Do people still subscribe to the huge neck theory?

  • Thread starter Encinitastubes
  • Start date
  • This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links like Ebay, Amazon, and others.

Encinitastubes

Tele-Meister
Joined
Apr 2, 2008
Posts
432
Location
Encinitas, California
Sorry, I just started visiting this board after taking a slight forey into Les Pauls. I used to post quite a bit back in '98 and '99.

Back before I left the land of the tele, folks thought there was a big sonic benefit to having a huge neck. Is that still the case or are there some "moderate C" users who would feel otherwise?
 

boris bubbanov

Tele Axpert
Ad Free Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2007
Posts
60,084
Location
New Orleans, LA + in the
I think big is bigger than ever.

Maybe bigger than it was in October, 1956!

Always a happy camper in Fatty-Land.

42DEC172007027.jpg
 

RomanS

Poster Extraordinaire
Joined
Jun 21, 2006
Posts
8,048
Location
Vienna, Austria
Well, if you do some reading here, you'll find quite a lot of guys who subscribe to the "big necks are better" theory.
I personally don't - Warmoth's "standard thin" (which is kind of a "moderate C") is my favorite profile - feels perfect in my hands, and I nevere noticed any effects on tone.
 

Rocks

Tele-Afflicted
Joined
Jul 26, 2007
Posts
1,022
Age
63
Location
Ohio
I don't know about sonically, but a big neck feels better in my hands.
 

romo

Tele-Meister
Joined
Jan 13, 2008
Posts
461
Location
Toledo, Ohio
I got caught up in the bigger is better thing myself for a little while. I've got a Baja with its semi-large neck and a strat with an allparts fat neck. I recently picked up a 1999 CIJ Paisley, and its neck is much thinner than the other two but it has a sort of "U" profile, which makes it feel just as big as the Baja because of the larger shoulders. It is a dream to play, I thought about getting a fatter neck for it but I don't see a reason since it feels just as good as my fatter necked guitars and it sounds just as good. In my experience a fatter neck does not equal better tone, its more about the feel of the neck.
 

tjalla

Friend of Leo's
Joined
Mar 25, 2003
Posts
4,941
Location
Perth, Western Australia
Like bodies, I've found some necks are more resonant than others regardless of size. One of the best sounding necks i have is a medium thickness soft V from USACG. An Allparts FAT I had was quite dead sounding by comparison (swapping necks on the same guitar).
 

tjalla

Friend of Leo's
Joined
Mar 25, 2003
Posts
4,941
Location
Perth, Western Australia
Oh, welcome back btw - I was around back then too but used to lurk more than post.

10 years is a looong foray over on the dark side, btw! :lol:
 

alanfc

Tele-Holic
Joined
May 27, 2004
Posts
516
Location
Paradise
I haven't been able to buy and experiment with alot of necks but I can compare two, which were a heavy somewhat thick MIM 2001 Tele neck and a 1990 MIM Strat neck.

In my case, putting the old Strat neck on the Tele body sounded thicker and heavier than the heavier Tele neck. But it is lighter by wieght and slimmer in profile. I almost think the older neck's age had something to do with it. Very warm and big woody sounding. Atleast I think thats what I'm hearing. Compared to the newer Tele neck (fatter and heavier). Both on the same 2001 MIM Tele body.
 

ajgus

Friend of Leo's
Joined
Jan 8, 2008
Posts
3,018
Location
chicago
For me, neck profile is more a matter of feel than it is tone. I can't play a super shallow neck simply because I have pretty big hands. And you know what they say about guys with big hands...they play guitars with big necks.
 

jazztele

Poster Extraordinaire
Joined
Sep 19, 2006
Posts
8,262
Location
chicago
i've played small necks that feel comfortable, and big ones, i've played guitars with 7.5, 9.5 and greater radiuses and liked some and not liked others...a lot goes into making a neck fell like the "right one."

that said, if i'm doing a gig where i'm going to play for a few hours straight, my big monkey paws are grabbing a big necked tele.
 

tboy

Friend of Leo's
Joined
Dec 13, 2007
Posts
2,370
Location
Chicago Area
I know a player with a huge neck... like 18" size. He's nothing special on the guitar.
 

spicolli

Tele-Meister
Joined
Nov 10, 2007
Posts
466
Location
315
bigger feels better to me, but its the luck of the draw as to what neck sounds better.
 

stevedenver

Tele-Afflicted
Joined
Jul 31, 2003
Posts
1,477
Location
the mile high city
i prefer fat necks....but it's more a matter of ergonomics than tone.
if they're too thin, my hand cramps up....

me too

and

i do think a stiff neck contributes to the overall tone equation of components-and often, a fatter neck is stiffer-not always-depends on each blank of wood of course-maple tends to be pretty stiff but mahogany seems to vary a good deal

i have teles and lesters with thinner and thicker necks and usually prefer the larger neck-and i have medium hands
 

ryokan

Tele-Holic
Joined
Sep 15, 2005
Posts
974
I have a modern C shape neck that i love, but am intrigued by the bigger necks.

But I do bend the neck a lot for pitch shifting and I'm wondering if this is as easy to do on a thicker neck? On my thin neck, its easy peasy...
 

Telemarkman

Doctor of Teleocity
Ad Free Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2005
Posts
18,050
Age
78
Location
Norway
They don't have to be big, but I don't like the 'modern' flat necks or a narrow nut.

The classic 'C' neck of the 60's, the 'V' necks of the late 50's and the 'U' necks of the early 50's are all OK with me. It's a question of feel and playability, not tone. JMHO :).
 

Encinitastubes

Tele-Meister
Joined
Apr 2, 2008
Posts
432
Location
Encinitas, California
Thanks for all the feedback. I'm going to guess that folks have moved away from the big neck theory, except as it pertains to feel. I have an old ASAT Classic with a fairly shallow neck and I've always wondered if a big neck would be better. As I look at it though, it is a modern C profile until you get down to the 3rd fret and then it turns into more of a D. Maybe that's why it doesn't feel like such a small neck.

Anyways, it's good to be back. I look forward to having a lot more debates and discussions so that people in my office think I'm hard at work!
 

shades

Tele-Afflicted
Joined
Aug 3, 2006
Posts
1,860
Location
Pittsburgh,Pa.
The tonal difference between a thin and a fat neck is pretty negligible IMO, ergonomics are much more important.
My hands are fairly large and a U or soft V neck feels perfect to me whereas thin necks quickly bring on hand and forearm cramping.
Welcome back by the way...

:cool:
 

JimiBryant

Tele-Afflicted
Joined
Sep 10, 2007
Posts
1,844
Location
Chicago Chicago that toddlin' town
I like a big ol' neck but I'm not shy to say that I've got some skinny-neck
Teles and Strats that are just fine, thank you. most of my guitars have a
sound/feel unique to them from the others. I would be in a very difficult
spot if I were required to choose just one to keep.

now, mind you, I don't especially care for skinny i.e. vintage frets but
I reckon it's all a matter of any given individual's taste as well as their
perception of what sounds good - or should I say whatever their idea is of
a good sound.
 

mistermullens

Poster Extraordinaire
Joined
Jan 3, 2007
Posts
5,773
Location
Atlanta Area
Big neck, no thanks! Some folks say the 50s Classic have a big neck, but I don't think so. When I think big, I think baseball bat. If I pick up a Gibson, its gotta have a 60s neck or I just won't like it. I've played really cool guitars, but if they have that baseball bat neck, I won't like it. I'll take a "C" shape, 7.25 radius w/vintage style frets over any other neck, any day of the week. I like it!
 
Top