|
Post by linkous on Mar 22, 2018 15:52:14 GMT
‘Surely, a great many guitars of many kinds need resets or more by 80 years of age. That doesn’t mean they were badly-built in the first place.’
This is exactly my point, Bod. As a furniture maker I absolutely trust the strength of wood glue, but as a restorer I also know what happens with a glued joint after a few decennia.
The only reason to build neck and stick out of two parts is an economic reason. It is faster, easier and cheaper. And that has nothing to do with a better sound or quality, on the contrary.
|
|
|
Post by bod on Mar 22, 2018 19:02:54 GMT
‘Surely, a great many guitars of many kinds need resets or more by 80 years of age. That doesn’t mean they were badly-built in the first place.’
This is exactly my point, Bod. As a furniture maker I absolutely trust the strength of wood glue, but as a restorer I also know what happens with a glued joint after a few decennia. The only reason to build neck and stick out of two parts is an economic reason. It is faster, easier and cheaper. And that has nothing to do with a better sound or quality, on the contrary. Point taken, and insights from furniture making received with thanks. Stability of artefacts over time is a consideration. ‘Faster, easier, cheaper’ can be a drag on quality, but they are also practical considerations impacting viability of a business and the number of people able to acquire and use instruments. What is a reasonable projected lifespan for a guitar? And at what price? What kinds of maintenance is it reasonable to envisage during that lifespan? I don’t know the answers, but even if there is a need for resetting every, say, 60 years that doesn’t seem very damning to me. The relationship between ‘better sound’ and all of the foregoing seems to me to be either highly complex or non-existent. For some music that I love the defining sounds tend to come from low-budget instruments. To me, my lightly built old catalogue guitar, unstable enough to have required significant taking apart and mending, ‘sounds better’ than pretty much anything else I have played. Moreover, I feel that the liveliness of that instrument in play and its relative fragility / instability are to some extent like two sides of the proverbial coin...
|
|
|
Post by pete1951 on Apr 8, 2018 10:19:20 GMT
‘Surely, a great many guitars of many kinds need resets or more by 80 years of age. That doesn’t mean they were badly-built in the first place.’
This is exactly my point, Bod. As a furniture maker I absolutely trust the strength of wood glue, but as a restorer I also know what happens with a glued joint after a few decennia. The only reason to build neck and stick out of two parts is an economic reason. It is faster, easier and cheaper. And that has nothing to do with a better sound or quality, on the contrary. Linkous is correct on this point, National did not want to use more wood than necessary. My National has a one piece neck and glued in stick, so with the finger board that's 2glue joints . Carving neck and stick from a single block is not practical economically. However, it still uses less glue than most classical guitars that have glued on heads and heals , and some that have 3piece sandwich style construction. (I personally like a 3 piece neck)
|
|