-
And that’s exactly why I said “we old guys”. The industry, like much of the world, changed dramatically and not for the better between the day I got my first guitar in September 1955 and your start in the late ‘70s. The damage was already done before you held your first pick. Your Epi came from the Japanese factory (Matsumoto, I think) to which they shifted all production in 1970. When I was in high school in the early ‘60s, Epiphones were still made here to high standards. Gibson began ransacking Epiphone as soon as they bought it, initially mixing parts (including bodies and necks) they had lying around. But in the early ‘60s, Epiphones were still made to a high and consistent standard. By the late ‘60s, they (like most Gibsons) were going downhill.
Originally Posted by John A.
Between my start and yours, we watched helplessly as CMI and then Norlin screwed up Gibson and CBS screwed up Fender while the basic makers of journeyman instruments went under because of cheap competition from abroad. Harry Rosenbloom got the Japanese on the path to undercutting the American guitar industry in the late ‘60s, and Hoshino / Ibanez opened up shop in the US in ‘72 in Bensalem, PA. American makers started outsourcing production overseas to save $, and you do get what you pay for.
Up to the mid-60s, everything made by Gibson, Fender et al was of equal quality through each company’s line. The only differences among products were in their specs. An ES125 was made very well, even if it “only” had a laminated top, single ply binding and simple tuners. My ‘57 LG-1 was as “good” as a J200 - it just wasn’t as fancy or sophisticated. And a Champ was every bit as good as a Twin - it was just smaller, less complicated and less powerful. The lower cost items from a manufacturer were cheaper because they were easier to make and used less and less expensive materials than the top of the line, not because they were made any less well.
Once the ball started rolling, it took down the industry as we knew it. Admittedly, some stuff from Asia was better than the same products made here. My first Squire Strat (1983, I think) was better in every way than the American Strats being sold right next to it for more money. But this was at least partly because the American made models were awful.
Using cheaper and/or foreign parts and labor was an untested approach and no one knew how to make it work. Early printed circuit boards were much less reliable and harder to repair than the point to point construction they replaced to save money. The simple idea of designing and building to a price rather than a specification was novel, unfamiliar, and probably frightening to all concerned, from designers to engineers to repair shops to users. It’s not surprising that we had so much trouble with so much stuff that was untested and new to everyone. And the reason it all happened was money - everybody in the industry was trying to cut their costs to outsell their competitors. And customers accepted all this by buying the stuff because it was cheaper than the good stuff. So most of the good stuff disappeared from sight.
The first decade+ of all this stuff was a disaster for most of the old line makers and for most of us. There was a lot of absolute crap on the market by the late ‘70s, with progressively less stuff made to the standards that defined even run of the mill stuff made in the USA in most of the ‘60s and before. And now we’re paying $1200 for the same Champ and $2750 for the same Princeton Reverb (or $1200 for a decent clone with lesser components and construction) that were made for students and amateurs when I was starting out. Bah humbug!Last edited by nevershouldhavesoldit; 01-18-2023 at 09:09 PM.
-
01-18-2023 08:53 PM
-
The gypsy jazz guys are even more conservative than straight ahead jazz players. Their equipment hasn't advanced at all since well before Django died.
-
I bought my first amp new in 1964, an Ampeg Reverberocket. I still have it and it still sounds great, although I sort of believe the old tubes were better. Mine has 7591s not 6V6s. And my favorite reverb of all time. Oddly enough, it doesn't sound all that different from my DV Mark Little Jazz (the latter requires some outboard reverb). Originally Posted by nevershouldhavesoldit
-
Frets that don't wear out, vibrato systems that stay in tune, necks that rarely need adjustment, pickups that don't hum and still have a full high end ... in my mind that's all clearly progress making the instrument both better and more reliable. Originally Posted by plasticpigeon
-
That’s all true, Jim. But the topic is “jazz guitar building”, which to me means archtops and hard tail solid bodies that are designed and made to produce the kinds of tone that most of us accept as “jazz-y”. So whammy bars and such are the kind of small change that accountants call immaterial to the OP’s observation. Originally Posted by Jim Soloway
Stable necks have been around for 80 years. The first truss rod was invented by a Gibson employee in about 1920, as I recall. Humbuckers date to the ‘50s in guitars. SS frets are tough as nails, but I’ve never seen anyone put them in an archtop. A few such animals probably exist, but they’re also immaterial to the question.
Are formed solid archtops progress? Having played a recent Gibson attempt last month, I have to say no - it was sterile, lifeless, and entirely boring. Better laminate tops are progress, I suppose. But overall, jazz guitars still sound and play like they did 80 years ago - and to me, that’s good.
-
And therein lies the proof of my original point: "the kinds of tone that most of us accept as “jazz-y”". That identifies the component that hasn't changed. Originally Posted by nevershouldhavesoldit
-
You could get a heckuva guitar for $500 in 1935. So I guess things really haven’t changed. ;-) Originally Posted by whiskey02
-
Perhaps the music needs to progress before any of this makes sense. If guitar players are stuck in the past what drives any change to the instrument? Say if you wish to mimic Jimmy Raney in the '50, you're not going to need 2023 state of the art, or want it.
Something like a whammy bar needn't be irrelevant to the discussion. It can expand the palette of the instrument and it's expressive potential considerably. But no, CC, Johnny Smith, Wes, etc didn't .
"Jazz" guitar isn't only the bebop paradigm. However personally, I like old fashioned archtops with old fashioned pickups and find them more dynamic and exciting to play and like using the trad instrument. I just like a good working guitar. My semi has a bigsby though and I use it.
-
And yet many of the most prominent jazz guitarists of the last 50 years have been very adventurous in their pallet and their choice of tools. Originally Posted by Degranulator
-
I am primarily a Gypsy jazz guitarist, and I am sitting here with my AJL Q&P warming up (AJL-Guitars | Quiet and portable) before the work day really kicks off. Originally Posted by sgosnell
There have been slight changes in the manufacturing of SelMac style guitars, and we're seeing stainless or Evo Gold frets becoming more and more standard, along with carbon fiber reinforced necks and in the case of the guitar I am currently holding, something that feels like a Gypsy guitar but is portable and nearly silent. Innovation in a practical sense is what I think most instruments usually require at most.
But I guess this is my question/feeling about innovation with these instruments. IMO, there are very few guitars that sound as incredible as an electrified Gypsy guitar. Django's electric recordings are (IMO) some of the best guitar tones ever recorded. Acoustically, these guitars are incredibly nuanced. Take a listen to Stephane Wrembel's Django L'impressioniste to hear his 1943 Busato in all its acoustic glory. Why make changes for the sake of change? If the market isn't responsive to a "good idea", is it really a good idea?
I teach Innovation and Entrepreneurship at a local university and have for many years now, and sometimes the reality is that just because a product solves a certain problem, it doesn't mean that buyers are going to be open to those changes. When we see changes, the question I always ask is "what problem are we really trying to solve?" Change for the sake of change often times creates more questions than it does solve problems. Who in the market needs these changes? What fundamentally are we trying to solve for? If robot tuners was really solving a problem in the market, wouldn't we have seen broader adoption of the solution? Whether or not guitarists are a conservative bunch of not I think is just a by-product of the reality that for the last 100 years, archtops and SelMacs have mostly already been fantastic, and the foundational electric guitars of the 50s and 60s much the same. Slight modifications of materials and building make player-centric improvements, and are not change for the sake of change. Honestly, I think we keep going back to these designs because they're fantastic already. Adding more strings, changing construction methods, new materials, headless designs, ergonomic attention; these have been the things players have embraced it seems.
We're seeing a materials revolution in some ways, which I think is great. Aristides is building guitars completely out of man-made materials and metal guitarists have been raving about them. Parker guitars were also fantastic, but were almost so revolutionary that maintaining them, especially after the company dissolved could be difficult. On the older models, if that ribbon cable fell apart, you were SOL. And the glued on frets on rare occasions fell off.
Anyway, long post, sorry about that. I just question as part of my day job why we question the lack of progress when something is already pretty darn good.
-
And that's fine with me. Progress has brought down the cost of high quality archtops that still make the same joyous noise Originally Posted by Jim Soloway
But I don't think any "progress" has been made in improving fine jazz guitar tone because it neither needs nor can be made better. I will laud the progress that's allowed us to get the same kind of tone from more affordable instruments and electronics than ever before - but the sounds that most of us love and crave have remained wonderfully unimproved for decades.
The fact that jazz now encompasses a wider than ever variety of tones, styles, and musicality is also fine with me. But that's not improvement either - it's simply crossover of existing mthods and madness from one genre to another. Similarly, today's country is yesterday's rock and roll. And technology has brought diversity in jazz sounds. But we spent decades praising and paying for ever lower distortion and higher clean headroom in our electronics. Then one day we started paying for devices that add it all back. Progress?
-
That's the nub of the discussion. Few seem to see any problems at all with the traditional archtop, or its offspring, the semi-hollow family. There is no problem that needs solving, so no need for innovation. The classical guitar, the horns, in fact almost all musical instruments, are fine as they are, after centuries of refinement, and have pretty much stopped serious evolution or innovation. Sometimes someone tries new materials, or other innovations, and generally fails to get traction. There seem to be few problems that need solutions, or that have solutions. Perfect intonation in all situations is a problem, but so far has no solution. Otherwise, it ain't broke, so why try to fix it?What problem are we really trying to solve?
-
Correction: there is no perceived problem, which is why there's no peceived need for a solution. But innovation goes beyond what we know to reveal new ideas and concepts - it's how we discover what we don't already know. Maybe there really is better tone quality or playability out there, and if there is, let's find it. I don't think there's been any progress toward that goal in jazz guitar for many decades. But if it's possible, let's go after it. There's a big difference between happy and satisfied. We're happy with the tone we have, and most of us will live happily ever after with it. But we're not so satisfied with it that we'd reject a better alternative if it came along. Originally Posted by sgosnell
-
Well, maybe there is better out there, but people have been trying since the beginning of time to find it, and very few have succeeded. Yeah, I'd accept something better if I found it, but so far I haven't. To be honest, what I like isn't really in the mainstream of the world.
-
No different than any other instrument. Look at double bass or violin.
Even keyboardists want a vintage Fender Rhodes, and Sequential, Oberheim and Moog have just reissued their original analog synths from the 70s.
-
The same question can be posed to guitarists in general. Solid body designs still mainly originates from Gibson and Fender designs from the 50's. Digital amplifier modelling competes to make the most accurate Plexi or '65 Deluxe. Guitar effects evolved with digital technology in the 80's, but other than that, what big innovations are there?
-
3 things I like:
(1) materials: road bikes made a big jump in quality going from steel to aluminum to carbon-fiber.
Carbon fiber guitars are beginning: indestructible, can be played in any climate.
(2) infinite sustain in sound Here’s another thing: the Fernandes Sustainer. Infinite sustain on each or every string, as needed. The real thing, though, is to make the Fernandes Sustainer pickup sound good and not nasal-like and awfully trebly. Cats that really use it (like Bob Fripp) have to dress it up with a mountain of effects systems (Fractal) to make it sound good. But the concept is GREAT.
(3) Ergonomic: playing a Brahms style guitar with a cello end pin is GREAT for left hand pain and right hand work. Such a simple thing, too bad it’s not implemented, generally.
-
I got my first guitar in 1963. The only guitar I have now that has anything more modern, and significant, on it, is my Godin with a hex pickup.
-
Haven't read through the thread, but if we really want to restrict the archtop to being a jazz guitar (or if we rephrase the question) you only have to look to builders like Monteleone, Ken Parker and the few who manage to pull off satisfying acoustic nylon-strung archtops to see quite a bit of progress.
BTW, exactly when is the L5 centennial?
-
1923 was the first year of production of the L5, so this is the 100 year anniversary. Originally Posted by RJVB
-
For sure. Originally Posted by Jim Soloway
-
There are none. As you noted about Fender and Gibson. Big innovations only happen in the first few years of a new product coming out. Everything after that is a refinement. Modeling technology is even worse because it's actually working backwards, attempting to replicate what was innovative and still being beaten by the original. This is the failure of "high tech". Like using mealworms and crickets to make hamburgers and flour. Regression through superior technology. Devolution. Originally Posted by tnipe
-
Anyone been invited to a party yet? Originally Posted by JSanta
-
I would assume that owning an L5 would be a prerequisite for an invitation, so I don't expect one.
-
I own two L-5's and I am not expecting any invitations myself. And neither of my L-5's (a 1996 WESMO and a 2003 CES) have much in common with a 1923 Loar signed L-5 other than the model name. Originally Posted by sgosnell
The fact that the L-5 did make progress from 1923 indicates to me that progress stops being made when the market is happy with what is already on offer. Gibson has tried to move forward, but Army green L-5 Studios were "progress" that the market rejected.
Reply With Quote
Playing live and getting the best sound from the...
Today, 02:08 PM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos