ShortScale.org

In the last 100 years or so.

If you look back to that era you see a lot of necks in the 2" neighborhood, like a modern classical. Then you find Martins in the gut-to-steel string transition era (1920s) starting to creep down to 1.75". By the '50s, 1.625" becomes dominant and stays pretty standard through now, including a rounder radius that's only started to flatten again in the past 30 years. It correlates to the guitar becoming a popular instrument, but seems to run against other trends:

- 100 years ago over 90% of guitarists were women. Now it's over 90% men, their bigger hands included.
- I've heard that it may have to do with banjo players switching over in the early '30s, but banjo necks were also wider then. Wouldn't the desire for similar string spacing supersede overall width? And nobody starts on banjo anymore.
- People have gotten fatter, and I would wager better nutrition has made average hand size increase. I know a lot of the super-high-end acoustic makers use wider widths specifically to cater to the fatter hands of their older clientele.

I ask because, after several months, I find I honestly play better on a classical neck, and I make far fewer compromises when writing. I'm interested if anyone has any theories as to why the mainstream has stuck with oddly narrow necks, compared to all of guitar history.

It's like that so you can play rawk chords with your thumb over the neck. Also for teh schredz, I guess.

Narrower necks are easier to play standing up, for one thing. It's all about how guitars have been used, I think. Classical guitar is often multi-part (you often play bass and lead together) and having a wide neck is important because it helps you keep all your individual notes very clean. When the electric guitar first came into being, it was mainly thought of as a single part instrument and a smaller neck allows you to mute unwanted notes and just keep everything in control better for a more precise sound, which you don't really need with acoustic guitar due to the lack of sustain. Flat necks in guitars are mostly associated with shred because a lot of shredders want to be playing classical-style leads, so obviously that kind of neck is better.

blacktaxi wrote:It's like that so you can play rawk chords with your thumb over the neck. Also for teh schredz, I guess.

Exactly. Thin, flat necks are ideal for fast playing. I do prefer the narrower gibson/fender style neck width compared to the extremely wide ibanez width though.

Another question: Why do guitar necks widen across the fret board as they reach the heel? As a man afflicted with small-handitis I originally got into shortscales for the help this gave me. After getting my guyatone which is I find easiest to play I realised a conundrum. I figured it was a 22" scale or something - it has a really thick neck-through measure (i.e a deep V shape) yet is easy. Imagine my surprise when I actually measured the scale and found it was 25". Even stranger the nut width is wider than my preferred A-width Stang necks..... It was only then I realised the easiness came from the fact the fretboard width barely increases at all all the way up. Reaching bottom notes on most normal fenders gets increasingly difficult up the neck simply because no matter the nut size the heels are largely the same within model types...

So why?? Why do necks get bigger not across time but SPACE *moog sound effects*? If anything I'd say you more likely to be soloing higher up the neck and wanting access to the low strings than near the bottom...traditionally.

Newer guitars have truss rods. Classicals and very old guitars need a wide chunky neck to handle the tension because they don't have trusses. The gradual narrowfication over time are responses to player preference, and possibly because they can get more out of a piece of wood.

I'm thinking they get wider so that the joint between neck and body can be stronger? I've no idea though...

They need to get wider toward the body so the string spacing allows to you pick strings properly. It's ergonomics. Anyone who wants the bridge string spacing to be as narrow as the nut is having a fucking bubble bath. I'd love to see you try.

Meh, my guyatone plays fine - the spacing at bridge IS wider but not so much that the neck increases dramatically in width. Plenty of folks played it at Doogfest and seemed fine. If anything string separation is more important for finger tips than a thin pick edge.

I didn't mean to sound all bolshy there (which is what it looks like in retrospect). It is a balancing act though, and why different guitars do well for different folks.

Well the point of a Jaguar/Jazz bridge is that you can change that slightly if you want.

George no worries chap - I get yer!

honeyiscool wrote:Well the point of a Jaguar/Jazz bridge is that you can change that slightly if you want.

Whilst true I kinda dislike the idea of the strings not running in a perfect line from nut, past the bridge, to the trem. If anything making smaller spacing would probably just contribute to the oft-mentioned string skipping issue even if the grooves are filed deeper...really an example of over-design methinks.

Yep exactly right, and you will have other string compliance issues where bending is harder. The strings are channeled a certain way by the tail piece and you can't really muck about with that too much without getting unwanted results.

I wouldn't say it's to get them how you want, more to achieve the right setup. I love them on my Tele because it meant I could set them up minimsing fret buzz (the low E was travelling across the neck radius in an awkward way by default). Fender necks can be attached wonky as fuck and not aligned, more often than not they're not perfect in my opinion. A little travel and room for maneouver in the saddles is what you need. That's why I like slotted and vintage strat saddles.

I dont get it.
I hate skinny necks. then everything I want to do is like a turbo painful workhout for my hand. Fuck that. I need a neck to fill in some space there.

I love this thread and discussion. I wish there were more like it!

I think it may be a hold over from the trend towards simpler music back in the 30s-50s. Narrower necks do lower that initial difficulty of getting the fingers to stretch. And, of course, replace it with the difficulty of making each string ring clearly.

To make it subjective: do you feel, given equal experience on both, you could theoretically play better on a classical-width neck?

No. I can fret chords on a Fender neck that I have no hope of playing on a classical neck.

George wrote:Newer guitars have truss rods. Classicals and very old guitars need a wide chunky neck to handle the tension because they don't have trusses. The gradual narrowfication over time are responses to player preference, and possibly because they can get more out of a piece of wood.

^
Fucking nailed it. Plus there weren't no fucking Yngwe's back then.

BillClay wrote:

George wrote:Newer guitars have truss rods. Classicals and very old guitars need a wide chunky neck to handle the tension because they don't have trusses. The gradual narrowfication over time are responses to player preference, and possibly because they can get more out of a piece of wood.

^
Fucking nailed it. Plus there weren't no fucking Yngwe's back then.

Aye - although my Guyatone has no truss rod and is thin across the fretboard all the way up...but it's fucking BENECOL-MANLAND thick in depth. It's pretty much my favourite neck of all time at the moment just in front of the Jagstang.

George wrote:They need to get wider toward the body so the string spacing allows to you pick strings properly. It's ergonomics. Anyone who wants the bridge string spacing to be as narrow as the nut is having a fucking bubble bath. I'd love to see you try.

Is that why you need F space bridge pickups on fenders but not f spaced neck pickups?