-
i will leave someone out but when I got into the handmade archtop with Bill Barker in the middle 1970's I recall only these names as builders of acoustic archtops
Originally Posted by Rickco
1. Jimmy D'aqustio
2 Bill Barker
3. Bob Benedetto
4 Carl Barney
5. Carl Albanus Johnson who had just died around 1975.
6. Roger Borys
7 John Montelleone
There may have been other smaller builders and some who were just getting started. The boom happed around 1990 when things got hot and all of sudden there were guys trying to build copies of D'angelico's and D'aquistos. Scot Chinery did a huge favor to the boom with his Blue Collection. Really only Barker and Carl Abanus Johnson came from the very early 1960's. Carl started building around 1954-55 and Barker around 1962-3. Benedetto in 1968.
The situation is a complete reverse today. The number of builders and options are wide open. In the end the only thing I see is Gibson has remained the king in really most all respects. They certainly outpaced most all individual makers with the obvious exceptions. Manzer and Parker come after but in the tradition. Parker is goind in a different direction than some and it is an individual preference of the player. One should never discount personal experience and loyalty to a builder. In my case Bill Hollenbeck help me more than anyone and he learned during the 1970s and struck out on this own by 1987. Given he has my friend loyalty, as well as a fantastic carver of acoustic archtops I am to bias. His guitars to this day are probably not worth a lot but to me there are some of the finest ever made.
-
10-20-2024 02:50 PM
-
There is no shortage of decent guitars at prices ranging from a few hundred to many thousands. I have no issues at all with any builder charging whatever price, it's their decision, and the market will make needed corrections. Parker's archtops sell for $30k to $50k, and he can sell all he can build at that price. I will never have the means to buy one, but that's how capitalism works - sell what you have for whatever price a buyer is willing to pay. There is no shortage of buyers willing to pay many thousands of dollars for some guitars. There is also a market for instruments of all price points, so builders and factories have to decide how much they can charge and make an acceptable profit. Criticizing luthiers for charging high prices for their instruments seems specious to me, because there is a plethora of lower-priced guitars available. You get what you pay for.
I would buy a Parker archtop in a New York minute if I had the money, and I would buy a Manzer, Buscarino, or whatever else might be available. If I hit a billion dollar lottery, I will own a lot of high-end guitars. I keep forgetting to buy the requisite tickets, though.
-
Oooh, I stand corrected ….. Originally Posted by Jim Soloway
-
Indeed, and there are several builders who've adopted Ken Parker ideas. But from what I read above he (or was it Manzer?) will adopt your instrument to your playing, and presumable do that as the build progresses as far as that's possible. I know other (violin) luthiers who do this so that too is probably not something you'd need to go to either of the two to - but I don't see how you can get that when you cannot even go for an "onboarding experience" at the luthier's workshop. Originally Posted by Rickco
That could well be a drawback of too light a top and/or (if you mean from the playing position) the sound port. I don't really hear it though but it could well depend on the player. Originally Posted by mrwoland
,In the end, I preferred the sound of the Mirabella archtops.
Well, those are really nice too!
-
Mr. Tim Lerch sounded damn good playing either guitar. There is little to choose between them. 'Tis not the arrow...
-
I guess being a musician all my life, I see it in a different light. These are tools used to make music, just like a vehicle is made to get you somewhere. And sure there are fancy vehicles of all sorts from Ferrari to Rolls Royce etc.
But even John D’Angelico and Jimmy D’Aquisto more or less built guitars for players. Only at the end did Jimmy start actually charging more money. I’m not faulting any luthier for their skill set price per se.
I think we now live in an era of showing off our possessions as a sign of our status more so than when I was growing up.
Id venture most owners of high end Bespoke possessions don’t have a very advanced skill set required to make the most of the item. Wether it’s a fast sports car, guitar,etc.
In the end it won’t really matter,because hardly any real music in this case will be made with these instruments. And the truly great players from Tommy Emanuelle, Birelli LaGrene, John McGlaughlin etc. realize it’s the magician not the wand!
-
i think you're missing one significant contingent, and that is people that just have a deep, profound, even obsessive (speaking from personal experience, as my desire for one has veered into obsessive territory), appreciation for what these master luthiers do, and will save up to buy one of their pieces. it's like with artists in any other medium, except in this one, you get to play the art- even if not to the fullest it deserves to be played (and that's ok)- how awesome is that? who looks to show off their status via their guitars anyways, such niche ones no less- that's what fine swiss watches, luxury sports cars, and ocean-front properties are for. and of course the real players know they needn't such pieces to deliver their best- i suspect this stuff isn't even remotely on their radar. Originally Posted by jads57
i think it's an untrue cliche that such guitars-- these 50k bespoke art axes-- never see the light of day, or never get strummed. while, again, certainly they won't be exercised to the degree pro players could run them through their paces, even if the guitar's just been (under-)utilized by its owner to strum open chords which maybe inspire even just a simple song, that's okay! personally, i've had vintage guitars at these price points and was none more precious with them than i was with guitars 10+ x as cheap- but that's just me, i've never been one to baby my stuff, it all gets played. for me, as it pertains mostly to parker, but also to manzer, these are functional pieces of fine art which i get to enjoy to great lengths- i have such deep admiration for what they do, and what all they've contributed to the field, especially ken- his design language/aesthetic and attention to detail really, really, speaks to me. to me, these two (along with a few other names of course) are at the pinnacle, and on the mt. rushmore of contemporary guitar-building. as per my op, this just remains one big pipe-dream anyways, so none of this even matters, but if i ever win the lotto, i know where part of that coin is going! if i didn't like the guitars i currently have so much, i might even be tempted to consolidate into a parker- that's how i previously got into my vintage stuff; selling off a bunch of very nice stuff to get into 1-2 exceptionally nice things.
-
Off-topic, but is there still a functional guitar luthiery school there? I can't seem to find anything online. Originally Posted by equenda
-
If a tree falls in the forest and there’s nobody around does it make a noise? Again my take is this an exercise in musical futility as far as I can see. I’m glad someone can play Johnny Cash on a $50k guitar, but what’s the point?
Even a High end sports car needs someone who actually knows how to drive it correctly.
-
racking my brain trying to think of what might be the sonic equivalent (on an expensive guitar) of crashing a million dollar+ supercar, can’t really think of one- perhaps a better analogy might be one entailing comparison of a finance guys cautious monthly sunday drive in his 918 or koenigsegg vs. lewis hamilton ripping it around the nurburgring, or something like that. in any case, i don’t see it as futile so long as enjoyment is derived from ownership… assuming it’s played- if not, then i agree completely. but if a pro can’t afford it and someone who can shouldn’t buy it, then what the heck are these luthiers to do? plus, on the whole, i think it’s a bit hyperbolic to suggest the same level of skill is required to pluck some notes on a guitar as is needed to handle a 600-1000+ hp potential death machine. Originally Posted by jads57
-
It’s a novice playing a $50k guitar which is the equivalent. My point is sure you might enjoy the sound a bit better, but why? It will basically sit in a glass case and be talked about over a glass of fine wine.
Aside from bragging rights, I’m not seeing any real reason musically that makes sense. It’s a bit like only a diamond encrusted gold screwdriver Lol!
-
If I wanted a guitar made, I would find a luthier not far from me. I would like the maker to have the measure of me, lest I receive a guitar suited for a smaller or larger player. I would like to meet the maker and discuss the design.
Of course, if I could afford one of Linda Manzer's guitars, I could probably also pay for a trip to Toronto.
-
I think the subject of valuable guitars owned only by rich collectors, but inaccessible to most musicians, is a great "classic" and it was inevitable that it would come up, now that we are talking about Manzer, Parker, Monteleone, Mirabella, etc.
Personally, I understand how much it can hurt to see exceptional guitars played badly or just displayed in a glass case.
And I really can't understand those who hoard guitars upon guitars, just for the sake of having them: everyone is free to do so, but it seems to me that something is deeply wrong.
But there are virtuoso examples.
Look at what the Archtop Foundation does: they gave these guitars to talented musicians for a year so they can play them.
The D'Aquisto Blue Centura they gave me in 2023 for my solo record had been locked in a vault for 20 years!
And it only started to sound good after a few days of continuous use. Probably it was my imagination, but I got the feeling that the guitar and Jimmy were happy with what was happening.
Or, if you are lucky enough to own a good instrument, you can resell it for a profit thanks to collectors.
I had a fantastic '69 maple neck JazzMaster, but a flood destroyed my car. I also had expenses for a tour in Japan, so I sold it to a collector and solved every problem!
No musician would have offered me that much.
As for owning beautiful guitars: I believe that Tone indicates the presence of Music in a note.
However, it's up to us to have good tone... there are no excuses.
But if we have an instrument that responds to our touch, it becomes easier to recognize our mistakes and keep improving, knowing that our guitar will always be capable of highlighting our progress.
And if it's beautiful and nice to play, even better!
-
I think Ken is doing perfectly fine, selling art to rich people and improving that art as a result, allowing him to keep up his archtoppery documentaries which then inspire and educate other luthiers. Originally Posted by Hogtown Fatty
And do I need to point out how often it's been repeated on here already that 50k isn't exactly exorbitantly-unheard-of for concert-grade instruments?
-
I’m not sure about that. Conspicuous consumption (a term coined in the gilded age) has been around for a long time. I knew several very wealthy kids in college (early 1980s) who had rare and expensive guitars they could barely play (among other examples of their wealth signaling). But social media do allow people to preen to bigger audiences than in the old days (or fake it more easily). Originally Posted by jads57
-
Honestly, why would that hurt more than seeing a lesser instrument be played badly (as long as we're not talking about going Townsend on it)? Sure, it can be presumptuous if done by someone who has barely more means than the average musician who would be able to get the most out of that instrument (I struggled with that same question before I bought my Cabaret). But were is the problem if that someone is serious about his or her playing and can afford paying 50k the same way a common-mortal serious amateur can afford to pay, say, 1.5k for an instrument to grow into? Originally Posted by mrwoland
Maybe the world doesn't have enough kings and princes anymore of the kind that once bought stellar instruments from now-famous makers and hired people to play them - for their own pleasure and that of their select guests. And maybe that's not such a bad thing.
-
My point is sure it’s great to own a great Bespoke Guitar. But to get the intent of it as an actual working tool is where the Magic truly is.
And if it’s just fawn over, it seems seriously a waste imo.
I do think on a real level, these are fine acquisitions to show off mostly. And the fact it makes certain luthiers a good living is probably a positive thing.
But give me a nice Gibson JS and let’s make some music!
-
Guitars can be tools, art or an investment.
Kudos to those luthiers who can get the big bucks for their "art". Kudos to those who have done well enough in life to afford them (or who are gifted enough as players to get them for free).
When I see folks express displeasure at those who have done well in life, what I see is "sour grapes".
-
+1 on Stringswinger's sour grapes comment. Originally Posted by jads57
These instruments are meant to make music, and they excel at that task. THAT's where the magic is. My take on what you are saying is that unless they are used to generate income, they are a waste. Maybe if they were in your possession you would trot them around as status symbols, but ascribing that to others is baseless.
-
Kind of predicted this thread would veer into a "rich collectors vs. down trodden working player" territory. However, it's great to see some folks that have had direct experience with the two luthiers work comment in a positive light, which I think the OP was requesting.
If the OP has a passion for a Manzer or Parker, I can relate. I got the fire in my belly for a Bob built Benedetto back in the late 80's after playing one of Ron Eschete's and later, Jimmy Bruno's. It started a years long quest with lots of driving, a plane flight or two and hours of searching the internet. I had been saving for a new car, and when the right instrument presented itself, I cleaned out my savings account and drove my same car for a couple more years. Never a regret. But let's face it-over hundreds of gigs with my 90 Cremona, maybe five people have asked me what kind of guitar I'm playing. And they were all, you guessed it-guitar players. I adore the darn thing, play it on every gig it's suitable for, and hopefully bring some joy to the listener.
I was also amused with the Supercar direction. No interest here in owning one, but I do own a fabulous Ducati 999S. Do I take it to 100% of it's potential every ride? Of course not, I don't have the skill set for that madness. But I do enjoy getting a knee down at rapid pace in the twisties.
To the OP, I for one am looking forward to a NGD post with your dream guitar, and if all you do with it is strum "Home on the Range" it's doing what it's built for-making music.
-
Erm, and I think that's not even one of the older ones where it was almost automatic to get 100% of its potential in mechanical issues and floor-decorative capabilities, right? Originally Posted by SierraTango
(I wonder what would be the bespoke-guitar-equivalent of that?)
-
You may be right about purchasers of fine guitars, but back in the day, when I was a working guitarist, I moved heaven and earth to acquire a high quality vintage strat, telecaster, Martin and ES345. These were my working tools, and they were not cheap relative to off the rack guitars. But they were the best sounding, and that's what I wanted to have to play my best. Originally Posted by jads57
Now in later years, I have bought a couple of luthier-made arch tops in the $4-8K range. While that's a lot of dough, it was manageable for me, and I enjoy playing them. I'm not a world class player, but I do play well enough to deserve them, if that even matters. And many pros use that level of instrument as well.
But the money I've spent on pro instruments is peanuts compared with buying a pro instrument if you are a pianist or string player. You can pay so much more for those.
It is only after the fact that high quality vintage guitars increased so much in value, driven by collectors mostly. Same with many luthier built instruments, who sell based on what the market will bear, as well they should- why should a used guitar go for more than a new one?
And no, you don't need that level of instrument (or expensive vintage guitar) to sound and play at a pro level, but that's mainly because builders woke up and started making pro level instruments again- largely in reaction to that level of quality from Asia, otherwise they may never have bothered. It is the latter change, high quality imports, which make it possible to sound pro for little money- a comparatively recent development.
I don't have a problem with people buying these guitars even if they aren't great players, they have a love of these things, and help keep the luthiers in business. And they help preserve the historical value of the old ones (ie they don't hack them up adding Floyd Rose's etc). Fine with me!
-
The way I see it, the guitar is basically a solved problem. It is possible to make a very satisfying, professional quality instrument for a tiny fraction of the cost of a high end luthier-built, collectible vintage, or "custom shop" guitar (arguably, less so with carved top than other styles, but still ... ). My observation has been that when people spend really big money on guitars it's often for reasons other than musical necessity. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. If you have the money, and the object makes you happy, buy the object. Whether you're "good enough" to own such an instrument, or whether you even use it at all is not my business. Even if it's just to flaunt your wealth, that's your business. It doesn't it hurt me or invalidate my reasons for spending less.
Beyond function, some luthiers do visually stunning work that can't be executed cheaply, and others are experimenting with materials and methods in interesting ways. If you have the money, and the direction the builder is going interests you, go for it. In that vein, I find Ken Parker very interesting -- I think some of his experiments with tops and adjustable necks could even work their way down the food chain. So I'm glad he's doing the work and has customers to keep it going.
For myself, I have moderately priced stuff that I have directly compared to much more expensive stuff, and I don't think I've missed out by not going for the more expensive stuff. Guitars being a largely solved problem, I also realize that even those modest prices are more than I needed to spend, but so what?
-
It's a 2005 Ducati 999S, so approaching 20 years old. The 999 series won 3 World Superbike Championships in 03,04 and 06 and are still being raced today. 0-60 in three seconds and 170mph is plenty of performance for me. I've been a Ducati nut since my Dad and I campaigned a 250 in a local roadracing club when I was a teenager, but mostly lost to the more reliable (and faster) Japanese bikes. However, these days, since the Audi takeover, Ducati has been the winning manufacturer in MotoGP. Helped by some stellar riders. Originally Posted by RJVB
Erm, and I think that's not even one of the older ones where it was almost automatic to get 100% of its potential in mechanical issues and floor-decorative capabilities, right?
(I wonder what would be the bespoke-guitar-equivalent of that?)
Mine isn't worth silly money, if I sold it I could probably get a Trenier or Moffa I guess. But no desire I have all the guitars I need LOL. (notice I didn't say want)
-
It doesn't take greater skill to play an expensive guitar than a cheaper one. If a guy who can only play "Three Blind Mice" picks up a Monteleone, it's not like he's going to fishtail the thing and crash into an innocent bystander. Originally Posted by jads57
Reply With Quote
4 Micro Lessons, all under a minute, no talking.
Today, 05:16 PM in Theory