-
I'm trying to understand the differences between the different kinds of jazz guitars out there.
Are the two camps simply either carved archtop or laminate? Is there such thing as a laminate archtop? I'm a bit confused by all the terms and am hoping for some clarification. In my mind as of right now jazz guitars are either carved archtops or laminate constructed.
What about guitars that've got a carved top, but laminate sides + back; are they hybrids?
What are the advantages of a carved guitar over a laminate? (and vice versa)
What are the applications of a carved archtop in 2016? My understanding is historically they were made to produce lots of volume in order to keep up with the rest of the band, but with most folks plugging in today, what's the reason behind it?
Maybe my ears are used to a certain sound after a decade as a 'normal' guitar player, but after watching lots of videos demonstrating some very high-end carved archtops (Monteleone, for example), I've come away thinking they sound incredibly thin.
What's the difference between a carved archtop and a laminate in a scenario where both have pickups and are being played through an amp?
In the event that someone will be playing their guitar exclusively plugged in, is there any point in getting a carved archtop over a laminate?
What sonic differences do lower bout measurements (i.e. 16" vs 17") and body depths introduce?
What could a high-end (i.e. $21k) laminate offer over a $4k one, sonically speaking? More specifically (and these are only examples), what's the benefit of, say, a Manzer Blue Note over a Gibson 175? Of course the Manzer has the prestigious name and supreme materials + construction behind it, but at the end of the day, will it play/feel and sound so much better over the venerable 175 that the massive premium can be justified?
The reason I'm asking all these questions is because last week I was dangerously close to pulling the trigger on an incredibly expensive archtop made by a well known builder, but a friend intervened and got me questioning myself... it's clearly a guitar with (for me) very limited ability when compared to most laminate offerings. The reason I was so keen on getting it was that I'm a massive fan of the builders design/aesthetic, high quality materials and attention to detail. While the case for laminate is currently much greater, I'm still quite keen on getting the guitar I originally wanted, but with a pickup added (the builder offers that) in order to help remedy the 'drawbacks' of a purely acoustic instrument.
I know I'm asking a lot of questions, but I also know there's no better place than this to help answer them. I look forward to posting lots more around here!
-
11-16-2016 12:10 AM
-
Welcome to the forum, HF
I suspect you'll get a lot of feedback on your questions.
The search tool will help you dig up lots of threads along similar lines.
What sort of archtop sound, or jazz guitar player, are you attracted to?
-
Hey, thanks for the welcome! I'm looking forward to spending time around this incredible site- it has already been a tremendous wealth of information for me prior to signing up.
Regarding the sound I like and players I'm attracted to... I'm still very new to the genre (always admired it, but only recently began paying attention), but so far really like Julian Lage and Kenny Burrell. There are others, the playing of whom, I enjoy greatly, but the sound of Julian and Kenny really stick out so far. I'm sure my answers will change as I absorb more and more jazz, but this is it for now.
Originally Posted by rictroll
-
As in anything nowadays there are numerous choices available at many price points $ to mega $
The basics are as follows: Laminate + less feedback which translates to better in higher volume settings. Come in various sizes and depths from basically 14"-17" width and 2" -3&3/8ths" depth Usually have built in p/ups cut into the top but newer versions from some luthiers offer floating pickups usually Kent Armstrong
Some Examples: Gibson ES-175,275,330,339,446 & Tal Farlow, Heritage KB Groovemaster,H-575,530,550,etc.
Benedetto Bambino Std, Deluxe, Bravo, Bravo Deluxe Many luthiers such as Stephan Holst,Roger Bory's,Bryant Trenier,etc. offer high end laminate builds from $3k on up!
Carved Tops: More detailed tone, prone to feedback at higher volumes, better in in intimate settings. Although Gibson L-5CES seems to be able to w/stand feedback better due to thicker top and 2 p/ups cut into top.
Some other Good Examples: Gibson L-5C acoustic, Johnny Smith, Super 400C, L-4C, L-7C Heritage, sweet 16,Golden Eagle,Super Eagle,etc. Many great luthiers such as John Buscarino,Bill Comins, Ted Megas, Bryant Trenier,etc. these range anywhere used $4k-12K and $6k-$20K and above new.
Cheaper alternatives which are excellent instruments Eastman. 2008 and newer are your best bet used $1k-$2k Having owned numerous models from this company I highly recommend them as a great starting point. You will get 90% of what you need at a very modest price. My personal recommendation are 810CE, 803CE, and JP 880CE
Hope this helpful as a primer and best of luck on your tone adventure!
-
The best way to learn these things is to play as many guitars as you can, plugged and unplugged. The thing is to find the sound and ervonomics that works for you (which in my case was not the sound I had thought it was going to be). Youtube is a great- but often frustrating- resource for hearing examples of different guitars.
While the archtop is the stereotypical guitar of jazz, don't overlook semi-hollows (ES-335, etc.- Grant Green, perhaps) and solidbodies (Tele, Strat, Les Paul, etc.- Ed Bickert, Ted Green, Tim Lerch, Lorne Lofsky, Lenny Breau, Clint Black, etc.). Or the classical guitar (listen to Gene Bertoncini, Lenny Breau again, for example) or even the flattop guitar (like Gabor Szabo).
While I thought the sound I wanted was the ES-175, it turns out that the sound I wanted is a carved archtop with a floating pickup (guitar made by forum member Matt Cushman and pickup by Pete Biltoft). It is what suits how I play. I have an Ibanez GB10 that I've had for 30 years, a Frankensteiny Partocaster I built 25+ years ago, a couple of Teles, a couple of nylon strings and the very first guitar I bought in 1979, a Takamine F340S dreadnought. I find I have a slow rotation through most of those guitars, although the most constant is the carvetop.
Also, finding your amp is a big part of finding the tone you want. That's a whole 'nother thread!
-
Love your handle, Hogtown Fatty! Squeal like a pig! Oink!
Horses for courses.Last edited by Jabberwocky; 11-16-2016 at 04:43 AM.
-
….And, given your location, why not spend an afternoon at the Twelfth Fret, which is in Hogtown, trying out a pile of guitars? They have a reasonable selection of carved as well as laminated archtops guitars, as well as semis, solid-bodies and more. Originally Posted by Cunamara
-
If you like Julian Lage, he plays the whole range of guitars, from costly old L5s through costly old Martin flat-tops, to old costly telecasters, and sounds great on all of them! Don't allow the words costly and old to intimidate you, try lots of guitars, find one (or more) that speaks to you and play it. Finding your own voice is what matters, the exact type of guitar doesn't. Its taken me a lifetime to figure that out.
-
Hey Hog,
Welcome!
Lots of questions ...
Just to address the recent event, though: unless you are a wealthy collector of nice guitars, I would NOT recommend buying an expensive archtop as your first archtop! If you search around this Forum, you'll find people's taste, desires, sound, "vibe," etc. evolve over time with jazz and our instruments, and the chances are you'll buy another guitar within the year. You may or may not sell the expensive one (likely at a significant loss, unless it's made by a small handful of builders!), but you may play and like the second one more.
If you have money to burn, great, there are tons of nice guitars in the $1000-2000 range that will last a life time, and some even in the $700 range -- buy one, see what you like, and then grow from there. In a few years, if you find a nice $5000 guitar that fits your needs, then grab it.
Enjoy the process!
-
There are all laminate archtops such as the popular Gibson ES-175, ES-125, ES-330/335, and virtually all "lower end" archtops built off shore such as those by Ibanez and others. Most of these "lower end" archtops are pretty damn good. Originally Posted by Hogtown Fatty
There are archtops with solid tops that are either carved by human hands or carved by CNC machine. Back and sides can be either laminate or also solid. Solid top is more expensive than laminate top.
They're not considered or called hybrids. They're just another version of an archtop. Generally, solid top is supposed to result in a better acoustic tone compared to laminate top. It also suggests/implies a higher quality instrument.What about guitars that've got a carved top, but laminate sides + back; are they hybrids?
In reality, none. The difference (not necessarily advantage) will be in the tone and possibly acoustic volume and perhaps the weight. Carved will be more expensive due to the additional labour and cost of the select piece of wood for the top (and back and side if applicable). But that doesn't mean that the resulting tone is better for you.What are the advantages of a carved guitar over a laminate? (and vice versa)
Right. Historically archtops were built with solid woods and they had large volume bodies to produce more acoustic volume before the electric era. Then pickups were added to the only orchestra guitars that existed at the time - archtops - and they became electric guitars. And they're still here today despite the invention of the solid body electric guitar - which could have rendered the archtop obsolete/extinct. I think the reason they're still here is aesthetics, the look and feel of them, and they can produce a different tone than a solid body guitar. And they certainly can be played acoustically whereas there's little acoustic tone/volume from a solid body guitar without an amp. For most people part of the experience of playing a guitar is not just the music they hear coming from the guitar, but also the look and feel of what they're holding in their hands. And then there's Ed Bickert, who made beautiful music on what sounded like it was probably an archtop, but was actually a beat-to-hell old telecaster.What are the applications of a carved archtop in 2016? My understanding is historically they were made to produce lots of volume in order to keep up with the rest of the band, but with most folks plugging in today, what's the reason behind it?
You're paying the hourly rate for a highly skilled luthier who also has to make mortgage payments, car payments, buy food and otherwise try to have a decent life in this society. It's going to cost a lot of money to buy their time for the 1 month it takes to build your guitar. That's where most of that price difference is. And, you get quality of workmanship and materials that probably can't be matched by any factory. And for all that, you could still end up with a guitar that you don't particularly like in terms of tone or play-ability. Could, although not likely.What could a high-end (i.e. $21k) laminate offer over a $4k one, sonically speaking? More specifically (and these are only examples), what's the benefit of, say, a Manzer Blue Note over a Gibson 175? Of course the Manzer has the prestigious name and supreme materials + construction behind it, but at the end of the day, will it play/feel and sound so much better over the venerable 175 that the massive premium can be justified?
I would advise what someone else has already advised on here : go to the 12th Fret and try a bunch of different guitars. They have $800 import laminates and $10K locally built hand made guitars. Learn the differences in tone and feel and all that and then see if you're still motivated to spend the big $. I wouldn't buy based soley on method of construction, solid vs laminate or factory-made vs hand made.The reason I'm asking all these questions is because last week I was dangerously close to pulling the trigger on an incredibly expensive archtop made by a well known builder, but a friend intervened and got me questioning myself...Last edited by va3ux; 11-16-2016 at 09:09 AM.
-
The amp and effects (if any) have more to do with an artist's tone than the type of guitar.
The biggest thing is of course the player himself.
Kenny Burrell amp:
Kenny Burrell | Vintage Guitar(R) magazine
"What are using for amps these days?
I prefer a Fender Twin for the most part. I was one of the first to use a Twin; I got one in Detroit and liked the extra bite. I like a fat, warm sound, so I set the Treble lower, the Bass medium, and pump up the Middle. I sometimes use a Roland JC-120 Jazz Chorus as a substitute. When I don’t have to play loud, I might use an old Polytone or Heritage Kenny Burrell amp. I am also checking out the new Fender George Benson 1×12 for smaller gigs."Last edited by Drumbler; 11-16-2016 at 09:32 AM.
-
I am just curious: what kind of a laminate costs $21 000? Monteleone? Marchione? Mirabella? Mancini*?
It sounds like a New York mafiosi's convention.
*Somewhere out there, there must be a guitar-maker named Mancini.
-
And there is. I just found him: Mancini Guitars | Facebook .
-
The ES-175 is played by countless jazzers, and was the guitar of choice for Jim Hall, Joe Pass, and Pat Metheny for periods of their careers. So the simple answer is that the massive premium is not intrinsically justified, period. However, one reserves the right to override that and personally justify it. Originally Posted by Hogtown Fatty
Sometimes a special, valuable guitar simply makes you feel good to own and play. It's as simple as that. But don't expect miracles of any other variety.
-
Welcome, Hogtown Fatty, to the site. You do realize, don't you, that coming to a site full of very opinionated (well intentioned) jazz guitar fanatics and asking the types of questions you're asking, you risk breaking the internet?
Originally Posted by Hogtown Fatty
-
Stringswinger says this all the time.
A couple of months ago, I finally realized what he means.
You have to want a particular guitar. And you have to become INSPIRED by it. And then, you will play it all the time. It will bring you joy. And magically, you will get better.
And one more thing, the truly great players may own Many Guitars. But they really only PLAY one..
So when you find the one, you are blessed.
JD
-
Originally Posted by jads57
FWIW
the ES 446 Gibson is a carved spruce top
the back and sides are carved as a single unit from a slab of mahogany
-
This site gave me the information to buy my first couple of archtops. And saved me a bunch of money. And infected me with this unquenchable thirst for More! Primarily more skill and music theory knowledge and that is a good thing.
For any guitar you want to know about use the forum search function. The breadth and depth of knowledge here is astounding.
-
The Linda Manzer Blue Note is a laminated top/back 16" archtop with solid maple rims. I have not checked current pricing, but it is not inexpensive. Originally Posted by Jabberwocky
Manzer is not one of the boys in the M crowd. She could at least offer a Manzerini model. Manzerella? Manzerone? It would come with glue-on handle-bar moustaches and a free pizza.
-
So the archtop guitar was invented early in the 20th century as part of a range of efforts to make guitars louder. It had a top and back carved into an arch like on a violin. The top was usually spruce, like on a violin family instrument or a flattop guitar. You could call these "acoustic archtops."
Archtops began to be amplified in the late 1930s, with pickups sometimes cut into the top and more often "floating," not touching the top. And right away a problem appeared: feedback. An instrument designed for maximum acoustic volume will start feeding back readily.
One solution was laminated tops, in which plywood would be pressed onto a mold to form an arch shape. These were less impressive acoustically, but had many advantages for performance--cheaper to make, more durable, and when they were amplified they still had much of the characteristic sound of an archtop, but less prone to feedback. If you made the back and sides out of plywood, you got the same advantages/disadvantages--greater durability, less expensive construction, less feedback, less complex acoustic tone with less sensitivity. Laminated top guitars will more often have pickups cut into the top, since they aren't imagined as primarily acoustic instruments. Maybe call them acoustic/electric archtops. The Gibson ES-175 is the famous example.
The next step was solid bodies, which we all know, and semi-hollow bodies, in which the pickups and bridge are set into a solid block of wood, but the body is partially hollow. Like a Gibson Es 335. Personally, I regard these as kind of a waste of time, just get a solid body and stop pretending, but obviously many people disagree and much great music has been played on them.
In general, solid wood archtops are more sensitive, and more lively to play: more like an acoustic instrument. Some ES-175s sound awful when they aren't plugged in, and wonderful when plugged in. But a good plywood instrument can be very impressive acoustically if it's well made. Personally, I think solid top/ply back and sides is a good way to go--plywood is structurally much stronger and stiffer than solid wood and that can offer some real advantages. Selmer "Gypsy" style guitars use a solid top and laminated back and sides. But the bottom line is how it sounds to you. If your sonic idea is amplified jazz--like burrell and lage--then the extra money spent on a solid wood, carved top might not be worth it.
To me, the key thing about an archtop, whether it's an acoustic archtop or a laminate designed primarily to be amplified, is the "attack envelope," the pattern of sustain and decay. To my ears, archtops have generally less sustain but more body to the note--they have an initial "thunk" or "pop" or bounce on the note that's harder to accomplish with a solid body. It's hard to describe. I came up playing solid bodies and and flattops and the first time I tried a real acoustic archtop I was just puzzled--what the hell? I feel like I had to learn how to play them: it was like understanding different dialect. Once I got comfortable with archtops I had a hard time going back to solid bodies, and when i did I was always trying to get the sound I got from an archtop. You can do it--you can make a telecaster sound pretty much like as ES-175 if you work at it. But you have to have the experience/muscle memory of playing an archtop to do so, imho.
I would look at an inexpensive solid wood archtop like one of the eastmans. Some maybe be "pressed" solid tops rather than carved. I would look for an instrument that has the characteristic archtop attack/decay pattern, and get familiar with that.
-
You like Burrell and Lage - you could have worse taste! I absolutely revere those two. Depending on which Lage you are referring to, though, the guitars that would appeal to you could be quite different animals, because Lage is also a master ACOUSTIC player. In general people seem to favor archtops + amp more. The archtop by itself doesn't get nearly enough love. Personally, my first - and last - jazz guitar teacher played an acoustic archtop (I don't remember the brand, and whether it was a solid top or a laminate, or what type of strings he used) and had about the most gorgeous tone I've ever heard anywhere, live, on records, anywhere. To me most, not all amplified tones aren't nearly as beautiful. Kenny Burrell's tone meets the mark of course, it is unsurpassed. So to me that's kind of where the reference tone and technical conundrum and musical quest reside, and amplification is just that... amplification, but I'm probably in a minority.
-
Just to add to the conversation, a Japanese made Ibanez is not a "low end" instrument. They may be cheaper than some, but since about '78 (when Jim Donahue kicked the bar through the roof of Fuji GenGakki) they have definitely come into their own. The Japanese both know and love guitars and Western style music as well as any other country and put together beautiful instruments.
I would definitely suggest checking out a used Ibanez for your first archtop as you can get great quality in a laminate topped guitar or a semi-hollow for very decent money.
-
Also to the op: the size of the box was related to volume--check out the big strombergs that Freddie Green played: a 19 inch bout. If you are amplifying it, the huge size isn't really helping anything.
The thing about acoustic archtops, IMHO, is the character of the sound--the attack envelope, as mentioned above, but also midrange focus and the lack of jangle. If you want to hear what acoustic archtops were originally designed to sound like listen to Eddie Lang--no amps. A tune like "April Kisses" gives you one sound, and then any blues he played on gives you a different sound. Or listen to Maybelle Carter, who played a gibson L5
It's a great sound, but it's not your generic modern acoustic flattop sound. It's not thin at all, but it's not sustainy. it's focused and punchy.
I have a big acoustic archtop, a 1978 Guild artist award. It's got a great tone. It's really good for complicated or extended chords because it's harmonically clearer--there's not a lot of jangle getting in the way. It's got a lot of bark for chucnking out the changes
But sitting around with a big archtop is sort of uncomfortable and playing live is more dicey because of feedback. But it's a cool tone
-
I agree completely and I actually wasn't thinking of the Japanese-made Ibanez at all when I made that statement. I was thinking of the Chinese made Artcore and Expressionist lines. Thanks for clarifying this Originally Posted by jim777
Reply With Quote
Recommandations for Hollowbodies for $600 and under?
Today, 05:20 AM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos