|
|
#1
11-16-2014, 12:03 AM
|
||||
|
||||
What's an archtop?
I've seen them, those big beautiful guitars with the matching "f" sound holes. But why? What makes this design significant? How are they different from a solid body electric, when the tone comes from the pickups and amp? Would a beginner finger style blues player like myself have a use for one? Most of the guys I've seen playing them are older guys like myself who play jazzy,bluesy type of music - are they some sort of bridge between the acoustic dreads and a solid body electric?
Generally you can play any kind of music on any guitar (very generally), but you don't see many rock and roll guys on TV playing an archtop. I'm just curious because they are great looking instruments and I'm wondering what I may be missing out on.
__________________
Barry My SoundCloud page Avalon L-320C, Guild D-120, Martin D-16GT, McIlroy A20, Pellerin SJ CW Cordobas - C5, Fusion 12 Orchestra, C12, Stage Traditional Alvarez AP66SB, Seagull Folk Aria {Johann Logy}: 
|
|
#2
11-16-2014, 08:45 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hi Barry,
Welcome to the read-headed stepchild section of the AGF!  The name itself is not misleading. Archtops are hollow guitars that are built with an arched top. The top can be hand-graduated (carved), pressed solid wood, or pressed laminated wood. The back is typically arched too, but not always. Archtops were introduced (I believe by Gibson) in the early 1900's as a way to create enough volume to compete with big bands of the era before amplification existed. Acoustic archtops that are designed to do so project very, very well, and the result is exceptional volume and cut projected away from the player that flat tops just can't compete with. Since then, they have taken many, many forms. Like other instruments, once amplification was invented, people did find ways to amplify them - pickups, mics, what-have-you. The sound of an amplified archtop has become the unofficial sound of jazz guitar. It is warm, fat, and round, with punch and quick response, but little sustain (to my ear, anyway). Modern archtops vary in purpose, sound, appearance, feel, and pricing as much as flat tops, electric guitars, or any other instrument made. For some reason, they're just not quite a well understood as these other instruments. I would not consider an amplified archtop to be a bridge between solid body electric guitars and acoustic guitars. While I can see their sound fitting that description, the evolutionary path that they took to get where they are today started long before the solid body electric guitar. I'm glad you were willing to ask this - it's one of those questions that seems so simple that some might not ask, and quite honestly, I think it's a lot of fun to discuss. My answers certainly aren't the end-all be-all, and I'm sure (I hope) others will correct any misinformation that I provided. But, that at least gives you the 5 minute snapshot of arcthop history. BE WARNED!!! Archtops are addictive, and can be very expensive. The first time you play a good acoustic archtop, you'll likely not fully understand it. I didn't. They sound weird. Then you spend some time with them, a few hours, and you grab your favorite flat top and it just sounds wrong. Be open minded, and play that first archtop beyond a few strums. Archtops and flat tops are wonderfully different, and compliment each other quite well. Enjoy the ride!
__________________
Life is good! Last edited by backdrifter; 11-16-2014 at 09:56 AM.
|
|
#4
11-16-2014, 09:11 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
__________________
Pre-War Guitar Co. Model D and OM-2018 1928 Gibson L-5
|
|
#5
11-16-2014, 10:49 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
1] The archtop design per se is an offshoot of violin construction techniques, and as such precedes Orville Gibson's earliest efforts (circa 1894 according to company literature) by several hundred years; by the same token, Big Band jazz would not emerge for another three decades after the launch of the first carved fretted instruments (mandolin family initially, with guitars entering the line shortly after the turn of the 20th century). While they were unquestionably designed to achieve superior tone and volume compared to a flattop instrument - TMK all Gibsons used steel strings from day one unlike their erstwhile competitors - they were targeted at the vaudeville performers and mandolin orchestras of the day. Without going into exhaustive detail, it was an interesting juxtaposition of events in the early/mid-1920's - the rise of jazz, the decline of the mandolin, the invention of electronic recording and amplification, and Lloyd Loar's introduction of f-holes and parallel tone-bar bracing - that would lead to the emergence of the archtop guitar as the instrument of choice, and its irrevocable identification with the Jazz/Big-Band Age; rather than being purpose-built as some suggest - the 1923 L-5 was in fact intended as a member of the mandolin orchestra, several K-5 mandocellos having been constructed on the same platform - it was more a case of the right tool being available at the right time... 2] Although the term "bridge" may be interpreted differently by different people, there is unquestionably an evolutionary link between the amplified archtop and all subsequent variations of the electric guitar. It has been documented that the far-sighted Lloyd Loar was experimenting with the idea of amplification as early as mid-1924 - it has been postulated that his efforts were no small contributor to his termination by Gibson - and photos exist of a pre-1930 electrified L-4 with its matching amplifier. Les Paul himself - arguably the father of the modern solidbody guitar - was amplifying his own instruments with phonograph cartridges by the early 1930's, and it was the observed problems that led him to develop the idea of a solid Spanish-style instrument (Hawaiian solidbodies were in production by the mid-30's); the first mass-market electrics, however, were in fact derived from archtop acoustic designs, and their indirect influence is felt to this day in the popularity of both semi-hollow ES-335 style instruments (actually an offshoot of Les Paul's 1941 "Log") and thin-body "rockabilly" guitars (Gretsch, Reverend, etc.)... 3] Don't sweat it - that's what we're all here for...  4] As a 50+ year archtop player, I'd also recommend approaching them with a different technique - one derived from orchestral string approaches and practices - in order to get the best out of them. If you're expecting to just lay into it as you would a D-28 or J-45, you're going to be in for some serious disappointment; archtops were intended from their inception as "virtuoso" instruments (there was a whole school of "classical archtop" playing that flourished between 1925-1940, but that's a topic for another thread), and if approached with a more controlled, refined technique - think "glide" rather than "pick," "stroke" instead of "strum," as an orchestral player would use a bow - you'll be able to, in the words of the old-time Big-Band players, "coax the velvet out" with a bit of dedicated practice. Once you do you'll find an archtop makes a wonderful complementary/ alternative voice in many acoustic arrangements, from a driving rhythmic "chunk" reminiscent of an F-5 mando on steroids, to a vocal accompaniment smooth and rich enough to eat with a spoon (listen to the rhythm tracks on the old Johnny Mathis recordings), to an articulate, punchy lead voice that sits well in the mix... Last edited by Steve DeRosa; 11-16-2014 at 05:49 PM.
|
|
#6
11-17-2014, 06:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Just a little more historical perspective, because I believe the association of archtops with electric guitars, even if wrong, is quite common...
As my friends reference above, archtops were originally acoustic guitars, designed to be louder than the flattops that were available in the 1920's and 30's. It's no accident that when Maybelle got her first big check for a successful record, she bought a Gibson L-5, not a Martin! Acoustic archtops ruled the roost during the early thirties, when the technology of amplification was first available, so naturally when the idea of an "electric guitar" came around (and lots of people and companies were chasing this idea simultaneously), it was the archtops that got electrified first. The problem of feedback arouse immediately of course, and companies started designing guitars specifically to avoid feedback. Making guitars of plywood, or making them thicker and heavier, were simple ideas and worked reasonably well. That's how the Gibson ES-150 became the first widely available electric guitar in the late 30's. The first electric guitar had f-holes primarily as a result of the fashion and expectations of the times. The sound and style of those early electrics set a precedent that still influences. The ES-150 became the ES-175 became the ES-335, and the mother of the instrument, the acosutic archtop, was almost forgotten. Add to that the fact that flattops are simpler and cheaper to manufacture, and it's no wonder that acoustic archtops have been fighting to be heard in modern times We friends of the archtop here are trying to resurrect the old love of the instrument, win some new converts to it's virtues, and just make lots of more good music with them I probably beat this quote to death, but here goes: Jimmy D'Aquisto said that the archtop is the most versatile kind of guitar, and I for one am convinced. From big band instrument to sensitive parlor guitar, the acoustic archtop can do it all.
|
|
#7
11-30-2014, 09:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Acoustic archtops of today?
Quote:
This whole thread is a very enlightening discussion! Thanks for all the contributions. Thanks, OP, for the very relevant questions I've always had, but never thought to ask. If I may now ask, is it safe to say that, today, the majority of archtops are specifically designed to be amplified? Meaning, if not plugged in, they sound quieter than a flattop? Also, can anyone provide a short list of today's archtops (make and model) that are specifically designed to be played acoustically and would sound similar volume-wise when played unplugged to Maybelle Carter's Gibson L-5? Thanks very much!
|
|
#8
12-05-2014, 03:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Daniel Slaman's "1923 Style" which is as close a copy as they come, and Loar LH-700 and LH-600 I'd mention the non-cutaway acoustic Eastman models AR-605 and AR-805 as runners-up, although they are X-braced and the 605 has a mahogany back & sides. But they are pretty darn close and very nice guitars.
__________________
Pre-War Guitar Co. Model D and OM-2018 1928 Gibson L-5
|
|
#9
12-05-2014, 08:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Always love the historical information some of you guys bring to the table. you'd think since I've been spending every day for 9 years with my nose inside these things I'd be an archtop encyclopedia but I just know how to make em
 so its always nice to come on here and learn new things about the history. But functionally… to the first question "What is an archtop"… it's an oddly designed stringed instrument. It takes its cue from bowed instruments which activate the string, bridge and top very differently. So it was an odd choice for a plucked instrument. However, it ended up working very well when people needed an instrument that had better projection. The top is activated with a downward force on the bridge whereas the flattop guitar top is activated by a pulling and twisting force at the bridge. This creates entirely different nodal, pole, and free plate motion and placement. The bridge pushes down in the middle of the plate which exerts a force around the rim and tightens the whole top. The arch, being a must stronger geometric shape means the guitar doesn't require as many structural bracing. The result of all this technical stuff is basically you end up with a more authoritative instrument with less sustain (suitable to genres like jazz where too much sustain can be problematic) and a better separation of individual notes (many people call this "separation of Chorus" but I'm not sure thats a real term) it just means the individual notes in a complex chordings sound more defined and don't blend together as much as in a flattop. To your second question about modern archtops being electrified. Archtops (as already pointed out) were designed before amplification to be able to project in bigger bands. Amplification crated some issues in archtops though because of many reasons but most notably what I mentioned before… they took their cues from bowed instruments. When the bridge is activated on an archtop the F-holes allow the top to move back and forth which, when amplified in plucked playing, can cause havoc. builders solved this with one or two solutions… laminated tops. And thicker tops. Over the years, archtops have become more electric instruments. BUT…. if an archtop is built correctly, it is first an acoustic instrument and second an acoustic instrument that can be electrified without feedback. By learning how to build great acoustic archtops, builders can learn to correct the issues of amplification without overbuilding the guitar. Thats the mark of a great archtop maker. This is my goal as a builder. I want people's face to change when they strum the first chord of one of my guitars acoustically. When they plug into an amplifier I simply want my acoustic tone to be amplified… I dont want the tone to change (unless of course the players wants that). But thats how I think about my guitars when I build. A beautiful and versatile acoustic archtop that can be amplified is possible and its a beautiful thing. I don't know what your price range is but builders that come to mind who focus on this, aside from myself Tom Ribbecke Chris Mirribella Ken Parker John Monteleone Ted Megas Steve Grime Mark Campalone Ryan Thorell Eric Solomon There are others but these are my favorites and the ones who I think make exceptional acoustic archtops.
|
|
#11
12-07-2014, 01:09 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Gorgeous Church!
Great info! Thanks!
I visited your website and, man, ain't that a gorgeous archtop you make?! Just beautiful! On average, how many of these (Church) would you make each year? Quote:
|
|
#12
12-07-2014, 11:27 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Currently my production is pretty low, at around 3-4 guitars a year. But thats mainly because I only just started my own business a little over a year ago and the first 4 months was spent building my new shop. Prior to starting my own business I was the shop foreman and lead builder for Tom Ribbecke in his private practice. We produced about 12-15 a year there between Tom myself and one other luthier. My hope is that next year I double what I did this year and get to a point where I can comfortably produce 8-10 per year within the next 2 years. But the challenge now is just getting my name out and letting people know I exist
|
|
#13
12-09-2014, 10:31 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#14
12-09-2014, 03:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Its certainly not an absolute… there will ALWAYS be certain situations and conditions which will plague the guitarist and soundguy. And how you answer these questions really depends on the needs of the player and what this guitar in question will be used for. Its a big big topic but to try to answer your specific question… I'd say its important for a builder to understand how the string effects the bridge (directional movement, transfer of energy etc…) and how that in turn effects the top. How does a pair of F-holes effect the top. and what effect does the tail piece have on the box and strings. One of the reasons archtops feedback is because at a certain point, the space between the two inside points of the f-holes starts to oscillate in an undesirable way. SO a builder should know that and think… will binding the F-hole solve this? Will creating a new F-hole design solve this? Will moving the holes solve this? etc… Graduations on archtops are obviously where most of the magic happens on these guitars… every makers has their secrets and philosophies in regards to that. But basically there isn't one answer… and speaking of answers I have no idea if I actually have any or not. It seems that luthiers tends to go in waves… everytime we think we got it figured it out we realize we dont know what the heck we are doing. haha The way I look at it is that I have to make decisions. And I'd like those decisions to be based on theories and philosophies that make sense to at least me. But its ever evolving and I have no definitive answers. The one thing I absolutely know… is that I've been extremely fortunate to play some of the best archtops being made today and from those experiences have surmised that you can absolutely build an outstanding acoustical brilliant archtop guitar and then plug it into an amp or sound system and play without having problems that extend beyond the normal management any acoustic guitars require.
|
|
#15
12-10-2014, 12:30 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
That's a great post! Nice to get a peek into behind-the-scenes once in a while. Thanks!
|
