Talk:Fingerboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Musical Instruments (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Musical Instruments, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of musical instruments on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Deleted Popular Products Section[edit]

This section only had fender and warmoth, which does not add anything to the page and in fact makes it seems suspiciously like advertising that they were here in the first place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.50.108.50 (talk) 00:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


Scalloping[edit]

"Another advantage is that the player only needs to apply a fraction of the pressure to a scalloped fingerboard to make the note sound, as compared to a traditional fingerboard. This allows the guitarist to play faster, because they don't have to invest as much effort into fretting each note."

Sources? From everything i've read (including an interview with Yngwie, who's probably the most popular guitarist who plays scalloped fretboards) and from personal experience, scalloped necks do NOT help you play faster, it's actually more difficult to play fast on a scalloped neck. necroforest 23:06, 3 December 2006

As an owner of two Fender stats one scalloped and one non scalloped I can state that the scalloped neck does not magically enable one to play faster. It in fact makes no difference at all. The amount of pressure required to fret the note is similar if not exactly the same. I don't have any sources to back this up. This is purely personal experience playing on a standard strat and a Yngwie Malmsteen strat.

I've added one source. --GreyCat 15:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree that the reason most guitarists play non-scalloped necks is because of the disadvantages of scalloping. The SCREAMINGLY OBVIOUS reason is simply that scalloping is a fairly exotic guitar modification that does not appear most mainstream commercial guitar models, and most guitarists do not perform, nor have anyone perform, advanced, risky modifications on their guitars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.96.174 (talk) 20:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Frets and precision[edit]

the phrase "frets generally allow for more precise changes in pitch" is true in one sense and just the opposite of true in another sense. For a beginner, frets make intonation more precise than it would be otherwise. For a more advanced player, the precision necessary to control the nuance of a pitch so that it is higher or lower in different musical contexts is not generally aided by frets; in fact it is non-fretted instruments that allow this kind of pitch change (change within a single note instead of from note to note) to be controlled more precisely. My questions: should this be spelled out in the article? and if it should, how should it be phrased? The way I have put it here seems too wordy to me. J Lorraine 04:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I've changed "precise" to "consistent". It seems to be the word I'm looking for, but it still doesn't make the article communicate the information I've spelled out above. J Lorraine 22:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, this is better (I think), and also not too wordy. J Lorraine 23:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Taper of neck[edit]

Why does the neck have to fan out so much from the nut toward the bridge? Spanish guitars dont taper so much--Light current 17:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

It's easier to fret chords with the strings closer together, and it's easier to pick strings when they're farther apart. This makes it advantageous to have a wide string spacing at the bridge, and a closer spacing towards the nut. As a nice side effect, the lower frets are easier to form chords on (most chords are played lower), while the higher frets are easier to bend notes without mashing strings together (most bends are done higher). 142.59.153.99 01:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Also, spanish guitars have a wide string spacing already at the nut; why would they fan out even more? :)
Another thing: this tapering was likely copied from the (western orchestral) bowed instruments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.96.174 (talk) 20:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Diagram of neck[edit]

THe diagram is confusing. The end nearest the viewer appears to be the bridge end when if fact it is referred to as the nut end in the text. Anyone else find it confusing?--Light current 22:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Why does it "appear to be the bridge"? It's a headstock end of neck towards the viewer. It's just a cross-section, without headstock glued in place. --GreyCat 09:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Because necks are wider at the bridge. (I know its a perspective dwg but still..).--Light current 14:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

That's barely so. It's perspective, and, moreover, it's standard drawing used by lots of companies to depict their guitars' neck proportions (Ibanez, Washburn, I even recall viewing similar drawings in Gibson and Fender catalogues). --GreyCat 06:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Standard or no standard, I assumed that the close end was the bridge as well. 142.59.153.99 01:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Whats 'barely so'? 8-?--Light current 14:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, it's not a confusing diagram. Just stating my opinion and referencing to other facts and other author of such diagrams. --GreyCat 14:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Compound Radius[edit]

On some modern guitars, the radius of the fingerboard changes slowly from one end of the fingerboard to the other. This is known as a "compound radius" fingerboard. The nut end of the fingerboard has a smaller radius towards the nut to ease in forming chords. The bridge end of the finger has a larger radius to prevent "fretting out" (having a string come into contact with a higher fret during a bend).

How does the smaller radius help form chords? Radius is useful on bowed instruments, because it lets the bow select individual strings. It's of no use on plucked instruments. Compound radius is a compromise: radius sucks, but you can't eliminate it entirely due to the commercial reality that guitars do not have adjustable string height at the nut, and guitar nuts are pre-fabricated to a radius. A compound radius can be accomodated using an off-the-shelf guitar nut, and an off-the-shelf bridge with adjustable-height saddles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.96.174 (talk) 20:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Merge Radius (string instruments) here[edit]

I believe that both articles cover the same subject (fretboard and its' parameters / varieties) and effectively a radius article would make a perfect section / extension for this fingerboard article. I also plan to add some more diagrams and images to illustrate radius. --GreyCat 16:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge Scalloped fingerboard here[edit]

Also, same rationale: article about scalloped fingerboard is relatively short and effectively describes a particular varity or aspect of a fretboard. It would make fingerboard article more complete, a perfect section for one. --GreyCat 16:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

This is late, I know, but, fuck it.

I support this and your other merger proposal. --LifeEnemy 04:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Defragmentation[edit]

This part makes no sense whatsoever. From examining the (ad-like) accompanying photo, I think it's supposed to be discussing instruments with differing scale lengths from the treble to the bass. None of the text manages to convey this, though. Anyone care to delete?

I'd agree. Have tagged this as confusing meantime in case anyone can clean it up to extract meaning and pertinence but in the current form it beats me. Would be happy to see it go. Mutt Lunker 22:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
It's an ad. Just traced a connection between the editor responsible for the original addition and the manufacturer: [1]. Text seems to be taken from here too: [2]. Will delete. Mutt Lunker 22:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Just deleted it again. The wikipedia is not the place to publicise new products, however brilliantly conceived. After working musicians have adopted this design in numbers sufficient to validate the concept, then it will be encyclopedia material. __Just plain Bill 03:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Along with the most recent re-addition of the ad went the deletion of the section on scoop of fretless boards. While I don't own that or any other section or article of the wikipedia, I believe it to be encyclopedic and relevant here. __Just plain Bill 13:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

External Links[edit]

I removed the external links, as they fail WP:EL; but they make sense as references. I am slapping a tag for lack of footnotes; adding them would solve the problem.--Legionarius (talk) 18:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Scoop/Dip Section[edit]

The proper term for the lengthwise curve of the fingerboard (neck, really) is "relief". This comes up much more with guitar and mandolin family instruments as the relief can be adjusted.

Bravohalo (talk) 06:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The only one I've heard calling it "relief" on bowed strings also works on guitars and mandos. I hear it primarily called "scoop" on bowed strings. There, scoop is not applied to the maple neck, but to the ebony fingerboard, and will be addressed every time the fingerboard is dressed (planed, shaped, shot, finished...) One could argue that the upper half (towards the pegbox/scroll) of the fingerboard forms a structural part of the neck... but it's still the fingerboard that gets the treatment. __Just plain Bill (talk) 14:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)