Lets talk about archtops - and also who plays what guitar
Mr.Will
Tom Lippincott solved in the end, by methods of deduction!), I have happened
on several facts that come into the "jazz guitar" field that I feel I should
ask about.
First, I am interested to know what type of guitars everyone out there plays
(I dont really care for makes or year etc) just a basic idea : eg archtop
etc.
For a very long time, I have thought that the reason people played archtop
guitars was due to their better craftsmanship and "correct" way of
construction. Indeed at several places I have seen heated arguments about
"solid spruce" tops and the "laminate" covering being derided as something
less than worthy. You need only look at any archtop dealer who will go on
about this.
So some questions:-
1) What is the big f***in deal about "solid tops" and "bracing"?
From the little investigation I've done, solid tops are supposed to be there
for "accoustic" tone, and how wonderful all this is to the sound of your
guitar. However, when the first thing any jazz guitarist does is plug the
instrument into an amplifier, why all this obsessions with the "accoustic"
tone? Surely a player would be more concerned with the amplified tone, as
thats what he will play through? Which brings me onto:-
2) Floating pickups.
Done the "correct" way - the way it "should" be done. I've been told
recently that this is actually the most PRIMITIVE way to amplify a guitar -
why then do folk go for great "accoustic" tone and sit there happily with
the most primitive technology to amplify their guitar, when they have paid
all this money? In the many years since whoever first whacked on a pickup to
their archtop, does nobody think that maybe technology might have advanced
enough to find a better way to get what they need? Or is this like the
rockers still in their spandex demanding that it *has* to be a speaker thats
had the cone cut, that "Jimi" got his sound this way, and all other ways are
not only wrong, but actually evil?
3) Whats all the deal with "flatwounds" and "treble elimination" on the
guitar?
Again, flatwounds are the "proper" way and a guitar *can* be modified as
long as its to remove trebles. I've seen long workshops on the subject, and
it seems an obsession with certain folk.
To me it seems that they are saying the only good guitar tone is a "dead"
one - lacking in all trebles etc.
Of course using the tone controls is against principles - after all its not
the way of the "floating pickup" disciples.
Actually I guess this is my rant from my recent frustrations. After all, I
guess Im more angry at myself for simply accepting alot of what I've been
told about archtops and "jazz" guitars than anyone who has simply fed me the
jazz equivalent of "nah, JIMI got his sound THIS way".
Anyhow I like MY archtop because of its balance in the strings - I also just
like the feel of the archtop as I play it.
Is that the same as anyone else's reasons? It would be refreshing to hear
it, or even the honest "I just want to play the same guitar as my hero" than
all this "accepted" solid spruce top, bracing, floating pickups and dead
tone alleged "science".
Weird though how so many of these folks will like Martin Taylors
playing.......as they say in the USA - "go figger".
--
Mr.Will
Max Leggett
wrote:
>On my recent quest for the playability to be improved on my guitar (which
>Tom Lippincott solved in the end, by methods of deduction!), I have happened
>on several facts that come into the "jazz guitar" field that I feel I should
>ask about.
>
>First, I am interested to know what type of guitars everyone out there plays
>(I dont really care for makes or year etc) just a basic idea : eg archtop
>etc.
Mostly archtop, but there are times when only a Tele with skanky
roundwounds will do. And for jazz, I mean.
>For a very long time, I have thought that the reason people played archtop
>guitars was due to their better craftsmanship and "correct" way of
>construction. Indeed at several places I have seen heated arguments about
>"solid spruce" tops and the "laminate" covering being derided as something
>less than worthy. You need only look at any archtop dealer who will go on
>about this.
They each have their sounds and adherents. As for "better" and
"correct" I say bollocks. Options, among the many that guitarists
have.
>1) What is the big f***in deal about "solid tops" and "bracing"?
>From the little investigation I've done, solid tops are supposed to be there
>for "accoustic" tone, and how wonderful all this is to the sound of your
>guitar. However, when the first thing any jazz guitarist does is plug the
>instrument into an amplifier, why all this obsessions with the "accoustic"
>tone? Surely a player would be more concerned with the amplified tone, as
>thats what he will play through? Which brings me onto:-
It sounds different from a laminate is all. Lots of people like
laminates. And a carved top will sound different amplified than a
laminate amplified. What's the big f***ing deal about pointy
headstocks vs Les Pauls in thrash metal?
>2) Floating pickups.
>Done the "correct" way - the way it "should" be done. I've been told
>recently that this is actually the most PRIMITIVE way to amplify a guitar -
>why then do folk go for great "accoustic" tone and sit there happily with
>the most primitive technology to amplify their guitar, when they have paid
>all this money? In the many years since whoever first whacked on a pickup to
>their archtop, does nobody think that maybe technology might have advanced
>enough to find a better way to get what they need? Or is this like the
>rockers still in their spandex demanding that it *has* to be a speaker thats
>had the cone cut, that "Jimi" got his sound this way, and all other ways are
>not only wrong, but actually evil?
LOL! Yer havin' a good rant, lad.
>3) Whats all the deal with "flatwounds" and "treble elimination" on the
>guitar?
>Again, flatwounds are the "proper" way
Bollocks.Bollocks I say.
>long as its to remove trebles. I've seen long workshops on the subject, and
>it seems an obsession with certain folk.
Anarakoids.
>Actually I guess this is my rant from my recent frustrations. After all, I
>guess Im more angry at myself for simply accepting alot of what I've been
>told about archtops and "jazz" guitars than anyone who has simply fed me the
>jazz equivalent of "nah, JIMI got his sound THIS way".
Everybody got their sound from their brains and their fingers, and
they found that some combinations [carved top/flatwounds, or pointy
headstock/008 rounds] appealed to what they heard in their head. Yer
right, there is a lot of, "What amp did Wes use cos I wanna sound like
him." Bollocks. Anal retentive anarakoids. Should be smothered at
birth, I agree.
>
>Anyhow I like MY archtop because of its balance in the strings - I also just
>like the feel of the archtop as I play it.
>Is that the same as anyone else's reasons?
Yup. Nice warm, round sound. And I really like the sound of TIs. Not
because Jimmy Bruno plays TIs, but because the intonation and tone are
better. They better reflect what I hear in my tiny cerebellum. And my
Tele with round 10s also reflects that and is sometimes easier for my
fingers to wrap around. Other times not.
>It would be refreshing to hear
>it, or even the honest "I just want to play the same guitar as my hero"
Oh, man, I'd just LOVE to play the same guitar as Jimmy Bruno. I would
really, really, like a top of the line Benny. Yas oh yas. Or a top of
the line Montellone. I also have my heart set on a Jaguar S type. Yas
oh yas. But it's not because Jimmy plays a Benny or some movie star
drives a Jag, it's because they're really neat in their excellence. A
Benny wouldn't make me play like Jimmy just like a Jag wouldn't make
me drive like Sterling Moss. Still want them. I also want Claudia
Schiffer's home phone number.
>all this "accepted" solid spruce top, bracing, floating pickups and dead
>tone alleged "science".
The only true science is played on pointy headstock guitars with 008
rounds. It's in the Bible. You can look it up. The Book of Intonation.
>
>Weird though how so many of these folks will like Martin Taylors
>playing.......as they say in the USA - "go figger".
>
>--
>Mr.Will
Rant on! Rage, rage against the dying of the night! Do not go gentle
into that good night! LOL! Good rant, Mr Will - feel better? :-)
Willie K.Yee, M.D.
wrote:
>1) What is the big f***in deal about "solid tops" and "bracing"?
>From the little investigation I've done, solid tops are supposed to be there
>for "accoustic" tone, and how wonderful all this is to the sound of your
>guitar. However, when the first thing any jazz guitarist does is plug the
>instrument into an amplifier, why all this obsessions with the "accoustic"
>tone? Surely a player would be more concerned with the amplified tone, as
>thats what he will play through? Which brings me onto:-
The acoustic tone still counts for a lot, even with the amp cranked.
>
>2) Floating pickups.
>Done the "correct" way - the way it "should" be done. I've been told
>recently that this is actually the most PRIMITIVE way to amplify a guitar -
>why then do folk go for great "accoustic" tone and sit there happily with
>the most primitive technology to amplify their guitar, when they have paid
>all this money?
The technology of floating pickups has considerably advanced.
Initially, the floater was used because it could be easily attached to
an existing acoustic guitar. Now we use floaters because we want to
keep the natural acoustic component intact.
> In the many years since whoever first whacked on a pickup to
>their archtop, does nobody think that maybe technology might have advanced
>enough to find a better way to get what they need?
Indeed, routed humbuckers have a different sound. Some would say
better. But it ain't what I need.
> Or is this like the
>rockers still in their spandex demanding that it *has* to be a speaker thats
>had the cone cut, that "Jimi" got his sound this way, and all other ways are
>not only wrong, but actually evil?
>
>3) Whats all the deal with "flatwounds" and "treble elimination" on the
>guitar?
>Again, flatwounds are the "proper" way and a guitar *can* be modified as
>long as its to remove trebles. I've seen long workshops on the subject, and
>it seems an obsession with certain folk.
>To me it seems that they are saying the only good guitar tone is a "dead"
>one - lacking in all trebles etc.
To me, they are one more option you have for creating your sound. I
have one guitar I keep with flatwounds (and routed humbuckers), and
one with roundwounds and a floater. The each have their beauties.
>Of course using the tone controls is against principles - after all its not
>the way of the "floating pickup" disciples.
If it works use them. Personally, I prefer the extra control and
flexibility I get from my multieffects floor boxes.
>Actually I guess this is my rant from my recent frustrations. After all, I
>guess Im more angry at myself for simply accepting alot of what I've been
>told about archtops and "jazz" guitars than anyone who has simply fed me the
>jazz equivalent of "nah, JIMI got his sound THIS way".
We have all made this mistake. . . . Well, some of us at least.
>Anyhow I like MY archtop because of its balance in the strings - I also just
>like the feel of the archtop as I play it.
Good. Shut up and play.
Willie K. Yee, M.D. http://www.bestweb.net/~wkyee
Developer of Problem Knowledge Couplers for Psychiatry http://www.pkc.com
Webmaster and Guitarist for the Big Blue Big Band http://www.bigbluebigband.org
Joe Finn
news:0DS3b.406$A9...@newsfep1-gui.server.ntli.net...
> On my recent quest for the playability to be improved on my guitar (which
> Tom Lippincott solved in the end, by methods of deduction!), I have
happened
> on several facts that come into the "jazz guitar" field that I feel I
should
> ask about.
>
> First, I am interested to know what type of guitars everyone out there
plays
> (I dont really care for makes or year etc) just a basic idea : eg archtop
> etc.
I play a spruce hand carved arch top. It is tuned.
> For a very long time, I have thought that the reason people played archtop
> guitars was due to their better craftsmanship and "correct" way of
> construction.
For me it's all about the sound. Craftsmanship and correctness are for
luthiers. I'm just a player.
> Indeed at several places I have seen heated arguments about
> "solid spruce" tops and the "laminate" covering being derided as something
> less than worthy. You need only look at any archtop dealer who will go on
> about this.
Laminated tops don't have the acoustic quality of a carved top.
>
> So some questions:-
>
> 1) What is the big f***in deal about "solid tops" and "bracing"?
> From the little investigation I've done, solid tops are supposed to be
there
> for "accoustic" tone, and how wonderful all this is to the sound of your
> guitar. However, when the first thing any jazz guitarist does is plug the
> instrument into an amplifier, why all this obsessions with the "accoustic"
> tone? Surely a player would be more concerned with the amplified tone, as
> thats what he will play through? Which brings me onto:-
This was probably true a while back. The current generation of archtops with
today's floating pickups are better than before. A modern state of the art
floating pickup on a voiced arch top can't be touched in terms of sound
quality. Today's amps like Walter Woods and clarus make this difference
pretty obvious in my humble opinion.
>
> 2) Floating pickups.
> Done the "correct" way - the way it "should" be done. I've been told
> recently that this is actually the most PRIMITIVE way to amplify a
guitar -
> why then do folk go for great "accoustic" tone and sit there happily with
> the most primitive technology to amplify their guitar, when they have paid
> all this money? In the many years since whoever first whacked on a pickup
to
> their archtop, does nobody think that maybe technology might have advanced
> enough to find a better way to get what they need? Or is this like the
> rockers still in their spandex demanding that it *has* to be a speaker
thats
> had the cone cut, that "Jimi" got his sound this way, and all other ways
are
> not only wrong, but actually evil?
Say waaaaaht?
>
> 3) Whats all the deal with "flatwounds" and "treble elimination" on the
> guitar?
> Again, flatwounds are the "proper" way and a guitar *can* be modified as
> long as its to remove trebles. I've seen long workshops on the subject,
and
> it seems an obsession with certain folk.
> To me it seems that they are saying the only good guitar tone is a "dead"
> one - lacking in all trebles etc.
> Of course using the tone controls is against principles - after all its
not
> the way of the "floating pickup" disciples.
Flatwounds are preferred by many guitarists. The smooth surface traps less
moisture and dirt than roundwounds and the strings will tend to last longer.
This also makes them easier to play. They tear up your frets and your
fingers quite a bit less than round wound strings. Also there is less finger
noise on flat wounds. This is good for recording.
>
> Actually I guess this is my rant from my recent frustrations. After all, I
> guess Im more angry at myself for simply accepting alot of what I've been
> told about archtops and "jazz" guitars than anyone who has simply fed me
the
> jazz equivalent of "nah, JIMI got his sound THIS way".
What's up with this jimi stuff? I loved his playing as much as anybody else
but I'm pretty sure he didn't consider himself a jazz player. I played with
a couple of people who worked with him too btw.
>
> Anyhow I like MY archtop because of its balance in the strings - I also
just
> like the feel of the archtop as I play it.
> Is that the same as anyone else's reasons? It would be refreshing to hear
> it, or even the honest "I just want to play the same guitar as my hero"
than
> all this "accepted" solid spruce top, bracing, floating pickups and dead
> tone alleged "science".
My heroes were Montgomery, Benson, Martino, and Burrell but the guitar I
play is different from the guitars each of them chose to play.
>
> Weird though how so many of these folks will like Martin Taylors
> playing.......as they say in the USA - "go figger".
He's a good player. His stuff with Bill Wyman being was interesting.
...joe
--
Visit me on the web www.joefinn.net
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Joe Finn
>
> He's a good player. His stuff with Bill Wyman being was interesting.
> ...joe
Sorry, I had to take a call during that post.
I was trying [facetiously] to say that Taylor's appearances with Wyman had
caused me to view him and his music in an entirely different light.
Go figure. ...........joe
Ken Rose
you what you 'should' be playing. That's nonsense.
However, there is something to be said for exploring all the options
available, and seeing which ones (and which combinations) work for what you
want. For years, I was a laminate top/routed humbucker player. I still dig
that sound. But I have tried a lot of things along the way, and have often
been surprised. One example: I had one of the new D'Angelico copies with a
solid pressed top and a floater, and I was pretty impressed with how good it
sounded through the amp (much to my surprise, and contrary to my
expectations). After all my searching, I have ended up with a solid carved
top and routed humbucker on a lovely guitar built for me by Steve Holst (I
posted a review of this guitar earlier). Why a routed pickup? I just like
that smoky fatness only a routed pickup can deliver. Why a solid top? The
acoustic qualities of a good archtop do come through the amp. No question
about that. There is also something about the responsiveness of a solid top
that has been carefully carved, braced and tap-tuned. Even if that didn't
come through the amp (which it does), it still feels different to me as a
player, and helps me feel that all the nuances are coming through.
That's my 2 cents.
Ken Rose
www.cdbaby.com/kenrose
LarryV
archtop with a maple laminated top. I love the way it sounds, in fact,
I like the sound of it better than many solid top archtops I've heard.
So it's really whatever happens to be your cup of tea. To me, it's
such a more practical guitar than dealing with all the idosyncrasies
of a full hollow body archtop. I can get clear, articulate tone, and
none of the feedback that plagues regular archtops. I can also cover
many different musical styles with it.
"Mr.Will" <mr....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:<0DS3b.406$A9...@newsfep1-gui.server.ntli.net>...
David Moss
When you're starting up in jazz guitar, you almost certainly won't
have a very comprehensive knowledge of the tonal possibilities -
so it's good to have a "standard" to go for. One of those "standards"
happens to be carved top, floating pickup, flatwounds, which is
what I got.
I've come to the conclusion that for the first X years of playing,
there's not much point in putting a lot of thought into alternatives,
because your technique rather than the gear is going to be the
limiting factor anyway. Also, I think if you're going to get up
on the bandstand with the "wrong kind of guitar", you need to
a pretty good player to pull it off - i.e. you need secure street
cred through your playing before you can give up the gear-based
street cred.
Just don't ask me what X is - but I like to think that there comes
a time when those X years have gone by, your technique isn't
the limiting factor and you know as an artist what kind of tone
you want to produce, then you go out and buy whatever kind
of guitar will do that for you. When you've reached that stage,
you no longer pay attention to advice or "what Wes plays"
aspects, because you have your own mind and your own artistic
goals.
From your rant, Mr. Will, I suspect you've been making the
mistake of listening to gear advice that's just not intended for
a player of your ability - it's intended for guys like me who
aren't far enough advanced to know what they want. You're
a couple of orders of magnitude beyond that stage.
Specifically on carved tops - I think there's some misplaced
snobbism there. The cheapest archtops all have laminated
tops, because you just can't automate carving solid wood
the way you can automate pressing laminates. Nevertheless,
there are laminate top guitars out there that certainly ain't
cheap (e.g. D'Aquisto), and there are musicians playing them
who could certainly know what sound they want and could
afford a solid carved top if they wanted one (e.g. Jim Hall).
Nevertheless, I'm surprised how strongly you felt yourself
forced into the carved top/floating area - surely that's just
one of the "standards"? What about the ES175 - it's
laminate/routed, and there's plenty of precendent for
using that guitar for jazz, no?
"Mr.Will" wrote...
Steve
"Mr.Will" <mr....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
...First, I am interested to know what type of guitars everyone out there
plays
I use a Strat neck on a "solid" plywood body (old Teisco body, I think),
with a trapeze tailpiece and a Fishman archtop piezo bridge sitting on a
scrap of ebony, and a Fender Noiseless bridge pickup screwed into the
plank's top near the neck.
It's my belief that the traditional "Jazz guitar tone" can be had by using a
bridge with some woody "give" to it, as it absorbs some high frequencies.
I've tried all sorts of methods, guitars, etc., including laminated
archtops, Tele's, and so on.
Finally I arrived at a workable tone, no feedback, and for CHEAP (I'm not in
a position to be able to write guitars off on taxes, like the big guys).
I rout it through a Tech 21 Acoustic DI box for better tone contouring and
balance, then to a Tech 21 Power Engine.
Don't care for Flatwound strings, as after you trim the trebles, the basses
sound muddy on most guitars, IMHO.
After playing traditional so-called Jazz guitars for years, in most
configurations (except solid spruce topped), I can't see goin' back to them.
They're expensive and fragile.
I appreciate fine guitars, but if I'm going to spend money on luthiery, I
save it for pure acoustic.
Once you plug in, it's a different ballgame, as you point out, though I
admit to liking a bit of warm vibration from the guitar's body (but on a
bandstand, I hardly miss it, and can always get it at home with my Larrivee
flat-top).
Ergonomically, tradition Jazz guitars have good dimensions that I am quite
used to and like, but all considered (especially money reasons) I'm out of
the archtop wars.
BTW, I gig straightahead Jazz 2-3 nights a week with this rig. Not class
looking, but it gets the job done.
-Esteban Panzon
Joey Goldstein
"Mr.Will" wrote:
>
> On my recent quest for the playability to be improved on my guitar (which
> Tom Lippincott solved in the end, by methods of deduction!), I have happened
> on several facts that come into the "jazz guitar" field that I feel I should
> ask about.
>
> First, I am interested to know what type of guitars everyone out there plays
> (I dont really care for makes or year etc) just a basic idea : eg archtop
> etc.
I usaully use a Tele with a humbucker for jazz these days. I used to own
an ES175. I miss that sound and intend to buy another or a clone
sometime in the future. I also very much like the sound of the L5 and
would like to own one at some point. To me, outside of the pure acoustic
tone of a Gypsy style guitar, those are the only two guitar sounds that
matter in jazz. I look at all laminates as being versions of the 175 and
all solid tops as being L5 clones.
> For a very long time, I have thought that the reason people played archtop
> guitars was due to their better craftsmanship
Some of them are constructed exquisitely. Some are cheap pieces of shit.
> and "correct" way of
> construction.
Correct? How so? How is an L5 constructed any more correctly than a
Tele? Ergonomics? Maybe. I have yet to see a guitar (flattop, archtop or
solidbody) that is constructed such that playing in a seated position
does not require some extra contraption, like a strap or footstool, to
obtain maximal positioning of the instrument. Supposedly the Klein
electric solidbody is the best product in this arena.
> Indeed at several places I have seen heated arguments about
> "solid spruce" tops and the "laminate" covering being derided as something
> less than worthy. You need only look at any archtop dealer who will go on
> about this.
They are used for different purposes and have different sounds.
Laminates tend to be cheaper so someone trying to sell you a guitar will
push for the more expensive product.
> So some questions:-
>
> 1) What is the big f***in deal about "solid tops" and "bracing"?
> From the little investigation I've done, solid tops are supposed to be there
> for "accoustic" tone, and how wonderful all this is to the sound of your
> guitar. However, when the first thing any jazz guitarist does is plug the
> instrument into an amplifier, why all this obsessions with the "accoustic"
> tone? Surely a player would be more concerned with the amplified tone, as
> thats what he will play through?
Can you not hear the difference between an amplified 175 and an
amplified L5?
Can you hear the difference between the sound of an unamplified 175 and
an unamplified L5?
They just sound different. Whether one sound is "better" than the other
depends on what you want to hear.
The main advantage to the laminate top is feedback rejection. Laminates
can be played a little louder without feeding back.
> Which brings me onto:-
>
> 2) Floating pickups.
> Done the "correct" way - the way it "should" be done. I've been told
> recently that this is actually the most PRIMITIVE way to amplify a guitar -
> why then do folk go for great "accoustic" tone and sit there happily with
> the most primitive technology to amplify their guitar, when they have paid
> all this money?
Because pure acoustic tone is arguably a more primitive approach than a
finely controlled electric sound.
> In the many years since whoever first whacked on a pickup to
> their archtop, does nobody think that maybe technology might have advanced
> enough to find a better way to get what they need?
There's that word "better" again. Floating pickups simply sound
different than other systems. If that's the sound you like then use it.
If it isn't, don't.
> Or is this like the
> rockers still in their spandex demanding that it *has* to be a speaker thats
> had the cone cut, that "Jimi" got his sound this way, and all other ways are
> not only wrong, but actually evil?
Who cares?
> 3) Whats all the deal with "flatwounds" and "treble elimination" on the
> guitar?
It's a sound that some people like.
> Again, flatwounds are the "proper" way
Nonsense. Flatwound players are in the minority in pop as well as jazz.
> and a guitar *can* be modified as
> long as its to remove trebles.
Huh?
> I've seen long workshops on the subject, and
> it seems an obsession with certain folk.
> To me it seems that they are saying the only good guitar tone is a "dead"
> one - lacking in all trebles etc.
No. It's the tone that I like to hear. That's all. I think of it as dark
rather than dead. I have reasons for why I want to hear that but that
does not make it the best way to do things for somebody else. And it's
not like I have anything against treble. When I play pop music I'm a bit
of a treble freak.
> Of course using the tone controls is against principles - after all its not
> the way of the "floating pickup" disciples.
People with floating pickups usually go for a brighter sound. In my
experience those guitars don't do the dark thing as well as a laminate
top with carved-in humbucker, or a solid body.
> Actually I guess this is my rant from my recent frustrations. After all, I
> guess Im more angry at myself for simply accepting alot of what I've been
> told about archtops and "jazz" guitars than anyone who has simply fed me the
> jazz equivalent of "nah, JIMI got his sound THIS way".
If you don't understand the mechanics of how these various features work
your best bet is to find a sound you like on record that someone else is
getting and go out and buy the exact same gear as that guy. Eg. If you
like Wes get an L5 and a Twin.
> Anyhow I like MY archtop because of its balance in the strings - I also just
> like the feel of the archtop as I play it.
> Is that the same as anyone else's reasons?
Feel is very important. So is sound. Most of us want both.
> It would be refreshing to hear
> it, or even the honest "I just want to play the same guitar as my hero" than
> all this "accepted" solid spruce top, bracing, floating pickups and dead
> tone alleged "science".
>
> Weird though how so many of these folks will like Martin Taylors
> playing.......as they say in the USA - "go figger".
>
> --
> Mr.Will
--
Joey Goldstein
http://www.joeygoldstein.com
joegold AT sympatico DOT ca
Keith Freeman
> also just like the feel of the archtop as I play it.
> Is that the same as anyone else's reasons?
Close. I like my archtop because:
. it sounds beautiful amplified
. I can practise on it w/o amplification if I want to
. it plays like a dream
. it looks beautiful
I like flatwounds because they give me the tone I want and don't make
irritating squeaky noises when I slide up and down.
I use a floating pickup because installing it is reversible, whereas
routing into the top to mount, say, a P90 would leave a big hole there if
I wanted to change p/up again.
Is that OK? ;-}
-Keith
Audio samples and tips at:
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/FreeKeithMan
Paul Sanwald
>
> (I dont really care for makes or year etc) just a basic idea : eg archtop
> etc.
>
I play an archtop with roundwound strings. the reason I play an
archtop is because I like the sound of it, and can practice
acoustically and hear myself without affecting my touch. I don't the
the way flatwounds sound and feel, so I don't use them. I have no idea
if my ibanez pm-100 has a laminated or carved top, and to be honest I
could care less. I have had numerous famous jazz guitarists (russell
malone, peter bernstein, jack wilkins to name a few) play my guitar,
and they all sounded exactly like themselves.
I hold the somewhat unpopular opinion that it matters very little what
instrument you play, that your sound and conception are in your head,
heart and hands. great players will sound great no matter what
instrument they play, weak players will still sound weak with a
million dollar archtop.
--paul
thornton
wounds 70 through 10s. A Mesa Boogie 40 watt with one 12" speaker. A cheap
Digitech effects box for a short delay and some EQ. Equipment is much less
important than ability. Practice and play more; when you reach the point
your equipment is holding you back, you'll know. Until then why pay big
bucks? Thornton
Mr.Will
> > Actually I guess this is my rant from my recent frustrations. After all,
I
> > guess Im more angry at myself for simply accepting alot of what I've
been
> > told about archtops and "jazz" guitars than anyone who has simply fed me
the
> > jazz equivalent of "nah, JIMI got his sound THIS way".
>
> If you don't understand the mechanics of how these various features work
> your best bet is to find a sound you like on record that someone else is
> getting and go out and buy the exact same gear as that guy. Eg. If you
> like Wes get an L5 and a Twin.
My guess is I'd sound like me, and he'd sound like him.
Does that confuse you MF <g>?
Mr.Will
Stan Gosnell
news:0DS3b.406$A9...@newsfep1-gui.server.ntli.net:
> 1) What is the big f***in deal about "solid tops" and "bracing"?
> From the little investigation I've done, solid tops are supposed to be
> there for "accoustic" tone, and how wonderful all this is to the sound
> of your guitar. However, when the first thing any jazz guitarist does
> is plug the instrument into an amplifier, why all this obsessions with
> the "accoustic" tone? Surely a player would be more concerned with the
> amplified tone, as thats what he will play through? Which brings me
> onto:-
It depends. If you play mostly acoustic, the solid top makes a difference,
because it gives better tone & more volume. If you play amplified, the
solid top makes a difference because it feeds back very easily.
> 2) Floating pickups.
> Done the "correct" way - the way it "should" be done. I've been told
> recently that this is actually the most PRIMITIVE way to amplify a
> guitar - why then do folk go for great "accoustic" tone and sit there
> happily with the most primitive technology to amplify their guitar,
> when they have paid all this money? In the many years since whoever
> first whacked on a pickup to their archtop, does nobody think that
> maybe technology might have advanced enough to find a better way to
> get what they need? Or is this like the rockers still in their spandex
> demanding that it *has* to be a speaker thats had the cone cut, that
> "Jimi" got his sound this way, and all other ways are not only wrong,
> but actually evil?
Floating pickups are more prone to feedback, & IMHO don't sound as good,
because they don't get the vibration from the top that routed-in pickups
do. Their only use is to amplify an acoustic guitar without cutting holes
in the top. If you want a true electric, this isn't the best way. It does
have its place, though.
If you play amplified all the time, a laminate top with routed-in pickups
is the way to go. The top custom luthiers all offer this option, because
it's practical & gets the job done. Laminate tops do not automatically
indicate cheap or low quality.
> 3) Whats all the deal with "flatwounds" and "treble elimination" on
> the guitar?
> Again, flatwounds are the "proper" way and a guitar *can* be modified
> as long as its to remove trebles. I've seen long workshops on the
> subject, and it seems an obsession with certain folk.
> To me it seems that they are saying the only good guitar tone is a
> "dead" one - lacking in all trebles etc.
> Of course using the tone controls is against principles - after all
> its not the way of the "floating pickup" disciples.
Flatwounds sound different from roundwounds, and they feel different.
Which type to use is purely a matter of taste, use whatever strings you
like.
> Actually I guess this is my rant from my recent frustrations. After
> all, I guess Im more angry at myself for simply accepting alot of what
> I've been told about archtops and "jazz" guitars than anyone who has
> simply fed me the jazz equivalent of "nah, JIMI got his sound THIS
> way".
Always, it's a case of 'whatever works for you'. There is no right or
wrong way to do any of this, cats can be skinned in many different ways.
--
Regards,
Stan
Joey Goldstein
You'd sound like you but you'd have to potential to have his tone.
No guitar or amp combination is going to make you sound like a good
musician. You'll have to work that out for yourself.
But anybody can get Wes' tone if you use the same equipment he did. If
you use other equipment you might be able to mimic that tone but you'll
never be able to peg it exactly.
If you're not concerned with copping someone else's tone then just do
whatever the fuck you want to do.
> Does that confuse you MF <g>?
Yeah, I'm a little confused. I have no idea what you're after. Good luck though.
Ken Rose
> I hold the somewhat unpopular opinion that it matters very little what
> instrument you play, that your sound and conception are in your head,
> heart and hands. great players will sound great no matter what
> instrument they play, weak players will still sound weak with a
> million dollar archtop.
>
> --paul
What a radical concept. . . ; )
Kevin Van Sant
wrote in message <1503c94e.03083...@posting.google.com> :
>I hold the somewhat unpopular opinion that it matters very little what
>instrument you play, that your sound and conception are in your head,
>heart and hands. great players will sound great no matter what
>instrument they play, weak players will still sound weak with a
>million dollar archtop.
Is that really so unpopular? Seems to me it would be hard to disagree
with. That's why I like to treat the guitar like a piano. I mean in
the sense that it essentially a constant instrument. Sure there are
great variations in action, tone, general quality, and so on, but a
piano plays and sounds like a piano. And essentially the pianist
walks into any room and he is basically always playing the same
instrument, and furthermore it's the same instrument that every other
piano player in every other room is playing. So anything that
distinguishes one player from the next has NOTHING to do with the
instrument but instead has everything to do with musical concept and
execution. So Jack, this is the wrong thread, but *that* is all I'm
trying to say about playing one guitar. And *that* is the great
appeal to me of just an acoustic guitar that sounds more or less like
every other acoustic guitar.
_________________________________________
Kevin Van Sant
jazz guitar
http://www.kevinvansant.com
to buy my CDs, listen to sound clips, and get more info.
Alternate site for recent soundclips
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/kevinvansant_music.htm
Michael Edelman
....
> Floating pickups are more prone to feedback, & IMHO don't sound as good,
> because they don't get the vibration from the top that routed-in pickups
> do.
That assumption is incorrect, as the strings on a guitar with a
floating pickup still interact with the body through the bridge.
Whether they sound "as good" is a purely subjective matter, of course.
Floating pickups by themselves are no more or less prone to feedback.
What makes a guitar feedback is not how the pickups are mounted, but
how sensitive the body of the guitar is to sound vibrations, which has
to do more with construction of the top and the size of the body. You
don't often see a carved top guitar with pickups screwed into it. The
laminated tops found on 175s and other guitars with pickups screwed to
the top aren't as sensitive to vibrations as are carved tops. Now
mounting pickups and controls right on the top of a guitar will mass
load the top, which does lower the resonant frequency and damps a lot
of the virbration as well. That damping eliminates a lot of the effect
of the top which at some point makes you wonder why you'd bother
going to all the trouble of building a hollow body guitar in the first
place ;-)
> Their only use is to amplify an acoustic guitar without cutting holes
> in the top. If you want a true electric, this isn't the best way. It does
> have its place, though.
If you want a "true electric", I suppose you should buy a Telecaster
or some other solid body. But even solid body guitars have an
interaction between the body and the strings.
> Always, it's a case of 'whatever works for you'. There is no right or
> wrong way to do any of this, cats can be skinned in many different ways.
Well, yeah.
Stan Gosnell
news:32bc48f2.03090...@posting.google.com:
> Stan Gosnell <GLSNig...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:<Xns93E7A61...@216.39.221.8>... ....
>> Floating pickups are more prone to feedback, & IMHO don't sound as
>> good, because they don't get the vibration from the top that
>> routed-in pickups do.
>
> That assumption is incorrect, as the strings on a guitar with a
> floating pickup still interact with the body through the bridge.
> Whether they sound "as good" is a purely subjective matter, of course.
The type pickup makes no difference to the strings. But the mounting
method makes a difference to the pickup. With a floating pickup, you just
get the strings, since the pickup doesn't move. With a routed-in pickup,
the pickup moves as the top moves, so there is a more complex interaction
between the strings and the pickup, thus a different sound. Better or
worse is a matter of taste, but it is different.
> Floating pickups by themselves are no more or less prone to feedback.
> What makes a guitar feedback is not how the pickups are mounted, but
> how sensitive the body of the guitar is to sound vibrations, which has
> to do more with construction of the top and the size of the body. You
> don't often see a carved top guitar with pickups screwed into it. The
> laminated tops found on 175s and other guitars with pickups screwed to
> the top aren't as sensitive to vibrations as are carved tops. Now
> mounting pickups and controls right on the top of a guitar will mass
> load the top, which does lower the resonant frequency and damps a lot
> of the virbration as well. That damping eliminates a lot of the effect
> of the top which at some point makes you wonder why you'd bother
> going to all the trouble of building a hollow body guitar in the first
> place ;-)
Routed-in pickups are somewhat less prone to feedback than floaters,
assuming all else is identical, precisely because their mass dampens the
vibrations of the top. Using a less sensitive top accomplishes the same
thing, in a different way. Using both a routed-in pickup and a laminated
top help prevent feedback more than either alone, and much more than a
floating pickup on a solid, very responsive top.
>> Their only use is to amplify an acoustic guitar without cutting
>> holes
>> in the top. If you want a true electric, this isn't the best way.
>> It does have its place, though.
>
> If you want a "true electric", I suppose you should buy a Telecaster
> or some other solid body. But even solid body guitars have an
> interaction between the body and the strings.
Yes, but less interaction than there is with an archtop. For the most
complex sound, with the most interaction, get a carved solid-top archtop
with a routed-in pickup. You'll have to live with feedback lurking behind
every note, though.
>> Always, it's a case of 'whatever works for you'. There is no right
>> or wrong way to do any of this, cats can be skinned in many different
>> ways.
>
> Well, yeah.
>
Lots of ways to skin lots of cats. Everything is a compromise. If you
want true acoustic sound, get a microphone, but it still won't sound
exactly like what your ears hear from the guitar, but then what you hear
from the guitar depends on where you are in relation to it. The player
doesn't hear exactly what the audience out in front hears. That's why
there are all kinds of configurations available - pure acoustic, internal
mikes, piezos, floating magnetic pickups, routed-in magnetics, both passive
and active, and all combinations of these, in solid-top archtops,
laminated-top archtops, flat-tops, semi-solid and solid bodies. Whatever
you like, it's available. I'm not saying one is better, just that they all
sound different & have different uses in different situations.
--
Regards,
Stan
Ken Rose
> Yes, but less interaction than there is with an archtop. For the most
> complex sound, with the most interaction, get a carved solid-top archtop
> with a routed-in pickup. You'll have to live with feedback lurking behind
> every note, though.
That's precisely what I have in my Holst (carved solid top, routed in
pickup), but feedback is not a problem unless I really crank it up, and I
mean really. On gigs with sensitive/less loud drummers, feedback has not
been an issue. I'm sure the RE cabinets help. The sound is -- as you
say -- very complex. Best guitar I've ever had, easily.
Ken Rose
www.cdbaby.com/kenrose
D. Hover
Both strung with flatwound 11's. I am happy with both.
Paul Hotchkiss
D'Darrio Chromes (12's) or TI Swings (12's)
Ibanez AS80 (335) with Seymor Duncan Pups
DR Pure Blues (12's)
I have grown very attached to both.
-Paul H.
"D. Hover" <donald...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:187bbc06.03090...@posting.google.com...
paul
wrote:
>On 30 Aug 2003 13:10:39 -0700, pcsa...@pobox.com (Paul Sanwald)
>wrote in message <1503c94e.03083...@posting.google.com> :
>
>Is that really so unpopular?
I guess not, but I can't count the amount of times people have
hobnobbed with me at gigs about what guitar I play, what amp I use,
etc. there is a faction of guitarists that seems to be obsessed with
gear, and I've even gotten flamed on this newsgroup for suggesting
that gear doesn't really matter. I'm glad to it's not that unpopular
an opinion, especially because it's right :). just kidding.
--paul
js
You should post your string preferences at http://whatstrings.com!
Thanks,
--
Jeff Singer
http://whatstrings.com - "What strings do YOU use?"
In article <187bbc06.03090...@posting.google.com>,
donald...@yahoo.com says...