In early unamplified era: Why archtops?

[Gabor]

Hi to All,

(Just for record: I love archtop jazz sound both unamplified and amplified)

However the evolution (or reason of invention) of archtops keeps bothering me. So we are in the unamplified era, so all acoustic feedback arguments safely can be ignored. When I read or hearing talk about old models of this era it is always stressed that guitars must have been "loud".

Well: A simple acoustic guitar is much louder than the super super tricky loud archtop model. Also the sound seems to be weak the superb archtop compared to a simple acoustic.

Still the finest construction and sky high priced archtops were used many times as a simple rhythm instrument.

A bit scary video, (

) with a superb Gibson (archtop) vs Martin recorded acoustically with the very same environments. First you hear the Gibson, it's a dream. then the Martin, its different, then the Gibson again: surprise: it's scary...

I must be miss something... but please do not explain: The different. I know it.
I am asking: Why even bothered the players in the unamplified era using archtops?

[mr. beaumont]

It's about being loud in the right frequencies.

[rob taft]

It's about being loud in the right frequencies.

To add to Jeff's comment which is right on, it is also about the quick attack and less overtones. An analogy would be a shotgun vs a rifle.

[goldenwave77]

This guy is doing slow strums, not really "4 to the bar" rhythm work. I think if you're doing that, the dreadnaught sound is too bass-heavy, and lacks distinctness.

(And I agree that a dreadnaught can be really loud. I have a Heritage 445, and the thing is a cannon, but somehow the sound is not snappy enough.)

There is a fellow on here who fronts a fine swing type band called The Campus Five (I'm forgetting his name). He is really an expert on this stuff.

[lawson-stone]

None of the music he plays is even remotely like the musical styles played by the early archtop players. If you play all the folk stuff with all the open strings in G or D, most flat-tops will shine. But I rarely see flat-top players doing 4-to-the-bar 3 and 4 note voicings in Ab or Eb.

[mr. beaumont]

By the way, listen to that video through a small, shitty speaker (like your phone) and tell me which sounds louder...

[mercosound]

I disagree that old archtops aren't as loud as old Martins. I've owned a couple of older Martins - 1951 D-18 and a 1965 D-21 - and occasionally join in acoustic jam sessions with pre-war Martins, and Loyd Loar mandolins. My 1940 Epi Deluxe is as loud as any of them, and louder than most. My friend's 1938 (9?) L-5 non-cutaway will dominate an acoustic jam session...

[Lionelsax]

None of the music he plays is even remotely like the musical styles played by the early archtop players. If you play all the folk stuff with all the open strings in G or D, most flat-tops will shine. But I rarely see flat-top players doing 4-to-the-bar 3 and 4 note voicings in Ab or Eb.

OK ?

He asks if it's OK, I think it is.

[lawson-stone]

OK ?

He asks if it's OK, I think it is.

Very nice indeed... but actually not very loud.

Also, the archtop in the OP video was not set up with heavy strings and high action.

[christianm77]

Hi to All,

(Just for record: I love archtop jazz sound both unamplified and amplified)

However the evolution (or reason of invention) of archtops keeps bothering me. So we are in the unamplified era, so all acoustic feedback arguments safely can be ignored. When I read or hearing talk about old models of this era it is always stressed that guitars must have been "loud".

Well: A simple acoustic guitar is much louder than the super super tricky loud archtop model. Also the sound seems to be weak the superb archtop compared to a simple acoustic.

Still the finest construction and sky high priced archtops were used many times as a simple rhythm instrument.

A bit scary video, (

) with a superb Gibson (archtop) vs Martin recorded acoustically with the very same environments. First you hear the Gibson, it's a dream. then the Martin, its different, then the Gibson again: surprise: it's scary...

I must be miss something... but please do not explain: The different. I know it.
I am asking: Why even bothered the players in the unamplified era using archtops?

Actually to my ear the L7 sounds more punchy!

The Gibson will cut. The Martin is too 'scooped' and will get lost in a rhythm guitar context. Great for situations where you don't have bass and piano and drums going on.

Notice that the Gibson is rather 'nasal' - it's putting most of it's energy out in the midrange. The Martin sounds louder to you perhaps because of it's louder bass range. Fabulous sounding guitar of course and it's a more pleasing tone in isolation.

Obviously the Martin Dreadnoughts are a common choice for Bluegrass rhythm guitar. I guess it's to do with the mix of that ensemble. With banjo and mandolin, that high mid cut is perhaps less important- anyone?

Experienced electric guitarists of course realise that the 'cut' in a guitar tone is to be found in the mid range - a sound that might be unpleasant in isolation but in context of the mix will cut through much better.

The Martin will top out after certain volumes. The more energy you put into the L7 - the heavier the strings and the higher the action the louder the instrument will sound. With the Martin there's a point where it's no longer going to get louder. The physics of the instrument. Rhythm guitarists would be using very high actions and heavy strings and the instrument would just deliver more and more.

Also, the guitarist is not playing in a style that brings out the best of the L7, but at least he's leaving the back free to resonate, which is a common error.

[Lionelsax]

I depends how the guitar is played, someone called "mr. beaumont" plays with a lot of guitars and it sounds as he plays, except when he adds ugly effects on his Ovation. I'm sorry, but everything is fine with every type of guitar.

[christianm77]

Oh opne more thing - archtops are designed to PROJECT their sound. You'll notice that while the Martin is louder when close mic'd the Gibson is louder in the first pairing - is that distance micing?

[christianm77]

Lastly I think if I wanted a practical guitar for playing swing rhythm guitar in todays world, I would probably go for a electro flat top. There's so many more amplification options for them, and acoustic volume isn't a huge consideration. Acoustic archtops are a pain in the bum to amplify.

[Lionelsax]

Lastly I think if I wanted a practical guitar for playing swing rhythm guitar in todays world, I would probably go for a electro flat top. There's so many more amplification options for them, and acoustic volume isn't a huge consideration. Acoustic archtops are a pain in the bum to amplify.

Why not a nylon solid body ?

[christianm77]

Why not a nylon solid body ?

Sure, if that's a sound you like.

Personally, I'm note a huge fan of the way the Godins sound, for instance, and I prefer the sound of a pick on steels to nylons if you pick heavy, which for me is part of the swing guitar vibe.

Also I'm not sure about rhythm guitar on nylon strings any more. YMMV.

[Lionelsax]

Sure, if that's a sound you like.

Personally, I'm note a huge fan of the way the Godins sound, for instance, and I prefer the sound of a pick on steels to nylons if you pick heavy, which for me is part of the swing guitar vibe.

Also I'm not sure about rhythm guitar on nylon strings any more. YMMV.

[mr. beaumont]

Lastly I think if I wanted a practical guitar for playing swing rhythm guitar in todays world, I would probably go for a electro flat top. There's so many more amplification options for them, and acoustic volume isn't a huge consideration. Acoustic archtops are a pain in the bum to amplify.

Ovation.

Swing rhythm is NOT the sound of nylon strings. And I love nylon strings, but...no.

[christianm77]

Since you seem strangely keen for me to justify my equipment choices. It's all personal preference. Sure Dutronc sounds great on nylons, but I miss the cut of the Argentine strung Maccaferri in this setting TBH. Perhaps he does too. But yes, it sounds good because he's playing it.

Also acoustic nylon and nylon piezo is a different beast and I've not found a sound I am 100% happy with for live work in that style of music.

I used to play a nylon string in a swing band a few years back but once I got the Macc I didn't look ... errr... back. I played a little bit on a gig the other night - most world music stuff so I was playing nylon - actually, and it was OK of course, fine for a couple of tunes. But not my ideal.

Also Gypsy Jazz is not quite the same thing as 30's Swing music.

For example acoustic archtops are not really ideal instruments for Gypsy Jazz, certainly not if they are set up in a period way. You would struggle to play any single string lead at all on one set up for orchestra use, although presumably not all archies were set up this way. Django hated playing archtops. But they are just right for what Allan Reuss and Dick McDonough were doing with chords.

But it's all personal taste. Thing about gear is you will sound like you whatever you play. The search for good gear is finding the set up that will allow you to sound like you with minimal fuss.

[rlrhett]

If you don't love the sound of an acoustic archtop, it is hard to explain. It is beyond just volume. I've been making guitars for a dozen years, but I still have a Martin I bought years ago and love. Put it in dropped "D" and play some Burt Janch and the thing is unbeatable. You get this full rich sound that blends together into a very hypnotic pool of sound. Listen to Tony McManus and it is hard to focus on which note is played when. The droning low "D" or "C" adds to a richness of the tapestry that takes you away. I love that sound, and acoustic archtops don't do that well at all.

On the other hand, when I try to play chord-melody on the Martin it feels like someone threw a blanket over the guitar. I don't hear the punch. I don't hear the clarity of the notes. The archtop sound is compressed in a good way. More focussed. The notes don't become a tapestry. They stand out. They sing.

That said, many archtops are LOUSY acoustic guitars. I think that the electric guitar came into being too soon after the archtop for the acoustic archtop to have the kind of maturing and development that the flat top had. Most archtop guitars today ARE electric guitars. Their resonating bodies seem to give them a sound through the amp that solid wood does not (although there are convincing arguments that the difference is only psychoacoustics). That doesn't make them good acoustic guitars.

But if you find a good acoustic archtop to play, I think you will see that it isn't just another over-complicated flat top. It is a different instrument with a different voice that a dreadnaught cannot recreate.

At the risk of seeming like I'm self promoting, I'll add a link to two videos of me playing my acoustic archtop strung alternately with steel and nylon strings. I can't get that sound out of any flattop I've ever built or owned. Even recorded with a cheap webcam mic in my office, I think you can hear it's not a flat top guitar.

Forgive the middling playing. My passion exceeds my skill level.

[christianm77]

Nicely put.

My feeling is that Gibsons for instance have got a lot less acoustic. I tried a 60's L5 that was a still a legit acoustic guitar despite having two pickups built into the top. While I wouldn't play it acoustic exactly, my old 175 has a surprisingly loud acoustic voice. I must try it with rounds.

Nowadays Gibsons lack resonance on the whole. The Eastmans are more like old Gibsons TBH.

But this has all been done for a reason perhaps.... Basically, an archtop with acoustic resonance is a pain when playing loud. So the guitars seem to have got more solid to suit modern players.

Really interesting to hear an acoustic archtop with nylons. Not something I've head before.

[rahsaan]

I wonder if it isn't a matter of style as much as anything? The flat-top is a folk (amateur) instrument, the archtop looks like a viol with f-holes and floating bridge, like an orchestral instrument that a serious musician would play.

[Cunamara]

In addition to all the reasons mentioned above, which are apparently not persuasive for everyone, there is one more that's at least been hinted at and maybe stated outright and I missed it:

Play an archtop and a flattop and have the listener stand 40-50 feet away (13-17 meters for metrical folks). The archtop will be much more audible in a band setting because of the frequencies it emphasizes; the flattop will be lost in the mix. Stand five feet away and the flattop will be much louder and quite likely sound better to most people's ears.

Even Joe Pass started out on a Martin flattop (an OM model, from the photos of the teenaged JP that I have seen). So did Johnny Smith. I played jazz for the first six years of my journey on a Takamine F340S dreadnought (and it still sounds good all these years later). Of course jazz can be played on any guitar. But when you're the unamplified acoustic guitarist in a big band, you want the archtop. If you're playing Piedmont style blues or James Taylor tunes, I think you want the flattop. The jobs of the instruments in those respective settings are very different.

The Gypsy jazz guitar splits the difference- part flattop, part archtop and really suitable only for Gypsy jazz...

[Lionelsax]

I don't know if this guitar had been really used for this.

[docsteve]

Love the sound of the archtop with nylons. I've got to try that myself.

And of course you can comp like that on a resonator guitar. It's much like playing a banjo, only that the notes can ring longer if you let them.

[mrcee]

I wonder if it isn't a matter of style as much as anything? The flat-top is a folk (amateur) instrument, the archtop looks like a viol with f-holes and floating bridge, like an orchestral instrument that a serious musician would play.

Check out Gabor Szabo