How Should an Archtop Sound?

[TheGrandWazoo]

I know there are going to be many opinions but I was at a local high end guitar store and played 4 archtops. 3 were acoustic and one was has a floating pick up. Of the three acoustic one was a Gibson l7 C, another was a boutique cutaway and the last was an Eastman 905. Hands down the Eastman was the most clear, articulate, and loudest. The other two sounded great but the Eastman just sounded open and really filled the room easily. The fourth was an Eastman 905(?) electric cutaway. Though it was of the same series as the 905 acoustic it was not as clear and loud as the 905 acoustic.

So I'm thinking that the guitars like the Gibson and the boutique guitar were voiced for a more vintage sound while the eastman is voiced to be brighter? Am I right in this thinking? What are the qualities most sought after in archtops? Is that vintage Gibson sound considered more "true"? I'm more apt to get the Eastman 905 but am I missing something by not considering other subtleties of the Gibson and boutique guitar? Are archtop electrics voiced to not emphasize the acoustic properties?

what are your thoughts?

[RyanM]

The older style acoustic archtops were not made for tone, but rather to project and cut through a mix. They are parallel braced and intended for bronze strings. "Bark" is usually the word that describes their sound.

The modern style with floating pickups and X-bracing are usually designed with a sweeter tone in mind.

I guess you could say the third category of archtops are the laminates, like the ES-175, designed as electric instruments first and foremost.


Julian Lage's vintage L5 sounds pretty good,

These videos will give you an idea of how the older style acoustic archtops were originally used, and still used in a swing context, compared with an electric.

I like the sound of the Manhattan at the end of this video, which is a modern style archtop,

[DRS]

cool

[mangotango]

Sorry, Mr. Chirillo said that he was trying to get lots of WHAT in the second video?

[RyanM]

Sorry, Mr. Chirillo said that he was trying to get lots of WHAT in the second video?

I don't know what you're referring to, unless you give the time stamp of where he says it.

[jasonc]

Hey says "thuck". And as was previously stated the difference that you heard was probably the difference in bracing. The Gibson and the other guitar were probably parallel braced while the Eastman was probably x-braced. X-braced guitars sound a bit more like a flat-top with a bit more of a jangly top end a little more full range. I myself prefer parallel braced guitars with their far more mid heavy tone. But it really comes down to different tools for different jobs.

[2bornot2bop]

http://www.freddiegreen.org/technique/chirillo.html

James Chirillo - Big Band Rhythm Guitar

[anothersixstringer]

Great thread! Thanks for those Chirillo videos, really good ones!

[ruger9]

What is "sulfage" and "moveable doe"?

(forgive my spelling and my ignorance- I've never studied jazz, just basic music theory)

[rpguitar]

Solfege is the standard sight singing/ear training course taught in school music programs.

[fumblefingers]

solfege is where "do-re-mi-fa-so-la-ti-do" comes from

[jasonc]

Also, movable "do" means that the syllable "do" will be the tonic of whatever key you're in. As opposed to fixed "do" where C is always "do". I never had to do fixed "do" but it always seemed liked it would be wicked hard to do.

[rpguitar]

The older style acoustic archtops were not made for tone, but rather to project and cut through a mix.

I've sat on a reply to this all week, but here goes: That statement is a myth. It's cited all the time in guitar forums and is practically a cliche on the internet at this point. But it's a myth, or perhaps more accurately, it is an over-generalization that ignores the earliest applications of the acoustic archtop.

The f-hole archtop was introduced in 1923, before swing bands were prevalent. Much of the early recorded music on the instrument is intricate and virtuosic, showcased by Eddie Lang, Carl Kress, Dick McDonough, and a few others. Solo, duo, and small ensemble settings are the primary contexts in which we hear the acoustic archtop. It is not buried "in the mix" of big bands, plunking out two note chords with high action. That happened much later.

And if you read Gibson sales literature from the day, they go on about its pure and wonderfully clear tone, not its loudness. Put simply, the swing band application emerged later. While I have no physical proof, it's pretty much accepted that Gibson's 17" parallel braced instruments (starting in 1939) are more heavily built than both the original 16" guitars and the 17" Advanced X-braced guitars from circa 1934-1939. This made them somewhat brighter, louder, and less delicate/nuanced. But it didn't start that way.

In fact, even though X-bracing is usually associated with "sweetness" and "flattop tone," the earliest L-5 models are not X-braced, and yet they are often cited as among the absolute best sounding archtops ever. I am lucky enough to be able to vouch for that after 20 years of archtop ownership and trying many models. I assume that most people are not fortunate enough to locate and try an original L-5 in great playable condition, so that empirical data point is lost to time... and the myth remains.

Finally... the videos that everyone is watching are great tutorials, but four-to-the-bar rhythm in a swing band is only one aspect of archtop playing and technique. It would be like explaining what electric guitar tone "is" by demonstrating how to play distorted power chords and shred solos. Iconic, perhaps, but hardly representative of the range of styles and techniques available. I would suggest that the uninitiated seek out more material from diverse sources before concluding that they understand what an archtop sounds like. I think they are extremely dynamic and versatile instruments - both old and new ones alike, all bracing and all designs included.

[ruger9]

Solfege is the standard sight singing/ear training course taught in school music programs.

Ah. So I DID take this course. I sucked at it, way back then (18 years old, only playing for 2 years). I have a feeling I'd be much better at it now. (playing for 26 years, LOL)

[RyanM]

...

Good info! I know you have some videos comparing different archtops, you should post one in this thread.

[jasonc]

I've sat on a reply to this all week, but here goes: That statement is a myth. It's cited all the time in guitar forums and is practically a cliche on the internet at this point. But it's a myth, or perhaps more accurately, it is an over-generalization that ignores the earliest applications of the acoustic archtop.

The f-hole archtop was introduced in 1923, before swing bands were prevalent. Much of the early recorded music on the instrument is intricate and virtuosic, showcased by Eddie Lang, Carl Kress, Dick McDonough, and a few others. Solo, duo, and small ensemble settings are the primary contexts in which we hear the acoustic archtop. It is not buried "in the mix" of big bands, plunking out two note chords with high action. That happened much later.

And if you read Gibson sales literature from the day, they go on about its pure and wonderfully clear tone, not its loudness. Put simply, the swing band application emerged later. While I have no physical proof, it's pretty much accepted that Gibson's 17" parallel braced instruments (starting in 1939) are more heavily built than both the original 16" guitars and the 17" Advanced X-braced guitars from circa 1934-1939. This made them somewhat brighter, louder, and less delicate/nuanced. But it didn't start that way.

In fact, even though X-bracing is usually associated with "sweetness" and "flattop tone," the earliest L-5 models are not X-braced, and yet they are often cited as among the absolute best sounding archtops ever. I am lucky enough to be able to vouch for that after 20 years of archtop ownership and trying many models. I assume that most people are not fortunate enough to locate and try an original L-5 in great playable condition, so that empirical data point is lost to time... and the myth remains.

Finally... the videos that everyone is watching are great tutorials, but four-to-the-bar rhythm in a swing band is only one aspect of archtop playing and technique. It would be like explaining what electric guitar tone "is" by demonstrating how to play distorted power chords and shred solos. Iconic, perhaps, but hardly representative of the range of styles and techniques available. I would suggest that the uninitiated seek out more material from diverse sources before concluding that they understand what an archtop sounds like. I think they are extremely dynamic and versatile instruments - both old and new ones alike, all bracing and all designs included.

While I get what you're saying, I can't entirely agree. The dance bands of the twenties were not small bands. Paul Whiteman's band, of which Eddie Lang was a member, usually had twenty something pieces (strings, tubas, harps and all kinds of stuff). Yes, there were the few solo and duo recordings but the vast majority were dance bands and orchestras like Whiteman's. For every record that featured a solo guitar, or even a duo, there were probably hundreds more where the poor guitarist was just flogging away in the background. Now I completely agree that the rhythm playing of the big band era is a very small part of the archtop world. Also, I'd agree that most makers weren't trying to make loud instruments that didn't sound pleasant but you better believe every maker was trying to make a louder box (including Loar when he developed the L-5). If they weren't there never would have been a need for amplifiers and pickups. Like I said earlier, I happen to prefer the parallel bracing. It to me sounds like an archtop should sound. I don't really care for the top end of the X-braced design even though I love the way the D and G strings sound with it. I would also agree with you that archtops are far more versatile than they are typically given credit. In fact, they are so great that I think everybody should buy more of them.

[rpguitar]

Yes, there were the few solo and duo recordings but the vast majority were dance bands and orchestras like Whiteman's.

The majority of paid dates that filled Eddie Lang's wallet (and allowed him to live on Central Park West in NYC) were with bands, some large, some fairly intimate. But we don't first refer listeners to those sides when we showcase Lang, do we? There are many, as in dozens, of duo recordings available with violinist Joe Venuti, all of which showcase Lang's unique talent on the guitar (as in guitar, period, not archtop guitar). The guitar duos are much fewer (with Kress and Lonnie Johnson). Solos? Only a scant three pieces... But it's enough to have made quite a legacy!

Anyway I agree that volume was a design consideration because it always has been one. Who wants a quiet acoustic guitar? But I will never agree that archtops "weren't designed to sound good." That's how it's always phrased on the internet. Loar's original L-5 had several individual structural parts literally tuned to specific pitches. That's the reason the separate label with Loar's signature was installed under the treble f-hole on guitars built under his supervision. That construction continued until kerfed braces began to be used as a cost-saving measure around 1929. But that's getting into esoterica...

[jasonc]

The majority of paid dates that filled Eddie Lang's wallet (and allowed him to live on Central Park West in NYC) were with bands, some large, some fairly intimate. But we don't first refer listeners to those sides when we showcase Lang, do we? There are many, as in dozens, of duo recordings available with violinist Joe Venuti, all of which showcase Lang's unique talent on the guitar (as in guitar, period, not archtop guitar). The guitar duos are much fewer (with Kress and Lonnie Johnson). Solos? Only a scant three pieces... But it's enough to have made quite a legacy!

Anyway I agree that volume was a design consideration because it always has been one. Who wants a quiet acoustic guitar? But I will never agree that archtops "weren't designed to sound good." That's how it's always phrased on the internet. Loar's original L-5 had several individual structural parts literally tuned to specific pitches. That's the reason the separate label with Loar's signature was installed under the treble f-hole on guitars built under his supervision. That construction continued until kerfed braces began to be used as a cost-saving measure around 1929. But that's getting into esoterica...

Well sure, you're going to seek out recordings where you can actually hear the instrument you're listening for. My point is simply that if you were a working guitarist in the twenties you were far more likely to be in a large ensemble playing chords (albeit not swing four to the bar) than in a small group or a duo. You said "Solo, duo, and small ensemble settings are the primary contexts in which we hear the acoustic archtop." and yes that is true. It is the primary context in which we hear the archtop but I don't believe it was the primary context in which the archtop was being played. Lang, Kress, McDonough and Johnson were the exceptions to the rule not the rule. But you won't get me to argue that their contribution, however small in output, wasn't a huge influence because it absolutely was. I personally believe that EVERY guitarist should spend some time studying Lang's work as I believe him to have had one of the most perfect techniques of anyone before or since. Just his intro on April Kisses should be required listening when one purchases a guitar. To your point about makers not eschewing tone for volume I completely agree. No maker wants to build a really loud guitar that sounds terrible.

[rpguitar]

Well, Jason, if I was near to Oklahoma I'd bring my '28 L-5 over and we could stare at it while listening to April Kisses. And we could imagine what none of us will ever truly know... what the gear situation looked like to a guitarist in the 1920s! It's fascinating stuff.

By owning that guitar and trying to emulate Eddie's tone on specific passages of his music, it has given me some interesting insight. The sweet spot of his picking for fast passages was right at the top of the f-hole. He probably used a hard tortoise shell pick, which coaxed a strong metallic 'ping' from his attack, and let the pick dance lightly over the strings the way it does in the fast single notes during the April Kisses intro. And then you watch him in that incredibly brief video of Wild Cat from the "King of Jazz" movie... and he's right up over the neck playing rhythm.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1w...cat-1930_music

[jasonc]

Well Roger, any time you find your way out to these parts stop by and we can indeed do that. I would love to poke around under the hood of your L-5. Here's a video of Lang that gives you a good look at his right hand and it also gives you glimpse at why Lang was so in demand for his accompaniment. Also, the beginning of the clip shows his rather extraordinary technique.

[rpguitar]

It's a brilliant video! I hadn't seen that one in a while.

And it's appropriate to this thread, too, because it shows the acoustic archtop being played in a delicate, sensitive, intricate way with lots of rich harmony... Nothing close to loud swing rhythm.

If you listen closely to his tone and let your ears fill in the dynamic range that the recording technology of the day lacks, you can hear how warm and smooth the L-5 is. Eddie's technique - combined with the guitar - lets every note ring clear. There is no "bark" whatsoever. And yet no flattop guitar sounds like that.

Ironically, I believe it can be thought of as an acoustic version of the smooth electric jazz tone that became iconic in later decades. I really do feel that Gibson's later designs lost some of that, and have led many to generalize that "archtops weren't designed to sound good." Sadly, recorded evidence to the contrary is rare and one must actively seek it out, so the perception among guitarists is likely to remain.

[Klatu]

I must disagree. I think the "bark" in the typical archtop sound is wonderful. Were Eddie Lang to have played a mid 40's Gibson or Epiphone, he would have sounded every bit as good as he did with his early L5 IMO.