16" vs. 17" archtops
Annie
I am sure you are all powerful big strappin' men so you can handle
a larger guitar, but I am thinking of selling my 17" Gibson and getting
something like an L-4 or ?-- with a 16" body. Is there really a big
difference in sound and tonal characteristics between the two sizes?
How did the 17" become standard?
Annie
Pt
Very nice guitar.
From what I have read the archtop was made to be used in big bands
before the electric guitar was invented.
The bigger they were the louder they were.
Many were considerably larger than 17 inches.
Somehow thw L-5 became 17 inches.
Maybe others know more about this?
Pt
Jack A. Zucker
bigger bodied guitars. That being said, I feel you can get a great sound out
of a smaller guitar. The Ibanez GB-10 (George Benson) is a great sounding
smaller guitar that you can find used for $1000-$1300.
I'm only 5'7" so I know exactly what you mean about big guitars. A buddy of
mine who's about the same height plays an 18" Super 400. It looks so
awkward. I can't imagine it's comfortable for him to play.
If you're playing in loud venues, the smaller guitars can sometimes work
better due to feedback issues...
Jaz
"Annie" <pars...@att.net> wrote in message news:3F57A2DA...@att.net...
Norman Karin
The 17" (x 3+" deep) archtops evolved from the pre-electric days when
jazz players needed a large resonant guitar body to be heard over big
bands. In the 30's and 40's, luthiers like John D'Angelico modeled them
after cellos, hence the archtop and f-holes. These got electrified and
remained traditional for jazzers, even though Les Paul and others in the
50's showed that small solid body guitars could sound huge with
amplifiers. There have been countless discussions, often emotional,
about the relative merits of 17" vs. 16" vs. thin semi-hollow vs. solid
vs. etc., etc. However, the amplifier adds a large layer of sound
control that blurs (but doesn't eliminate) the distinction among large
archtop/small archtop/semi-hollow/solid body. That being said, the
guitar pickup still is influenced by the construction of the guitar it
is attached to.
I just ordered a 16" x 2 3/4" Heritage guitar because, in addition to
other appealing features, I find this a very comfortable size to hold
and play while still giving the archtop sound. The natural bass
response of this guitar probably will not match a 17" instrument, or
perhaps even a 16" guitar with a deeper body. But I am happy to accept
that and let the amp controls help out with bass response. Less
feedback (in general) with smaller bodies too.
(We'll see if I built in enough parenthetical disclaimers for me to
avoid flame damage)
Norm
Norman Karin
"Dee-Angelico" or "Dan-gelico"? I've heard both.
NJK
Geordie F.O. Kelly
This the way an Italian (in Italy) would pronounce it. The accent is on
the "GE" part -
dan-GE-li-co
Here in the USA, we tend to short-change our vowels as compared to the
Italians. (This is why I believe their language to absolutely gorgeous.)
Having said all that, I think you tend to hear the other pronunciation more
often, though it is incorrect.
--
Geordie F.O. Kelly
Guitarist/Jazz Improvisation Instructor
Armed Forces School of Music
http://heritageguitar.com/artists/
"Norman Karin" <nka...@udel.edu> wrote in message
news:3F57B069...@udel.edu...
thom_j.
"Norman Karin" <nka...@udel.edu> wrote in message
news:3F57B069...@udel.edu...
Max Leggett
wrote:
>BTW, can someone tell me the correct pronunciation of D'Angelico? Is it
>"Dee-Angelico" or "Dan-gelico"? I've heard both.
Dee Angelico.
Keith McIntyre
shorter (like an ES-175). I think its 24.75" if memory serves me. So an L4
feels more compact all the way around.
I've played 17 x 3 for years. I bought a 16 x 2 5/8 Unger a while back. I
love it. Great size as far as I'm concerned. The neck is still a 25"
scale...
It's a matter of personal taste. I find that after a few days I adapt to
whatever I'm playing, as long as it's not strung to tightly.
I think that's my biggest gripe about some archtops. It's not the size, but
the string tension that makes some of them hard to play.
For a long time I felt I had to play 13 - 56s. I had heard that good tone
could only be had with heavy strings. I got tired of fighting it, plus I
wasn't all that happy with the tone I was getting, so I tried a set of 12 -
52s (light gauge) strings. Much better IMO. At least some of the "bad
tone" was from not being able to firmly hold the strings down when doing
certain chords. I ^think^ that lighter strings work better for me on
archtops. But, then again, I might change my mind in a few sets... (I
still use 13s on a couple of Buscarino Jazzcasters, and they play like
butter...) Again, it's personal taste.
Cheers!
"Annie" <pars...@att.net> wrote in message news:3F57A2DA...@att.net...
David Brosseau
few years I thought I'd throw in my two cents. Bigger (wider lower bout) and
deeper bodies move more air and tend to resonate more. But this really
depends on other construction details also. For example, how thick are the
plates, how thin is the wood in the recurve on the back (this determines the
flexibility of the back). What type of bracing is used on the top plate?
Floating or built-in pickup? Magnetic or accoustic pickup? All these things
effect the tone. Not to mention solid vs laminated plates! I've found that
unless you are really after a real woody tone, the 16" bout will work as
well as the 17" as long as the plates are well tuned. The bigger the body,
the more it will resonate (and thus feedback easier) and the more the
resonating body will impact the vibrating string which excites the pickup.
And why I'm here... I've been asking myself lately why do even carved
archtops generally have magnetic pickups, ususally floating but nonetheless,
magnetic? Seems to me just to be tradition. Good accoustic pickups are a
fairly new thing (Charlie Christian couldn't have laid his hands on one,
eh?) But if the goal of a carved and tap tuned archtop is to get a great
accoustic tone, why on earth fit it with a magnetic pickup? I guess to get
tone we are used to hearing. It's not a "bad" tone after all, but would a
good accoustic pickup be "better"? Hmmmm..... might have to try that!
"Annie" <pars...@att.net> wrote in message news:3F57A2DA...@att.net...
Gerry Scott-Moore
Zucker <j...@jackzucker.com> wrote:
> There's a huge difference in sound between the smaller guitars and the
> bigger bodied guitars. That being said, I feel you can get a great sound out
> of a smaller guitar.
If we exclude the accoustic aspects of the instrument I'm not sure how
dramatic the sound difference is coming from an amp.
But coming directly from the instrument it can be pretty dramatic. I'm
back playing an acoustic parlor guitar which is 13" across the lower
bout and 3.5 or so in depth. That's small. When I play a dreadnaught
it sounds so boomy and slow by comparison. The parlor is, of course,
very light and quick sounding. Still has a remarkable amount of tonal
color to it...
--
///---
Norman Karin
HAHAHAHAHA! In view of the opposite responses I got from you and
Georgie, I now can confidently and authoritatively pronounce D'Angelico
any way I want (such as "sam-ick").
Like the very old joke:
tourist: (question to elderly Hawaiian) "How do you pronounce 'Hawaii,'
Ha-WHY-ee or Ha-VAH-ee?"
Hawaiian: Ha-VAH-ee.
tourist: Great -- thanks!
Hawaiian: You're velcome
Cheers!
Norm
Carl Greeff
>archtops generally have magnetic pickups, ususally floating but nonetheless,
>magnetic? Seems to me just to be tradition. Good accoustic pickups are a
>fairly new thing (Charlie Christian couldn't have laid his hands on one,
>eh?) But if the goal of a carved and tap tuned archtop is to get a great
>accoustic tone, why on earth fit it with a magnetic pickup? I guess to get
>tone we are used to hearing. It's not a "bad" tone after all, but would a
>good accoustic pickup be "better"? Hmmmm..... might have to try that!
>
David,
What do you consider a good acoustic pickup? I ask because I've never liked
the sound of piezo bridge pickups. I think we've come to accept it as the sound
of an amplified acoustic guitar, but I've never thought it sounded close to
acoustic at all, unless you happen to always pick 1/4" from the bridge anyway.
Carl
EHHackney
a 16" bout too big for me to be comfortable with. Same for longer scales. I
have to add that I played an ES-175 for about 40 years. After that, maybe
nothing else could ever feel right.
Hack
--//--
Max Leggett
wrote:
>Max Leggett wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 17:36:41 -0400, Norman Karin <nka...@udel.edu>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >BTW, can someone tell me the correct pronunciation of D'Angelico? Is it
>> >"Dee-Angelico" or "Dan-gelico"? I've heard both.
>>
>> Dee Angelico.
>
>HAHAHAHAHA! In view of the opposite responses I got from you and
>Georgie, I now can confidently and authoritatively pronounce D'Angelico
>any way I want (such as "sam-ick").
As you can tell from our surnames, both Geordie and I are 100%
pureblood Italians, so we are both to be trusted. In fact, he's from a
little village in Calabria only 3 miles from where I was born, that
paesano! Geordie's right - in Italy it'd be pronounced DanGELico. But
I remember reading an interview with D'Angelico [no, I can't find it
online] where he said that Americans always pronounced it Dee, so,
being an American himself, he gave up and went along with it.
>
>Like the very old joke:
>tourist: (question to elderly Hawaiian) "How do you pronounce 'Hawaii,'
>Ha-WHY-ee or Ha-VAH-ee?"
>Hawaiian: Ha-VAH-ee.
>tourist: Great -- thanks!
>Hawaiian: You're velcome
When my family emigrated to Canada we first lived in a rooming house
owned by a Polish family. They had one of those 8-syllable names that
had no vowels in it, along the lines of Pskytwrskvt. So my father says
to the guy, "Tell me, old chap, what is the correct pronunciation of
your name?" "Smith." I guesss he'd given up, too.
Danny W.
I've been playing 17" archtops for many years, mostly Gibson L-5's.
Recently, I bought an L-5 Signature, which is only 15.5" wide and 2 &
5/8" deep. It has a 25.5" scale and looks just like a regular L-5.
Despite its small size, it sounds great--through my Clarus Coda or RE
Twin 8 Tower, it's hard to tell it from a full-size L-5. I find the
size very comfortable too.
I don't like L-4's or ES-175's because I find them to be too thick for
their width. The L-5 Signature is better-proportioned. I think it
sounds much better, too.
Danny W.
JP
"Annie" <pars...@att.net> wrote in message news:3F57A2DA...@att.net...
David Brosseau
"Carl Greeff" <cwgr...@aol.comnojunk00> wrote in message
news:20030904213344...@mb-m05.aol.com...
Carl,
I admit I'm no expert on acoustic pick ups but I've heard some good ones in
high-end acoustic guitars. Usually they are a combination of a piezo bridge
and an internal mic. Another very interesting rig is the "pick up the world"
pickup. It uses some type of plastic strip that you just stick on the
guitar. I heard John Pizzereli (sp) experiment with one on his archtop at a
guitar show a couple years ago. I'm thinking of getting one to try it out.
http://www.pick-uptheworld.com/ I just find it interesting that while the
rest of the acoustic guitar world (flat tops) use these types of pickups
almost exclusively (rather than magnetic), the archtop world still uses
magnetic pickups almost exclusively yet the archtop IS an acoustic guitar.
Norman Karin
>
> When my family emigrated to Canada we first lived in a rooming house
> owned by a Polish family. They had one of those 8-syllable names that
> had no vowels in it, along the lines of Pskytwrskvt. So my father says
> to the guy, "Tell me, old chap, what is the correct pronunciation of
> your name?" "Smith." I guesss he'd given up, too.
I was born and raised near Buffalo where there are many Polish-American
families (a "-ski resort") and I learned to pronounce a lot of
unpronounceable names. When I was in college in the late 70's I used to
gig on bass with a polka band called (wait for it...) "Richie and the
Polka Dots" and made a fair amount of money playing at Polish wedding
receptions, before there were $#*@!ing DJs. We *had* to play Bobby
Vinton's "Melody of Love" (multiple times) and learned to sing the
Polish lines phonetically. The locals thought we actually understood
it!
BTW, "Pskytwrskvt" actually IS pronounced "Smith." I went to junior
high with Klmkstvrrx ("Sally") Pskytwrskvt.
Norm
Gerry Scott-Moore
<bros...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> I agree with the previous posts but having built both sizes over the last
> few years I thought I'd throw in my two cents. Bigger (wider lower bout) and
> deeper bodies move more air and tend to resonate more. But this really
> depends on other construction details also. For example, how thick are the
> plates, how thin is the wood in the recurve on the back (this determines the
> flexibility of the back). What type of bracing is used on the top plate?
Can you give the one-size-fits-all explanation of how bracing effect
the sound of the soundboard. I note the bracing in this Seagull Grand
Parlor, is curious. It looks like an X below the sound hole.
> Floating or built-in pickup? Magnetic or accoustic pickup? All these things
> effect the tone. Not to mention solid vs laminated plates! I've found that
> unless you are really after a real woody tone, the 16" bout will work as
> well as the 17" as long as the plates are well tuned. The bigger the body,
> the more it will resonate (and thus feedback easier) and the more the
> resonating body will impact the vibrating string which excites the pickup.
>
> And why I'm here... I've been asking myself lately why do even carved
> archtops generally have magnetic pickups, ususally floating but nonetheless,
> magnetic? Seems to me just to be tradition. Good accoustic pickups are a
> fairly new thing (Charlie Christian couldn't have laid his hands on one,
> eh?) But if the goal of a carved and tap tuned archtop is to get a great
> accoustic tone, why on earth fit it with a magnetic pickup? I guess to get
> tone we are used to hearing. It's not a "bad" tone after all, but would a
> good accoustic pickup be "better"? Hmmmm..... might have to try that!
An excellent point. As you say this it makes perfect sense. Which
acoustic pickup would you think best for the task?
--
///---
Edison Ed
Mimi Fox uses.
I use an Ibanez GB10 most of the time and really like the size of it. It
dosen't have the acoustic tone of my 17" solid top archtop guitars, but it's
still my favorite "gig" guitar.
E.D.
Gerry Scott-Moore
<bros...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> I admit I'm no expert on acoustic pick ups but I've heard some good ones in
> high-end acoustic guitars. Usually they are a combination of a piezo bridge
> and an internal mic. Another very interesting rig is the "pick up the world"
> pickup. It uses some type of plastic strip that you just stick on the
> guitar. I heard John Pizzereli (sp) experiment with one on his archtop at a
> guitar show a couple years ago. I'm thinking of getting one to try it out.
> http://www.pick-uptheworld.com/ I just find it interesting that while the
> rest of the acoustic guitar world (flat tops) use these types of pickups
> almost exclusively (rather than magnetic), the archtop world still uses
> magnetic pickups almost exclusively yet the archtop IS an acoustic guitar.
That is a curiosity, and as you mention upstream, probably part of the
tradition. Acoustic guitars are meant to still be played acoustically
though amplified. While jazz guitars are really meant to be played
electrically in their settings. Nothing about, say Raney or
Montgomery, makes me think that I'm listening to an acoustic guitar.
If it did sound acoustic I'd think it strange.
Have you heard/experienced the Schertler stuff? My guitar guy is really
frothing over them. They have an acoustic pickup called the Bluestick
that Martin and Gibson have both decided to begin installing on their
instruments. That's a pretty good endorsement. These are underbridge.
They also have a pickup, the DYN-G, that fixes to the face of the
soundboard with a putty of sorts. I think this is the one Bellanati
has spoken highly of.
I just found a website with someone demoing them from NAMM. The
mandolin pickup, followed by the dyn-g (on the face) and then a couple
of guitars with the bluestick installed.
--
///---
Jurupari
>"Dee-Angelico" or "Dan-gelico"? I've heard both.
sotto voce with a Captain Kirk affectation
...one HUNDRED(!)..........thousandollars.
Geordie F.O. Kelly
GeorDie is preferable. :-)
--
Geordie F.O. Kelly
Guitarist/Jazz Improvisation Instructor
Armed Forces School of Music
http://heritageguitar.com/artists/
"Norman Karin" <nka...@udel.edu> wrote in message
news:3F57E5EA...@udel.edu...
Geordie F.O. Kelly
When we first came over, it was O'Kaleigh, then O'Kelly, and finally Kelly.
For some, it was a matter necessity. That is to say, if your ethnic group
wasn't particulary welcome. For example, the Irish weren't portrayed well
in the press in the 1800's and early 1900's; often the caracatures in
newspapers portryed us as baboons and monkeys insinuating lack of
intelligence and class. And the Irish that were already here (from the
first major immigration - there were 3 major influxes in total) started
calling themselves "Scotch-Irish" to differentiate from the new arrivals.
But, bare-knuckle boxing (which we excelled at :-) ), police work, and
building the railroad from the East was better than the famine and the
living conditions under English rule at that time that they left behind. So
we sucked it up and did what it took to fit in like everyone else;
Americanized.
My wife's family, which hails from the same area that we used to live
(Napoli), changed there surname from Biangasso (bee-in-GAH-so) to Romano
just 2 generations ago; everyone could pronounce that.
It's funny that D'Addario still uses the dah-DA-rio pronunciation ala Italy.
That was on the web site at one point if I recall correctly.
It is worth noting, however, that I never had any trouble saying "Murphy's"
or "Guiness" when we went to Ireland with the band! ;-)
--
Geordie F.O. Kelly
Guitarist/Jazz Improvisation Instructor
Armed Forces School of Music
http://heritageguitar.com/artists/
"Max Leggett" <mleg...@nospam.ca> wrote in message
news:3f57ed43...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
Jonathan Byrd
> Another difference in the L4 versus L5 is the scale length. The L4 is
> shorter (like an ES-175). I think its 24.75" if memory serves me. So an L4
> feels more compact all the way around.
Yes, that's the reason I've been agonizing over trading my ES-175
(plus a large pile of dough) for an L-5. The longer scale feels so
much more comfortable in my hands.
I mentioned that I was considering the purchase to the drummer I work
with, and he looked at me like I was nuts: "You'd bring a $6000 guitar
to a gig like this?"
Annie
thanks guys for all your thoughtful responses....I might shop around for
a 16".....maybe an 1934 L-5 Reissue? Acoustic, small body, 1 3/4"
neck...maybe I am just looking for a classical guitar in "jazz disguise"!
Annie
Clyde Spillenger
considerably less money. For example, from time to time a vintage L-4
or vintage L-4C shows up on the web. You can find a 1962 L-4C listed
at www.philsguitars.com for what seems to me a good price -- less than
half (maybe less than a third) of what an L-5C of equivalent vintage
would cost. Now, it may not be a 1 3/4" nut width, and it does have a
cutaway (which I would regard as an advantage) -- but for the price I
think it beats a 1934 L-5 reissue that hasn't had forty years to open
up. Of course, you have to play the particular instrument to really
know . . .
I would also ratify the recommendation others have made of the
Heritage Sweet 16. It doesn't, though, bark quite as loud
acoustically as the Gibson 16" guitars because it is shallower and is
X-braced. It is meant to be "sweet" rather than loud. If you're not
intending to amplify it, maybe it's not the best choice.
Annie <pars...@att.net> wrote in message news:<3F592FEA...@att.net>...
Clyde Spillenger
old (1920s and 1930s) L-4 with an oval hole. Those can be really
lovely sounding instruments -- and the prices are surprisingly
moderate. If you go to www.gbase.com and enter "L-4" as your search
term you'll see several of them come up, as well as some later L-4s
and L-4Cs that have the f-holes.
Annie <pars...@att.net> wrote in message news:<3F592FEA...@att.net>...
Annie
I have been looking at the L-4's and actually bid on an old oval hole on
Ebay, but alas, I was outbid.....but great idea!
Annie
Norman Karin
$3000 guitar to your gig.
Norm
Norman Karin
logging onto rmmgj after I'd had a martini and wine with dinner.
Norm
Geordie F.O. Kelly
--
Geordie F.O. Kelly
Guitarist/Jazz Improvisation Instructor
Armed Forces School of Music
http://heritageguitar.com/artists/
"Norman Karin" <nka...@udel.edu> wrote in message
news:3F5B74B9...@udel.edu...
tomw
j...@isu.edu says...>
> (plus a large pile of dough) for an L-5. The longer scale feels so
> much more comfortable in my hands.
>
> I mentioned that I was considering the purchase to the drummer I work
> with, and he looked at me like I was nuts: "You'd bring a $6000 guitar
> to a gig like this?"
>
short scale I think you'll be much happier with a longer scale neck.
--
Tom Walls
the guy at the Temple of Zeus
http://www.arts.cornell.edu/zeus/