What the heck is with guitar manufacturers and thin necks?

[Petrovsk Mizinski]

Re: What the heck is with guitar manufacturers and thin necks?

Honestly, the thin neck is aimed more at the guys who use the classical hand positioning with the thumb in the back of the neck. Bigger profiles seem to appeal more to the guys that wrap the thumb around.

Wait, what guitar players DON'T use that hand positioning (thumb on the back of the neck) at times?
It's virtually impossible to play a ton of patterns and chord shapes without doing that.
I don't think the shape/size of the neck has anything to do with that at all.

 

[Petrovsk Mizinski]

Re: What the heck is with guitar manufacturers and thin necks?

Well, I guess I'll throw some opinions in the ring :

As for the speed thing, that's 80 per cent the guitarist and 19.9 per cent the fretboard/playing surface. The actual size of the neck is almost irrelevant I think.
Notice the Ibanez signature models. Paul Gilbert, Joe Satch and Steve Vai are all 'fast' guitarists, yet all of them choose to use guitars with bigger necks than the thinnest ones Ibanez make.

I tend to run into a problem with some superstrats, because while I love the bigger frets, bigger fretboard radius and slightly wider string spacing, I don't gel with overly thin necks at all. I prefer a more 'traditional' sized neck I suppose one could say.
For that reason, I prefer the 7 string Ibanez RGs over the 6 string models, because the neck is closer to a 'medium' sized neck rather than thin.
I also really like the size of the neck on my Schecter C-7 Hellraiser. It gets a bit of complaints, many people referring to it as a baseball bat, but combined with the 14 inch fretboard radius and jumbo frets, it's just really comfy to play. Doesn't tire out/fatigue my hands like super thin necks tend to do.

 

[Chickenwings]

Re: What the heck is with guitar manufacturers and thin necks?

About classical guitars: I often wonder about the reasons for the massive neck and no radius; I get the feeling that some dude started this trend (Torres? or his immediate predecessors) and everyone else followed - deviating from that today would be considered heretical.

Nah. Its more about having the right tool for the job. The wider string spacing is more friendly to fingerstyle playing for the right hand. In addition, the use of various right hand techniques to achieve maximum timbral nuance is best served by this also. Bear in mind also that nylon strings vibrate very freely and need a high action to allow a wide range of dynamic response and minimbum in terms of fret buzz. When you play the classical reprtoire, youll find that there are often bass notes, melodic lines and inner voices being played simultaneously. With the higher action, wider string spacing allows for the left hand to play all the various voicings with no lateral impingement of the other strings by the left hand fingers. Same goes for the flat radius. It actually rewards good technique.
Whats all this mean?
It means that if yiou play classical style repertoire, then a classical style fingerboard and string spacing is actually the easiest ergonomic set up for that.
Its not juts about blind adherence to tradition. Quite the opposite. Classical technique has been developing constantly. MOdern players tend to use a different approach to Segovia etc. The shape of the classical guitar too has a function follows form style, and thechnique is purely to accomodate facilitating playing extremely complex pieces with a maximum of timbral variation and minimum of effort and potential soft tissue injury.
In fact it seems that classical players are often less bound by tradition than their electric playing couterparts. For example, you will find the vast majority of electric players sticking to a small handful of well known brands, whereas concert classical players tend to favor more unique pieces hand built by small manufacturers from all over the world. There is also many players whow have embraced the modern "lattice" bracing system which employs carbon fiber under the soundboard. Yoiu dont see too many electrics using carbon fiber in their construction - especially when it pertains to tonal production.
NOw if you are going to play Jimi Hendrix, Chicago Style blues, metal more modern shred tho...a classical is close to useless! lol
Its all about having the right tools for the job.

 

[Dr.J4ckal]

Re: What the heck is with guitar manufacturers and thin necks?

I still don't get why classical guitars have no radius.. Playing classical song with big-stretch chord shape especially around 7-12th fret is just plain painful!!

 

[Chickenwings]

Re: What the heck is with guitar manufacturers and thin necks?

I still don't get why classical guitars have no radius.. Playing classical song with big-stretch chord shape especially around 7-12th fret is just plain painful!!

its all about technique. A good example is John Williams...he makes it look effortless, its because he has fine tuned his technique to the point where it really is effortless.
What may be painful for someone who is used to emplying rock techinque is not painful for someone emplying good classical technique. The reverse is also true tho...bending with classical technique is difficult and uncomfortable.
Its all about using the right technique for whatever your repertoire is and then using the right tools for the job.
Its not like classical guitarists dont want their instruments to be more comnfortable, its just that for the way they play and for the repertoire, the flat radius and wide neck is the best tool for that particular job.

 

[Ashurbanipal]

Re: What the heck is with guitar manufacturers and thin necks?

^^ I don't think I've ever heard John Williams play a bum note.

Shawn Lane's signature Vigier Excalibur is one electric guitar that is manufactured without fingerboard radius.

Nah. Its more about having the right tool for the job. The wider string spacing is more friendly to fingerstyle playing for the right hand. In addition, the use of various right hand techniques to achieve maximum timbral nuance is best served by this also. Bear in mind also that nylon strings vibrate very freely and need a high action to allow a wide range of dynamic response and minimbum in terms of fret buzz. When you play the classical reprtoire, youll find that there are often bass notes, melodic lines and inner voices being played simultaneously. With the higher action, wider string spacing allows for the left hand to play all the various voicings with no lateral impingement of the other strings by the left hand fingers. Same goes for the flat radius. It actually rewards good technique.
Whats all this mean?
It means that if yiou play classical style repertoire, then a classical style fingerboard and string spacing is actually the easiest ergonomic set up for that.
Its not juts about blind adherence to tradition. Quite the opposite. Classical technique has been developing constantly. MOdern players tend to use a different approach to Segovia etc. The shape of the classical guitar too has a function follows form style, and thechnique is purely to accomodate facilitating playing extremely complex pieces with a maximum of timbral variation and minimum of effort and potential soft tissue injury.
In fact it seems that classical players are often less bound by tradition than their electric playing couterparts. For example, you will find the vast majority of electric players sticking to a small handful of well known brands, whereas concert classical players tend to favor more unique pieces hand built by small manufacturers from all over the world. There is also many players whow have embraced the modern "lattice" bracing system which employs carbon fiber under the soundboard. Yoiu dont see too many electrics using carbon fiber in their construction - especially when it pertains to tonal production.
NOw if you are going to play Jimi Hendrix, Chicago Style blues, metal more modern shred tho...a classical is close to useless! lol
Its all about having the right tools for the job.

Oh, I follow you perfectly - I learned classical formally for a few years; at the time I was focused on playing rather than worrying about neck sizes etc. My first guitar itself has a huge D shaped neck and I never stopped to think about it. Good times! It's now that I'm seriously out of practice (and d!cking around more on an electric guitar) that I'm often thinking: 'why is the neck so freaking massive?' .

I think (can't remember exactly though) that Panormo's guitars had radiused fingerboards (they were also separate from the neck) which was unusual for the earlier 19th century, as guitars at that point followed for the most part Lacôte's model, itself an inheritance of ideas from lutes and vihuelas.

Since Smallman's innovation there has been a division into camps regarding construction/tone etc. There are some people (like Romanillos) who strongly believe in the traditional fan braced guitar, while others like new things. Some think it sounds crap - all loudness nothing else; while others love it. I haven't heard one in person so I can't comment. Carbon fibre in any case is a nice idea - in an electric guitar it would make far more sense, where pickups do most of the tonal production. But it's proved itself a viable material in acoustic instruments like Rainsong guitars, Luis and Clark cellos, violas, and violins.

But, back to neck size: your argument is sound.

 

[Quencho092]

Re: What the heck is with guitar manufacturers and thin necks?

I've got long spider fingers, the 59 roundback is a nice improvement over the old strat V shape I used to have.

I honestly think that if you're consciously aware of your hand anatomy and what feels right, you could adjust to any neck. Some necks would obviously be healthier to play for certain hands.

 

[BluesDisciple]

Re: What the heck is with guitar manufacturers and thin necks?

Personally I like a thinner neck. My Gibson LP Traditional is about as thick as I want or need. Even the most classical training I have had was playing the violin in my high school symphony, I intuitively go for the classical hold of my thumb behind the neck. Different strokes for different players, I guess.

 

[metlking]

Re: What the heck is with guitar manufacturers and thin necks?

I prefer the Gibson 60's neck over the 50's....I can play either but for the 4 hour bar gigs I regularly play the 60's neck is gonna leaving my left hand in better shape than the 50's.....I know this from experience, this it what works for me.............YMMV.

 

[formula73]

Re: What the heck is with guitar manufacturers and thin necks?

LOL @ EP.

For some reason I kinda like fat necks for drop/open tunings and thinner necks for standard tunings, I think maybe I play with different technique as well as different styles with different tunings.

Fretboard width is what I have always had problems with. The old narrow nut slim taper is something I can't deal with at all, super wides are almost as bad, kept me from buying the most badass beat up (and cheap!) '63 SG Jr ever, and made my Kamikaze, Serpent and Sunburst Tiger expendable.

What I HATE is V necks, to me that's about the worst thing ever.

Funny you should mention that. I LOVE V necks. The harder the V, the better. I had an 82 Dean V that I sold (like an idiot) that just felt right with that super, super hard V profile. Some of the newer Time Capsules and such have necks like that, as well. It's comfy in the palm and, as long as the overall thickness isn't too crazy (it can be with a V without being noticeable in the palm) it's a good place to put your thumb for that classical position, as well. I've considered having the neck on my Burny reshaped into a hard V.

 

[formula73]

Re: What the heck is with guitar manufacturers and thin necks?

Wait, what guitar players DON'T use that hand positioning (thumb on the back of the neck) at times?
It's virtually impossible to play a ton of patterns and chord shapes without doing that.
I don't think the shape/size of the neck has anything to do with that at all.

There are guys that ALWAYS play that way and there are guys that don't. I'm just saying what I believe, man. **** off.

 

[uOpt]

Re: What the heck is with guitar manufacturers and thin necks?

I don't think the comparison of flat-back thin D necks with classical guitars and their players is accurate.

For the classic player the most important part is that the neck is thick enough to that fingers and thumb are in parallel (I hope it's clear what I mean otherwise I can post a pick). If they are less than parallel you lose pressing power due to lever effects, and if you have to press down 5 or 6 strings individually all the time that can be very tiring.

I learned classical and I have a clear neck preference: A single half circle on the back, with a thickness of about 0.85". Thinner is no good for me.

 

[King IzzO)))]

Re: What the heck is with guitar manufacturers and thin necks?

Funny you should mention that. I LOVE V necks. The harder the V, the better. I had an 82 Dean V that I sold (like an idiot) that just felt right with that super, super hard V profile. Some of the newer Time Capsules and such have necks like that, as well. It's comfy in the palm and, as long as the overall thickness isn't too crazy (it can be with a V without being noticeable in the palm) it's a good place to put your thumb for that classical position, as well. I've considered having the neck on my Burny reshaped into a hard V.

I know a lot of people love them, they just feel all kinds of wrong for me. I do a lot of my work down low, I think my hands just aren't big enough. I also play with my thumb centered on the back of the a lot. I think if I was chording a lot or strictly lead playing I could deal, I don't do much of either, so V's aren't for me. I did buy a V necked guitar once thinking i could make myself deal, a buddy guy strat. Didn't work out.

 

[Laughing Kookaburra]

Re: What the heck is with guitar manufacturers and thin necks?

I've played thick and thin, and I've not had a problem adapting to either. Currently, my go-to guitars are about average (Fenders) or thin (Hamers), but my choosing those guitars was based on overall comfort and practicality, and neck thickness was only one of many factors in hose decisions.

Re the hard V neck: I had one on a MIA Washburn many years back. I didn't have a problem playing it, but it always did feel a bit odd. Whereas I tend to forget about the neck when playing, the hard V always was reminding me of the neck's existence, if that makes any sense.

As far as tone goes, I seem to have a bit fuller tone when unplugged with a thicker neck, but by the time it runs through my amp and is overdriven (classic rock era OD), it pretty much all comes out the same for me. YMMV.

 

[thunderkyss]

Re: What the heck is with guitar manufacturers and thin necks?

I guess they don't sell too well?

That would be my bet.

Since the '80s, wide slim necks have been taking over about every product line.

I too like fat necks, I think that's where the tone is.

But it is what it is. At least with a Fender or other bolt on it's not a big ordeal to swap a neck..... call Warmoth, get a fat neck, bolt it on, problem solved.

but with set-necks & neck-throughs..... you're pretty much S.O.L.

 

[the guy who invented fire]

Re: What the heck is with guitar manufacturers and thin necks?

It's funny...there are more guitars available today with big necks than there has been in decades...

I remember a time when almost ever guitar out there was wasn't 30+ years old had a little skinny neck on it!

Today there are lots of fatties out there in various price ranges.

That said there still are some holes in the fat neck market IMO...as Chris said in the first post a fat neck Tele w/ a RW board is hard to find.

In those situations I suggest a USACG Fatback w/ RW board and whatever kind of Tele you want to bolt it too...is it a little work, yes but it'll be worth it in the end!

 

[3'scompany]

Re: What the heck is with guitar manufacturers and thin necks?

I can't stand skinny and/or thin necks. That's why I played PRS guitars exclusively for over 10 years. They are one of the few companies that actually knew how to make proper neck carve. I haven't played their new "pattern" carve, but the wide-fat of yonder? Hot damn. That is how a neck should feel.

I have a 335 that has god knows what of a carve on it. It's not quite as beefy as I'd like, but the thing sounds so damn good that I deal with it. It certainly doesn't feel like most '60s slim-taper necks or whatever the hell they normally put on them. This is one case where Gibson's somewhat inconsistent build quality actually turned out for the better.

 

[JohnnyGuitar]

Re: What the heck is with guitar manufacturers and thin necks?

I don't like HUGE neck but I can relate to the OPs post. For Fender, the American Standard, Special, Deluxe, Select and Highway 1 all come with skinny necks - and it's a little frustrating - these are their mainstream models, more or less.

Would have been better if Fender went for the same playability separation that Gibson does with the 59 vs 60 or the Warmoth - Vintage, Vintage Modern, Modern thing... instead of the stupid Special/Highway 1/Standard/who cares lines.



But you know: less wood=less material=less production costs. And then they can sell it as "modern"...




I'm already planning to upgrade my HW1 Strat to a Custom Shope Strat, let's say, in five years?

 

[ImmortalSix]

Re: What the heck is with guitar manufacturers and thin necks?

I got a USACG "Fatback" neck (1" all the way, no taper) and it's like it was made just for me. Perfect.

Which is weird, because I don't have large (or small) hands, but giant necks like PRS's "Wide Fat" and Epiphone's "2x4" are all I like.

If you like a big chubber neck, get a USACG Fatback and prepare to be embarrassed

 

[JohnnyGuitar]

Re: What the heck is with guitar manufacturers and thin necks?

Got a chance to play a Tele 52RI yesterday. Thought about this thread while playing. The neck on this guitar is not what I'll call fat - lets say that it's substantial or just as fat as it should be.
The difference is not night and day compared to the 'Modern C's but the extra chunck just makes it sit really nicely in one's hand.