Why the classical guitar is still in the process of being developed?

[mrkpower]

The classical guitar has appeared for hundreds of years, why does it not like the violin which the structure hasn't been much changed since the 17th century.
Why today's classical guitars are still in the process of being developed? When will see the ultimate design appearing IF there would be a day?

[Bern]

What makes you think that ? Classical guitar builders use the same technique that was handed down to them.

[jmiked0]

Originally Posted by mrkpower

When will see the ultimate design appearing IF there would be a day?

There's no such thing as an "ultimate" design. People are not all going to want the same thing from a Spanish guitar, so there's no one design that will suit everyone.

[HHP]

I think like violins, the basic structure is set. See some one offs or experiments but most builders seem to be well within the tradition.

[rgregg48]

On the subject, this little clip might shed a little light, anyway,,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2Dq2x8CeS4


Rick

[Special B]

I think it has to do with the type of music, and type of people. I don't want to stereotype anyone for the instrument they play, but I think violin players (and makers) tend to be more interested in tradition than guitarists in general.

There are electric violins, and adventurous acoustic designs, but they are far less common than the standard design. With guitars, electric guitars have branched into many sub-types, and acoustics are more likely to vary from the Torres design. There is obviously more variety in design in the guitar world.

I don't think this is a flaw in the Torres design, nor the Stratocaster, and it isn't proof that the classical violin is perfect and cannot be improved upon with minor changes (because this is subjective anyways; a classical violin may not make the best bluegrass fiddle, it is about expectations). I think this shows the difference is what the average buyers want. I know that classical guitars are the more traditional side of guitarists as a group, but many classical guitarists started out on steel strings (acoustic or electric), and may be more willing to buy a classical guitar with a cutaway, or a modern bracing pattern.

The violin was "perfected" in the classical period, and it is sort of frozen in time like *some* of the other instruments that were used in this period. It isn't that they cannot be improved upon (as some have, in subtle ways), it is that classical musicians and enthusiasts want them to be frozen in time, so they can go back in time when they perform or listen.

The classical guitar we know today didn't exist in the classical period. It came later. The "old" classical guitar design did need improvement, so it wasn't as well thought-of as other instruments. The needed improvements didn't come into 1860ish, during the romantic period. This period was a lot more accepting to re-writing of the rules. The "classical" guitar really rose to prominence in the 1900s, so it really is a more modern design that we sometimes realize.

For fans of Tarrega and Barrios, having the Torres design frozen in time is something we always want to preserve so we can travel back, but we might also be a fan of Andrew York or Baden Powell and therefore might be openminded to changes in the Torres template.

Many violin players are willing to try different designs of violins, including electric and synth violins. So again, this is only a stereotype and is of course not always accurate. But I think the violin is more deeply pegged to classical period music (not to take anything away from bluegrass players), which requires a specific design from that period, while the modern "classical" guitar is a lot more contemporary and part of a still evolving and broad definition of "classical" which includes Abel Carlevaro and Andrew York.

With the violin, we are looking back in time at a classical instrument that must be made a certain way to be historically accurate. While the Torres design may be around 160 years old (still MUCH younger than the standard violin), it didn't rise to prominence (to the level that the violin had) until much later.... and maybe it isn't even at that level yet; or maybe it never will be. The Torres guitar is still very much a romantic/modern period instrument, evolving in a time with a lot of previously unimaginable technology and a lot less popularity of the music. If Tarrega was as popular in his day as Beethoven was in his, the Torres design might be more frozen in time.

[mrkpower]

Originally Posted by Special B

I think it has to do with the type of music, and type of people. I don't want to stereotype anyone for the instrument they play, but I think violin players (and makers) tend to be more interested in tradition than guitarists in general.

There are electric violins, and adventurous acoustic designs, but they are far less common than the standard design. With guitars, electric guitars have branched into many sub-types, and acoustics are more likely to vary from the Torres design. There is obviously more variety in design in the guitar world.

I don't think this is a flaw in the Torres design, nor the Stratocaster, and it isn't proof that the classical violin is perfect and cannot be improved upon with minor changes (because this is subjective anyways; a classical violin may not make the best bluegrass fiddle, it is about expectations). I think this shows the difference is what the average buyers want. I know that classical guitars are the more traditional side of guitarists as a group, but many classical guitarists started out on steel strings (acoustic or electric), and may be more willing to buy a classical guitar with a cutaway, or a modern bracing pattern.

The violin was "perfected" in the classical period, and it is sort of frozen in time like *some* of the other instruments that were used in this period. It isn't that they cannot be improved upon (as some have, in subtle ways), it is that classical musicians and enthusiasts want them to be frozen in time, so they can go back in time when they perform or listen.

The classical guitar we know today didn't exist in the classical period. It came later. The "old" classical guitar design did need improvement, so it wasn't as well thought-of as other instruments. The needed improvements didn't come into 1860ish, during the romantic period. This period was a lot more accepting to re-writing of the rules. The "classical" guitar really rose to prominence in the 1900s, so it really is a more modern design that we sometimes realize.

For fans of Tarrega and Barrios, having the Torres design frozen in time is something we always want to preserve so we can travel back, but we might also be a fan of Andrew York or Baden Powell and therefore might be openminded to changes in the Torres template.

Many violin players are willing to try different designs of violins, including electric and synth violins. So again, this is only a stereotype and is of course not always accurate. But I think the violin is more deeply pegged to classical period music (not to take anything away from bluegrass players), which requires a specific design from that period, while the modern "classical" guitar is a lot more contemporary and part of a still evolving and broad definition of "classical" which includes Abel Carlevaro and Andrew York.

With the violin, we are looking back in time at a classical instrument that must be made a certain way to be historically accurate. While the Torres design may be around 160 years old (still MUCH younger than the standard violin), it didn't rise to prominence (to the level that the violin had) until much later.... and maybe it isn't even at that level yet; or maybe it never will be. The Torres guitar is still very much a romantic/modern period instrument, evolving in a time with a lot of previously unimaginable technology and a lot less popularity of the music. If Tarrega was as popular in his day as Beethoven was in his, the Torres design might be more frozen in time.

Well written! I enjoyed reading it, thank you!

[bohemian]

As a former collector/hustler of violins, I would suggest there is as much variance one maker to another, one generation to another and even differences in a single maker's work to counter the notion that the violin design is a single pattern or set of materials.

Violins evolve as do guitars.

However the basic iconic style for each still stands and is being made by modern builders.

[Special B]

Thanks mrkpower.

[RWG]

Violins have changed. One of my favorite CDs is of Baroque music played on period instruments. The liner notes describe some of the differences between those instruments and modern instruments.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baroque_violin
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o155JbXSrNE
I used to play violin. One thing that drove me nuts was the insistance on tapered wooden pegs instead of tuning machines. Putting machines on a nice violin totally ruined the value of it so you have to put up with the pegs. I'm so glad guitarists moved on to gears.

[knowlton]

The question that the OP is getting at could be restated as "Why do even some major concert guitarists adopt instruments with radically new bracing patterns, materials, or geometries, while in the violin world, most development centers on refining and enhancing a plan and bill of materials already pretty well-established during the 18th Century?"

I believe there are two reasons, one to do with volume and the other with timbre, and both to do with the relative youth of the guitar as a concert instrument:

1) Concertizing on guitar, unlike on violin, still involves a struggle to produce adequate volume. Many luthiers are trying to address this with new designs and materials. Opinions diverge widely as to how successful these experiments are timbrally.

2) Since Segovia, two distinct schools of playing have developed.* Both make great music, but their timbral goals differ. Julian Bream and others, taking after Segovia, approach the guitar as a miniature orchestra. They look for the different strings and ranges of the instrument to each fulfill different timbral roles; that is, to be different instruments in the orchestra. John Williams and others, though, take what might be termed a pianistic approach, looking for more timbral consistency throughout the instrument's range. The former tend to favor instruments that represent developments of the Torres tradition, while the latter often gravitate toward new designs and materials.

The violin, of course, also has distinct schools, each with its favored instruments. On the whole, though, being longer-established, violin performance practice, compared to the guitar's, is less divergent and up for grabs, and that's reflected in the instrument's ongoing development as well.


*See Marcelo Kayath's excellent essay for more. One need not agree with his conclusions to gain from his insightful analysis.

[scottishrogue]

I think any guitar maker/luthier wants the instruments they create to be better than their peers. For that reason, it would not be unusual for them to try things that are not being done with production guitars. If they improve the tone, they would continue to do the same to other builds. If it didn't work, they might make minute adjustments until they reach a conclusion about that change.

The very same thing was being done with violin construction. Every violin maker/luthier would try different things to make their instruments sound better (or look better) than their peers. This continues to be the case. Start with the basic blueprint and make changes that would be considered as improvements, or create a totally different blueprint.

Glen

[Garthman]

The classical guitar hasn't really changed much since the the developments made by Torres (well, of course, some luthiers are doing their own thing but are they really improving the instrument? - I'm sure opinions will differ).

The greatest evolution of the guitar has been with steel string guitars - with all their myriad manifestations - and, of course, the electric guitar: all to respond to changing technology and performance requirements.

Such is life.

[redir]

Originally Posted by RWG

Violins have changed. One of my favorite CDs is of Baroque music played on period instruments. The liner notes describe some of the differences between those instruments and modern instruments.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baroque_violin
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o155JbXSrNE
I used to play violin. One thing that drove me nuts was the insistance on tapered wooden pegs instead of tuning machines. Putting machines on a nice violin totally ruined the value of it so you have to put up with the pegs. I'm so glad guitarists moved on to gears.

Have you ever seen the Planetary Pegs? I use them on the Flamenco guitars I build and like them a lot. Basically it's a mechanized 'friction' peg. So you can fit them in a traditional slot.

---

I've tried all sorts of designs on classical guitars from lattice brace to double top and more but have come full circle back to the Torres design. Not that I have a whole lot of experience, I've built about 25 classical guitars, but it seems to me that the 'radical' designs tend to do one thing well at the expense of other things and the Torres design does nothing exceptionally well but is a good all rounder.

Many classical guitarists are fairly conservative actually. Probably even more so than luthiers so they tend to shy away from radical designs. I use a traditional design but with a bolt on neck which has raised a few eyebrows. The design has lots of room for improvement and Ramirez III was probably the first one to change it significantly. He made the guitar larger and the scale length longer. They are harder to play too and they lose that sort of intimate romantic traditional Spanish tone but gain power and projection.