330/6 string spacing... hard to get used to it?

[jimk]

If I may interject here: While I certainly agree that correct technique is whatever enables you to put your music across in best fashion, I've heard of guitar players developing all sorts of maladies from carpel tunnel syndrome to various back and shoulder problems traceable to playing technique. I have suspected such culprits as flat finger playing, and strap too long. Furthermore, I suspect that these two conditions make some Rickenbacker models very difficult to play. I don't know for sure, but I have my suspicions. So in that regard, yes, some Rickenbacker guitars would encourage different playing technique. Sometimes habits are hard to change; thus you get loud complaints from folks who'd rather play anything other than a Rick.

My $0.02

JimK

[chuck_king]

Having big but not real long fingers, I love my Ricks precisely because I can play things using one finger to cover two or three strings. In fact, I just got a 650 and I'm having to use different fingerings for some things because of the wider fingerboard.

[Clint]

By proper fingering I mean using the tips of your fingers so your wrist remains straight. I do have carpal tunnel in my left wrist but playing the guitar does not bother me. I actually use three fingers to make an open A chord.

I have hade the opportunity to play several Fenders with A spaced necks; I always thought they were pretty cool.

[BlueAngel]

By proper fingering I mean using the tips of your fingers so your wrist remains straight.

I'm not sure why it's any more 'proper' fingering than any other method, but actually it's easier to play like that on a WIDE neck, not a narrow one... which is why classical guitars are like that - and why most 'neo-classical' or otherwise technique-driven electric players tend to go for wide, flat fingerboards too.

I actually use three fingers to make an open A chord.

I do it either way (three or one, possibly sometimes two but I'd have to think about it!) depending on what else I want to do with the other fingers... I don't think either way is 'right' (I hope that wasn't the impression I gave before, and I do various other 'improper' things too when it's useful ) - they're just different, and useful in different situations.

I have hade the opportunity to play several Fenders with A spaced necks; I always thought they were pretty cool.

They are, but you really can't play them the same as you would a wide-spaced neck, so techniques you develop for them are likely to be wasted if you go to something wider. I found them very useful for the type of music I was playing at the time, but when my style changed (different band) they became a hindrance instead. I even found my 360 less than ideal, so I sold it, which perhaps was a mistake. I've now gone back a little style-wise and got a 381.

I don't disagree that playing a narrow neck makes you play somewhat differently, but I don't at all think it's any more 'proper'. If you really want to play 'properly' you need a guitar with a neck about two inches wide and one of those little footstool things anyway .

[Clint]

I am sorry but I can't follow your logic. The same technique may apply whatever the width of the fretboard. I approach any guitar the same, be it electric, acoustic, six string or twelve. What I am saying is that it is important to hit the notes cleanly on a narrow spaced neck so you don't mute the adjacent strings.

I do not believe I ever claimed using proper technique would make anyone a better player, but I do believe it can make you a healthier one.

[BlueAngel]

I don't follow your logic either. It's important to hit notes cleanly on any kind of neck (assuming you don't WANT random noises!), it just takes a slightly different finger position on a narrow neck than a wide one, and by the same token it makes it more difficult to do other things cleanly. I don't agree that either is "proper" - or even that it's a useful concept really, it's just putting the means before the end. I also disagree that it's "healthier", in fact if anything I get more cramping on a narrow neck if I try to play music more suited to a wide one than the other way round, hence one of the reasons I sold my 'A' neck Fenders.

Basically I think that you cannot make any kind of value judgement about neck width or claim that any particular width is superior - they are simply different and a matter of personal choice, which can either come down to your hand size, or what you want to do with the guitar. (I have small hands and fingers by the way.) The reason that other manufacturers have changed neck widths over the last few decades is because playing styles changed and buyers wanted different widths to accommodate them. If you go over to a forum for something like Ibanez or Jackson guitars you will find people who will tell you that wide fingerboards are better because they promote "proper" technique. You can't both be right.

[kiramdear]

I've played only one electric guitar regularly for the last 26 years: my jetglo 320. If I had to change to a wide-necked full-scale electric I'd be stymied. But I may want to get another Rick.
I'm curious who may have a 320 and also some experience with other Rick models and could give me a neck and fretboard comparison? Seems like the 330 might be a good candidate for guitar no. 2, but what about the 4xx and 6xx models? They all look so lovely...

[Clint]

OK Blue Angel, I think I understand your position. That the player could/should change technique from guitar to guitar and from one style of music to another.

The problem with that is many players then have difficulty when switching from one guitar to another. As Rickenbacker players we have all heard the complaints of our fellow guitar players who claim that Ricks are unplayable or only good for rhythm.

The point I am trying to make is simply that proper fingering is universal. One could pick up any guitar regardless of scale length or fretboard width and be able to play it comfortably.

And as regards to the health issue, many guitar players tend to curl their wrist. This compresses the nerves that run through the carpal tunnel. Over time, these nerves can suffer permanent damage leading to numbness and loss of strength.

I believe these points do make a compelling case for the use of proper fingering techniques. You may, of course, use whatever method you think best.

[jimk]

Let's back up here....

I sense a problem in definition of terms here. Let's start with:

Proper: that technique which promotes the best execution of a musical passage regardless of the physical dimensions of the instrument in question.

There, that should be a decent starting point.

################################################
The other bit that I'm coming across is if some players complain about the dimensions of Guitar X's neck vs. Guitar Y's neck, how do you explain the anomaly of the multi-instrumentalist who must switch between instruments with greatly varying physical dimensions, say from violin back to guitar, from guitar to mandolin, and then over to banjo?

I'm inclined to think that it isn't the instrument's fault so much as it is the responsibility of the player do adapt to the instrument. A guitar is what it is. People are adaptable.

JimK

[miltric]

Jimk's last post makes a lot of sense to me. If I've had trouble playing my 330/12, it's up to me to adapt--if I love the guitar (e.g., the sound) enough to do that. If I don't, then I'll adapt by finding a neck that allows me comfort AND the ability to perform as I want to. Playing guitar is like life, in the sense that we are constantly negotiating between a quest for the ideal (in this case, a fingering technique that will allow me play things the best way without hurting myself) and a need to occasionally (or perhaps often) settle for pragmatism.

This discussion is of great interest to me, because (as I said early in the thread), I recently got a 330/12 and have, at times, struggled with making certain chords cleanly around the first and second frets (D7, I'm talking about you!). I keep at it, though, because the guitar has other, not inconsiderable, charms.

Having said that, however, I just bought a 660/12, partly because I want to see if the slightly wider neck interrupts my love affair with the 330/12. My guess is that the new guitar will have it's own charms, but won't cancel my desire for the 330/12, and I'll keep both. The main reason I wanted to add a 660/12 to my collection is that the solid body and vintage pick-ups will probably give me a different sound than the 330/12--not necessarily better, but different.

[BlueAngel]

That 660/12 spacing is perfect for me.
Splicing the 660/12 neck onto a 330/360 body would be the one.

I completely agree, and it frustrates me that they don't. I love my 660/12 but I would have liked the option of a 300 series 12-string with the same neck width - and all the other cool stuff the 660 has, too... basically a 660/12 with a 360 body. For all those people who have no trouble with, or even prefer, the narrow 12-string necks, there are many more who find them uncomfortable or unplayable, and it strikes me as very shortsighted marketing that with four semi-solid 12-string models (including the reissue 360/12 and the 381/12) there is no choice but the narrow neck. Surely it would make sense to offer at least one of them with the wider neck - I would take a bet that it would instantly become RIC's most popular 12-string model, and possibly most popular model overall if it was available as a 6-string as well, since thousands of players who until now haven't wanted a Rick of any kind because of the neck width (many don't know about the 660) would want one. But I know there is already a backlog! So maybe that's why they don't.

I do prefer the normal Rick width on the 6-strings, but I have to admit to being in the group that finds the standard 12-strings almost unplayable, and I'd given up on them before I found the 660/12.

[goofyfoot]

Space: The final frontier.......

[lennon211]

I've played only one electric guitar regularly for the last 26 years: my jetglo 320. If I had to change to a wide-necked full-scale electric I'd be stymied. But I may want to get another Rick.
I'm curious who may have a 320 and also some experience with other Rick models and could give me a neck and fretboard comparison? Seems like the 330 might be a good candidate for guitar no. 2, but what about the 4xx and 6xx models? They all look so lovely...

I don't have my 325 here on hand to make a fully measured comparison, but I will say that the modern 330, even with 24 frets, is a great guitar. It's probably one of the top 5 "basic" guitars out there in terms of playability and tone. The new hi-gains are awesome to say the least. My strong advice would be to simply track one down at a dealer and give it a shot. With it being one of the basic "bread and butter" models it should be easier to find one than something a little more off the wall. I've found that the string spacing is very comfortable for lots of different playing styles and that the action can be set very low. If you're dead set against something with 24 frets as some are, then you're probably going to be waiting a while, but really the issue in most cases is simply cosmetic IMO. My ears just aren't that well tuned to tell a difference, but I know it still sounds damn good.

[deaconblues]

I've played only one electric guitar regularly for the last 26 years: my jetglo 320. If I had to change to a wide-necked full-scale electric I'd be stymied. But I may want to get another Rick.
I'm curious who may have a 320 and also some experience with other Rick models and could give me a neck and fretboard comparison? Seems like the 330 might be a good candidate for guitar no. 2, but what about the 4xx and 6xx models? They all look so lovely...

To me, the 330 is a way more versatile instrument...there's simply more room and the tone I get from it is very glassy and bright. My 325c64 is a wonderful guitar and though I use it for leads from time to time, the huge strings, short scale, and "honking" tone quality make it much more useful as a rhythm instrument.

Compared to a 325, the full-size 300-series bodies feel very large, but are louder and more lively when unplugged.

600-series guitars are smaller, but are solid, so give off a different vibe and the upper horn tends to poke you in the chest when you play sitting down. Still a great design, though. I'm considering getting a 660/12 to replace my 360/12VP...

400-series models? I think those were the economy version of the 600-series, so the above also applies.

[scotty]

Kira buy one of each a 600 series and 300 i suggest a 620 maybe and a 360 for comfort.600 series has lots of sustain and bright tones and the 360 is a great versatile guitar also.Ahhh sod it just buy a 330 too,why not! Buy buy buy this forum will have that effect on you. Whatever you decide im sure will be right for you.