"speed" of different fretboard woods

Interesting. When I started this thread I thought that it was widely believed that different woods have different speed characteristics, and that I as a newbie was failing to realize this. Now it seems that it's not a widely held view at all, so I'm not sure where I picked up this impression.

A followup, then: If it is _not_ widely believed that different fretboard woods matter much--no one seemed to have a strong feeling for different tonal characteristics, either--why are there different kinds? Is it purely aesthetic?

Aesthetics, price, and tradition.

There are different tonal characteristics. To my ear, they're pretty slight - but they're still there.

You need to have a wood that's hard - the fretboard takes a lot of wear. It also needs to be naturally stiff - fretboards shouldn't warp easily with normal changes in temperature or humidity. So that limits the choices a little bit.

Some woods that fit the bill are very difficult to work with. If a wood is naturally very oily, it's hard to glue.

If a wood fits the basic requirements, the choice comes down to availability, price, appearance, and tone.

Ebony has traditionally been used for the fingerboards of instruments like violin and cello, so that's a natural choice. Rosewood came into wide use in guitars over 100 years ago.

Recently (in the past 40-50 yeras or so) luthiers have played with lots of different woods. Maple, pao ferro, ziracote, bobinga, you name it - one of my guitars has a ribbon mahogany fretboard.

I'm sure abundance plays a role.

On the other hand too, why sell what your competitor is selling unless you think you can one up him/her.

Also, the fact that denser wood sustains better is a selling point in its own.

The speed difference, which I hadn't expected to exist, isn't because of glisses/bends - although I agree with Greg on the 'grabbiness' of rosewood - or because of the finish on the back of the neck. I'd played straight staccato scales in one position on both.

I doubt that it affects my playing of single position, rapid staccato notes all that much. I'd pretty much restrict my grabbiness argument to the glisses, bends and one more thing: sliding chord forms around the neck. This last is where I get the greatest feeling of a speed difference. It's also the situation where I have a lot of finger actually contacting the fingerboard. But then I'm not really moving at my fastest either...

Doesn't really matter anyway. Play what you like. Ebony does it for me.

Perhaps a quick look at the fretboards of those who play really fast, such Whingy (sic) Malmsteen, to see if they favour one wood or another.

A lot of the speed demons use scalloped boards - so their fingers never actually touch the wood. Any speed difference between guitars with scallops must be due to string spacing, action height, etc., and not the wood.

A lot of the speed demons use scalloped boards - so their fingers never actually touch the wood. Any speed difference between guitars with scallops must be due to string spacing, action height, etc., and not the wood.

This may indicate that the fastest wood is no wood.

New data is in:
Rosewood first. I started losing it at 222 bpm; 221 was fine. So I'm 10% faster than I was this morning. :)

Maple next. Lost it at 227. 226 was fine.

Tom,

A somewhat off-topic question: When you say you started losing it at some bpm (say 222), are you playing one note per beat (ie. quarter notes) or eigths, or 16ths?

(Just trying to caliberate how many orders of magnitude I have to speed up.. :-))

The pattern was sixteenths, major scale run (ascending only), economy picked.

That's a two octave run in about one second.

It's been years since I've tried to push speed... because face it, it's not needed. What's needed is control, taste, and the ability to keep your mind ahead of your fingers, so I do NOT play that fast in performance - or even practice - because it's just not important to me. I would much rather have something to say than babble quickly.

The vast majority of songs I play call for a speed less than half of my little experiment. A few, like La Bamba or Light My Fire, will handle faster runs - but I doubt I've ever topped a 700 note per minute pace on stage (excluding tremolos)

The pattern was sixteenths, major scale run (ascending only), economy picked.

That's a two octave run in about one second.

Thanks for details..Given I'm now doing chromatic scales cleanly at 80bpm 16ths and trying to work upto 90, I guess I have at least a 2x to get close to something like 160bpm, which according to your post should be a reasonable speed.

My teacher is pushing me to get to 100, now I know that's only an intermediate target :-)

Even fast jazz tunes, where the tempo might be 250-280 bpm, the melody is usually no faster than eighths. If you can play consistently in the 400-500 note per minute range, you'll be able to handle most music. It sounds like you're getting there :)

If you can play consistently in the 400-500 note per minute range, you'll be able to handle most music. It sounds like you're getting there :)

Still a long way to .. I feel like there's a big wall between 80 and 90 now (pick feels out of control, fingers out of sync etc..) and I am much slower on the regular scale patterns (around 60).

But, thanks for the encouragement!

But you're doing 16ths - so you're doing 320 notes per minute at 80bpm.

One day soon, it's gonna click for ya, and you'll jump to 400 or so!

One day soon, it's gonna click for ya, and you'll jump to 400 or so!

I am looking forward to that! Actually, 400 notes per minute or maybe even 440 or 480 looks achievable, 600 or 700 notes per minute seem very very hard! But then, there's got to be some challenge..