What styles do you play on your archtop?

[Steve DeRosa]

Originally Posted by RLetson

...If you want to hear what an archtop can do in the hands of a skilled player, look up Jonathan Stout's videos--he has a very good ear for the classic swing sound...

Almost forgot--Rob MacKillop of this parish has posted some very lovely plectrum-style playing on a couple of different archtops...

For those who may not be familiar with the broad range of dynamics/tone color available from a good archtop here's fellow AGF'er Jonathan Stout (AKA CampusFive) showing how it's done at Norman's Rare Guitars; note the subtle tonal distinctions between guitars of the same make/model as well as between different makes/body sizes (he's using a prewar 17" Gibson L-5N in the third clip), how each is used in chord-solo/single-string/comping roles - and precisely why those New York-era 18" Epiphone Emperors were so renowned for their acoustic cutting power:



On the other hand, many of the old-timers referred to their own (different) archtop technique as "coaxing the velvet out" - extracting that warm, rich, creamy, woody, "tone you can eat with a spoon" from what could (as stated previously) be solely a strident and steely-sounding instrument, lacking in dynamic range and character in the hands of a lesser player. While both equally-valid approaches have their place and time (and a well-rounded archtop player should be familiar with both) I always preferred the latter: Romain Vuillemin (featured in the "Blue Guitars" video above) provides a perfect example here, on instruments similar to those used by Messrs. Stout and Rossi, and offering a strong contrast to their edgier/punchier style intended to showcase the raw power customarily associated with these guitars:

[/QUOTE]

On a different note (pun intended... ) 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 over nine decades later. Bear in mind that the original 16" 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 (see also Fabio Mittino's take on the classical-guitar virtuoso piece "Recuerdos de la Alhambra" below); 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...

Here's a couple of samples of "classical archtop" from back in the day:



- and a sampling of traditional and contemporary repertoire, from modern revivalists (including fellow AGF'ers Rob MacKillop and Fabio Mittino) keeping this historic style alive:

[Robin, Wales]

Steve,

That's a great post! I loved listening to all the clips. That Epiphone Emperor is my favourite. I bet they go for way beyond my pocket money now though.

I'm drawn to the archtop timbre - but frustrated that I can't pop into any guitar shop and find a wall of acoustic archtops from $200 to $2000 hanging there - like I can with flattops. Yet in the 1940s/50s/60s that would have been the case.

[RJVB]

Originally Posted by CopyCat

Sounds great!

Thanks - and that's just a bare-bones one-LDC mic recording from before I figured out the best way to record an archtop is not with the mic pointed at the neckjoin. The playing though.. compared to all the videos in this thread

Originally Posted by Steve DeRosa

...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...

Maybe as a sort of American classical guitar existing parallel to but certainly not instead of the classical guitars as we've known them since (roughly speaking) Torres. The change from gut strings to steel strings would have been too big and the reasons for which "classical music" moved away from plectrum playing somewhere in or just after the Middle Ages (plectrum lutes!) are still valid within the classical music universe. Since you refer to Lang's arrangement of Rach. Op. 3 #2 : the entire middle (and most difficult) section is meant to be played fingerstyle. For giggles: find a video of Stephanie Jones playing Jobim's Felicidade (as that's probably "not even classical music" according to some) and ask yourself if this music could be done justice on a single plectrum guitar.
Re: steel strings: it's not just the fact that their sound isn't ideal for the vast majority of classical music written before the 1920s or so (lack of darkness in the wound strings, nasal/strident trebles). Steel strings are not unheard of nowadays in the violin family, and even the norm for the violin's 1st string (often combined with wound gut for the other 3 strings). But that's a relatively recent development; before WW II (IIRC!) brought technological and industrial progress steel wire just wasn't suitable in terms of longevity and intonation.
I'll admit that I cannot remember the source of those claims (David Boyden's book on violin history?). It has always surprised me in that light that steel strings were used on guitars since about the 2nd half of the 18th century but when I listen to most of those old plectrum guitar recordings (but also to the existing recordings of e.g. Barrios) it seems evident that the recording techniques of the time were not capable of documenting if and how well those strings intonated correctly. If they didn't ... I feel for the musicians how had to make the compromise of playing on them (but coming from the violin myself I know it's a lot easier to accept compromised intonation on a fretted instrument that's largely limited to equal temperament).

(About that Rachmaninoff piece: here's an arrangement that's a lot closer to the original, in part due to the instrument used [a Russian guitar]: https://youtu.be/vXInm0ka0uQ .)

All that said, I'm all in favour of liberating the archtop from the jazz world and putting it on the map where it really belongs. In that light I'm very pleased that Isaac from Cranmer Guitars is about to start a nylon-string version of his "Moon" series. We talked about him building me own at the beginning of the year but had a bit too different ideas - I was really after an f-hole version and ultimately not ready to invest all my budget in a prototype of a kind of nearly impossible instrument I had rarely even heard in recordings.

[RJVB]

Here's a more recent recording by Fabio Mittino, a rare case where I feel "I can condone" playing Bach on guitar:



Evidently it's much easier to play music written for a bowed instrument with a pick, but no matter how good his interpretation is I can't get around the fact that the steel trebles are not really at their place in this music. And I hear the pick (probably also mostly on the plain trebles).


BTW, Aquila Strings have been working on making composite strings for acoustic guitars using their Sugar polymer and patented "loaded strings" technology. Can't wait to try a set!

[woland]

Originally Posted by RJVB

BTW, Aquila Strings have been working on making composite strings for acoustic guitars using their Sugar polymer and patented "loaded strings" technology. Can't wait to try a set!

Oh that's interesting!
Are those the red coated ones?
And are gonna use metal instead of nylon fr the trebles?

[RJVB]

Originally Posted by woland

Oh that's interesting!
Are those the red coated ones?
And are gonna use metal instead of nylon fr the trebles?

The "red coated ones" are the bass strings they include with the Rubino, Granato and various Sugar sets (assuming we're only talking about guitar string).

As far as I understood they are or having been investigating Sugar-based loaded strings as an alternative to steel trebles. So that's nylon-like plastic based on a substance found in sugar cane, mixed (loaded) with a metal powder that increases the unit weight and can potentially also make the strings work with a magnetic PU. They posted about it on their Facebook page, earlier this year.

The nominal tension for their flamenco E string is already comparable to that of a 10" steel string so the gap isn't as wide as one might think. Of course nylon (and Sugar) in particular is a very elastic material which means the string stretches when you bring it up to tune and as a result the tension drops. (I think I've seen a stretch of 15cm or more with a Sugar E string on a classical guitar!)

[L50EF15]

I have always thought of the flatpick as entirely equivalent to a violinist’s bow. That’s true for mandolin as well (for that matter, for four string banjo). It only takes listening to classical mandolin to make the connection clear. Guitar should be no different.

By way of example:

https://youtu.be/j3lH_Tevw5o?si=uaGEkSfsxlfVcN6K

[RJVB]

Originally Posted by L50EF15

I have always thought of the flatpick as entirely equivalent to a violinist’s bow.

Not entirely as the average bow is a lot longer than the average pick is thick - and as a former violinist I'm tempted to say that a bow also allows more expressivity beyond merely allowing dynamic variation within a single note. I'm not a flat-picker at all but when I take one out it indeed allows me to understand the music in a different way.

I'm pretty aware of the fact that is probably at least partly because it brings the guitar's polyphonic capabilities down to about the same level of the violin's.

[L50EF15]

Originally Posted by Robin, Wales

Steve,

That's a great post! I loved listening to all the clips. That Epiphone Emperor is my favourite. I bet they go for way beyond my pocket money now though.

I'm drawn to the archtop timbre - but frustrated that I can't pop into any guitar shop and find a wall of acoustic archtops from $200 to $2000 hanging there - like I can with flattops. Yet in the 1940s/50s/60s that would have been the case.

I am with you on this, Robin. I have a bit of hope, however: Gibson recently released two new mandolins, The Master Model and the F5G, the former being a close recreation of a Loar era F5 and the latter a more modern interpretation. As you may know, quality mandolins are much more expensive than equivalent guitars, and the price points reflect that — I believe $19K for the Master Model and around $5K for the F5G. This is actually aggressively competitive on the mandolin market, making these instruments somewhat a bargain.

The point is that if Gibson has the expertise to do archtop mandolins, they can do archtop guitars. And on the rule of thumb that mandolins are approximately twice the price of an equivalent guitar, it should be possible for Gibson to sell something like a modern L50 or L7 at about $2,500, with a Loar era L5 clone going for the collector/pro market at $10K.

[mr. beaumont]

Thought I might pop in on the fun and try a seasonally appropriate tune on my archtop in a style I don't normally play on it.

[JoannMP]

Originally Posted by deejayen

I bought an acoustic earlier this year after playing only electrics for years.

I was thinking about buying a second acoustic, but it would have to be pretty special, and I haven't had a chance to play one which really appeals tone and playability wise. There was a vintage Gibson, but it was out of my league!

Anyway, I've suddenly thought about buying something a wee bit different - contemplating a nylon string guitar or an archtop.

I suppose it's hard to give generalisations, but what sort of tone can I expect from an archtop? Is bass a bit deader/thuddier? Or can they be well-balanced with good sustain across all notes?

What about volume - can they blend with a not-too-powerful singing voice?

I'd maybe want to do a bit of recording, singer\songwriter style, or solo guitar.

I suppose my playing is more country-based; melodic picking, but with a bit of jazz and blues thrown in. Generally lazy, but playing bass, melody and some rhythm at the same time.

There is a lot to unpack here - A lot depends on "which archtop" and whether you are looking for acoustic projection, or will be primarily using it amplified - the kind of archtop you'll be seeking will depend a lot on this first consideration.

Personally, I've got flattops and archtops in both wood and carbon and in different sizes. No nylon archtop (yet) but eben those are out there.

The first guitar I bought was a 1966 Gretch 6117 Double Anniversary - the body is all laminated maple, and the pickups are "cut in" to the top. Acoustically, this guitar is as dead as a solid body instrument acoustically, but amplified, it is just fine.

After many years of mostly playing flattops, I discovered that archtops CAN be found that sound great acoustically - and can also be amplified.

Archtops that have a solid carved spruce top, solid maple sides, and solid carved maple back, (the sides and back can also be walnut, or another tonewood - and one Canadian maker I know of makes fine instruments all made from Canadian Cherry wood - Godin)

With carved top, the better instruments will have the neck and fretboard "cantilever" over the body, at least from the point where the arching starts - (I have one flattop that actually has a cantilever over the entire top, and even on a flattop, the sustain and projection are VASTLY improved with this feature).

The better carved-top archtop will feature a floating bridge (and if for some reason you take all the strings off at once without marking where it was, it can take some time to get the bridge properly placed to get the 'intonation' back.

Some will also have a violin-like dowel under the bass end of the bridge running from the top to the back.

Typically, the carved top archtiop will feature F-holes, though there are round-hole models and others with unconventional holes (my Tacoma Jazz King has a George Gruen-designed teardrop/paisley soundhole).

If you're looking for great acoustic tone and projection AND want to amplify, MY choice is to look for a guitar with a floating pickup and the volume (or volume and tone) pots on top of (or as discreet dials under) the pickguard - this allowing the carved top to do its very best as a soundboard.

This acoustic greatness comes at an electric cost - those guitars are more probe to feedback in a loud environment - which is why you won't find a 1937 Gibson L-5 with an added floating pickup, in a band that plays loud, distorted heavy metal, or punk.

BUT for genres that work with clear and clean amplification without pushing the amplifier into distortion, or using lots of sound-altering pedals, such an archtop can work quite well.

Other archtops can work in harder distortion environments - those usually feature thinner all laminated bodies, are mostly dead acoustically, but are much less prone to feedback - and there are lots of nice ones like that that can be found even under $1,000.

Your best bet after figuring out what you want to use it for, would be to try out several different instruments. Some of the best acoustic-oriented instruments are vintage and expensive, but there are some VERY nice ones with excellent acoustic tone and projection that are under $2,500 that are vintage - example, an old Epiphone Broadway can often be found (with or without an added floating pickup) in that range.

[JoannMP]

Originally Posted by Robin, Wales

Steve,

. ' ' That Epiphone Emperor is my favourite. I bet they go for way beyond my pocket money now though.
. . .

Robin, If you love that classic Epiphone Emperor, but are put off by the price, you might want to focus on a Triumph (second tier) or a Broadway (third tier), of similar vintage - a couple months ago I managed to acquire a 1947 Epiphone Broadway (with perhaps the BEST neck I have ever played on), that is pretty similar to the Emperor (though is 17-3/8 inch lower bout, and not 18-3/8 inches like a Deluxe) - and including an added floating pickup, was about $2,500 US dollars.

OR considering your location, I'd suggest trying to find a Grimshaw G.5 Revelation from the 1940's - some have round holes, some have F-holes, and I believe most also feature a rather unique hole in the back, and a rear resonator wrapped around, sort of like a banjo that is said to add about 20% to acoustic projection/volume. (I have one from 1947 that has a patented floating pickup 'hidden' at the base end of the neck/fretboard.)

Emile Grimshaw (the founder, he also had a son with the same name), was a banjo player and band leader from the early 20th century who turned to instrument manufacture and the firm continued into the 1980's before closing its doors.

The Grimshaw archtops are fine, well-made instruments - and the Revelations are definitely also a conversation piece!

[JoannMP]

[QUOTE=Steve DeRosa;7373111]For those who may not be familiar with the broad range of dynamics/tone color available from a good archtop here's fellow AGF'er Jonathan Stout (AKA CampusFive) showing how it's done at Norman's Rare Guitars; note the subtle tonal distinctions between guitars of the same make/model as well as between different makes/body sizes (he's using a prewar 17" Gibson L-5N in the third clip), how each is used in chord-solo/single-string/comping roles - and precisely why those New York-era 18" Epiphone Emperors were so renowned for their acoustic cutting power:

--

I've gotten to really admire Jonathan Stout's expertise, and have taken some cues from his recommendations as to equipment.

I'm in the process of getting his setup to mike up my really sweet-sounding acoustic 1934 Gibson L-12 (similar to his 16-inch L-5, but WAY less expensive). using the DPA4099 with the cello mount. The beauty of this setup is that it is all very easily removable.

Locally for me, I am very lucky Retrofret Guitars in Brooklyn is only about an hour's drive, and they have a lot of vintage archtops (going there is like visiting the Sistine Chapel, except with archtops!)

I have played the Retrofret 1924 Loar-signed L-5 (see the video of Jonathan Stout playing that same sweet instrument! My 1934 L-12 sounds very much as sweet)

https://youtu.be/TA9NAVA-HNo?si=dn6jzigcx58OOZ9o

(from Retrofret's splash page)

I can dream one day making a long vacation drive to stop on the way at the Gibson Garage, and Gruen's Guitars on the way (either there or back), but also centered around taking in the September Rocky Mountain Archtop Guitar Festival in Arvada Colorado, as well as making a pilgrimage to Norman's Rare Guitars. Though I'm more likely just going to be satisfied with YouTube . . .

[TyB]

Threads like these are so amazing. Thanks for all the links and wisdom, everyone!

I've been playing the heck out of my battered (not by me) '24 oval hole 12-fret Gibson L4 to celebrate its centennial year. There's a picture of Eddie Lang playing a similar instrument, but mine's not a snakehead.

I need to work on "coaxing the velvet," though. I like how the guitar sounds and feels when I play it loud and barky, and I tend to get carried away. I need to learn the rudiments of these chunk-chunk styles... and how to back off a little, I think. Those "velvet" videos by Romaine Vuillemin are particularly inspiring.

I've noticed that it has a fiery quality when played near the bridge, almost like a telecaster bridge pickup. I don't play much bluegrass, but I sometimes think that picking around down there would be perfect for cutting bluegrass runs. But what do I know?

[L50EF15]

Originally Posted by TyB

Threads like these are so amazing. Thanks for all the links and wisdom, everyone!

I've been playing the heck out of my battered (not by me) '24 oval hole 12-fret Gibson L4 to celebrate its centennial year. There's a picture of Eddie Lang playing a similar instrument, but mine's not a snakehead.

I need to work on "coaxing the velvet," though. I like how the guitar sounds and feels when I play it loud and barky, and I tend to get carried away. I need to learn the rudiments of these chunk-chunk styles... and how to back off a little, I think. Those "velvet" videos by Romaine Vuillemin are particularly inspiring.

I've noticed that it has a fiery quality when played near the bridge, almost like a telecaster bridge pickup. I don't play much bluegrass, but I sometimes think that picking around down there would be perfect for cutting bluegrass runs. But what do I know?

See this link re “coaxing the velvet out.” It’s a great demonstration of the technique and shows the contrast with the flattop/bluegrass technique that often gives people the idea that archtops are harsh sounding. In fact, an L12 is played in the clip:

https://youtu.be/EOaXOXE9ITg?si=DnaB5aAOqo4Xc2w5

I agree with you on the Telecaster comparison. That’s exactly how I described my L Jr. when picked near the bridge. It’s there but a little less trebly on my L50, probably because I keep it strung with flatwounds. Then again, as I understand it, the early Teles were shipped with flatwounds. Anyway, I don’t play much bluegrass either; but when I mess around with it, the L50 in particular seems to work well. It’s been years since I participated in a bluegrass jam; I might have to give it a try sometime soon.