The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Posts 51 to 68 of 68
  1. #51

    User Info Menu

    I can't speak to guitars,
    but I played of around 10 years on a double bass made in 1885.
    Many of my colleagues use basses older than this. My instrument now was made in 2020.

    for the most part, a structurally sound instrument is the same whether it is new or old.
    Having authentic mojo is cool. It's an instrument you'll spend many hours with, its nice to look it over and see the evidence of generations of careful use. To wonder about the workshop where it was carved x number of years ago is genuinely cool and part of owning it.

    with guitars the only specific other factor is truss rods, whether they have one or if it's working.
    in many cases an older instrument is the right choice. other times it's not. age in and of itself is overrated, but downplaying how they can often have a particular sound or just the "cool" factor can be a mistake, those are real things.

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #52

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by jads57
    I believe each new manufacturer of Johnny Smith guitars models changed them along the way. I understand that on some Gibson models the neck itself is under the body above the 20 th fret?
    Johnny's design stipulated that the neck block extend to the end of the fingerboard as he thought that improved sustain and tone higher up the neck.

  4. #53

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by 58flame
    Note the blonde top and sunburst back and sides following the repair of the 55 D'A (new top).
    I was going to point that out but you were on top of it. The natural top dates that photograph to a specific window of time, according to Lin Flanagan's biography of JS, which also describes the circumstances of the damage to the original top although I can't remember offhand what that was. The top was eventually refinished by D'Angelico back to being a sunburst.

    On the iTunes music store there is an album of music by Al Viola and Johnny Smith. They don't play together and I'm not entirely sure why those two collections of music were glued together like this. The first 10 or 11 tunes are solo performances by Viola on what sounds like classical guitar. They're *wonderful,* actually, really well worth listening to. The rest of the album is Johnny Smith quartet from the Roost era I think, and listening to the samples today I was again struck by how beautiful Johnny's amplified tone is. I don't know if this was the 1955 as the date for the recordings is not given and I would have to compare them to the Mosaic box set to try to figure that out; most of Johnny's recorded output from the 50s was played on a D'Angelico Excel that he borrowed from John Collins, after Johnny's first D'Angelico was destroyed in a house fire.

    It's funny; for a few decades I was really focused on trying to get the dark, Jim Hall/Ed Bickert kind of tone with a soft attack, etc. That was the desired "jazz" sound to me. As I've gotten older (maybe due to changes in my hearing?) I'm more interested in getting a clear and much brighter sound reminiscent of Johnny Smith and Peter Bernstein. It was really Peter that made my ears sit up and take notice that a bright sound can be really lovely. And since this is the natural voice of an archtop guitar that makes things much easier- I'm not trying to defeat the sound of the guitar to get the sound of jazz guitar.

  5. #54

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Cunamara
    I was going to point that out but you were on top of it. The natural top dates that photograph to a specific window of time, according to Lin Flanagan's biography of JS, which also describes the circumstances of the damage to the original top although I can't remember offhand what that was. The top was eventually refinished by D'Angelico back to being a sunburst.

    On the iTunes music store there is an album of music by Al Viola and Johnny Smith. They don't play together and I'm not entirely sure why those two collections of music were glued together like this. The first 10 or 11 tunes are solo performances by Viola on what sounds like classical guitar. They're *wonderful,* actually, really well worth listening to. The rest of the album is Johnny Smith quartet from the Roost era I think, and listening to the samples today I was again struck by how beautiful Johnny's amplified tone is. I don't know if this was the 1955 as the date for the recordings is not given and I would have to compare them to the Mosaic box set to try to figure that out; most of Johnny's recorded output from the 50s was played on a D'Angelico Excel that he borrowed from John Collins, after Johnny's first D'Angelico was destroyed in a house fire.

    It's funny; for a few decades I was really focused on trying to get the dark, Jim Hall/Ed Bickert kind of tone with a soft attack, etc. That was the desired "jazz" sound to me. As I've gotten older (maybe due to changes in my hearing?) I'm more interested in getting a clear and much brighter sound reminiscent of Johnny Smith and Peter Bernstein. It was really Peter that made my ears sit up and take notice that a bright sound can be really lovely. And since this is the natural voice of an archtop guitar that makes things much easier- I'm not trying to defeat the sound of the guitar to get the sound of jazz guitar.
    That's why I bought my SeQuel Vermont that I didn't need, but love!

    Phil

  6. #55

    User Info Menu

    I think you can infer from what was posted above that there is a lot of “survivorship bias.”

    In other words, a large proportion of the vintage instruments we have today sound and play well because they survived. The potentially larger number of duds just didn’t stick around for us to play.

  7. #56

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Doctor Jeff
    I think you can infer from what was posted above that there is a lot of “survivorship bias.”

    In other words, a large proportion of the vintage instruments we have today sound and play well because they survived. The potentially larger number of duds just didn’t stick around for us to play.
    Broken up because they were no good or they just structurally deteriorated?

  8. #57

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Cunamara
    On the iTunes music store there is an album of music by Al Viola and Johnny Smith. They don't play together and I'm not entirely sure why those two collections of music were glued together like this. The first 10 or 11 tunes are solo performances by Viola on what sounds like classical guitar. They're *wonderful,* actually, really well worth listening to.
    Al Viola is also great on the June Christy album "The Intimate Miss Christy"

    Even though he played with Sinatra for 20 years, he can rarely be heard on Sinatra's recordings.

  9. #58

    User Info Menu

    Interesting observation about Frank Viola. I guess the same could be said for Freddie Greene in Count Basie’s Band.
    But if you took him out,it would totally change the sound of the band!

  10. #59

    User Info Menu

    not sure what era constitutes antique but the 63 Kessel and 64 175 are my most stable guitars by far.

  11. #60

    User Info Menu

    I think when Ted McCarty was still at the helm,they made spectacular guitars. But I think some of the recent Gibson Custom Shop,and Crimson series are also just as good.

  12. #61

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by jads57
    I think when Ted McCarty was still at the helm,they made spectacular guitars. But I think some of the recent Gibson Custom Shop,and Crimson series are also just as good.
    depends on what you mean by "just as good".

    I have a 1995 tal farlow that arguably is just as good as my '63 kessel. But the difference in tone and vibe is drastic. I love the sound of the farlow but it's a heavier and more robust build and has more sustain and less '60s vibe. It has a note bloom that i don't get out of the '64 175 or '63 kessel. But sounds to me like a new guitar.

  13. #62

    User Info Menu

    I guess I was referring to the Carved Archtops like the L-5CES,etc.
    I definitely agree on the laminates though.
    But I had a ES-775 that didn’t really feedback,and could do louder more overdrive tones well. Definitely a heavy guitar!

  14. #63

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by jads57
    I guess I was referring to the Carved Archtops like the L-5CES,etc.
    I definitely agree on the laminates though.
    But I had a ES-775 that didn’t really feedback,and could do louder more overdrive tones well. Definitely a heavy guitar!
    the 775 had a similar tone to the tal farlow I think. I seem to recall the body was thicker than a 175 though, more like the L4CES. Am I wrong?

  15. #64

    User Info Menu

    The only thing I would add is that the acoustic archtops before the 60s and 70s tend to be very bright to my ears. I assume that was because they were meant to cut through the sound of a big bands and other ensembles with horn players.

    They dark smokey tones I associated with jazz guitar growing up seem to be more from the 60s and later with players like Wes or the mellow tones of Pat Metheny.

    Sometimes newer acoustic archtops seem to reflect the darker tones of later jazz guitar styles.

  16. #65

    User Info Menu

    Jack Z. The Gibson ES-775 had a maple 3 piece neck along with an Ebony fingerboard,and basically left over Howard Roberts inlays, etc.
    It also placed the neck pickup closer to the neck I believe.
    Was definitely closer to the L-4CES spec wise.

  17. #66

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by jads57
    Jack Z. The Gibson ES-775 had a maple 3 piece neck along with an Ebony fingerboard,and basically left over Howard Roberts inlays, etc.
    It also placed the neck pickup closer to the neck I believe.
    Was definitely closer to the L-4CES spec wise.
    specifically, was it made with the 175 or L4CES molds? When I had the L4 and 175 at the same time, the edges of the L4 were deeper. I can't remember the diff but it was something like 1/2"

  18. #67

    User Info Menu

    To be honest I never thought about it while gigging with it for several years. And using it mainly for sit down Jazz gigs,the weight wasn’t much of an issue either.
    But then again I was in my 30’s still and sold it in my 40’s

    Just an aside but I really enjoyed my Benedetto Bambino Std quite a bit more size wise and versatility wise as well.
    Last edited by jads57; 05-18-2026 at 01:15 PM.

  19. #68

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by jads57
    To be honest I never thought about it while gigging with it for several years. And using it mainly for sit down Jazz gigs,the weight wasn’t much of an issue either.
    But then again I was in my 30’s still and sold it in my 40’s
    i only notice it because i'm 5'7. The bigger guitars are hard to play. All my guitars except the 175 have thinner bodies. The tal farlow, barney kessel, ibanez metheny, etc. The 175 definitely takes some getting used to. Changes my pick angle. When I had the L4CES, it was even bigger (depth-wise) than the 175.
    Last edited by jzucker; 05-18-2026 at 08:56 PM.