D'Angelico New Yorker

[2bornot2bop]

George Benson playing his D'Angelico at 1:55

[kenbennett]

I would argue that D'Angelico's designs were unwittingly destined to go out of style quickly. With their reliance on Art Deco themes, however modern then, they would certainly be viewed as old-fashioned and out of date, if not over the top, maybe even gaudy by the time of Benedetto, who probably saw it as his mission to clean the guitar up to it's classically beautiful status. It's just a guitar, a work of art in itself, with no need of any extraneous decoration.

[ronjazz]

I like what Monteleone is doing with design. Seeing the collection at the Met a few years back, I came away stunned by Monteleone's detail work, his coloring and shading of sunbursts, his unique inlays; all contribute to a timeless beauty as John and Jimmy's work did.

[iim7V7IM7]

I was not so much responding to your strong subjective affinity to the ornate art deco styling of John D'Angelico's guitars, but this particular absolute statement:

"John D (Jimmy too) the best archtop maker ever"

Liking styling is one thing, some folks like art deco, others do not. I also happen to think that they're very handsome and reflective of the time of their birth (I believe the New Yorker appeared in 1936, in response to the introduction of the Gibson Super 400 two-years prior). Ironically, Jimmy's response to 12-years of building ornate, geometric/symmetric, mother of pearl and plastic laden archtops was to remove the ornamentation. Being an excellent player he focused the next three decades on transforming the sound and look of the instrument from his master's paradigm.

I would say John D'Angelico was influential in the quality and sheer volume of his work over three decades and being in New York and getting them into the hands of influential popular musicians. He took the style paradigm of Kalamazoo to the next level, reflecting the architecture of his surrounds. Jimmy D'Aquisto was influential as an innovator luthier who transformed the traditions of the instrument to see where it could go both sonically and aesthetically.

Someone like Bob Benedetto was influential in his own way by teaching many of today's great luthiers the foundations of archtop lutherie through both apprenticeships, an open shop and educational materials. He also understood the power of getting one's instruments into the hands of influential guitarists. I also think he is one of the few luthiers I can think of who in his lifetime who cut his career short to sell his "brand" to factory makers (1999 to Fender).

I wasn't so much speaking to fit and finish, when I speak of "mastery", but the nexus of craft, sound and playability. They frequently co-exist, but not always. There are plenty of beautifully executed poor sounding/playing guitars out there.

[Max405]

As Ronjazz said, "timeless beauty".
Doesnt go out of style.
This whole conversation goes the same way as who was the best baseball player, Babe Ruth, Willie Mays, Mickey Mantle or Ken Griffey Jr? There is no answer. They are all great. Pick one. Run with it.
To me the greatest guitar ever made is the D'Angelico New Yorker. I wanted one. Can't afford one. So I got the next best thing. A faithful tribute to it, the HDA. Then I got the Excel. I can honestly say, my materialistic side is fulfilled. Now, I will learn how to play them.
Life is great.

[Cunamara]

D'Angelico, D'Aquisto, Benedetto, Monteleone, etc., are all situated in their respective times and their respective customer bases. John D built instruments largely for working professional musicians. Jimmy D did too but to a lesser degree because the market started to change- fewer pro jazz guitar opportunities and more hobbyists like me indulging themselves with a wonderful instrument. The pros were playing rock on Les Pauls, Strats, etc., instead of jazz on archtops. Benedetto, Monteleone, etc., seem to be mostly selling instruments to enthusiasts who can afford them rather than to gigging pros- the gigging pro market being too small to support the luthiery trade on its own. And that's great as it continues to increase the number of beautiful instruments in the world.

A few years back in one of these discussions either here or on rmmgj someone opined that boutique archtop luthiery has all become about the Johnny Smith guitar (17" X braced, 25" scale, floating pickup). I rather vehemently disagreed at the time but have since changed my mind. Smith's 1955 D'Angelico New Yorker (and the Gibson JS by extension) is pretty much the foundational guitar for modern luthiery and mostly it has been just tweaked over the past 60 years. D'Aquisto refined and innovated aesthetically in dramatic and beautiful ways, his later instruments being IMHO the most beautiful archtops ever made. But structurally most luthiers seem to be still building that 1955 D'Angelico (which sounds like a criticism but it isn't, as I think that was the greatest jazz guitar ever made. My own is a 17" X braced 25" with a floater. For a while I thought I had chosen somewhat wrongly as I wanted to sound like Jim Hall and should have bought an ES-175, but have come to really appreciate the sound I get).

There are of course exceptions, speaking structurally, and the most striking to me is Ken Parker's archtops which are a major rethink of the instrument. Someone also posted some information about another radical rethink but I can't recall who came up with it. The neck extends all the way to the bridge, basically a neck through design with the pickup installed on that, which is then placed as an assembly on the body of the guitar as a bolt-on neck with adjustable tension against the top. The few recordings I heard seemed very positive. By removing the string tenson from the top plate of the guitar, the body can be designed solely for resonance rather that having to structurally support the strings and bridge. Does anyone else recall this? I was very intrigued but neglected to bookmark anything.

[neatomic]

cheers

[iim7V7IM7]

I think that Cunamara nailed it when he identified that as popular music post-1950s moved from jazz to rock, R&B etc. popular musicians (those with financial means) had little need for an archtop, the most expensive of all types of guitars to make. John D'Angelico setting up shop in NYC in 1932 was perfect in that popular music was jazz, so these musicians made a decent living and could afford his work. For his first 20 years of his business, Jazz was king. The 1950s was a transitional period for music and a shift away from jazz being the popular music of youth.

Jimmy as has been pointed out, who started his business in the mid-1960s needed to rely heavily on hobbyist players with good day jobs as clientele. This paradigm of business is still true today due to the limited realities of gig, collapse of the recording/distribution business. I also think the logistic realities of travel have curbed the use of fine archtops. So today's luthiers, even the top ones have very limited professional musician clientele due to the dynamics described above.

Bob Benedetto while he began in the late 1960s didn't really become known/popular until the early 1980s. He was smart and did everything he knew how to get his instruments into the hands of the top players of the day. He knew that this was key to the success of D'Angelico. This helped grow his business and he became the best known luthier of his day and allowed him to cut a deal with Fender and later with well-to-do owners like Howard Paul/Dave Miner who created a small shop to make his guitars.

No luthier in the modern era will likely ever produce as many archtops, nor get them so ubiquitously into the hands of the top musicians of the day like John did. This will always be part of the enduring legacy of John D'Angelico in my view.

[kenbennett]

D'Angelico came with a unique pedigree, apprenticing to his luthier uncle at age 10, taking over the shop when his uncle died. Then at age 27 (1932) setting up his own shop in New York. He was born into it and made the most of it.

From the time D'Angelico first opened shop to the time of D'Aquisto's death is a very fruitful 63-year period. Between the 2 of them, they lived 118 years, with a combined 95 years in the business. Amazing!

Neither one of them made the most beautiful guitar ever. Such a thing does not exist for me. The beauty of a guitar is in it's essence, in the lines and contours, in certain necessary details that make a guitar what it is. I see this same beauty in almost every guitar, although with many there are certain features that seem arbitrary or even out of place. Even the busiest decorative elements are well-harmonized by D'Angelico. I would say that his instruments reach almost to the pinnacle of that beauty, but so do many, many others.

[Max405]

Ken, I was afraid to read your post.
I am glad I did. You nailed it bud. It really is in the essence. My Excel has essence in spades. It Is everything I thought an old guitar would not be. I player beyond belief. A solid instrument that sounds like a guitar would sound in heaven. But there is an aura that surrounds it that cannot be described. Essence. That's it!
Joe D

[kenbennett]

Ken, I was afraid to read your post.
I am glad I did. You nailed it bud. It really is in the essence. My Excel has essence in spades. It Is everything I thought an old guitar would not be. I player beyond belief. A solid instrument that sounds like a guitar would sound in heaven. But there is an aura that surrounds it that cannot be described. Essence. That's it!
Joe D

I have never played an original D'Angelico. Those of you who have held one probably know something that I don't, something beyond the visual appeal.

[Max405]

Funny thing about what I mean..
I am learning Johnny Smiths arrangement of "the Boy Next Door". It's very complicated requires every skill in the book and a guitar that can take it.. Well, I've been learning it on my Tal. So today I said "ahh, for the hell of it, I'll try it on the HDA." As I got into it I realized, it's easier to play it on the HDA. So when I am done, I pull out the Excel. I play Joe Pass's Can't Get Started. Piece of cake, every line, every chord, every 1/32 note, up and down the neck. So I said, you know what the hell in gonna try The Boy Next Door, so I dropped the Low E string down to a D and I played It. Wouldn't you know, It sounds JUST LIKE Johnny's version. No funky octave harmonics like on the JP or the Tal. Just pure clean notes. Like a piano. I couldn't put it down. When I was done the guitar looked up at me as if to say, "What? What did you expect? I'm a D'Angelico. This is what I was made to do and I've been doin it 30 years longer than you've been alive.. So wipe me down, you son a mum bitch and put me back in my display case. And don't forget to put some more water in the bowl, cuz I like that.."
Essence brothers. DA's have essence. In spades..
Joe D

[jasonc]

D'Angelico, D'Aquisto, Benedetto, Monteleone, etc., are all situated in their respective times and their respective customer bases. John D built instruments largely for working professional musicians. Jimmy D did too but to a lesser degree because the market started to change- fewer pro jazz guitar opportunities and more hobbyists like me indulging themselves with a wonderful instrument. The pros were playing rock on Les Pauls, Strats, etc., instead of jazz on archtops. Benedetto, Monteleone, etc., seem to be mostly selling instruments to enthusiasts who can afford them rather than to gigging pros- the gigging pro market being too small to support the luthiery trade on its own. And that's great as it continues to increase the number of beautiful instruments in the world.

A few years back in one of these discussions either here or on rmmgj someone opined that boutique archtop luthiery has all become about the Johnny Smith guitar (17" X braced, 25" scale, floating pickup). I rather vehemently disagreed at the time but have since changed my mind. Smith's 1955 D'Angelico New Yorker (and the Gibson JS by extension) is pretty much the foundational guitar for modern luthiery and mostly it has been just tweaked over the past 60 years. D'Aquisto refined and innovated aesthetically in dramatic and beautiful ways, his later instruments being IMHO the most beautiful archtops ever made. But structurally most luthiers seem to be still building that 1955 D'Angelico (which sounds like a criticism but it isn't, as I think that was the greatest jazz guitar ever made. My own is a 17" X braced 25" with a floater. For a while I thought I had chosen somewhat wrongly as I wanted to sound like Jim Hall and should have bought an ES-175, but have come to really appreciate the sound I get).

There are of course exceptions, speaking structurally, and the most striking to me is Ken Parker's archtops which are a major rethink of the instrument. Someone also posted some information about another radical rethink but I can't recall who came up with it. The neck extends all the way to the bridge, basically a neck through design with the pickup installed on that, which is then placed as an assembly on the body of the guitar as a bolt-on neck with adjustable tension against the top. The few recordings I heard seemed very positive. By removing the string tenson from the top plate of the guitar, the body can be designed solely for resonance rather that having to structurally support the strings and bridge. Does anyone else recall this? I was very intrigued but neglected to bookmark anything.

I believe you are talking about Nigel Forster's work.
http://www.nkforsterguitars.com/inst...chtop-guitars/

[Cunamara]

I believe you are talking about Nigel Forster's work.
NK Forster Guitars Archtop guitars - NK Forster Guitars

BINGO! Yes, that's them, thank you very much!. What an interesting rethink of the archtop guitar! I could not think of any search terms that found these.

[wintermoon]

Funny thing about what I mean..
I am learning Johnny Smiths arrangement of "the Boy Next Door". It's very complicated requires every skill in the book and a guitar that can take it.. Well, I've been learning it on my Tal. So today I said "ahh, for the hell of it, I'll try it on the HDA." As I got into it I realized, it's easier to play it on the HDA. So when I am done, I pull out the Excel. I play Joe Pass's Can't Get Started. Piece of cake, every line, every chord, every 1/32 note, up and down the neck. So I said, you know what the hell in gonna try The Boy Next Door, so I dropped the Low E string down to a D and I played It. Wouldn't you know, It sounds JUST LIKE Johnny's version. No funky octave harmonics like on the JP or the Tal. Just pure clean notes. Like a piano. I couldn't put it down. When I was done the guitar looked up at me as if to say, "What? What did you expect? I'm a D'Angelico. This is what I was made to do and I've been doin it 30 years longer than you've been alive.. So wipe me down, you son a mum bitch and put me back in my display case. And don't forget to put some more water in the bowl, cuz I like that.."
Essence brothers. DA's have essence. In spades..
Joe D

Joe,
Johnny's rendition of "Girl Next Door" is great.
Wes has a couple too, one on one of his strings lps and this superb video that most of us know

[Bach5G]

How much did John D charge for his guitars?

[Max405]

I spent a lot of time in my cave yesterday and I think I was hallucinating just a little.
But as you know, Guitars develop a personality when you get connected with them. The Excel really blows me away every time I play it. I really think putting it in the display case and stabilizing the temps and humidity made the setup even better. It really surprised me yesterday.
My Tal, which I've gone on record saying could easily be the only guitar I really need, felt like a boat anchor compared to the Excel and the HDA. If I rationalize this enough, The HDA (New Yorker) really could be the only guitar I own. But lets not get crazy here..

[wintermoon]

How much did John D charge for his guitars?

around what Gibson was charging for comparable models @ the time

[Max405]

Joe,
Johnny's rendition of "Girl Next Door" is great.

I never heard the "Girl Next Door" by Johnny Smith.
The "Boy Next Door" is one of Johnny's typical solo efforts that sounds more like a Chet Atkins take. God he was brilliant. I try and avoid the arrangements with the Drop D tuning like the plaque, but this one I couldn't resist.
Joe D

[wintermoon]

Joe, it's the same tune.
when men like Sinatra sing it, they change the lyric to 'girl', obviously

[iim7V7IM7]

around what Gibson was charging for comparable models @ the time

As was stated by wintermoon, John sold his guitars for a competitive price.

This from a 1936 Gibson catalog, the year John introduced the New Yorker, an L-5 cost $275 and a Super 400 cost (wait for it) $400. In today's USD thats about $4,700 for the L-5 and $6,800 for the Super 400.



If you look at a 1960 Gibson catalog (towards the end of John's career, a an L-5 cost $650-665 (plus a case) and a Super 400 cost $750-$775. In today's USD thats about $5,800 for the L-5 and $6,700 for the Super 400.

[Duotone]

(..) There are of course exceptions, speaking structurally, and the most striking to me is Ken Parker's archtops which are a major rethink of the instrument. Someone also posted some information about another radical rethink but I can't recall who came up with it. The neck extends all the way to the bridge, basically a neck through design with the pickup installed on that, which is then placed as an assembly on the body of the guitar as a bolt-on neck with adjustable tension against the top. The few recordings I heard seemed very positive. By removing the string tenson from the top plate of the guitar, the body can be designed solely for resonance rather that having to structurally support the strings and bridge. Does anyone else recall this? I was very intrigued but neglected to bookmark anything.

I believe you are talking about Nigel Forster's work.
http://www.nkforsterguitars.com/inst...chtop-guitars/

Sorry, I don't want to derail this thread but this rethinking of the structural parts that constitute a guitar (in terms of isolating the tonal and structural parts and then reassembling them) slightly reminds me of this - even more radical concept (in this case a -ahem - solid-body? guitar:

http://www.teuffel.com/english/guita...dfish_main.htm

[Stringswinger]

For a pure acoustic guitar experience, nothing beats the guitars of John D'Angelico and James D'Aquisto.

[2bornot2bop]

another iconic guitar featuring the great Phil Upchurch

[BigMikeinNJ]

Watched this video countless times. The man sure can play. It's obvious how sweet an experience it is for him to play it by his expressiveness and his "man" at the end.