Guitar Woods different than Classical String Instrument Woods?

[jtbowlin]

Something I've never really understood is that for hundreds of years it's been accepted for classical string instruments (violin, cello, bass, etc.) that you have spruce for the top maple (usually European) for the back and sides. It's quite rare to see any high-end classical string instrument that isn't like that.

For guitars, the "norm" seems to be spruce top and rosewood back/sides. However, I know there are quite a few accepted variations of this. I myself, have a cedar and mahogany guitar.

So, why do you think the default for guitars is different that classical string instruments and why do you think variations of woods are also more acceptable? All I can think of is that using a bow does something different, or maybe it's just how it is due to someone making choices early on in guitar making.

[sdelsolray]

Yes, bowed string instruments are quite different from plucked string instruments.

[Mr Fingers]

sdelsoray said it. The bow can provide continuous energy while the guitar has a plucked attack/decay. There are some similarities, and some big differences. Over the years, the guitars that have imitated orchestral bowed instruments have generally not been successful in creating either the tone or the mechanical, physical responsiveness that players and audiences prefer. Though I will likely be excoriated for saying so, I think this extends, for sure, to most archtop guitars, which with rare exceptions have not, over time, been the preferred instruments of either players or listeners. (Let's see how many members are on the archtop forum right now...) I'd rather heR JULIAN LAGE PLAY HIS 000-18 than his archtops.

[Steve DeRosa]

Originally Posted by Mr Fingers

...Though I will likely be excoriated for saying so I think this extends, for sure, to most archtop guitars, which with rare exceptions have not, over time, been the preferred instruments of either players or listeners...

Lifelong archtop player here:

As a retired music and classroom teacher I prefer to take the path of education, rather than excoriation, wherever possible. FWIW your evaluation is not uncommon; IME most people who hold the same position not only have little to no direct exposure to the genre as a whole (meaning hands-on and/or live performance), but have never had the pleasure of playing a fine archtop. During the heyday of the modern (post L-5) acoustic archtop guitar (roughly 1925-1955, when Epiphone closed their New York operation and rock-&-roll brought the electric guitar to preeminence) they were considered virtuoso instruments, descended as much from the violinmaker's craft as from early steel-string flattops, and speaking from five-plus decades of experience they require a far-more-refined technique to bring out their best; simply put, don't expect to just sit down and whack away as you would on a dread, and get the same level of instant gratification - if you believe instruments possess a soul, they're going to express their resentment in most-uncertain (and strident) terms. Approach them, however, with an orchestral string-player's technique in both right and left hand - subtlety of touch on the fingerboard ("feel" the note rather than "squeeze") and bow-derived picking ("glide" and "stroke" rather than "pick" and "strum") and you'll be rewarded with a smooth, rich, surprisingly well-balanced and even tone with more carrying power than is obvious to the player; IME archtops, due to their "piston" rather than torsional mode of vibration, tend to develop their sound well in front of the soundboard rather than within the body - those 17" and 18" Big Band-era comp boxes had no problem being heard over a 20-piece full-boogie horn section back in the day - so if yours is properly set up and played with the right technique, chances are you'll need less effort than with a typical flattop. FYI the old '30s/40s guys referred to this as "coaxing the velvet out" - and if you've ever been in the same room with an accomplished player working out on a vintage Epiphone Emperor/Gibson Super 400/D'Angelico New Yorker I can hardly think of a more apt description...

Second, speaking as one who was there acoustic archtops not only retained a more-limited popularity for another 10-15 years after they ceased to be a major force in popular music, but were far more prevalent than flattops in some markets. In case you're not aware Gibson cataloged the all-acoustic 16" L-48 and L-50 until 1970, the 17" L-7C until 1972 TMK, and the top-line L-5C and Super 400C continued to appear on price lists through at least the late-70s; although the original Epiphone company was no longer in existence (Gibson-made Epiphone acoustic archtops do exist - mostly built on leftover New York platforms and fitted with Gibson-style hardware - but are extremely rare) Guild produced pure acoustic archtops until 1973, and the suspended-pickup Artist Award until the close of Westerly production. When I began taking lessons in 1962, every kid at the local music school - every last one, not a single flattop in the bunch (I didn't own a flattop guitar until 1970) - had either a Harmony or Kay archtop (Harmony continued to produce theirs into the early-70s), the Manhattan pawnshop windows were filled with '30s/40s comp boxes at stupid-cheap prices, and when I got into the vintage-guitar thing in the early-70s New York Epiphone archtops could be had by the dozens (if not hundreds) along with the occasional Gretsch - far outnumbering prewar Gibson and Martin flattops; in addition, there's been a mini-revival over the last 15-20 years: Eastman, Guild, Epiphone, Gretsch, Godin, Washburn, Peerless, and Ibanez either produce or have produced acoustic instruments in that time, there are more first-rate dedicated archtop-specialist luthiers than at any time in history - and the way I figure it, nobody's making any money if someone's not buying their product...

In addition, most contemporary players are unaware that there was an entire school of "classical archtop" guitar that flourished from about 1925-1940, and upon which Mel Bay based his well-known method; when I was learning in the early-60's the method books bore a statement that they were in fact designed and intended to place the plectrum-style guitar "in the same class as the violin, piano, and other 'legitimate' instruments" (and if you've never hung around in certain so-called "serious" music circles it's difficult to imagine the pejorative attitude directed toward the guitar, even in its "classical" incarnation). FYI, in its original form the classical archtop movement drew from the earlier American school of classical guitar exemplified by the likes of William Foden, Vahdah Olcott-Bickford, et al. (rather than that of Segovia and his Spanish contemporaries, which would become the accepted concert style and instrument), as well as the parlor, "light classical," and vaudeville music of late-19th/early-20th-century America. In addition to transcriptions of well-known classical repertoire, a number of guitarists of the day produced original compositions in a late-Romantic style - music which, while largely out of fashion today, still retains its technical and artistic merit eighty or more years later. Bear in mind that the original Lloyd Loar-designed L-5 archtop guitar was in fact envisioned as a "classical" instrument both tonally and visually, intended as a part of the mandolin orchestras of the late vaudeville era and designed for hall-filling acoustic projection in the days before electronic amplification; were it not for Segovia's sensational American debut in 1928, the plectrum-style archtop guitar - with its violin-family looks and construction - may well have become the accepted "classical" guitar...

BTW, if you're interested there are a number of recordings of these period pieces on YouTube, either in the original (by the likes of Harry Volpe, Al Hendrickson, et al.) or re-recorded by contemporary revivalists; in addition, you might also want to check out some of the work of Eddie Lang (both solo and with Joe Venuti on violin), Carl Kress and Dick McDonough, Tony Mottola, and George Van Eps. Finally, there's an excellent collection published by Mel Bay entitled Masters of the Plectrum Guitar which, if you're brave enough to attempt it, should keep you busy for a while, give you a taste of not only what was but what might have been - and forever change your preconceptions of what an archtop guitar can/cannot do...

[mercy]

Nice reply, I think its because maple was more available. As for flat tops its just a matter of sound. Maple bodies dont produce a sound I like. Maybe most other players feel the same.

[merlin666]

Originally Posted by mercy

Nice reply, I think its because maple was more available. As for flat tops its just a matter of sound. Maple bodies dont produce a sound I like. Maybe most other players feel the same.

I would agree that the wood supply was important and local European woods such as spruce and maple were obvious choices. The huge South American hardwoods such as rosewood (jacaranda) and mahogany were only discovered much later and their use for stringed instruments only realized in the 19th century I think.

[ManyMartinMan]

Tevye said it best, "TRADITION". With worldwide accessibility and shipping rules changing perspectives on wood, anything may happen. Violins now come in carbon-fibre, plastic, electronic... things that weren't offered even 20 years ago.

[Palle]

Originally Posted by Mr Fingers

Though I will likely be excoriated for saying so, I think this extends, for sure, to most archtop guitars, which with rare exceptions have not, over time, been the preferred instruments of either players or listeners. (Let's see how many members are on the archtop forum right now...) .

David Rawlings plays an archtop - great sound!

[tadol]

There are probably a number of factors involved, and the "norm" is probably based on a combination of factors -

Spruce was probably found to be easily split, easily carved, and pretty abundant - and it makes a great soundboard. Other materials were undoubtedly used, but for that application, nothing was found to be better. Similarly, there were probably a number of hardwoods used to make instruments, but for the workability, durability, bendability, and holding fine carved detail, european maple was easily available and abundant.

Rosewood was a treasure from the new world - most of it went to furniture, perfumes, and with most of it cut for figure, it probably wasn't very available to most luthiers, except possibly in smaller pieces for decorative use. Imagine a carved violin in braz rosewood - be pretty, but having to hold that weight up under your chin for long periods would be killer, and thin rw is probably not as resilient to impact as maple is. And it was undoubtedly far more expensive than similar splits in maple. And even in the long ago, musicians were not the wealthy ones, so basically, there was no good reason to use it -

Once rosewood became much more avail, you see it being used in mandolins and parlor guitars, even some wind instruments - but I dont think it was for tonal value, but more for aesthetic and perceived value. Lots of it was laminated for strength, just a thin veneer of the real stuff. Just like rosewood on pianos - a status and appearance thing far more than a tonal thing.

But when did solid rosewood become the "norm" for high end acoustic guitars? I'm sure someone more intimately familiar with Martins history would know how and why they went that route - I'd imagine it had more to do with an established and available supply chain than with an evaluative search for optimal tone woods - it may also have to do with better power machinery available to process it - but now, the market has created standards for guitars that include rosewood as one of the defining materials. You still don't see carved back brazilian rw guitars - I think I've seen one, maybe 2 - but you do find lots of great carved maple, and some mahogany, or even cherry and walnut ones.

But even though species may be different - the type of material any fine instrument maker wants is still, after hundreds of years, the same. Clear, straight and even grain, quarter-sawn, well-seasoned - thats about as ideal as you get, although there are also ideal characteristics unique for each species. So really, there isn't that much difference at the root of it - woods that meet those parameters are highly desired by luthiers, as the ability to market something different and unique is always desirable - especially if it also sounds good - ;-)

[Watt]

Originally Posted by Steve DeRosa

Lifelong archtop player here:

...

Thanks, Steve. You know that I will now have to resume my recently suspended search for an archtop. I have a 1926 Supertone (Harmony), but it's in sad shape.

[Alan Carruth]

As a maker of both guitars (including archtops) and violin family instruments I can attest to the fact that they are very different beasts indeed. This gets extremely complex, taking in acoustics, history and tradition as aspects, and all of them have some weight. Suffice to say that, although 'alternative' woods can work in either sort of instrument, you're more likely to get a satisfactory outcome if you stick with the traditions. The designs are predicated on both the properties of the woods and the desired tonal outcome: making changes in the wood would require alterations in the design to preserve the tone. In the violin world in particular this is very difficult to do for a host of reasons, of which mere 'tradition' is both one of the strongest, and least consequential operationally. Again, it gets complicated....