The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Posts 101 to 125 of 134
  1. #101

    User Info Menu

    Many (most?) recordings of "classic jazz guitar sounds" are using laminated guitars, so the idea that they're somehow inferior is mis-guided.

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #102

    User Info Menu

    Each guitar must be judged on it's own tonal merits. Period.

    So many variables. The wood. The skill of the builder. The type of construction. etc.

    In general. a laminated guitar will be more resistant to weather and feedback than a solid guitar (making a laminated guitar a good choice for a gigging musician in many cases.) That said, I had an Epiphone Joe Pass (laminated) that was a feedback monster.

    TRM nailed it in post #6

  4. #103

    User Info Menu

    What was Gibson's first laminate? The ES-300?

  5. #104

    User Info Menu

    To me, they’re “just different,” as you said. I wouldnt trade my 175 for an L5, because that’s my sound. Even though they are worth twice as much. Unless I could sell the L5 and buy my 175 back and keep the profit.

  6. #105

    User Info Menu

    I'm doing a run of 42nd street this week. I brought my Sadowsky for a rehearsal, going through a Bud, and it just didn't have that "jangle" for the hard 4x4 rhythm comping of the period. Brought my Eastman carved top the next day, perfect. Nice cutting brilliance, even with the humbucker. Ching-ching-a-ching-ching-a-ching...

    As most have previously pointed out, there's no better or worse, they're just different.

  7. #106

    User Info Menu

    I own three carved archtops (one acoustic, one with a floating pickup, one with two set-in humbuckers), and two laminated-body archtops (both with set in humbuckers).

    There is definite role for each type. For orchestral work, I like the fully acoustic archtop. For sensitive, duo and trio jazz I like the carved archtop with the floater. For more electric stuff I switch between the carved with humbuckers or one of the laminates with humbuckers. Generally, with higher volume gigs I always take a laminate.

    FWIW, though, there are just situations where the laminate will sound "better" regardless of volume. If you want the "thunk" of, say, a Tal Farlow-style bop gig, you will want to grab a laminate body archtop with a P90 or humbucker.

  8. #107

    User Info Menu

    So I have owned many, both carved and lams. "Usually" only one of each. So most recently I have an Eastman carved and a Sadowsky lam. I am REALLY enjoying the Eastman. The clarity, punch, snap, etc. Especially on 4x4 rhythm. Compared, lams sound like whacking on a dead pancake.

    Mayne I'm wrong. Ching vs Thunk.

    So if you had to have ONLY ONE TO WORK WITH, which would it be? For many years I was in the lam camp, I am now shifting toward solid carved.

    Here's my reasoning. I can mute or deaden the carved guitar in many ways. But there's NO WAY to get that glorious crisp acoustic archtop sound out of a lam.

  9. #108

    User Info Menu

    Laminate.

    Which of course is funny, as my main jazzbox is a carved solid top. But its maple, and overall the guitar plays/reacts more like a laminate.

  10. #109

    User Info Menu

    Main: Laminated. A carved top is a luxury for me. If I could have one it would be a good laminated.

  11. #110

    User Info Menu

    Both. I love the sound that a 175 gives, and it was my first owned archtop back in 1972, when I couldn't afford an L5. Before that, I played my older brother's Guild carved archtop. Nice, but I wanted my own. Watching and listening to Joe Pass, Jim Hall, Herb Ellis, and a boatload of other players convinced me that I didn't need a carved archtop to play jazz, but listening to Wes on his Wesmo instilled a lifelong love of the L5, which until late in life I could afford to own, fortunately. Call it a luxury, it may be, but hey, there are some awesome archtops out there, and I love trees and wood. I don't frown on laminates either. It's apples vs oranges to me.

  12. #111

    User Info Menu

    Both. I have three ES-175's and like them all about evenly at this point. If I had to, I could go down to one (but I would miss the other two, and which one to keep would be a hand-wringer). I have 7 carved archtops and at a minimum, I would want to keep two, one with a floater and one with built in PUPS. My last floater would be my 1948 D'Angelico Style B (I would miss the other three) and my last built in PUP carved top would be one of my L-5's (and I would miss the other L-5 and my Super 400CES).

    So long as I am able, I plan on keeping all ten of my archtops and do not plan on adding any more.

  13. #112

    User Info Menu

    It all depends on the gig : for solo, duo or (drummer-less) trio settings I tend to grab my Trenier lam-top, with the larger/louder ensembles my Super-400 or Super Eagle are the sensible choice. The Trenier has the more delicate, airy tone, with nice sustain and great dynamics which really come forth in quieter settings whereas the larger guitars deliver the punch and rotund bottom to fill out the rhythm section - I'm most often the only "harmonist" in the band so I don't have to take any keyboard voicings/sounds into consideration ;-)
    When playing with my organ trio the big boxes really cop the classic tones nicely so that's a no-brainer.
    I played a pop-soul-jazz gig a couple of weeks ago and took the Super Eagle strung with Thomastic 12's ROUNDwound and
    that was a cool sound - got me into the Eric Gale realm with the bends, the vibrato and the slight edge that the lighter strings allowed, I dig it !

  14. #113

    User Info Menu

    My '69 L-5CES has been my main gigging guitar for almost 30 yrs, though for one of my weekly gigs for the last 7 yrs I've been using an Aria PE-180. Not because I prefer it to the L-5, but more a matter of safety as there are frequently people dancing close to the band and I've been bumped into a few times.
    That said I might still use the lam Aria there anyway as it sounds great in that room at the higher volume we play w our B-3 trio, you'd be hard pressed to tell it from the L-5 in that setting.
    Last edited by wintermoon; 04-02-2020 at 12:43 AM.

  15. #114

    User Info Menu

    I own multiple examples of both, but the one I play about 90% of the time is a solid carved Wu. It just sounds better than any of my other guitars, both acoustically and amplified, including a couple of laminated Benedettos.

  16. #115

    User Info Menu

    Laminate. Can afford a good one, can't afford a carved archtop of any stature. Besides, my ES-175 1959 VOS outsounds anything I've had or currently have.

  17. #116

    User Info Menu

    There are acoustically dead, heavy carved tops (Gibson CES models) and there are acoustically lively, light weight carved tops (Vintage or Benedetto style). I have owned both kinds.

    I don't enjoy the amplified tone of the second category as much. Bright, acoustic tone coming from a guitar amp doesn't work for me. I didn't even like high end, boutique examples that I played in that category. Just a personal thing I guess.

    In the first category, I own a Byrdland. Compared to my ES 175 it's got a mellower attack and softer highs. Byrdland also has slightly less deep bass. But that's probably because of the body dimensions and pickup placement. I'd be happy with either as the only guitar. But I prefer the ES 175. I like the immediacy of the attack and ringing trebles. It's also perhaps slightly drier sounding. I also like the size and shape of the ES 175. I always wonder if I'd like an L4 even more. But I haven't tried one yet.

  18. #117

    User Info Menu

    My main gigging guitar is a laminate is an 1983 Epi Emperor F (it's basically an Aria PE-180 with Epiphone style cosmetics).

    I love the way it sounds and how it feels to play. They're made of thin/light laminates more like what Gibson used back in the 50s and 60s. It's nowhere near as heavy as a modern ES-175 for example.

    The downside is that it feeds back a little easier than a modern ES-175, the upside however is that there's a bit more acoustic presence there.

    I have a carved top Levin model 335 that I plan on having a DeArmond 1100 fitted to and ultimately start gigging with. It would benefit from a neck reset and maybe a refret, however with the current situation, seeing a guitar tech is not possible and obviously there's no gigs! Oh well, will be something to look forward to later.

  19. #118

    User Info Menu

    Laminate. The old '04 55th Anniversary ES-175 is just too practical to give up. I believe my '45 Epiphone Zenith has a solid carved top. If it doesn't, it sure sounds like it does! I've been pondering a DeArmond for it, as it has the elevated neck.

    Then again, the subject is moot, since I no longer gig.

  20. #119

    User Info Menu

    I only have one archtop, and it's laminated (it's the second of two laminated archtops I've owned). I don't know that I could say that I prefer lam to carved or vice versa. There are great sounding examples of both, and there are many different guitars that would make me happy. I recognize that are some characteristic differences (especially the Gibson lam sound vs the Gibson carved sound), but either would work for me, and it would just be a matter of getting used to whatever I have and learning to get the best sound out of it. But honestly, if I could only have one electric "jazz" guitar it would be semi-hollow (whether the top of one is lam, carved, or pressed is not particularly significant IMO).

    John

  21. #120

    User Info Menu

    I have always preferred the sound of a guitar with a solid top, whether flat top, arch top or classical. I've had guitars with laminate back/sides and a solid top which I liked quite well.

    I think if I was a touring or frequently gigging musician would prefer a laminate like an ES-175 or something, or probably even more likely a solid body. They are just going to be more stable.

    But in terms of tone, I like sustain rather than thunk and thus I prefer a solid top. I would say descending order of preference: my carve top, my Tele or my Strat over any laminate guitar I've ever tried. However, I have never tried an ES-350 or a Tal Farlow- and I really like the sound of those when I hear them.

  22. #121

    User Info Menu

    Laminate. I have two carved top archtops, so i am very aware of the volume and feedback limitations when gigging. A laminate makes things easier. Now only to find that lefty 175 for a normal price in Europe.... .. I 'll probably end up buying a Peerless gigmaster jazz or something since i like the 24 3/4 scale..

  23. #122

    User Info Menu

    With the caveat that carved means solid, pressed, or "laminated, but not like that", it depends what I'm holding at the moment. I'm in love with whatever I got until I put it down and pick up something else. then I can't imagine playing anything but that.

    You'd think I'd be better off with a laminate given I play so loud and like the extra pickup versatility, but I just love my g400 so.

  24. #123

    User Info Menu

    Like many, mine is plywood also.

  25. #124

    User Info Menu

    Carved. I have both, prefer carved for it's acoustic properties as well as amplified tone (as long as thunk isn't a requirement). It is definitely brighter than my laminate but adjusting the tone and eq can compensate.

  26. #125

    User Info Menu

    I have multiple examples of both, too.

    Like entresz, my main gigging archtop is a Matsumoku 17" laminate--basically an Aria Pro-II PE-180 with a different name on the headstock (Memphis EL-300). As Lawson Stone and others have stated, this is a fabulous guitar.

    However, if I could only have one archtop it would be my Unity 100th Anniversary model made by the late Aaron Cowles. This guitar is a carved guitar, made by the guy who for years did the top-end work at Gibson in Kalamazoo, and is sort of a D'Angelico meets L-5 guitar.
    Advantage of Carved Top vs Laminate-unity-100th-top-side-jpgAdvantage of Carved Top vs Laminate-unity-100th-headstock-jpg