No progress in 80 years of jazz guitar building?

[Marty Grass]

Here is the cover of Jazz Guitar Today. We had the monkey on the stick, the McCarty, the P-90 and many humbuckers. But here we are back with the CC. I'm no better than anyone else. I'm a sucker for the old tones too.

[Doctor Jeff]

Yeah we're a conservative lot.

As I've mentioned before, the CC pickup is from a design perspective rather primitive, compared to more recent pickups. In particular, I would think there would be a lot of "bleed" of tone from one string to another, since there are no individual polepieces. Nevertheless, this was the sound that early jazz guitarists grew up on and we have become accustomed to hear.

If the early electric jazz guitar sound had been different--imagine a piezo pickup or a mic inside the body or even something more radical like a Roland-style synth pickup--we would have different ideas about how a jazz guitar is supposed to sound.

But OTOH, maybe the primitive wrapped pickup was virtually perfect from the get-go? The design of the ES-150 has not really been improved on, with some minor modifications along the way.

[AllanAllen]

Aside from Lester Young tweaking the sax a little sideways and Dizzy sitting on his horn, what's happened to the rest of the instruments in 80 years?

[nevershouldhavesoldit]

Progress is an ambiguous term. I think the processes, tools and some materials have improved over time to allow luthiers to achieve more consistency from instrument to instrument, with better conformance to their design and performance goals along with more durability and less fragility. But I don't see how one can make progress in a sound that was inherently pleasing from the start and has been so to millions of players and listeners for many many years. Things like truss rods and design innovations for more stable necks, tops, etc are certainly progress - but they don't affect the basic sound of the instrument.

This applies to many instruments. The best pianos, violins, basses, saxophones etc all sound pretty much the way they did 80 years ago (and much further back than that). A lot of progress has been made in actions, mouthpieces, etc - but most current top level instruments made today sound similar to their early counterparts. Many are easier to play well, and many are easier to maintain. But a Selmer Mark 6 sax made in 1954 (the first year) is still a gold standard for saxophone tone and playability 70 years later. And a 1930 Selmer "cigar cutter" sax is still a standard almost a century after it was made.

As for pickups, I think the real progress has been in making them quieter and more resistant to interference. Every time someone plugs in an early Strat or Tele, the "sound of Fender" starts with a flip of the power switch and drives everybody else nuts. Loving the sound of a CC is understandable, but no amount of "progress" could make it more loveable. Progress could make it available without the noise from adjacent lighting, power lines, refrigerators, cell towers, etc. I haven't heard a noiseless pickup that sounds exactly like a classic SC yet, so progress would be achieving the exact same sound and feel without the noise. But specifically referrng to luthiery, a 100 year old guitar can sound every bit as good as any modern one, and many do. I don't think the concept of progress is even applicable to the evolution of hollow guitars, especially for jazz. Designing new instruments for new music would be a kind of progress, but the sounds would probably not be as pleasing as the traditional sound for many of us.

I'm reminded of the story of the guy who fixes his college roommate up with a woman from his home town, telling his buddy that she looks like a model. His friend goes out with her and returns very angry, screaming "I thought you said she looked like a model!" His friend replies, "So I guess you don't like Picasso."

[Jim Soloway]

There's been incredible progress in guitar building. The stasis is a problem of demand, not supply.

[rlrhett]

^^^^^ This ^^^^

[John A.]

There has been (and continues to be) a lot of change and experimentation in design (of both entire guitars and components) at the margins of the market. I'm not sure I'd call it progress, since much of this is for the sake of being different or to meet a niche need without necessarily being better than the broad middle of the market (e.g., headless designs, travel guitars, silent guitars, various techniques for silencing single coil noise, etc.). But there has been huge progress in manufacturing efficiency and quality management.

The electric guitar is a solved problem. Sometimes that happens, and there's no need for further progress.

[whiskey02]

The fact that one can buy a well built, good sounding guitar for $500, sometimes even less proves there has been great progress. Constant change for the sake of change is not progress and is most frequently solely for the benefit of manufacturing companies and retailers.
Little has changed in violin design for hundreds of years. They can be more affordably mass produced now but the instrument itself needs no revolutionary overall.
What can a guitar not do now that requires design changes?

[Jim Soloway]

What can a guitar not do now that requires design changes?

I've been hearing that question for a really long time and yet since that question was first asked we now have stainless steel frets, torrified woods, advanced switching options, improved vibrato systems, many more options in hum cancelling passive pickups, improved neck joints, fanned frets, extended range, etc. Perhaps we'd do better to change the question from "What can a guitar not do now that requires design changes?" to "What changes will someone think of to make the guitar a more powerful and useful instrument in ways that we have not yet considered?"

[QAman]

The attached link provides some additional perspective from George Gruhn on this topic.

[lammie200]

Maybe an unpopular opinion but the CC pickup that was in the ES-175CC that I had many years ago was not a great pickup. Maybe the tone was OK if I could tolerate the hum but it also weighed a ton. If there has been no other progress at all it is probably the new era of CC pickups that are much better than the original design.

[NSJ]

The attached link provides some additional perspective from George Gruhn on this topic.

Interesting. Some of his conclusions: can’t get better than a 1927 L5 for an archtop: (2) Leo Fender killed acoustic music and jazz big bands with his amplifier, allowing for small combos to be heard louder than an orchestra: (3) nothing is more insane than the extreme relic models: why would you buy a guitar that emulates what a slob did to basically abuse their instrument? (4) Old Martins are more rare than a strad violin

[Degranulator]

Maybe an unpopular opinion but the CC pickup that was in the ES-175CC that I had many years ago was not a great pickup. Maybe the tone was OK if I could tolerate the hum but it also weighed a ton. If there has been no other progress at all it is probably the new era of CC pickups that are much better than the original design.

This was my experience with the 1979 175/CC also. The hum was so bad a low B would beat against it. The guitar was very pretty however, probably the nicest I have ever seen. Had I only know it would reach absurd prices!

My guitar has a Lollar CC pickup without the big magnets and gets closer to the tone I associate with the CC with very little hum.

I don't know what would constitute progress for the guitar, more acoustic volume? I don't think it would be in the realm of electronics.

[jazzkritter]

On the CC pickup. I put a very nice Biltoft CC on my PM200, in place of its usual Fralin Modern PAF. Maybe its just that Ive played HBs of one sort or another for a long time, but IMHO i dont see what the CC brings. Aside from its noise (it is what it is) i agree it does not separate individual strings well. The overall sound response didnt seem to have the variation possible an HB gives.
But my big disappointment was the feel. There was little of the reaction to changes in picking im used to in a good HB. It just didnt feel like fun to play, felt i was fighting it. The Fralin is back on.
However —- a CC pup sure didnt limit Barney Kessel, and Metheny as we all have seen is playing one.
So… what do I know?
jk

From my classical organ side, the design of pipework has not changed since well before Bach’s time… the pipes of a 1500’s organ are very equal to the build of a new pipe of today. Dont fix what ain’t broke i guess.

[John A.]

FWIW, I think the next frontier ought to be making guitars that compare favorably to high quality current production out of reclaimed/recycled materials via low carbon-footprint processes with non toxic adhesives and finish materials.

[deacon Mark]

I am an old timer. I want them to build guitars like the 1924 LL L5. I want to see guitars made that are spec on with the archtop guitars that are consider the finest. Therefore we need ecact things like Super 400's, L5's and D'angelico's. My guess is someone will say they are already being done but I disagree. Trenier's guitars I think meet this bar and a few others but how about some more just for fun. Problem is they won't be collector's items like the real deals.

MG has made a great point. Right now to my ears nothing sounds really any better than Tal Farlow's sound in the 1950's. Kenny Burrell in the late 1960's and going back 80 years Django. We seem to have a problem and it is called new guitars. They just don't usually become status collectibles for a long time. But just so you know where I stand, if I buy a new guitar under no circumstances do I want it relict-like of looking used. I want a beautiful buffed out nitro finish and guitar that looks unplayed. I can buy guitars already that are played.

[Litterick]

It always amuses me to see a rock star playing a guitar designed in the 1950s and damaged to look as if it had been played since then, while his professional bassist plays a piece of twenty-first century technology.

[rpjazzguitar]

It's an interesting question.

I think there's been improvement in the quality of guitars at a low price point. Back in the day, the music store I taught at had a bunch of Zim-gars and similarly unplayable instruments. You don't see that any more. You can buy a giggable guitar for under $200.

At higher price points, somebody has to make a guitar better than L5s, D'Angelicos, the 59 Les Paul, the early Tele's and Strats and so forth.

[supersoul]

FWIW, I think the next frontier ought to be making guitars that compare favorably to high quality current production out of reclaimed/recycled materials via low carbon-footprint processes with non toxic adhesives and finish materials.

It's also a necessity since the traditional woods have become more scarce.

[plasticpigeon]

There's been incredible progress in guitar building. The stasis is a problem of demand, not supply.

Has there really been progress or just innovation and change?

[John A.]

It's an interesting question.

I think there's been improvement in the quality of guitars at a low price point. Back in the day, the music store I taught at had a bunch of Zim-gars and similarly unplayable instruments. You don't see that any more. You can buy a giggable guitar for under $200.

At higher price points, somebody has to make a guitar better than L5s, D'Angelicos, the 59 Les Paul, the early Tele's and Strats and so forth.

Absolutely. The cheap stuff is phenomenal compared to when I started in the late 70s. My kid just started playing bass, so I got him one of the Squier Affinity "starter" packs with a bass, amp, gig bag, strap, cable, and tuner for around $400 all in. It's genuinely good stuff. The bass sounds really good and is totally playable. The amp (a Fender Rumble LT25) is great. The stuff we started on (for twice the equivalent cost) was nowhere near this good.

[nevershouldhavesoldit]

The stuff we started on (for twice the equivalent cost) was nowhere near this good.

To be honest, the cheap stuff we old guys started on was a lot better than we understood at the time. My first amp was a 5 watt 1959 Kay 503 with a 4 Ohm Quam 8” speaker. It wasn’t quite as good as a Champ, but both are great little low volume jazz amps and both break up sweetly for blues and rock. Most of us would love to have a 5 watt tube amp from the ‘50s today, and a new custom shop 5F1 Champ (which looks and sounds just like they did in ‘57) is $1200.

My next amp was a Reverberocket, another “student” amp from 1961. It had octal preamp tubes and a pair of 6V6s for a sound closer to the 12 watt Fenders than the other Ampegs. It was at least as good a jazz amp as the Princeton, and it broke up just as smoothly. Apparently,this riled Ampeg management because they wanted more clean headroom - so they changed the circuit after less than 2 full years of production. But I had one of the first ones and it sounded wonderful with my 345 and the 175 that replaced it. I’d use it today instead of the CS PR that cost the club $2k and now sells for $2800.

I blew the speaker later in ‘61 (an alnico Jensen Blue, I think) running it all out at the Ocean City (NJ) Convention Hall, and its replacement was a 4x12 Magnatone with 4 6L6s. That was a Twin in every way but name and appearance, and it was significantly cheaper (which is why I got it).

Guitars were also decent beyond entry level. For example, Kay and Harmony put out some excellent archtops that were half or less as expensive as a 125 and sounded fine. I could go on and on, but I think my point is clear. Our equipment was better than we were - we just didn’t understand or want to believe it.

[John A.]

To be honest, the cheap stuff we old guys started on was a lot better than we understood at the time. My first amp was a 5 watt 1959 Kay 503 with a 4 Ohm Quam 8” speaker. It wasn’t quite as good as a Champ, but both are great little low volume jazz amps and both break up sweetly for blues and rock. Most of us would love to have a 5 watt tube amp from the ‘50s today, and a new custom shop 5F1 Champ (which looks and sounds just like they did in ‘57) is $1200.

My next amp was a Reverberocket, another “student” amp from 1961. It had octal preamp tubes and a pair of 6V6s for a sound closer to the 12 watt Fenders than the other Ampegs. It was at least as good a jazz amp as the Princeton, and it broke up just as smoothly. Apparently,this riled Ampeg management because they wanted more clean headroom - so they changed the circuit after less than 2 full years of production. But I had one of the first ones and it sounded wonderful with my 345 and the 175 that replaced it. I’d use it today instead of the CS PR that cost the club $2k and now sells for $2800.

I blew the speaker later in ‘61 (an alnico Jensen Blue, I think) running it all out at the Ocean City (NJ) Convention Hall, and its replacement was a 4x12 Magnatone with 4 6L6s. That was a Twin in every way but name and appearance, and it was significantly cheaper (which is why I got it).

Guitars were also decent beyond entry level. For example, Kay and Harmony put out some excellent archtops that were half or less as expensive as a 125 and sounded fine. I could go on and on, but I think my point is clear. Our equipment was better than we were - we just didn’t understand or want to believe it.

I have to disagree with that, though that may be because I started in the late 70s, not the 60s. My first electric guitar was an Epiphone T-270, which I got for $75, and it was a piece of crap, even though they're now collectible. Other options for $100-ish were things like crappy Les Paul copies with bolt-on necks and pickups that looked like humbuckers but weren't. My first amp was Fender Champ (also $75). Case, strap, and cable were all on top of that (I don't remember what they cost, but let's say $15). Electronic tuners didn't exist then, but my son's starter pack came with one, so let's say , a tuning fork for $5. So $170 in 1979, which is about $650 today. The kit I got my son was $399. Arguably, the amp is not as good as a Champ (apples to oranges, though hard to say), but it's pretty darn good. The bass is a much better instrument than what I could get back then. I also had a Madeira by Guild acoustic, made in Korea, that cost $90 in '79. Total piece of crap that self-destructed over the following 2-3 years.

[Cunamara]

Well, there is Paul Galbraith and the Brahms guitar that he designed with a luthier. It's perhaps not directly a jazz instrument, although it certainly could be used effectively for jazz. One of our own members has an archtop version of this made, if I remember correctly, by Victor Baker.

On the archtop end, there is Ken Parker and the NK Forster "long neck" guitars.

[Dennis D]

The lesson for me here is -

( While one guitar has a stick-on mike of some kind, the other a bar with volume knob, or ?? )

" Ok - - we have all we need - - - now we play !! "

: )