Vs flat-top sound unamplified
 

I've never heard an unamplified arch top guitar that sounded as good as a flat-top. Were arch-tops designed to be played amplified? The ‘f’ holes don’t seem to move much air. The arch seems to limit movement of the soundboard. They appeared to be very popular in the 1930’s and 1940’s. Don’t intend to offend anyone but am I missing something here? Other than aesthetics, what’s the attraction? Some are very beautiful. The plucking physics and dynamics of fingerstyle and plectrums are different than a horsehair bow. Haven’t seen much modern new build enthusiasm. Is this a cult,,,,, like Skyline Chile?

BTW, I love Skyline Chile.:D

Hi, regarding the archtop - it was developed round the turn of the century as a second "string" to the recreation of the mandolin family by the Gibson company.

Whilst Martin was slowly and conservatively enlarging their guitar offerings by improving the internal bracing to allow for wider guitars, gibson was taking their cue from the violin by making carved tops, initially on mandolins but from about 1902 guitars as well.

Like their mandolins Gibson made both round hole and f hole options, and the round hole offered a rounder warmer tone whilst the F hole version, like in violins, offered the maximum projection.

It was actually the invention of radio and recording technology that was the impetus for a period of rapid string instrument development as they led to (live) audiences becoming ever larger while things like electrification - pickups and microphones were still very much in development.

Until the mid '30s Martin was still building acoustic guitars for the solo or string band market whilst the Gibson archtops were fast replacing the tenor banjo in the rhythm sections of jazz/dance bands as swing replaced New Orleans music.
Martin tried with their OM in 1929, but they could not project like a Gibson L5.

Remember that bass was not the target! That was handled by the double bass and piano.
It was the chorded rhythm chunk chunk
The Gibson archtop kind of reached its peak in the early 1920s with the L-5 but many other American and European brands copied them as swing spread across the world.

This shows the purpose of the archtop in swing :



This is my friend and former jazz teacher showing his stuff. Note that the archtop makes an excellent foil for brass instruments



BTW -0 it should also be noted that as the archtop took over from the tenor (4 string) banjo, those guys changing to guitar only made four string chords and so wanted their guitars to have long necks with thin fretboards as they rarely used all six strings.
This became an elemental aspect of the jazz guitar but was copied by Martin who changed the typical design from 12 frets to 14 frets and reduced the fretboard width from a 1 & 7/8" nut width to 1 & 11/16" - in order to play jazz ! (which no-one does!)and we are still suffering from that.

I don't pretend to be able to play archtop guitar in their proper style, but these are mine.



The cheap mass produced Harmony wold serve well in a dance band - being loud if not beautiful tonally.
the Gibson is the "real" sound of the acoustic archtop and has both power and projection, and the Eastman is so open that it almost sounds like a flat top.

Last word? Electrics! When the magnetic pick-up became readily available, they were used on archtops before solid guitars came out.

However, many have fallen into the trap of trying to screw a pick up on the top of an acoustic archtop. It doesn't work because the top is about resonance so they fight each other.

Jazz style guitars with pickups usually have a large "fencepost" under the top to kill its natural resonance in order for the pick up(s) to operate. The correct way to electrify an acoustic archtop - if you have to - is to mount a "floating" pick up to the end of the fretboard not touching the top.
I hope that helps .

BTW here's some archtops played the way they sound best:

Yes, archtops are meant to be played unamplified, and the best of them sound (at least to those of us who love them) better than all but the very best flattops. Archtops typically have more controlled bass, fewer single-note resonances, respond much more quickly (allowing more precise rhythm), and tend to have better overall balance, and as a result often make better 12-key instruments. All these are generalizations of course, but the best D’Aquistos, Monteleones, Gilchrists, Manzers, etc., have truly limitless possibilities. They spend their string energy quicker, which leads to more “push” in the sound, but can also challenge the player. In this way, archtops sit at the opposite end of the spectrum of some of the modern flattops, with their deep bass, seemingly endless sustain, and enveloping fog of harmonics. To fully appreciate them requires something of a paradigm shift in the player or listener, especially those who have built their playing style and aesthetics around rich sustain and G and D resonances, used in DADGAD tunings.

A couple thoughts:

Andy has described the early history of the archtop well but there is a bit more after that. These instruments (and Gypsy guitars in Europe) were used in a band context and were competing for volume and projection to cut through the mix.

In the 1940s archtops began to move to become more electric instruments. First with floating DeArmond pickups and later with built in pickups (Charlie Christian, P-90s and Humbuckers). In the 1950s because they were primarily electric instruments, they added lower cost laminate constructed instruments. Most jazz from the 1940s to today is made using archtops plugged in the electric paradigm.

The idea of a soloist played acoustic archtop began to return in the 1960s and 1970s with luthiers like Jimmy D’Aquisto and later Bob Benedetto who both stretched the acoustic potential of these instruments. In the 1980s and 1990s a builders like Steve Andersen, John Buscarino, Steve Grimes, Ken Parker and Tom Ribbecke started to create acoustic archtops that differed from the Lloyd Loar L5s of the 1930s. This has evolved over the decades with many archtop luthiers today.

In the 1990s Eastman Strings, a Chinese violin maker began to build lower cost, Bob Benedetto derivative factory made archtops using Bob’s methods shown in his book “Making of an Archtop Guitar”.

Here is an example of a modern acoustic archtop by luthier Bill Comins. This is my guitar and it was designed to exhibit enhanced bass response and a bit more overtones like a flat top with the fast attack and string-to-string clarity of an archtop. I describe it as 75% archtop and 25% flattop. Here is a demo by my friend jazz guitarist Jimmy Bruno playing a solo version of “Alice in Wonderland”.



Here is a more traditional modern, x-braced archtop by luthier Bryant Trenier. A different timbre which a bit more sustain and complexity but less strident than a vintage instrument.

The posts above give the history that accounts for the range of guitar designs and uses, so all I can add is this:

"Sounds as good as" needs a context: sounds as good for what? If it's a bluegrass band, most players find a D-18 optimal. If it's a classic-swing/dance big band, something in the Gibson/Epiphone archtop tradition fits. If it's a Hot Club combo, Selmer-styles produce the required timbre. If it's slack-key or Celtoid fingerstyle, something in the Goodall-Lowden-Froggy Bottom line. And so on.

And as always, You Never Can Tell. I've played swing on a flat-top acoustic--and slack-key on a Michael Dunn Selmeroid, and country/folk on a National M-1 tricone--so the right guitar and the right technique can get some of the desired effects. But the optimal guitar for each style remains the conventional one, unless you want to be constantly adjusting your technique and settling for an almost-right sound.

The attack-decay-timbre-volume-projection profile of the acoustic archtop fits the needs of a swing band--and "modern" archtop designs have stretched the contexts in which that profile can fit comfortably.

Here’s a 1933 Gibson L-5 that made me question everything I’d ever heard about early archtops being built mainly to be heard above a horn section while chunking out rhythm chords. This guitar sounds sublime for both chords and melody work and has warmth, clarity, and a pronounced natural reverb. I asked the folks at Retrofret who posted this video whether any EQ or other modifications were added, and reportedly it was just two mics, though I am guessing it may have been a pretty “live” room: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqjAPGDJLgs

Andy said it best imo with his summation of the early years...I believe even Ken Parker would concur. i will only add that..Lloyd Loar was making Works of Art for Gibson until his departure when Gibson moved more towards mass production...profit over passion...just my opinion :)

What a great thread.

Thanks to all who’ve contributed their knowledge and experience.

The AGF shines, once again.

It’s a really interesting question.

I think archtops are the most beautiful looking guitars and I have always wanted to own one. I want to like their tone, however, everytime I’ve played one, the archtop “voice” doesn’t work for me.

My ears prefer prefer flat-tops, both steel and nylon. This may be a reflection of the music that i play and my voice.

Tricky Fish, the reaction you describe is pretty common, I think. Certainly I loved the arching and the violin f-holes from a visual perspective, but the sound left me nonplussed. Then at some point that changed, kind like when John Coltrane started to sound non-dissonant to me. Part of that type of transition involves letting go of previously held conception, and becoming open to a new aesthetic. Same with some abstract painting and modern verse.

Wow gentlemen, what an eye opening and interesting discourse. Especially the videos. That was a hell of an education. As someone before mentioned AGF is a rare and unique forum. As usual, have to put the instrument and sound in context….CONTEXT! A lot of expertise and experience and talent here.
Thank you.

Thank you Richard for giving us this video of an L-5 payed beautifully.
It surely makes the point of a solo acoustic archtop.



However, let's listen to how htwy sounded back in the day :



https://youtu.be/_p-LXQZRWoE?list=PL...JNK_ZIlsfTajUg



https://youtu.be/WG6aeeSULlk


Can't bring to mind other names we should listen to at present. Gotta go. Back soon.

The problem with those old recordings is that the recording technique wasn't exactly of the greatest quality, idem for the durability of the final product. As a result we get a rather distorted picture of what music sounded like in the day.
I have "Troubador" archtop, a cheapish instrument from the 40s or 50s by the Kirschnek company, beech or maple laminates with a single parallel brace under the bridge that has come loose entirely on the bass side and a warped neck ... when I play it I have the impression I'm listening to an old recording :)

Rob Mackillop has an excellent site up with lots of "unplugged" recordings of a number of instruments that sound very nice to my ears, including this Elferink for instance:


An informative related thread on the other guitar forum I frequent (I hope it's ok here to post links to "competing" forums):
The opposite mechanics of classical and archtop

And just because every time I come back to the (IMHO) superior sound you get with composite strings:

It's possible to learn how to hear through the signal chain of early recordings--especially the "electrical process" that came in in the late 1920s--and mentally recreate the original sound. By 1938, when the Ryerson side was cut, audio quality was far better than the old play-to-the-horn recordings, and in it I can hear a characteristic "doink" that I associate with 17-inch Gibsons.

There would seem to have been as much guitar-to-guitar variety in the 30s and 40s as there is now,and the videos sampled here (or demo'd by, say, Jonathan Stout) are evidence that sweeter-voiced archtops were out there pretty much from the beginning. But I suspect that among big-band players there was some selection pressure favoring the very loud, relatively dry, midrange-honk voice that we hear on the records.

Then there's the context of many of the solos on which we base our sense of what a vintage archtop sounds like: the guitar steps out for a chorus but for the rest of the tune is in its rhythm role, which means the player was going to be using his orchestral axe. (For example, Al Casey on the small-group "Buck Jumpin'.") An interesting exercise would be to go through the solo/duo recordings (Kress, McDonough, Van Eps) to see whether those players chose guitars with sweeter voices or just stayed with their big-group instruments. I suspect they're pretty much all using their regular gigging instruments.

Eddie Lang's Gibson (a pre-Advanced L5) has a bit of that constricted voice I associate with a big-band guitar--but he still manages to get it to sing. (His hands must have been really strong.) Matt Munisteri plays a similar L5 on a promo for his lesson series here:

https://pegheadnation.com/string-sch...of-jazz-guitar

The modern recording tech lets us hear what Eddie's guitar might have sounded like without the bandpass constriction.

On edit: Carl Kress's "Sutton Mutton" shows off what a 30s archtop could sound like, even through the recording tech of the time:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJD-jdU6DTw

According to Mackillop, people did play classical repertoire on their "plectrum guitars", and if you look at scores written for that instrument there's enough that wouldn't be completely out of place in a programme with light classical music.

I think that says enough about what the instruments could also sound like.

I forgot this little gem:

Elaborating further on the above, most contemporary players are unaware that there was an entire school of "classical archtop" guitar that flourished from about 1925-1940, and upon which Mel Bay based his well-known method; when I was learning in the early-60's the method books bore a statement that they were in fact designed and intended "to place the plectrum guitar in the same class as the violin, piano, and other 'legitimate' instruments" (and if you've never hung around in certain so-called "serious" music circles it's difficult to imagine the pejorative attitude directed toward the guitar, even in its "classical" incarnation)...

By way of background, in its original form the classical-archtop movement drew from the earlier American school of (fingerstyle) classical guitar exemplified by the likes of William Foden, Vahdah Olcott-Bickford, et al. (rather than that of Segovia and his Spanish contemporaries, which would become the accepted concert style and instrument), as well as the parlor, "light classical," and vaudeville music of late-19th/early 20th century America. In addition to transcriptions of well-known classical repertoire, a number of guitarists of the day produced original compositions in a late-Romantic style - music which, while largely out of fashion today, still retains its technical and artistic merit nine decades later. Bear in mind that the original L-5 archtop guitar was in fact envisioned as a "classical" instrument both tonally and visually, intended as a part of the mandolin orchestras of the late-vaudeville era and designed for hall-filling acoustic projection in the days before electronic amplification; were it not for Segovia's sensational American debut in 1928, the plectrum-style archtop guitar - with its violin-family looks and construction - may well have become the accepted "classical" guitar...

If you're interested there are a number of recordings of these period pieces on YouTube, either in the original (by the likes of Harry Volpe, Al Hendrickson, et al.) or re-recorded by contemporary revivalists. Here's a couple of samples of "classical archtop" from back in the day:



- and a few from modern revivalists keeping this historic style alive:



Interesting side note: Although barely visible in the picture, Harry Volpe's guitar is a prewar 18" Gretsch Synchromatic 400 with a triangular center soundhole (Django's playing the cats' eye version) - even through the primitive recording equipment/techniques the sweetness of the trebles and rich, woody bass/midrange one would anticipate in a guitar of this size/type can be clearly heard, and in conjunction with Volpe's technical prowess further substantiates my earlier comments about being a true virtuoso "classical" instrument...

In addition, you might also want to check out in depth some of the players mentioned previously: Eddie Lang (both solo and with Joe Venuti on violin), Carl Kress and Dick McDonough, Tony Mottola (when he was a teenage whiz kid), and George Van Eps, among others. Finally, there's an excellent collection published by Mel Bay, entitled Masters of the Plectrum Guitar which, should you be intrigued enough to investigate this style further, will definitely keep you busy for a while - and give you a taste of what might have been...

Thanks for that interesting elaboration! I'm going to have to find a copy of that Linear Etude (or the entire bundle) because it's exactly the sort of material I like working on (and it'd save my period purist's principles from playing Bach c.s. on guitar :) )

Is this repertoire still being played/taught or is it mostly being forgotten slowly?

That's maybe a bit too much wishfull thinking ;) The classical guitar is just a bit too much steeped in and based on tradition for that. (IIRC, Barrios played on steel strings from time time, and was scolded by another hot shot of the day for doing so, I think accused of being to lazy to get a proper volume on "real strings". A similar attitude towards steel strings remains nowadays, no matter how appropriate they could be for contemporary classical music.)
The archtop might have carved (hah) itself a "classical" position in the Americas - if the continents hadn't come closer together because of easier travel. Experience shows that classical music doesn't have space (or patience) for comparable instruments that fill too similar niches. The guitar replaced the lute, the piano the harpsichord, the violin family the gamba family - because there's always one of the two that's just a bit better at doing everything that's in vogue and/or at doing novel things that lead to the next vogue.

My point precisely, and the fact that the archtop was not only capable of doing American-school classical music, but superseded the tenor and plectrum banjos as the preferred instrument for the then-emerging genre of big-band jazz - not to mention its easy adaptability to the cutting-edge concept of electrification - would have, by our mutual definition, made it the superior instrument for general use; by the same token, absent Segovia's 1928 American debut the Spanish classical style might well have remained largely confined to the Iberian Peninsula and Latin America. Unfortunately, with the classical-music world being what we both know it is - back in the early-70's I caught a load of crap from a couple undergrad music professors, when I took majors' sequence courses (for which I passed the knowledge/theory placement exams with no problem) and completed the required work on guitar - we may never know the answer at this late date...

Not so fast there :) The classical guitar as we know it may have its roots in Spain, but was adopted/copied/adapted/etc in most countries throughout Europe (Segovia played a guitar by Hauser, a German luthier crucial in the development of the instrument). Even if most of the original repertoire for the instrument (as we currently know it) was probably written by Spanish composer-performers there are enough original transcriptions of lieder and other compositions from the early 19th century and onwards that a friend of mine has set up a duet for this repertoire specifically.

There was definitely a fling with American music in early 20th century France but also with Spanish music and as such I cannot imagine that a guitar strung with steel strings (*) and played in a way that hadn't been used (= usable) since the days of medieval lutes (i.e., a plectrum) would have been able to replace the classical guitar in classical music. You will see it (or even an electric "descendant") in orchestras when the repertoire calls for it, but could you really imagine something like the Concierto de Aranjuez (1939) having been written for anything but the Spanish/classical guitar?

I *could* imagine a gut/nylon strung archtop to have "taken over" but apparently there are sufficient explanations why that didn't happen (not too hard to find on the classicaldelcamp forum). FWIW, baroque guitars have an arched back (contrary to vihuelas), and IIRC a friend of mine mentioned a kind of guitar with arched top and/or back around the 1800s (I'm trying to confirm that with him).


*) AFAIK, reliable and cheap production of strings with proper intonation was basically a by-product of WW2; before that most serious concert violinists still used gut E strings for instance.

Here are a few interesting recordings of a vintage Gibson L48. It sounds beautiful - I suppose we'll have to assume that they are faithful recordings (actual volume aside of course).

I'm not even certain if I hear anything that would make me recognise an archtop without the video, instead of just a very nice (and possibly electric) guitar. Basses are round, deep and full, maybe it's more in the trebles that there is more sweetness and less jangle. The trebles of a flattop can have a nasty twang to them that I associate with piezo pickups (but maybe is just something those pickups amplify); I don't hear that here.
(This reminds me of a possible anecdote that the famous viol builder Joachim Tielke gave his instruments an arched instead of a flat back to obtain a sweeter, rounder sound.)

FYI the L-48, except for a few very rare early models and late-60's exceptions built on existing L-50 bodies, is an all-laminated instrument - and an interesting illustration of the fact that laminated construction doesn't seem to be quite as detrimental to tone as it is with flattops, something that double-bass makers have known for the last century and some archtop luthiers (Benedetto, Triggs, Sadowsky, American Archtop, Moll, et al.) have been rediscovering in recent years. Not surprised - while it'll never have the sonic refinement of an old D'Angelico New Yorker it's got all the tonal/visual vibe most casual and semi-pro players will ever need, and FWIW many a postwar ES-150 (17" all-laminated, single P-90) could give contemporary noncut L-7's a real run for their money...

Laminate arched tops are pressed I presume, or maybe even held under tension on the bracing? I guess you could compare that to a flat aluminium top (which I presume would sound horrible) vs a resonator cone. (The arched form probably also allows the top to be thinner?)

In order:

• The layers in a laminated top are glued/pressed into shape and, as with solid tops, the type/thickness of woods(s) used - to which the additional factor of overlapping grain patterns comes into play - determines the final tonal envelope;
• Your evaluation of a flat aluminum top is an accurate one (find yourself a Martin ALternative X and you'll see just how accurate :sick:) but in case you're unaware, aluminum orchestral strings enjoyed a brief vogue circa 1930 - they're very rare (I've only seen one in my lifetime - a double bass that needed work), but they do come up for sale on occasion:

https://reverb.com/item/34656915-193...-co-4-4-violin
https://reverb.com/item/39985998-193...-co-4-4-violin
https://reverb.com/item/4307501-alco...ux-wood-finish

I'm not sure if you mean that the lamination and arching steps are combined, but I suppose that would make sense from (at least) a mechanical and production point of view.

You didn't answer if arched laminate tops can be thinner than flat ones (and/or than carved arched tops). The top of that Troubadour guitar of mine seems under 3mm thick at the soundhole rim, given its price category it must be laminate and I presume that in that case it's probably of a uniform thickness throughout. IOW, it seems very thin.

It also responds well enough to brass-wound nylon bass string (= on the side where the brace has come loose) that I have half a heart to ask my luthier to remove the brace rather than glueing it back into place, and see how the instrument does as a nylon stringer before deciding what to do about the neck. The top has already warped on the bass side and the few siblings (with f-holes) I've seen auction records of went for 50-200$ so it's not like I'm risking a valuable instrument.

I guess the war made an end to that vogue. I think I knew this.

BTW, "orchestral strings" reads as "strings for bowed string instruments" to me. And if memory serves me well, aluminium-wound strings exist or existed for violin at least. In any case I have a memory of trying less expensive strings that were supposedly very good but which I really didn't like (I can't say I like the current aluminium-bronze strings either).

Talk is cheap. Here's one built by a friend of mine in Montreal, Guillaume Bettencourt (sp).



And here's where they came from. A little heavy on the reverb, but blame the architect. This is plectrum style at its finest.



Regards,
Howard Emerson

For those who don't know it yet, luthier Ken Parker has a nice documentary series called "Archtoppery" which has some beautiful soundbytes.

Ken Parker thinks that a good archtop is the most versatile guitar that can
be built... can be asked to do almost any kind of music played on any kind
of guitar...



-Mike

Does this count? :D