-
Trying to get back to Jeff's original post, I'd only offer that the archtop guitar was not designed to play jazz. As I wrote HERE the archtop guitar was in existence long before Lloyd Loar made his version. And even when he did get around to it, he did so to play classical music in a quartet with mandolins. That banjo players got interested in it just as jazz was taking off is coincidence, so it's hard to argue that the design was a fail from a jazz point of view. Had Maccaferri guitars been plentiful in the US at that time, maybe they would have been used instead.
And, Maccaferri was also a classical guitarist in search of a more sonorous instrument, hence his ideas about an internal resonating soundboard or two concentric bodies. His ideas were aimed at a nylon-strung instrument, but Selmer also made a steel-string version which took off.
I find it quite ironic and amusing that both the archtop and the Maccaferri guitars were originally intended for classical music, yet were very quickly appropriated by jazz players, while being rejected by classical players. It might be regarded as sacrilege here, but to me the archtop is not a jazz guitar. It's a guitar. Period.
-
08-15-2018 02:53 AM
-
^^^^^ This ^^^^^
Originally Posted by Rob MacKillop
^^^^^ This ^^^^^ Originally Posted by Rob MacKillop
-
And this is nicely mirrored by the fact that the Les Paul guitar was designed for jazz, rejected by jazz, and eventually taken up by the next new kid on the block. Originally Posted by LtKojak
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
i think archtops are a massive failure, in such as they are designed to be above my price range for the ones i want
that's so dumb
-
Jeff,
I think a flaw in your original post may simply be that you're accepting the old belief that the acoustic archtop's original design intent was just "to be loud enough for the band's rhythm section." Therefore you are comparing it to other loud guitars, and postulating that perhaps the acoustic archtop didn't get quite loud enough as other designs.
This belief, apparently spread across the internet over the past 25 years, seems to have become legendary. You can read it everywhere.
My view is much simpler. The original generation of archtops were designed to be expressive acoustic instruments, period. But in the late 1930s, which is still a hella long time ago mind you, Mr. Christian and his Gibson ES-150 changed the entire trajectory of the instrument's design evolution. And that got us where we are today, in every respect (i.e. both acoustic and electric archtop designs).
As GT, Rob, and a couple of others either state or allude to, the earliest archtops are akin to classical guitars in many ways. They have a relatively short sustain but a clear, even attack and volume across all pitches; they are very sensitive to setup, technique, and have a rich if limited tonal range. You can elicit great nuance from them - they are truly chamber instruments, meant to be played in small reverberant spaces with a trained, purposeful touch.
However there is a catch, and it is that you must play some very early instruments in the archtop chronology to really experience this. A post-war Gibson, while a great and cool guitar in its own respect, only gets you part way there, because by that time the design had evolved into something slightly different.
As the caretaker of a late 20s L-5, I actually think that Gibson - in its classic fashion throughout the years - took a nearly perfect thing and gradually screwed it up. Loar made some real magic (mandolins, too). But within a few years after his departure, Gibson was already kerfing the braces and not tap-tuning the parts to specific pitches. Loar's design was already compromised. Obviously there are many wonderful Gibson archtops since the 1920s! But the earliest ones, I'm telling you, they simply are different and more expressive as a full on acoustic instrument for any type of solo or small ensemble music.
-
The Selmer Maccaferri guitar was designed with an internal resonator to increase the volume. It was intended to be played in an orchestra.
Django Reinhardt, the endorser, was a genius, one of the greatest players ever. Even though we have learned to appreciate his recordings and that his style is a school for new generations of players, I have to say that if Maccaferri really just wanted to improve the "sonorous" quality, he failed. If we by "sonorous" mean anything but loud. Fair enough, you can't express yourself if you don't get heard.
(Compare "projection". Most people don't know the meaning, but use it as a synonym for "loud".)
-
A well built acoustic archtop is no mistake nor is it a design failure in any way. Who builds well designed acoustic archtops well? Hmmm, there are a whole lot more mass market versions out there, and that's what I'll say.
My building ideal is still the Jimmy D'Aquisto I had the pleasure to play. It was balanced like a piano's range. It had a voice that sounded like wood, and the music that projected through it filled a room without a trace of harsh steel or stifled wood. A few builders have found this balance too, and those instruments are a joy to play. I have yet to find a flat top of any build that could rival the orchestral, chamber and solo qualities of a well built archtop. And I've played a lot of guitars, and built a number of them in my day.
Now to get those qualities into the hands of the everyday player...
David
-
My experience has been that while a grande-bouche Selmer style guitar performs very well for unamplified rhythm in a combo setting, especially without modern drums, it cannot cut it in a swing big band setting. There you need an archtop, and if the drummer uses modern heads and cymbals you need an amp.
-
This past weekend I had the chance to play three late 20s Gibson archtops. One of them was signed by Loar himself. Aside from Eric Schoenberg’s friendly chatter there was no ambient noise to try to cut through. I played a bit of counterpoint on each guitar, then some classical brazilian pieces, then even some flamenco. I felt the inclination to chunk rhythm zero times. To Rob’s point these didn’t attract me as jazz guitars but as guitars, period.
-
After playing bunch of D’Aquisto’s and Trenier’s this past summer, let me also echo the points made by David and Steve Q. As chamber instruments, these have hardly any competition.
-
As for the acoustic archtops use in a big band, it not only about loud. The flattop and the Selmer may have more bass in their tone but in a big band this strong bass is not needed and maybe even be unwanted because that part of the sonic spectrum is covered by the bass. If the guitarist also provides strong bass notes, a clash would be a risk. Note how well separated the piano, guitar and bass was in the Basie band and how well the three stayed out of each others ways. Also note that Freddie Green didn't use the low E-string much. The 19" Stromberg Master 400 instrument often had a stronger bass component than the smaller guitars, but some also felt that the 17" Strombergs actually "cut" better in an orchestral context than the 19". Barry Galbraith was one of them.
Of course, in modern days when the acoustic archtop is also used in many other band contexts than big band jobs and doesn't just play the 4-to-the-bar, the situation has changed - and so has the design of the archtop (lighter and more delicate build, thinner tops, X-braces instead of parallel braces, i.e. the Benedetto way of doing it).
-
Sigh, no one reads the OP anymore.
-
Originally Posted by rpguitar
I think multiple responses question the OPs assumption about the design goals of the original archtop. Instead of adding to that thread I question why you cling to a teleological evaluation of these instruments. “Because I believe these guitars are meant to do X, I will not acknowledge their ability to do Y.” Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
If your argument is simply that, given that archtops were designed to cut through larger swing ensembles, you must admit that Selmer guitars are superior in performing this task, then maybe people aren't interacting with it because it simply isn't a compelling point of discussion. I personally have no opinion on it. That Selmer/Macaferri style guitars can cut through a big band with more bass and volume is not something that will ever affect my day-to-day, even if I were playing a big band daily. Form a purely practical perspective, it helps to remind myself that amplification exists.
-
Jeff,
I read you. The SelMac guitars were not available in the US in the 20s, so the banjo guys couldn't have adopted them in dance orchestras. They could have adopted resonator guitars, of course, but chose the f-hole archtop instead. This was a clear choice of preference. The banjos they gave up were probably louder than either the resonator guitar or the SelMacs that they were unaware of.
Why did the dance band guys/gals gravitate to the archtop? I think Eddie Lang provides much of the answer. It was possible to hear a soloist like Lang on the guitar, whereas if he was using a flattop guitar, no dice.
Now, the same is true of Django on the other side of the pond. Who knows? If the Selmer guitar had been marketed in the US, maybe it would have been broadly adopted.
I, for one, however, prefer the radiused neck and action of the American archtop guitar to the flat, classical-influenced neck of the Selmer-style when playing jazz. It's a bit more of a fight with the instrument.
For an all-around guitar, I don't think I will ever see an instrument that tops my first instructor's D'Angelico. Beautiful and beautiful-sounding instrument. I just don't see how this is any sort of design failure. The D'A is a veritable lap piano.
-
Well, your premise was incorrect — archtops were not originally intended to be orchestral instruments — and so was your presumption that SelMacs cut better in a large ensemble. We read you, we just disagree. Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
-
Heck, I read the OP three times. You make statements but don't explain them, leaving the subject open to the interpretation you're seeing in the responses.
[italics mine]
"This cheap Lil guitar does the original intended job of an arch top much better."
What intended job are you referring to?
"So just regarding the original intent of the instrument...did the Franco-Italian connection get it right the first time?"
What was this original intent in your estimation?
-
To be heard and fit in visually in mandolin orchestras?
-
My 17” Stromberg (1945) cuts better in the big band than my 18” D’A (1953). When I discussed this with Bucky P a few years ago he said he thought 16” prewar Epis cut best of all. I recently acquired a 16” L7 (mid-30s) and am looking forward to trying it out in a big group. Originally Posted by oldane
-
One of the loudest guitars period I've ever heard was a 16" Loar 600. No kidding, really.
-
To my amusement, when the Selmac vs. archtop discussion happens on the Djangobooks forum, everyone (except me) opines on how much better the Selmac is in every way. Here the opposite seems to be true.
My 48 DA is ALMOST as loud as my Dupont oval hole Gypsy guitar. The loudest Gypsy guitar I ever owned was a D hole. But a resonator beats any Gypsy guitar for volume. I submit that there is more than raw volume to consider, and I think to the original question (intended purpose of the guitar) the other components, namely tone and playability need to be considered.
If you were a classical guitarist who played a guitar with a wide non-radiused neck and a 12 fret body join (and a 25.5 scale), the D hole Selmac would be a seamless transition into the world of steel string jazz guitar. But in America, the classical guitar was not the norm as Martin and Gibson had started a new tradition (radiused fingerboards, shorter scales etc.). And Django took the Selmac further from the American tradition with the extra long scale of the oval hole variation (though the 14th fret body join helped.) For an American guitarist, the classically inspired Selmac is a more difficult guitar to play.
I believe that if Django had lived longer, he would have become an ES-175 player. His brother Joseph did, as did both of his sons and his grandson. The electric archtop sounds better and is easier to play. A lot of the European Gypsy guitarists play archtops in Europe, but play a Selmac here, as that is what American fans of Gypsy jazz expect. While the Selmac remains popular for those who slavishly imitate Django's 1930's sound, it is not that popular in other genres. In recent years, more luthiers than ever have made these guitars and outside of Gypsy jazz purists, the design has not been very successful when competing against archtops and other flattops. As always, the marketplace decides.
The OP takes the view that the D hole Selmac is the perfect design for big band work rather than the archtop or the oval hole Selmac. Even among Gypsy jazz fans, the oval hole model is way more desirable than a D hole (better fret access? Django played one?). I think that those who like the sound of a dreadnaught will like the bass heavy D hole somewhat (they remain popular as rhythm guitars in Gypsy jazz), while those who like archtop tone will prefer the more balanced sound of the oval hole.
Guitarists are a conservative bunch. Most of us want to play the guitars of our heroes. Who knows? If the Franco-Italian guitar makers had better access to the American market, perhaps the Selmac would have been the design winner. But I do not think so. The best archtops are ALMOST as loud as the best Selmacs, but the best Selmacs sound ALMOST as good as the best archtops. I will take tone over volume all day long. Perhaps that explains why I own 4 acoustic archtops and only 1 Selmac?
To the OP: Jeff, it is great that you are thrilled with your Cigano D hole. IMO, the Saga Gypsy guitars (Gitane and Cigano) are amazing values. They are all over the board in quality so one may need to do some searching. The student model Ciganos often sound better that the more expensive Gitanes due to the finish. The thick poly finish of the Gitanes often kills the tone of the guitar, while the satin finish of the Ciganos lets the guitar breath better. I have owned many Saga Gypsy guitars and have found that their biggest weakness is the bridge. They use a heavy bridge which affects both tone and volume in a negative way. Try a lighter bridge (Dupont bridges did the trick for me on several Gitanes) and you will probably like your Cigano even more.
-
I have a Loar LH700 that lives at my parents house. It is loud. I mean loud. And that's the only adjective I can ascribe to it.
-
Yes, The Loar guitars generate loads of volume and are good values. They are designed to be like pre-War guitars.
-
Interesting discussion!
Any question as to the guitar replacing the banjo . . .
-
I’ve played some little ‘30s Epiphone Olympics that can rattle the windows.
-
Me, too!
It was claimed that when Freddie Green switched from his Epiphone to the big Stromberg, listeners could no longer hear him. This ultimately led to his switch to the big Gretsch. Suddenly, Green popped up again in the rhythm section.
Reply With Quote
Recommandations for Hollowbodies for $600 and under?
Today, 05:20 AM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos