The Guitar Corner: A Place Where Fellow Guitarists Can Talk Shop

[drogulus]

     One of my guitars is made of alder and the other one is pine.

[Ghost of Baron Scarpia]

     One of my guitars is made of alder and the other one is pine.

Are these electric or acoustic guitars?

[drogulus]

Are these electric or acoustic guitars?

     They are solid body electrics.

[North Star]

Somewhat off-the-wall question:

I am teaching botany (among other things) this semester and, in covering conifers, I mentioned that spruce is used in making musical instruments including violins (violin family), piano soundboards, and guitars.

However, is this true for guitars?? Is spruce always used for a guitar body? If so, what would be a substitute (Aside from really cheapo plastic guitars)? What about lutes, theorbos, etc?

What are electric guitars made of, and how does the wood affect the sound?

For guitar tops, spruce and cedar are the most common ones, used because of their high stiffness-to-weight ratio. Spruce is denser and provides a louder and brighter sound. (generally, denser woods provide brighter and louder sound) Mahogany and maple are common materials for the back and sides, rosewood is a fancier option.

Ebony, rosewood and maple are used in the fingerboards, maple and mahogany in the necks. Some endangered species among the exotic hardwoods used for the fingerboards in particular, Gibson was in trouble with this earlier in the decade.

In electric guitar bodies, ash and alder are the classic material for Fender bodies, with a maple neck and a rosewood or maple fingerboard. Mahogany body and neck with rosewood fingerboard is the classic for Gibson, with the denser maple top added on the Les Paul. On the ES-335, the top, back and sides are made from maple/poplar/maple veneer.

But any number of woods can be used for each of these purposes as long as they have the desired properties (density, hardness, stiffness).

[Mirror Image]

I am sure you would be disappointed by my part in such a venture, John! I have at various times played with others - and sometimes it's been fun - but at heart I remain just a chap with a guitar doing his own thing, largely devoid of any ambition beyond that.

Ah, well I'm kind of chameleon when it comes to playing with others. I'm sure we can come up with something!

[XB-70 Valkyrie]

Thanks for the information guys--very interesting. I also wonder about guitars used in Flamenco music, where slapping is involved--can spruce stand up to that long term?

[Elgarian Redux]

Somewhat off-the-wall question:

I am teaching botany (among other things) this semester and, in covering conifers, I mentioned that spruce is used in making musical instruments including violins (violin family), piano soundboards, and guitars.

However, is this true for guitars?? Is spruce always used for a guitar body? If so, what would be a substitute (Aside from really cheapo plastic guitars)? What about lutes, theorbos, etc?

An experiment recently seemed to demonstrate that the wood used on the back and sides of an acoustic guitar made no consistently perceptible difference to the tone of the guitar:
http://www.psych.lancs.ac.uk/hearing/the-guitar-experiment/#conclusions

This is an extraordinary finding. It goes against the accepted wisdom and experience of guitar players down the years, and indeed against my own daily experience of regularly playing a variety of acoustic guitars. There must be something wrong with the methodology of the experiment - though I'm not interested enough to go through it in enough detail to find out where and why.

The differences produced by the use of different woods are not difficult to hear, but they're not consistent either, partly because no two pieces of wood are the same. My understanding is that the guitar top dominates the character of the sound, with additional characteristics provided by the back and sides. The fact that the back and sides are less critical means that some very fine guitars have been made with laminated woods for the back and sides.

A common combination has been spruce for the top and rosewood back and sides (like the classic Martin country guitars). Blues guitars are often made entirely of mahogany (including the top), and they stand out a mile, with a boxy, woody, raw sound. Guitars like the Gibson J200 have maple back and sides, which tends to give them a ringing clarity that's quite characteristic of that particular wood.

But these are just general trends. So many other factors affect the sound of an acoustic guitar (eg bracing) that one cannot be sure, in advance, how any one particular guitar will sound, purely based on a knowledge of its woods.

[North Star]

An experiment recently seemed to demonstrate that the wood used on the back and sides of an acoustic guitar made no consistently perceptible difference to the tone of the guitar:
http://www.psych.lancs.ac.uk/hearing/the-guitar-experiment/#conclusions

This is an extraordinary finding. It goes against the accepted wisdom and experience of guitar players down the years, and indeed against my own daily experience of regularly playing a variety of acoustic guitars. There must be something wrong with the methodology of the experiment - though I'm not interested enough to go through it in enough detail to find out where and why.

The differences produced by the use of different woods are not difficult to hear, but they're not consistent either, partly because no two pieces of wood are the same. My understanding is that the guitar top dominates the character of the sound, with additional characteristics provided by the back and sides. The fact that the back and sides are less critical means that some very fine guitars have been made with laminated woods for the back and sides.

A common combination has been spruce for the top and rosewood back and sides (like the classic Martin country guitars). Blues guitars are often made entirely of mahogany (including the top), and they stand out a mile, with a boxy, woody, raw sound. Guitars like the Gibson J200 have maple back and sides, which tends to give them a ringing clarity that's quite characteristic of that particular wood.

But these are just general trends. So many other factors affect the sound of an acoustic guitar (eg bracing) that one cannot be sure, in advance, how any one particular guitar will sound, purely based on a knowledge of its woods.

Well, it's true that the effect of the back and sides to the sound is smaller compared to the top. In that test you linked, I find it strange that they only recorded the guitars from the the bridge as opposed to a microphone in front of the whole guitar, as it emphasizes the top, like they acknowledge in the test - and they even point out that the bridge pickups are not identical in the guitars, even disregarding the Yamaha. If they had also used a microphone in front of the guitarist, they could have compared the signal peaks and assess the effect of the back and sides much better. It seems like they really wanted to prove there's no reason to use unsustainable sources of wood by trying to show it doesn't make a difference what wood you use for the sides and back. I also can't help wondering how much the testing conditions in the blind playing test affected the results. There should have been a blind listening test of sound recordings from a microphone in front of the guitar.

[drogulus]

     If you play a solid body electric the tonal concerns are largely shifted to the electronics. My Pinecaster might sound a little different than a typical ash/alder Tele, but it still sounds like a Tele.

     In terms of ampage everything I have is chosen for what the basic circuits could do when they were designed and the uses that are still made of them to this day. One amp is a fanatically correct clone of a 1963 design used by the Beatles when they came to America. My other pieces are what one might call Frankenamps, with a blend of features from different models or even different makers.

     My approach is so antique it might puzzle some contemporary electric players that have many more sonic options at their fingertips. The reason for it stems from the tradeoff between getting a very wide set of tonal options and getting fewer ones that to me sound better. A complex "sound like anything" amp can sound like anything up to a point, and that point is that it can't sound like a "sound like basically one thing" amp.

[Ghost of Baron Scarpia]

Thanks for the information guys--very interesting. I also wonder about guitars used in Flamenco music, where slapping is involved--can spruce stand up to that long term?

I think any stress/strain due to "slapping" is minuscule compared to the stress/strain involved in sustaining the tension on the 6 strings.

[Ghost of Baron Scarpia]

     If you play a solid body electric the tonal concerns are largely shifted to the electronics. My Pinecaster might sound a little different than a typical ash/alder Tele, but it still sounds like a Tele.

     In terms of ampage everything I have is chosen for what the basic circuits could do when they were designed and the uses that are still made of them to this day. One amp is a fanatically correct clone of a 1963 design used by the Beatles when they came to America. My other pieces are what one might call Frankenamps, with a blend of features from different models or even different makers.

     My approach is so antique it might puzzle some contemporary electric players that have many more sonic options at their fingertips. The reason for it stems from the tradeoff between getting a very wide set of tonal options and getting fewer ones that to me sound better. A complex "sound like anything" amp can sound like anything up to a point, and that point is that it can't sound like a "sound like basically one thing" amp.

I guess I am an old/school Luddite, but excessive reliance on pedals and electronic effects strikes me as threatening to turn the guitar into a toy rather than a musical instrument.

I think of musicianship as the art of encountering an instrument as it is and exploring its possibilities, finding out what music can be teased out of it. That's why I ended up with the hollow body electric, to get the 'sound' I found so attractive on my Jazz albums.

[drogulus]

I guess I am an old/school Luddite, but excessive reliance on pedals and electronic effects strikes me as threatening to turn the guitar into a toy rather than a musical instrument.

I think of musicianship as the art of encountering an instrument as it is and exploring its possibilities, finding out what music can be teased out of it. That's why I ended up with the hollow body electric, to get the 'sound' I found so attractive on my Jazz albums.

     I mostly disagree. I'm totally with Hendrix when he observed that his guitar and amp were one instrument. I don't intend my sonic preferences to be treated as rules of musical conduct, though I would suggest that it would be wise for any electric guitarist to learn as much as they can stand about how play play in a "straight wire with gain" kind of way. Playing at low gain settings forces you to clean up your act technique-wise. Then when you stomp on your Klon Centaur you will rule the world.

[Ghost of Baron Scarpia]

     I mostly disagree. I'm totally with Hendrix when he observed that his guitar and amp were one instrument. I don't intend my sonic preferences to be treated as rules of musical conduct, though I would suggest that it would be wise for any electric guitarist to learn as much as they can stand about how play play in a "straight wire with gain" kind of way. Playing at low gain settings forces you to clean up your act technique-wise. Then when you stomp on your Klon Centaur you will rule the world.

I agree with the bolded, an electric guitar doesn't work with high-fidelity amplifier. Distortion in the amp is part of the 'instrument.'

I guess you can compare a guitar with numerous pedal effects available at the flip of a switch to a pipe organ with it's myriad ranks and stops. But I don't find the pipe organ, for all of it's sonic splendor, to be a particularly expressive instrument.

[Ghost of Baron Scarpia]

I think this is the amp I had back in the day. This or something similar, Univox S150R.



It had built in reverb and tremolo effects. Later I tended to use it with a Ibanez tube screamer pedal, because the amp itself didn't lend itself to overdriving.

[drogulus]

I agree with the bolded, an electric guitar doesn't work with high-fidelity amplifier. Distortion in the amp is part of the 'instrument.'

     Ooooohhhhh yes it does! While there is a class of "pawn shop" amps that are low fidelity, amp distortion is not to be associated with low fidelity. Many amp designs met the hifi standards of the day. The most famous ones didn't (Fender, Marshall, Vox). Others (Sunn, Standel, Hiwatt, Magnatone) did just as well as the Fisher and Dynaco stuff in peoples homes. Sunn amps were Dynaco. Listen to Mississippi Queen by Mountain, that's Dynaco. Jimi Hendrix used Sunn at times.

[Mirror Image]

I guess I am an old/school Luddite, but excessive reliance on pedals and electronic effects strikes me as threatening to turn the guitar into a toy rather than a musical instrument.

I think of musicianship as the art of encountering an instrument as it is and exploring its possibilities, finding out what music can be teased out of it. That's why I ended up with the hollow body electric, to get the 'sound' I found so attractive on my Jazz albums.

Would you say the same thing about synthesizers? I think it's important to remember that effects only can help those that are willing to explore their possibilities. If sonic exploration is of no interest, then one might as well get an amplifier they like and a guitar they love to play and just plug straight into it and forget everything else. Some guitarists are interested in doing just that while others, like myself, enjoy shaping a guitar's sound and manipulating it to get otherworldly sounds and the only way to achieve this is through digital processing. Don't get me wrong I love a jazz tone a la Jim Hall or Wes Montgomery, but I love hearing guitarists that get beyond this tone and craft new ones.

[Ghost of Baron Scarpia]

Would you say the same thing about synthesizers? I think it's important to remember that effects only can help those that are willing to explore their possibilities. If sonic exploration is of no interest, then one might as well get an amplifier they like and a guitar they love to play and just plug straight into it and forget everything else. Some guitarists are interested in doing just that while others, like myself, enjoy shaping a guitar's sound and manipulating it to get otherworldly sounds and the only way to achieve this is through digital processing. Don't get me wrong I love a jazz tone a la Jim Hall or Wes Montgomery, but I love hearing guitarists that get beyond this tone and craft new ones.

Well yes, it is a matter of taste and what you are interested in. I am primarily interested in the basics, melody, harmony and rhythm.

I think of it this way: piano literature developed so far because the piano itself was a given (although there has been a slow evolution in timbre from a 19th century instrument to the ones that are produced today). Electronic manipulation can give a lot of flexibility, but a lot of flexibility can result in a failure to focus the art of composition.

[Mirror Image]

Well yes, it is a matter of taste and what you are interested in. I am primarily interested in the basics, melody, harmony and rhythm.

I think of it this way: piano literature developed so far because the piano itself was a given (although there has been a slow evolution in timbre from a 19th century instrument to the ones that are produced today). Electronic manipulation can give a lot of flexibility, but a lot of flexibility can result in a failure to focus the art of composition.

Well, I realized a long time ago I'm not a gifted melodist nor am I particularly good at rhythm, so where does that leave me? Harmony and texture mainly. I've always been interested in atmosphere in music and creating an atmosphere in which I could escape in. I suppose this could be my creed.

[Ghost of Baron Scarpia]

Well, I realized a long time ago I'm not a gifted melodist nor am I particularly good at rhythm, so where does that leave me? Harmony and texture mainly. I've always been interested in atmosphere in music and creating an atmosphere in which I could escape in. I suppose this could be my creed.

I'm not great an any of it (except listening). We all gravitate towards what we like. I think I'll listen to Wes Montgomery on the drive home from work. I have his guitar, but not his genius.

[Mirror Image]

I'm not great an any of it (except listening). We all gravitate towards what we like. I think I'll listen to Wes Montgomery on the drive home from work. I have his guitar, but not his genius.

I wish I had the skill of Montgomery's thumb alone! Enjoy the music.