-
Greetings
.. late reply.. apologies for that
I find it interesting the amount of times I see players searching for an acoustic guitar for jazz when they most of the time think they should go for a steel string flattop as second choice if buying an acoustic archtop is not possible now . well here's my 2-cent-worth take on that..
To play acoustic jazz, especially when it comes to chord melody playing, to me nothing beats a nylon string classical guitar imho (maybe next to a really nice acoustic archtop)
I can understand it when some folks say you'd have to deal with the wider fretboard on classicals, play different type of strings and that should make the transition to steel strings abit tricky later on if decided to make that move...
This all make sense, but if a player indeed loves this instrument, the classical guitar, he or she won't see none of these as a hindrance at all! In fact I, for one example, see them as special features the classical guitar just has to offer the player!!
I love classical, flattop and archtop guitars.. But I find the classical guitar the most expressive when playing acoustic jazz. The shorter sustain, that dark midrange tone is just fantastic for jazz, and then there's those fantastic subtleties of expressions.. what's not to love about that?
To OP, as been mentioned earlier, Charlie Byrd and other great players already showed us what a classical guitar can do in jazz.
someone also suggested above to listen to flamenco players and what they can do with nylon strings, ditto to that.
-
10-23-2014 10:29 AM
-
I do not understand why among popular performers that you see at TV very few will play an acoustic archtop
Some wil say that some good archtop are a ''horn killer'' other will talk about projection. Some will say that archtop are build to be heard. My guess is that it is not because they are not loud enough...most of the time the performer with the flattop will use some amplification so it is not for its lack of volume.
It is not because of the price because these guys will often play expensive flattop...and may get some income tax refund for the price they paid as it is their tool for making a living.
In the 40s and 50s there was still some ''popular'' players who were using acoustic archtop so why it is so unusual today? What happened?
I am not an expert, I am just experiencend with my EASTMAN 810 non-cut which is a good acoustic. I think that my Eastman is more demanding to play than a flattop as pick selection, technique etc. have a large impact on tone. Could it be one of the reasons?
Just a bit puzzled....
Daniel
-
Because they're expensive, a bitch to amplify, and when you're just strumming a G to a Cadd9, a flattop sounds much better.
-
Pretty much that. I wanted one myself, but the ones that were affordable were not loud enough for purely acoustic purposes compare to Gypsy or flattop guitars. So whats the point?
Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
-
In the old days archtop guitar were used in big band were they had to compete with the horns and other loud instrument. Do you think that loud acoustic archtops were more available and more affordable in these days? Originally Posted by Hep To The Jive
-
One thing that is becoming more popular is just the image of an acoustic archtop:
-
Honestly not sure. And also in those days the role of the guitar was strictly rhythm, hard strumming 4 to the beat. Those guys wouldn't even think of playing a solo and being heard. As far as I know guys like Freddie Green never played any leads. But do you wanna spend ten grand on a guitar just to do that... 'cos today where do you find a job like that anyway? Originally Posted by DanTheMan
And one thing I have to say, those guitars back in the day had to be damn loud to replace a banjo in jazz bands. I recently got a tenor banjo, and it's the loudest little thing I ever played. I'm yet to hear any guitar that can compete with a banjo acoustically.
-
Same reason acoustic music in general isn't as popular and electric based styles.
-
IMO, acoustic archtop is the least versatile acoustic guitar you can own...when most pro electric players in all genres move to a guitar to work in an acoustic format, they use a flat top.
Last edited by cosmic gumbo; 04-08-2015 at 03:53 AM.
-
- Folk players rarely play single line anything. When country players get to this advanced stage, they get a tele.
- Few players appreciate the sound envelope difference between a flat top and an archtop
- Acoustic archtops are not hard to amplify and are more available than ever.
- Acoustic archtops are the most versatile guitars available
Last edited by Spook410; 04-08-2015 at 03:35 AM.
-
I'll take a stab here. Acoustic archtops really need to be banged hard to get that loud volume. It's a completely different style than strumming or fingerpicking, which a flattop takes well. And the flattop usually rings/sustains better, too.
-
I have an 18" with a solid spruce top and maple back. As guitars go, it's pretty loud running .013's. Still, playing as hard as I can before it gets edgy and bad sounding it still can't overcome a couple of flat top players who don't get dynamics. (they actually play louder when they aren't singing). Also, I don't get where that 'horn killer' stuff comes from. No acoustic guitar is anywhere near as loud as one of my saxophones. Not even close. Originally Posted by Woody Sound
This is where being able to easily amplify an acoustic archtop comes into play. With a K&K pickup and a good acoustic amplifier you're ready for anything short of a less-than-sensitive drummer. My acoustic archtops don't feedback any worse than an equivalent guitar with a floating humbucker. (exception: with an acoustic amp you may have to dial out some resonant bass with the acoustics)
As you know.. archtops are just different. Would a great fingerstyle player like Tuck Andress get the note separation he needed on a long sustaining flat top? For players that use a lot of fills and interior notes, like a good acoustic blues player, I don't get why we don't see more archtops. Part of it is how they are presented, if at all, in retail stores. Part of it is the amount of expertise required to know what a good acoustic archtop is and where to find them at a reasonable price. In my years of singer/songwriter playing, I've yet to encounter another player using an archtop though a number of them would have benefited from the tighter sound.
-
As far as banjos in the jazz context go, I can't resist:
-
I've been wondering myself. I've got a Martin 00018ge ..which seems to excel with fingerstyle...but is still stunning and loud when playing chords etc.
I've also got a Gibson le grand and thats near as dammit a true acoustic archtop...but nowhere near as loud as the Martin. But the Martin just doesn't sound or feel right for jazz..having said all that..someone out a lovely clip on here somewhere of a national tricone being used for jazz....and it sounded amazing.
I dunno...all in the fingers??
-
Because the "deedley dee guys" who frequent Guitar Center all play small body, cutaway Taylor guitars with electronics packages and insanely low actions...strung with .009-.38 string sets. [Nothing against Taylor, which is a decent guitar. It's just, that's about all that the DD guys know.]
30 years ago, the same guys played black Takamine cutaways with .009-.38s.
40 years ago, the same guys played Custom Balladeers with piezos and skinny strings.
50 years ago, the same guys played Gibson Hummingbirds and Martin D-15s. String sets were more muscular... Martin mediums.
60 years ago, the same guys played Gibson L-4C or L-7 guitars with Black Diamond medium gauge strings. Mom and dad made them take accordion lessons.
-
I have a Martin 000-28ec and it sounds so good and is so easy to play. Same with my Eastman. I do some songwriting stuff and have consistently used the Martin - there is just a different quality to the sound. Less punchy, more sustain, less of a forward sound an more of a lateral sound, rich overtones etc. But the single notes are not as fat, the tone is not as focused, the chords are not as chunky etc. Each has its strong point and I think which is chosen for which style is just because although you can play any kind of music on any kind of guitar, some are just traditionally better suited for certain kinds of music.
-
Zeitgeist: the music style isn't popular. If Jack White / Slash / EVH put out an acoustic archtop album or started playing one on stage / TV, watch the uptick in sales. Boatloads of acoustic archtops were sold in the 50's and 60's. I'd personally love to hear a resurgence of Carl Kress, George Barnes, the Carter Family, and JB Lenoir.
I also agree with the comments about them being difficult and stark sounding, as well as the price being high. Those are all practical barriers. Things are pretty stacked against the lowly acoustic archtop!
That being said, there has to be some renewed interest, just look at all the stuff Loar is doing. Someone must be buying what they make.
-
A couple thoughts:
When I think about the acoustic archtop and flat top guitars (in general), I think of the following attributes:
Responsive/Dynamic: Flat tops in general are more responsive
Volume/Headroom: Archtops in general have greater headroom
Fundamentals: Archtops in general have stronger fundamentals
Overtones: Flat tops in general have more overtones.
Attack: Archtops in general have faster attack
Sustain: Flat tops in general have greater sustain
- So a musical repertoire where responsiveness, overtones and sustain is important a flat top will excel.
- For music where headroom, strong fundamentals and fast attack is important archtops will prevail.
- Additionally, archtops are more expensive and complex to make at the same relative quality.
my $.02
- So a musical repertoire where responsiveness, overtones and sustain is important a flat top will excel.
-
Wow I was not expectings so many interesting comments...
When I mentioned that in the ''old days'' there were popular artists playing archtop I was thinking of Maybelle Carter among others. In my opinion if it was good for her it should be good for many other players.
I agree with Spook410 that for players using a lot of fills and interior notes, like a good acoustic blues player, an archtop should be a natural choice. Also if you have a highly resonnant guitar less ustain will give you more volume, just like a banjo or violin. If all the energy in the strings dissipates in the air in the first fraction of a second then it will be very loud. My eastman would be better with less sustain....but this personal taste, I just dont need that much sustain and would prefer more volume for the already loud guitar. If I had more money I would look for one with less sustain, maybe a parallel braced, very light, vintage guitar.
For being versatile, I think that good acoustic archtops are very versatile but they also have more temper than flat tops. In my opinion they are more sensitive to string type, technique, pick selection etc. I think that they are not as forgiving (easy) as a flat top.
Honestly these days, I have so much fun with my archtop that I play just anything with it, not only Jazz but also Chopin, Beatles, Mamas and the papas, etc. I am just amazed by the tone I get and I think that everyone should play an acoustic archtop! I have to admit that Chopin is much easier with my classical....
Daniel
-
I owned Loar for a while. Not bad, but the ultimate test as an acoustic was to take it to a Gypsy jazz jam, where, you know, bunch of guitarists sitting in a circle and banging away and taking turns for a solo. Did it pass the test? Hell no! Can't compete with even cheapest Gypsy guitar. I was lookin for anything that at least match Gypsies in volume, was considering a Gretsch, that was very comfortable guitar, but everyone told me forget it. So as much as I wanted to have an acoustic archtop, I just couldnt find any practical reason for it. Eventually, I got a Gypsy and even though its not the most comfortable guitar for me, I know I can use it for jams and for gigs and for everything. AND its archtop! Originally Posted by spiral
-
The exact reason I am selling my Taylor 510 dreadnaught. i no longer want to hear the overtones, the richness, the "full " spectrum of sound. I currently prefer the tight, punchy, sound of my acoustic archtop. I prefer to play pre-WWII jazz and find the flat top to be too modern sounding. Originally Posted by rio
In the end, this is all personal preference. I love my dreadnaught but not when playing the jazz style I play.
-
I have taken my current main player, my Trenier Excel, to gypsy jams and one time I actually got told to turn down, that I was drowning out everyone else. Originally Posted by Hep To The Jive
And I don't think that guitar is any louder than my '46 L-5. I think some archtops maybe aren't as loud, but mine are plenty loud enough.
On the general question of why acoustic archtops aren't more popular. Other than the price, I can't think of a good reason. Mine are just fine for me and I've given up worrying about anyone else's opinion!Last edited by kamlapati; 04-09-2015 at 06:38 PM.
-
Wow, this is an interesting exercise in comparing apples to oranges to pears and then deciding they aren't a banana. There's also a fair amount of tripe as well.
I own or have owned and gigged with a carved archtop, a dreadnought flattop, a classical and a Sel-Mac style guitar. They all worked fine; technique required a little adjustment for the situation. I played jazz on the dreadnought, country on the gypsy style guitar, blues on the classical and folk on the archtop. They all worked fine. They each had a unique sound and playing against type often worked well.
The one thing I did notice was the 50 feet phenomenon. According to friends and family, while playing acoustically, from 50 feet away the classical was hard to hear to inaudible. The dreadnought was faint, even though it seemed the loudest to me as I played it. The highs of the gypsy guitar could be heard but not much else. And the archtop was the most audible of all. And that's what an archtop is designed to do.
I had a funny experience with the archtop. We had a poolside backyard gig with my quintet. Across the pool the Fender bass was just inaudible and the acoustic sound of my guitar carried so well that I had to almost turn off the amp; it could still be heard fine over the drums, sax and trumpet. I don't know what it was about the acoustics of that situation but it was interesting.
-
No. It is probably true for most archtops on the market today but not the ones designed for unamplified playing. Those are easily as loud as a gypsy guitar. Originally Posted by spiral
-
Right, I was only referring to unamplified archtops—I assumed we were all talking about acoustic archtops. Originally Posted by Cunamara
Hep to the Jive didn't find a Loar to be as loud as a gypsy guitar, so I was saying that would apply to an L5, a L7, Benedetto, Emperor, Broadway, etc. The 2 Loar LH-700's I've owned were louder than any other acoustic archtop I've had, including the modern L7C, L5 reissue, and 40's L7. So if you don't find those loud enough, not much else will be. That was my main point I was trying to clarify. I've never compared a gypsy guitar to an acoustic archtop or been in a group setting to judge volume. I've only read here that a gypsy guitar is as loud as they get. I'd love to try one. Maybe a Stromberg would be louder. I've not played one of those either.
re: your outdoor acoustic experience
David Byrne has a great TED talk and book about how space shapes music. It's worth at least watching his lecture (15 mins or so). He talks about how the drum was so central in Africa because of the wide open spaces and the ability for short percussive sounds to carry. David Byrne: How architecture helped music evolve | Talk Video | TED.com
Reply With Quote
Repairing The Covering On a Vintage Guitar Case
Today, 05:21 PM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos