Classical FLAT fingerboard.
- Thread starter canissalsus
- Start date
Logrinn said:
I quote this reply only because I respectfully disagree with the teacher in the embedded video; here I am mostly addressing other people's points, and canissalsus, who opened the thread.
EDIT: when I say "steel string", I am referring to either electric and/or acoustic guitars, as the difference here is all between nylon strings and steel strings.
So... As someone who has gone from classical to string steel to electric - and plays the electric guitar with his fingernails - I feel I can chime in!
IMHO what makes it difficult to transition - either from classical to electric, or either from electric to classical, is... not the fingerboard radius.
In my experience, the fingerboard radius doesn't make that much of a difference in feel, especially if it's a 16"-radius or above.
What will make THE difference - what makes you feel you are on a whole other instrument - and will require practice to get accustomed to, is the sum of a bunch of different factors:
- string material (40% of the difference, or more - YMMV)
- string spacing (40% of the difference, or more - YMMV)
- neck thickness/profile (20% or less of the difference)
- the instrument feats a different scale length than you're used to (when it does)
- the fretboard is radiused (negligible difference)
On a historical note: violin fingerboards are and have been radius-ed for centuries because, as you need to bow one or two (adjacent) strings, you need the four strings to lay on different plains.
In other words: violin fingerboards are radius-ed so you can comfortably bow one or two strings without hitting the others.
That's why radius-ed fingerboards have existed: to address the bowing issue.
Guitarists and mandolinists don't have this issue, so plucked instruments used to have flat fretboards. That's the default design.
Also, one could argue that if you need to fret a course of 2 gut strings at the time, which is the case for most renaissance (and later) plucked instruments, you may want to have a flat fretboard.
But one may also say that flat fretboards are not a design "choice", but rather, that flat fretboards have stayed flat just because a flat design is the easiest to shave evenly, and having a flat fretboard doesn't jeopardize your plucking - whereas it would jeopardize your bowing.
I think we should not focus on why classical guitars feat a flat board.
I think we should focus on why classical fretboards are so wide.
Which is also, IMHO, what accounts for most of the difference in feel, when going from classical to electric or vice-versa.
Classical guitar necks are so wide for a few, both practical and historical reasons. The historical reasons being that:
- gut strings require more room to vibrate (that's the case for modern nylon strings as well!)
- gut strings are way thicker than steel strings (that's the case for modern nylon strings as well!)
- 2-gut-string courses are so thick, and thus need more room to be fretted comfortably
The practical reasons have to do with classical techniques. You are supposed to play classical guitar with your fingers.
Having the strings spaced widely enough:
- allows you to put more of your finger between two strings without touching the higher string
- most importantly, it allows you to appoggiare way more comfortably... if not at all!
(appoggiando and pizzicando being the two main ways in which you can arpeggiate with your fingers).
You can't appoggiare anything on a narrowly spaced steel string set. It also looks like a great way to break your nails at every rehearsal. :laughing7:
I the latest decades, many luthiers and a few guitar companies have started manufacturing nylon-strung guitars featuring a slightly narrower and slightly radiused fretboard.
We call these "crossover" guitars or "fusion guitars". Most examples feature a 48mm to 50mm wide nut (as opposed to 52mm) and a 24" board radius (as opposed to flat); but I don't see them going any narrower than that, because you do need some room to perform the techniques that I mentioned above, and again, because nylon strings require more room to vibrate. Don't underestimate the thickness of nylon strings. For comparison, most specialized "fingerstyle", steel-strung acoustic guitars have a nut width of about 45mm.
Now. Will... getting a superwide neck, flat or otherwise, make up for classical guitar practice?
I am sorry but I don't really think so. String material, thickness and tension make a HUGE difference in feel.
Forget about roundwound vs flatwound, nickel vs bronze, coatings or their likes: steel strings will be steel strings. Here we are talking about nylon (or carbon) strings. That means you'll be playing a whole other instrument.
I'm afraid that getting a pointlessly, uncomfortably wide electric guitar neck will make you just end up with an odd dust-gatherer.
If you want to explore the "nylon" sound or the different arpeggio techniques, I think that getting yourself a nylon-strung electroacoustic guitar, a.k.a. a "silent guitar", would be the most convenient choice.
They don't really sound like classical guitars, so there are a lot of used ones around, which are pretty easy to find for cheap.
There is no way of getting accustomed to nylon strings, other than playing a nylon string guitar. :icon_thumright:
EDIT: formatting
TL;DR:
- violin fingerboards are radiused because you need to bow only one or two strings at the time
- classical guitars have wide and flat fretboards because they feature gut/nylon strings, which are way thicker and require more room to vibrate
- most of the difference in feel between playing "classical" or "electric" is given by string material, thickness, string tension, and string spacing; NOT by having a flat fretboard or otherwise.
- classical guitarists have developed fingerstyle techniques which take advantage of having a wider string spacing, yes:
BUT ALSO, they have nylon strings to take advantage of.
- You can pluck steel strings with your fingers, of course: but it's not likely that you'll need a superwide neck for that.
Steel strings require less room to vibrate and cannot be played as if they were made of nylon anyway.
Thanks for reading
stratamania
Mythical Status
- Messages
- 11,918
Thanks Edoardo for your considered useful post.
As someone who used to play nylon string I would concur.
As someone who used to play nylon string I would concur.
Nylon strings are horrible in every possible way.
Never taken to them, never will.
Warmoth Superwide with 16" radius = very nice and playable for this fat-fingered bass player. I can even do classical stuff on it!
Interestingly it doesn't work well for bottleneck.
Happily that old Tele copy works a treat for that.
Playing in standard tunings is VERY recent for me, coincides with getting that Superwide neck.
Never taken to them, never will.
Warmoth Superwide with 16" radius = very nice and playable for this fat-fingered bass player. I can even do classical stuff on it!
Interestingly it doesn't work well for bottleneck.
Happily that old Tele copy works a treat for that.
Playing in standard tunings is VERY recent for me, coincides with getting that Superwide neck.
DaveT said:
Oh yeah, If you are a bass player, (or a lap steel player...?) you may be used to such a wide string spacing that a 48mm neck may be more comfortable to you.
But hat's two extremely different ways to fret the strings!
Of course you can play classical stuff on it, but I find most classical fingerings unplayable because of the open strings fingerings.
Open nylon strings kinda "mute themselves". Open steel strings will mud everything up, unless they're very thick. Which won't allow most people to use their fingers the way it was intended by the arranger.
Unless they have Ralph Towner's nails.
....Have you tried high-tension nylons?
Similar threads
- Locked
