Slope vs Square shoulder

[mooboo]

So I know that Gibson has their square shoulder styled guitars and their sloped shoulder style.. Sonically, what is the difference? If you had two guitars of the same wood type, how would the sound differ?

Is this quality the same as, say, Taylor guitars (in the square vs sloped)?

Does anyone have the history as to why these two style came about?

Having two square shouldered acoustics, I can't say that I've ever played any of the Gibson round shouldered guitars!

[Bca143]

My very general understanding is that the squares produce a bassier sound, while slopes tend to be more balanced from bass to treble. I also read somewhere where the sound from a slope projects better to the player, while the square sends the sound more forward towards the audience. My ear can't tell much, but I think this is the general concensus of those that know.

[dhanners623]

There are other variables to consider, too, such as tone woods and scale length and manufacturer. But yeah, a slope-shoulder is generally going to sound more balanced across the board, at least in my experience. They make great singer-songwriter guitars for that reason. If you're playing with a bluegrass band, people will look askance if you're not playing a square-shoulder guitar (more boom to compete with the banjo) although many of the early bluegrass guitarists (Charlie Monroe, for example) played slope-shoulder Gibsons. But today, the Martin D-18 and D-28 are synonymous with bluegrass guitarists.

 

That said, a good guitar is a good guitar. If it sounds good to you, that's the one to play.

[mooboo]

That said' date=' a good guitar is a good guitar. If it sounds good to you, that's the one to play.

 

[/quote']

Amen brother! Can't beat a good sounding guitar..

[onewilyfool]

Of the ones I've played, for some reason, I like the LOOK of the slope shoulder, but the sound of the square shoulder......just me

[RASHARU]

Of the ones I've played' date=' for some reason, I like the LOOK of the slope shoulder, but the sound of the square shoulder......just me[/quote']

Exactly right!

[Rambler]

I also read somewhere where the square sends the sound more forward towards the audience.k;'m// [/quote293updm;] Other way around' date=' I think. Smaller (and shallower) bodies tend to force the sound out the hole. Larger/deeper boxes tend to make more of a surround sound, which can be satisfying to a player but maybe not so much to the audience or in a studio. That said,the difference here will be be subtler, since the are both 4 3/4 bodies, but then a bird is wider than a Martin D.

 

etc. Trebles on a bird wont sparkle as much as a J45. A rhythm box, mainly. And, re the bluegrass connection, I[i'] think[/i] a good J45 with an aid top would get more respect than a 'Bird (singing cowboy guitar).

[Taylor Player]

I would tend to agree with jkinnama on that..... The Advanced Jumbo is likely the loudest "Banjo Killer" of a guitar that Gibson made and it is a Slope D.

 

I tend to like the looks and sound of slopes more than square shoulder, but in reality, I rarely pick up a square shoulder guitar to give it a good chance..... maybe someday......

 

I can't afford to go having flings with other body styles right now. I'll just have to be happy with my current ones!

[bkharmony]

Amen brother! Can't beat a good sounding guitar..

 

I beat them to hell all the time.

[bkharmony]

The Advanced Jumbo is likely the loudest "Banjo Killer" of a guitar that Gibson made and it is a Slope D.

 

I am puzzled by this. Every AJ I've ever played - and admittedly, all of them have been at GC - has sounded like someone stuffed it full of kleenex. No projection, no tone, no character.

[Buc McMaster]

I am puzzled by this. Every AJ I've ever played - and admittedly' date=' all of them have been at GC - has sounded like someone stuffed it full of kleenex. No projection, no tone, no character.[/quote']

 

Such are the character of the Gibson acoustic guitars we know and love - some are dogs and some are golden. If there is one knock against Gibson acoustics that has some validity it is this one. Consistancy from one guitar to the next. While the golden ones outnumber the less-than-so, Gibson's consistancy has always been one of those issues that some cannot tolerate.........hence Gibson haters.

[ajsc]

I am puzzled by this. Every AJ I've ever played - and admittedly' date=' all of them have been at GC - has sounded like someone stuffed it full of kleenex. No projection, no tone, no character.[/quote']

 

 

I've had the opposite experience, even with old strings they seem to kick ***!!

[dhanners623]

I think a good part of it has to do with our expectations of the guitar. If we pick up a mahogany slope-shoulder and expect it to slay banjos, we're probably going to be disappointed. If we pick it up and expect it to be good for accompanying our singing, we're probably going to be more satisfied.

 

But as Buc adroitly points out, Gibsons (at least in my experience) tend to be very idiosyncratic. I've played some gems (and own one, a '98 J-45) and I've also played some that, in the words of Steve Earle, "still thinks it's a tree." I will say that many of the Gibsons I've played in recent years have sounded very good.

 

A friend of mine had a '94 J-45 and the thing was dead as a doornail. It had no spark. There was no "there" there. Mine, on the other hand, started out sounding really good and has just gotten better with age.

 

One fear I have, though, is that with multiple guitars -- and increasing demands of work -- I don't get to play all of them as much as they deserve. And guitars need to be played to keep the wood "alive," although I know that isn't a technical term and is largely subjective. I was thinking of getting one of those Tone-Rite devices to keep the guitars in shape. A repairman/master luthier I know says the thing produces results, while a player friend of mine has given it good reviews, too.

[bkharmony]

I was thinking of getting one of those Tone-Rite devices to keep the guitars in shape. A repairman/master luthier I know says the thing produces results' date=' while a player friend of mine has given it good reviews, too.[/quote']

 

I don't want to turn this thread into a(nother) Tone-Rite thread, but let me just quickly say... be careful. The thing does produce results. But you don't really get to control what it does to your guitar. It noticeably changed the tone of my J-45. While it sounds great (and is louder than hell now), it's probably not the direction I would've preferred.

[BigKahune]

Much to the chagrin of manufacturers and buyers alike, there is plenty of variability of sound and quality between guitars, even of the same brand and model. So every guitar out there, regardless of manufacturer, shape, style, etc, has to be evaluated on it's own merits. Making generalizations is sometimes useful, but that's all they are - generalizations.

 

My personal taste runs to square shoulders and large size. Tone woods are another subject.

 

And please, not another Tone-Rite discussion.

 

 

<edit>

 

Too late . . . . . . . . . . . Buc started another Tone-Rite thread.

http://forums.gibson.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=30046

[DanvillRob]

This is why I've drifted towards the dreadnaughts, (don't wanna look like a kid playin' his daddy's guitar)

[KL]

I am puzzled by this. Every AJ I've ever played - and admittedly' date=' all of them have been at GC - has sounded like someone stuffed it full of kleenex. No projection, no tone, no character.[/quote']

 

Yes, I've had this experience with Gibson's as well. I had to try about 20 J-45's before I found the one I bought. Maybe most of them will open up with lots of use, but you just don't know for certain.

 

As for slope vs square shoulder I have to admit I have a soft spot for the appearance and feel of a slope shouldered guitar. As far as sound goes I like examples of both. I think maybe because I'm not that big that slope shoulders somehow seem a better fit for me.

[KL]

Yes' date=' I've had this experience with Gibson's as well.

[/quote']

 

. . . and to be fair I should add I've also experienced the same issue with all other manufacturers as well. It's not just Gibson's

[Taylor Player]

I can see what your saying about the consistancy in guitars, but like KL said, it ain't just Gibson! I was lucky that when I got my AJ, it was 2 years old and had only been played a handfull of times by the original owner who had WAY too many guitars! lol.... I traded a Taylor T5 for the AJ and found out from him that he had got it new, never played before. When I got it, the sound was somewhat compressed, but being familier with guitars, I knew in my heart that it had just not been played. I found that over the next several months, the guitar would always start out sounding a bit "stiff" but after about 20-30 minutes of playing would open up somewhat a just sounded fuller and really nice. I concentrated on playing my AJ every day for the next few months and lo and behold, now whenever I pick it up, it sounds open right away. The stiffness is gone and has been replaced by a canon of a guitar.

 

I can't say for sure, but most of the Guitar Centers in my area change strings very rarely. Also, although the acoustic rooms are humidified, it certainly is nowhere near 40% in any of those rooms. It breaks my heart sometimes to walk in and see some beautiful guitars starting to show the signs of dryness and here in Minnesota, that sure doesn't take long.

 

Unfortunatly most of us wait for a guitar to "Speak" to us, but sometimes it may take awhile for a guitar to really call out your name. I am very glad I gave my AJ the time it needed and now have a keeper for life. Heck, my wife and daughter both have told me I am not EVER allowed to trade or sell my Taylor or my AJ.....(the rest of them get no such respect from the womenfolk in my house! lol). To me, that says a lot.

[DonCarlos]

Sonically, what is the difference

 

Well sonically they looked kool. So hence they sound much better.

[Rambler]

I am puzzled by this. Every AJ I've ever played - and admittedly' date=' all of them have been at[i'] GC [/i]- has sounded like someone stuffed it full of kleenex. No projection, no tone, no character.

 

BK--two words: Guitar Center. Probably old crappy strings that have on them forever, lights no less. Pretty sure this is a question of TLC, not a flawed guitar. String one up with a fresh set of 80/20 mediums and you should hear the difference.

 

Speaking of variability, I agree that any particular guitar will be unique within its class. But. It will share the basic character of others guitars in its class (shape, scale, woods), which will be different from a guitar of another class. Can't get around basic physics. Cheers, J