There's no "classic guitar" forum here, so I'm guessing this is the best place to post a (probably dumb) question:
Apart from tradition, why is the classical repertoire performed exclusively on nylon strings? Why doesn't anyone play Villa-Lobos or Sor or Giuliani on steel-string guitars?
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whipped cream." - Frank Zappa
I do punk on my classical guitar (need proof? watch some of my vids).
Why people choose to play a certain song/piece on a certain type of guitar?
Simply, because it was meant for that instrument.
If you wrote a classical piece and played it on a steel string, it will still remain classical. BUT, if you took a piece someone else wrote on a classical guitar, you would *like* to play it on classical guitar only to get *that* tone and feel.
That said, I like to play everything on my classical. Except classical. 8)
Crow, it's tradition, string spacing, and construction.
The strings on a classical guitar are farther apart than on a steel string. Most steel string guitars measure about 1-11/16" across the nut; most classicals are about 2-3/8". That extra space between the strings helps you get your fingers (on the right hand) where they're supposed to be.
The construction aspect is a bit more complicated. Nylong strings (and their predecessors, catgut strings) have a lot less tension than steel strings. Since you have less tension, the guts of the guitar can be a lot more fragile. Steel strings have enough tension that you need a firmly fixed bridge to support it - inside a steel string will be a bridge block right below the bridge, and the bridge will be fixed to it by dowels through the top of the guitar. These are almost always hidden, but they serve the purpose of transferring string tension over a wide area. On a classical, the bridge is just glued on to the top.
Since you don't have high tension, the other stuff is lighter too - the fan bracing is thinner... sometimes even made out of balsa wood. That makes the top very sensitive to vibration on a classical guitar - much more so than a steel string. It needs to be more responsive, since low tension strings impart less energy.
This makes a difference in technique. There are two main picking techniques for clasical guitar: tirando (the free stroke) and apoyando (the rest stroke). Tirando picking isn't much different than fingerpicking a steel string - the finger moves across the string, making it vibrate more or less parallel to the fretboard.
Apoyando is a whole 'nother animal. In a rest stroke, you pick DOWN through the string, and your picking finger comes to rest on the next string. This makes the string vibrate more perpendicular to the fretboard. It's not a huge difference - the plane of vibration has turned about 30-60 degrees... but it's easiest to visualize the 'why' behind this if you imagine it vibrating 90 degrees from the body.
Picture the string moving in and out, towards and away from the body. As the string moves, it causes the bridge to rock back and forth. This transfers more energy to the belly of the top right behind the bridge, giving you a much more prominent attack. Notes played with tirando will have less volume (given the same picking force), but more sustain - because the parallel string motion keeps more energy in the string, rather than passing it off to the top.
By combining tirando and apoyando, you create the colors of classical guitar. You can bring out one voice more than the others by using apoyando for that line and tirando for the accompaniment lines. And that variation in finger attack is why you need the extra space in between the strings.
I sometimes play classical pieces on a steel string, or even an electric. But I can't play 'classical guitar' unless I have nylon strings, because I can't get the same tonal differences.
Oh, there's one more reason too - fingernails are harder than nylon, but softer than steel.
Guitar teacher offering lessons in Plainfield IL
I do punk on my classical guitar (need proof? watch some of my vids).
I do punk on acoustic six- and 12-strings. Steel strings. But...
Why people choose to play a certain song/piece on a certain type of guitar?
Simply, because it was meant for that instrument.
...punk wasn't meant for acoustic guitars, was it?
If you wrote a classical piece and played it on a steel string, it will still remain classical. BUT, if you took a piece someone else wrote on a classical guitar, you would *like* to play it on classical guitar only to get *that* tone and feel.
So much of the classical repertoire was written for other instruments, from Bach's D-minor Chaconne to Stanley Myer's Cavatina. And the techniques for "classical guitar" translate perfectly to other guitars -- there's nothing you can do on nylon strings that you can't do on steel. It seems to me that the difference between "classical piece" and "non-classical piece" is pretty thin.
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whipped cream." - Frank Zappa
NoteBoat,
I understand the differences in tradition, string spacing, and construction. Those factors don't seem to apply that much to the music itself, and how it sounds coming out of any given guitar. You can play tirando and apoyando (and all the other tricks of the classical-guitar trade) on any instrument and get approximately the same tonal results -- more so on a steel string acoustic, less on an electric solid body, but similar nonetheless, no?
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whipped cream." - Frank Zappa
Similar yes, but the same no.
Because of the beefier construction, the top isn't as responsive. You'll get a tonal difference, but it's not as pronounced. And the string spacing allows apoyando to have a wider range of attack angles.
I agree there's no difference in the music itself. You can play any piece of 'classical guitar' music on a non-classical guitar. But it's like saying you can play Bach's inventions exactly the same on a harpsichord as you can on a piano... because of the hammer action, the piano gives you more colors.
The colors aren't written into the music - they're part of the interpretation. And the musician's interpretation is limited by his or her tools. The more responsive the tool, the more a musician can do with it. Classical guitars are more responsive for the repertoire typically played on them - at least compared to steel string acoustics.
Guitar teacher offering lessons in Plainfield IL
Similar yes, but the same no.
Because of the beefier construction, the top isn't as responsive. You'll get a tonal difference, but it's not as pronounced. And the string spacing allows apoyando to have a wider range of attack angles.
I agree there's no difference in the music itself. You can play any piece of 'classical guitar' music on a non-classical guitar. But it's like saying you can play Bach's inventions exactly the same on a harpsichord as you can on a piano... because of the hammer action, the piano gives you more colors.
The colors aren't written into the music - they're part of the interpretation. And the musician's interpretation is limited by his or her tools. The more responsive the tool, the more a musician can do with it. Classical guitars are more responsive for the repertoire typically played on them - at least compared to steel string acoustics.
This could turn into an infinite argument, like, "who's better -- Clapton or Knopfler?" I'm not looking for that.
Glenn Gould performed Bach's keyboard music on a 20th-Century Steinway, and I haven't heard better interpretations on other keyboards. But that instrument allows for more color choices for the player. Steel-string guitars give fewer color choices, granted (but it's a difference of degree of responsiveness, right? -- steel strings do the same thing as nylon strings, but in a more subtle way?)... Even so, given the array of effects available to electric players, I'm a bit puzzled that they don't explore the classical repertoire more than they do.
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whipped cream." - Frank Zappa
Yeah, steel string and nylon string guitars work the same way in general principle. Since I'm not an engineer or physicist, I'm sure there are fine points I'm not aware of, and maybe there's a classical playing scientist here who can enlighten us. I was just trying to share the factors I'm aware of.
For me personally, I suppose I could use classical techniques on my steel strings, but I don't. I'd rather not deal with a different dimension in the string spacing... I've spent a lot of hours trying to build consistency in my approach, so I'll stick with constant dimensions. (I don't play Gibson scale length electrics for the same reason)
+1 on Glen Gould. Believe it or not, I was just listening to his Sony recordings of WTC1
Guitar teacher offering lessons in Plainfield IL
Why people choose to play a certain song/piece on a certain type of guitar?
Simply, because it was meant for that instrument.
...punk wasn't meant for acoustic guitars, was it?
Maybe not, but when Billie Joe Armstrong does it with songs like 'Good Riddance', 'Warning' and 'Macy's Day Parade', the whole concept changes.
The point I am trying to make here is that you can surely play classical stuff on the steel string guitar. But, it remains to be seen whether you and other people will like it or not. If they do, you will be the one who *created* a style!
To me, classical music doesn't sound nearly as good on an acoustic. I really think the dynamics of the instrument and the construction play a major part in the sound that is being created. On a steel string the sound is just so much harsher that it doesn't sound that good to my ears. And I think you get more noise from the hands on a steel than a nylon string.
As far as electric and classical goes, yeah it's kind of cool and there are people that explore that, but are going for a whole different sound that intended in the music...doesn't mean it's bad, just different. The Trans-Siberian Orchestra does this alot in they shows.
I'll stick with Classical Guitar in Classical music for the sole reason that I think it sounds 1000x better.
But I think you are going with more personal preference than anything.
In Space, no one can hear me sing!
It seems each music style has its guitar styles (or perhaps its instruments although there are also transcriptions for instruments different than the original or even orchestrations).
For example, these days I was guessing a similar issue on jazz guitar. Perhaps the 90-95% of guitar players use hollow or semi-hollow guitars (and acoustics, of course). The others use humbucker pickups but usually not Les Paul guitars (Les Paul used Les Paul) and some Telecasters (usually with humbucker pickups in the neck). I only found a jazz guitar player who used Stratocaster.
I agree with all your comments (Glenn Gould included) but perhaps audience is also in charge of the guitar model. I mean, you want to hear and also to see the "typical" guitar related to that music style.
+1 on Glen Gould. Believe it or not, I was just listening to his Sony recordings of WTC1
Excellent choice!
Gould was an exemplar, in that he didn't care what instrument was playing the music. What mattered was the music. He would play whole Wagner operas on the piano, for friends, and somewhere around here I have a piano version of Beethoven's Symphony No. 5 by Gould.
I like that attitude. If the music is only accessible through one instrument or group of instruments, there's something wrong with it.
And now I'm hungry for Gould's first recorded version of the "Goldberg Variations...."
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whipped cream." - Frank Zappa
classical guitars are fingerpicked, thus the wider spacing and nylon strings. acoustics are meant to be strummed, at least as much as picked, thus the steel strings and closer spacing, as well as different body shape and construction.
At least here, the classical guitars are mainly strummed if you are not playing classical repertory. For example, think on flamenco, sometimes is fingerpicked and many times is strummed (rasgueo), but rumba and many other styles are always strummed.
One aspect that both classical music and jazz share is that the music itself does not always lend itself to ringing strings or to the overtones that ringing strings can produce, particularly on the steel strings of an acoustic. Think about how clipped the chords are when a jazz player is providing a comping back-up or how stacatto a flamenco player's strumming can be.
Notes played on nylon strings tend to die out faster and there's less chance of creating overtones when playing on nylon whether strumming or finger picking. Many jazz guitarists use flatwound strings on their electric guitars for the same reason.
Now this isn't to say that you can't play jazz or classical with an acoustic guitar. Many classical pieces sound very good on acoustics. But I think it's possible that many classical players like the sound of nylon strings (and many jazz players like the sound of flatwound strings) because of these strings give them a little more control over the sound of ringing strings than acoustic steel strings do. You can certainly develop the touch and skill required to keep acoustic steel strings more muted and controlled, but it certainly helps to have the strings themselves doing some of the work for you.
Again, I personally don't think it's an either / or choice. Very few things are. But I think that this may be one of the reasons why the predominant instrument of classical guitar music is (and has been) the classical guitar. By the bye, this isn't a dumb question at all. It's often very interesting to explore the reasons why some things have turned out the way they have.
Peace
