Welcome to one of the most active flamenco sites on the Internet. Guests can read most posts but if you want to participate click here to register.
This site is dedicated to the memory of Paco de Lucía, Ron Mitchell, Guy Williams, Linda Elvira, Philip John Lee, Craig Eros, Ben Woods, David Serva and Tom Blackshear who went ahead of us.
We receive 12,200 visitors a month from 200 countries and 1.7 million page impressions a year. To advertise on this site please contact us.
|
|
|
What constitutes 'playability'?
|
You are logged in as Guest
|
|
Users viewing this topic: none
|
|
Login  | |
|
   
britguy
Posts: 712
Joined: Dec. 26 2010
From: Ontario, Canada
|
 What constitutes 'playability'?
|
|
|
I frequently run into this term 'playability' in regard to guitars, and am not really sure what is the exact meaning of the term.
For example, does a shorter scale length or a lower action necessarily mean easier playing?
Is it something to do with the neck, nut, fingerboard, bridge, action relationship?
Are some guitars inherently more 'playable' than others, or is it just the player/technique that makes the difference; i.e. some players will find a particular guitar easier to play than other players will because of differences in technique?
And, final question: is there a trade-off between 'playability' and great sound?
So many (dumb?) questions. . .
Can some of you guys shed a little light here?
_____________________________
Fruit farmer, Ontario, Canada
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Nov. 22 2011 13:08:04
 |
|
Richard Jernigan
Posts: 3431
Joined: Jan. 20 2004
From: Austin, Texas USA
|
|
RE: What constitutes 'playability'? (in reply to britguy)
|
|
|
What Anders said. Of the four classical and two flamenco guitars I have, the two most comfortable are the best sounding classical and the best sounding flamenco.
In 2000 I bought a '73 Romanillos spruce/indian. It hadn't been played in years, so it took a while to wake up. I had been playing classical on a spruce/Brazilian Contreras doble tapa. After the Romanillos woke up, it was so much more comfortable to play then the Contreras that I got out my precision calipers to measure the Romanillos action--to see how much lower it was than the Contreras.
They were the same. Same action height at the first and twelfth frets, same nut width, same spacing at the bridge, Same neck relief, same strings. But the Romanillos was easier on the left hand. I think the Romanillos top is thicker, at least in the center, than the Contreras, but I haven't measured them. One significant difference is the larger plantilla of the Contreras.
Why is the Romanillos more playable? Beats me.
My best blanca is an '82 Arcangel Fernandez spruce/cypress, which I bought in 2001. It had belonged to a collector and showed no sign of handling or playing when I got it. I had it appraised by Richard Brune. When I talked to him, he told me how low the action was. I was playing at least two hours a day, alternating classical and flamenco. I asked Brune to make me a higher saddle.
The Arcangel knocked my socks off the first time I took it out ot the case. Brune let me know he had played it for a few hours while he had it to appraise, so if it had ever gone to sleep in the collector's display cabinet, Brune woke it up for me. As far as playability, the Arcangel was about the same as my '67 cedar/cypress Ramirez, but louder, more brilliant with crisper rasgueados.
I've laid off playing for three or four years, due to a bit of numbness in 3 and 4 of the left hand--an old injury to the spine from a motorcycle wreck. But they're getting better now, so I'm starting back gradually to play. I put back in the saddle Arcangel had originally made, lowering the action to around 2.5 mm 1st string, 3mm 6th string at the 12th fret. That's a guess, I haven't measured it precisely.
The left hand is easier now, the right a little more difficult. It's a lot easier to get too much fret buzz, and the brilliance of tone dies off quicker as you get toward the sound hole. I suspect that when I get the strength back in my left hand, I'll go back to the higher action so I can blaze away with the right.
Playability seems complex to me, after many years of playing. Some of it is setup, much of it is built into the guitar.
RNJ
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Nov. 22 2011 23:10:22
|
|
Ruphus
Posts: 3782
Joined: Nov. 18 2010
|
|
RE: What constitutes 'playability'? (in reply to britguy)
|
|
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Anders Eliasson
Simple answer:
Good playability is when it feels good.
On a longer note:
... When the resonating unit extends over the whole instrument, granting the left hand some noticable vibe too.
When the backside of the neck is well carved ( for me with a flat peaking 19-21 mm, for others with a steep stoop ).
When the neck is light, leaving the center of gravity to further down the corpus.
When pulsation allows high tension strings to remain swift, yet pliable.
When fret wire won´t be slim ( in terms of width ) nor too low. Just like with low action, that shall be no too shallow however, leaving over some distinct bending / pushing down of the string.
When strings spacing at nut and bridge appeal.
When there is an arm rest bevel ( - and with luxury, one on the upper bout for the chest too ).
I estimate, to many of us of around average size playability to be a largely similar thing, with requirements basically differing for smaller or taller players.
Guitars of proportions that for instance appealed to Andres Segovia´s XL paws, and which the Ramirez shop took over to their production line, to my hands feel like clumsy chunks.
Proportions that appear like playable to me, to him on the other hand must have felt like of a tooth-pick guitar.
Ruphus
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Nov. 22 2011 23:47:39
|
|
Tom Blackshear
Posts: 2304
Joined: Apr. 15 2008
|
|
RE: What constitutes 'playability'? (in reply to mezzo)
|
|
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mezzo
quote:
Many guitars will tighten up after being played for awhile. The top will open up but the string tension gets progressively harder as the guitar ages. This is the usual norm.
What could be the consequences for an old guitar (around 20 years) if it has been played a little at first and hardly or not at all for several years?
In this case would the "degradation" (if so) be irresversible?
I think a guitar, if taken good care of, will last a life time, but certain situations with guitars will tell us how they age and what happens with any particular instrument. Good care has a lot to do with how the guitar ages. But the guitar's top will always harden up with age, as the wood is susceptible to string tension and the actual aging process. There is a certain peak to where the top may stop the hardening up, but this is characterized with different models and the way they are built. You may find this hardening effect more prevalent with thinner tops, but this doesn't mean that thin tops will not last a long time, if they are cared for properly. And if a guitar is put up for a season, it is best to loosen the string tension on the top. As it is, the guitar will have to wake up, (in most cases), after being stored for awhile.
_____________________________
Tom Blackshear Guitar maker
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Nov. 23 2011 16:38:09
|
|
britguy
Posts: 712
Joined: Dec. 26 2010
From: Ontario, Canada
|
|
RE: What constitutes 'playability'? (in reply to NenadK)
|
|
|
quote:
I think if the sound quality pushes you to play louder like this, it can lead to a perception of lower playability.
I think you make an interesting observation here. In fact, my 660mm scale length guitar that seems 'harder' to play, actually has a really great sound when played very hard. Then when I switch to the 650mm scale guitar I feel like I'm thrashing the guts out of it. Somehow I thought it was due to the difference in string length, but maybe string length has little or nothing to do with it?
I love playing both instruments, but they do feel very different. I'd like to understand what makes the difference (for my personal 'feel' that is) in the event that I might want to order another. I guess it's hard to ask a luthier to ; "build me a guitar with easy playability"?". But if I could somehow quantify the characteristics, then at least I would have some idea of what to ask for.
Maybe I just need to play a lot more guitars, and make notes. . . (?)
_____________________________
Fruit farmer, Ontario, Canada
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Nov. 24 2011 12:48:29
|
|
Tom Blackshear
Posts: 2304
Joined: Apr. 15 2008
|
|
RE: What constitutes 'playability'? (in reply to Ruphus)
|
|
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ruphus
That observation with hard-to-push specimens sounds plausible, indeed.
I wonder however ( without really doubting it ) how action above the top matters on the right hand.
Ruphus
The top is the main source of what you feel when playing the guitar. If everything else is right with the action then the top is what determines the difficulty- hardness of the playing technique. 7 fan braces are usually easier than 5 fan braced tops but not always, so there are things that have to be adjusted to make an easier action for right and left hand.
My guitars are generally .01mm thinner toward the center to allow for the strings not to bounce up and down on the frets, thus providing a certain stiffness for the action but easy response with the sound. The ideal is not that the action is stiff but that the response is easy. So we have instant response while maintaining a certain level of stiffness to keep the string buzz down to a minimum.
This techniques works well on tops that don't exceed 2mm to 2.2 mm thickness. If you build a thick top then your sound, (volume), response goes down. I bought a Madrid guitar years ago with a top that was 2.6 mm thick and this guitar had no sound; the strings sounded like rubber bands even though the action was very easy. It was tuned to a little off G tuning but had no ambiente at all. The bottom line was that I retuned it to F-F# on the inside and sent it to California for resale.
Someone must have been happy with it, as it sold very quickly.
Also, the top has to be adjusted to allow for certain flamenco techniques; picado, rasqeuado, and alsapua, etc.
_____________________________
Tom Blackshear Guitar maker
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Nov. 24 2011 14:47:26
|
|
Tom Blackshear
Posts: 2304
Joined: Apr. 15 2008
|
|
RE: What constitutes 'playability'? (in reply to britguy)
|
|
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: britguy
quote:
However, I think its important to understand that the top is the main point of control.
Interesting. For some weird reason, not sure why, I always thought 'playability' had more to do with the leFt-hand fingering and the fingerboard/set-up relationship?
I think a better way to explain this is that the top controls all the other facets in assisting them to be what they will be....
And this will assist adjustments with action for ligado, picado, rasgueado, and alzapua. If the articulation-timber of the top isn't right, then it will have the potential to adversely effect any other technique.
I've played guitars that didn't have the correct articulation to bend with rasgueado and have a correct snap back, after certain pressure was applied by the right hand.
The point here is to fine-tune the top to assist these facets to be at the top of their efficiency. In other words, lowering or raising the left hand action may help the technique, some... but that doesn't mean that it can't be better when the top works perfectly in unison.
_____________________________
Tom Blackshear Guitar maker
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Nov. 27 2011 17:17:05
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts
|
|
|
Forum Software powered by ASP Playground Advanced Edition 2.0.5
Copyright © 2000 - 2003 ASPPlayground.NET |
6.445313E-02 secs.
|
Printable Version
