-
[QUOTE=ArchtopHeaven;558834]
If the majority of tops on an archtop don't move like a diaphram, then to what would you attribute the great tone achieved by Gibson, Heritage, Campellone and many other archtop builders who don't put the recurve way up into the horn of the cutout? The top will always move, with or without the recurve going up into the horn, as information is transferred from the string's vibriation, to the bridge saddle, down the posts to the base, then dispersed throughout the soundboard by nature of the bracing. Have you, or anyone else for that matter ever measured the amount of movement differential between tops carved they way you (and some others) claim they need to be carved . . . and tops that are carved the "lazy way"?? (what a stupid thing to say!!)The point of an archtop is to act like a diaphragm. The majority of archtops we buy don't really do this. Play a D'aquisto, play a benedetto play a top archtop guitar and you will get why re-curves are so important.
We actually were "having a conversation about technical issues, like overhangs etc." until you brought the top carve subject into the conversation . . which, by the way, is also a technical issue.On the other hand, I never once said that the guitars we love are bad. I thought we were having a conversation about technical issues, like over hangs etc. My point that over hangs don't need to float on the majority of archtops is because the basic idea behind it is lost because the tops carved are not carved in a way, that would optimise the point in having them.
Ummm . . . yeah, you did, repeatedly. Just go back and revisit your words.Seems like lots of people confuse me saying "the tops are crudely craved and not optimum" with "I think these are bad guitars that sound bad" which is not what I have said at all in anyway.
Do you ever even listen to yourself bloviate?? You claim that you didn't say in any way at all that you think these are bad guitars that sound bad, then in the very next paragraph you go on to say that we would look down on Gibson's and Heritage guitars as a cheap Ibanez , when compared to a Benedetto or a D'Aquisto. You are obviously not a stupid man. Quite the contrary, you seem to be intelligent. I often scratch my head wondering why the hell you say some of the things you say.But if you had a Heritage or Gibson and you compared it to a laminate top of a $500 Ibanez you would have plenty to argue as why yours would have the superior tone. If you then had a benny, or d'aquisto what have you, you would look down on Gibson and heritage like Gibson and heritage would look down on a cheap Ibanez.
"Affordable middle of the road archtops" So then, by middle of the road, are you suggesting that an L5C, a Johnny Smith . . either Guild, Gibson or Heritage, a Campellone, etc . . are only 50% of what a Benedetto, D'Aquisto, Monteleone archtop guitar is tone wise? I think even Bob, Jimmy and John respectively would disagree with you on that . . . as well as many other less opinionated and more rational people in the archtop builder's world. If on the other hand you are saying that they are middle of the road as relates to price points . . . but which also sound pretty damned near as good as boutique built archtops at 5 or more times the price, then we would be in agreement. But, somehow I just don't think that's what you mean.Its all stages of of skill, quality and cost. No one in the their right mind would turn down a well tuned recurved top its just most of us cant afford them. In turn though it doesnt mean we take middle of the road archtops, L5's JS's, Eagles etc and elevate them beyond what they are, affordable middle of the road archtops. As great as they are and as much as we all love them.
In acoustic tonal quality, there's nothing "middle of the road" about a Johnny Smith (in any variant), an L5C, an acoustic Golden Eagle or an Acoustic Super Eagle.
Well, as you say . . those are your opinions . . and you are cerainly entitled to your one opinions. But, you are not entitled to your own facts.To me at this point I would say the over hang is cosmetic only and traditional. It would be better if they had some metal coming off the neck block up under or into the over hang to make it more stable, or have the neck block and overhang as one piece as long as it doesn't upset the glance of the guitar.
But anyway
Last edited by Patrick2; 08-17-2015 at 07:08 PM.
-
08-17-2015 10:42 AM
-
A friend who owns a 63 Gibson Johnny Smith just emailed me that his guitar has the neck making full contact with the top.
The Hans Moust Guild book does not mention the full contact neck as being an issue regarding the Johnny Smith Award. Perhaps it was?
-
Well, it certainly wasn't as far as Heritage was concerned. That's the way they've made their archtops since 1984-5 when they first started up The Heritage Guitar Company. I seriously doubt that JS would have been able to convince them to make his signature guitar with an elevated fingerboard, if that's what he felt it should have. Similarly, if Heritage continued to make their higher end archtops with the elevated fingerboard, the way they did it when they worked for Gibson . . . and JS told them he wanted his to have full contact, I'd have to assume that Marv would have told him . . . "Mr. Smith, that's just not the way we build our guitars. If you don't try to tell us how we should build guitars, we won't try to tell you how you should play one".
Originally Posted by Stringswinger
Don't forget, Jim Deurloo . . Marv's partner and co-equal owner of Heritage was the plant manager at Guild from 1969 through 1974.
-
This is what my Heritage Sweet 16 looks like, too. Originally Posted by 2bornot2bop
26 years old, no fly up, fly over, over under, ad nauseam.
It's an SE acoustic that's as resonate as any archtop I've yet to own.
-
Here are photos of the cutaway on each of my two 20+ year old Guild archtops. An Artist Award and an X700. Is this an example of Guild doing it "the right way"? Or, were they too doing it "the lazy way"? I seem to see wider binding needed to completely cover the "added thickness towards the cutaway". What do you see? Originally Posted by ArchtopHeaven
Yeah . . . it's really a pretty stupid accusation on your behalf, isn't it?P.s
Just don't call it lazy otherwise Patrick will be on your case. Its called "Traditional" Yeh traditionally lazy
Once again, you're totally wrong here. To claim there's no consistency in Gibson's manufacturing, just flies in the face of the comment that a Wesmo is heavier than a CES. Think of what you're saying, man! It's the consistency in Gibson's manufacturing that actually leads to the inconsistency in their results. They consistently make L5 model guitars the same way and to the same specs. When you do that with tone wood, when virtually every piece that you'll carve is inconsistent with any other, in terms of weight, density, moisture . . etc., the results will be inconsistent . . as will the tonal response.And a WES thats heavier than a CES, jesus christ what did they make the Wes from, bricks? The CES even has more bracing to support the top and an extra pickup, lead, 2 knobs, switch etc...
Goes to show, there is no constancy at all in Gibson's manufacturing if they are making WES Mo's that are heavier than a CES, absolutely no constancy at all.
Just go to John Monteleone's web site and pull up the 2 part interview where he sites the positives and negatives of using a panto to remove bulk prior to further refining and finishing by hand. He speaks indepth about the need to treat each top and back specifically in accordance with their own uniqueness. Therefore, It's guys like Monteleone, Benedetto, D'Aquisto, D'Angelico, Comins, Lacey, Lewis, . . . and other true master luthiers, whose processes are inconsistent . . . but inconsistent by design and by necessity.
Every piece of tone wood is different. You can only get optimal results by treating each top somewhat differently than any other. That just can't be done in a production type facility such as Gibson, Guild or Heritage. Although, Guild and Heritage do it (have done it) to a greater degree than Gibson does or has. But . . Gibson also build hundreds more arch tops then Guild and Heritage combined.
It's a matter of trade offs. The slight improvement in tonal quality sacrificed by cutting some corners needed to attain that improvement, is far out weighed by the capability to cut dramatic costs out of the process . . while still making excellent sounding archtops.Last edited by Patrick2; 08-17-2015 at 09:03 PM.
-
I'm a fanboy, but the only "issue" with that guitar to me, at least for the Corona model I owned, was the lacquer was applied with too much plasticizer type material, and far too heavily. Other than that, I found the guitar 2b a complete gem. Originally Posted by Stringswinger
-
That's generally true. There can be exceptions, of course. But there's no reason an opaque finish should be thicker. An even if it were a couple of coats heavier, that won't add much to the heft.
The extra weight was the 2 scoops of mojo baked into it.
Originally Posted by Greentone
-
There are lots of deviations from traditional violin craft in archtop guitar building. Heck, modern violin craft deviates markedly from traditional violin craft. In the days of Stradivarius, Amati, and Guarnerius, violin makers used a _very_ shallow neck angle and a shorter neck. Baroque repertoire did not call for the great volume that symphonic music produces today. In the early 19th century, neck angles were increased and necks were lengthened. All of the great instruments have been re-necked, at this point. The headstock alone from an Amati, Guarneri, or Stradiveri instrument is worth six figures--just to be grafted to a modern neck. The greater neck angle permits the violin to produce greater volume and a richer sound.
Interestingly, the shallower neck angles of the Baroque instruments looks to be about what archtop guitar makers use, for the most part. Examine sometime a violin set up for Baroque music and you will notice that the neck angle looks about like a Benedetto or Gibson guitar. In addition to recurve on the top and back plates, it would be interesting to see what the effect of a violin-like neck angle would be, in terms of tone and acoustic volume, on a modern archtop guitar. One might presume that Lloyd Loar tried different angles on his mandolins and guitars before dialing in about 3.5-degrees, or a little less than what Benedetto and everybody else uses.
Have my eyes deceived me all these years, or do the pre-Loar Gibsons (e.g., the L-3) have steeper neck angles? It has always appeared that way, to me. Orville Gibson may have borrowed more closely, if so, from violin making than later archtop makers have done.
Point: I have never thought that the shallower-than-violin neck angle has left archtop guitars with a less-than-pleasing tone. Gibsons, Epiphones, D'Angelicos, Benedettos all have excellent tone, acoustically speaking.
What about cutting the edges of the top and back plates flush with the sides and binding them, rather than handling them as on a violin? It seems to me that it wouldn't make a difference, but I wonder?
-
campellone and andersen do an overhang that is flush to the top without touching it except at the very edge. you can hardly see under them, but you can just tell that the top underneath the overhang is not finished.
the construction of the gibsons is of course entirely different.
my general point was that they looked less impressive or less convincing (close up) than my bottom of the line boutique archtops (and even than my sadowsky). but they felt and sounded at least as nice to play.
one-man-shops really ought to be able to produce instruments that have a finish to them that exceeds what gibson can produce using very different methods. but whether they can produce instruments that match or compete with the musical qualities of good gibsons is a different thing altogether.
i'm not sure they can't. i think the electric L5s would have a tough time beating the sadowsky LS17 for fatness and subtlety and accuracy; and that the L5P would have a hard time beating the responsiveness and silvery clarity of the campellone. the electric L5s have more cut and freshness than the LS 17 - but it has a lovely soft-attack and great definition (with the tone turned up near full); the acoustic L5 has more body and weight than the campellone but its not so responsive and fresh.
-
I get that we're all talking about opinions here. Some are pretty strong. But they are subjective and impermanent.
Consider that many, many guitarists are satisfied with current Gibsons, and I'm one of them. I'm not that naïve. I've had some lemons, like many others have had. But those I now have are far better than my playing deserves, to be honest. The design and build execution meets my needs and then some. So call me a hack. I won't disagree. But I'm a happy customer.
I also get that this forum has members who live in the arcane when it comes to luthiery. I respect and enjoy the threads, the minutia being fascinating.
However, I'll bet that most of us, truth be told, cannot really appreciate such high level subtleties in tone when we play. We are more worried about getting the notes out correctly with good technique and on time. I know that's where I am anyway.
Okay. As you were, gentlemen.
[QUOTE=Ol' Fret;558668
Gibson had great craftsmen who made some wonderful guitars. Well, their status quo... puts me between laughter and tears. [/QUOTE]
-
MG,
I own some amazing guitars and my personal favorite gigging guitar is a 97 ES-175. I respect that other players like different stuff. For me Gibson's rule. Yesterday, today and hopefully tomorrow.
My Masters, Wes Montgomery and Joe Pass both were Gibson players.
And that is good enough for me.
Cheers,
Marc (good name, eh? :-) )
-
MartyGrass - You couldn't have put it any better. We are all entitled to our opinions. One should never begrudge another of that.
I can understand that some folks who are not American don't feel the same way I do. I respect their opinion and they always respect mine. Archie, you have strong opinions and honestly, I cant disagree with most things you say. Some of the things you point out are head shakers for me too. But I overlook them because I favor the Gibson brand and I see the very small amount of bad and it just disappears inside all of the greatness.
There are folks who by nature compare the price of things and build that into their opinion of what is better and what is worse. I will probably do that some day when I am forced to own only 1 guitar. When you weigh out the pros's and con's, the price of Gibsons will almost always prohibit them from winning a comparison. Much like Corvettes should always win comparisons with Porsches. But they very rarely do...
-
Gibsons have been the choice of the best...
-
I have to confess I am a Gibson fan(boy)...my latest acquisition just confirmed why...
Last edited by vinlander; 08-18-2015 at 12:30 PM.
-
i've always been a gibson fanboy too - even when i haven't used their guitars. i've quoted that very barney kessel clip before as a reference point for 'the perfect guitar sound'. Wes' L5 sound always strikes me as beyond wonderful etc. etc.
the only significant qualification to my deep love of gibson guitars came a few years ago when i discovered bernstein's sound. he sounds amazing on his 175 - but even better on his boutique archtop. that seems to me to be a significant event in jazz guitar history. i love george benson - but i can't help thinking he'd sound better if he had a contract with gibson instead of ibanez.
its the fact that sadowsky guitars are better tools for gigging than any gibson guitar i've used that did it for me. that's what led me to play different guitars than my heroes play. i'm not that mad about the sadowsky sound - but its smoother, fuller and much much more resistant to horrid feedback than any gibson i've played. and the necks are so damn easy and accurate too - and the build quality is better (even than super pricey gibsons for goodness sake!).
after jumping ship for sadowsky, i quickly wanted to see what independent luthiers could do. right now i'm starting to suspect that they make technically better instruments that look better and feel amazing - but perhaps just aren't close enough to the sound i'm after to satisfy. campellone is a special case because, essentially, he is trying to build classic gibsons - and i think he very largely succeeds. so his guitars sound amazing - but that's because they sound so much like classic gibsons. as for the others - the two i know well (comins and andersen) - are very responsive and accurate and efficient (v. good with feedback) - but i'm not sure i'm able to relate to the sound enough.
the difference with sadowsky is that his guitars make a very smooth, full, modern type sound which - although it sounds nothing like the gibson sound(s) i adore - still convinces me.
-
Kessel's guitar and _that_ arrangement of "Alfie" have long haunted me. I nicked that arrangement from BK years ago, and I used to include it in my set at every opportunity. It was a crowd pleaser. I always credited BK, of course.
For years, while playing a Gibson ES-175, I considered tracking down a late-40s ES-350 and putting on a CC pickup. The closest I ever got was (1) a period when I played an early P90-equipped ES-300 (nice guitar), (2) a period when I played a ES-175/CC, and (3) a period when I played a friend's '37 ES-150 on loan for a summer.
The 300 had the feel of Kessel's 350, but not the pickup. The 150 had the pickup, but not the right scale length. The 175/CC was a delightful guitar, but is a different cup of tea. Of the three instruments, I'd have to say right off that the 150 is probably the best electric guitar I have ever played, on its own merits. It was just a stunner, in terms of tone and--particularly--in terms of dynamic range. Imagine that pickup assembly in the top of a vintage ES-350.
I think Barney Kessel really had the formula figured out, there...even if he was so dissatisfied with the Gibson company as to remove the name from his guitar.
-
following on from Greentone:
i think barney did more to make contemporary jazz guitar than any other single player. more than any other player he established what can be done on the instrument (and showed that its enough to make a guitar trio really work musically).
he's really the one who capitalized on charlie christian.
i listened to the 70's poll winners album (is it called 'straight ahead'?) for the first time in years and years the other day. it had a much bigger and more immediate effect on me than any of the bernstein i've been fawning over recently, or the benson. just so much fun in every four bars. he wants to swing as much as he can at all times.
and the best gibson i've ever had was an es 150 (late forties). the scale length and body size and pickup: perfect. it was so easy to use - neither over nor under sensitive. i moved away from that guitar because it sounded so late forties it ended up making me feel a bit like an impressionist. its one of the reasons i'm now using a modern laminate with the same basic dimensions.
-
When I was a college freshman, I used to get flack for listening to all of the "Poll Winners" albums. [I listened a lot to "Electric Ladyland," "Abraxas," etc., too, but that's all that the other folks were listening to.] People thought I was Uncle Fudd for listening to that old fart stuff. But, gee whiz that stuff swung SO hard. Kessel deeply influenced my playing, at that point.
You know, it actually made me stand out from the crowd as a player. I got a lot of gigs and offers to go on the road with bands simply because I had a jazz-influenced style...not unlike, say, a proto-Steve Howe or something like that. Just by not being another Lynyrd Skynyrd or Allman style player, at that point in time, gave me a certain edge.
For sure, I was the only guy who had an acoustic archtop guitar in the dorm.
Your point about Kessel's influence is well taken. And, given that he was a member of the "Wrecking Crew" group of studio musicians--and played on hundreds of hit singles coming out of California in the 60s--his influence on all music is pretty substantial.
-
Originally Posted by Greentone
When I was a college freshman, I used to get flack for listening to all of the "Poll Winners" albums. [I listened a lot to "Electric Ladyland," "Abraxas," etc., too, but that's all that the other folks were listening to.] People thought I was Uncle Fudd for listening to that old fart stuff. But, gee whiz that stuff swung SO hard. Kessel deeply influenced my playing, at that point.
You know, it actually made me stand out from the crowd as a player. I got a lot of gigs and offers to go on the road with bands simply because I had a jazz-influenced style...not unlike, say, a proto-Steve Howe or something like that. Just by not being another Lynyrd Skynyrd or Allman style player, at that point in time, gave me a certain edge.
For sure, I was the only guy who had an acoustic archtop guitar in the dorm.
Your point about Kessel's influence is well taken. And, given that he was a member of the "Wrecking Crew" group of studio musicians--and played on hundreds of hit singles coming out of California in the 60s--his influence on all music is pretty substantial.
and he's playing a Tele in that shot
-
Or, it could be a Danelectro. Those guys played Telecasters and Danelectros a lot in the studios. Glen Campbell's main guitar, back then, in the studio (he was the highest paid musician in the US) was a Teisco T-60.
-
Kessel definitely played a tele for studio work. As did Howard Roberts. Certainly might have played Dano's too.
Funny this should come up, I just got my danelectro back from a friend who had "borrowed" it for about 10 years i restrung it last night...should post a vid...great, weird-ass guitars.
-
Last edited by wintermoon; 08-18-2015 at 06:28 PM.
-
Sorry, I've just realized that Patrick2 passed away: RIP - I bid my guitarist's farewell, express my condolence to the bereaved and offer a quote by Albert Einstein: "Now he has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me. That means nothing. People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion."You post here far to infrequently! The forum would be a far better informed venue if you had the time to contribute more often. I always respect and enjoy your input. However, we seem to be of differing opinions and understanding here, on a few of our positions.
Well, among others I believe in physics, especially physical acoustics, and it's evident in some posts above to me that not all forumites do believe in acoustics.
It's always sobering to experience that some people don't consider fine archtop guitars as an own, independant class of musical instruments. If you look at the closest related instruments to archtop guitars, then is not about flattop guitars, but far more violin-related instruments. It is completely subordinated if the latter usually sport no frets, only four strings, a small and soft sound post, and if the strings energy is provided by bowing (except the jazz contrabass). Under this aspect it is inappropriate not to consider the century-old acoustic and constructional principles of violin making in the manufacturing and qualitative assessment of archtop guitars. Just remember that the best archtop guitar makers that we know of by now came from the violin makers' background. Unfortunately, this world of thought is not too easy and quickly to grasp, rather on the contrary: an unfriendly feature in the internet era.
If someone doesn't dig the utmost importance of plate graduation and recurve elaboration on acoustic archtop guitars (once again: it doesn't matter so much if you're more after the common electric sound that is provided for the most part by the pick-up), I can't and won't offer much help! Then, at least in my web fora experience, any objective discussion gets soon frustrating and fruitless by all participents. For my part, moreover, I've got a (good) life outside screens, and English is not my mother tongue, rather my handicap.
The opinions of some here can very well be understood (years ago I would have been one of their best advocates!), but sometimes they don't consider that there may be "more things in heaven and earth" than are dreamt of in their archtop philosophy.
It's not about the attempt to take away guitarists from their beloved Gibsons or Heritage, etc., guitars. If players claim these are the finest archtop guitars in the world, who am I to argue? Who am I to argue if a student or not so well off claims his 400$ laminated guitar to be his/her dream axe? There's no absolute finest or best, just a finest or best for individual persons.
On the other hand, there have been many cost-cutting procedures stealing in large- and small-scale archtop guitar manufacturing over the last four or five decades, features that are usually reasonable only from the business perspective. The risk is that younger or less sensitive/experienced players could tend to believing that certain 'cost-adapted' design and construction methods (or lifetime warranties) would be the ultimate. Physics and some well-known acoustic principles of violin making speak against their believing.
My believing is that even top-notch archtop guitar players who order custom made guitars by top-notch luthiers can show a nonsensitive understanding of archtop guitars. Or what should I think of, just one example, of Julian Lage when he told about his Manzer archtop: "It's a laminate top. I think Borys made the laminate, and it was carved by Linda" ? I can only hope he was talking about the neck carving... (31:46 f)
Julian is not my guitar hero, but he's an excellent guitar player, and his Manzer guitar is probably a quite valuable archtop. It's certainly a great sounding archtop for the travelling guitarist, but can hardly be described to be a fine acoustic one - I heard it live in a club whose acoustics, amp and PA I happen to know quite well.
While it's almost impossible to manufacture a fine acoustic archtop guitar for minor money, customers would be well advised to educate themselves and consider that the reverse could be happening.Last edited by Ol' Fret; 08-24-2015 at 08:27 AM.
-
Here's a couple of comments.
1. The Wrecking Crew is now on Netflix. I noticed this having just paid full price for the DVD just a few weeks earlier. I could have saved that money and got a decent set of strings instead.
2. Ol' Fret: I don't doubt a word you say. I've learned that my jumping off point for the subtleties of archtop builds is at a lower level than others. My guitars are not the limiting factor in the fruits of my playing. What I need to change is between my ears. If I were a luthier, and my goal was to build an instrument for a gifted artist to play, I'd be right with you. You are on a much higher level, sir.
-
Ol' Fret: I don't doubt a word you say.
Thank you, Marty Grass, but I do beg for some doubt! Not as a fundamental attitude to life, but as a means for progressing: we are all caught in our subjective view.
Some communication with others and the study of the works of various provenance and time periods can also help us guitar lovers avoid getting stuck in rigid ideological thinking, dogmatism or even fanaticism.
Reply With Quote
bass guitar
Today, 09:45 AM in Other Styles / Instruments