Spanish Fandango by Justin Holland

[Crowyote]

I hope that you enjoy a little bit of parlor classical on my Larrivee.

Justin Holland was the first African American composer and arranger for the guitar in the 19th century parlor era. His popular guitar method was one of the first to be based in emerging acoustic science. His version of Spanish Fandango blends classical elements into the tropes and techniques of the open-tuning craze that was taking the country by storm contemporaneously

I originally posted this one for Black History Month; however, the volume/clarity of the "master" was a bit off. I redid the track for Juneteenth.

[RJVB]

The music and interpretation sound nice enough but to my ears totally inappropriate for jingly-jangly steel strings

[ReneAsologuitar]

[QUOTE=Crowyote;7029210]I hope that you enjoy a little bit of parlor classical on my Larrivee.
*****************************
Hi Crowyote,
Lovely Larrivee guitar.
Sounds really good, and the tone is beautiful.
Your guitar playing is fabulous.
Your recording set-up looks great.
Thanks for sharing this recording.
Rene

[Crowyote]

Originally Posted by RJVB

The music and interpretation sound nice enough but to my ears totally inappropriate for jingly-jangly steel strings

Well I appreciate the first part.

As to the 2nd that’s why artists are different, I suppose.

I have since swapped the wound 3rd G for a plain steel, in lots of ways that gets rid of some of the noise (index nail catching on the windings in so many of the arpeggios).

Nylon vs Steel: IMO harmonics sound much clearer, present, with more variety of timbre on a steel string guitars , especially parlors. However, I might record this on the nylon, it’s not a bad idea.

[Crowyote]

[QUOTE=ReneAsologuitar;7029393]

Originally Posted by Crowyote

I hope that you enjoy a little bit of parlor classical on my Larrivee.
*****************************
Hi Crowyote,
Lovely Larrivee guitar.
Sounds really good, and the tone is beautiful.
Your guitar playing is fabulous.
Your recording set-up looks great.
Thanks for sharing this recording.
Rene

Thanks so much for listening and your comments!

I’m actually considering trading in this Larrivee as I have my eye on a Taylor 652CE and need some leverage on the price. I just got a Emerald X-7 in April which has even more clarity in the trebles that I was seeking, and better action out of the box on the low strings.

For my recording set-up: At the time I was using a mis-matched pair in XY config (WA-84 and Blue Hummingbird), but I’ve acquired a Vanguard V44S stereo LDC since. I much prefer it as there’s no risk of phasing which I struggled with a bit in mastering here.

[RJVB]

Originally Posted by Crowyote

As to the 2nd that’s why artists are different, I suppose.

I have since swapped the wound 3rd G for a plain steel, in lots of ways that gets rid of some of the noise (index nail catching on the windings in so many of the arpeggios).

Nylon vs Steel: IMO harmonics sound much clearer, present, with more variety of timbre on a steel string guitars , especially parlors. However, I might record this on the nylon, it’s not a bad idea.

Yeah, sorry, but I felt I had to be honest here.

I wasn't so much annoyed by the fingernoise as by the sound of the unwound (and presumably quite light) trebles. I try to alleviate that on my (much bigger) steelies by using trebles that are considerably heavier than what I find comfortable.

I also disagree for a large part about the harmonics. Yes, there is much more high frequency content in steel strings and even more importantly, it get's dissipated much less than it does in the much thicker monofilament composite strings. But more variety of timbre? IMHO that's where nylon and family excel. You can make those sound quite metallic but you cannot make steel strings sound like nylon. This is probably even more true for the wound strings. Or gut strings - I've never yet tried them on guitar but understand they can actually sound brighter than most strings of man-made materials.

Of course you will probably not be able to get the most out of composite strings if your parlor is built for steel strings of common tension (11s and up). If instead it was designed for classical guitar tensions you should probably try some of Aquila's modern gut strings for a presumably more authentic sound, and their Rubino trebles (or Sugar, or Martin Magnificos) for something much closer to steel string sound.

Relevant read on the Delcamp forum:
https://www.classicalguitardelcamp.c....php?p=1579953

[Crowyote]

Originally Posted by RJVB

Yeah, sorry, but I felt I had to be honest here.

I wasn't so much annoyed by the fingernoise as by the sound of the unwound (and presumably quite light) trebles. I try to alleviate that on my (much bigger) steelies by using trebles that are considerably heavier than what I find comfortable.

I also disagree for a large part about the harmonics. Yes, there is much more high frequency content in steel strings and even more importantly, it get's dissipated much less than it does in the much thicker monofilament composite strings. But more variety of timbre? IMHO that's where nylon and family excel. You can make those sound quite metallic but you cannot make steel strings sound like nylon. This is probably even more true for the wound strings. Or gut strings - I've never yet tried them on guitar but understand they can actually sound brighter than most strings of man-made materials.

Of course you will probably not be able to get the most out of composite strings if your parlor is built for steel strings of common tension (11s and up). If instead it was designed for classical guitar tensions you should probably try some of Aquila's modern gut strings for a presumably more authentic sound, and their Rubino trebles (or Sugar, or Martin Magnificos) for something much closer to steel string sound.

Relevant read on the Delcamp forum:
https://www.classicalguitardelcamp.c....php?p=1579953

My gauge is .016 (1st), . 018 (sometimes .020 for the 2nd string depending on the tuning), and .026 (3rd) for the trebles. The only guitarist who I know that uses anything heavier was Pat Martino (I can't find a bass string I like heavier than .056, but I doubt my thumb/nail could handle it).

What you might not like is the tone of my fingernails combined with the intense fundamental focus of the maple/spruce combo on this guitar. I grew up playing flamenco and Spanish guitar under the tutelage of Robert Guthrie and I've always used long nails. It does mean on steel strings that a much higher treble content is revealed. Tonewise, my idols growing up were David Russell and Eliot Fisk, both tend to use longer nails and have intense treble clarity with Fisk pushing the limits of taste quite often. I am working more and more on my nail shape and approach to suit steel strings and trying to get those sweeter tones . . . it's hard work to curb one's instincts and training.

I thought about it, and you're right about more soft timbres being capable in the nylon strings. I do think there are a greater range of bright tones available on steel, these can be influenced by tonewoods or composite soundboards and saddle/materials materials, etc.z

As far as steel strings, I only use D'addario Flat Top basses and NYXL trebles for their consistency and smoothness. Nylons I use a combo of D'addario trebles and La Bella basses. Aquila in my opinion have really inconsistent intonation, and I went through a whole nylgut etc phase a decade ago.

[RJVB]

Yes, I wouldn't have guessed that. I only have maple-backed guitars (one with a slight curve, the other a carved arch) but those are a lot bigger than a parlor and I still do a daily warmup routine to find just the right fleshy part of my fingertips to get a warm, singing sound.

You're right of course that steel strings (the highest 4 strings at least) allow more nuances in the bright register. For the (wound) G and D I can appreciate most of that range (on my big guitars at least).

If your parlor is built to withstand of the kind of heavy strings you're using it will probably not sound optimally at all with nylon strings. Then again I got that same prediction when I discussed putting nylons on my resonator (which was also supposed to use a 16" high E) but it turns out to work marvelously well (and still be louder than my archtop).

EDIT: re >56 low E: have you tried the TI Plectrum AC113? They come with a 61 low E. I use AC112s on my archtop, which have a 56 low E that sounds surprisingly good for a steel low E (and also gave me a sort of ridge on the plucking corner of my thumb :-/ )

[Crowyote]

Originally Posted by RJVB

Yes, I wouldn't have guessed that. I only have maple-backed guitars (one with a slight curve, the other a carved arch) but those are a lot bigger than a parlor and I still do a daily warmup routine to find just the right fleshy part of my fingertips to get a warm, singing sound.

You're right of course that steel strings (the highest 4 strings at least) allow more nuances in the bright register. For the (wound) G and D I can appreciate most of that range (on my big guitars at least).

If your parlor is built to withstand of the kind of heavy strings you're using it will probably not sound optimally at all with nylon strings. Then again I got that same prediction when I discussed putting nylons on my resonator (which was also supposed to use a 16" high E) but it turns out to work marvelously well (and still be louder than my archtop).

EDIT: re >56 low E: have you tried the TI Plectrum AC113? They come with a 61 low E. I use AC112s on my archtop, which have a 56 low E that sounds surprisingly good for a steel low E (and also gave me a sort of ridge on the plucking corner of my thumb :-/ )

I'm not interested in going any lower than .056 in the D'addario Flat Tops. I suspect it's a .058 that they file down.