Quote:
Originally Posted by Hot Vibrato
I love the Gypsy jazz sound, but I've never played a real Selmer Macafari guitar, or any of the reproductions made by top luthiers, and I've been unimpressed with the import versions that I have seen. I just don't think many high quality examples exist in the region in which I live. However, it seems that with such light strings, they would be at a disadvantage in terms of sheer volume (lighter strings = less top movement = less volume). I've often wondered how Django was even heard at the clubs in Paris, using 1930's sound reinforcement technology. Have you ever tried playing an acoustic guitar in a loud club? Impossible to hear acoustically, and tricky to mic, even with modern technology. It's maybe a subject for another thread, but I wonder how it was possible back then for Django's solos to be audible in a live venue.
I guess I'm the one who used the word "average", but I wasn't considering that most flat tops and archtops in existence are cheap student brands that are mostly unacceptable for any serious player. So let's forget about Kays, Harmonys, Silvertones, or other cheapo brands for the moment. If we're comparing Gibson and Epiphone's vintage archtops vs. Gibson's and Martin's' flat tops from the same timeframe, then I disagree. I would say that the average archtop sounds better to me. It may be apples and oranges, but I like the archtop sound better, and they're far more versatile than some folks on this thread give them credit for.
Much like Gypsy jazz guitars, there's not many boutique archtops in this region, but I've played plenty of vintage Gibson and Epiphone archtops, and great sounding examples can be had for $2000 or less. In my experience, the more expensive models are more ornate, but they don't sound much better than their more humble counterparts. In fact, I prefer the sound of Gibson's parallel-braced guitars to their more expensive X-braced models, and Epiphone's parallel-braced models sound even better to me than Gibson's.
You can have the $10,000 archtops. There are plenty of more affordable, more modest vintage guitars that sound just beautiful to my ears.
Thank you. I couldn't have said it better myself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKaEiY4Xelc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hc1zuJ3VjLI
Nobody bothered to tell Eddie Lang that he was using the wrong guitar for his solo pieces: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQjSf4nxP7Q
Maybe so... I was just pointing out the fact that I'm disappointed in the tone of most "good" flat tops. If I hadn't brought it up, then we wouldn't be having this interesting conversation. I always enjoy reading your thoughtful remarks, so thanks for contributing. |
Some interesting points salient to this thread here.
"I love the Gypsy jazz sound, but I've never played a real Selmer Macafari guitar, or any of the reproductions made by top luthiers"
I have played a genuine Selmer Maccaferri, and a couple made by a fine luthier friend of mine using original parts obtained from Louis Gallo.
Played solo, out of context, they sound very poor, but played in manouche style by an expert you get, not a wide tonal range but that "pre-war" swing sound - which is actually harsh and thin.
The Eddie Lang pieces you chose are excellent examples as to the thinner sound of early archtops. A long way from ideal for melody work as illustrated. Yes you can hear every note and the virtuosity of the player, but compared to say, a fine 00 or 000 martin 12 fret flat top it doesn't compare.
I have a '34 Gibson archtop - it is a thing of beauty, and if I wanted to give a rhythmic chop in a band it would work perfectly, but for melody playing - thin.
Here's an example :
Somne time ago i wanted to use it to video my version of an old American songbook piece - "All Of Me" I was unimpressed with the Gibson for it and so in frustration, I turned to my 000 flat top :
The '34 archtop is incisive and projects well, but has little sustain and the bass is dry and flat ....as one would expect - for a rhythm box.
The 000 (when properly in tune) has a perfect balance across the strings, and good sustain as one would expect from a design (including a suitably wide fretboard) intended for auditorium use any time between 1902 and now.
As a side note, I also (currently) have a wonderfully built Eastman archtop built to the same dimensions as the old L-4, but built lighter to give a wider tonal sound.
I only have one video of this which was made to sell it. I'm no longer a charter member and not trying to sneak in a rogues sales pitch so just look at thins from 2.00 on, to hear the fuller sound of a good modern archtop :
Whilst the sound is much fuller - it still doesn't equal the open tonality of, say a dreadnought :
Hope that helps illustrate the difference between the design and purposes of these guitar styles.