Country Blues Guitars

[Twinpeaksbirds]

Originally Posted by mashup

Just out of interest, what was the imported 0 sized guitar that you mentioned?

This is the review. I didn't realize that there's a video at the bottom of the page till later.
http://www.premierguitar.com/Magazin...ar_Review.aspx

[Twinpeaksbirds]

Thanks for the input guys. Always good to get various opinions.

Toby, that's quite a list. I appreciate the effort. I am looking for guitars that have that old time blues sound and vibe, vintage as well as new. Affordable as well as requiring a second mortgage.

[sweiss]

Originally Posted by Twinpeaksbirds

Dry
Husky
Percussive
Snappy
Midrange Honk
Quicker Decay
Dry midrange
Growl
Nasal
Compressed
Boxy
Succinct



Adrian

I'm sorry...but this list just makes me laugh. You sound bluesy by being bluesy, if you catch my drift.

The old bluesmen played whatever guitars were available and affordable to them. It was the players, much more than the guitars, that defined the sounds. Also, I would guess that the strings they used were much different that what we have today, and they likely didn't change them very often either.

Want proof that it's the player, not the guitar that makes the sound? Watch a youtube video of the Rev Gary Davis playing his Gibson J200...a guitar that's the exact opposite of what we call a "blues box". Sounds "bluesy" to me, no?

[Shy Boy William]

A couple more to investigate; Fraulini http://www.fraulini.com/ or mayby a Brenthrup oak parlor. http://www.brentrup.com/ drool. My particular problem is I want them all.

SB

[murrmac123]

Originally Posted by sweiss

I'm sorry...but this list just makes me laugh. You sound bluesy by being bluesy, if you catch my drift.

The old bluesmen played whatever guitars were available and affordable to them. It was the players, much more than the guitars, that defined the sounds. Also, I would guess that the strings they used were much different that what we have today, and they likely didn't change them very often either.

Want proof that it's the player, not the guitar that makes the sound? Watch a youtube video of the Rev Gary Davis playing his Gibson J200...a guitar that's the exact opposite of what we call a "blues box". Sounds "bluesy" to me, no?

I love the Reverend's playing, but I cannot believe that he ever went through an exhaustive test of every guitar available, and selected the Gibson as his weapon of choice. How he came to play that Gibson, I do not know, but no doubt some of the more erudite historians here will know why ...

One thing I do know is that if the good Reverend were around today and had the chance to play ( and buy) my John How ladder-braced GC , he would never have picked up his J200 again ...

[Toby Walker]

Originally Posted by sweiss

I'm sorry...but this list just makes me laugh. You sound bluesy by being bluesy, if you catch my drift.

Well, the list doesn't make me laugh at all. If you listen closely to the musicians that were recorded during the late twenties and thirties those ARE the tones that those guitars produced. Of course 'you sound bluesy by being bluesy' but that's not what the OP is asking.

Originally Posted by sweiss

The old bluesmen played whatever guitars were available and affordable to them. It was the players, much more than the guitars, that defined the sounds. Also, I would guess that the strings they used were much different that what we have today, and they likely didn't change them very often either.

Of course the players had something to do with that and yes, they happened to play whatever what was affordable at the time, which was for the most part ladder braced guitars as they were the most affordable instruments back then. I believe it was an equal mix of both the players and the instruments they played that defined the sound, much like Gypsy Jazz was defined by players like Django AND the type of instrument he chose to play.

Originally Posted by sweiss

Want proof that it's the player, not the guitar that makes the sound? Watch a youtube video of the Rev Gary Davis playing his Gibson J200...a guitar that's the exact opposite of what we call a "blues box". Sounds "bluesy" to me, no?

The 'proof' in that case happens to be an exception (how many other early blues musicians used the Gibson J-200??). There also are a few other exceptions that one can throw around. Listen to the difference between the tones of Mississippi John Hurts guitars between his early recordings and the recordings he did in the 60's when he used a Guild F-30. The same can be said for Skip James, who favored an X braced Martin dread in his later years. Both of those musicians had that 'dry, woody' tone in their earlier recordings - probably due to the fact they were using those old Stellas or Regals which were very popular.

Gary Davis by the way played a guitar that for all it's boominess was known as the quiet giant because of its maple sides and body which didn't lend itself to much sustain. He chose the Gibson J-200 because it was a fairly inexpensive guitar at that time.

The bottom line is yes, of course an accomplished player can play those old time blues on just about anything. However, there is a noticeable tonal difference between cheaper, ladder braced instruments and the more modern, x braced ones. If you're really going for that particular sound of the old country blues then you'll get closer to it by using the instruments what were favored by those old blues cats.

The other interesting spin on all this is that back in the twenties and thirties those guitars, for all their 'limitations' were relatively new which to me means that the age of the guitar might play the least part in this discussion.

[000-18GE]

Originally Posted by Toby Walker

Listen to the difference between the tones of Mississippi John Hurts guitars between his early recordings and the recordings he did in the 60's when he used a Guild F-30.

Completely agree and it's even more pronounced if you listen to an album like Today! that was recorded on Vanguard in 1966 using Stefan Grossman's OM-45. The guitar is almost too pretty and somehow fails to capture the complete essence of John Hurt....at least to my ears.

[zombywoof]

Rev. Davis was once asked why he played that big old Gibson. His answer - so they can hear me at the back of the church.

Legend has it that the guitar Mississippi John Hurt brought with him to his first recording sessions was so miserable the engineer would not let him play it.

Nobody has a clue what the heck many of the pre-War blues guys played. The photos of them holding those guitars were usually taken by the recording label and who knows whose guitar they are holding. And trying to tell the difference between say a Stromberg and a Schmidt Stella in those photos is not always the easiest thing to do.

If there is an iconic "blues guitar" though it would have to be the Oscar Schmidt Stella. The association of these guitars with the pre-War blues is so strong that it has driven the price of the originals up and up and spawned a whole cottage industry of guys like Cambrio, How and Hauver making modern versions. Personally I would love to have a Fraulini 12 strings.

I do own two Schmidt guitars - an all birch jumbo and a red spruce top Stella. Both are really nice sounding and playing guitars. While the jumbo with its 14 fret neck is pretty rare and definitely has the cool factor going for it the little Stella has the edge in both volume and sound. And both are great for playing some gut bucket blues. But on the other hand so are my Gibson Banner J-50 and 1946 LG-2. As a matter of fact my 1950s Silvertone jumbo will get the job done just fine. In the end no matter what I am playing I just sound like me.

[Toby Walker]

Originally Posted by zombywoof

Rev. Davis was once asked why he played that big old Gibson. His answer - so they can hear me at the back of the church.

Legend has it that the guitar Mississippi John Hurt brought with him to his first recording sessions was so miserable the engineer would not let him play it.

Nobody has a clue what the heck many of the pre-War blues guys played. The photos of them holding those guitars were usually taken by the recording label and who knows whose guitar they are holding. And trying to tell the difference between say a Stromberg and a Schmidt Stella in those photos is not always the easiest thing to do.

If there is an iconic "blues guitar" though it would have to be the Oscar Schmidt Stella. The association of these guitars with the pre-War blues is so strong that it has driven the price of the originals up and up and spawned a whole cottage industry of guys like Cambrio, How and Hauver making modern versions. Personally I would love to have a Fraulini 12 strings.

I do own two Schmidt guitars - an all birch jumbo and a red spruce top Stella. Both are really nice sounding and playing guitars. While the jumbo with its 14 fret neck is pretty rare and definitely has the cool factor going for it the little Stella has the edge in both volume and sound. And both are great for playing some gut bucket blues. But on the other hand so are my Gibson Banner J-50 and 1946 LG-2. As a matter of fact my 1950s Silvertone jumbo will get the job done just fine. In the end no matter what I am playing I just sound like me.

I think we quite a few clues as to what they were playing given the sounds on those old recordings. Of course I doubt anyone really knows EXACTLY what they were playing (nobody was taking too many notes during those sessions) but your guess of Oscar Schmidt Stellas is pretty darn close. While there's no proof that the guitars that they were holding during the photo sessions were their own, or the ones they used on whatever recording that was made or merely props, we can certainly tell that they were the very SAME TYPES of guitars we hear on those '78s. That guitar that Blind Lemon Jefferson is holding sure ain't a National Resonator and given his tone COULD have been his own guitar. His records sure sound to me like he was playing a little box like that one. Additionally, the guitar that Blind Boy Fuller's holding is a National and that was without a doubt the sound the characterized his recordings. Was it the EXACT one he used??? Who knows? We can only speculate on the clues that exist but they DO exist.

Again... those wooden guitars were ladder braced, smaller and many of them were made with birch a wood whose tonal character has some real 'bark' to it.. pardon the pun. My little 1900 (close to it) Columbia parlor... spruce top with birch back and sides is one of the loudest instruments I own.

[HHP]

As far as the original players go, the guitars were not selected so much as they were obtained. During their prime, these guys were not making a lot of money and what they did make wasn't going into guitar upgrades. I doubt many knew how they were made or of what or by who, it was just a guitar. These were not guys to gather around and discuss the merits of of Adirondack versus Birch.

It is interesting that during the re-discovery and revival, when they did get some royalties and performance fees, they just about all bought nice guitars, J-200's were particular favorites. So do you define a "blues guitar" based on what they had to play or what they later chose to play?

[zombywoof]

Years ago there was an interview done with Henry Spier who ran a music store and recording studio on Farish Street Jackson, MS in the 1920s and 1930s. This is the guy who lined Charley Patton, Son House and Skip James up with record labels and who recorded Robert Johnson's first songs.

He said these guys favored the Schmidt Stellas that he sold for just under $10. The Lyon and Healy Washburns were also popular. When I lived in Mississippi there were rumors that the last guitar Patton had bought - a Schmidt jumbo with an MOTS board - had hung for years on the wall of a beauty parlor one of his kin ran.

[zombywoof]

Originally Posted by HHP

During their prime, these guys were not making a lot of money and what they did make wasn't going into guitar upgrades.

Actually these guys could make some pretty good money. Son House recalled making $40 a session which was as much as he could make working the fields for a full year. A real popular artist ike Charley Patton could make quite a bit more.

Some like Memphis Minnie, House and Bukka White who started off playing Stellas dumped them as soon as they started making any real money. There is a great story about Memphis Minnie and Kansas Joe blowing into Jackson, MS in a brand new convertible car toting the first National Tricones anybody there had seen.

[devellis]

A lot of the sound we hear on those old recordings from the '30s comes from the recording equipment itself. The limitations of recording equipment had quite an impact on musical styles back in the dawn of the technology. Banjos were adopted as bass instruments in jazz ensembles in large part because they recorded well. When recordings were acoustic (that is, made by playing into a cone rather than a microphone) the sound of an upright bass would cause the needle to jump off of the recording medium. The banjo managed to deliver a strong rhythmic element without causing that problem and so became the instrument of choice for rhythm accompaniment on early jazz discs.

The guitars, no doubt, made a difference too. Even today, you'll hear engineers talk about how nicely guitars with pronounced mids record in comparison to those with thumpy bass or tons of overtones. So, both engineers and players may have preferred a certain tone not only for its inherent beauty or expressiveness but because it projected well in recording sessions and on street corners. Low frequencies carry farther than highs (thus the pitch of foghorns) but are less directional and distinct. If you want a melody to carry, more treble may be an asset.

[sweiss]

Originally Posted by Toby Walker

.... If you're really going for that particular sound of the old country blues then you'll get closer to it by using the instruments what were favored by those old blues cats....

Going off on a slight tangent here....if it's authenticity you're after, then why not take it all the way?

You could start by playing slightly, and sometimes grossly, out of tune. It's a fact that quite a few of those guys were either casual about tuning, or had guitars with such bad action that it caused intonation problems. Now I don't mean that as a criticism, because to me it somehow adds to the earthy realism of the music...but I'm not going to try to imitate it.

Also, some of them were just downright sloppy players...maybe on purpose, maybe not...but again, how far do you want to chase authenticity? Do you start making mistakes in order to sound real?

How about using only period correct strings, recording equipment, etc? I have to believe that all of it had a role in shaping the sound.

I don't mean to be argumentative, but I just feel it's far more important to try to capture the feel of the music than it is to obsess over the peripheral things.

[halfmoon]

A Collings C-10 will make you wonder why you asked the question in the first place.