Huge carved-top guitars and modern jazz

[mr quick]

Hello all,

Lately, I have been a little bit obsessed with acoustic volume and character. Specifically, the idea of the Super 400 has returned to my mind. When I was younger, I really dreamed of a solid-wood Gibson archtop, though only because of its... ceremonious lavishness, if I can call it that.
Last year, I had a major change in what kind of guitar I like playing - from having played a semi-hollow ES for many years, with multi-fx and a huge array of sounds - and have almost exclusively played on classical gutiar since then. It's all Gary Burton's fault (and a little bit Ralph Towner)!

So, I'm back contemplating a big-bodied, solid-wood archtop as a future investment. Unfortunately, it has been years since I've tried one, and I have changed and grown as a guitarist so much since then that my experiences with what I've tried are just about irrelevant to me today. One very kind forum member offered me a Heritage L4-type guitar at a good price which I should have bought then, but such is life.

I can't seem to find any good clips of say, a Super 400 online. I understand that it's a very old-fashioned guitar type in the year 2022 and that this explains why most clips are with really dead-sounding flatwound strings playing trad swing standards. However, I think it's reasonable to think that these guitars have the potential to be quite lively, given the huge box and solid woods. I wonder what they would sound like with say, the newly launched D'Addario XS strings? I just put those on my ES and they made me wonder why I'd ever considered flats again for that guitar (I promise I'm not sponsored, but they did send me the set for free).

And what if they didn't just play medium swing tempo standards? Not to rag on people who do, it's just not the purpose for which I'd want such a guitar. I think pretty much any guitar can play dead-string swing, but I'm not so sure the characteristics of a Super 400 are easily imitated.

I don't know that I have a concise question to ask, but I'm interested to hear some thoughts, opinions, and experiences with solid-wood arhctops. If you're keen on sharing a clip yourself, that'd be great too!

[Hammertone]

What dimensions define huge for you?

[Litterick]

Larry Coryell played a Super 400, from 1967 until his last album in 2016. He told Premier Guitar: "I’m playing a Gibson 1967 Super 400. The Super 400, to me, is the best guitar ever made. Period. It’s got such an amazing neck. The quality of necks has gone way down since 1967."

[RJVB]

Last year, I had a major change in what kind of guitar I like playing [...] and have almost exclusively played on classical gutiar since then.

What kind of repertoire and how do you play that classical guitar - I take it with composite (nylon/carbon/...) strings, and in "classical position"? Is this something you want to carry over onto that hypothetical huge archtop?

My 16" archtop (L5 type) already looks pretty big compared to a standard classical guitar, I'd probably qualify a 17" as huge already (esp. if to be used in classical position!). Those should be easier to find, so maybe your best option is to go to a store that has and will let you compare a 16" and a 17" model of the type you fancy (purely acoustic??). My guess is that the change stepping up from 17" to 18" might be smaller than from 16" to 17".

One thing to keep in mind is that (IMHO) these bigger archtops evolved to meet demand for instruments suitable to play what you call dead-string swing. Doesn't mean they can't do anything else, but from what I understand the L5 type wasn't developed with any particular style in mind. I've seen them described as (more) versatile and genre-defying.

[stevus]

Yoshiaki Okayasu on a d'Angelico New Yorker 1949

[ThatRhythmMan]

I’m assuming from context that you are talking about electric versions, although at first because of the talk of a classical, I thought you meant an acoustic archtop.

Anyway, anything can be played on a Super 400 CES.

[Woody Sound]

A teacher of mine had a Super400CES and my little L50 sounded way better/louder.

[Jimmy blue note]

While any instrument can be set up to play to the different demands of the player (though most "New Yorker" sized acoustics will have a strong association with more traditional roots), I'm going to recommend that you get your hands on one and see if that's really what fits you. I don't mean image or stylistic, I mean ergonomics. An 18" lower bout is a lot for many people to get their arm around, and even more of a task to maintain agility and dexterity if your playing style is not necessarily a forearm swing rhythmic one. Take that and think of having that under your arm for an hour...
Different sized guitars (and different depths) should be a primary consideration, IMHO, because you're going to be thinking of it as an extension of your body, right?
I've played 16" lower bout guitars built from solid woods that had more depth and acoustic woodiness (and playability) than larger (17"+) guitars. On a personal note, I've grown fond of the crisper attack that I find in smaller bodied guitars; it's closer to the classical sensibilities I like.
That isn't to say I'm not charmed and attracted to the magnificence of a large jazz monster, but I just know it wouldn't get the attention it deserves. I have a 17" Gibson Johnny Smith with great sentimental value that I don't play. It's exquisite and I'm still in love with it, but it doesn't go the distance because it doesn't fit my arms.
Just something to think about while you're dreaming.

[nevershouldhavesoldit]

A teacher of mine had a Super400CES and my little L50 sounded way better/louder.

I had an L50 for years after falling in love with the tone at a guitar show. I think mid sized bodies project much better than most bottom-heavy big boxes, probably because the acoustic energy is focused between the lower midrange and the top. The shorter the wavelength, the more energy there is in the wave at the same volume - so mids project further and better than lows. And the smaller body is more efficient because less of your picking energy is dissipated trying to vibrate a large mass of wood at low frequencies.

[AllanAllen]

Chuck Berry made them all sound lively. I don’t think you’ll have to worry about which archtop you have, but how you play it.

[raymoan]

You might check out Rob MacKillop's website: ArchtopGuitar.net – …jazz…classical…folk…plectrum…fingerstyle…

And his Youtube channel: Rob MacKillop - YouTube

He's owned and filmed an impressive number of archtops, and is partial to acoustics.

A very gracious gentleman, he would likely reply if you addressed your question to him.

[RJVB]

The shorter the wavelength, the more energy there is in the wave at the same volume - so mids project further and better than lows.

Fun fact: elephants communicate over very large distances using infrasound (i.e. too low for us to hear). But IIRC this travels through the ground, a solid medium, so while a comparison between elephants and 18" archtops might be tempting it wouldn't be overly relevant

[nevershouldhavesoldit]

while a comparison between elephants and 18" archtops might be tempting it wouldn't be overly relevant

...except that they're equally uncomfortable in the laps of most guitarists

[Cavalier]

...except that they're equally uncomfortable in the laps of most guitarists

I think there's a Spinal Tap song in there somewhere.....

[Bluedawg]

Fun fact: elephants communicate over very large distances using infrasound (i.e. too low for us to hear). But IIRC this travels through the ground, a solid medium, so while a comparison between elephants and 18" archtops might be tempting it wouldn't be overly relevant

And in Alabama the Tuscaloosa

But that's totally irellephant





I picked up a Super 400 CES a few years ago.

I prefer to play classical style with a strap and I find the big body quite comfortable in a classical position. I find the classical position more comfortable than trying to get my arm around a big guitar resting on my right leg.

I love my Super 400.

[docsteve]

+1 for RobMcKillop! He play all sorts of interesting things on an acoustic archtop, even some Swing traditionals.


Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk

[RJVB]

+1 for RobMcKillop! He play all sorts of interesting things on an acoustic archtop, even some Swing traditionals.

There's also daddystovetop who has a few archtops, among which an L1 or L3, a custom built rond-hole one and a Slaman The Dome nylon-strung archtop, on which he mostly plays blues, in fingerstyle. (He had a Loar LH700 too).

[mr quick]

Cheers, got some good perspectives in here - namely about the defining factor, size. Thinking about it after reading this, I tend to gravitate toward smaller-bodied acoustic guitars anyway, as I feel incompatible with flat-top jumbos.

@RJVB - I don't play classical music, and I vary my playing position. Right now I'm using Knobloch HT strings with composite basses. My repertoire is just me spiritually plagiarising Towner and Greene, but without the skill.

I read the posts in here, and had a think about it. Especially the matter of ergonomics and tonal characteristics. Perhaps a medium-sized solid-wood guitar would be a better option after all. I tend to like the acoustic character in guitars with mahogany back and sides, and either spruce or cedar top.

Years ago, I tried an L4 CES Mahogany at the local store, which I now work at and have been working at for the last six years. Even in my novice hands at that time, it felt absolutely wonderful and I can still recall how it felt. It certainly ticks all the boxes, and I do like a florentine cutaway.

Unfortunately, despite working at a huge music store, I can't really get a hold of one. No one really makes them anymore and no one buys good guitars anymore either (so I could never justify to management to order such an expensive guitar). At least not locally.

The only make I can think of off the top of my head is Eastman, and I found the guitars I've tried to be quite underwhelming unfortunately. The used market is really dried-out too. There is not a single used L4 or L5 for sale in all of Norway. In fact, I couldn't find a single solid-top archtop at all, having used every relevant search term I could think of, including the most banal like just searching for "jazz" - except POSSIBLY one Aria Pro II that might be a solid-wood guitar - But I'm not paying two grand for a guitar that could /maybe/ be a solid top and without trying it first.

Easy in this moment to think of all the great deals once passed...

edit: I found a Peerless Imperial for 1200, but I don't know anything about the make.
edit 2: I also found a beautiful L5-style made by a trusted Oslo luthier, but it's far out of my price range.

[sgosnell]

Peerless is Asian made, but generally regarded to be of fairly high quality. Martin Taylor has endorsed them, and his signature model seems to be pretty good. I have three guitars made by the same luthier (not Peerless) - 16", 17", and 18". The 16" is actually a little less, about 15.75". It's 2.5" deep, the 17" is 2.75" deep, and the 18" is a Super 400 copy, 3.25" deep. It's the quietest of the three, but has a lot of bass. The 17" is probably the loudest, although it's close between it and the 16". The one I play most of the time is the 16". It's by far the most comfortable, and to me the best sounding, both acoustic and amplified. I don't play the big monster often.

[RJVB]

Can your budget cover importing a roughtly 4k€ guitar? There's Cranmer Guitars in Scotland and Elferink in the Netherlands who build models that might interest you, in that price range.

The Eastman AR605 has mahogany B&S and is probably the cheapest of their current all-solid-woods offering. From what I've heard you do hear a difference with the more common maple back; it sounded nice but I've heard too many remarks suggesting Eastman archtops sound probably too much like a flattop to my taste that I didn't dare order the one that was available on Reverb when I was looking to buy.

You could have a look on the Dutch marktplaats.nl site. At some point last year there were 3 Loar LH-650s listed there, plus some other archtops.

Oh, and then there's this
Gibson L48 Archtop Mahogany 1949 | Reverb

[jim777]

I’m assuming from context that you are talking about electric versions, although at first because of the talk of a classical, I thought you meant an acoustic archtop.

Anyway, anything can be played on a Super 400 CES.

I absolutely LOVE this If I had a Super 400, I would definitely play it like this (ocassionally...) I got into 175s because of Steve Howe though, not Joe Pass. Playing anything you want on whatever you've got, as much as we might get attached to them they are still just tools.

[Slide]

Romain Vuillemin has a number of videos of him playing an acoustic Super 400.

[Slide]

Romain - Super 400

[Litterick]

I absolutely LOVE this If I had a Super 400, I would definitely play it like this (ocassionally...) I got into 175s because of Steve Howe though, not Joe Pass. Playing anything you want on whatever you've got, as much as we might get attached to them they are still just tools.

One of those home-alone moments: "You go and enjoy yourselves; I'm just going to stay here and practice some études."

[xavierbarcelo]

Mr.Quick, if you’re in Norway, I would suggest you look for a vintage Levin. Much better price than Gibsons and the like. German guitars are also an option (I found a nice Otwin in Norway recently, but I’m afraid it is gone now).

Here are some clips to inspire you:

A Hoyer Special would also be a nice option:

First acoustic:

Then distorted:

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro