Archtop vs flattop?
Scalefreak
experience with archtops and would appreciate some advice on how to evaluate
one, whether they lend themselves to fingerstyle play, and how in general the
sound of a good quality archtop differs from the sound of a quality flattop
guitar in terms of balance, tone, and sustain. (Apologies if this is a topic
already beaten to death.)
Len
Brian Miller
content, for me the acoustic mid-range punch of my L5CES (un-amplified)
and my old Regal acoustic archtops are best suited for the percussive
chunk - chunk of swing jazz. In contrast my Taylor DCSM has a full bass
sound and there is increased top-end. This week I'm playing some
concerts accompanying a choral group where I would normally play an
archtop, but the employer asked us for instrumentation to include only
piano, guitar, and bass; no drummer or horn section. Yuk! My Regal
doesn't have a pickup is kinda hard to play because of a big fat neck
and high medium action (I'm spoiled by my modern electrics and the
Taylor) but has the classic sound I'd like to get. The sound of my L5's
humbuckers just isn't the sound I want without drums, so I decided to
use the Taylor.
I'm comping very percussively to help make up for the lack of a drummer
and the Taylor's top end does that well but fills and chord lines like
big fat 13s to flat 5-flat 9's don't have the cutting punch/impact. One
of singers came up tonight though and said that she could really hear me
keeping the beat so I guess it's working well for that. The fullness
(bass) does sound pretty good on a ragtimey tune we're doing. I may try
the L5 tomorrow and back the pickup way off and push up the amp gain.
To answer the last part of your question, personally I think a flattop
sound is more complex and better suited for fingerstyle.
--
In Christ, who loves us and gave Himself for us,
Brian
<=============<>=============>
to reply, remove the x in my address,
it helps cut down on spam
"Scalefreak" <scale...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20001020101830...@ng-fd1.aol.com...
Scalefreak
>content,
Well, that wasn't what I expected to hear anyone say. I was at Elderly
recently and had an opportunity to play a number of archtops including a Tacoma
with a cool cheryburst finish, a Heritage, and even a $14,000 Benedetto and I
was really kind of underwhelmed by all of them, at least played acoustically.
Lacking at both the high and low ends of the spectrum, a sort of compressed
sound with not much sustain. They're such neat-looking instruments, though.
I've been told that archtops are much more technique-sensitive than flattops
and you have to know how to play them to get the most out of them. Is this
true and if so can anyone elaborate?
I kind of wonder what the impetus was to build the first archtop in the first
place? I mean resonators came about partly because of a need for a louder
guitar
to hold its own in a band situation. Archtops are generally associated with
jazz music but is that what the early Gibson archtops were designed for?
Len
cmjs
> Well, that wasn't what I expected to hear anyone say. I was at Elderly
> recently and had an opportunity to play a number of archtops including a
Tacoma
> with a cool cheryburst finish, a Heritage, and even a $14,000 Benedetto
and I
I visited Mando Bros about a year ago, and while I was not terribly
impressed with the low end archtops, I was stunned by the super-high-end
ones: D'Angelico, D'Aquisto, etc. I loved the Walker archtop they had
that was 'affordable' (only $6,000), but still way more than I would pay
for a guitar. I bought one of the Tacoma archtops last winter, but I ended
up selling it. It was an absolutely superlative electric guitar once I
replaced the pickup, but unamplified it was a bit of a dissappointment. So
now I am archtopless. I have heard that you can pick up an old Gibson L-7
or Epiphone Triumph from pre-1950 for under $3000 if you shop around.
> I kind of wonder what the impetus was to build the first archtop in the
first
> place? I mean resonators came about partly because of a need for a louder
> guitar
> to hold its own in a band situation. Archtops are generally associated
with
> jazz music but is that what the early Gibson archtops were designed for?
Yes, if I'm not mistaken, archtops were designed to cut through a band
during the swing era. But if you listen to the old swing stuff you can
barely hear the guitar, if at all. On Basie's records, Freddie Green is all
but inaudible. I suppose this probably has something to do with the way the
recordings were made though. You can hear Charlie Christian on Bennie
Goodman's recordings, but obviously he used an amp. By the way, does anyone
what _did_ Charlie use for an amp? Was it something designed to amplify a
guitar, or did he jury-rig something?
Anyway, if you are interested in the early history of archtops, go hang
around in the music section of a local mega-bookstore. They will have a
couple of books about them. Basically I think the really early Gibson
archtop guitars were really just evolved from big mandolins. I did have the
pleasure of playing a 1923 Style-O not too long ago that a friend of mine
owns. It didn't have a lot of volume, but it had a very cool 'archaic' tone
nonetheless. And you've got to love that huge scroll.
Mike J
aca...@my-deja.com
scale...@aol.com (Scalefreak) wrote:
> I'm intrigued by the archtop guitars Tacoma has started making but
have no
> experience with archtops and would appreciate some advice on how to
evaluate
> one, whether they lend themselves to fingerstyle play, and how in
general the
> sound of a good quality archtop differs from the sound of a quality
flattop
> guitar in terms of balance, tone, and sustain. (Apologies if this is
a topic
> already beaten to death.)
> Len
>
I too was intrigued for a while and looked at the Tacoma. What I found
is that for a flat top player, the sound of the arch top is at first
disappointing. What I found is that in spite of it being called an
acoustic instrument, it is meant to play plugged in. I have a friend who
is a pro who plays top end individually built arch tops and he does
every style of music imaginable on his. He uses a thumb pick and
fingers. If I get ever get serious about wanting an arch, I will have
him give me a hand because my ear is not attuned to the arch. they are a
very different instrument.
Art Casci
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
P&R
I visited a friend of mine (Craig Quernes a drummer from the Army reserve
band I recently retired from), at his new music store down in Olean, NY.
There was an older gentleman in there waiting for Craig's guitar repairman
to come in. The repairman was making him a new pick guard for his very old
Gibson Archtop. This was a very well preserved instrument I got a chance to
play a few chords on it and was surprised at the volume that came out of
that guitar, althogh it didn't have alot of sustain. This would have made
it an ideal instrument for comping chords four to the bar, as was done with
the early big bands that used them.
Scalefreak <scale...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20001021071733...@ng-fd1.aol.com...
> >Interesting question. Though they both have good sustain and harmonic
> >content,
>
> Well, that wasn't what I expected to hear anyone say. I was at Elderly
> recently and had an opportunity to play a number of archtops including a
Tacoma
> with a cool cheryburst finish, a Heritage, and even a $14,000 Benedetto
and I
> was really kind of underwhelmed by all of them, at least played
acoustically.
> Lacking at both the high and low ends of the spectrum, a sort of
compressed
> sound with not much sustain. They're such neat-looking instruments,
though.
>
> I've been told that archtops are much more technique-sensitive than
flattops
> and you have to know how to play them to get the most out of them. Is
this
> true and if so can anyone elaborate?
>
> I kind of wonder what the impetus was to build the first archtop in the
first
> place? I mean resonators came about partly because of a need for a louder
> guitar
> to hold its own in a band situation. Archtops are generally associated
with
> jazz music but is that what the early Gibson archtops were designed for?
>
> Len
Dick Schneiders
>or Epiphone Triumph from pre-1950 for under $3000 if you shop around.
Way under!!!
I bought a wonderful 1946 Epi Triumph, with an original De Armond floating
pickup for $1,000. Of course it was on eBay so the price isn't necessarily
representative of anything. These are simply adorned guitars, but certainly
were professional quality in those days. The main differences between the
cheaper Triumphs and the much more costly Emperors, Broadways, etc. is the
fancier inlays and bindings.
Dick Schneiders
Al Carruth
he had developed. The idea was that the violin was the mose 'perfect' of
instruments, and the others should imitate it to get closer to perfection. or
some such. By the 1920's there were a lot of archtops around, put out by
company that bought the rights to Orvilles name and patents.
Early jazz bands used a banjo in the percussion section, but they proved to be
vey difficult to record: they tended to overload the equipment. The jazz
players started to use guitars (the OM was devised for that). The mechanical
design of the archtop allows it to be made bigger than the flat top without
becoming too heavy, and this makes it more efficient acoustically. In the days
before really powerful amps all sorts of hings were tried to get more volume
and 'carry', and the archtops got bigger and bigger. Later, in the '50s smaller
instruments became popular for 'chamber jazz'. Then Leo and Les came along.
I _think_ that there is some tendancy toward a certain 'peakiness' to the sound
of the archtop, which should help it to 'cut'. This is combined with a
tendancy to a 'compressed' sound; a bit less dynamic range than an 'equivalent'
flat top, but maybe at a higher level. That is, if a good J-200 can sound
'natural' and full from about ppp to ff, an L-5 might sound all right from
about mf to fff; it loses tone at the low end, but can put out more when
pushed.
It's interesting to note that the archtop didn't start out as a 'jazz'
instrument; jazz as we know it didn't really exist in 1890, although it's
precursors were there. The F-hole jazz archtop really got it's start with Lloyd
Loar's work at the Gibson company in the mid to late twenties, iirc. Since then
the archtop guitar has evolved along with jazz, but we should not think that it
is only a jazz box, or that the sounds we have heard are all that it can make.
Alan Carruth / Luthier
http://www.alcarruthluthier.com
George4908
>is that for a flat top player, the sound of the arch top is at first
>disappointing. What I found is that in spite of it being called an
>acoustic instrument, it is meant to play plugged in.
Well, that's odd because the acoustic archtop guitar was invented by Orville
Gibson long before anyone began electrifying guitars. A little history here
may be in order. Gibson first applied the basic principles of violin
construction to the mandolin around the turn of the century. They were
archtopped and backed, and the strings transferred vibration to the top through
a (modified) "frog-style" bridge, but still had sound hole in the usual
position. (The violin-style f-holes came later.) These new mandolins were
found to have a major increase in volume and projection over the old potato bug
mandolins and quickly became the standard of the day (still are). So old
Orville began applying the same arched construction design to other stringed
instruments, including the guitar. Like the mandolins, the guitars proved to
be louder and have more cutting power. The guitars and mandolins went through
numerous developmental changes large and small over the next 20 years and
became popular in the bands and orchestras of the day. In the 1920s, Lloyd
Loar, while at Gibson, refined the arched concept further. He is generally
credited with being the first to "tune" the tops and backs as one, coupling the
resonances so the entire instrument rings out even more. The Loar-era L5 and
the later Super 400 became the standards for the jazz orchestras of the '30s
and '40s. Keep in mind that this music didn't call for single note or
fingerstyle playing as we think of it today. These archtop guitars were
thumped with a pick to provide rhythm loud enough to be heard over other
instruments, something a flattop had a hard time doing. Accordingly, a heavy
midrange was a desirable quality in an archtop, not the more balanced sound a
flattop guitarist may be used to. There is also less sustain in an archtop,
the quick decay actually working to one's advantage for a punchy rhythm sound.
So if you pick up an older, traditional archtop and try to use it the way you
might a flattop, it's no wonder you're disappointed. Electrification of
archtops began in fits and starts in the late 20s and early 30s, but by the 40s
was well enough developed that it was becoming accepted in large bands because
of the additional volume. Indeed, extra volume was what amplification of
guitars was all about at the time, not any desire to seek new tones. The first
guitars to be electrified were, naturally enough, the mid-range thumpers of the
day. One thing builders found out quickly was that amplified archtops fed back
very easily at volume, especially so if the acoustic properties of the
instrument were particularly lively. So the electrified archtop began evolving
down a slightly different path. As you move into the 1950s, tops were
frequently carved thicker in order to cut down on feedback, and guitars began
appearing with laminated sides and back, even pressed (rather than carved) tops
and backs. While this kept feedback under control (and was also cheaper from a
production standpoint, a point surely not lost on Gibson and other builders),
it had the tonal effect of creating that thick, dark, smoky quality we
associate with the traditional amplified jazz guitar sound. It's a beautiful
thing, but most archtops built for amplification do not sound especially good
acoustically. During this period and into the '60s and '70s, big bands died,
smaller jazz combos arrived and eventually the archtop guitar found a place as
a solo instrument as well. The need for a loud, feedback-resistant archtop had
become something of an anachronism. With the guitar featured more prominently
in the mix, a renaissance of the archtop as an acoustic instrument slowly began
to reassert itself, but this time with a difference. Instead of building for
volume and midrange, builders began carving for a more balanced and delicate
sound, one that did not necessarily have to be walloped to bring out the sound,
one that could even be played fingerstyle and sound good. Today's builders --
particularly the high-end people who really know their stuff -- can virtually
carve in the desired combination of tone, balance, sustain and other qualities
as desired (as can good flattop builders in their medium). In fact, most of
the truly "modern" archtops of today have moved in the direction of a more
flattop-like sound, while retaining many of the characteristics of traditional
archtops. They do sound different than a flattop, always will, but the sound
of a well carved acoustic archtop can be, in the right hands, a spectacularly
beautiful sound, one that grows on you, but one that still may require a period
of "ear adjustment" if you're used to flattops exclusively. They also feel
very different to the player than a flattop and generally do lend themselves to
a more aggressive style of attack, though this is a highly subjective area.
Anyway, if you spend some time playing and listening to good archtops and start
developing your ear for them, you just might fall in love.
juvenal
"Scalefreak" wrote...
> I'm intrigued by the archtop guitars Tacoma has started making but have no
> experience with archtops and would appreciate some advice on how to
evaluate
> one, whether they lend themselves to fingerstyle play, and how in general
the
> sound of a good quality archtop differs from the sound of a quality
flattop
> guitar in terms of balance, tone, and sustain.
The tonal differences between archtops and flattops has already been well
described in this thread, so here are a few observations from one who uses
archtops, steel-string flattops, and classicals.
One of the reasons that the archtop is the preferred axe of jazzers, is
simply that it is the identifiable tone of jazz guitar, much the same reason
the pipes are preferred over the tenor sax for Celtic music, and the sax is
preferred over the pipes for jazz.
One of the advantages of the archtop for jazz lies in it's clarity of tone -
it doesn't produce those complex, lingering harmonics and sympathetic
vibrations that a good flattop does. When playing chord melody work, you
don't want the harmonization of the previous voicing hanging on while you
continue to develop the harmony. IMO, quickly developing complex
harmonizations sound muddy and jangly on a flattop, while on an archtop the
tones stay clean and pure, so that each new harmonization is distinct.
For finger picking, however, the archtop falls flat. Fingerstylists _want_
to harmonize against the previously played strings. Steel-string flattops
really shine here, as the tones can just ring on and on. Fingerstyle on an
archtop sounds rather dull and lifeless.
With comping, the same holds true. The archtop provides a crisp clear tone
that allows the complex harmonies characteristic of jazz to be fully heard
and appreciated. On a flattop, the tones become more confused, but not to
the extent that the instrument isn't serviceable for jazz altogether. For
the simpler harmonic content of folk, bluegrass, and rock music, the flattop
provides a richer, more resonant accompaniment than does an archtop.
And where does the nylon-string classical guitar fit in? Obviously, it has
the signature and requisite tone of classical music. But, it is also
popular with many fingerstylists; it's resonant and ringing enough for
fingerstyle, and yet, not so much that it can't also be used for jazz-style
chord melody playing. It is the preferred guitar for Brazilian style jazz,
and sounds real nice for bossa-type stuff. In many ways, the classical
guitar is probably more versatile than any other style of guitar; it can be
used for fingerstyle, classical, Brazilian, chord-melody, folk. It sucks
for comping, bluegrass, volume.
However - most acoustic guitarists are looking for the signature sound of
the style of music they wish to express themselves in; that would be the
steel-string flattop. Loud, resonant, ringing tone; can be fingerpicked,
strummed lightly with the fingers or a pick, or flailed on claw-hammer style
or with a pick.
Timothy Juvenal
"You worked hard for your hard...hard-working....hard-working money."
-GWB
Dick Schneiders
>to harmonize against the previously played strings. Steel-string flattops
>really shine here, as the tones can just ring on and on. Fingerstyle on an
>archtop sounds rather dull and lifeless.
While I agree with the rest of your post, I totally disagree with this. There
are many jazz guitarists that play chord melody with finger picking - and they
use all types of archtops, both acoustic and electric. If you are only talking
about the very small subset of finger picking that uses the so called open
tunings where the open strings are allowed to sustain freely, then your
comments here might be correct. However, that is only one small area of
fingerpicking guitar.
I use my archtops for all styles of music - ragtime, country blues, modern pop
like Beatles, etc., Disney songs, jazz standards, folk, blues, and they work
just as well as my flat tops. I only play fingerstyle but I never venture out
of standard tuning with the exception of dropped D and sometimes dropped G.
Perhaps if I played slack key or some other type of open tuning music then I
would find that the archtop wouldn't work, but I have never found that to be
true in anything I play.
Dick Schneiders
cmjs
juvenal <juv...@juvenal.com> wrote in message
news:RmtI5.542$ib.3...@nnrp1.ptd.net...
<snip of intelligent, insightful post>
> For finger picking, however, the archtop falls flat. Fingerstylists _want_
> to harmonize against the previously played strings. Steel-string flattops
> really shine here, as the tones can just ring on and on. Fingerstyle on
an
> archtop sounds rather dull and lifeless.
>
I don't know, I think a good archtop sounds pretty groovy for some kinds of
fingerstyle. Rev. Gary Davis used maple flattops (sort of similar to an
archtop in terms of percusiveness and 'dryness') rather spectacularly. I
will grant you that archtops wouldn't work for many styles of fingerstyle
where you *want* sustain and overtones. But for some applications they are
great.
<more snipping of intelligent, insightful stuff>
Mike J
juvenal
"Dick Schneiders" wrote ...
> There
> are many jazz guitarists that play chord melody with finger picking - and
they
> use all types of archtops, both acoustic and electric.
There are so many different techniques employed by guitarists, it's
difficult to cover all the bases in the space of an NG post. I agree with
you that archtops are superb for chord-melody, whether played with a pick or
fingers, or combination thereof. By fingerstyle, I specifically meant
playing where the strings are expected to sustain and harmonize with
previous tones, whether in open tuning or standard. Of course, any style of
playing without a plectrum is legitimately "fingerstyle", so my narrow and
undefined use of the term was unclear.
In other words, I think we are in complete agreement.
Timothy Juvenal
juvenal
"cmjs" wrote...
> I don't know, I think a good archtop sounds pretty groovy for some kinds
of
> fingerstyle. Rev. Gary Davis used maple flattops (sort of similar to an
> archtop in terms of percusiveness and 'dryness') rather spectacularly. I
> will grant you that archtops wouldn't work for many styles of fingerstyle
> where you *want* sustain and overtones. But for some applications they
are
> great.
Agreed, and far be it from me to try and tell people what instrument they
_have_ to play for any given style of music. Something that falls outside
of the norm might just provide the signature sound and the unique voice that
someone is looking for.
I have a little Stella with a hardwood (maple?) top. It has a weird
quality - the strings vibrate sympathetically very easily, so even with
single-note stuff, there is haunting reverb sound. It has much more
resonance than an archtop, but it does have that
played-through-a-cardboard-tube midrange squonk of an inexpensive archtop.
Timothy Juvenal
RBucha7924
Guild Benedetto? Can't imagine a Benedetto
hanging in a sore much less at a low price.
Scalefreak
>Guild Benedetto? Can't imagine a Benedetto
>hanging in a sore much less at a low price.
>
Benedetto Manhattan... actually, $15.000.
W. Sugai
besides, old archtops are generally beautiful, even if they don't have as
balanced a response as flattops. i believe they were generally used as
rhythm instruments in big band settings, which meant that chop was most
important.
In article <20001021225842...@ng-fw1.aol.com>,