be disappointed after reading some of the past threads
on new purchase gushing psychology. I shouldn't have worried. The guitar
is very loud with great intonation. There are a couple odd resonances on my
De Jonge(Joshia) that sometime detract from an otherwise superior
instrument. The Traphagen on the other hand seems to play in tune or very
closely way up the neck. The hum of the back against my chest when hitting
an accented bass note gave me goosebumps. The treble? Bells? chimes? hell,
I can't think of anything that sounds as nice except for an old Kohno(not
for sale) on the wall at Rosewood Guitar in Seattle. Did I say it was LOUD?
I can't imagine how it can get better but I know it will as it opens.
Then there's the cosmetics, a matched side/back set of his stash of old
growth Brazilian cut about 50 years ago. The top is done in European Spruce
with Dakes understated herringbonish rosette. All french polish finish.
Rodgers tuners with MOP buttons wrap uo the package. I was interested to
note that he doesn't use serial numbers - all his guitars are given
individual names. Mine is "Avebury". He commented that it was a hard
guitar to part with but I'm certainly glad he did. Well, back to pumping
nylon...
Best,
Thomas
Lance & Dawn McCollum
"Thomas Mitchell" <mitc...@nospam.nwlink.com> wrote in message
news:39a89603$1...@news.nwlink.com...
> All,
>
> I was up at Dake Traphagen's shop today >
>
> note that he doesn't use serial numbers - all his guitars are given
> individual names. Mine is "Avebury>
Gee I'm glad I don't use names for each of my guitars. After 150 guitars,
I'd have to start thinking up names like
Bob
Bobs
Dorgan
Yetter
Pugh
Leach (oh there's a scary one)
Mauel (prounounced Manwell in California)
Oohaa
Well, maybe that wouldn't be so hard. Name a guitar after everyone that
posts on RMMGA....what a concept! Wait till I get to "The Unknown
Luthier" - that might not fit on the label. I'm inspired! Some of you have
some pretty weird signatures. I must work!
Lance
Thomas Mitchell
year so maybe by now he's throwing darts at a road atlas. I was too excited
to ask. I think I'd rather get the one that said Romero or Tennant rather
than uhhh, those down below...
Best,
Thomas
"Lance & Dawn McCollum" <mcco...@netshel.net> wrote in message
news:sqh6n4u...@corp.supernews.com...
Bob Dorgan
Think of the inlay possibilites of signature models for the contributors
here!
I'm gonna stop right there before I get in trouble.
Dorgan
Michael DeLalla/Falling Mountain Music
I've been a big fan of Dake's guitars for some years. When it's time to
replace my Kohno, he gets a serious look. That's interesting that he's also
building steel-strings--I'll definitely have to check them out.
Enjoy the new acquisition.
Regards,
--
Michael DeLalla/Falling Mountain Music
www.monumental.com/fallmtn
"Thomas Mitchell" <mitc...@nospam.nwlink.com> wrote in message
news:39a89603$1...@news.nwlink.com...
> All,
>
> I was up at Dake Traphagen's shop today picking up my long-awaited new
> classical. As we were going over the details, I noted how much I liked
the
> Rodgers tuners and that I was planning on having a steel-string set made
for
> the Kim Walker I recently commisioned. I told him the spec's: 00-12 fret,
> wide/flat fretboard... and he said he had just finished a very similar
> instrument!
>
> I had no idea that he built steel-strings guitars and asked for more
> Rodgers tuners with MOP buttons wrap uo the package. I was interested to
> note that he doesn't use serial numbers - all his guitars are given
George4908
manliest name I've ever heard. Should have been "Dake Traphagen and the Temple
of Doom."
Unsung96
swma...@my-deja.com
months ago and had the opportunity to visit Dake at his shop. He was
very courteous and allowed me to take several photos (and video
footage) of his place of work and two guitars he was building. One
of them was a steel-string. He told me that he doesn't use
truss rods. If I remember correctly, he said he feels his guitars
don't need them. I recall him using graphite reinforced necks,
but was surprised by them not having truss rods.
Dake was very friendly and conversational, plus he showed me his
stash of brazilian rosewood.
What about the truss rods? This strikes me as pretty unconventional.
Scott
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Lance & Dawn McCollum
I could probably get you a top that would be BC, but it would have to be
redwood, and it would have to be a BIG sequoia, and I think I'd probably end
up in jail for a long long time for cutting down one of the longest living
things on earth. But I can do you one better. We'll use Mastadon for the
nut and saddle, cause I can guarantee that it's older than Christ. Or at
least as old as Dorgan. ;)
Lance
"Bill Chandler" <dr...@yourown.risk.com> wrote in message
news:jdtlqscsviac9thpb...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 26 Aug 2000 21:39:58 -0700, "Lance & Dawn McCollum"
> <mcco...@netshel.net> brewed up the following, and served it to the
> group:
>
> <snippedy doo-dah...>
>
> >Well, maybe that wouldn't be so hard. Name a guitar after everyone that
> >posts on RMMGA....what a concept! Wait till I get to "The Unknown
> >Luthier" - that might not fit on the label. I'm inspired! Some of you
have
> >some pretty weird signatures. I must work!
>
> Hey, Lance--I'll save you some work on mine! Just use my old standby
> of
>
> ...bc...
>
> on the headstock. Of course, you'll have to use really *old* wood...
>
> -----
> "The truth knocks on the door, and you say, 'Go away, I'm
> looking for the truth,' and so it goes away. Puzzling."
> --Robert M. Pirsig, "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance"
>
> the above e-mail address remains totally fictional.
> the real one is bc9424@spamTHIS!.concentric.net (if you remove spamTHIS!.)
>
> Bill Chandler
> ...bc...
Bill Chandler
Bill Chandler
>Bill,
>
>I could probably get you a top that would be BC, but it would have to be
>redwood, and it would have to be a BIG sequoia, and I think I'd probably end
>up in jail for a long long time for cutting down one of the longest living
>things on earth. But I can do you one better. We'll use Mastadon for the
>nut and saddle, cause I can guarantee that it's older than Christ. Or at
>least as old as Dorgan. ;)
Whoa--now we're getting into antiquities. I'd never feel safe playing
out!
Reid Kaplan
Thomas Mitchell wrote:
I have been thinking lately about a nylon stringed guitar that was not
necessarily a "classical" (I'll explain that below), and since you have one of
Traphagen's (he has, I have found out, an excellent reputation), maybe you can
answer some questions that have been puzzling me.
Actually, my purpose in a nylon string would be to play slack key achieving the
kind of sound Ozzie Kotani or Moses Kahumoku get. (I know, I have to be a
better player first - no smiley - that's a true statement.) I would want the
ease of play of a custom 14 fret steel string, the comfy shape of an OM, (and
maybe the beauty of some "alternate" tone wood) with that sweet mellow sound
that classicals can be made to produce.
In my looking around, I found that classicals are wildly expensive (Traphagen is
a modest exception to this) yet there seems to be no shortage of them and there
are lots of makers all over the world. There are even famous people and
organizations subcontracting models out to Mexican or Japanese factories. In
addition, I can't believe that there are that many people playing Bach or
Scarlatti. Why is this economic situation operative? It seems that supply and
demand don't operate. In addition, some luthiers, like Ruck, have 8 year
backlogs. What's the point? Jim Olson did the right thing. What's with these
guys?
They (the classical luthiers) seem to be very tradition bound. The shapes were
always the same. The retailers rarely showed pics of the back of the body
because there was no point to it. They were always 12 fret, with the bridge in
the same place. Almost every single body was rosewood and the "best" were
Braz. Tops were always cedar or sitka, Englemann or German spruce. They were
always relatively shallow bodies.
The scale lengths differed greatly, often for no apparent reason - although the
retailers said in the blurbs that shorter scales were more "comfortable" to play
- presumably because the player didn't have to stretch fingers so far. One
blurb described what was a compound or curved fretboard radius (on one
particular example) exposing the bass side more for greater bass string
movement and said to be easier to barre - surprise, surprise. They often
extolled a guitar's ability to "ring" brightly on the trebles and said a guitar
had great separation of notes. Is this last hard to achieve?
Why are the necks always shaped like the wrong end of a Louisville Slugger? And
why are they always 2" or more wide. Steel string fingerstyists can get away
with 1 3/4 or 1 7/8, yet I have never seen a classical like this (or a 14 fret -
although Traphagen has a cutaway). In addition, I have had guitars made with
necks that fit my hand (or my wife's) wonderfully - I have never seen any
"classical" luthier or retailer advertise this ability to modify. Is it my way
or the highway?
You say that Dake said: "He commented that on the infrequent occasions he builds
steel-strings, he is always surprised how easily they come together." The
concomitant of this is that Classicals are hard to make, steel strings easy.
This is tough for me to believe without some further explanation. After all,
before about a century ago, everyone was building lightly braced, gut stringed
"classicals". The hard part was to brace a top for the pull of steel strings
and get the good sound with the stiff bracing. To my mind it was the other way
around - getting great tone from a steel string required the invention. Is it
that classical guitar makers have petrified and not innovated?
I know there are a lot of questions here and I have violated the principle of
"one message, one question", but I would be grateful if someone with some
knowledge could address each of these points - they sure confuse me.
Regards,
Reid
Reid Kaplan
Project Manager
Information Technology Services
Yale University
221 Whitney Ave.
New Haven, CT 06520
Robert Newton
Reid: I'm no expert on classicals, but from my travels and limited
experience, the Buscarino Cabaret, which has a soft cutaway, might fit your
bill at around $4k. Or you could try a LoPrinzi with Roger Thurman's sound
ports around the neck which seem to make reaching the higher notes easier
and might do interesting things for the overtones on your slack key stuff.
Also, I think Langejans makes an Earl Klugh model with a stepped upper bout
that works like a cutaway (featured in a recent Fingerstyle mag cover).
Also, it's worth trying the Lowden jazz nylon-string.
I don't know but suspect that if you don't get a rather long scale on the
classical the sound could get real muddy when you tune down into that open
G. And a long scale probably puts you into custom-made land again.
I haven't heard the players you mentioned, but another possibility to get
close to the sound might be to use a silk & steel string like the
Thomastiks - they have a real mellow sound. Could save buying another
$multi-K guitar, unless you want to extend your GAS fetish.
Bob N.
Mike Papciak
> Actually, my purpose in a nylon string would be to play slack key
achieving the
> kind of sound Ozzie Kotani or Moses Kahumoku get.
Reid, I gather you're into slack key. You may know these guys already,
but FWIW I spoke with Ozzie once and his classical is (or at least was,
ca. 1998) a "nothing special", standard in most ways and dimensions
except the cutaway -- shouldn't have to break the bank for something
similar.
> In my looking around, I found that classicals are wildly expensive...
> Why is this economic situation operative?
Interesting question. I always wonder how much, if any, of it can be
ascribed to the classical world's blue-bloodedness. Things just cost
more there. My wife, a violinist, is astounded that we can commission
the world's best steel strings for prices as low as $4k and at most,
double that. A merely "good" handmade violin by a mid-field modern
maker will usually set you back five figures, and they start getting
good around $15k.
> The shapes were always the same.
I know what you mean, but there is at least some deviation in certain
areas among some makers -- off-center soundholes, Schneider/Klein style
bridges, etc. I've got a recording by Kurt Rodarmer doing the Goldberg
Variations on custom guitars with these features. One in fact is a
baritone, so maybe that qualifies as a different shape.
> Why are the necks always shaped like the wrong end of a Louisville
Slugger? And
> why are they always 2" or more wide.
Man, you tell me. This is why I keep putting off buying a nylon string.
Actually, I was in a shop last week that had solid-top classicals from
Spain with 1 3/4" necks for under $400, so I guess it isn't
quite "always."
> Steel string fingerstyists can get away
> with 1 3/4 or 1 7/8
One thing to keep in mind is that the diameter of the treble nylon
strings is substantially more than that of treble steel strings.
Again, interesting questions. If we're lucky, Al Carruth -- who I think
builds both types -- will see this thread and address some of these
points.
Mike Papciak
Thomas Mitchell
I am about as far from the voice of authority as you can get but here's
MHO...
Someone who builds both types can better answer the difficulty of
construction question . I think some of the participating luthiers already
gave their opinions on this in a thread titled aptly enough "why are
classicals so expensive" or something similar. The consensus being it's
easy to make any average guitar but because of the greater dynamic range of
the classical, it is _much_ harder to make a great classical than a great
steel-string.
Regarding Dake not being expensive, your sense of expensive must be
different than mine, his entry level Indian Rosewood model is $4,700 IIRC.
The one I just got set me back a tad under $7K. You may be thinking of the
spanish-made models he imports then does the setup on before sale. I think
they are about $2K. I spoke with him about the backlog and waiting list
stuff and his opinion was it's often a smoke and mirrors game. Many, like
Dake, don't require a significant deposit until construction begins. By
that time, about half of the tentive orders cancel for one reason or
another - buy one on the used market, no cash... So you're back to the
waiting time similar to the top steel-string luthiers.
From an economic perspective, I would bet the number of small shop classical
luthiers is _much_ smaller than their steel-string counterparts, especially
in the US. They tend not to make many instruments either. Maybe that goes
back to the difficulty issue? I think Dake makes less than 20 per year.
Even so, concert-grade classical guitars are dirt cheap next to the same
grade violin or heaven forbid, cello. Get ready to cough up at least $15K
to $20K for a bargain model. And another several thousand for the _bow_!
The necks are wide and the action is high because the strings are fat and at
low tension. I don't know what classical background/repotoire you have but
many techniques cannot be efficiently performed otherwise, a good tremolo
for example. I sometimes practice my classical studies on my Kim Walker OM
when I'm behind but just _need_ to play the Walker. Generally, it sounds
terrible and physically doesn't work well.
Classical guitarists, teachers, luthiers are definitely more traditional
IMHO but they are I don't think they're not stuck in a rut as you imply.
Look at Paul Galbraith's guitar (upright, played in cello position resting
on a steel leg) or Ruck's & Thurman's different version of sound ports in
the sides. My favorite alternative design is the Humphrey Millenium with
the slanted top/raised fingerboard. Greg Byers is also making this model
now. My instructor has one that is a _really_ nice sounding instrument.
There are also plenty with seven or eight strings as well. Dake will build
you a cutaway if you want one. He even offers a carved top as an option!
I'll forward this to David Schramm, a classical luthier on that newgroup.
Maybe he can better answer your questions. I consider myself a rank novice
so I'm sure others will be able to provide much more info.
Thomas
"Reid Kaplan" <reid....@yale.edu> wrote in message
news:39ABCF77...@yale.edu...
Reid Kaplan
Mike Papciak wrote:
> Reid Kaplan wrote:
> > Actually, my purpose in a nylon string would be to play slack key
> achieving the
> > kind of sound Ozzie Kotani or Moses Kahumoku get.
>
> Reid, I gather you're into slack key. You may know these guys already,
> but FWIW I spoke with Ozzie once and his classical is (or at least was,
> ca. 1998) a "nothing special", standard in most ways and dimensions
> except the cutaway -- shouldn't have to break the bank for something
> similar.
Yup, slack key is us. We are fixated on it. I know many of the slack key
artists (having met and talked with them, I mean - although I consider a
few to be friends) but, I have never met Ozzie in person. He never seems
to perform much, or, at least in the place in the world where I am at any
given time. I envy you (did you see him at his yearly gig at Stanford?).
Ozzie is one of the few players whose playing style I am really trying to
emulate. He has built well on the techniques of his teacher, the late
Sonny Chillingworth, whose style Sarah and I also appreciate very much. We
use his instruction book and tapes regularly. I am not surprised that his
classical is "nothing special". It didn't appear to be so in the picture in
the liner notes of "Kani Ki Ho`alu". Most of the slack key players can't
afford special guitars or consider them to be tools, like hammers, and
especially since they mostly perform plugged in, the electronics often
dominate the qulaity of the tone. Exceptions are Cyril Pahinui with his
Mermer and Keola Beamer with all his Grimes'.
> > In my looking around, I found that classicals are wildly expensive...
> > Why is this economic situation operative?
>
> Interesting question. I always wonder how much, if any, of it can be
> ascribed to the classical world's blue-bloodedness. Things just cost
> more there. My wife, a violinist, is astounded that we can commission
> the world's best steel strings for prices as low as $4k and at most,
> double that. A merely "good" handmade violin by a mid-field modern
> maker will usually set you back five figures, and they start getting
> good around $15k.
That also occurred to Sarah and me, but I bet there are additional factors
that I don't know about.
> > The shapes were always the same.
>
> I know what you mean, but there is at least some deviation in certain
> areas among some makers -- off-center soundholes, Schneider/Klein style
> bridges, etc. I've got a recording by Kurt Rodarmer doing the Goldberg
> Variations on custom guitars with these features. One in fact is a
> baritone, so maybe that qualifies as a different shape.
Yes, occasionally you see something different, like the LoPrinzi Thurman
sound port model (which I would love to have somebody review - Marc,
LoPrinzi is in Fla, can you seek him out? But, there seems to be some
canonical form that these guys can't or won't deviate from, for the most
part. Maybe they are even more traditionalist than guys who play Martins
or Gibsons :-)
>
> > Why are the necks always shaped like the wrong end of a Louisville
> Slugger? And
> > why are they always 2" or more wide.
>
> Man, you tell me. This is why I keep putting off buying a nylon string.
> Actually, I was in a shop last week that had solid-top classicals from
> Spain with 1 3/4" necks for under $400, so I guess it isn't
> quite "always."
>
> > Steel string fingerstyists can get away
> > with 1 3/4 or 1 7/8
>
> One thing to keep in mind is that the diameter of the treble nylon
> strings is substantially more than that of treble steel strings.
Yes, and I think the excursion of the plucked string is somewhat greater,
too. But that should have more to do with high action than clubby necks,
right? However, there are so many string variants out there now that one
would think that somebody would be able to design around a particular kind
of strings' properties. I'll bet there is so much economic and experiential
inertia that there is precious little incentive, though.
> Again, interesting questions. If we're lucky, Al Carruth -- who I think
> builds both types -- will see this thread and address some of these
> points.
Yes, I hope so, too. But one never know, do one?
Cheers,
Reid
--
Reid Kaplan
Robert Newton wrote:
> Reid: I'm no expert on classicals, but from my travels and limited
> experience, the Buscarino Cabaret, which has a soft cutaway, might fit your
> bill at around $4k. Or you could try a LoPrinzi with Roger Thurman's sound
> ports around the neck which seem to make reaching the higher notes easier
> and might do interesting things for the overtones on your slack key stuff.
> Also, I think Langejans makes an Earl Klugh model with a stepped upper bout
> that works like a cutaway (featured in a recent Fingerstyle mag cover).
> Also, it's worth trying the Lowden jazz nylon-string.
All these are very interesting. The problem for me, though is simple
logistics. How do I locate each one of these things without frequent flyer
miles and a year or two :-)? It would be swell if someone could review them.
> I don't know but suspect that if you don't get a rather long scale on the
> classical the sound could get real muddy when you tune down into that open
> G. And a long scale probably puts you into custom-made land again.
You are right about the long scale. 26" inches ( the metric equivalent is
660mm) is about the minimum, but I have seen (expensive) classicals with that
scales. And you are right about being in "custom-made land again". I also
don't know why there couldn't be 14 fret to the body nylon stringed guitars.
With the long scale, that would put the bridge in about the same place as on a
12 fret, no?
> I haven't heard the players you mentioned, but another possibility to get
> close to the sound might be to use a silk & steel string like the
> Thomastiks - they have a real mellow sound. Could save buying another
> $multi-K guitar, unless you want to extend your GAS fetish.
I *have* tried Pearse-Thomastiks (I still have 2 sets). They are interesting,
but had a kind of dull sound when put on a steel string guitar. We have a very
cheapie old Yamaha nylon string (hard to play with clubby neck and high
action), but its Nylon strings sounded "better" than the P-T's. Besides, the
low tension caused the neck to back-bow. I would really have to work hard to
set the guitar up properly and I didn't want to mess it up semi permanently -
it is too nice with its normal Pearse PB lights :-)
Strange situation.
Regards,
Reid
--
Reid Kaplan
Thomas Mitchell wrote:
>
> Someone who builds both types can better answer the difficulty of
> construction question . I think some of the participating luthiers already
> gave their opinions on this in a thread titled aptly enough "why are
> classicals so expensive" or something similar. The consensus being it's
> easy to make any average guitar but because of the greater dynamic range of
> the classical, it is _much_ harder to make a great classical than a great
> steel-string.
I missed that thread. I'll have to try to find it on deja news or somewhere.
Can anybody give me more clues to search for? I guess I don't understand about
the greater dynamic range. I know what dynamic range means,but why and/or how
can a classical have greater dynamic range than a steel stringed guitar? I can
pluck very softly and I can make it sound *very* loud on a steel string. Do you
mean it is *harder* to get that range from nylon strings?
> Regarding Dake not being expensive, your sense of expensive must be
> different than mine, his entry level Indian Rosewood model is $4,700 IIRC.
> The one I just got set me back a tad under $7K. You may be thinking of the
> spanish-made models he imports then does the setup on before sale. I think
> they are about $2K.
Actually, I saw a few of his guitars being retailed on the web for about $4500,
which is in line with most steel string luthiers' top ends. $7K is probably
lots more than the average luthier around here gets unless it is for Braz, which
is what you got, right. So, the price with Braz is not really too much higher.
> I spoke with him about the backlog and waiting list
> stuff and his opinion was it's often a smoke and mirrors game. Many, like
> Dake, don't require a significant deposit until construction begins. By
> that time, about half of the tentive orders cancel for one reason or
> another - buy one on the used market, no cash... So you're back to the
> waiting time similar to the top steel-string luthiers.
That is very interesting and very unexpected. Maybe Dake should insist on the
deposit at order time. I am used to doing that. It must be very hard to plan
your work life with all those fakes.
> From an economic perspective, I would bet the number of small shop classical
> luthiers is _much_ smaller than their steel-string counterparts, especially
> in the US. They tend not to make many instruments either. Maybe that goes
> back to the difficulty issue? I think Dake makes less than 20 per year.
> Even so, concert-grade classical guitars are dirt cheap next to the same
> grade violin or heaven forbid, cello. Get ready to cough up at least $15K
> to $20K for a bargain model. And another several thousand for the _bow_!
>
> The necks are wide and the action is high because the strings are fat and at
> low tension. I don't know what classical background/repotoire you have
None. I admit ignorance, hence this thread.
> but
> many techniques cannot be efficiently performed otherwise, a good tremolo
> for example. I sometimes practice my classical studies on my Kim Walker OM
> when I'm behind but just _need_ to play the Walker. Generally, it sounds
> terrible and physically doesn't work well.
That is surprising, but only because of my ignorance. There is the fact,
though, that I don't really intend to play classical repertoire - I want to do
slack key, but with the sound of the classical, so maybe that fat neck, high
action, wide wide neck is not necessary for my purposes. I just might be barking
up the wrong tree to even consider a classical.
> Classical guitarists, teachers, luthiers are definitely more traditional
> IMHO but they are I don't think they're not stuck in a rut as you imply.
> Look at Paul Galbraith's guitar (upright, played in cello position resting
> on a steel leg) or Ruck's & Thurman's different version of sound ports in
> the sides. My favorite alternative design is the Humphrey Millenium with
> the slanted top/raised fingerboard. Greg Byers is also making this model
> now. My instructor has one that is a _really_ nice sounding instrument.
> There are also plenty with seven or eight strings as well. Dake will build
> you a cutaway if you want one. He even offers a carved top as an option!
>
> I'll forward this to David Schramm, a classical luthier on that newgroup.
> Maybe he can better answer your questions. I consider myself a rank novice
> so I'm sure others will be able to provide much more info.
That's swell. Thanks. I hope he, and others, will respond.
Cheers,
Thomas Mitchell
Follow up on two points. First my comment on dynamic range. I think my
lack of vocabulary betrayed me. I wasn't speaking of loudness per say but
rather that with the low string tensions and very thin & lightly braced tops
you get more soundboard vibration and a greater range of available tones.
For example, try playing a good classical a bit closer to the bridge and
then do the same thing with a steel-string. The change in the classical
will be much greater. Again, until recently I just blindly studied
classical and never questioned why. I've recently been reading up on guitar
construction in an effort to be able to more accuarately convey what I
wanted out of a guitar to a luthier when commissioning an instrument. I'll
look for Al Carruth's post on this subject.
Second, my ignorance about Hawaiian slack-key sure exceeds your lack of
background in classical guitar - anything is more than zero after all. So,
I can't speak for the suitability of a classical. However, if you're
primarily looking for a nylon stringed instrument that more closely mirrors
a steel-string setup you might try a flamenco(lower action), flamenco negra
(made with rosewood rather than cypress) or one of the jazz oriented
nylon-string guitars. Several have been mentioned but McGill is another to
consider. David Webber in BC will also build a classical in most any
configuration you want and is modestly priced ($2 - $3K).
Strangely enough, I am in the exact opposite situation from yourself. I
recently commissioned a steel-string from Kim Walker to imitate my
classicals - 00 12fret, 1 7/8" neck with very little radius, slotted
headstock...
BEst of luck in your search for the perfect instrument.
Thomas
Best of luck in your search for the right instrument.
"Reid Kaplan" <reid....@yale.edu> wrote in message
news:39AD2370...@yale.edu...
Thomas Mitchell
vs. classical thread. I think this actually addresses most of your
questions.
Subject: Re: Fingerstyle vs. classical
Date: 08/02/2000
Author: Al Carruth <alca...@aol.com>
<< previous in thread ยท next in thread >>
I think David Kilpatrick got it closer than anybody so far. I'd like
to add a couple of things from a builder's perspective, though.
It's _much_ harder to make a really good classical guitar than a
really good steel string, although it's probably just as hard to make a
'great' guitar of any one kind as any other. (I think that was a
sentance....) Nylon strings have about 1/3 less tension than steel, on
average, so there's that much less energy on hand in the first place. Also,
much of the 'extra' energy in steel strings is in the higher frequency
domains, where your ears are much more sensitive, and where a lot of the
discrimination of 'good' and 'bad' tone happens. This has a couple of
important results.
One is that a classical guitar _has_ to be made much lighter than a
steel string in order to respond well. It also _has_ to have a very stiff
top in order to produce good trebles, since there is much less of that
available from the strngs. The requirement for a very stiff, but very light
top gets pushed to the limit in the best classical guitars; there's a little
more leeway in steel strings (but not much at the top end!).
Secondly, a well made classical guitar has a broader tonal palette
than is possible in a steel string. It will be _almost_ as good at putting
out the high harmonics of the trebles as a steel string, but can also be
played to de-emphasise them. On a steel string it's very hard to 'get rid'
of the high-end energy, and, as a consequence, they always sound relatively
'bright' as compared to a classical guitar. So, on a steel there is less
range on the 'bright-dark' scale than on a classical.
Great guitars, classical or steel string, are always right 'on the
edge' structurally and acoustically. This is why the hand makers can get
them 'right' more often than factories: we can judge on the basis of our
experience where that line is and build right up to it (with luck!). But
there is a little more leeway in steels because of the decreased possibility
for expressive range. That's why it's harder to build good classicals, and
why the classical guitar has gotten more 'frozen' into a certain design.
Making a bad steel string is like making a bad pizza: possible, but you have
to work at it. Making a good classical is like making a good souflee:
possible, but you have to work at it.
Some of the better fingerstyle players are startnig to look for a more
'classical' range of timbres, and are playing music that can really exploit
it. I'm hoping that what will emerge over the next generation or so is
another 'classical' genre, using the rhythmic sophistication of the best of
Blues and other 'popular/folk' styles and the harmonic and developmental
'chops' of classical.
Alan Carruth / Luthier
"Reid Kaplan" <reid....@yale.edu> wrote in message
news:39AD2370...@yale.edu...
Reid Kaplan
Thomas Mitchell wrote:
> Reid,
>
> Follow up on two points. First my comment on dynamic range. I think my
> lack of vocabulary betrayed me. I wasn't speaking of loudness per say but
> rather that with the low string tensions and very thin & lightly braced tops
> you get more soundboard vibration and a greater range of available tones.
> For example, try playing a good classical a bit closer to the bridge and
> then do the same thing with a steel-string. The change in the classical
> will be much greater. Again, until recently I just blindly studied
> classical and never questioned why. I've recently been reading up on guitar
> construction in an effort to be able to more accuarately convey what I
> wanted out of a guitar to a luthier when commissioning an instrument. I'll
> look for Al Carruth's post on this subject.
<snippage>
Thanks so much for this and for finding and reposting Al Carruth's explanation.
Things are becoming clearer to me. It is also really interesting about your
Walker. A friend of mine, John Thomas, has just commisioned a guitar from him,
too (for the kind of blues and ragtime that John plays) and I'll probably beg
John to take me along to see his guitar being made (Kim is about an hour away
from us in North Stonington), so I'll keep an eye out for yours, too, if Kim is
starting it any time soon. (I promise not to touch it :-).