-
Archtops originated in large part as "banjo killers" if I understand correctly, but to what extent are they still that - acoustically speaking?
It's a bit of a tricky question because power, loudness and the volume we perceive aren't necessarily all the same thing.
Anyway, I'm in a weekly situation where I play along with classical guitars, both rather low-end student models and my teacher's cedar-top Kohno which sounds incredibly loud. I usually take my nylon-strung resonator but have been taking both the jumbo and the archtop for lessons the past time. And no matter how loud I think I am practising at home, compared to that Kohno I feel like I sound anemic (lesson stress and sitting on a children's chair don't help).
I've done some measurements with the DecibelX app running on my iPhone on the musicstand at about an arm's length away. Even with its nylgut (Aquila Rubino) & nylon strings the resonator gets over 90 dB without working it too hard, fingerpicking, and not necessarily strumming big chords. It gets louder when I use my favourite ebony pick.
The steelies have the same wound strings ATM, but 11,14 trebles on the jumbo and 13,16 on the archtop. With the former I got almost 97dB when really whacking all 6 strings with a heavy pick, the archtop maybe just over 94dB under similar conditions. Not exactly representative of actually playing music of course.
FWIW, I do think the archtop sounds a little fuller now that the treble side f-hole is almost completely exposed rather than covered by a plastic pickguard.
-
03-27-2022 06:46 AM
-
I find this pretty hard to understand. Banjos are so much louder and more penetrating than even the loudest archtop that it seems absurd that the guitar ever became the mainstay of rhythm sections prior to the adoption of the electric and yet, it did. Furthermore, Rhythm is one thing, but the audience actually hear Eddie Lang’s single note work? Did they use primitive PA’s with mics to amplify guitar solos? Not sure.
You can make an acoustic archtop guitar work if you play with the right sort of technique, certainly as a chordal instrument (which is how most US players played during the 30s) have understanding players and a drummer who uses the right gear and technique, not to mention a good acoustic. But there’s no doubt the banjo is louder.
Macaferris seem by and large to have the edge on Archie’s in terms of sheer volume, but it’s open to debate (people argue about the ‘cut’, projection, period instrumentation and acoustics and so on.)
Im sure Jonathon Stout would have some interesting thoughts on this subject.
-
My Richelieu plectrum banjo is MUCH louder than any guitar I've ever played. I few years ago I was doing "42nd St" and some of the other musicians in the full pit orchestra told me it was too loud.
-
Hopefully they were actually referring to the volume, not your playing LOL…
Originally Posted by Woody Sound
JK…
There are quite a few theories about the demise of the banjo in dance bands. The general opinion seems to be that music evolved to a slower, more melodic style where instruments like the banjo and tuba were out of place. Improvements in guitar design allowed for more volume, and the guitar was easier to amplify, when technology became available.
I wonder if the association of the banjo with minstrel, hillbilly and other “low” forms of music played a role, inasmuch as pop music was becoming more sophisticated in the 30’s.
Here’s an interesting perspective:
Several years ago I set out to research the reasons for the demise of the tenor banjo in the 1930's.
The 1920's tenor banjo was a rhythm instrument.
Here is a summary of the principal points that I found:
Harry Reser said the principal reasons for the fall of the tenor banjo were the change in the "musical cycle" and tenor banjoists "low average of musicianship". ("The Great Harry Reser" by W.W. Triggs).
By "musical cycle" I think Reser was referring to the change in 1920's popular music ("jazz") up tempo and improvisation style to a slower, smoother pace.
P. S. Kohman wrote in Vintage Guitar (Jan 2017): "Toward the end of the decade [1920] the frenetic pace of jazz age music began to give way to smoother sounds".
Social dancing embraced the smoother sound and the jazzy one-step fox trot slowed and became more sedate and graceful. The Charleston dances and their progeny fads faded away.
The former jazz age 2/4 beat changed to 4/4 to accommodate dancing and the new dance band performance style. The tuba and tenor banjo did not work well in this new environment and was supplanted by the upright bass and the guitar in the dance band's rhythm section.
Contemporaneously with these changes in musical tastes Benny Goodman observed: "... the kind of guitar that Eddie Lang played was absolutely new at the time, and his use of the instrument was pretty much responsible for its taking the place of the old banjo." ("The Kingdom of Swing" by Goodman and Kolodin).
Guitarist Hy White also observed: "Little by little the guitar overtook the banjo". (A. Berle in Guitar Player June 1978).
Reser's "musicianship low average" was highlighted by complaints that the banjo was played too loudly and was "ear battering". (J. Vincent in "The banjo in jazz": Jazz Journal June 1978. Vincent also wrote: "Traditional jazz has long been hampered by terrible banjo players."
The incoming Big Band Swing of the 1930's was not welcoming of the tenor banjo but interestingly Texas Swing retained it on a much smaller scale, of course.
Finally, William Ludwig wrote simply of the era that: "...the public was becoming tired of the banjo" (Ludwig: The Making of a Drum Company).
I read lots of books and magazines on this topic because I was curious about how the tenor banjo suddenly fell from favor. One author concluded that the tenor banjo's popularity was driven by the music of the day not the other way around. Music and dancing changed and the tenor banjo did not adapt and so became obsolete.
Guitar vs. banjo in the 1930's - Discussion Forums - Banjo Hangout
-
Great research, thanks ! Originally Posted by Doctor Jeff
-
Yeah they raved about the playing and sound, just that it was too loud. Originally Posted by Doctor Jeff
Excellent post, thanks, I'm going to save it.Last edited by Woody Sound; 03-27-2022 at 09:25 AM.
-
The banjo fitted in nicely in the jug bands and the marching bands style of music and even a bit into the charleston era. When the dance and bigbands era started and the dance halls became popular, the volume was way less than we know it today. The drum kit was much more simple and had animal skins on them, so I was told. I have a plectrum banjo as well, and I use it only for the really old bigband style of music. Otherwise it sounds harsh and trebly without sustain and not soft enough for the typical 4 in a bar Basie style. it is also way louder than any of my solid wood archtops. My estimate is that banjo's lost their position due to their harsh sound in combination with their volume overkill versus the smoothness and warmer sound of the acoustic archtop in a setting of dancebands playing not so loud as today.
-
I think frequency occupation trumps volume. As bands got bigger, that high treble banjo sound would just get lost.
Same reason nobody uses a Martin dreadnought in a big band.
-
And yet a piccolo will easily be heard over an entire symphonic orchestra (and I'm even tempted to say they only get solo parts when the orchestra isn't playing softly). Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
This wasn't actually meant to be about banjos but more about comparing different guitar types amongst each other.
Re: banjos: I'm mostly familiar with the type used in bluegrass, and I quite appreciate them. I never had the impression they were (dysproportionally) louder than the other instruments used, though...
-
FWIW, I started banjo on a vintage Paramount Stye C tenor, then graduated to the Richelieu Golden Eagle plectrum. The plectrum is way louder than the tenor. I don't know if it's the quality of build, or just the longer scale.
-
If acoustic volume is of great importance, the resonator guitar slays them all.
-
I wonder if venue location may have been a factor. Parades, fairs, concerts in the park, front porch/back porch impromptu recitals and the like, may have lost ground to indoor events - dance halls, theaters, hotels, and so forth - that featured walls and ceilings that contained and reflected music, giving it a little extra dwell in the form of reverberation. Super percussive banjo notes once and gone in the ear in the great outdoors might grate a bit inside. Same with tuba - outside, full and rich; inside, a bit flabby.
Whereas outdoors an archtop's beautiful tone is simply lost on the wind, indoors merely enhances its richness. This goes double for the bass (pun implied).
Just my opinion.
-
The reason Big Band guitarist don't use Martin is because they don't want to have the neck reset every few years. Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
-
In high school dance band I had a Jaguar and a blackface Super Reverb. No trouble at all with solos being heard. Trumpets hated me.
-
Actually I think it has more to do with the fact that the high frequencies "conflict" with the high partials of the horns and piano. As well as the volume, and you have a blend with bass and drums that isn't as pleasing to boot. Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
-
Actually the reason Martin D guitars or flattops do not work is the way the project sound, in addition the frequency they push is not in the sweet spot. Flattops take the sound and disburse it out in close proximity with a very wide initial setting. An archtop has less sound lost in transferring it out initially. The back of guitar is denser/thicker ( less absorbing) and usually maple this allows much better bounce off the rear and faster. The top is moved as the whole soundboard is moved by the bridge with at the top of the saddle. In a flattop the bridge is rocked at the saddle but the extension going back not at all like an archtop. The allows the easier smoother initial warm sound but no real project beyond a few feet in front of the guitar. The thinner back and top absorb more sound in transferring it out. Originally Posted by BBGuitar
The reason Big Band guitarist don't use Martin is because they don't want to have the neck reset every few years.
The archtop though will throw the sound out and it carries much farther and longer. The initial attack is much more percussive and biting. This gives the brighter and tighter sound needed for playing in a big band acoustically. A well made archtop that is set up correct and has sound can be played acoustically so that the band and even listeners can hear and especially "feel the sound. Just listen to Freddie Green and you can tell the tight Basie Rhythm section is all about feel and pulse. This would not at all be possible on a flattop although some have tried.
Did an experiment once in a large hall at Church the room is probably 75 feet long and 40 feet wide. I played my Hollenbeck and had a flattop to compared. I had my wife sit as far away as she could in the room. Mary Jo said is was not even a contest the Hollenbeck easily was much easier to hear. Try this yourself sometime but you need to be in a big room. Your bedroom is not large enough although going to the other end of the house the experiment should work. Try it in a gymnasium if you ever get a chance,
If I was playing in a big band and wanted to go acoustic I would simply get some bronze strings which I normally do not ever use even acoustically, and then set the action to say 6/64 or even 7/64 on bass e and 6/64's on high e. I would be heard by the rhythm section and that is who needs to hear me first, the audience is second in priority.
-
The person who hears the archtop worst is the one playing it. When playing, it sounds as if the volume is rather low, and it is in the direction of the person playing it, but out front, in line with the top, it's much louder. If you want to hear your acoustic archtop, you can turn it face up, not on its side. You can also play close to a flat surface, like a smooth wall or mirror, and have the sound reflected to you. It's still not as loud as what an audience in front of you hears, but it's better. A sensitive microphone a few feet away is probably the best way of recording an archtop, but that obviously won't work in a gig situation. I doubt that even the clip-on mics used by many actually capture the full sound spectrum because they have to be so close to the top.
-
Yeah, I know about player position vs. audience - and that the archtop got f-holes because those favour projection over flattop-style warmth. However, I won't believe that I'll measure more dBs at a few or more meters away than I measure at an arm's length away!
Funnily I hear my archtop a lot better myself than my jumbo, or at least I used not to hear that one very well (fingerpicking) until I put a set of Plectrum AC111s on her. The resonator is just loud for me and those around. A vendor in a local store asked to try her after I'd tried a few of their dreadnoughts and jumbos, and we were both like "now that's what I call a sound".
I'll probably get to play the archtop in the musicschool auditorium sometime soon, we'll see what I can learn from that (apart from that I need to continue to work on my precision
)
-
All of this stuff about archtops seems very convincing until you experience the actual reality of playing a jazz gig on acoustic guitar.
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?
but maybe I’m wrong!
The mystery remains why the hell anyone decided this should be the thing as opposed to banjo or resophonic guitar lol, particularly as Eddie Lang the guy who cemented the instrument in jazz was such a single note virtuoso?
Fashion is a strange thing….
(see also, the Theorbo)
-
I don't think you're wrong. Louder is a relative term. Archtop guitars have never been, and never will be, as loud acoustically as most other instruments. Physics has laws, and they cannot be violated. Guitars didn't take over from banjos and resonators because they were louder, they took over because they sounded so much better that the lower volume was acceptable. If high volume is essential, then you need a pickup and an amplifier. You didn't need to listen closely to hear what Charlie Christian was playing, the way you did with Freddie Green. TBH, I think an amplified guitar sounds better than a pure acoustic, even if the output volume is the same for both. It's certainly possible to dial the volume back on an electric guitar, although it's often very hard to get the guitarist to do it. Perhaps the world would be a better place if the guitar amplifier had always been limited to the volume of the average trumpet.
-
What’s the difference between a Banjo and an Artillery Shell?
At least can hear the Artillery Shell coming in!
-
Trends in music instrumentation is certainly an interesting topic. In our lifetime we have seen the virtual disappearance of the piano as a melodic instrument, and the disappearance of keyboard and horn solos.
Remember the electric piano solo? Every record produced in the 70’s had to have one, along with of course the obligatory sax solo. I remember being quite annoyed by the fad of soprano sax (or occasionally clarinet) on pop music albums, e.g., Silly Love Songs.
And of course there were the guitar solos that went on sometimes far too long. But, a great guitar solo was a thing of beauty. Think of Sultans of Swing for instance. Does anyone do that kind of thing anymore? Not that I know of, at least not “Top 40.”
-
A small point I'll introduce is that you can't just grab the heaviest pick and assume that it will give you the most volume. On electric it doesn't matter, use what ever gives you the tone you prefer but with an acoustic archtop as you go up in pick thickness, when you get past heavy (1 - 1.2mm) picks, volume and perhaps more importantly, "cut" will diminish a bit with 1.5mm XH and thicker picks. Depending on the guitar, pick material and player, sometimes a .88 with give you more volume and projection than 1.2
You really do have to try a bunch of different picks and gauges.
-
I agree, thinner picks, up to a point (and I can't say exactly where that point is) produce more volume than thicker ones. I think it's at least partially because they produce more treble. Also, it seems to vary between different guitars.
And I don't say that distance from the guitar produces more pure volume, just that it allows more range of tone to be heard, from the entire top, not just a single point. The exact distance is also not a precise number, just a generalization, because all guitars are different. I do think that getting further than a couple of inches from the top produces more volume, for some distance, and better tone, but that has to be balanced against picking up sound from everywhere, so it's not a viable amplification method for a situation when multiple instruments are playing. Playing in a group imposes limitations. I'm not totally convinced that playing a purely acoustic guitar in a band is viable now. Yes, that's the way Alan Reuss and Freddie Green did it, but they're long gone. Nostalgia is fine, but it can be overdone.
-
My guess is that they would have missed you if you didn't play - like with salt in good cooking Originally Posted by Christian Miller
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.solos were generally confined to small groups in intimate venues and novelty records.
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.
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.Why do you think they kept making them bigger? [...] (see also, the Theorbo)
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
).
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 Originally Posted by Doctor Jeff
I hoped (and assumed) that's what you meant Originally Posted by sgosnell
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.
Reply With Quote
“Shearing style”
Today, 05:26 PM in Comping, Chords & Chord Progressions