Acoustic Volume

[Christian Miller]

My guess is that they would have missed you if you didn't play - like with salt in good cooking



That's actually the context that interests me, and I think this isn't very different with classical guitar. There are a few guitar concertoes but the fact of the matter is we're dealing with a chamber music instrument.
And AFAIK this is very much like the (often?) supposed origin of jazz music.

So I guess I was wrong in referring to the "banjo killer" concept, or in assuming it had to do with volume.

Yeah its just no contest on any level. I sometimes get the call to play with Dixie style bands (which I love if there's a good frontline) but they never seem happy to accept the instrument on its own terms, they have to have that hard banjo 'chank'. So I end up using quite a bit of amp....

TBF it is a losing battle with brass bass (though not bass sax.) However, on the guitar you can really reference the blues and play more varied textures, and it is totally audible in horn solos and so on (no-one needs to hear it when the frontline kicks off) and it's not like there's no guitars on 20's records

I have to say it's all a bit one dynamic level with a lot of Brit trad bands (it's all a bit 50s trad vibe), and the instrumentation is very set. I wish we could play those old Louis tunes and so on with more dynamics haha. Ah well... Playing softly isn't what they call rock and roll...

I'm still a bit baffled by this too. One of my best friends is a professional lute player who bifurcated into early 19th century romantic guitar repertoire on period instruments. They are tiny, maybe even smaller than typical parlor guitars and yet they pack an incredible punch. We've played duets where I had my resonator or most recently, the archtop, and there was no balance problem at all.

Yeah those things are pretty poky! Don't they have lower string tension as well?

I think it really depends on how you want to "cut through the mix". If it's with percussive sounds, you're probably better off with a smaller instrument that doesn't "hoard" the sound energy inside for a while. AFAIK this is also why bluesmen typically prefer smaller bodies: a more immediate sound.

As to theorbos ... what exactly is the argument here? Not that they disappeared because noone heard them I hope, because in the right hands (and with proper lutherie) these things can be very loud. Those low strings can sound like gunshots (and I love how I can get very close to that sound with my resonator ).

Oh I love the sound of the Theorbo for sure, but you must admit those low pitches can disappear depending on the room; what you tend to hear is the attack ('the gunshot') and that adds a flavour to the continuo group for sure, but it's subtle, much like rhythm guitar in a dance orchestra.

Of course the theorbo is a fantastic instrument with a rich solo literature as well that makes great use of all those lovely low strings. But they story is similar in that they kept beefing up the size of the instrument, and there's just a limit to how loud it can get compared to even an instrument like a solo violin that was a weeny little resonating chamber haha (of course register and the way the sound is produced are more important factors.)

Speaking to lutenists I think the continuo gig is the bread and butter, but can get a bit old.

I felt the same way about playing rhythm in dance bands. In those situations I was miked as well so I could be heard (often there was no piano so they had to have some pitch). But sometimes its a great pleasure to just lay down rhythm and watch the dancers - they appreciate it too.

Still one of my all-time favourites, esp. the version on that live album of theirs. Knopfler also has what's probably my ideal (electric) guitar sound in one of their intros (can't remember right now if it's SoS or another of their hits). To think that some here despise 80s music

Knopfler was one my idols growing up. Still love his playing. Fantastically musical and a bit under-appreciated by guitar heads I think, and can indeed make it 'cry and sing.'

On that note, I might point out that the Sultans of Swing themselves featured a guitarist who 'knew all the chords' and was 'strictly rhythm' - not a bloody banjo player haha. Like me, they are also based 'south of the river.' Good work, Mark.

I hoped (and assumed) that's what you meant
I know the argument; a double bass player introduced me to it years ago. According to him, the ideal listening (and thus, recording) distance to get the best "in the room" experience is at a few times the average wave length of the instrument's range. Of course this was in a context of (early music) concert venues, so places with good acoustics, including churches. As a side-note: chamber music was probably often performed in places that didn't have good acoustics at all, were rather full of absorbing materials despite wood floors and panelling on the walls. The typical theatre where plays and operas were staged are not that different in this aspect, btw, esp. for the players in the pit.

Interesting... dry...

Reverb is a drug!

[Stringswinger]

Knopfler was one my idols growing up. Still love his playing. Fantastically musical and a bit under-appreciated by guitar heads I think, and can indeed make it 'cry and sing.'

+1 Very appreciated by this "guitar head"

[John A.]

AFAIK this is also why bluesmen typically prefer smaller bodies: a more immediate sound.

In terms of _today's_ blues players, they're trying to cop the sound of early blues recordings for the sake of authenticity. Those recordings were mainly made with small-bodied catalog/department-store guitars because the bluesmen (and women) were extremely poor and lived in the rural South and that's all they find and/or afford. To the extent they could afford better, they would pick quieter guitars (such as Gibson oval hole archtops or student models such as the LG-0) because big/loud guitars + aggressive picking balances poorly with many singing styles. Some of the real shouters played bigger/louder guitars, e.g. Rev. Gary Davis (J-200), Son House (National resonator), Lead belly (jumbo 12-string). There are also special cases like Brownie McGee (Martin and Gibson dreads) whose intricate fingerstyle work needed a loud instrument to match Sonny Terry's harp + duet vocals. But overall, it was about matching the guitar with the vocal sound more than it was about seeking a specific guitar timbre.

[RJVB]

Yeah those things are pretty poky! Don't they have lower string tension as well?

I think she uses "normal" tension strings which become low tension because of the short scale length.

As a side-note: she and many other lutenists also use carbonfluor trebles because they sound more like gut than regular musical nylon does. I think she uses Aquila nylgut on the guitars though.

but you must admit those low pitches can disappear depending on the room; what you tend to hear is the attack ('the gunshot') and that adds a flavour to the continuo group for sure, but it's subtle, much like rhythm guitar in a dance orchestra.

That really depends on the rest of the ensemble, and on the room.
Interestingly, the lower a note, the further it can travel (cf. elephant long distance communication!) though in the air it'll disperse (cf. subwoofers, of which you only need 1 because you don't hear stereo in those long wavelengths anyway - also because of the size of our head of course).
Violins are indeed designed for projecting ... cutting not through but over the mix (literally if you think of Venetian music played from church balconies )

Speaking to lutenists I think the continuo gig is the bread and butter, but can get a bit old.

Never heard any complain. In fact I think it must be fun, once you learn to improvise off the figured bass and the melody part you're "comping". Even the cello or gamba player can have fun; they may only play the actual bass line but it's largely up to them to add the swing.

Knopfler was one my idols growing up. Still love his playing. Fantastically musical and a bit under-appreciated by guitar heads I think

Maybe because he left the group and did a bit too many things that were too country?

Lead belly (jumbo 12-string).

I saw Eric Bibb live (with JJ Miltaux) with his Lead Belly's gold programme; if he used a 12 string jumbo he must be huge himself because the guitar seemed really small.
Doug Macleod also has a few larger guitars (a 12-string and an old Gibson he calls "Lil' Bit" because everytime he plays her she looses a bit ) but he mostly plays a resonator or his Washburn parlor. The argument about sound immediacy isn't mine btw, and the common use of resonators seems to contradict the idea that using smaller guitars is that they're easier to sing with... Modern singers also have mikes to compensate any insufficiences, but I'm certain the old-style singers didn't need them (I had the chance to experience Doug live and "totally acoustic" in Heusden a few years back; there are a few extracts of that concert on YouTube).

[bluejaybill]

+1 Very appreciated by this "guitar head"

+2, but is Mark Knopfler really "under appreciated"?

Every guitar nerd I know loves him. Maybe not the younger folks so much..

BTW there is a great video of Knopfler talking about all of the guitars that inspired him, including a visit to Montelleone's shop, great stuff.

[citizenk74]

It should be remembered that the ear is a delicate instrument that tires easily. Too loud for too long will cause the hammer, anvil, and stirrup (sp?) to twist about to divert pressure away from the eardrum proper. Repeated long exposure to excess SPLs will make this deformation more or less permanent. There is also the factor of the super-delicate cilia breaking or ceasing to flex. A lot of bad stuff can happen. Control your volume, Kids, and wear those earplugs when you can't.

Also, sound perception is supremely relativistic - louder/softer, brighter/darker are plastic areas. Pitch itself gets rubbery at a given SPL, with lows seeming lower and highs seeming higher, leading to all sorts of perceptual mischief.

[Webby]

I’ve played a lot of 1930s style music over the years. I have played quite a few acoustic gigs, although never with an orchestra. And… I’m still baffled by it. My conclusion is that no one could hear much of the guitar live - usually a colouring of the snare drum and a slight ‘thump’ - and solos were generally confined to small groups in intimate venues and novelty records. And the odd studio date where the guitarist could get up next to the mic. Other than that the guitar was probably more for the band than the audience.

There we’re mitigating factors - quieter drums, gut string bass, quieter horns, acoustic band shells etc, but tbh its all small beer compared to the fact that an acoustic guitar, however loud, is still an acoustic guitar. Why do you think they kept making them bigger? Let alone invent pickups and amps for them? [...]

I agree that quieter drums, gut string bass etc. are very small factors, and drew the opposite conclusion form it: If that's the only difference I thought I could still make it work ;-)
I do a fair bit of Big Band work, and more often then not I play unplugged. I rarely have a problem being heard, and actually even had a Conductor yell at me for being too loud ;-) In my opinion acoustic rhythm guitar can even work with an amplified bass, but I feel like that has a lot to do with the physics of the location.

The real benefit of the acoustic archto guitar in a Swing-Rhythm section is in the blending, and I also think that had something to do with the transition away from the Banjo. When i's done right I think it almost fells like Bass Guitar and Drums become one.

But those are just my thoughts

[Christian Miller]

I think she uses "normal" tension strings which become low tension because of the short scale length.

As a side-note: she and many other lutenists also use carbonfluor trebles because they sound more like gut than regular musical nylon does. I think she uses Aquila nylgut on the guitars though.

i use the modern classical guitar designed version of those. I like them.

That really depends on the rest of the ensemble, and on the room.

well I’m mostly talking about in a small baroque orchestra for opera, oratorio etc - situations I am most familiar with. i can see why it must be a bit thankless twanging away in that setting. small ensembles are a different kettle of fish. I’m sure that’s super fun.

one relevant point; of course modern opera/oratorio continuo groups are nothing like the ones back in the day. I remember Dai Miller saying the originals would have had a number of lutenusts, guitarists, sundry twangy things I’ve only seen in illustrations, harpists and keyboard players almost like a parallel orchestra improvising all kinds of textures, not just one theorbo and a harpsichord with a violone or whatever. Budget!

Maybe because he left the group and did a bit too many things that were too country?

nah I just think he’s not the most ‘technical’ player and lots of guitarists care about that stuff. Although I bet most Vai-fanciers couldn’t finger pick the SOS solo lol.

[campusfive]

So, I don't talk about the transition to banjo in this article but I do talk a lot about the differences between the instruments we use and the acoustic environments of the Swing-era and today, and how that effects our ability to play purely "acoustic" today. I think a lot of this is relevant:

The realities of playing Acoustic Swing Rhythm Guitar — Jonathan Stout and his Campus Five featuring Hilary Alexander

A couple other things that come to mind:
1. Even though I'm a huge fan of my National Tricone, one thing none one has mentioned is the "natural reverb", i.e. the wash of sound you get from it. That extra decay time is amazing when you're playing outdoors (to make up for the lack of enviromental reverb) or playing solo, but it can make a tight swing band sound muddy compared to the more focused sound of an acoustic archtop.

2. Acoustic archtops, even those from the pre-electric days, are not all created equal. Having owned excellent examples of a 16" L-5 (with solid braces), a 16.5" Epiphone, an X-braced 17" L-12, and a parallel-braced, long-scale 17" L-5, all of them had remarkably different timbres, and decay characteristics. The L-12 had excellent volume and extra sustain, but it also had a "mid scooped" kind of tone. Instead of punching through the midrange of the band, the fuller bass and sustain just muddied things up. The 16" L-5 is as balanced and lovely as can be, and it does have a focus on those mid-frequencies that punch through... but the 17" L-5 is not only a lot louder overall, it has a huge bump around 1.2k and a lot of extra high treble, and it cuts like a knife. The 16.5" Epiphone had a lot of volume and big mids, but it didn't have the high trebles of the L-5 (I think the ebony board of the L-5 versus the rosewood on Epis has something to do with that).

So to that end, the 17" L-5 is the clear winner for any band gig because it just cuts, and it's comparative lack of sustain to the 16" L-5 isn't as missed. But playing solo, the balance and sustain of the 16" L-5 is the clear winner, but it also plays in a band way better than the 17" L-12 did.

3. And finally, you better believe the projection of an archtop (especially something like my 1939 17" L-5) is absolutely not that apparent when you're playing it. I'm amazed when people in my band let me know that can hear my guitar clear as day on stage before I put any in my monitor. Same deal during an acoustic big band rehearsal... I was told they could clearly hear my guitar with any amplification in the back of the room (at least at the level one would like to hear rhythm guitar in the mix for a swing-era band). Which is great, except it sure doesn't help me feel like I have a big, full sound when I take a solo on an acoustic... but that's exactly how the players in the original era felt too.

[rpjazzguitar]

George Van Eps is quoted as saying Lang forced banjoists to switch to guitar. Van Eps should know, iirc, his father was a well known banjoist.

My guess is that Lang did it based on recordings which were played on the radio. Better quality recordings of a good band guitarist -- and being able to hear them on radio -- were both new things. The sound came across as modern and got popular.

[Woody Sound]

So, I don't talk about the transition to banjo in this article but I do talk a lot about the differences between the instruments we use and the acoustic environments of the Swing-era and today, and how that effects our ability to play purely "acoustic" today.

J, you do mean *from* banjo, yes?

BTW, my niece and her friends drive for many miles to dance to your group when you come anywhere near us.

[RJVB]

i use the modern classical guitar designed version of those. I like them.

I use their Rubino trebles on my resonator: great strings. Which should become even better when they finally introduce the Sugar Rubinos (I helped test those).

nah I just think he’s not the most ‘technical’ player and lots of guitarists care about that stuff. Although I bet most Vai-fanciers couldn’t finger pick the SOS solo lol.

It's hard to learn (or accept?) that technical prodigy =/= musicality

So, I don't talk about the transition to banjo in this article but I do talk a lot about the differences between the instruments we use and the acoustic environments of the Swing-era and today, and how that effects our ability to play purely "acoustic" today. I think a lot of this is relevant:

The realities of playing Acoustic Swing Rhythm Guitar — Jonathan Stout and his Campus Five featuring Hilary Alexander

Thanks, interesting reading!

I was told they could clearly hear my guitar with any amplification in the back of the room (at least at the level one would like to hear rhythm guitar in the mix for a swing-era band). Which is great, except it sure doesn't help me feel like I have a big, full sound when I take a solo on an acoustic... but that's exactly how the players in the original era felt too.

I think that's the sort of every acoustic player who doesn't play an instrument that defaults to a big, full sound... how often haven't I wished to be able to leave my head somewhere in the middle of the audience and listen from there...

This guy though ... didn't even get to play during the few parts where he might actually have been heard from the looks of it

[campusfive]

This guy though ... didn't even get to play during the few parts where he might actually have been heard from the looks of it
]

As someone who plays swing music for a living, please understand "Sing Sing Sing" to be a massive outlier, not something particularly indicative.

Here's better example of Reuss with BG.... (and bear with the film speeding up and slowing down, but this is the ONLY video of Reuss where there is contemporaneous audio... as opposed to the "Sing Sing Sing" clip which is mimed)

*** skip to 1:32 for the sound to come in ***

[ThatRhythmMan]

As someone who plays swing music for a living, please understand "Sing Sing Sing" to be a massive outlier, not something particularly indicative.

Here's better example of Reuss with BG.... (and bear with the film speeding up and slowing down, but this is the ONLY video of Reuss where there is contemporaneous audio... as opposed to the "Sing Sing Sing" clip which is mimed)

*** skip to 1:32 for the sound to come in ***

Certainly no trouble hearing him there!

[RJVB]

So since a few months we hold little internal concerts after the weekly music school guitar ensemble rehearsals, and guess who's turn it was tonight... and got to hear his archtop in a larger room for the 1st time.

Usually I play in my little attic study facing and quite close to the wood-panelled roof. Tonight was another atypical situation; at the edge of the podium facing the part that slopes up, with the empty audience space behind me. Needless to say the instrument sounded very different but I think she did indeed fill the room quite sufficiently (when I didn't fall for the old trap of playing too softly for fear of being too loud )

(damn, it'd been so long I'd performed alone in front of an audience - and this was actually the 1st time on guitar - stage fright was back too :-/)

[RJVB]

2. Acoustic archtops, even those from the pre-electric days, are not all created equal. Having owned excellent examples of a 16" L-5 (with solid braces), a 16.5" Epiphone, an X-braced 17" L-12, and a parallel-braced, long-scale 17" L-5, all of them had remarkably different timbres, and decay characteristics.[...]
So to that end, the 17" L-5 is the clear winner for any band gig because it just cuts, and it's comparative lack of sustain to the 16" L-5 isn't as missed. But playing solo, the balance and sustain of the 16" L-5 is the clear winner, but it also plays in a band way better than the 17" L-12 did.

3. And finally, you better believe the projection of an archtop (especially something like my 1939 17" L-5) is absolutely not that apparent when you're playing it.

Didn't I read somewhere that you also had a The Loar LH700? If so, do you have recordings featuring that guitar?

[m_d]

+1 Very appreciated by this "guitar head"

I watched a few clips recently. It's obvious Knopfler has the "gift from God" as my wife would say. He seemed like the happiest guy in the world for it. Beautiful to see. Really like his singing voice too. Some of the songs are way up there.

[Bluedawg]

Fun discussion.

My experience playing big band swing is that the rhythm guitar is felt more than heard. Done right, it becomes one with the bass and drums.

You may not be able to hear it, but you would know if it wasn't there.

At least that was my approach with my Sweet 16 and a Carr Rambler ... and a booster pedal for solos.


I find playing acoustically with archtops to be frustrating most of the time. The guitar player doesn't really get to hear anything near what he sounds like to the audience. Maybe I need one with the sound port on the top.

As for banjo, one of my bands from the past had a 1920s piece or two that I would play my 6 string banjo on. That was fun, but not sure I could do that for an entire gig.



Then again. These days I'm stuck on bass. Never let them know you can play bass ... even worse if you can read bass charts.

[RJVB]

I find playing acoustically with archtops to be frustrating most of the time. The guitar player doesn't really get to hear anything near what he sounds like to the audience.

My impression is that it's hard to judge how loud the audience hears you. At least, I hope the balance between strings isn't entirely different for them (up to some reasonable distance at least) than it is for me... I do have the impression that the trebles actually sound a bit less harsh for the audience then they appear to me, but I have never yet been able to verify that.