Traditional (Pre-Electric) vs Modern Archtops

[Hexatonics]

firstly I would like to state this is not a competition. I know the title does suggest this. It was just an easy short way of getting it across.

There are two threads running about modern archtops.

1. "Are Hand Carved Guitars Worth It" or something like that.
2. "Is this a good advertisement for benedetto's"

It became apparant that the two threads would be good together so if you guys have the time, please lets discuss the tonal differences, construction, and use of these two differing styles. (without the ongoing drama taking place in the first thread mentioned he he)

1. Traditional archtops were meant for volume and are acoustic instruments. (When I say traditional, I mean archtops that were pre electric)
2. Modern archtops are designed for tone maximisation, and are acoustic instruments. ( Im referring to boutique guitars like the Benedetto's and comin's etc. Not a gibson Tal Farlwo or Byrdland ;-)

Could anyone with the required guitars, please send in some sound files so we can hear the differences? Ide like to gain some more experience on these guitars. Since I will probably never get to do this for real.
I would like to know if the modern archtop sounds acoustically superior to the traditional. Im not sure but I think the traditionals sound better, but then woods, age and the fact I already have a taste for the traditional tone is not a fair crack. But perhaps Benedetto and the likes have circumnavigated this with a better body design, since volume is now no longer a common consideration?

Oh thank me for the video in another thread lol!

[rpguitar]

And on Erich Solomon's website I have had the honor of providing a few clips.

Also, I have this recording that includes my

.

And a version of Blue Bossa that includes several acoustic archtops.

[Hexatonics]

And on Erich Solomon's website I have had the honor of providing a few clips.

Also, I have this recording that includes my

.

And a version of Blue Bossa that includes several acoustic archtops.

Roger thank you very much,
Couldnt have asked for a better response :-)

If I could give my opinion on your guitars I would say,

Guitar 1: Typically what i thought an archtop designed for volume would sound like.

Guitar 2: Not as much as the first, more recognisable tone in regards to the traditional early jazz (electric) tone, tight but round.

I thought they had good balance.

Guitar 3: Plunkier tone, but superior tonal balance across the strings range. Also overall volume seems quieter, do you agree?

I would say if I was playing acoustic I would go for guitar 3.

However you did state that there is compression and other things that detract form the sound of your two you tube videos. I also dont mean to say one is better, thats not my interest because of course that is subjective.

Certainly on the strumming the first two are far more pronounced.
I guess its speaking for itself in the recordings you have provided (baring in mind im not hearing them in person).
The modern archtop sounds acoustically superior to me (which it should)
The traditional ones seem to shine (as they should) in the volume and punctuation department.

All sound great, your playing is lovely and I will be having a post modern, funky, bluesy, X-mas too.

Regards


Just had to edit as you started playing Samba Triste! you bugger how tasteful of you.

Please put that up as a vid so I dont have to bother transcribing it :-)
I will share this with you in return lol!

Isnt his tone great for a little 335 thing? thats what happens when you let a good classical player loose on your electric :-)

[rpguitar]

YouTube sucks the life out of audio recordings. I almost hate to use it any more. If you were nearby you could come over and have a gander with them all, and I think you'd possibly find something to like in each one. They are all good for something. They are each "superior" at being themselves!

[Hexatonics]

YouTube sucks the life out of audio recordings. I almost hate to use it any more. If you were nearby you could come over and have a gander with them all, and I think you'd possibly find something to like in each one. They are all good for something. They are each "superior" at being themselves!

Yes I think you are right. If I was at a freddy green gig I would defiantly take guitar 1. If I wanted a great sounding l4 I would probably just use a pic up with guitar 2, and I would go with guitar 3 for small club acoustic work, although I might put heavier strings on.

Thanks a lot for offering to let me have a butchers at your axes, unfortunately Im in the Uk, but if you come over let me know. We can go to Ronnie's

[rpguitar]

Here's a fun mind-bender for you. The ultimate modern archtop (to some), one of Ken Parker's, played by Frank Vignola... in a duet with Julian Lage, who is playing the classic vintage archtop (to some), an original 1930s L-5.

It's fun to compare and pontificate about one's conclusions, but in the end the music belongs to the musician, not the instrument.

[NSJ]

Nice video, Roger. The Ken Parker is still the end all and be-all of modern arch tops.

I got to play a strange guitar, a "Halfling" guitar that was for sale, albeit very briefly. It's an unusual model-a flat top/archie hybrid. Flat on the bass side, for better bass response; arched on the treble side. '
I played it plugged into a Twin. Very nice, although I thought the bass was, in fact, TOO boomy (and I had the bass volume set to zero on the Twin).

Some general info: http://www.destroyallguitars.com/new...becke-halfling

One thing, when I play an old, early 1960s, L5CES with a Johnny Smith--it's so good, I don't even want to plug it in.

I know this is blasphemy, but I'd rather play it finger style. With these old arch tops, you're supposed to grab a plectrum and "Dig In". But I love the sound of it finger style. Just me, I guess.

[rpguitar]

Just me, I guess.

Not just you.

As I commented in another thread, the technique and style typically employed on acoustic archtops was frozen in the late 1930s. And yet we still refer to it today as if it is a set of rules: Heavy strings, heavy pick, heavy hand. Make it loud!

Well, no...

[hot ford coupe]

Here's an exmple of the traditional type. This is what mine sounds like.

Here's the same instrument played fingerstyle.

.

Here's a more modern D'A played heavily amplified by Johnny Smith

And one more with a different sound.

[uburoibob]

Recordings are SOOOO hard to use to judge anything. The number of variables is HUGE, starting with these three - mic, mic placement and room. The device being recorded to has become significantly less of a variable with digital audio devices SOMEWHAT leveling the playing field.

Recordings DO provide a good judgement function when you are comparing guitars recorded in exactly the same setting by the same player in the same session. That way, if they are somewhat clean recordings, you can judge the differential between instruments even if the recordings are not 100% true to the way the instrument sounds to you.

The only real way is to get the guitars in a room and have at them.

That said, there are some wonderful things being said in these threads. Being a fellow who has owned vintage guitars (1939 Blonde Super 400 X-Braced, 1940 L-5, 1952 L7, 1954 L7, 1954 Epiphone Triumph, 1952 ES-175, and a 1976 Artist Award) and owned or played extensively modern builders (Benedetto, Buscarino, Montelone, Grimes, Campellone, Steve Andersen and Ken Parker) I offer that it STILL comes down to the actual guitar being played. However, a few generalizations...

The modern builders whose tone sounds most vintage to me are those from the Benedetto school, including Benedetto, Buscarino and Monteleone. The modern builders whose sound is unique and highly desirable include Steve Andersen and Mark Campelone. Then there's Ken Parker who's building a guitar that's truly in a league of its own.

So far, I've owned four of Steve Andersen's guitars. I've played most of Ken's archtops. DISCLAIMER - I work with both these guys doing ads for Steve and having designed and maintained Ken's site. But with reason - both these builders are, to me, visionaries that take the guitar into the future. Steve's visual designs are from the classic end of things, but his construction creates guitars that have a wider/sweeter tone range (to my ears) that are clearly archtops but can support a finger-style player as well as plectrum-type players, have modern necks and feel, and visually take that classic look into the future. And Ken's guitars are nearly impossible to describe sound-wise. SUPER loud, vibrant, focused, adaptable - just incredible.

So, much like the solid-body guitar world, in the archtop world there are builders serving everyone's desires. Many players want a guitar to chunk rhythm out on in a Freddie Green way, where others want to take things in a new direction. Good news is there are modern luthiers out there who build guitars that specialize in any style in history or allow you to create more modern sounds.

Anyway, my point is that it's not as simple as "get guitar A" or "get guitar B". There's a world of instruments out there and I'd encourage everyone to attend a guitar show and play your way through it. You'll get a great overview of what these builders are up to AND you'll have access to guys selling great vintage stuff too. It's really the only way to answer so many questions for yourselves.

Long winded (sorry)

Bob

[rpguitar]

Great points, Bob. Thanks! The world of archtop builders and history is there to be explored, not summarized with a few broad strokes of opinion on an Internet forum. Anyone who feels they've got it all figured out based on words and recordings alone is at best naively deluded, and at worst... Well, nevermind. I don't want to introduce any vitriol into the topic (lots of that here lately).

[Archtop 13]

Bob hits the nail on the head. "It all comes down to the guitar being played". X & Y player can sit down with the same guitar & form completely different assessments. It has to feel right to "you". & it has to sound right to "you"

[hot ford coupe]

Thus is the subjective nature of art. Great points made here. You have to let the ears andhands make the decisions. I've been going back into history to see how the archtop has evolved, who did what and where it is now. It's really an interesting chain of events. It's lead me to a conclusion that D'Angelico was only one link in that chain bringing the archtop to a very high level. From there, D'Aquisto took what he saw and heard and improved on it. Same with Monteleone and Benedetto and onward. It's hard to say now that the D'A is the best thing available because of all the improvements that have been made over the years. Just think of what his guitars would sound like if he hadn't died at such an early age. Same with Jimmy D.

I would assume that there are a number of good builders out there that can make guitars even better than old John D. Hopefully, when you commission a builder, he/she can make it do what you want.

[Hexatonics]

Thus is the subjective nature of art. Great points made here. You have to let the ears andhands make the decisions. I've been going back into history to see how the archtop has evolved, who did what and where it is now. It's really an interesting chain of events. It's lead me to a conclusion that D'Angelico was only one link in that chain bringing the archtop to a very high level. From there, D'Aquisto took what he saw and heard and improved on it. Same with Monteleone and Benedetto and onward. It's hard to say now that the D'A is the best thing available because of all the improvements that have been made over the years. Just think of what his guitars would sound like if he hadn't died at such an early age. Same with Jimmy D.

I would assume that there are a number of good builders out there that can make guitars even better than old John D. Hopefully, when you commission a builder, he/she can make it do what you want.

What do you think of Aria? I have played several of their pressed d'aquisto's and I found them very over priced indeed.

[hot ford coupe]

Honestly, I have never personally tried an Aria only because I've never come across any. Also, I have no idea what price range the Aria fits in so it would be very hard for me to agree or disagree with you. I have one of the Vestax D'As that I paid $2800 bucks new for. To me, that was a pretty good price at the time. If the cost was over $5,000 bucks, I wouldn't have wanted it. The MSRP was $4200 balloons and that seemed on the high side of acceptable to me. I wanted something that looked like a real D'A so bad, I probably would have pulled the trigger at the MSRP.

[Hexatonics]

Honestly, I have never personally tried an Aria only because I've never come across any. Also, I have no idea what price range the Aria fits in so it would be very hard for me to agree or disagree with you. I have one of the Vestax D'As that I paid $2800 bucks new for. To me, that was a pretty good price at the time. If the cost was over $5,000 bucks, I wouldn't have wanted it. The MSRP was $4200 balloons and that seemed on the high side of acceptable to me. I wanted something that looked like a real D'A so bad, I probably would have pulled the trigger at the MSRP.

Yeh the Arias are much like the d'aquistos. They are probably exactly the same. The problem is you can buy most of the same specs with a carved top from the excel range for a lot loess. Still thats not the point. I just didnt find the Japanese american re-issues to be as you stated $4000 worth.
I would prefer the D'angelico though.
The arias have a kinda plastic feel to them. Very very light and not overly stable. I found the tone so so but they are pressed and not made for acoustic response. The originals were but these are much cheep copies in comparison to the originals.

Not to say that some arent great guitars in their own right. I turned down a D'aquisto blonde for £1,000 but I am fussy and I thought it wasnt worth the money knowing what I could get to sound as good and be more practical.

[uburoibob]

Is there somebody making a D'Aquisto brand cheapie?

Bob

[Hexatonics]

Is there somebody making a D'Aquisto brand cheapie?

Bob

High Bob, yeh Aria make a budget copy, but you gotta put it in context. Is it budget compared to an Ibaenz Artcore? no.
Is it budget compared to a real d'aquisto? Yes. :-)

[uburoibob]

High Bob, yeh Aria make a budget copy, but you gotta put it in context. Is it budget compared to an Ibaenz Artcore? no.
Is it budget compared to a real d'aquisto? Yes. :-)

Gotcha - thanks!

Bob