Guitar myth and weirdness

Bob-Dubery

I have a DVD of Martin Carthy - part performance and part interview. Carthy talks about guitars like they're a living thing. In particular he talks about finding or acquiring a new instrument. He says something along the lines of the first time you play a good guitar it reveals it's voice to you. Then you buy it. Then it shuts up and you have to figure out how to coax that sound from it again.

Any takers?

I sort of half believe that actually. When I bought the Morgan I was knocked out by it in the shop, then spent a months trying to figure out if I'd done the right thing or not. I had to learn to like the guitar that I'd thought was a knockout, and had to learn to appreciate it's qualities. Which is a bit odd because I'd already liked it enough to shell out the cash. Maybe it's about internal doubt or something.

Same with the Smoothtalker (which, admittedly, has a very distinct character): Every time I speak to Mervyn he asks me how it's sounding and I tell him that I'm still figuring that out and figuring out how to get the best out of it. I allow myself some slack here because it's quite different from my other guitars - it's very responsive and you can overplay it.

Mervyn also believes that guitars take a while to "wake up" after you take them out of the case, that they need to be played for 10 to 15 minutes before they sound their best. I suppose hat could be down to the the strings warming up.

Several people that I know believe that a guitar CANNOT sound good unless it's played and played regularly. You can buy the best guitar in the world, but if you just stick it under the bed it won't sound good.

I certainly think that my Morgan sounds better now than when I got it, but this might be something to do with the original point - finding out how to make the guitar "speak" (or just deciding to trust the thing).

I have heard tales of hillbillies sitting on their stoep for hours a day playing their guitars, then leaving them propped against a loud speaker all night long so that the guitar "soaks up" music and musical vibrations. I'm not sure I believe this one because
a) in this day and age they wouldn't get the time to sit on their stoep and play all day (well, if they were retired they might)
b) They go to bed with the hi-fi blaring? Do they have some kind of soundproofed room used for conditioning guitars by exposing them to music

A combination of two previous points is that if you have a really good guitar that is played in etc etc and sounds fab, and it doesn't get played for a few months then it takes a couple of days playing before it sounds good again.

To me a lot of this might me about the ear fine-tuning itself to the guitar, though there is no doubt in my mind that acoustic guitars, especially those with sold spruce tops, do improve with time as the wood ages or mellows or dries out or whatever.

Mervyn Davis told me he believes that there is a scientific basis to most of these guitar myths, and he thinks of them as things that aren't explained yet.

Keira-WitherKay

great post Bob.......... we should definitely dig on this one ... just for fascination sake

and yes i have heard many stories and strangely all from great players ..........

like that steve vai has 'sensitivity sessions" with his guitar regularly where he places it in a stand and spends an hour in the same room just looking at it and touching it BUT NOT playing it............ add that one to your list

also i have spoken to a luthier re the "played in" /old guitars sounding better and ,,,most importantly sound CONSISTANTLY BETTER....... his belief is because on a normal acoustic ,,,,,,, the sides are actually straight pieces of wood that are bent into the curve of say a OM or whatever .... and that that wood has a "memory" of being straight ...... and it will through time actually resist being bent........ and cause minor fluctuations in the wood which can effect the sound..... and as the wood matures... like with us it's memory fades and eventually ACCEPTS that it should be in a curve and not straight....... he believes that this is when we as musicians pick up the guitar and it sounds awesome..... and it will be consistantly good....... so not that the guitar became a better guitar sound wise just that it takes .. however long for the wood to settle......... and once it does it has it's true sound....... believe it /don't believe it .... but to me this explanation is part scientific truth so it does make sense to me......

and i endorse the fact that most "old" guitars do sound way better than anything new...... mind we talking acoustic here ....

and i believe wood is a living thing and has some sort of 'soul" or being of it's own....... and i do believe in an artist having a spiritual connection to ones music....... however thats where i feel it's the bond to ones art and expression of it ... not the instrument..... an instrument is just a tool.. and a good artist can pick up any instrument and sound fabulous...........

so i do believe in myth or spirituality when it comes to music and guitars........ and yeah if doing whatever you do or believe makes you a better artist ... it has my blessing.......

peace and light
keira

racman

All the acoustic guitars Ihave bought new have been placed in front of a hi-fi speaker for at least a weekend. During the day the music has been played at normal listening levels as background levels and at night, just loud enough so that you can feel the wood and strings vibrating or resonating. This does not need very much volume before the wood starts "moving" or is "excited"- the trick is to put the guitar very close, preferably with the sound hole in front of the speaker. I felt that this has made a difference, but then maybe I'm just wierd (I just hide it well when I'm in public ?).

I believe there would be scientific evidence to suggest that this has some merits. I have also always played any sound equipment (particularly speakers) for at least a week continuously at various volumes when purchased new and this has shown a significant improvement. Of course, one could argue that this is because my ears have become more accustomed to the sound, but I do not sit there listening while this happens so this theory is invalid.

BTW I don't talk to plants or instruments as I battle to hold a conversation with more intelligent life forms ?

Banditman

As odd as it sounds, I think there's something in it. Maybe's it's a combination of familiarity and breaking in - think of your favourite pair of jeans and how they just fit bettre than new ones do.

I think it's part of the "problem" I've been having with my Strat - I haven't been playing it enough. The Les Paul's an old friend which just feels right, while the Strat I'm still getting to know. What I do know is that the more I play it, the more I like it.

New guitars will still feel and play beautifully if they're good guitars, but they seem - my opinion - to lack something. They're a bit cold and impersonal. I've heard many times of guitars (and other instruments) taking on something of the character of their owners. Logically that's hippie BS, but deep down I think every artist believes in a certain mojo that's imparted. A strange reference for this thought comes from the day I played a bunch of Les Pauls around Denmark Street, ranging from new & 2nd hand studios to Customs. The two I loved the most were both 2nd hand - a Deluxe and a Custom, and they both had something all the new ones didn't. And I'm not referring to wear marks.

Maybe instruments - like your car's engine or favourite jeans - just need to be "broken in". Nothing mystical about it.

Gearhead

Speakers don't count here imho - they are designed for a certain combination of flexibilities that they only get after having been 'broken in' and before that they're simply not to spec.

The analogy is useful however since the same might apply to a new acoustic. The 'design' in this case should be read as 'evolve' and the point about moving the top through another sound source than the strings also makes sense (less wear on the neck). I even buy that the sides need to loosen up to get a more vibrant body and while we're at it I'll throw in the other parts as well - neck, back, headstock, you name it.

I can go along with Bob's story about the instrument sounding different in the store than it does after having been taken home - it's the mindset. While looking for that one great axe you tune your ears to the differences between instruments, looking for those qualities you're into at that time. While paying and driving home the mind pulls a little trick - it assures the buyer that this was a good thing to do. All the qualities ever dreamt of will be in this purchase. No wonder it does not sound as good as it did because by the time you play it again you've romanticized the whole deal.

What I fail to see however is that there should be some mystical reason for this - however many feelings one might have for a piece of wood it does not have a soul itself. Call me an engineer or a christian or whatever you like but I'm not going to believe that an instrument can decide to change behaviour. I challenge anyone buying a new instrument to bring it around to my place and we will do a couple of simple measurements. I promise after a year of playing those same measurements can not be repeated - whether the guitar likes it or not.

About the 'warming up' story: I am a taker Bob. It's not just the hands that need a little flexing first. It also makes it the more interesting to see the guitar tech playing the instrument minutes before giving it to the artist - not just to tune it.

AlanRatcliffe

There are a lot of respected and knowledgeable folk who believe a guitar that is played improves more than one that is not. There's even a company that will subject your new guitar to intense vibration for a week or two (for a fee) to "improve the tone". General consensus is that the wood structure somehow aligns itself over time (we're usually talking years though) to facilitate the vibration and allow it to flow through the structure. This is also thought by many to be part of the reason that old guitars are "better" - not that they were necessarily better made, but that they have "soaked up the music" through the years. The structure of the wood does change over time, it continues dying out over decades and so it's possible that guitars that are played end up different.

Of course, the argument can be made that it's the guitars that sound good in the first place that end up being played more. Also, possibly one learns to hear and appreciate the nuance of a particular instrument over time - maybe your ears become trained and fixed on that instrument.

Everyone who builds musical instruments has encountered the settling that happens shortly after an instrument is built - it will often be relatively dead when first played, but over the first half hour or so, it gradually comes to life as all the joints and hardware settles in under the pressure of being strung and being played. No speculation there - it's a well documented fact in the violin-making and acoustic guitar world. So I suppose it's also possible that this settling continues in a smaller way for years.

Gearhead makes an interesting point about the mindset of buying an acoustic guitar - very possibly a big factor. But also there are many other factors, not the least of which is that you are almost certainly playing the guitar in two different acoustical spaces (shop and home) - hell the sound of the guitar changes depending on where you play it in the room. Also bear in mind that if you have just driven home, your ears have been assaulted by traffic noise, music in the car, etc. and you will almost certainly be hearing differently than you were in the shop. Engineers often do a sort of aural "palette cleaning" by treating themselves to silence for a while every now and again to reset their ears between tracks or even in the middle of a long recording or mixing session.

Bob-Dubery

Alan Ratcliffe wrote Of course, the argument can be made that it's the guitars that sound good in the first place that end up being played more. Also, possibly one learns to hear and appreciate the nuance of a particular instrument over time - maybe your ears become trained and fixed on that instrument.

I wouldn't discount that, but it doesn't cater for the cases when you pick up a guitar for the first time and think "wow! That sounds incredible!"

Bob-Dubery

Alan Ratcliffe wrote There are a lot of respected and knowledgeable folk who believe a guitar that is played improves more than one that is not. There's even a company that will subject your new guitar to intense vibration for a week or two (for a fee) to "improve the tone". General consensus is that the wood structure somehow aligns itself over time (we're usually talking years though) to facilitate the vibration and allow it to flow through the structure. This is also thought by many to be part of the reason that old guitars are "better" - not that they were necessarily better made, but that they have "soaked up the music" through the years. The structure of the wood does change over time, it continues dying out over decades and so it's possible that guitars that are played end up different.

Could it also be the case that the wood used was superior from the start? Could it be a that a key skill for a luthier is choosing the wood?

Everybody knows about the reputation of Stradivarius violins, but there is not a single unmodified "Strad" in existance. And most of them were modified centuries ago as pitch and tunings started standardizing. I doubt there's anybody alive today who has heard an unmodified Strad, or that there's any recordings of such an instrument. In some cases the mods are quite substantial. There is a particularly good (experts say) Strad on display at the Ashmolean museum in Oxford, but the main tone bar has been replaced (the original has survived and has been kept with the instrument). Yet the tone of the instrument is said to be superb. So may Stradivari had an exceptional supply of wood?

AlanRatcliffe

Bob Dubery wrote Could it also be the case that the wood used was superior from the start? Could it be a that a key skill for a luthier is choosing the wood?

Absolutely - any top luthier worth his salt selects every last piece of wood himself. Some are legendary for it. I understand that while John Suhr and Scott Lentz were working for Fender custom shop they were once "tested" by giving them both the same 100 body blanks to sort through and select 10 for Strat bodies. Nine out of ten selected were the same blanks.

On the other hand, Bob Benedetto has said (and proved as far as most people are concerned) that he can carve any top to make it sound just the way he wants. Granted, that's talking a carved top instruments, that rely mainly on the top for tonal characteristics and not Strats, which are (relatively speaking) planks of wood. Bob Taylor did something similar with his "Pallet guitar" - also acoustic.

So (as with so many things luthier-related), I think it's safe to say it's a combination of the best materials crafted by the best artists.

So may Stradivari had an exceptional supply of wood?

So did his contemporary Guarneri and the Amati family - most of the notable luthiers of the time were all clustered around the same area of Cremona, and they all had access to the same resources. But yes, I think that was a big part of it and why the area was famous for fine instrument makers. And while the Stradivari are held up as the Holy Grail of violins AFA the general public are concerned, there are many top violinists who would prefer a Guarneri to a Strad - the "Gibson vs. Fender" or "Martin vs. Taylor" of the classical world. ?

vic

Great posts here...the philosophical level (backed up by some real world examples) is impressive.

Manfred-Klose

Recently i bought a squier tele(one of the cheaper ones) 2nd hand, after doing some setups and cleaning, it turned out to be a very good sounding guitar, infact the sound is so even and constant that i have found my holy grail of guitars(yes i went to GAS rehab and got cured :-\), having compared it to MIM,MIA and MIJ fender tele's at different shops.

But what am getting to is that i am the 3rd owner of the guitar, and the guitar is about 8 years old, and it has been properly played over the time period of 8 years(enough evidence on the guitar).

So ya, i firmly believe that one has to play the guitar alot in order for the tone to become constant and give your ears time adapt to the sound, because every one has a different perseption to what a guitar should sound like.

[deleted]

This may be a bit silly to some, but I'm basicaly in a monogomous relationship with my guitar. It's the one I started with and it's been all I've wanted. Needless to say I'm quite sensitive about it. If anyone else plays it I can feel a difference in it (it varies from person to person though). Sometimes the strings will feel looser or the tone will be richer or the opposite happens too. This is probably just a case of over sensitivety, but a lot of other things affect the sound of my guitar, so it's not that far fetched.

I can't realy say how old my guitar is, but since my Dad got it second hand at the age of 21 it's atleast 40 years old. I definitely agree that older guitars sound better. it could just be my taste though. If I get another one, well, I'd like to make it myself.

Keira-WitherKay

wow viccy well said...... a girl after my own heart except of course i would not have the skills to build my own guitar ....

yeah old guitars rule

peace and light
keira

Banditman

Bob Dubery wrote Could it also be the case that the wood used was superior from the start? Could it be a that a key skill for a luthier is choosing the wood?
Yet the tone of the instrument is said to be superb. So may Stradivari had an exceptional supply of wood?

There may be more to that than we think. I remember reading a very interesting article - where I can't remember, may even have been on here - on that very subject. Whoever it was looked very closely into the woods and methods used to make the violins. Now we all know that we can't get Brazilian Rosewood and similar holy grail tonewoods anymore, or at least not the way we once did.

According to some or other dendrologist, Europe went through several very cold winters etc. I won't pretend to remember the details. His point was that the woods used in Stradivari's instruments had very close and even grain. The quality of the woods coupled with master construction resulted in what is revered for its tone. Climate changes and overforestation mean that we simply can't get the "same" woods anymore. I don't personally believe that means we can't get instruments with wonderful tone. It may be different in an indefinable way, but a skilled craftsman can still coax beauty from a good piece of timber just as his forebears did.

aja

Banditman wrote
Bob Dubery wrote Could it also be the case that the wood used was superior from the start? Could it be a that a key skill for a luthier is choosing the wood?
Yet the tone of the instrument is said to be superb. So may Stradivari had an exceptional supply of wood?
There may be more to that than we think. I remember reading a very interesting article - where I can't remember, may even have been on here - on that very subject. Whoever it was looked very closely into the woods and methods used to make the violins. Now we all know that we can't get Brazilian Rosewood and similar holy grail tonewoods anymore, or at least not the way we once did.

According to some or other dendrologist, Europe went through several very cold winters etc. I won't pretend to remember the details. His point was that the woods used in Stradivari's instruments had very close and even grain. The quality of the woods coupled with master construction resulted in what is revered for its tone. Climate changes and overforestation mean that we simply can't get the "same" woods anymore. I don't personally believe that means we can't get instruments with wonderful tone. It may be different in an indefinable way, but a skilled craftsman can still coax beauty from a good piece of timber just as his forebears did.

I guess modern craftsmen make do with lesser quality woods but have better tools and a larger knowledge base to draw on. It seems your average guitar from the decades gone by is better than the average guitar today. However I believe that the top range guitars today are still as good if not better than those from years ago. Companies like Takamine and Laravee and Breadlove prove this

Bob-Dubery

aja wrote I guess modern craftsmen make do with lesser quality woods but have better tools and a larger knowledge base to draw on. It seems your average guitar from the decades gone by is better than the average guitar today. However I believe that the top range guitars today are still as good if not better than those from years ago. Companies like Takamine and Laravee and Breadlove prove this

For me this is a golden age for steel string acoustic guitarists. OK... so you're not getting Martin D28s made with Adirondack Spruce and Brazilian Rosewood. But, as you say, luthiers today have a greater knowledge base to draw on. And there are a bewildering number of boutique makers making fab guitars that embrace a specific distillation of knowledge and a specific vision of how a guitar should be.

When I started paying attention to music you got lots of Martin, quite a bit of Gibson, the occasional Fender acoustic (but probably just so you could have a a guitar to hold whilst you were on camera, because we all know that Fender really made ELECTRICS), perhaps the occasional Guild. If you were plugging a lot you might play an Ovation on stage, and every now and then some multi-millionaire would trot out a Zemaitis.

These days we have all the historically famous brands plus the likes of (but not only) Fylde, Lowden, Morgan, Beauregard, Linda Mazner, Marc Maingard, Mervyn Davis, Froggy Bottom, Bourgeois, Santa Cruz, Collings, Atkins, Gaskin, Benjamin, Osborne, Ferrington, Kevin Ryan, Olson, and... and... and... offering very high quality guitars. The range of body shapes and sounds is very broad. THIS is the time to find a guitar that fits you to a tee in it's aesthetics, in it's sound, in it's feel. Even at the mass-produced end of the market there are more options than there used to be with Breedlove, Larrivee, Taylor etc.

Bob-Dubery

Bob Dubery wrote
aja wrote I guess modern craftsmen make do with lesser quality woods but have better tools and a larger knowledge base to draw on. It seems your average guitar from the decades gone by is better than the average guitar today. However I believe that the top range guitars today are still as good if not better than those from years ago. Companies like Takamine and Laravee and Breadlove prove this
For me this is a golden age for steel string acoustic guitarists. OK... so you're not getting Martin D28s made with Adirondack Spruce and Brazilian Rosewood. But, as you say, luthiers today have a greater knowledge base to draw on. And there are a bewildering number of boutique makers making fab guitars that embrace a specific distillation of knowledge and a specific vision of how a guitar should be.

When I started paying attention to music you got lots of Martin, quite a bit of Gibson, the occasional Fender acoustic (but probably just so you could have a a guitar to hold whilst you were on camera, because we all know that Fender really made ELECTRICS), perhaps the occasional Guild. If you were plugging a lot you might play an Ovation on stage, and every now and then some multi-millionaire would trot out a Zemaitis.

These days we have all the historically famous brands plus the likes of (but not only) Fylde, Lowden, Morgan, Beauregard, Linda Mazner, Marc Maingard, Mervyn Davis, Froggy Bottom, Bourgeois, Santa Cruz, Collings, Atkins, Gaskin, Benjamin, Osborne, Ferrington, Kevin Ryan, Olson, and... and... and... offering very high quality guitars. The range of body shapes and the range sounds (which reflects the luthier's goals and philosophy) is very broad. THIS is the time to find a guitar that fits you to a tee in it's aesthetics, in it's sound, in it's feel. Even at the mass-produced end of the market there are more options than there used to be with Breedlove, Larrivee, Taylor etc.

Bob-Dubery

Bob Dubery wrote
aja wrote I guess modern craftsmen make do with lesser quality woods but have better tools and a larger knowledge base to draw on. It seems your average guitar from the decades gone by is better than the average guitar today. However I believe that the top range guitars today are still as good if not better than those from years ago. Companies like Takamine and Laravee and Breadlove prove this
blah blah blah

Damn! Hit the "quote" button instead of "modify". Not to self: beer and computers is not a good combination.

singemonkey

I've got a great editorial from an old guitar player mag from the seventies (when people were still interested in this stuff), talking about the ageing of guitars. Breaks down something like:

Classical: rapid development for 6 months then slowly peak and begin to decline over about 30 years before beginning decline

Flat top steel: slower development and stay good for about 100 years (more heavily built)

Archtop steel strings: assumed to be more like violins. Peaking at about 150 years then declining as the stability of the wood begins to go (I don't know why so few companies make archtop acoustics now. They have a wonderful sound).

Electrics: practically no tonal shifts whatsoever - although pickup ageing may have an effect.

Very interestingly, the guy said that he'd played some vintage mandolins from the turn of the 19th/20th century that had never been played before. He said that they felt "stiff" at first, like a new instrument, but rapidly developed the tone of a vintage instrument with regular playing

As to hearing the guitar, loving it and then having a huge hiatus before beginning to appreciate it. I've had the same experience with both my electrics, and I think it has something to do with expectations. Not listening to it properly because you have an idea of what it *should* sound like in your head. Only once you stop putting pressure on yourself for having bought it do you start to hear it as it is.

Tokai-SA

singemonkey wrote I think it has something to do with expectations. Not listening to it properly because you have an idea of what it *should* sound like in your head. Only once you stop putting pressure on yourself for having bought it do you start to hear it as it is.

Good point.