Blog Archives

Regarding boutique guitars

10/30/2010

About a year ago I made what I thought was an innocent comment on one of the guitar forums. The thread was about the relative and actual value of what are known as "boutique" guitars, instruments made by independent luthiers who turn out a limited number of guitars each year. This type of guitar tends to have more custom, handmade components than those made by manufacturers that turn out thousands of guitars every year. Some might say they are on average, finer instruments but that is quite subjective.

I suggested that a buyer should go into a purchase of one of these instruments with his or her eyes open, that no matter how nice that guitar might be, its resale value was not likely to be any better (or worse) than a middle to top of the line guitar by one of the respected and well known large quantity builders in this country. At least for a period of some years. This, in spite of the fact that the custom, small builder guitar may be extremely limited in numbers or even a "one-of."

Well, lemme tell ya! A few of the people in that thread all but called me an ignorant fool who had no appreciation or knowledge of why someone would buy one of those guitars in the first place. "You should NEVER buy or not buy a guitar because of its potential resale value!" they shouted (electronically). "You buy a guitar because you LOVE it and it SPEAKS to you! And because you appreciate the fine workmanship and extra care that went into it!"

"Yeah, but...." said I. But righteous indignation being a powerful drug, the slams continued. And the Righteously Indignant continued to miss my point entirely.

For goodness sake, of course you buy a guitar - for big, big money in these cases - because you like it ... a lot! My reality is pretty typical I suspect and that was the point I was trying to make: no matter what, you must take into account resale value. Unless you have unlimited funds or are willing to put the ownership of a fine guitar ahead of day to day economic challenges you may face from time to time you should always keep in the back of your mind the idea that you might have to sell that guitar some day. That's all I was trying to say. I probably should have been clearer.

I subscribe to Acoustic Guitar and to Fretboard Journal magazines. In a recent edition of Acoustic Guitar I counted 43 ads for different guitar makes, some big and well known, some that may be shops that only produce a handful of guitars every year. So how do you decide which way to go? Research is the key. Hands-on research, first and foremost. Online research by scouring various internet forums (keeping in mind that you will find much contradiction and bias). Research by way of one-to-one conversations with players of varying ability levels. Input from people who repair guitars for a living. All these things help, but the first one - playing as many guitars as possible - is the most important.

Yes, you say, but wait a minute. The boutique guitar maker whose instruments I'm considering is far away, and in any case, the instrument I want will have to be built because there just isn't one from that builder with all the appointments I want.

Then, friends, what we have is a leap of faith. An educated guess. Are you will to spend three, four, five thousand dollars or more based upon a builder's past work?

Now let's consider my very first point. Suppose you say yes, and long, anxious months from now your dream guitar is delivered. It is everything you hoped it would be, maybe more! You're thrilled and you play it for hours every day.

Weeks and months pass but one day you are suddenly faced with a very large money issue. You look around and there sits that multi-thousand dollar guitar. It breaks your heart, but you know what you have to do. And there is where things get cloudy.

Even if that guitar maker is somewhat known in acoustic guitar circles, know that potential buyers are going to have to make many of the same leaps of faith you did. The cold hard reality is that those leaps are much shorter with a Martin or Taylor or Gibson. Those makers have the benefit of history, well known consistency of product - and yes, proven resale value. Can you say that about the boutique guitar? Maybe. Maybe not.

But my guitar is amazing, you say. The sound, the construction, the quality of the wood...

You know what? It had better be. Because if it is just average in any of those categories, you have a problem. The potential buyer presupposes a boutique guitar will be something that the big manufacturers cannot live up to on a consistent basis.

Ah, but the guitar world is a fickle place. Sometimes it's tough to find an explanation for why a certain guitar company is consistently a good value and another is only average. Cases in point: Olson guitars. Always bring huge dollars on the used market, when one comes up at all. Are they that much better than other boutique guitars? Does the fact that James Taylor is always seen playing an Olson have anything to do with it?

Guild guitars. Until recently, a well known and well respected American guitar maker. (Although they are now again made in the U.S., for the last decade they have bounced around and were made in China for while.) But for some reason even the older Guilds (acoustics) have never been worth much compared to the other American makers' instruments. Why? They are a little heavy and overbuilt compared to Martins and Gibsons but the fit and finish on the pre 1998 Guilds is just fine and they sound and play just fine.

I truly wish I could offer some formula or solid opinion about which way you should go if you're thinking about a new or used guitar by a large vs. a small maker but I just can't. Perhaps you'll turn out to be one of those guitarists who has a lifelong relationship with one fine guitar. If that is the case, I am deeply envious.

If you're like me (and I hope you're not - I've owned better than three dozen acoustics in my search of the "one") and have to consider a guitar something like a very, very nice liquid asset, I wish you luck and hope you're fortunate enough to find another pilgrim on the same journey when it's time to sell your guitar.

Peace & good music,
Gene

0 Comments

Vintage? or just... old.

10/27/2010

0 Comments

Maybe it's Antique Roadshow or Pawn Stars that I should blame. It seems that anything in the guitar world that pre-dates, oh, I don't know... MTV.... is referred to as "vintage." Now don't get me wrong. A 1948 D-28 or a 1951 Gibson J-35 is and should be called a vintage guitar. The problem is the other extreme.

Let me give you an example from another world I know well: fishing tackle. Some time in the 1970s when graphite was becoming the fishing rod material of choice, some writers of fishing books and articles in fishing magazines began writing discourses about the wonders of "split cane" and the classic makers of bamboo fly rods in the old days, and how wonderful they were. You can guess what happened next. The value of old bamboo fly rods shot through the roof. This was all well and good as it related to rods by the master makers but all of a sudden bamboo fly rods that were better suited for tomato stakes were being sold for silly money. What people seemed to forget was that, before about the mid 1950s, ALL fly rods were made out of bamboo, and that included the no-big-deal mass produced rods that were sold at the local hardware store for a few dollars. They were barely usable then, and they were no better (and quite possibly worse!) 30 or so years later. Eventually people came to their senses.

Today, I see the same thing happening with guitars. Not surprisingly, the place where it most absurd and laughable is on Craigslist. Who knows? Perhaps those "vintage" Stellas that were sold sold by Sears back in the 50s and 60s really are being sold at their listed prices of ten or twenty times what they sold for when they were new, but dear Lord, I hope not! Those things were almost unplayable plywood pieces of junk back then and they are now. They usually featured fret edges that sliced up the inside of your hand, action that made playing beyond the third fret out of the question, intonation that made even a perfectly fingered chord sound wrong, tuners that barely turned or wouldn't hold if they could be, but most of all a sound that was little better than a cigar box with rubber bands strung across it. But heck, they were cheap and many of us (myself included) made our first attempts at a G chord on one. But lets get this straight, folks, they were junk then and they are now.

Likewise, many of the strange looking electric guitars that were coming out of Japan and strangely, Italy. Featuring a dazzling array of buttons and switches that may or may not have done anything and finishes often referred to as "Mother of Toilet Seat," they all had two things in common: their pickups were guaranteed to generate horrible, screeching feedback at anything over the lowest volume - and compared to even the least expensive Fender, they were cheap. Today there are entire web sites devoted to the dozens of bizarre instruments of this genre but I'm hard pressed to believe anyone ever really plays them in anything remotely like a serious or professional setting. Of course, if you have one on a boat with you and the motor breaks down, they make excellent paddles. But these things too will be found on Craigslist and elsewhere for astounding (asking) prices. Why? Because they are "vintage" !!

However - and I know I'm repeating myself - an old Martin or Gibson or pre 1960 Epiphone can rightfully called vintage. Here's where it gets sticky though. Does vintage mean "better?" That is so totally subjective I wouldn't begin to hazard a guess. I do know that a vintage American-made guitar will be more valuable than a recent one, regardless of how it sounds. Just how much more valuable depends on many, many things. Surprisingly, overall condition is not quite as important as one might think. I've seen Martins and Gibsons from the 1950s that looked like they'd been through a war get sold for astronomical prices. The better the condition, the better the price of course but even things like cracks and worn away finish don't have a huge effect, especially on guitars that are particularly desirable like anything made with Brazilian rosewood. Not unlike valuable antique furniture, old guitars that have their original finish and parts will bring the best money. Models that were only made in limited quantity really up the ante too.

The rub for me is one of a practical nature. I don't have the luxury of buying guitars purely for investment. I wish I did but I just don't, so I have factor in both investment but much more importantly, sound and playability. The fact is that we may be in another "golden age" of guitar building right now. The average guitar coming from all the American companies and a few in Japan in many cases sounds just as good as some of the middle-of-the-line vintage instruments that are bringing huge dollars. What is that vintage guitar really worth? What someone is willing to spend, I guess. Don't be fooled by the so-called Blue Book of guitar values. The numbers in there are extremely arbitrary, not unlike those catalogs that put value on baseball cards. You can put whatever price you want on something. The market will tell you if its worth it or not. End of story.

But just this in closing. Please, please, please don't fall into the trap of assuming some guitar that's 40 or 50 years old is "vintage" just because it's managed to last that long. A $20 piece of junk in 1965 is a $20 piece of junk today, Or perhaps a canoe paddle.
Gene

0 Comments

Regarding wood

10/22/2010

0 Comments

To me, wood is magic stuff. It breathes, it reacts to changes in the weather, it responds to the human touch. In other words, it is alive, even after being cut down, dried, carved and processed with various chemicals and finishes. As I said - magic. When it's made into a guitar, more magic ensues.

This is probably the primary reason I prefer acoustic guitars to electrics. There's no doubt that certain types of wood lend themselves to superior sounding electrics but for the most part the tonality and overall sound of an electric comes from those electromagnets we know as pick-ups. With acoustic guitars it's all about resonance and complexity of sound generated by the wood. Volume does play into it to a certain degree, that is, certain types of wood will produce more volume. What most players want though is that certain something that in their opinion defines the sound a good quality acoustic guitar.

Construction techniques have a lot to do with it but today I'm just talking about wood. First of all, some guitars are made of composites (or fancy plywood, if you will) and some are made of all solid wood. Some, like the Yamaha that I often use for teaching have a solid top and composite sides and back. It is generally accepted that an all solid wood guitar will sound better than a composite one and I believe that is true, most of the time. However - and that Yamaha is a good example - sometimes one that uses composites can sound very good. There are even a few makers who are making quite expensive all graphite guitars that supposedly sound great. I can't testify to that as I've never heard or played one. Then of course there are those curiosities from Ovation, which have the rounded plastic backs. These guitars sound pretty good. I once briefly owned one of the fancier Ovations, an Adamas model that was exceptionally nice. For some reason, about the only place you'll see them used these days is by singers in Irish pubs. I have no idea why.

The two primary woods used to make the bodies of acoustic guitars are rosewood and mahogany. I've owned many of each variety and I would never suggest that one is better than the other, although fine quality rosewood guitars are always more expensive than mahogany ones. What they are is different. Rosewood (and we're talking solid woods now, not composites) usually has a richer, more complex sound with nice overtones that leans more toward the bass end in terms of resonance. A well-aged rosewood guitar by one of the major manufacturers can almost take your breath away as it vibrates against you as you play. Unfortunately, it is rare to find a rosewood guitar that has a treble end that can match the bass end in resonance. This is just the nature of the wood, and can be mitigated somewhat by playing a guitar with a slightly smaller body so the bass end isn't boomy (see previous blog for more on that). Rosewood is also radically affected by relative humidity and the weather. Even a nice rosewood guitar will often sound dull and lifeless in the humidity of summer, only to come back to life in the dryness of winter. But be careful! Too much dryness (relative humidity of less than 40%) can lead to cracks, warping and worse.

Mahogany back and sides on an acoustic steel string guitar usually produces a less complex, "woody" tone, which in the larger bodied instruments is great for strumming. There is more even tone in mahogany, compared to rosewood. That is, from bass to mids to treble, no area to tonality sticks out. Recording engineers like this because it makes equalization and compression a lot easier to use. And the treble end is often nice and crisp, which in the smaller body sizes results in guitars that are wonderful for finger-style playing. The down side of mahogany is that, again compared to rosewood, it often has less volume and sustain and overtones/complexity just don't happen very often.

Now, having said all this, there are of course exceptions. This gets back to me first point - that wood is a living thing. I've played very expensive rosewood guitars that sounded like someone stuffed them with old socks, and I've played a couple mahogany guitars that absolutely shimmered in tone and sustained an unbelievably long time. These are exceptions however.

Other woods are used for the back and sides of some guitars, the most common being maple and recently, koa. Maple is great for strumming with its punchy, percussive sound but maple usually has not much volume and almost no resonance or sustain. Koa, which originally almost always came from Hawaii is a beautiful wood - it looks almost three dimensional when it is finished in gloss. It sounds very much like mahogany to my ears.

What about the tops and necks? Probably 95% of the acoustic guitars produced today have spruce tops, either solid (best!) or composite. It is much, much important that the top of any guitar be made of solid wood simply because it will transmit vibration far better than composite and result in better sound. There are many grades of spruce with most of it coming from Canada or Alaska (Sitka spruce) and some very expensive guitars are made with what is called Adirondack or Red Spruce (produced from Maine to New York State to the Carolinas) and the obscenely expensive Italian or German spruce. You'll find plenty of debate about the relative merits of each. The main reason spruce is so common is that it is readily available, reasonably durable and easy to work with, and it sounds good. Cedar and mahogany are used less commonly and they both sound good but tend to be quieter than spruce and cedar is very soft so scratches and even cracks can happen very easily.

Necks are almost always made of mahogany but that may be changing. Honduran mahogany is the most desirable type but as it becomes rarer due to over harvesting it is becoming cost prohibitive for some makers. Even Martin has turned to "select hardwood" (a dense, heavy variety of cedar) for many of their less expensive models. The Chinese companies are using mahogany from the Far East and while it seems to be acceptable now, it will be interesting to see if those guitars are more prone to warped necks a couple decades from now.

Other woods show up in guitar construction, especially ebony for fingerboards and bridges. It not only makes for a great sound due to its heavy, dense nature, a black ebony fingerboard with nice mother-of-pearl inlay is a true thing of beauty.

A moment ago I mentioned decades - and this is something that all guitarists have to also consider: how the passage of time will affect various woods. Not unlike fine wine, premium wood in guitars can and usually does change and the sound grows more complex as time passes. This is one reason that so-called "vintage" guitars (the subject of my next blog entry) bring such high prices. Guitarists call it "opening up" and it can take as little as ten year or less, but usually a guitar needs to be 30, 40 or even 50 years old before it reaches its potential, sound-wise. But remember - as I keep saying, wood is a living thing and sometimes a guitar will sound absolutely excellent withing six months or can sound dull and uninteresting even after sixty years.

If you really want to drool and explore the complexity of fine woods in guitars, visit The Guitar Emporium in Lexington, MA, or if you're going to New York, stop by Mandolin Brothers in Staten Island. Spend a couple hours trying as many guitars as you can and I promise you will be amazed. Just leave that credit card home or you may find yourself going home with a new member of your musical family!

Thanks for reading and as always, I welcome questions, opinions and input.
Gene Bourque
October 22, 2010

0 Comments

A few other things about guitars - physically, that is

10/20/2010

1 Comment

It occurred to me that besides my overview of guitar body sizes I should touch on a few other aspects that could affect your purchase of a guitar.

Cutaway design:

If you're unfamiliar with the term, it refers to the "cut out" section of the upper bout that you see on some guitars. Looks like somebody took a big bite! The purpose of a cutaway is to give the player access to the upper frets, those that are on the fingerboard where it sits on top of the guitar. This is much more important on electric guitars, in my opinion. Not that acoustic players never use those way up high notes, but as a practical matter and in reality, few players do with any regularity. The downside of a cutaway is that it undeniably affects the sound of an acoustic guitar. Less surface area, and a lack of uniformity means the top will not vibrate as well or as long. Less vibration = less resonance. But hey, no denying cutaways look cool and I have to admit buying a guitar or two in my younger days for just that reason. It's your call but I can tell you this: model to model, a guitar from almost any manufacturer that has a cutaway will bring less at resale time than the same model without one. Taylor guitars may be an exception but with all the other companies this holds true. Food for thought.

Nut width:

This is all about how far the strings are from each other, that is, how wide the fingerboard will be. The two standard nut widths are 1 11/16ths inch, and 1 3/4 inch. For many, many years the former was standard on just about all guitars and still is on many, including most of the Martin D size and the Gibson J size. But in the last few years many guitars, including custom or limited editions from those two companies, almost all Taylors and almost all boutique guitars are made with 1 3/4" nuts. Both sizes have advantages and disadvantages. The reason the wider nuts have become popular in the last few years is that many people get into finger-style (finger-picking) and even that 1/16th" does make it easier to locate the string you're trying to play. People with wider fingers, including most men, find it easier to place fingers into chords and get a clear sound as compared to the 1 11/16ths. However, you also have to reach farther around the neck, which some find difficult. I've owned both and I keep coming back to the 1 11/16ths because I have relatively short and not too wide fingers and I just find that width easier, particularly when playing bar chords. You should try both because some necks are thicker than others and that too can affect how well you like the two primary widths.

Nut and saddle material:

If a guitar I buy doesn't have them already, I always take my guitars right over to Fran LeDoux of Bay Fretted Instruments in Marstons Mills ( a FABULOUS luthier and certified repairman) for him to install a bone nut and saddle. I absolutely believe that this makes an immediate improvement in the sound of any guitar because bone is such a harder and denser material than plastic. Costs a little but well worth it. As a sidebar, I also use bone bridge pins or on a few guitars, the outrageously expensive fossilized walrus tusk. There is debate about the merits of different pins materials but these are what I like. Some prefer ebony pins, which they feel lends a darker, deeper sound. But hey, many fine guitars come through with plastic nuts, saddles and pins and they sound fine so you may want to wait on this upgrade.

Woods:

You know what? That is a subject for an entire blog! (lucky you! ;~) So we'll wait on that. It is a hugely important subject but my fingers are getting tired.

Thanks for reading along

1 Comment

Guitar sizes - Jumbo? Dreadnaught? Concert? Grand Concert? What the heck?

10/18/2010

5 Comments

1997 Martin D-16GT

It's very easy to get confused by the names that are given to various sized guitars. Some size designations such as dreadnaught are fairly uniform from maker to maker but from there on out you'll find discrepancies by the case full. I'm not going to get into the actual dimensions and measurements of each type but from large to small (in width and depth; overall length doesn't vary a lot) it goes something like this: Dreadnaught, Jumbo, "M" or 0000, "j" or Grand Concert, Concert, 000 and OM, 00, Parlor.

There are other sizes but they are very close to one of the above and much less common. The ones above are what you'll usually see. So which one is right for you?

The dreadnaught is by far the most common body size in circulation today and has been for at least the past 40 years. This is because dreads are usually fairly loud compared to smaller guitars, which is something that many people seem to want when they progress beyond the absolute beginner stage. Some people even refer to their dreads as "banjo killers," a reference to the ongoing battles of banjo vs guitar in a bluegrass band. Just as a sidebar - the term dreadnaught was first used by Martin because way back a hundred years ago, U.S. battleships called Dreadnaughts where some of the biggest, mightiest warships and to many people the name implied something big and powerful. Interestingly, when Martin first produced the dreadnaught or "D" series guitars they were listed as "bass guitars" because compared to the much more common smaller bodied instruments of the first part of the 20th Century they sounded quite low and boomy. About the same time the Gibson company, Martin's primary competitor began producing large bodied instruments that they called Jumbos - a reference to the famous P.T. Barnum circus elephant. Both of the terms (dread and jumbo) stuck and today Martin "D" size and Gibson "J" size are the largest standard run guitars that each company produces and remain hugely popular.

But the reality is that these big bodied guitars are just too big for some people, especially most women and youngsters. You will see some women with the bigger guitars - Sheryl Crow and Emmy Lou Harris prefer Gibson J-200s and Joni Mitchell is almost always seen with Martin dreads - but they are by far the exception. Still, dreads and jumbos probably make up 90% of the guitars imported from China, Korea, Japan and elsewhere.

Things may be changing though. Taylor makes a traditional dread size guitar but far more popular are their slightly smaller and more rounded 7-, 8-, and 9-series instruments. They make what is essentially a jumbo that they call a Grand Concert (GC) - which is a very nice guitar by the way, in spite of my aformentioned dislike of Taylors - but it is not all that popular. Martin and many of the boutique makers are putting much R&D and new model launches with 000, OM and smaller instruments. The reason is simple. They are just easier to hold and reach around and play. True, they do not have the volume of the jumbos, in most cases, but what they lack in boomy volume they more than make up for in crisp, clear treble and an overall much more even and blended sound. This is particularly attractive to players who are soloists who play finger-style.

Smaller still are the 00 and finally what have become known as "parlor guitars." The 00 was hugely popular during the so-called folk revival of the 1960s and before that many people bought the Martin 00 and Gibson L size because they were reasonably priced compared to the dreads and jumbos and for most beginner and intermediate players, just easier to play. The smaller still parlor or O-size guitars are for most people something of a curiosity, that is, a nice alternative to the larger guitar they probably own, fun to use as a "couch guitar" and very comfortable but generally lacking in much volume and certainly not appropriate for ensemble playing. A few companies are making what they call travel guitars, which are a 3/4 size instrument that in most cases can fit in the overhead on an airplane when carried in a soft gig bag. I owned one for a while, a Martin LXME and it was surprisingly nice sounding guitar. These also are a GREAT type of guitar for children to learn on because they are small, usually made at least partially of man-made materials meant to take some abuse, and sound pretty darned good. They are NOT toys, even if they appear

So which one is right for you? If you're a fairly large person and can comfortably reach over and around the body of a jumbo or dread, that's great - you have many, many more choices when you go shopping for a new guitar. If you're not so large a person, try to look past the volume of those jumbos and think in terms of comfort. Go with a 000, Concert, or OM size. You'll be able to strum loudly enough to not get drowned out when jamming with your friends but the clarity of the treble end of your guitar will most likely make those dreads sound pretty muddy by comparison. As they say, YMMV. Just try a bunch of guitars before you form a definite opinion, but always be ready for a GAS attack (Guitar Acquisition Syndrome!) and don't be surprised if that "perfect" guitar turns out to be ... not quite! Just part of the adventure of learning the world of guitars.

Gene

5 Comments

New "Tip of the Week" & regarding strings..........

10/15/2010

0 Comments

I just put up a new page called Tip of the Week. I'll do my best to post tidbits of information that I hope will make you a better guitarist. The first one has to do with the correct way to change your strings. Please check it out and tell me what you think, via an email or a comment on this blog. If you have any questions or suggestions about future subjects, I'd love to hear them too! Thanks.

And now more rambling.

If there is one, single thing that you can do to improve the sound of ANY guitar, it is - change the strings. I'm constantly amazed by very, very expensive guitars in many music stores that sound like dog doo. In defense of the stores, the larger the store (and you see/hear it in the Guitar Center stores all the time), the more people will handle the instruments and the quicker the strings will go dead. Dead, thuddy, lifeless strings will kill the sound of just about any guitar but in a store you must remember that strings are expensive to replace, both in terms of the strings themselves and the employee time it takes to make the changes. So this is most likely why dead strings stay on guitars in stores. Or maybe they're just being cheap or not paying attention to their merchandise, I don't know.

Some guitarists are lucky. Their hands don't sweat and moisture and the grime and corrosion is encourages are not a problem. Most people are not that lucky though. A friend of mine has such sweaty hands that, as much as I like him and respect his musical abilities, I will not let him play my guitars. He can kill a set of strings in five minutes of playing, no lie.

I fall somewhere in the middle as I'm sure most guitarists do. If the weather isn't too hot and humid I can get a couple hours before I hear any difference in tone. Then there is a gradual loss of resonance and after a couple months I will change them. My Martin 0000-28H is a fabulous sounding guitar and I want it to sound the best it can, for as long as possible, factoring in the reality that I am admittedly a bit um... frugal... OK, cheap, and it breaks my tight Yankee heart to throw money away.

Which strings to buy? Which gauge? Which material (brass or phosphor bronze)? Which maker? Well, I'll tell you this. I've tried dozens of brands and I alternate between brass and phosphor bronze. Gauge-wise, these days I'm using what are essentially a hybrid, called by most maker light/medium or "custom light." The conundrum of gauges is not easy. For many years is used D'Addario J-16s, and still do from time to time. This is a reasonably priced string set, phosphor bronze, and they last reasonably well. Most people use light gauge strings because they are easier to press down than mediums, which is a fact.

However, light gauge strings don't put as much pressure on the bridge of the guitar as mediums, which in turn makes for less vibration and movement of the top and less volume and resonance. For many years when I was playing with fiddler Marie Rhines and I had to bang out rhythm stuff to accompany her fiddle I used mediums but at that time I was playing a Martin D-28, a model not usually known for its treble end anyway, and I found I had to "over play" finger picked tunes to get a decent treble sound. Plus they hurt like heck after a couple hours!

So I stuck with lights for many years but a couple years ago discovered those light/mediums. They are, for me at least, a great compromise between the play-ability of lights and increased volume, sustain and resonance of mediums. Presently I am using light/medium Newtone Master Class strings, alternating between their brass and phosphor bronze. The brass seems to have a brighter sound, which I like from time to time. These are hand-made strings - whatever the heck that means - from England and are expensive, in the order of 2 1/2 times the cost of the D'Addarios. But they last a long time and they are supposedly a slightly lower tension string, which makes them less fatiguing. I have found this to be true.

I hesitate to say however that these are the "best" strings. You just have to do as I did - experiment with a few different brands and gauges. Some people absolutely love the new coated strings by various manufacturers. These string have some sort of micro plastic coating that is supposed to repel moisture and stay cleaner, longer - thereby giving you that new string sound for a long, long time. I tried them and didn't care for them. Perhaps it was my own physical chemistry but each brand I tried sounded very squeaky and just too bright. But many people swear by them so they are probably worth a try. In fact some guitar companies - Taylor in particular - outfit all their new guitars with this type of string (I think they use the Elixer brand) to offset that problem I cited at the beginning - dead strings on guitars in music stores.

Bottom line - it doesn't matter which string you use, just don't be penny wise and dollar foolish. You paid good money for that guitar. Let it sound as good as it can. Change those strings often!

Gene

0 Comments

Make mine a Martin

10/9/2010

3 Comments

The first really nice guitar I ever played was a 1967 Martin 00-18. My friend Barry bought it brand new. I think it cost him something like $275, with hard shell case. It was one of the most basic models they made at the time - still is, for that matter although I think it is a special order item today.

Anyway, I'm pretty sure Barry bought it because the first group he ever liked, the Kingston Trio played Martins. At the time I had a Harmony classical (nylon string) that my parents bought through my uncle, who taught music privately and had some sort of dealership that allowed him to buy inexpensive guitars. My parents, who reluctantly admitted that I was absolutely obsessed with folk music thought that at least there was some hope of me learning "real" i.e., classical music if I had a classical guitar. It was OK - until I heard and played that Martin. It was sweet and clear and it even smelled great. Martin owners even today get almost intoxicated by the smell of the wood of a new Martin. I have no idea what it is but no other guitars smell like that.

Flash forward about six years. I was then playing a Yamaha 12 string, my high school graduation present. This was about 1970 and Yamahas were just starting to catch on in this country as a decent quality steel string for a very reasonable price. I clearly remember the first time Barry and I saw their booth at the Newport Folk Festival. What is THAT, I remember us asking each other? I thought Yamaha was a motorcycle! But I did like that 12-string well enough, even though I usually only strung it with six strings. I sold it to a friend who I believe still has it. That guitar was a beast. It survived many a hitchhiking trip and camping - one time I left the case open on the hood of my friend's car and it rained that night, and the next morning I literally dumped the rain water out of the guitar. After it dried out it was fine! True story.

But in spite of at least having a steel string, I had by that time played many quality guitars - Gibsons, Guilds, Goyas, - and Martins. Many Martins. And there was no doubt what I wanted.

My grandfather passed away while I was in college as a music major, and because he as many of the members of my family was a professional musician, I thought it was totally appropriate to use the $500 that he left to me in his will to buy my first Martin. This was in 1971, and the model I bought was a D-35. I thought it was the most beautiful thing I'd ever seen or heard. It was the guitar I played with singer/songwriter Elizabeth Kent when we played a week at Passim in Cambridge, my first taste of the higher level of acoustic music. I loved that guitar.

But it ended up breaking my heart a few years later when it starting getting more and more difficult to play. I thought the neck was warping; more likely, it just needed a neck reset but I had no idea what that was at the time and in those days there were no local independent luthiers like there are today to tell me what was wrong. All I could do was send it back to Martin for repair and due to some serious problems they were having at that time, the best they would tell me time-wise about when I would see my guitar again was something like a YEAR!! This was not acceptable as I was just beginning to teach and playing out all the time and I needed a guitar. I couldn't afford a second one, so I brought my D-35 into a shop in New Bedford and traded it for...... gulp...... a Yamaha! And to make matters worse, because the Yamaha I chose was the most expensive one they made at the time (kind of an imitation Gibson J-200.... sounded like dog doo compared to my D-35 but the action was good) I had to give them my Martin PLUS $100! Not my smartest move in guitar ownership and unfortunately not my last stupid deal. More on that in a future post!

In a very short amount of time I knew the Yamaha was not the answer. A friend of mine from high school had a 1970 D-28 which he wanted to sell as he was getting into classical music and wanted a high end Spanish guitar. So I bought his D-28 and it served me very well for about five years, during which time I recorded and toured with fiddler Marie Rhines. Eventually that guitar went away too though, traded for a 1979 Stratocaster (!).

The years passed and many, many guitars came and went but I kept returning to Martins. As far as I can remember, at this point I've owned more than thirty of them. Some were better than others but ALL of them were excellent instruments. I still firmly believe that the C. F. Martin company of Nazareth, Pennsylvania continues to make the best quality production guitar in the world - and I use the term production guitar only to differentiate between their large production and that of the small, boutique makers who are all the rage these days. That is another subject I'll write on in the future. I have pretty strong feelings about these small run guitars.

Which brings me to the "other" guitar company. Taylor guitars are hugely popular, especially with younger musicians and also with many of the country/pop musicians. Taylors are undeniably beautiful in design, shape and especially their fit and finish. The wood is often exotic and stunning to see. The construction techniques they pioneered may well be the model for most guitar production in the future, things like the way they secure the necks of their guitars, which makes the dreaded neck reset a quick, easy and less expensive process compared to the dovetail joint method that is still used on ALL medium to high end Martins. There is no question that most Martins look pretty drab and plain next to the average Taylor. But here's the rub, as they say.

I've owned four Taylors in recent years. All of them were high end models. Two had slightly smaller bodies and two where large bodied instruments. All of them - as is the case with many, many Taylors - played like butter (and this is why I think lots of younger players who started on electric guitar like Taylors). But the sound was.... how can I say? Unremarkable? Recording engineers love Taylors because they produce a very "flat" sound, that is, a sound with very few overtones and nuances that are difficult to record at best and bothersome at worst. Clear treble, yes. But the mids and especially the bass on EVERY Taylor I have heard or played is thin, lacking depth and the sustain just isn't there. Absolutely no resonance or complexity of sound. In a nutshell, to my ear Taylors have no "soul." There, I said it. Sorry Taylor fans. Just the way I feel and what I hear, or more accurately, what I don't hear.

Now, maybe I'm not alone in this opinion - perhaps Taylor themselves know this to be the case because a couple years ago they began producing a much higher end line called the R. Taylor series. I have not played any of the these so I can't comment on anything but their looks, which is spectacular. But is the sound worth $3k - $6k and more? How would they compare to, say, a Martin OM-45 or the venerable D-45? How about that new Jorma Kaukonen model that I am totally lusting for? Guess I'll just have to try a couple of R. Taylors.

In the meantime I'll keep playing my 1997 0000-28H, a model that Martin only made for a few years in the 90s. You can find them now in slightly different forms (with 1 3/4" nut width vs. the long-time standard 1 11/16ths width on my guitar) in the form of special order guitars from Gruhn in Nashville and Elderly Music in Michigan, both of the which are excellent dealers by the way. The guitar in Martin's line that is the closest to mine is the "M" series. I love mine because is has a slightly different shape that the Martin Dreadnaughts but the same upper and lower bout width, but a thinner body like the 00, 000, and OM models, making it easier to hold. With the width of a Dread it has tons of volume when I need it but is more even and balanced sounding with GREAT treble - something that can be a bit lacking on the D-size Martins.

So for now at least, I will stick with the Martin I have. As recently as two months ago I had three Martins but two of them were just impulse buys so away they went. You can be pretty darn sure however that the next guitar to appear in my life will be - another Martin!

Anyone who's gotten this far and wants to comment, ask questions about Martins or even call me out about Taylors (!) I welcome the input!
thanks,
Gene Bourque

3 Comments

Up and running, finally

10/8/2010

5 Comments

I thought long and hard about whether or not to inflict my rambling discourses on all things related to acoustic guitar on the innocent person who happens to come here. But hey, I love to write and I love acoustic guitars and music, so what the heck. I welcome your comments both here and via e-mail. If you're a former student, are one presently or are considering lessons with me, please don't hesitate to contact me for any reason. I'll be updating here frequently so please check back often. First up: the guitar I'm playing these days, and why. Martin folks, feel the love. Taylor fans, beware! ;~)
Gene

5 Comments

Regarding boutique guitars

Vintage? or just... old.

Regarding wood

A few other things about guitars - physically, that is

Guitar sizes - Jumbo? Dreadnaught? Concert? Grand Concert? What the heck?

New "Tip of the Week" & regarding strings..........

Make mine a Martin

Up and running, finally

Author

Archives

Categories