Official Luthiers Forum!
http://www-.luthiersforum.com/forum/

Question for Classical builders
http://www-.luthiersforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10102&t=10242		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  EBarajas [ Mon Jan 08, 2007 6:20 am ]
Post subject: 
I recently saw a post on the mimf forum asking for opinions on using a radiused fretboard on a classical guitar, what do you think about this? They used a 20"-25" radius and said it felt better and it was easier to use the barre. I would really like to get Robbie's opinion on this. How is this recieved by classical players?

Thanks.
Author:  jfrench [ Mon Jan 08, 2007 6:53 am ]
Post subject: 
I've yet to have anyone request a radiused fingerboard. If someone did, I'd take it as a lack of confidence.

Its not difficult to achieve excellent playability without resorting to a curved fingerboard.

This is one of those things that I see people talking about on various classical guitar forums that usually captures the attention of newer players or crossover players, but rarely the experienced players.
Author:  Mike Collins [ Mon Jan 08, 2007 8:11 am ]
Post subject: 
Wow !
I guess this is a touchy subject!
I arch all of mine -even the "Flamencos" !
Every player raved about the fantastic feel that the slight arch gave along with the increased playability!

Think about it-is the underside of your first finger flat?
NO !!
The arching helps the finger connect with the frets and strings better!
I've had many flat board guitars brought here for refretting with an arch after the players just not being able to play a flat one after trying one of mine.
I've had NO players say leave the board flat!!
After hundreds of guitars!

The radius you mention may be correct !
I use a compound radius - from the nut to the s.h. the board gets progressively flatter.
BUT there are NO flat areas where barring will be done.

Mike Collins


www.collinsguitars.comMike Collins39090.6772569444
Author:  jfrench [ Mon Jan 08, 2007 9:08 am ]
Post subject: 
Nah, it isn't a touchy subject, but someone's got to give tradition a voice!
Author:  Colin S [ Mon Jan 08, 2007 9:28 am ]
Post subject: 
When I hold my index finger in the barre position it's actually got a convex profile, so am I saying that the fingerboard should be concave? Of course not. I play steel string guitar with a radiused fingerboard (16"), 'classical' guitar with a flat fingerboard and lute with an even wider flat fingerboard. The one with the best playability? Why, the extra wide and flat lute fingerboard, OK I just break the edges, but that is just so the fret gut is tight to the board. I find that the wider the board the flatter I want it, especially for the shorter fourth finger. The barre isn't the only consideration. In fact I'm considering making my next steel string flat.

Colin
Author:  John Elshaw [ Mon Jan 08, 2007 9:57 am ]
Post subject: 
As a classical player for over 20 years, I have mixed feelings about a fretboard radius. I think much depends on what each specific player considers "comfortable." I don't think bar chords are an issue for experienced players, however transverse movement of the left hand is extremely important for a classical player, and I feel is hindered by a radius.

Also, while some players may feel bar chords are easier to play, the radius may make it more difficult to push the string perpendicular to the fretboard as it has more of a tendancy to slip. If the string is pushed slightly tangent, you will notice the guitar going out of tune much easier than on a SS. There is also a difference on where the left hand fingers touch the string for a radiused fretboard. This may bother some but not others.

Also, since there is almost no strumming on a classical, I've heard others complain about the right hand ability to play consistently, especially for fast arppegios, etc. I haven't had this problem, but have heard plenty of others who have.

Lastly, I think neck thickness and width have a much greater impact on long term comfort than radius. One positive aspect of the radius is that it helps prevent damage from the fretboard drying out and becoming concave over time. I think overall you will see beginner players think a radiused classical is more comfortable to play, but more experienced players will prefer the consistency and predictability of a flat fingerboard, especially if they switch from one guitar to another.

Cheers!

John
Author:  John Elshaw [ Mon Jan 08, 2007 10:10 am ]
Post subject: 
[QUOTE=Colin S]I find that the wider the board the flatter I want it, especially for the shorter fourth finger. The barre isn't the only consideration.
Colin[/QUOTE]

I totally agree Colin. As a matter of fact, my reach is actually about 1 fret higher with a flat fretboard than a radiused one. For the non-classical players, it's not about a bar chord. When playing classical you frequently bar with your first finger and then play a melody and accompaniment at the same time with your other three, frequently higher than 1-2 frets above your bar. To me, if I have to bar and then play notes 4 frets higher, it's just easier on a flat fretboard.

John   
Author:  Robbie O'Brien [ Mon Jan 08, 2007 10:50 am ]
Post subject: 
If I rememebr correctly my buddy in Brazil put a radiused fretboard on Paul Galbraith's guitar but of course he is playing more than six strings. I personally do not use a radiused fretboard on my classical guitars and usually the first comment someone has when they play my guitars is that they are very easy to play. However, if a client were to one day ask me for a radiused fretboard then that is what he would get. Until then, my fretboards are like my behind when I spend too much time in front of the computer reading posts on the OLF...FLAT!    
Author:  EBarajas [ Mon Jan 08, 2007 11:23 am ]
Post subject: 
Thanks Guys! I will continue to go flat unless someone request otherwise.
Author:  Shawn [ Mon Jan 08, 2007 6:35 pm ]
Post subject: 
I fall into the traditional Spanish tradition but I know of other classical builders that build with a radiused fingerboard.

I talked at length with Thomas Humphrey about it and he told of an older player who did not have as much flexibility any more so Thom matched the radius of the players finger to the radius he put on the fingerboard and the player loved it. He told me that the radius is extremely slight but he puts it into most of his guitars.
Author:  Gary L [ Tue Jan 09, 2007 12:03 am ]
Post subject: 
I radius very slightly--about 25 inches. I believe I read that Greg Byers radiuses a small amount as a pre-emptive strike against the slow but inevitable raising of the fingerboard edges relative to the interior. As a player, I'm equally comfortable playing slightly radiused and dead flat fingerboards.
Author:  Michael McBroom [ Tue Jan 09, 2007 2:24 am ]
Post subject: 
I'm with most of the others here. I build my classicals with a flat fb and as a player with over 30 years experience playing classical guitar, I prefer a flat fb.

Regarding the issue of barring, something I used to point out to my students, which made it much easier to do, was to tell them to barre sort of off the side of the index finger. It's easier to show than it is to describe. Chances are, if your hand is at all like mine, when you look down at your index finger when you make a barre, it is positioned slightly counterclockwise from dead flat on the board. If it isn't, it is easy enough to make it so. Having the finger at that orientation allows you to curve it slightly while still maintaining a flat barre across the strings. To me it's much more comfortable to barre this way, especially with a flat fingerboard.

Best,

MichaelMichael McBroom39091.8345949074
Author:  Mike Collins [ Tue Jan 09, 2007 6:59 am ]
Post subject: 
Michael ;
You just described why a slightly arched board is needed!
There is enough for the player to think about.

Mike Collins
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/