 sj |
||
|
||
Dreadnought vs. Grand Concert?
|
|
|
Subject: Dreadnought vs. Grand Concert? From: GUEST,orangeslice Date: 10 Jun 07 - 10:12 AM I am planing to buy an inexpensive extra guitar for myself next week, but I'm not sure if I should get another dreadnought or grand concert? I play figerstyle mostly, and normally there wouldn't be any question about which guitar I would get, but I am slightly upgrading from the guitar I already have. Currently I have a Rogue 100D...which I'm quite happy with at the moment, however...the nut snapped on me so I carved my own out of wood, which works well enough, but it doesn't play nearly as well as when I had the original nut...plus I've long wanted to have an acoustic electric. I'm on a very strict budget right now (saving for a big vacation), so I don't want to spend any more than 100 (or just slightly over like 120, but no more), and I trust the Rogue brand now, but would it be better for me to get a new acoustic electric dreadnought or a grand concert? The GC seems to be thinner, which I like...what else is different about them? |
|
Subject: RE: Dreadnought vs. Grand Concert? From: Willie-O Date: 10 Jun 07 - 10:26 AM I don't know WHY you would want a dreadnought to play fingerstyle. Dreadnoughts were designed to be loud--because they predated most amplification and were competing with louder instruments in bands. They are very useful in bluegrass-style flatpicking because you want that volume for single-note solos. However you don't really need the huge air chamber to be heard while strumming, it generates excessive bass and feedback galore. And they are not very comfortable for most people to hold and play. (I love mine, being a flatpicker, but it's my little guitar that I actually play the great majority of the time) Any smaller-bodied guitar is easier to amplify, and electronics has come so far that it makes much more sense to get a smaller guitar. They feed back so much less, are more comfortable, and have a brightness that most bass-heavy dreadnoughts lack. Grand Concert, OM, triple or double O size...these are all easier to handle than the macho dreadnought. And if you're looking for one with the onboard electronics anyway, there's no reason to go for the big gun. W-O |
|
Subject: RE: Dreadnought vs. Grand Concert? From: GUEST,orangeslice Date: 10 Jun 07 - 11:05 AM Ha ha, well...okay I guess that pretty much answers my question. As for yours...I've just always used dreadnoughts, although I have occasionally used a classical and man do I hate those *sighs* I enjoy the bass, usually I come up with alternate tunings anyway...but the brighter sound could be nice. I'm sure holding a Grand Concert would be more comfortable...I've sorta gotten used to it, but anytime I get my hands on a thinner guitar I feel a lot more relieved. By the way, does anyone know if it's safe to string a dreadnought with nylon strings? Or just any guitar that wasn't originally intended to have nylon strings...? |
|
Subject: RE: Dreadnought vs. Grand Concert? From: Midchuck Date: 10 Jun 07 - 11:23 AM Willie-O said it all. Nothing I can add. As for stringing a dread with nylon, WHY? It certainly won't hurt the dread, but it makes less sense than any string combination I can think of. Also, you'll probably get buzzing if you put nylon strings on a guitar built for steel ones, because a steel-string guitar has the strings closer to the neck, and to each other, than a nylon strung one. You could try silk-and-steels, though. They'd work, be easier to play, and quieter. But why have a dread if you don't want to make a racket? Peter |
|
Subject: RE: Dreadnought vs. Grand Concert? From: Bee-dubya-ell Date: 10 Jun 07 - 11:47 AM I second everything Bill said above. Additionally, I find the sound of a smaller-bodied guitar compliments many of the songs I sing better than that of a dreadnaught. When I play a dreadnaught while singing, I feel a tension, almost a competition, between my singing voice and guitar. If I play my OM or 00 it feels like my voice is leading the way and the guitar is truly accompanying it, not competing with it. That's not to say it's necessarilly bad to have that vocal/instrument tension going on. Some styles, such as bluegrass, demand it, but it's nice to have an instrument that naturally provides more complimentary accompaniment for some songs. |
|
Subject: RE: Dreadnought vs. Grand Concert? From: GUEST Date: 10 Jun 07 - 11:51 AM Stringing guitars that should have metal stringe with nylon is like playing a blanket. It won't damage anything. The other way round (metal strings on a nylon guitar) spells big trouble. Stu |
|
Subject: RE: Dreadnought vs. Grand Concert? From: Bee-dubya-ell Date: 10 Jun 07 - 12:09 PM I once strung a dreadnaught with nylon strungs, just because I happened to have four dreadnaughts at the time and someone gave me a set of ball-end nylon strings. It sounded like crap. Flat-top guitar tops are "activated" by the upward tension placed upon them by the strings literally trying to pull the top of the guitar off. Steel-string guitars are built so that the top achieves its maximum sound potential under the pull of a set of steel strings. Nylon strings exert much less pull upon the top, making it sound "dead". Guitars intended to be played with nylon strings are built with much lighter bracing so their tops respond under less tension. |
|
Subject: RE: Dreadnought vs. Grand Concert? From: Willie-O Date: 10 Jun 07 - 12:11 PM Another sonic feature of dreadnoughts is that the bass is so deep and powerful, it's great if you don't have a bass player, but if you do, the bass and guitar are competing for the same frequencies... It's nice to have that terrific separation between bass and treble when fingerpicking. But you still get it with a medium sized guitar, just not so deep. A few years ago I played my dreadnought in jazz style (Cabaret) cause it was the only working guitar w a pickup I had at the time. I found that for jazz chording, it wasn't very good because the complex harmonics of jazz chords don't sound very good in a huge-thudding-bass context. In fact, they sound like you're trying to play jazz chords on an electric bass. My Martin O-18, in contrast, voices jazz chords beautifully because the "bass" strings are really midrange, so it's great that it doesn't have the broad tonal range of a dreadnought. Leave the bass sounds to the basses. W-O |
|
Subject: RE: Dreadnought vs. Grand Concert? From: Richard Bridge Date: 10 Jun 07 - 12:28 PM I prefer the sound of a dreadnought for everything, although I do little fingerstyle stuff (and no jazz chords, I'm not up to it). You'll never get the roar of the open tunings out of a smaller body |
|
Subject: RE: Dreadnought vs. Grand Concert? From: GUEST,Texas Guest Date: 10 Jun 07 - 06:10 PM Well, I don't have a dreadnaught anymore - don't need one, really. I have three grand concert guitars (two A/E) and a classical (A/E) and for one of the GC's I traded in a Martin D28 - and haven't looked back. Choose a guitar that you can afford, is comfortable for you to play, and gives you a sound you're looking for. If you're performing "out," go with either an A/E or just put a mic on an acousitc like Bill Staines does - whatever suits your style and works for you. Cheers. |
|
Subject: RE: Dreadnought vs. Grand Concert? From: bubblyrat Date: 10 Jun 07 - 07:06 PM I have been using dreadnoughts for some time now, because I liked the volume and the bass notes, but I never really found them comfortable to play. They are GREAT for playing in the street, or for accompanying what we in England call " Appalachian Clog " dancing, but about 2 years ago I bought a Martin MC 16, which has quite a small , narrow body, but still has good volume and bass, so I guess I'm a convert now !!! And small-bodied guitars are MUCH more comfortable to play. I maintain the volume by replacing the factory-supplied bridge-pins with solid brass ones ----- do try it !! I know that Martin also do aluminium ones, but I prefer brass ---I have 12 brass pins on my Samick 12-string --it helps to balance the enormously heavy headstock !! |
|
Subject: RE: Dreadnought vs. Grand Concert? From: Midchuck Date: 10 Jun 07 - 09:45 PM ...I bought a Martin MC 16, which has quite a small , narrow body, but still has good volume and bass, so I guess I'm a convert now !!! bubblyrat, Martin M's are wider across the lower bout than Martin dreadnoughts. 16 inches as opposed 15 5/8", I think. I agree they're much more comfortable to play - I have two of them, and no more dreads - but that's because they're thinner, back to front. Peter. |
|
Subject: RE: Dreadnought vs. Grand Concert? From: Songster Bob Date: 10 Jun 07 - 10:42 PM I just got a cheap dreadnaught, even though I play a jumbo (Running Dog) and 0-18 (Martin) and classical and archtop (Epiphone Zenith). I got it at my wife's suggestion, bacause it's a "Woods," which is her name. It was cheap, it's Chinese made, and it's cheap. But it's actually kinda nice, and will be a good one for "non-top-notch" settings, like parties or bar gigs or the beach (not that I'll be going to any of those often). As for playing finger-style on a dread, it's no biggie. Tom Paxton was doing his pattern-picking accompaniment back in 1963, on a D-28, and it suited him (and me, 'cause that's what I had, too). I admit that a smaller guitar is possibly a little more suited to the style, but it's not a cut-and-dried decision, and if you want to play in any other style (Carter-style, flat-picking, fully-strummed chords, etc.), a dread at least doesn't have to be clobbered to get volume and bass when you need it. I'd get whatever I could find that sounds good, plays good, and doesn't break the bank. But that's me. I do know, though, that cut-rate 000- or OM- style guitars are not usually as good in tone as the cut-rate dreadnoughts, for some reason. I assume it's because the larger guitar is easier to make "boomy" than the smaller one is easy to make "mellow." So don't shy away from one or the other; play 'em all and see what floats your boat. As for the electrical part, again, the larger number of options are in the dreadnought lines, I've noticed. Bob Clayton |
|
Subject: RE: Dreadnought vs. Grand Concert? From: Big Al Whittle Date: 11 Jun 07 - 04:00 AM Interesting thread. I've had loads of guitars and they all had their good points. I've settled for faith Jupiters and a saturn - which are jumbos and a dreadnought. the only experience I've had of small bodied guitars was a Yamaha APX, which was as you say a joy to play - very cuddly. But it was a it hard work when you had to fill a big room acoustically. |
|
Subject: RE: Dreadnought vs. Grand Concert? From: Grab Date: 11 Jun 07 - 07:38 AM If you like open tunings, try looking for more of a jumbo size - so the outline of a GC but with the depth of a dread. That'll still give you the "boom", but with more precision on the midrange. My problem with dreads for fingerpicking is that generally they don't have the precision of a waisted instrument, so with strings ringing on you can't hear the individual notes clearly. Not a problem with flatpicking or strumming, but not ideal for fingerpicking. Of course, as much of that depends on your style of fingerpicking - if your style is that kind of crisp ragtime bounce, then a dread might suit you. But it probably isn't going to work if you use a more classical-style approach. Graham. |
|
Subject: RE: Dreadnought vs. Grand Concert? From: Big Al Whittle Date: 11 Jun 07 - 07:46 AM Ken Nicol (who knows of what he speaks) said in a seminar at Fylde that the tight punchy ragtime sound that he is so good at(and much else of course) was aided by having a guitar with solid cedar top. |
|
Subject: RE: Dreadnought vs. Grand Concert? From: ThreeSheds Date: 11 Jun 07 - 08:39 AM Guitars designed for finger picking as opposed to plectrum (ie not dreds)usually have a wider finger board |
|
Subject: RE: Dreadnought vs. Grand Concert? From: John Hardly Date: 11 Jun 07 - 09:11 AM Dreadnoughts are the most versatile guitar body among the many production choices. They are more versatile because, by varying the attack, or simply using a capo, a dreadnought is capable of imitating the sound of a smaller guitar, whereas, a smaller guitar is almost totally incapable of imitating a dreadnought's capacity for low end and breadth of frequency. I've been informally investigating how the urban legend of the "fingerstyle guitar" (that had to be something other than dreadnought) was born. I haven't found the definitive answer yet, but I've found two big contributors... 1. Nearly 30 years ago now (while Michael Hedges, et al were still playing dreadnoughts) James Taylor -- a very influential personality in the American guitar world -- switched over and for a brief time had a small Whitebook and ultimately switched entirely to the Olson guitar(s) he now uses. When he switched, there were several publications, including Acoustic Guitar Magazine, who quoted him as praising the smaller guitar for his music. That was true, but it had little to do with the fact that he played fingerstyle, and everything to do with the fact that he played almost entirely in an ensemble with a bass and an electric lead. Any bass from his guitar was mostly lost in the din anyway, and the Olson fit comfortably beneath it. So the notion of a fingerstyle player like Taylor "stuck" -- though the rationale did not. 2. Dreadnoughts used to outsell every other guitar by a wide margin (probably still do). That's okay, except that there's at least as big a need to sell guitars as there is to play them. That being the case, a case had to be made for the guitar owner to buy more than one guitar (as if we need an excuse!). Stores like Elderly's (I still have one of their '80's catalogues) decided that if so many of their customers already had dreadnoughts, maybe they could sell them on another body style. But in order to do that, they thought it wise to make the case that the players of dreadnoughts could continue to do what they do on another body style (in addition to dreadnoughts) Thus motivated, they labeled the OMs and M and even the Martin J as "versatile"!! "...you can play anything on these....and if one of your styles is bluegrass, these will even hold their own in that setting too!" ...thus the "versatile" OM was born. It isn't more "versatile" (by any dictionary definition of "versatile"), but without being able to attract an audience predisposed to think of a guitar one way, they weren't likely to hook them and sell more guitars. Well, the marketing worked and fingerstylers found that they did like the smaller body -- for comfort. The sound was sort of beside the point because, essentially, fingerstyle performers are more amplification dependent anyway -- fingerstyle performers either play always mic'ed, or they are recording. When was the last time you went to an acoustic fingerstyle concert? Never? Me too. If they were actually playing acoustically, I have little doubt that they'd go back to the versatile dreadnought. The dreadnought was and still is the most versatile guitar made. Feel free to fingerpick yours. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
Subject: RE: Dreadnought vs. Grand Concert? From: John Hardly Date: 11 Jun 07 - 09:25 AM 3. The John Hardly running shoe phenomenon... My wife and I have been runners for the past thirty years (not running constantly -- we only do it once a day. Nobody could run for 30 years without resting from time to time). Anyways, as a runner it's always bugged me that the running shoes that are the best ones for me have always been the ugliest shoes. They're always the darker, just-this-side-of-a-clodhopper looking shoe -- not the lighter-than-air svelte athletic colors that are the shoes that are the best for my wife. If you could make a women's shoe big enough for my size 13 feet -- and then give me a manly rationale for wearing them, you can bet I'd be donning girly shoes. And it's that way with the dreadnought. Everyone knows that this big, clumsy, boxy, totally un-sexy looking guitar is one of the greatest, most verstile creations of the entire guitar world. But it just doesn't have those sexy OM or J curves. We like our guitars to look like our women. So you tell a guy that the OM is a better guitar -- and get enough men believing it -- and men will jump on an OM like they would a willing trollop... ...and leave their faithful, yet boxy wife at home. |
|
Subject: RE: Dreadnought vs. Grand Concert? From: GLoux Date: 11 Jun 07 - 09:45 AM The most cost effective way to go may be to take your current guitar to a repair person and have a bone nut cut and fitted. -Greg |
|
Subject: RE: Dreadnought vs. Grand Concert? From: Midchuck Date: 11 Jun 07 - 01:00 PM This is one case of a conflict where a perfect compromise exists. If you can find one. Peter. |
|
Subject: RE: Dreadnought vs. Grand Concert? From: PoppaGator Date: 11 Jun 07 - 06:23 PM Thanks, John Hardly, for your posts of 9:11 and 9:25 this morning. I've always thought that all this talk of different guitars for fingerpicking and flatpicking was a load of horse hockey. Or, at least, highly exaggerated. John's take on the marketing angle behind all this theorizing is very enlightening. Now, Willie-O's arguments earlier in the thread are almost as persuasive, and explain the anti-dreadnought position better than anything I had encountered until now. Everyone's entitled to their opinion, and Willie presents a pretty good case for his. But still, I disagree. One particular point where I would beg to differ: "Another sonic feature of dreadnoughts is that the bass is so deep and powerful, it's great if you don't have a bass player, but if you do, the bass and guitar are competing for the same frequencies... I would point out that the strings on an electric bass guitar, and also on an acoustic bull fiddle, are a full octave lower than the bottom end of any guitar. Hardly the "same frequencies." And we should also note that John H's discussion addressed this very point ~ that a strong bass presence in the guitar sound is less important in an ensemble than in a solo setting ~ and comes to a very different conclusion. I also have no patience with the assertion a 1/32" to 1/16" difference in the spacing between strings makes one instrument any more difficult to fingerpick than another. You learn to play your instrument in your chosen style(s) and become accustomed to it ~ end of story. If your meat-hooks actually feature fat stubby sausage-like digits that absolutely cannot be inserted between the strings of a Martin "D," you're not gonna be able to accomplish much with that slim little Taylor with the slightly wider neck, either. |
|
Subject: RE: Dreadnought vs. Grand Concert? From: GUEST Date: 12 Jun 07 - 03:18 AM Wow...this topic got way more replies than I expected. I'm not going to copy and paste everything that caught my eye, but...I'm pretty much fine with the sound of my dread, but...the bass does give me problems sometimes when I record...being boomy. Again, I do find myself wanting more mid and high, b/c when I play in common tuning then it just sounds a bit unbalanced to me, but that goes away when I do my own...open tunings...because then I almost always end up loosing the first 3 strings so much that they end up mid range and everything is either mid or low range. Ahmm as far as the style of fingerstyle I play...ahmm...think something kinda like Elliott Smith's "Satellite"...kinda like a gentle, simple melody and a catchy bass backing.
Thanks. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: Dreadnought vs. Grand Concert? From: MikeofNorthumbria Date: 12 Jun 07 - 07:20 AM Hi Folks, Some fascinating material here - thanks to all contributors, and particularly to Willie-o, PoppaGator and John Hardly, for some useful facts and illuminating opinions. Now here's my two-pennorth. While gigging in ceilidh bands that usually had no bass player (and pretty ropey amplification), I found my Gibson LG-0, though great for song accompaniment, didn't really cut the mustard. A Dreadnought style Takamine proved to be much more helpful (both unamplified in rehearsals, and amplified at gigs.) But when my regular band acquired a bass player, both the sound of the instrument and the playing techniques developed over the years no longer felt appropriate. As regards technique – at first it was simply a matter of trying to avoid doubling the bass lines an octave higher. But gradually I began finding a few useful fill-ins (mixing chords with short single-note phrases) which seemed to complement rather than compete with what the bass player was doing. (NB this is still work in progress – I'm not pretending to be any sort of expert, and would welcome further advice from people with more knowledge and experience.) As regards the choice of instruments – that's such a personal thing that advice in general terms may not be helpful. However, for what it's worth, here are a few thoughts. Dreadnoughts are great for acoustic jamming– they really cut through the massed fiddles, accordions, banjos etc. In the right hands, a good one also sounds great in quieter surroundings - but sometimes they seem harsh and overbearing. If you still want a big guitar, why not try a round-shouldered jumbo? - a good Gibson J-45 or an O-series Lowden still has plenty of power, but produces a distinctly mellower sound. Alternatively, you could try a mini-jumbo – one of the modern versions of the old Gibson Nick Lucas for example, or one from the Lowden F-series. I don't know whether it's their round shoulders, or the slightly greater body depth, but guitars of this type seem to me to have a richer, fuller sound that guitars with the Martin OM body size and shape. (Nothing against the OM design though – my pub-session guitar is a Sigma OM copy which cuts through the mix splendidly, though it lacks the subtlety of my beloved Lowden.) But when all's said and done, choosing a guitar is like falling in love - advice from outsiders, however well-meaning, is mostly irrelevant. Sometimes you see a guitar and it says "play me". After you've been playing it for a while, it says "buy me", and you do – regardless of previous preferences about brand names, body shapes, or varieties of timber. To Guest Orangeslice, I can only say, trust your own ears and your own feelings, and go for it! Wassail! |
|
Subject: RE: Dreadnought vs. Grand Concert? From: Grab Date: 12 Jun 07 - 09:10 AM Maybe the best way to say it then is: they sound different. :-) I guess also it depends on your fingerstyle. If it's Big Bill Broonzy or Libba Cotten, probably you *want* a dread! Paul Simon used a Guild dread for his stuff too. So if you want a good loud bassline to keep the beat, great. But if you're playing a more classical type of fingerstyle, especially if it's a kind of "Celtic" style involving altered tunings with lots of open strings ringing on in the midrange and a more balanced sound, a waisted shape of guitar might suit it better. Dreads have a noticeable "boom" which is generally absent on waisted guitars. John, re your post on the success of dreads. Dreads have that lovely big hit in the gut when they're strummed. Most players start off strumming, and most guitars are sold to first-timers - only a few players will graduate to a second guitar. I can see that being a major factor. I don't agree with the idea that it was just based on comfort - if you're standing, a dread is no more or less comfortable than a waisted guitar of similar depth (Lowden O or jumbo Gibson, say). And if you've got a pickup, that's *more* reason to go for a guitar that makes precisely the sound you want - you can choose a guitar without being limited to just those that'll project through a room unamplified. As you say, before amplification, your only choice to be heard was a dread (or maybe a resonator or 12-string, but then you're talking completely different tones). I can't see the widespread adoption of waisted guitars for fingerstyle as anything other than a choice based on suitability of tone for its intended purpose, once the artists were freed of constraints based solely on output volume. Graham. |
|
Subject: RE: Dreadnought vs. Grand Concert? From: John Hardly Date: 12 Jun 07 - 09:26 AM "And if you've got a pickup, that's *more* reason to go for a guitar that makes precisely the sound you want..." If you've got a pickup, that's *another* reason why a dreadnought would still be a more versatile choice. After all, if you are amplifying the sound anyway, you can dial in the bass/treble ratio. "Amplified" isn't about choosing the acoustic sound of a guitar -- it's about choosing the amplified sound. You're listening to electronics, not wood and string. Don't get me wrong. My favorite guitar is my LG-2. But my dreadnought is BY FAR the more versatile instrument. I would also add that I believe that the bad rap of "muddy" is mistakenly assigned to the dreadnought when it should be assigned to rosewood. A mahogany dreadnought rarely, if ever, sounds "muddy". |
|
Subject: RE: Dreadnought vs. Grand Concert? From: Mooh Date: 12 Jun 07 - 09:30 AM Some pretty good advice here, above. The compromise guitar might actually be a better choice all around. There are a number of modified jumbos, that is, reduced in size, which offer the best of both dreadnought and grand concert characteristics and maybe even be better than both. On the inexpensive side, the newish Godin/A&L/Seagull/S&P brand has such a guitar. Any number of builders will make what you need and those models are often approximately copied by the large factories for bargain prices. It seems the acoustic guitar world is emerging from its dread bias and embracing other worthy models more. The dreadnought size issue is often cleared up by a tighter waist and/or smaller lower bout, both of which can have a pleasing affect on the bass boom. The treble range might be more affected by strings, technique, and wood, rather than shape, but only with a wide sampling will you know for certain. This is especially so with solid tops matched to laminate backs...at least to my ears. One custom guitar I tried was a classical guitar shape (from the front) but much deeper (front to back), braced and strung for steel. It had a great tone all around, and handled a heavy strum as well as it handled light fingerpicking. If you haven't already bought, good luck shopping. If you have, enjoy Peace, Mooh. |
|
Subject: RE: Dreadnought vs. Grand Concert? From: M.Ted Date: 12 Jun 07 - 02:02 PM My opinion is that the dreadnought really is a very versatile instrument, and I strongly disagree with the idea that it isn't suited for jazz--in fact, it is ideal for playing jazz, and has, in times past, been used extensively as a rhythm guitar in swing bands. You can fingerpick it in any style you want on your off days, as well, and there isn't anything better for playing any kind of rock. I seriously doubt that "Celtic" music eludes the dreadnought, for any reason. Given that, different guitars sound and feel different. Guitarists chose the instrument that appeals to them and build their playing around it's strengths. |
|
Subject: RE: Dreadnought vs. Grand Concert? From: PoppaGator Date: 12 Jun 07 - 06:29 PM Aw, jeez, my friend and ally John Hardly beat me to the punch. I was planning to add this very point today, which has been addressed in other similar threads recently but not yet mentioned here: I would also add that I believe that the bad rap of "muddy" is mistakenly assigned to the dreadnought when it should be assigned to rosewood. A mahogany dreadnought rarely, if ever, sounds "muddy". All of the so-called "classic" (read: more expensive) Martin D's have the rosewood back-and-sides, and the defining quality of that choice of tonewood is its tendency to emphasize the "merged" sound of chords, as opposed to the "singled-out" sound of the individual strings. The least expensive and most unadorned Martin dread, the D-18, is a mahogany guitar and has its own distinctive sound. Mine was built in 1969, and I'm a very happy fingerpicker. (Incidentally, it cost all of $395 when new, and is worth well over two grand today. Not the most important consideration ~ I'm certainly not selling it ~ but it's nice to know.) No onboard electronics, thank you ~ just give me two microphones, for voice and instrument, and I'm good to go. The vocal may not always be that impressive, but I've often been told "wow, that's the best guitar I've ever heard." Of course, after 38 years of guitar monogamy, I've learned just how to coax the sounds I want out of that old box... Tonewood is at least as influential in determining an instrument's sound as body shape. The topwood undoubtedly makes a difference too. Shop around, play different instruments, bring another player with you so you can hear each one from "out front," and keep an open mind. |
|
Subject: RE: Dreadnought vs. Grand Concert? From: PoppaGator Date: 13 Jun 07 - 02:46 PM Lemme add something, even as it looks like this thread is about to die a natural death: For many years, I didn't even know that my guitar was made of different wood from all those D-28s and 35s. I thought that the only difference was the amount of mother-of-pearl gobbledegook, which I never valued very highly anyway. I think I finally got the straight poop about the D-18's mahogany body right here at Mudcat, years ago. Of course, since then I've been conscious of the differences among tonewoods, tried to listen objectively to different intruments, etc. I had always indulged in a bit of reverse-snobbery about my very plain-looking Martin, and felt quite proud about having saved hundreds of dollars by not falling into the conspicuous-consumption trap of buying a fancier-looking instrument. It was only later that I realized that wood as well as trim-level contributed to the 18's (relatively) economical price ~ mahogany is much more plentiful than rosewood, and hence significantly less expensive. And then it was another year or so later before I got over the idea that mahogany would automatically be inferior just because it's cheaper. By now, I've convinced myself that the lower-priced tonewood is actually better, at least for my purposes. By the way, I find it a bit ironic that mahogany is actually "rosier" in appearance than rosewood ~ a much warmer reddish-brown, whereas rosewood has a relatively grayish-brown appearance. |
|
Subject: RE: Dreadnought vs. Grand Concert? From: John Hardly Date: 13 Jun 07 - 02:50 PM That's 'cause rosewood is named for its aroma when cut, not its color. (so I've been told) |
|
Subject: Guitars in question From: orangeslice Date: 16 Jun 07 - 02:02 PM Okay, so I still haven't bought the guitar yet. I have still been looking around...right now I have to wait 3 days for an order I made on a product that wasn't available (don't ask, heh) to clear from my card...but I'm going to keep looking everywhere I can for a good deal. Right now I'm looking at a Breedlove Atlas C20 Passport Travel which looks pretty cool...it has a cedar top, which interests me...but...the scaled down size and the A tuning makes me a little concerned. Does anyone know anything about this guitar and what impact the scaled down size might have...I assume this guitar is like buying a Baby Taylor *shrugs* The other guitar that I'm interested in is an Alvarez RD20S...full sized...read some good reviews...seems like it would be pretty cool However, neither guitar has electronics, which I was looking for, but the prices are right. |
|
Subject: RE: Dreadnought vs. Grand Concert? From: Big Al Whittle Date: 16 Jun 07 - 04:08 PM Henry Cooper used to say, a good big 'un beats a good little 'un any day....... he was talking about heavyweight boxers, but I feel he was onto something. |
|
Subject: RE: Dreadnought vs. Grand Concert? From: Richard Bridge Date: 16 Jun 07 - 04:16 PM I thought the expression actually originated about Indy car engines! |
|
Subject: RE: Dreadnought vs. Grand Concert? From: orangeslice Date: 16 Jun 07 - 05:15 PM Heh, heh...alright, I get the point *thumbs up* |
| Share Thread: |