Why do guitar makers assume you want sustain?

[JuanCarlosVejar]

Folks,

 

So I have a question which I have wondered about for years and could not really put it into words until now.

It started when taylor redesigned their 600 series(maple line) to be more like rosewood and mahogany... This angered me because maple is in a class of it's own

And in my opinion they were trying to fit Maple into a mold that it does not fit into.Maple lovers may be a small market but we are still a market and shouldn't be shunned

Or seen as wierdos ...Just because we enjoy a linear/semi quite/non sustaining acoustic guitar.Every feature Andy put into these new guitars is a step away from what I love about maple.

It's almost as if they were embarrased about making a "bright" guitar.One thing I hate about these new guitars are the tinted backs which make it look like it's just trying too hard to be a rosewood guitar .

 

Any ways now with the Vclass bracing Taylor is making people think X bracing is a "compromise" between volume and sustain:

 

For me l got into Gibson guitars because they make wonderful maple instruments .

2 things I could care less about in my maple gibson guitars are precisely Sustain and Volume (in that order)

I look for transparency of sound and cleanliness of notes.

 

Taylor offers a bizarre maple guitar line that responds to "hog and rose" diehards not understanding maple,Martin does not offer any standard line maple guitar which in turn begs the question: Why do most guitar builders (even the small shops who copy martin dreads and small bodies)[maybe Kevin Kopp is the exception because he builds great maple guitars] assume Sustain and Volume is a desirable thing?

 

I'd like to leave a second youtube clip which explains why I favor maple and why mahogany is my second favorite.

Shoot out Between an Hbird and a Dove:

 

 

Tonal comparisons start at around 5:30

Any thoughts?

 

 

 

JC

[JWG4927]

 

Any thoughts?

 

 

 

JC

Dude could sure use a prescription for some Flonase

 

as far as maple and Taylor, maybe not as much embarassed as trying to make the more sustainable maple look more like traditional tonewoods

[j45nick]

For me l got into Gibson guitars because they make wonderful maple instruments .

2 things I could care less about in my maple gibson guitars are precisely Sustain and Volume (in that order)

I look for transparency of sound and cleanliness of notes.

 

Taylor offers a bizarre maple guitar line that responds to "hog and rose" diehards not understanding maple,Martin does not offer any standard line maple guitar which in turn begs the question: Why do most guitar builders (even the small shops who copy martin dreads and small bodies)[maybe Kevin Kopp is the exception because he builds great maple guitars] assume Sustain and Volume is a desirable thing?

 

I'd like to leave a second youtube clip which explains why I favor maple and why mahogany is my second favorite.

Shoot out Between an Hbird and a Dove:

 

Tonal comparisons start at around 5:30

Any thoughts?

 

 

The guy's analysis of the differences is pretty spot-on. I personally have never bonded with a maple guitar, which is the reason my lovely 1947 L-7 had to go. At the end of the day, the spruce/mahogany combination is my favorite, but certain rosewood guitars get me wound up as well. But my three favorites are my '48 J-45, my '43 SJ re-issue, and my L-OO Legend. And what do they have in common...?

[Buc McMaster]

Every feature Andy put into these new guitars is a step away from what I love about maple.

 

Any thoughts?

 

No offense intended, but I'd figure that Andy and Taylor are not building guitars with you in mind. The company has done very well for itself, finding a spot between Gibson and Martin that is theirs alone that obviously appeals to a pretty large market (though the jury may still be out on the new bracing). You like Gibson for, among other reasons I'm sure, they build quality maple models that work for you..........why should Taylor be expected to be another Gibson? They do their thing, other builders do theirs. It's nice to have choices, yes?

[QuestionMark]

I often dampen the strings with my right hand as I finger pick a melody. Kinda Chet Atkins influenced. I just compared dampening to not dampening when I played, when not dampening, letting the strings sustain. Sounded pretty good! (But, then I went back to dampening.)

 

I could see where someone can measure how good a guitar sounds by if it sustains. However, I tend to think sustain may be more favorable when strumming, playing rhythm, as strumming lends itself more to sustain whereas melody note playing often leads to needing less sustain so different notes after one another just are a note without sustaining into the next note.

 

Just some quick impressions of my own from what I just tried. Others’ may differ.

 

QM aka Jazzman Jeff

[bobouz]

Maple is my favorite as well.

 

I fingerpick almost exclusively, and look for a strong, sharp, & punchy attack. Maple most often gives me that.

 

I do have rosewood & mahogany acoustics that I also enjoy, but they are instruments I've selected specifically because they do not have an abundance of sustain - more dry & thumpy, but still with punch.

 

So anyway JC, I get it.

[Jinder]

I’m a die-hard Maple player, I love how “quick” a tonewood it is-the transient attack is very different to other woods to my ears and fingers.

 

I love Hog too, and have several wonderful Mahogany instruments, and consider the two woods to be massively complimentary when combined in a mix.

 

I’ve never owned a Rosewood instrument that I’ve bonded with. I had a great Guild GAD30R for a little while ten years ago, that sounded wonderful but had a ton of build issues, neck warping, top bellying, loose braces, bridge issues...it went back and was replaced with a different GAD30R which had no build problems but no tonal magic at all. I had a Rosewood AJ for some time which was nice but I could never really “master” it.

 

Maple wise, I have an SJ200 and Dove, with a Maple AJ on the way in June. After that, I plan to get my hands on a Maple parlour (a Nick Lucas, or perhaps one of the small run of Maple Guild F20s from the early ‘80s) and I think the circle will be complete...😉

[EuroAussie]

Interestingly i would say my Dove has more sustain that my Hummingbird. The Dove has a big, loud tone that really projects, whcih also includes significant sustain. The Hummingbird is much more mellow, softer tone, less sustain, more sweetness though.

 

I struggle in bonding with rosewood guitars. I find them very average strummers (muddy, over sustain) , but excellent flatpickers and finger pickers. They really excel at single note playing, hence why fingerstylists love them so much. Certainly thats the case with my AJ and Martin J-40 that i own. But Ive not really bonded with them as I find them a bit one trick ponys while the mahogany and maple gits can pretty much do it all.

[zombywoof]

One of the differences between vintage and new guitars is that the old ones tend to give you one big note and then get out of their own way. Builders these days want to please a modern ear so seem intent on making a guitar that will ring until Kingdom Come, be rich in harmonics, and are voiced a bit brighter which if nothing else give the illusion of more volume. One of the reasons I like ladder braced guitars is they tend to have a quicker decay and not be much in the way of overtones. Problem is the only company out there I know of building a quality ladder braced instrument is Collings with its Waterloos.

[generaldreedle]

The whole reason I traded in my j45 custom rosewood and got a southern jumbo instead was the sustain difference. I wanted something that was less. By the way, this guy in the video gives great acoustic guitar lessons on rolling Stones songs in particular.

[zombywoof]

The whole reason I traded in my j45 custom rosewood and got a southern jumbo instead was the sustain difference. I wanted something that was less. By the way, this guy in the video gives great acoustic guitar lessons on rolling Stones songs in particular.

 

He must teach you to play in Open G tuning.

[BluesKing777]

I would have to play the guitars in question to know if I can work with it.

 

 

But right hand damping will give more control over everything. But not always....

 

I have the Queen of sustain - Lowden O22 mahogany/cedar - the A frame bracing and high quality build is thought to contribute to the incredible sustain - literally play a note and walk away and come back etc. Straight to DADGAD tuning for you!!! (the styles you play in that tuning generally need sustain and bags of it). Now, I can tune the Lowden O22 to standard tuning, put a capo on 3 and play country blues with lots of damping and it sounds really good, but not like my LG3 with the capo on 3 where I hardly would have to dampen.

 

Now my other huge sustainer is my Martin OM28 Marquis rosewood/adi. Used to be my DADGAD'er before I got the Lowdens, so could be on the block. This is incredible for tunes that need long sustaining vibrato notes and chords BUT it is just wrong for the plain old country blues in C - the boom chick bit sounds peculiar, not right. But grab my Martin OM18 Authentic mahogany/adi and...perfect!

 

 

So give me the Taylors mentioned (never been near one) and I could know if it would work for damping country blues in about 3 secs.

 

 

 

BluesKing777.

[generaldreedle]

He must teach you to play in Open G tuning.

 

He does and some Stones acoustic songs that are in regular tuning, he's a very good teacher.

[Rambler]

I'd imagine for a lot of acoustic players, tho, sustain is a feature, not a bug. That includes everyone from rocker who want to mimic electrics and finger-style artistes who want a shimmery sound cloud. Dry old shcoll thumping is an acquired taste. Taylor has to go where the market is.

 

Maple b/s is just one part of the tone equation. A J185 (maple/jumbo) can get pretty lush. A good L00? dry as the desert.

[MissouriPicker]

I think sustain is great if your wanting a lingering sound to your guitar. I can live with or without it. My walnut j100 doesn't have much sustain. In fact, to my ears the sounds decays quickly, BUT, it's got that dry and thumpy tone that I like. You don't need a lot of dampening. My Dove is a real boomer, so I dampen a lot of it, especially the bass notes. The Hummingbird is simply a mellow beast. I think I dampen the bass notes on all of them. Don't really care for a bright and ringing sound. My other Gibsons all have their own attributes. If I had to pick a tone wood that kind of automatically gives me the exact sound I lean-towards, I say it was mahogany. Still, a sweet guitar is a "sweet guitar," no matter what the wood is.

[62burst]

I think sustain is great if your wanting a lingering sound to your guitar. I can live with or without it. My walnut j100 doesn't have much sustain. In fact, to my ears the sounds decays quickly, BUT, it's got that dry and thumpy tone that I like. You don't need a lot of dampening. My Dove is a real boomer, so I dampen a lot of it, especially the bass notes. The Hummingbird is simply a mellow beast. I think I dampen the bass notes on all of them. Don't really care for a bright and ringing sound. My other Gibsons all have their own attributes. If I had to pick a tone wood that kind of automatically gives me the exact sound I lean-towards, I say it was mahogany. Still, a sweet guitar is a "sweet guitar," no matter what the wood is.

Good to hear from you, Larry.

[E-minor7]

Good to hear from you, Larry.

 

+1 - and good to hear from you too.

 

 

Sustain

[JuanCarlosVejar]

I think sustain is great if your wanting a lingering sound to your guitar. I can live with or without it. My walnut j100 doesn't have much sustain. In fact, to my ears the sounds decays quickly, BUT, it's got that dry and thumpy tone that I like. You don't need a lot of dampening. My Dove is a real boomer, so I dampen a lot of it, especially the bass notes. The Hummingbird is simply a mellow beast. I think I dampen the bass notes on all of them. Don't really care for a bright and ringing sound. My other Gibsons all have their own attributes. If I had to pick a tone wood that kind of automatically gives me the exact sound I lean-towards, I say it was mahogany. Still, a sweet guitar is a "sweet guitar," no matter what the wood is.

Larry,

 

Wonderful analysis!

 

It's good to know you are stil around.

 

 

God Bless

 

 

JC

[J45fan]

Still, a sweet guitar is a "sweet guitar," no matter what the wood is.

 

+1, how true.

[JuanCarlosVejar]

Here's something taylor posted about maple today in their blog:

 

https://blog.taylorguitars.com/buyers-resources/maple-gives-600-series-voice

 

 

I felt very sorry after reading the following line:

 

"This led Taylor master guitar designer Andy Powers to redesign our maple 600 Series back in 2015 to reveal more of maple’s natural musical strengths and make it more broadly appealing to players"

 

Just to make it clear I thought Taylor was making wonderful maple guitars before 2015 ...And I had hopes of getting one at some point

 

 

It saddens me that they changed something that was unique and beautiful on it's own just so they could appeal "Broadly" to players.

 

 

Some might ask why I bring this up on the gibson forum?

I do it because I feel Gibson,Guild and Taylor have been 3 companies who always knew what to do with maple.

 

And I wil always believe that Maple can hold it's own against Rosewood or Mahogany.

 

It's ironic to read that the writer fell in love with a BLONDE maple Taylor way back in 98.And again it's frustrating as a true maple lover to have one less option in the market place in these out of touch stained back models ... A quality maple acoustic is do hard to find for a lefty(Without going custom) these days.

 

 

Thanks to all for opinions and points of view.

I have learned something new from each of you.

 

I guess all that is left for me is to be greatful for the maple guitars I have and keep my eyes peeled in the future for a used pre 2015 taylor or any other quality maple lefty out there.

 

One day Maple will get the respect it deserves by a majority without needing to be more like other woods.When that day comes if I am still alive it will be a great day ...Until then I will continue to loom in the shadows of Rosewood strumming country tunes on my Maple guits

 

In my opinion the maple guitars of the 30's like the L Centuries and the Nick Lucas as well as stuff from the 50's and 60's like the J 185,the Dove ,Epiphone Frontiers and Everly Brothers model were ahead of their time and still hold up today as the pinnacle in maple flat top design. Also I'd like to say that Gibson Montana designed a modern day maple gem In the Western Maple Firebird Custom guitar

 

I'll leave you guys with this performance featuring an Everly model and a Epiphone El Dorado:

 

 

JC