Official Luthiers Forum!
http://w-ww.luthiersforum.com/forum/

Classical vs Steel String priorities
http://w-ww.luthiersforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10102&t=3496		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  John Kinnaird [ Mon Oct 10, 2005 11:32 pm ]
Post subject: 
    I was in the Maple Street Guitar store the other day (in Atlanta) and was speaking to the proprietor there who is an excellent classical guitarist. You might say that his speciality is classical guitars, though his store sells both classical and steel string instruments. I was just showing off one of my instruments. The first thing he did when he took my little 00 out of the case was play it for about 30 minutes. He did not check out the binding or the finish or the inlay. After he played it he made comments (I can't resist the temptation to say favorable comments ) and then looked over the body and finish work seemingly as an afterthought.

I asked him about this apporach to guitar evalutation and he said that he had noticed that most steel string players scrutanize an instruments build, looking at the construction, evaluating joints, binding, inlay, finish, looking for faults, and then play. If the exterior is perfect they are willing to overlook sonic limitations. Classical players almost always evaluate the sound and action of an instrument and if they like that are willing to overlook aesthetic limitations.

I thought that was an interesting difference in priorities. I may switch to classical construction.

John
Author:  LanceK [ Mon Oct 10, 2005 11:48 pm ]
Post subject: 
[QUOTE=John Kinnaird]    
I thought that was an interesting difference in priorities. I may switch to classical construction.

John
[/QUOTE]

Good point John - Although, Id argue that its harder to build a great sounding guitar than it is a great looking one
Author:  Dave Rector [ Tue Oct 11, 2005 12:07 am ]
Post subject: 
[QUOTE=LanceK]Although, Id argue that its harder to build a great sounding guitar than it is a great looking one [/QUOTE]

Hmmmm, mine always seem to sound better than they look.
Author:  Robbie O'Brien [ Tue Oct 11, 2005 1:23 am ]
Post subject: 
I have known George Petsch from Maple Street Guitars for many years, as I grew up in Atlanta. On many occassions he has taken the time to evaluate my guitars. He always makes time in his busy schedule and and then gives an honest opinion. He really knows his stuff and not only that, he is one of the nicest guys in the business. He is also one of the best classical players I have ever met.
If you see him again soon John please tell him I say hello.   
Author:  Dave White [ Tue Oct 11, 2005 1:36 am ]
Post subject: 
John,

Before I built and was just a player, it was always the sound/playability of the guitar that drew me in first. Then it would be what I call the "aesthetics" - the overall look/shape and materials used, and lastly the fit and finish.

I find the "cabinet making" side of building guitars a lot harder than the "acoustics" side - this is not to say that getting the sound to "absolute perfection", whatever that may be, is easy.

I am upfront with all of my customers in that my "fit and finish" skills are still on a learning curve and pont thenm in the direction of (much!!) more expensive handbuilt guitars or the ever increasing multitude of great looking cheaper CNC made production models. Customers always have choice.They buy my guitars because they like the "music" they can make together.

That having been said, I haven't sold many yet and I have the luxury of another reliable income stream. If I had to do this as a sole living I suspect that I would be single (or married to an understanding wife with a good job as they say!!!) poor, but probably pretty content.
Author:  John Elshaw [ Tue Oct 11, 2005 1:44 am ]
Post subject: 
John,

I'm almost embarassed to say I agree with you as I was completely ignorant to most of the build aspects of a guitar, and only cared about sound (at least initially). Maybe that's why we always see the discussion here about classical guitars being boring with no ornate decoration, etc. Maybe classical players just aren't interested in that and aren't willing to pay the extra upcharge. I've been playing for over 25 years, but have only been building for 2 and can honestly say I had no clue about the build process or what to look for as far as build quality until I started building. Sound and playability were priority 1.

I think another reason sound is #1 for classical and maybe a second thought for SS is because so many classical players never amplify their sound. If you amplify a guitar, it really changes the sound, no matter how good of a mic you have. I don't want to step on any toes here but I bet once you amplify a guitar, there are many listeners that won't be able to tell between a good sounding guitar and a bad one. The electronics just change the sound, in my opinion just making them all sound a bit more alike. Of course unamplified there's a huge difference. When a builder spends so much time trying to perfect the volume, tone, clarity, etc, and then it gets plugged in, many of those nuances are lost. I don't mean to bash anybody who plays amplified, I just think it's easier to appreciate the builders sound when it's not plugged in.

Cheers!

John   
Author:  Michael McBroom [ Tue Oct 11, 2005 1:52 am ]
Post subject: 
I find myself agreeing with George (the proprietor) and Dave and Dave. I've been a classical player for over 30 years, and the first thing I check out is the sound, next the playability. Appearance is a distant third. But appearance is important in this sense: a good player is looking for a guitar made from quality woods, so one tends to examine critically the soundboard and the back/sides wood. When it comes to the gingerbread, though, this is not so important, although it is nice. The gingerbread is like jewelry -- non-essential stuff, but still nice to have.

It is easier for me also to build a nice sounding and playing instrument than a nice looking one. Getting the purfling mitred properly and binding laid without gaps, and putting a good finish on the instrument, takes longer for me to do than the basic build.

I was fortunate enough to take a master class from Pepe Romero back in the mid-70s. He had just received one of Miguel Rodriguez's first "Churchdoor" guitars. I asked him what he thought of Rodriguez as a builder, and I recall him telling me that Rodriguez's guitars were magnificent instruments, but delicate, and that the fit and finish was just sort of so-so. I guess I was sort of surprised by that, feeling that any guitar of that caliber should look as good as it sounded and played. I was young and still half-stupid back then, though.

Best,

Michael
Author:  Robbie O'Brien [ Tue Oct 11, 2005 2:03 am ]
Post subject: 
May I make another observation as to why classical builders put more emphasis on sound? IMHO a steel string has much more kinetic energy to work with than a classical. Approx 180 pounds of tension as oppossed to approx half that in a classical. It takes more work to get a classical guitar to sound.

As far as looks and finishes go... A very famous builder once told me that if you have two guitars on a shelf, one is high gloss and the other is satin, the majority of consumers will reach for the shiney one first. Could this be why we still use the dangerous stuff for finishing instead of French Polishing our guitars?
Author:  Michael Dale Payne [ Tue Oct 11, 2005 2:33 am ]
Post subject: 
Huummmm..while scratching my head. I build only Steel string at this point. I may change that trend shortly. Anyway it seems I have a tendency to build flashy guitars, inlay and paua purfling and such. Mostly requested by stage performers in my area. With that said, every performer that has come into my shop picks up my "Plain Jane" OM last, but set and plays it the longest.

It is a mahogany and addy build with extra thin top and back .10/.70 and light top bracing. It was an experiment guitar. It has a lot of resonance and pretty loud for an OM

Anyway my point is, it seems to me most steel string player are very vissual. however good players do gravitate to good sound when they hear it
Author:  jfrench [ Tue Oct 11, 2005 3:02 am ]
Post subject: 
Classical players are definitely a different bunch than steel string players. My experiences tend to echo the same thing John experienced.

Classical guitarists seem to look for buzzing and intonation issues before purfling issues. But it still needs to be all there. If you've got the sound, the plabability, and the aesthetics all totally licked then when someone buys a guitar from you, you may have sold three instead of one.

The classical guitar is a very sensitive instrument - even a cheap one. When someone plays one there is usually nothing else going on (and no other instruments), and people often are seated opposite of you scrutinizing your ability to play accurately and with emotion. In this genre an audience is almost an adversary, or at very least somewhat intimidating. Being that your audience or your teacher is not scrutinizing the purflings on your guitar, it doesn't surprise me that the beauty of sound and the playability are the first things a classical guitarist thinks of.

Michael - a local teacher and friend of Pepe Romero's lent him his "churchdoor" Rodriguez a couple years ago, and last I spoke with him, he couldn't convince him to return it!jfrench38636.5021412037
Author:  RussellR [ Tue Oct 11, 2005 3:13 am ]
Post subject: 
I only make steel strings at this stage.

I would say my customers fall in to two distanct categories, at one end it is all about sound and playability. They are less interested in the asthetics, I find that this group tend to love simple finish, where rhe wood does the talking and a good lot are not into lacquer at all.

I then find I have another group who are more intersted in detailing than sound and playability.

Like Dave I am still developing and improving my skills and fineese, although I guess I will still be developing all the time.

Just my experience
Author:  Michael McBroom [ Tue Oct 11, 2005 3:15 am ]
Post subject: 
[QUOTE=jfrench]
Michael - a local teacher and friend of Pepe Romero's lent him his "churchdoor" Rodriguez a couple years ago, and last I spoke with him, he couldn't convince him to return it![/QUOTE]

Hehe. Well at least it's in good hands! Who's the teacher? I wonder if I know him.

Also, do you ever attend the monthly Guitar Houston meetings? I've attended a few. I find it's become a good place for vetting my guitars. The feedback has been helpful.

Best,

Michael
Author:  jfrench [ Tue Oct 11, 2005 4:14 am ]
Post subject: 
Michael, the Rodriguez belongs to Terry Gaschen (or Pepe Romero, depending on which of them you speak with!). He may have gotten it back by now, its been a while and I'm somewhat out of the loop on what happens around here.

Every once in a while I'll drop by a Guitar Houston meeting or concert, but I tend to keep a low profile the past year or more. GH and organizations like it can be very helpful though.
Author:  Colin S [ Tue Oct 11, 2005 4:14 am ]
Post subject: 
OK I guess I am genetically a classical man who builds Steel Strings. To me the SOUND is everything and then some more. From a pride point of view I want the fit and finish to be up there as good as I can, but it is definetely secondary to the sound. We mustn't forget that what we are building (or trying to) are musical instruments whose sole purpose is to produce a magical sound. OK we each have our idea of what that sound should be, but it is the end we should all aim at.

My guitars tend toward the 'restrained' as far as ornamentation, I use no pearl or abalone as they are not to my taste and I don't like them buffed to a glassy finish. I'm not addicted to zoot wood, ok I like it to look nice but would pay premium prices for great sounding wood rather than great looking wood.

So to sum it up, I guess I build classical guitars with steel strings. (though I tend to build more for gut strings nowadays!)

Colin
Author:  JBreault [ Tue Oct 11, 2005 4:24 am ]
Post subject: 
As a player of both, I would have to say that sound is the reason for the guitar. If it doesn't sound good, it might as well be wall decoration. There are some steel string players who like the flashy instrument, but as I've said before, you can't argue with the selling power of the plain old Martin D28. It isn't the looks of that guitar that sell it.   
Author:  Michael Dale Payne [ Tue Oct 11, 2005 7:10 am ]
Post subject: 
Joe don't get me wrong I love Older Martin D-28s, but having worked on couple 2000 models real resently, It's not the sound that selling them, it is the historic name. Maybe the ones that came in were dudes but compaired to some I have played or worked on these two had no life to them.
Author:  Michael McBroom [ Tue Oct 11, 2005 8:30 am ]
Post subject: 
[QUOTE=jfrench] Michael, the Rodriguez belongs to Terry Gaschen (or Pepe Romero, depending on which of them you speak with!). He may have gotten it back by now, its been a while and I'm somewhat out of the loop on what happens around here.[/QUOTE]

Ah, I know Terry! I bought my first concert quality guitar from him -- in fact, shortly before the master class I mentioned earlier. Gawd, that was a long time ago. Been a while since I've talked with him though.

Best,

Michael
Author:  CarltonM [ Tue Oct 11, 2005 8:40 am ]
Post subject: 
[QUOTE=Robbie O'Brien] May I make another observation as to why classical builders put more emphasis on sound? IMHO a steel string has much more kinetic energy to work with than a classical. Approx 180 pounds of tension as oppossed to approx half that in a classical. It takes more work to get a classical guitar to sound.
[/QUOTE]

Ouch, Robbie! I have to say that the reality is just the opposite. Put a fingerpicking, unamplified steel string player next to a fingerpicking, unamplified classical player in a large auditorium and sit in the back row while they play. You'll have to listen closely to hear the classical, but you won't be able to hear the steel string at all unless the other guy stops playing. Forget about playing an acoustic steel string with an orchestra--it just can't happen without amplification.
Author:  Michael McBroom [ Tue Oct 11, 2005 11:33 am ]
Post subject: 
[QUOTE=CarltonM] [QUOTE=Robbie O'Brien] May I make another observation as to why classical builders put more emphasis on sound? IMHO a steel string has much more kinetic energy to work with than a classical. Approx 180 pounds of tension as oppossed to approx half that in a classical. It takes more work to get a classical guitar to sound.
[/QUOTE]

Ouch, Robbie! I have to say that the reality is just the opposite. Put a fingerpicking, unamplified steel string player next to a fingerpicking, unamplified classical player in a large auditorium and sit in the back row while they play. You'll have to listen closely to hear the classical, but you won't be able to hear the steel string at all unless the other guy stops playing. Forget about playing an acoustic steel string with an orchestra--it just can't happen without amplification.[/QUOTE]

Thought I'd chime in again.

I didn't want to appear contentious when I read Robbie's remark, so I just let it pass, although I find it to be a truism not based on fact. My 40 years of experience playing guitars suggest that Carlton is absolutely right. You would think that a steel string, with twice the string tension, would be louder than a classical, wouldn't you? But I have found the reality to be quite the oppposite. I suspect the reason why a classical is louder than a steel string is because of its much lighter construction, which allows it to vibrate much more freely.

But what a steel string has all over a classical is brilliance and sustain. No question about that at all.

It is not entirely appropriate to compare a guitar with a violin, but in terms of string tension, I think some comparisons can be drawn. The violin is a fairly low-tensioned instrument, yet it produces great volume, much louder than the guitar. Much of this is due to the fact that it is bowed, which continually excites the instrument, but what I'm getting at is the fact that an instrument with strings of relatively low tension is indeed capable of great volume. And then if you look at the violin's distant cousin, the mandolin -- tuned the same, but which has to resort to double courses to get a volume that still isn't as loud, and which also carries much greater tension than the violin does -- once again we see a situation where greater tension does not necessarily translate into greater volume.

Best,

Michael
Author:  Robbie O'Brien [ Tue Oct 11, 2005 12:09 pm ]
Post subject: 
But what a steel string has all over a classical is brilliance and sustain. No question about that at all.


Best,

Michael
[/QUOTE]

Let me try this again. I replied and then got a page can't be found message when trying to post it. I hate when that happens.

Anyway, I wasn't thinking along the lines of volume but more about the brilliance and sustain angle like you said Michael. I think, and I could be wrong, that the amount of tension in a steel string guitar allows this to be possible. However, I have heard some steel string guitars that have neither sustain nor brilliance and some classicals that have a bunch of both. Go figure.    
Author:  Jim Watts [ Tue Oct 11, 2005 3:31 pm ]
Post subject: 
Interesting discussion. I've always felt that as a builder my interest are in tone, playability and then aesthetics, in that order. I might also add that I think all are important, just weighted different. But when I look at the market place for steel string guitars I've come to the conclusion that most, but certainly not all, of the buying public has those three items in just the reverse order from me. Go figure.
Author:  sfbrown [ Tue Oct 11, 2005 9:07 pm ]
Post subject: 
[QUOTE=Dave White] John,

That having been said, I haven't sold many yet and I have the luxury of another reliable income stream. [/QUOTE]

So, What is your wife's name? (been there, done that )
Author:  Dave White [ Tue Oct 11, 2005 9:16 pm ]
Post subject: 
Not the wife - I married a good pension
Author:  John Kinnaird [ Tue Oct 11, 2005 10:11 pm ]
Post subject: 
Regarding string tension and energy, it seems more appropriate to me to compare violins with their earlier cousins in the gamba family. These were low tension "violins" that did not have nearly the voice of the more modern violin of higher string tension.
The fact that steel string guitars frequently do not have the volume of a classical may be testiment to the fact that most of them are overly braced and poorly engineered to get the max from their potential. I personally think scalloped bracing is to blame and that once we get beyond copying what is essentially a poor correction technique for overbracing, we will be freed up to explore stronger and less restrictive bracing schemes.
Author:  Don Williams [ Tue Oct 11, 2005 10:43 pm ]
Post subject: 
I have to wonder if people who get into building tend to be people who prefer great sound and playability over great looks. As a player, it always was about how good a guitar sounded and played to me. I think that's one of the things that drew me to building...that search for the perfect sounding and playing acoustic. I used to go into guitar shops and play instruments, and if it sounded and played really good, then I considered it a good guitar, regardless of the fit and finish or cosmetics. And it didn't really matter what company made it or whatever. Even if it was the prettiest guitar on the wall, if it didn't sound and play good, I considered the cosmetics wasted effort.

So raise your hands...who prefers the cosmetics over sound and playability here?

Nobody?

I thought so...



Don Williams38637.3227546296
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/