Who came up with concept of 'Thunk'?

**ruger9** · 04-30-2021, 02:36 PM

Originally Posted by christianm77

For the very dullest of thuds modern instruments rarely suffice. From drumheads to bass strings everything is way too resonant. Who would want to play four to the four on a modern bass drum?

I remember reading an interview, when Brian Setzer first started his big band, he kept telling the drummer he needed to ditch his standard rock snare and get a... I forget what he called it, but it's doesn't "snap", it "thuds". And his drummer didn't think it was necessary. After the first few rehearsals, the drummer changed his snare, and agreed for that music, it's the way to go.

**rpjazzguitar** · 04-30-2021, 02:37 PM

I hear more of what I'll call a "thud" in a 175 compared to an L5.

As far as dark goes, if you listen to older jazz the guitar tones don't sound dark.

But, if you listen to a lot of country Tele sounds and then return to older jazz, it will sound dark -- by comparison.

I do sometimes hear overly "dark" sounds from archtops in live bands. I think it's because the player is hearing a brighter sound than the audience. Apparently, an easy mistake to make with an archtop

**christianm77** · 04-30-2021, 03:21 PM

I actually the opposite problem is more common - treble frequencies diffract less so they are more directional. If you are 'off beam' you might miss how trebly your amp is.

**rpjazzguitar** · 04-30-2021, 04:08 PM

Originally Posted by christianm77

I actually the opposite problem is more common - treble frequencies diffract less so they are more directional. If you are 'off beam' you might miss how trebly your amp is.

Many times, when I hear somebody playing an archtop in a group, the guitar sound overemphasizes low frequencies and sounds muddy.

I'm assuming that the player is not hearing the same thing I'm hearing.

What you say about directionality is right, but lower frequencies may predominate in the audience because of distance, dispersion and absorption, in the unlikely event that I know what I'm talking about.

**omphalopsychos** · 04-30-2021, 04:11 PM

Originally Posted by christianm77

I actually the opposite problem is more common - treble frequencies diffract less so they are more directional. If you are 'off beam' you might miss how trebly your amp is.

This is why I made the switch back to 10" speakers. The volume as well as tone are more uniform throughout the room.

**omphalopsychos** · 04-30-2021, 04:13 PM

Originally Posted by ruger9

Forum member Johnathan Stout could school us all on thunk.

Um I don't represent Stout or anything, but I think he's gonna laugh when he reads this.

**citizenk74** · 04-30-2021, 04:16 PM

Originally Posted by christianm77

I actually the opposite problem is more common - treble frequencies diffract less so they are more directional. If you are 'off beam' you might miss how trebly your amp is.

That's why I keep banging on the "amp as a personal monitor" drum. But the of course, if there is no front-of-house system, then maximum dispersal strategies come into play, viz - tilting your open-back amp toward the ceiling, if it is low; multiple amps (I always carried a spare - why not use it?) if not. Remember the angle of incidence is equal to the angle of reflection holds true to a useful degree in acoustics as well as billiards.

Where there is a will, and some wit, there is a way. No system is perfect; we must deal with the imperfect.

**lawson-stone** · 04-30-2021, 05:06 PM

Originally Posted by Cunamara

Jack was at least the first person I saw use the term for guitar tone although, not being omniscient, I don't know if he really invented it. But I knew immediately what he meant, to my ears the exemplar of that being Tal Farlow in the 50s (e.g., "The Swinging Guitar of Tal Farlow"). Jack was referring to classic Joe Pass tone ("Intercontinental," etc.).

I've been wracking my brain and in fact, i don't think I ever hear the word, even though I listened to jazz and played archtops for 25 years, until I was on this forum and indeed, it was Jack Zucker whom I first heard use the term. I too, knew what it was almost from the moment I heard it. Yep. Joe Pass on "Joy Spring," Tal Farlow on "Swinging guitar," and several other recordings notably using laminated guitars. Not a matter of EQ, but underlying dynamics. I tend to think of it as a dry tone, not very "stringy," a little compressed maybe (or quick attack/decay). But also it just has a feeling of thickness or weight without being muddy.

**Wattie** · 04-30-2021, 05:19 PM

Originally Posted by xavierbarcelo

Pat Martino?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Definitely Martino

**Donplaysguitar** · 04-30-2021, 05:31 PM

Originally Posted by lawson-stone

I've been wracking my brain and in fact, i don't think I ever hear the word, even though I listened to jazz and played archtops for 25 years, until I was on this forum and indeed, it was Jack Zucker whom I first heard use the term. I too, knew what it was almost from the moment I heard it. Yep. Joe Pass on "Joy Spring," Tal Farlow on "Swinging guitar," and several other recordings notably using laminated guitars. Not a matter of EQ, but underlying dynamics. I tend to think of it as a dry tone, not very "stringy," a little compressed maybe (or quick attack/decay). But also it just has a feeling of thickness or weight without being muddy.

big yes to the above. carved tops are made that way for a reason. the longer scale produces more overtones as well.

that sound is my preference, especially for solo/chord melody work. but sometimes i hear single note lines on the 175 and think - man that sounds really good.

**citizenk74** · 04-30-2021, 05:39 PM

It's a Jack Zucker original, and it filled a void in our lexicon. Thanks, Jack!

**lawson-stone** · 04-30-2021, 05:51 PM

Originally Posted by Donplaysguitar

big yes to the above. carved tops are made that way for a reason. the longer scale produces more overtones as well.

that sound is my preference, especially for solo/chord melody work. but sometimes i hear single note lines on the 175 and think - man that sounds really good.

\

I also love them both. I tend to say "thunk" is the great sound that is not an L5ces sound, and the L5ces sound is an example of great sound that isn't "thunk." Love 'em both.

I tend to think of a nice electric L5ces sound as being a little bit "reedy."

**ccroft** · 04-30-2021, 09:30 PM

Hopefully Jack will be along shortly to definitively straighten this out, but I too believe FG style 4 on 4 floor is chunk, not thunk.

Thunk is more correctly used to describe a smokin' single note soloing style which is satisfyingly deadened without a trace of mud.

It's also interesting to note that one of the most Thunkadelphic sounds on earth came to us by way of Philadelphia through a combination of string gauges like bridge cabling and a very large carved Gibson with no traces of plywood, tightly stuffed with a combination of heavy foam rubber and spent plutonium... or something :-)

**Cunamara** · 04-30-2021, 09:38 PM

Originally Posted by ruger9

I really don't think it's that complicated. Thunk is a rhythm acoustic guitar, playing chords, in a rhythmic fashion, with a percussive attack. That's how you were heard in ensembles and big bands back in the days before amplification, and the style continued over into the amplification age. Charlie Christian and Freddie Green both thunk. But then, upright bass players do too.

When I think of thunk, I don't think of the rhythm/chordal work of Johnny Smith or Kenny Burrell. It's generally older than that. Forum member Johnathan Stout could school us all on thunk.

We seem to have a failure to agree on terminology. You are describing what most of us call "chunk," as in "chunking out the rhythm." "Thunk" on the other hand, is the sound of flatwound strings on a laminate bodied guitar. "Thunk" is not a term I have ever heard used to describe what you're describing.

**Donplaysguitar** · 04-30-2021, 09:58 PM

The thunk sound is just a boxy sound, a harder boxier sound.

Carved tops are more alive sounding - and more prone to feedback?

you sound experts and luthiers can ‘splain all that.

**StringNavigator** · 04-30-2021, 10:18 PM

Originally Posted by blackcat

Just wondering. Listening this morning to lots of Kenny Burrell and Wes and some C.Christian and all awash in clarity and brightness. Where did 'mud' come from in the first place. Just wondering.

Mud? Thunk? I feel like a spare pick at a pickle convention.

**Jabberwocky** · 04-30-2021, 11:36 PM

Originally Posted by Donplaysguitar

The thunk sound is just a boxy sound, a harder boxier sound.

Carved tops are more alive sounding - and more prone to feedback?

you sound experts and luthiers can ‘splain all that.

Oh yeah, that one's THOINK.

**wzpgsr** · 05-01-2021, 02:01 AM

Originally Posted by Jabberwocky

Oh yeah, that one's THOINK.

No, you’re thinking of PRONK:

**christianm77** · 05-01-2021, 03:25 AM

Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar

Many times, when I hear somebody playing an archtop in a group, the guitar sound overemphasizes low frequencies and sounds muddy.

I'm assuming that the player is not hearing the same thing I'm hearing.

What you say about directionality is right, but lower frequencies may predominate in the audience because of distance, dispersion and absorption, in the unlikely event that I know what I'm talking about.

Some people do think the way to get a jazz guitar tone is to roll off all the treble

OTOH archtops often sound quite trebly and if you are hearing both the acoustic and amplified tone you might end up dialling in too dark a tone, sure.

It’s good to have a loop pedal if only for that reason. Loop some playing and then listen to it around the room (Scott Henderson does this apparently.)