When Did Acoustic Archtops become Electric?

[campusfive]

Yes to much of this thread, but there's a couple odd things mixed in.
Here's a rundown:

1936 - Gibson introduces the ES-150, the first commercially viable electric guitar. It's based on their existing L-50 acoustic archtop, but they changed the bracing to support the (heavy) CC pickup, and the long magnets hidden underneath the top. Other than the top, they're identical, so they probably just made the corresponding top when an order came in. And I don't think they deadened the top to compensate for feedback, because my 1937 ES-150 is really lively for something with huge ass pickup attached to it.
1939 - Gibson introduces the ES-250 (and then later the ES-300), based on a 17" L-7 (more or less) - how the tops were carved is a mystery to me, since 250's are among the rarest guitars of the era, however, I'm fairly certain that these were not deadened intentionally - you can still hear Charlie Christian's acoustic rhythm sound in the room when he rolls down the volume knob on all the Goodman Sextet studio recordings whether they were on his 150 or 250.
mid-1941? - Gibson retires the CC pickup. For the ES-150, they use an early version of a P-90 in the bridge position. My experience with these is that they are as acoustically viable as the previous 150CC. Various experimental pickups were used on the 300's, all slanted like a stratocaster. But as the war is going, there's a lot experimentation, using up of spare parts, and a general lack of standardization.
1946 - post war, the ES lines is revamped, and they use laminate tops and the new P-90 pickup. While being hollowbody guitars, these are clearly the first major concession to making them dedicated electric instruments. There's no question that by the time Gibson introduces the L5CES, and then later models like the ES-175, these are deliberately built to be electric guitars, and as such, have less resonant tops to fight feedback.

The question is when the focus on amplification caused the construction of guitars that were still fully acoustic to suffer. The post-war 40's produced a lot of really huge sounding L-5's and L-7's, and I've heard examples as late as 1952 that still had "it". But somewhere around then is when most folks think they stopped making good acoustic archtops, generally. I'm sure their might examples, especially if they were custom ordered, that were good acoustic instruments, but, by then, I think even the non CES L-5s were made expecting them to be amplified with a DeArmond or the like, and were thus deadened.

[wintermoon]

Yes to much of this thread, but there's a couple odd things mixed in.
Here's a rundown:

1936 - Gibson introduces the ES-150, the first commercially viable electric guitar. It's based on their existing L-50 acoustic archtop, but they changed the bracing to support the (heavy) CC pickup, and the long magnets hidden underneath the top. Other than the top, they're identical, so they probably just made the corresponding top when an order came in. And I don't think they deadened the top to compensate for feedback, because my 1937 ES-150 is really lively for something with huge ass pickup attached to it.
1939 - Gibson introduces the ES-250 (and then later the ES-300), based on a 17" L-7 (more or less) - how the tops were carved is a mystery to me, since 250's are among the rarest guitars of the era, however, I'm fairly certain that these were not deadened intentionally - you can still hear Charlie Christian's acoustic rhythm sound in the room when he rolls down the volume knob on all the Goodman Sextet studio recordings whether they were on his 150 or 250.
mid-1941? - Gibson retires the CC pickup. For the ES-150, they use an early version of a P-90 in the bridge position. My experience with these is that they are as acoustically viable as the previous 150CC. Various experimental pickups were used on the 300's, all slanted like a stratocaster. But as the war is going, there's a lot experimentation, using up of spare parts, and a general lack of standardization.
1946 - post war, the ES lines is revamped, and they use laminate tops and the new P-90 pickup. While being hollowbody guitars, these are clearly the first major concession to making them dedicated electric instruments. There's no question that by the time Gibson introduces the L5CES, and then later models like the ES-175, these are deliberately built to be electric guitars, and as such, have less resonant tops to fight feedback.

The question is when the focus on amplification caused the construction of guitars that were still fully acoustic to suffer. The post-war 40's produced a lot of really huge sounding L-5's and L-7's, and I've heard examples as late as 1952 that still had "it". But somewhere around then is when most folks think they stopped making good acoustic archtops, generally. I'm sure their might examples, especially if they were custom ordered, that were good acoustic instruments, but, by then, I think even the non CES L-5s were made expecting them to be amplified with a DeArmond or the like, and were thus deadened.

250 tops were carved and X braced like the 150 except the extra inch for the 250, even after Gibson had returned to parallel bracing on their acoustic archtops in mid '39.
Just a note, the majority of L-50s after '35 had arched backs, though there are some exceptions.

[Litterick]

The question is when the focus on amplification caused the construction of guitars that were still fully acoustic to suffer. The post-war 40's produced a lot of really huge sounding L-5's and L-7's, and I've heard examples as late as 1952 that still had "it". But somewhere around then is when most folks think they stopped making good acoustic archtops, generally.

As an historian, I just wish somebody had said so at the time. I have burrowed through the magazines of the 50s and 60s on Google Books. All I can report is that everybody was relentlessly (and tiresomely) upbeat about the quality of Gibson guitars. This is true of not just the music trade press but also the timber trade press: never is heard a discouraging word about Gibson in the pages of the National Hardwood Magazine or the Wood-Worker. And Gibson had the endorsements of most of the best players.

But, then again, one story from the National Hardwood Magazine in 1960 (Vol 34, page 33) provides a clue:

Gibson quality is the result of using the finest materials for the purpose by craftsmen with a desire to produce only the best in workmanship, tone, design, beauty and durability. A tribute to Gibson quality and workmanship is the large number of Gibson instruments still in use that were manufactured thirty to sixty years ago. Many individual players are constantly searching for an old Gibson that has not been mistreated, knowing that age has improved its tonal qualities.

Perhaps they stopped improving with age. I don’t know how, but could it be so? Perhaps it is only now, seventy years on, that we notice a difference.

[campusfive]

250 tops were carved and X braced like the 150 except the extra inch for the 250, even after Gibson had returned to parallel bracing on their acoustic archtops in mid '39.
Just a note, the majority of L-50s after '35 had arched backs, though there are some exceptions.

Sorry, I meant "how tops were braced", not "carved". Thanks for the info.

[campusfive]

As an historian, I just wish somebody had said so at the time.

Yeah I'd be a lot easier if people realized what was going on at the time. But as a historian, you have to look at the perspective/bias of the primary sources: nobody wanted or cared about acoustic archtops any more. At this point in history, almost everyone who still owned an acoustic archtop had put a DeArmond on their guitar, or sadly, they drilled out the tops and put P-90's and humbuckers on the them. The main goals of the time were making archtops that would thrive amplified, so these changes were supposed to be a good thing. So of course they didn't write about them being worse acoustic instruments at the time because they weren't really being used that way. You mention all the top players of the time, and well... who still played an acoustic archtop, let alone acoustically? So a guitar that didn't feed back WAS a better guitar to them.

Even now, finding a properly acoustic archtop being made now is not easy because people don't use them (except for fanatics like me). I mean, I'm a fierce partisan about preserving acoustic archtops in swing era jazz, but it took me almost 15 years to find a workable, practical amplification regimen that also sounds good, and actually preserves the acoustic timbre and response of the instrument.

It's like with Martin changing their guitars from their magical specifications in the 1930's because the guitars were a bit fragile, and they wanted to make them to be more durable. On the one hand, nobody wants a guitar they're gonna have to send back for repairs because it's built too lightly. Of course, it took a long time for people to realize these changes resulted in worse sounding and responding guitars.

[sgosnell]

Once again, everything about an archtop, or any other guitar, is a compromise of some sort. The perfect archtop cannot exist. You cannot have great acoustic volume and tone, and at the same time have feedback resistance and durability. Different makers, and their different models, compromise at different points, but it's all a compromise. I'm less concerned with feedback resistance than I am with tone and volume, but I'm not a large market sector by myself. Even with all of us included, if we miraculously formed one solid bloc, would be a tiny market share. Factories and large corporations focus on larger consumer demographics. Fortunately there are still a few individual craftsmen who cater to us, whatever our preferences.

[nopedals]

That's an interesting theory about 50s acoustics not sounding as good as the earlier ones. In my limited experience, it rings true, but most 50s acoustics I have played have been cutaways, and the 30s-40s ones have been non-cuts, so not a fair comparison.

I think that the tops are different; the adirondack spruce got used up due to WW2 aviation needs, and Gibson and Martin switched to sitka (Steinway switched to sitka soundboards at the same time).

Once again, limited experience, but I have been impressed with the sound of 50s-60s L5Cs and Johnny Smiths, not so much 50s-60s L7s. There's no feeling of stepping down in class soundwise when you go from a prewar L5 to a prewar L7.

Definitely a limited sample size, so I am happy to be corrected.

[Litterick]

As an historian, I am also aware that history is made in the present and reflects our present values. The bias of a primary source is one thing, but another is our bias. Those people then most likely thought the acoustic changes in Gibson guitars were improvements, that fitted their times. Or they might not have noticed the changes, that they are detectable only by modern ears.

One extraordinary fact I have learned by hanging out with guitar people is that every great guitar was once better. The 2020 Stratocaster, despite the best efforts of Fender, is markedly inferior to a similar model made in 1963. The 1959 Gibson Les Paul is so much better than any later model that Gibson now painstakingly recreates them for wealthy connoisseurs. Gibson abandoned the single-cutaway Les Paul for much of the 1960s, seemingly regarded as old fashioned, but now it is prized more highly than anything made since. Strangely, nobody listens to the popular music of the 1950s and early 1960s, which is generally regarded to be pap, but the instruments for which it was made are venerated like holy relics. One 1954 Les Paul Goldtop is for sale for NZ$60,000, a sum which would buy a lot of modern guitars.

I can think of no other branch of manufacturing like the guitar industry. Technology elsewhere is accepted as moving forward. The cars and planes of the 1950s were demonstrably inferior to their modern equivalents. But in our corner of the world, older is better.

[sgosnell]

[Oscar67]

I can think of no other branch of manufacturing like the guitar industry. Technology elsewhere is accepted as moving forward. The cars and planes of the 1950s were demonstrably inferior to their modern equivalents. But in our corner of the world, older is better.

There are exceptions. Paul Reed Smith guitars seem to get better every year. Nobody is chasing down older PRS guitars because they’re supposedly better than the new ones. Limiting myself to archtops, companies like Sadowsky, Collings, Benedetto and others are producing unbelievable archtops. As much as I adore the mojo of my ‘35 L7, I can’t say that it is objectively better than my Collings LC Jazz. Then there’s my favorite archtop: a relatively humble Eastman AR580CE, which just might be the one I’d save if the house burned down. From a quality (not quantity) perspective I think now is just as much the golden age of archtops as any previous era.

[lawson-stone]

Maybe one reason we deprecate the recent is that the newer guitars are so much more expensive, to a point. Back when you could buy a factory new ES175 or L5ces, it was often observed you could get a much better used one for a lot less money.

In many arenas, newer things actually are cheaper for the comparable functions; but with guitars, the price keeps going up.

[ccroft]

I've really enjoyed reading this thread. Exactly the kind of thing that keeps me coming back. Looks like I missed it first time around by being off-grid at the time. Thanks to the resuscitators!

RE the older is better thing: another exception may be contemporary archtop builders. There are many here who believe they've gotten better after perfecting their builds over the course of their careers.

As a woodworker I'm not totally convinced by the old wood reasoning. Trees that've been around way longer than Gibson are being selectively harvested in my neck of the woods for acoustic instrument making. There may be something to the idea of the seasoning of a guitar over many decades of use though.

But 'mojo' sells when it comes to some older instruments, both acoustic and electric. Particularly if the latter have their original pickups. They're seen to be especially magical.

Maybe it's the warm and fuzzies that come from owning a piece of history.

[bluejaybill]

Though it is not about jazz, The Birth of Loud by Ian Port is a great read about how Leo Fender and Les Paul hung out together after work in the '40's at Les' backyard in Hollywood sharing ideas about how to increase the volume of guitars. Their ideas birthed the Telecaster and the Les Paul (and Fender amps).

Dan

I'll second that, a terrific book.

[Litterick]

I found myself in a guitar store playing an eighties Stratocaster and thinking, "It's very nice, but I could buy a new one for the same price." On the other hand, guitars that are not regarded as classic or iconic, such as the Gibson Nighthawk, can be found at realistic prices.

All Gibson archtops and semis are regarded as classic and iconic, unfortunately.

[rlrhett]

I don’t know if it’s been said before, but old factory guitars benefit from the filter of time effect. Nearly 12,000 were made from ‘47-‘69. How many have survived?

I’m guessing there were a fair number of duds that no one loved and found their way to the wood pile. The gems were more likely to survive. Sixty years later, we only have La crème de la crème left.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Oscar67]

In many arenas, newer things actually are cheaper for the comparable functions; but with guitars, the price keeps going up.

It’s the same with fountain pens (which I also dig). Prices for modern pens have increased a lot in the last five years or so, mostly due to scarcity of raw material (including gold!) and labour costs (the major brands produce onshore). With guitars, good wood is becoming more expensive by the hour and skilled craftspeople have their price. And stuff like petrol isn’t getting any cheaper either. There are many more examples.

However, a PRS SE Hollowbody is a perfectly good guitar clocking in at around a grand (without piezo). Thankfully there are many more inspiring guitars out there that are very affordable.

I don’t know if it’s been said before, but old factory guitars benefit from the filter of time effect. Nearly 12,000 were made from ‘47-‘69. How many have survived? I’m guessing there were a fair number of duds that no one loved and found their way to the wood pile. The gems were more likely to survive. Sixty years later, we only have La crème de la crème left.

Very true.

[icr]

I play clarinet in addition to guitar. Old clarinets are considered junk. The way I look at it is the reed does not last long and the rest of the wooden contraption is not far behind it.

I think PRS 'newer = better' is marketing hype. I think Paul is smart, though. Anyone can build a guitar, but to keep a company running requires marketing hype.
Personally I like my 1990s 'vintage' PRS over the new ones.

[jazzkritter]

Hey we can start a whole new historic discussion (argument)!

Old clarinets are not junk, it depends on the horn. I sold a LeBlanc Paris ‘Dynamic H’/Pete Fountain Signature for $1100 last year.
And trust me I put that horn down last semester of High School and never touched that thing again. Mom made me play it. Key instrument in a Polish Polka band, she had her own dreams/ideas for this organist & jazz guitar guy.
To horn people… WIDE open bore, but whoa that sucker was LOUD! darn near impossible to control for a good classical sound. In Regionals and States I never could get past the kids with Buffets.

[bluejaybill]

I don’t know if it’s been said before, but old factory guitars benefit from the filter of time effect. Nearly 12,000 were made from ‘47-‘69. How many have survived?

I’m guessing there were a fair number of duds that no one loved and found their way to the wood pile. The gems were more likely to survive. Sixty years later, we only have La crème de la crème left.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Actually I kind of think the opposite. Most of the great ones were played to death and/or modified by pros, remember that Gibson arch tops were not considered to be beginner or intermediate guitars, they got played.

Beyond that. I have seen so many great vintage Gibsons in collections, and people keep talking about how there are a lot of "dud" vintage guitars, that I am starting to think that the great vintage Gibson have entered collections, people know what they have, and they ain't going anywhere. At least the ones I have seen in friends' collections seem to be great, not a "dud" among them.

And I highly doubt that people who had guitars that weren't of the first rank in quality then decided to throw them in the fireplace. After all they were still Gibson guitars, and worth money, dud or not.

PS regarding vintage Gibsons and Fenders: the majority of the ones I have played that most would consider "duds" are either played (worn) out, or not set up properly.

[citizenk74]

Actually I kind of think the opposite. Most of the great ones were played to death and/or modified by pros, remember that Gibson arch tops were not considered to be beginner or intermediate guitars, they got played.

Beyond that. I have seen so many great vintage Gibsons in collections, and people keep talking about how there are a lot of "dud" vintage guitars, that I am starting to think that the great vintage Gibson have entered collections, people know what they have, and they ain't going anywhere. At least the ones I have seen in friends' collections seem to be great, not a "dud" among them.

And I highly doubt that people who had guitars that weren't of the first rank in quality then decided to throw them in the fireplace. After all they were still Gibson guitars, and worth money, dud or not.

PS regarding vintage Gibsons and Fenders: the majority of the ones I have played that most would consider "duds" are either played (worn) out, or not set up properly.

Exactly. An awful lot of the time the "this guitar is a dog" thing could be remedied by A) new/proper strings. and B) a set-up. There are exceptions; worn frets are expensive to repair, but may indicate a great-playing guitar. My self, I look for signs of loving use as evidence of a fundamentally good instrument. YMMV.

[ccroft]

So there we have it. Once again it's 'instrument by instrument.' Each and every one is unique.

Amazing how often that comes up in so many different ways. Must be true!