-
Well then, kris & Para, I strongly recommend to not buy this instrument.
-
04-30-2015 08:31 AM
-
Different strokes, as the tailpiece, slotted headstock, and tuners are what I consider to be some of its most attractive features.
Originally Posted by Para
If all of us were attracted to the same woman, few of us would get laid.
-
The most beautiful archtop that I have ever seen and had the opportunity to play as well was at Newport Guitar Festival in 2004 or 2006 (I went both years) when it was still held in Newport, RI. The guitar was made by luthier John Montelone, whom I had the privilege of meeting, and had a list price of $37K.
The guitar was made of beautiful and precious woods that made it look like a jewel. The sound was lovely and the playability excellent, though it was just about $36K above my price range.
If I were a millionaire I would have bought it for sure. Just to play and look at it every day. Gorgeous.
-
is it for sale or just for look?..:-) Originally Posted by Drifter
Last edited by kris; 04-30-2015 at 09:49 AM.
-
"I'm not taken with the "headstock"..... It's a definite deal breaker for me....."
The headstock is a deterrent to purchase.
In my opinion ruins the guitar, no matter the beauty of the rest of it, incongruous.
-
It's gorgeous.
Spund samples still sound pretty midrangey to my ears. Hear a lot of "gypsy" sound in the blues clip...if there's a nod to gypsy jazz guitars in that headstock, that'd make sense to me.
Why are folks put off by a slotted headstock anyway?
-
I love slotted headstocks ...
-
I am not really put off by it in concept. As slotted headstock designs go, it looks well laid out. It is the tuners Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
that put me off. While I admire the artful nature of flush, curved, ornately decorated plates. Hopefully, they collaborated with someone like Graff or Rodgers on the manufacture of these.
-
I think for many in this forum, jazz is about tradition. Example; the Gibson ES175D is just about the most recorded and therefore traditional jazz guitar in the history of . . . . jazz guitar. There are literally shit storms here when ever anyone posts a negative about them. "Can't do that. 175s are the tradition of jazzz guitar". Slotted head stocks are not traditional to jazz guitar. They are to classical guitar. Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
Regarding the tone; as it relates to this guitar as well as the often referenced uber expensive Parker . . I don't get it. I realize that I'm not hearing these guitars in person. But, my computer speakers and sound card are pretty damned good . . definitely not run of the mill. When I hear people speak on my computer . . whether on you tube or a news broadcast . . they usually sound exactly like they do when I've heard those particular people speak in person. So, I know I'm getting a relatively accurate portrayal of what the guitar in question sounds like. I'm not overly impressed with the tone of this particular guitar or the Parkers as I heard them played by Tommy Emmanuel and Martin Taylor play them and rave about them. My first impression was . . "Meh . . . I've heard guitars available at 1/10th the cost that sound as good.
For my personal taste, the head stock, the tail piece and the F holes don't work for me. The tail piece would actually be pretty cool without the end of it protruding way past the end of the guitar. Also, I've never liked a guitr with that fret board extension on the treble side. Just totally throws off the symetrics and balance, as it relates to aesthetics.
If I won this guitar in a raffle, I'd sell it and buy a Super 400 and a LeGrand.
-
Patrick, the flaw in your logic about the recorded sound is that you only know the accuracy of the play back system and not the recording system. When working with an acoustic instrument, that gas a huge impact. The only way any of us will ever really know what this guitar sounds like is to sit down in a quiet room and play it for a bit. In that situation it will either inspire and impress us or it won't.
-
How dare you say such harsh things and deviate from the Gibson design? Originally Posted by Para
Said someone.
To all:
Opinions are great but lets not bash each other for having them, otherwise everyone with an opposing view might as well leave the forum, if we could only figure out who's opinion was right in the first place ;-)
These are my Rolls Royces (and I live round the corner from the UK Rolls Royce factory)
Last edited by Archie; 04-30-2015 at 11:46 AM.
-
I don't see the flaw in my logic [as it relates to the value] of what ever heard or perceived tonal difference/enhancement one might experience in person, vs by a recorded playback. The Parkers were recorded with the same mics and system as were the voices of Tommy and Martin. Tommy and Martin sound like . . . well, Tommy and Martin. Why wouldn't the guitars sound if nt exactly similar, at least reasonably similar to what the would sound like in person? As we've agreed here many many times, tone is a very subjective quality. For me, personally, it's virtually impossible for either of the two guitars I mentioned to sound $27,000 better than a well crafted $3,000 or $4,000 arch top. It's probably impossible for it to sound *better* at all, given the subjectivity. Different? To be sure! But better? Better to whom? Originally Posted by Jim Soloway
True masters like Benedetto, D'Aquisto .. etc., they can get an awful lot out of tone wood. Rapid response, varying responses to different pick attacks, more mids, less mids . . more bottom, less bottom . . . etc.. But, "at the end of the day" (I hate that saying!!) there's only all there is to be had in tone wood by any luthier. Also, if the difference, whether real or perceived is so subtly . . is it worth 10 times more? I guess to some it is. But, to most . . I would doubt it.
-
Internet - it is internet.
I personaly prefer to see instrument in reality.
I can see I can play and I can have opinion about.
I feel like I have only a pics of guitar...it is ok...:-)
-
I agree with both you patrick and Jim on this. Originally Posted by Patrick2
You could be more than well placed to do a reasonably balanced like for like comparison if you hear guitars through the same system, provided its a reasonable sound system.
Saying that, you cannot also know exactly how a guitar performs without being there in person. Performance is not just sound, its also how it plays, the balance across the strings and the acoustic qualities that don't always come through when amplified.
I found the tone to be disappointing to my ears and not to my tastes but that doesn't mean given it to play in person (not the sound of just the pickup) that I would not be more than impressed with the way it plays acoustically and how it plays under the fingers.
A friend of mine put it best when talking about his Benedetto. He said that you can change strings and as long as you were playing the same note, you wouldn't hear the change in strings (I hope that makes sense). I got the impression from this that it must be an exceptionally well balanced guitar (tonally). These types of things you cant hear through speakers per say and I'm sure the guitar in question does this, or has these qualities.
But like all things, if this guitar is say $100,000 new, the moment you start playing it through the pickup you might as well charge $5000. IMO patrick is right web he's ses there is only so much you can get out of a piece of wood and I think we probably reached that ceiling many decades ago. The rest is probably taste V:S how much money you got burning in your pocket to pay for it (your taste that is).
The only real advancement I've heard in tone over the last few decades of Archtop making is the Anderson Double top but then again thats not a new feature anyway, as it comes from the classical world.
I wonder if we are starting to re sell ourselves the wheel and the re-invention of it for the sake of looking or needing something that is special/new or different. In reality you can pay more for the wheel and it might loo better than one from 1000 years ago, but its still goes round and how much can you improve on that? The comment needs a bit of leeway but you get the point.Last edited by Archie; 04-30-2015 at 12:08 PM.
-
Quite frankly I would have passed on replying to this thread except for the sideswipe at Benedetto. This is a instrument I play out with, find inspiration and comfort with and love very much. To me, when I look at it, the "beauty" is more than skin deep-it's the function of how the pieces come together and produce music, which is the reason it was built. The fact that is also a work of art is secondary.
It would be nice to have the resources to fund a "Bosendorfer" guitar to sit around, transcending and levitating, awash in musical enlightenment. I don't have that luxury, and my hat's off to those that do. However to spend time conjecturing on the beauty of pictures of guitars on the internet seems somewhat pointless-IMHO.
-
$75000 for a Monteleone Radio City circa 2014, Dr. Jay. Way back when in 1989/1990, $12000 for a Radio City, $8000 for a Radio Flyer. Originally Posted by targuit
The most beautiful archtop that I have ever seen and had the opportunity to play as well was at Newport Guitar Festival in 2004 or 2006 (I went both years) when it was still held in Newport, RI. The guitar was made by luthier John Montelone, whom I had the privilege of meeting, and had a list price of $37K.
The guitar was made of beautiful and precious woods that made it look like a jewel. The sound was lovely and the playability excellent, though it was just about $36K above my price range. If I were a millionaire I would have bought it for sure. Just to play and look at it every day. Gorgeous.
I must make a scan of the 1989/1990 Monteleone brochure and post it some day.
-
Very well put, Jim. Originally Posted by Jim Soloway
-
That would be very interesting to see. Originally Posted by Jabberwocky
-
This is the most beautiful guitar I have ever seen: Martin OM45 De Luxe Authentic 1930VTS Acoustic Guitar | GuitarCenter .
-
But that's a flattop. Since we are discussing archtops here, what might be the most beautiful archtop you've ever seen? Originally Posted by Jabberwocky
-
Beautiful . . . and it's on sale! Originally Posted by Jabberwocky
-
Looks like it has been sold! Or "is no longer available" whatever that means. Who can resist a $20000 discount? Originally Posted by Klatu
-
I just came across these YouTube clips. Of course, Philip Catherine is playing a Vienna Opus, which has a pickup. The Vienna Apex, on the other hand, is a purely acoustic instrument.
Last edited by kkfan; 05-02-2015 at 03:13 AM.
-
Beautiful, tasteful playing, and he is really at one with the piano part - good ensemble playing. The guitar sounds good. Big pedal board, and is that a Raezers Edge cabinet? Under those lights, the guitar looks very glossy.
-
I can not hear how it sound in lower register...:-( I need more bass strings in solo.Sound is OK but I can find better sounding arch-tops. Vienna Apex is pure acoustic instrument so...how it sound really? Originally Posted by kkfan
Reply With Quote
Pitfalls of Patterns
Today, 06:06 PM in Improvisation