Acoustic Fingerstyle Guitar

A problem a few guitar players appear to have is brittleness or thinness of fingernails which frustrates them in their endeavours. Where these problems are caused by diet they may be mitigated by seeking advice from a nutritionist in order to correct any deficiency. However, where this doesn't effect a cure, an alternative solution will need to be found. Without carrying out an exhaustive survey of the means used by guitar players to reinforce their poor fingernails, and their efficacy, here are a few alternatives which will suit different players and styles.

For a spell I used to apply alternate layers of tissue paper and clear nail varnish until I had a pretty stiff "false nail". In terms of playing this was a perfect solution. In terms of cosmetics and (no doubt) hygiene, it was a disaster. In fact, being a smoker, after a couple of days my nails - or the veneers on top of them - looked fairly disgusting. Another effect is that the nails are sealed from the environment and get so starved on oxygen that they end up even thinner and more fragile than before. So, notwithstanding how good they felt and sounded, I wouldn't recommend them.

I also used fingerpicks - alternating between metal and plastic - for an extended period. They were plenty loud and enabled be to play night after night without fear of wear and tear. But, for me, they seemed to render the music strangely mechanical and expressionless. I also found they seemed to have a speed limit! I couldn't figure out why, but I could never play as fast with fingerpicks as without.

There is the option, I suppose of taking concern about fingernails out of the equation entirely and just use the flesh of the fingertips. I guess if you were to build up sufficient calluses then this might be quite a workable solution - but it might be limiting expression - and volume-wise.

False, or acrylic nails, are relatively modern invention and although I have never tried them, I know some guitarists whom I admire swear by them (eg, John Renbourn).

For my own part, the constituency and durability of my nails have improved over the years. Why? Well I do know that I eat a lot better than I used to, so I'm minded to put it down to a balanced diet. They still wear if I play hard over an extended time and I do worry about breaking one an hour before a gig. But... whatyagonnado?

I see very often requests on internet forums for recommendations for a beginner guitar, preferably at a very low cost. I find this amusing, but also a little irritating. Why irritation - since it appears to be a very reasonable request? Well, the acoustic guitar is, with the possible exception of the mouthorgan, tambourine and penny whistle, considered to be a musical commodity without much complexity or craft needed the manufacture of a good one. It's also sub-consciously perceived to be (by young folk and their parents) the poor cousin of its electric cousin - perhaps even a beginner's guitar, per se. I was even told when I was a child that if I learned to play properly on my brothers old acoustic I would get a real (electric) guitar later.

Bah, humbug! Let's be clear: a good acoustic guitar - that is to say, a guitar that is accurately intoned, sounds good, and is easy to play, does not come at the price of a movie and dinner for the family. Parents who would not hesitate paying a considerable amount of money for a piano, violin, or cello expect acoustic guitars to be priced like a commodity.

And while I'm at it - while some will disagree with me - I am firmly against the idea of three-quarter size guitars for children to learn on. My reasoning is this: if a child learns on a small guitar, she will have to relearn stretches and muscle memory when she graduates to a larger guitar. This will undermine confidence and pleasure in playing. If the child is given a full-sized instrument at the beginning, and learns what is only within her physical range, she will find that the guitar will get smaller as she grows and consequently easier to play. Confidence and pleasure will increase.

Yeah, well. Much has been written. For the uninitiated we're talkin' guitar tonewoods here.

I have two guitars (well, two that are being regularly played) which are identical apart from some cosmetics and the woods comprising the backs and sides; to whit: one has mahogany back and sides, the other rosewood. Do they sound very different? Well...

To my - and most keen guitar players' - ears, they sound very different. To a lay person, if a difference is detected at all it will be something very subtle and maybe inconsequential. Certainly the difference would be hard to describe. However, in an effort to articulate the difference between these woods, guitar players and guitar makers have spawned a vocabulary lifted directly from that used by wine buffs the world over. Below is a summary of the terms I've seen used for each tonewood, in turn:

Mahogany: a dry and crisp sounding tonewood which emphasises the fundementals of the note. It provides a ping in the trebles, a snap in the mids and a growl in the bass. Its overall sonic palette has a definite underpinning of wheat (honest - I've seen this written!).

Rosewood: a dark and complex tonewood whose sound is overlaced with rich harmonics. It has a deep and almost reverberant quality. It provides a zing in the trebles, a bark in the mids and a grumble in the bass.

To extend the association with wine, I would equate the mahogany with a crisp Chablis and the Rosewood with a full bodied Claret.

So there we are. Very fanciful and probably gobbledegook to a non-guitar player. I only feel slightly foolish due to agreeing with these descriptions, by and large.

Oh, and another thing in passing: I was recently relieved to read that jazz players generally don't take to rosewood guitars because of the very richness of the harmonics that rosewood emphasises insofar as these harmonics render the already complex chord forms used in jazz to a confused mush. Hitherto, I thought it might just be my imagination.