Stuff Guitar Shops Say

As part of my it’s what you play, not what you play drive, let’s explore some of the things guitar manufacturers and retailer say to get you to buy another thing with six strings on it.

And explode some of the myths.

Sh1t Guitar Manufacturers / Retaliers Say: The 1930’s / 1950’s were the golden age of acoustic / electric guitar making.

The Truth: The golden age of acoustic / electric guitar making is right now. There has never been a time when production standards and QC has been higher, or players have had access to a wider range of fantastically well-conceived and made instruments at every price point.

Ever.

SGMRS: But Martin was making the D-18 / D-28 in the 1930’s and Fender and Gibson were inventing the Stratocaster / Les Paul in the fifties and …

TT: Yes, they were. But Martin, Fender and Gibson were using the available materials and the available processes to mass-produce instruments for public consumption. It’s worth noting that they became landmark instruments in retrospect. At the time, most of the design features were implemented to solve structural, engineering and production issues rather than sonic ones. And it’s also worth noting that they became cultural icons because the guitar became the dominant vehicle for popular music in the 40’s, 50’s and 60’s. If pop music had prized the accordion in those decades, everyone would now be looking for vintage Hohner’s, Weltmeister’s and Ferro’s and the collection of vintage Martin’s, Fender’s and Gibson’s would be like the collection of vintage barrel organs.

SGMRS: Vintage instruments are the best.

TT: No. They aren’t. Modern instruments are, by any metric, better. Some vintage instruments are venerated, but that’s because of market forces, rather than because everything was better then. See above. It wasn’t. Yes, some vintage instruments are outstandingly good. Some, however, are crap. I’ve played a ‘37 D-18 that should have been sold for firewood but that was on sale for 40k - because it’s a pre-war Martin. I’ve also played a ‘53 tele that looked amazing, but sounded like mud string with spaghetti. Old does not equal good. Grow up.

SGMRS: Old building methods are the best …

TT: No. They aren’t. Martin, Fender, Gibson et al were small, pragmatic, conservative and family run (in some cases) businesses. Everything they did at the time was the acme of how things were made at the time. Remember, they were producing guitars within the window of when Ford had refined the production line process - and they, in their own ways, were following that model. Yes, the workmen were skilled, but they shaped things by hand because they didn’t have CNC machines then. If they had, they would have used them.

SGMRS: But the iconic sounds of rock n’ roll and …

TT: Have as much to do with recording / mixing / mastering processes at the time as they did the instruments. Every structural change that guitar nerds obsess about wasn’t made with an eye for tone, but with an eye for sales, returns and repairs. Martin didn’t move their bracing for tonal reasons. The crossing of the x-brace relative to the bridge has two basic forms: the advanced x-brace, which is closer to the soundhole and further from the bridge and the backshifted x-brace which moved the x closer to the bridge. The position of the x-brace has an impact on tone, but Martin moved it because the light bracing they were using under stiff Adirondack tops were increasingly being pulled out of shape as people began to use heavier strings. This plus the use of heavier bracing was a change made to stabilise the top and stop guitars coming back for repair, which cut into their production of new guitars. Engineering decision, not sound decision.

SGMRS: And the use of the t-bar was integral to the sound of …

TT: The use of the t-bar truss rod, like the tongue brace, was because Martin realised that the ebony core they were using wasn’t enough to stop necks being pulled out of whack. They shoved high-tensile steel rod in there to keep their necks on. They should have gone to adjustable truss rods way before 1984. Everyone else had. If you choose to have t-bar truss rod over a modern two-way adjustable rod because that’s what they did in the Golden Era … you’re a moron.

SGMRS: This model has Adirondack red spruce bracing because …

TT: Because they saw you coming. Martin never used Adirondack bracing in their ‘golden era.’ They used Sitka. Why? Because they were, actually, ahead of their time in developing sustainable localised wood sources. Their adirondack was old-growth stuff from the primal forests of America logged in New York State at the time when they were cutting it all down. There’s none left now. Similarly, they used sitka for their bracing because they had a ready perfectly-quartersawn supply of it from suppliers to New York’s shipyards. History, folks. Even the bits of it you don’t want to read are right there.

SGMRS: Hide glue was used throughout …

TT: Martin, and others, used hide glue because that was the glue available. They didn’t use it for its tonal properties. There is an argument that hide glue is ‘natural’ - (yes, that’s where your pony went … ), and that it creates a better bond between surfaces than titebond or white glues. These, it is argued, retain a certain amount of elasticity even when cured whereas hide glues dry to a hard glass, like flake shellac. This, it is also argued, means there is a better connection between the two pieces of wood it joins.

This is, and I’ll be kind, bollocks.

Firstly, even when it was the only glue available, it was widely known that hide glue had bonding limitations when it came to woodworking applications - whether in guitar-making, book-binding, cabinetry, etc. In other words, it’s not that strong, structurally, where stress relation is important. The most important thing in joining a neck to a body is actually the precision of the joint. You should be able to fit it without glue. If you can’t, you’re just using glue to make up for poor craftsmanship - and that isn’t going to end well. The idea that hide glue transmits the vibrations better is also nonsense. See above. The quality of the joint is what matters. When it comes to glue, what you are talking about is a molecule thin layer of adhesive designed to augment good joinery. When it comes to the impact on sound, there are far more important factors than the glue your maker used.

Where it does make a difference, however, is on a manufacturer’s profit margin. You can charge a lot more if you say you use hide glue, because .. guitarists.

SGMRS: This has a AAA-master-grade Adirondack / Flame Maple / Whatever top …

TT: The thing to remember about tops is that they were and are selected cosmetically. How clean and tight are the spruce’s grain lines or flamey the maple? How clean and defect free are the tops under the light box? The more perfect or striking, the higher the price. It has nothing to do with tone - although better quality, tighter grains, etc might have an impact on sound, there are guitar out there built with butt ugly stuff that sound like angels singing. Yes, some makers do tap test, but frankly, this is a gimmick. The tone of one piece of wood might not blend with the other, equally, bell-like piece of wood it’s being paired with. What matters in the overall sound of an instrument is the skill of the maker or the maker’s processes. The appearance of the top is the least important factor in how it’s going to sound.

SGMRS: Nitrocellulose allows a guitar to breathe …

TT: Bollocks. Firstly, wood doesn’t breathe. Wood expands and contracts to the level of water in the air. Your guitar will do this while the cells of the wood undergo a process called lignification. This sees any water still left after seasoning evaporating and the lignin in the wood cells hardening. Some think this is why some old guitars sound better. Because the wood has dried out and is more resonant. Again, manufactuers have taken advantage of this by offering you baked or torrefied wood at an extra cost. Play more, and your sound will improve far more, believe me.

Secondly, nitrocellulose is, like poly, a synthetic finish applied to guitars. It was used at the time not because of its tonal properties but because that’s what was available at the time. Again, production choice, not tonal one. Both finishes are cellulose based. Nitro is a softer, essentially weaker finish than poly, which is more durable. The way you play will have more impact on the tone you hear than whether your instrument is finished with nitro or poly. That’s a cold, hard fact. The problem with poly isn’t the finish, but that in the 70’s and 80’s, manufacturers began overcoating their instruments with it so they’d not get worn or cracked or dinged and sent back to the manufacturer for mending - cutting into their production of new instruments. If you applied nitro and poly to the same thickness, there’s no sonic difference. Sorry. And for the final nail in the coffin, most manufacturers seal the wood with a thin coat of urethane (poly) before applying nitro, so …

©℗ A. I. Jackson

——-

Origin(al) Stories was first launched to show some of the thoughts, decisions and processes that went into the writing, recording and release of the Northumbria album.

Following the launch of The Landing Stage, which brings together some of the things I do, I’ve continued adding to Origin(al) Stories.

Origin(al) Stories has none of the features beloved of self-help and influencers: how-to guides, lists, essential hacks.

Drawn from my personal diaries and journals, the posts might often seem unconnected, elliptical and fragmentary. Showing, as they do, my explorations of ideas and approaches and processes as I do things, they are best viewed as glimpses of my workings.

They show my mistakes, the false trails I’ve followed, and the blind alleys I’ve gone down - all of which are intrinsic parts of finding a path through to doing something.

If you’ve liked an Origin(al) Stories post, or it’s helped you with something you’re doing in some way, please share it to your socials, and give credit. All content on this website is under copyright and attributable.

None of my work will ever appear on platforms or social media, for reasons I talk about here, but which can be summarised as: platforms don’t pay or sustain people who make things.

Buying an album or a book direct from me helps me to make the next one.

So please do.

Thanks for reading. Have a great day. Tell the people you love that you love them. Be a positive force.