#16
|
|||
|
|||
Well, if we're talking about what an average flattop sounds like, I'll say that the average archtop sounds way worse imo. The ones that have sounded great to me come with a price tag close to $10,000, and for that kind of dough I know a couple of builders who can get me into something that sounds like a D-28 and an L-5 in a small 00 body.
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Does it occur to anyone that whilst one may consider generalising both flat-tops and, say, solid electric guitars, and saying that one sounds better would obviously be banal, as they are two very differnt musical instruments and one cold not generalise the sound of a flat-top (e.g. am 0-18 with an SJ200 or a Guild 12 string) let alone "electric" guitar - e.g. A telecaster, with a les Paul, with a ..whatever, as they will all sound differnt, and are affercted by the amplification.
Archtops were made in Chicago by Stella/Harmony and by Hofner in Germany, in their hundreds of thousands and sold for a few pounds/Deutschmarks/dollars for many years, whereas Gibsons, Epiphones, Strombergs were a whole "'nother" thing. I'l mention once again: Flat-tops were designed and made to be played fingerstyle until the late '20s when they were generally redesigned to be strummed. Archtops were re-designed in the early '20s as orchestral rhythm instruments. Later innovations of acoustic archtops were made lighter to sound less percussive and more "musical" but that is another conversation. To compare the generalised sound of an archtop guitar with a generalised notion of a flat-top is as useful as comparing an orange with a bicycle.
__________________
Silly Moustache, Just an old Limey acoustic guitarist, Dobrolist, mandolier and singer. I'm here to try to help and advise and I offer one to one lessons/meetings/mentoring via Zoom! |
#18
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
You can have the $10,000 archtops. There are plenty of more affordable, more modest vintage guitars that sound just beautiful to my ears. Quote:
Quote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hc1zuJ3VjLI Quote:
Quote:
__________________
https://www.reverbnation.com/bootheelers Last edited by Hot Vibrato; 11-06-2016 at 10:00 AM. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Flat tops do not sound like archtops. They do different things. I use an oval hole archtop for a many styles but the sound envelope is still different from my Martin dread or Goodall concert.
For those that have distinct preferences for whatever reason, that's fine. But what is 'better' depends on the music being play and the musician playing it.
__________________
Spook Southern Oregon Last edited by Spook; 11-06-2016 at 11:59 PM. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Oval hole archtops can sound cool, but they are generally brighter and have less bass response. Therefore they are not as versatile, and should therefore be relegated to specific tasks where an "archtop sound" is appropriate. I contend that a good acoustic archtop with f-holes, if played with the proper finesse, can sound as good or better than a flat top in virtually any musical scenario. Just speaking for myself, in any situation that requires a steel sting acoustic guitar, I feel more comfortable with an archtop in my hands regardless of what type of music I'm playing.
__________________
https://www.reverbnation.com/bootheelers |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
OK.. So I made this long argumentative post completely worthy of deletion (why does Internet suck us into that?). My apologies. Basically I'm just really glad there are flat tops, arch tops, nylon string, and in-betweens out there to enjoy and I think they are all quite different. That and I don't agree about oval holes. They aren't brighter and actually have more bass bridging the gap (to a degree) between flat top and arch top.
And yes.. archtops are amazing guitars that aren't as well appreciated as they should be. Part of that is that you have to be a fairly advanced player before their attributes shine brightest.
__________________
Spook Southern Oregon Last edited by Spook; 11-07-2016 at 10:04 PM. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
What do you do in your spare time...?
__________________
"Mistaking silence for weakness and contempt for fear is the final, fatal error of a fool" - Sicilian proverb (paraphrased) |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
I too think that archtops are generally far more versatile than the very narrow realm to which they seem to have been relegated since the flattop guitar became the predominant choice of acoustic guitar. Changes in musical style sure has played a role in that as much as did the electrified age of guitar. Personally, I do prefer the sound and feel of an archtop guitar and I think most any sort of acoustic style can be reasonably played on one. Certainly there are compromises and limitations especially where the musical ideal is toward jangle, ultra resonance, and notes that carry forever, or chord strumming that sizzles with unending shimmer(Taylor). That would seem to be an idealistic territory for the modern flattop and one an archtop would not directly duplicate, though the result may well be tolerable to the ears of some listeners and not completely offensive to a majority....just not the preference for most. I do think a reasonable Spanish sound can indeed be successfully coaxed from the depths of an acoustic archtop. The guitar work on Marty Robbins' recording of El Paso was done on an archtop guitar from most all accounts I have read. For me, that 5 minutes or so of guitar work is truly some of the most memorable acoustic guitar in the country music genre and sounds very gut string guitar-ish to me and to most folks, I imagine. Like most folks here, I have flattop, archtop, nylon string, resonator, and electric guitars. I like them all. But of them all, I enjoy the sound, feel, challenge , and certainly the rewards of coaxing sweet tones from archtop guitars. I do not play jazz and my archtops are of the very meek variety so my commentary must be taken with a grain of salt... I am more Mother Maybelle variety archtop. If my musical tastes were different my opinions and preferences would most likely be a bit different as well. It doesn't hurt that my Father played archtops. I never saw him play anything other than an archtop. Had he lived longer I am certain he would have had some flatops in his hands....
Last edited by gmr; 11-07-2016 at 07:00 PM. |
#24
|
||||
|
||||
I like them both!
I think as others have said, you need to appreciate what each type of instrument does well. They excel at different things. Archtops in general excel at fast attack, string-to-string clarity, balance and projection. Flat tops in general excel in their bass response, sustain and overtones. I frankly enjoy both!
I have also lucky enough to have the opportunity explore a spectrum of hybrid guitars that incorporate features and tone characteristics of both types of guitars through some custom commissions. I have a 16" maple archtop (left), a 16" mahogany hybrid oval hole archtop with a flat back guitar (middle, left), a 15" carved maple back, flat top guitar (middle right) and I have a 15" african blackwood oval holed flat top guitar.
__________________
A bunch of nice archtops, flattops, a gypsy & nylon strings… |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
You know Bob, when it comes to the pinnacle, artistic and scientific, of the luthier's craft over the last decade of two, you have the best guitar collection ever.
__________________
Spook Southern Oregon |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Things have been kind of slow here on the archtop sub-forum, so I'm glad to have started a thread which sparked such a lively discussion. I was going to prepare a response to your previous post, but then you had to go and be all diplomatic, which just helps to prove what I've always thought - that people who play archtop guitars have class. Regarding the topic at hand: I'm a fingerpicker, and I love the way a good archtop sounds played fingerstyle. It takes a more aggressive attack to get a rich tone (than with a flat top steel string or classical), but the sound is just heavenly to my ears. I've often wondered why archtops haven't caught on with more (non-jazz playing) fingerstyle guitarists. Regarding oval hole and round hole archtops - my experience is mainly with Gibson L-1's and L-3's, which are small guitars, so that may have caused me to form the opinion that they lack bass response. I don't see too many other round hole examples of archtop guitars very often, so maybe it's not fair for me to even have a general opinion of how they compare to f-hole guitars. I do agree that it takes a fairly advanced player for their attributes to shine brightest. It's definitely easier to sound good on a flat top. Archtops require a certain touch to make them sound their best. Another member here ( I think it was Steve) says the old-timers called it "coaxing the velvet out". I love that. I've had to delete posts and apologize for my behavior on the internet in the past as well. When you're as opinionated as I am, you're bound to rub some people the wrong way. But internet forums are more fun when these discussions don't escalate into petty bickering. Thanks for taking the high road.
__________________
https://www.reverbnation.com/bootheelers |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Man, you're not kidding! That's a sweet looking batch of guitars there!
__________________
https://www.reverbnation.com/bootheelers |
#28
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I am very fortunate to have amassed such a fine collection of instruments and had the privilege of getting to know such fine artisans through these projects has been my great pleasure. They ALL continue to make me smile every time I play them. Quote:
I shared these specifically because they explore the space in between the two instrument types. The archtop/flat back performs more like an archtop but adds to the bottom register and a bit of complexity to the tone. The carved back/flat top sounds more like a flat top but adds the speed and projection of an archtop. The oval hole flat top really just sounds like an excellent flat top.
__________________
A bunch of nice archtops, flattops, a gypsy & nylon strings… |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Interesting thread.
I think one of the things that make the guitar such an amazing instrument is the sheer amount of variance that exists. In the flat top world you have so many different instruments that provide different tones. Same as the arch top world. So its just very difficult for me to agree with broad brush statements. I build both arch top guitars and flat top guitars. The flat top market is much better than the arch top market so, from a business standpoint alone, it makes sense to focus a lot of my efforts there. But from a lutherie standpoint, my passion is definitely in the arch top guitar. I wish I could focus more on archtops as it is certainly my speciality.... the market just doesn't support it unfortunately. I believe the arch top is an incredibly under-rated instrument when it comes to its acoustic dynamic range and versatility. But the misconception is fair because proportionally I feel like there are more bad sounding archtops in the market than flat tops. But if you are lucky enough to be exposed to really nice archtops then it can be a pretty eye opening experience. I'm not usually a fan of conversations regarding tone of instruments because I feel they are usually pretty unenlightened conversations that are stuck in old ways of thinking. But I do think Silly mustache is correct in saying its all about choosing the right tool for the job. Each instrument offers a different voice... if you lean towards arcthops thats awesome. I think (and hope) that more people start realizing the arch top offers more than they've been told. Because it does. But I also love a good flat top. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Here's my attempt to make a flat top do an archtop's job....
|