#1
|
|||
|
|||
Archtop electric vs acoustic - 2 different instruments?
Hello, new member here, nice site! I have played electric gtr for a few decades, an Ibanez GB-10 now for ~8 yrs, recently got an off-brand carved acoustic L5 knock-off (with a HB pickup), I'm coming to the realization that plugged and unplugged, to make the guitar sound 'good', it's a vastly different technique.
I'm more into pursuing acoustic archtop nowadays, but as a solo instrument much closer to Django than Freddie Green. So many acoustic archtops -with their 'cut' and 'bark' - can almost sound, well...bad at least to me, lol. I guess I'm saying, 'bite' and 'cut' , I don't see that as pricey/priceless- I have this terrific solo CD by Howard Alden, 'My shining hour', where he plays solo acoustic and electric- it sounds great, of course, but it's also a professional studio recording with great mics and recording gear. ...All of you know what great archtop electric tone is, no need to post. But I'm finding the technique (at least for me) has to be a lot lighter on the electric to make it sing. I can play lightly on the acoustic and it will sound good, but very quiet, and not the strummy technique. Do you vary your technique too, or is my approach off? Thanks! |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Hi Gerry,
well first of all, I agree with your title line. We need to consider why the archtop guitar found favour in the '20s -'50s. Despite the ability to play any style on any guitar, the archtop, typically the L-5, won the gig when guitars replaced the tenor banjo in te rhythm section of jazz and dance bands. The tonal quality of an archtop of that era and for that purpose tends to be sharp and incisive with little sustain. I have a 1934 L-4 that illustrates these qualities well. Later (acoustic) models (I had an excellent Eastman until recently) which has a tone more similar to a flat-top - or at least somewhere in between. When pick-ups came in, (think the 1936 Gibson ES-150) with a pickup screwed onto or cut into the thicker, deader top, the acoustic qualities are compromised, and any remaining acoustic resonance becomes a feedback challenge, and so the chamber of the box needed to be made less resonant with heavy blocks inside and evolved to a semi-acoustic, then semi-solid (think 1950s ES335) which begat the solid body (think Les Paul). The resemblance to the carved top and back acoustic archtop has become increasingly cosmetic and less acoustic. There are fully acoustic archtops with "floating" pickups mounted clear of the top. See this : Also - (As I found afer writing this ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archtop_guitar Hope this helps,
__________________
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! |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Afterthought - this guy seems to know what he's talking about :
__________________
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! |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
First off, welcome - too few of us archtop lovers left in the universe...
You're absolutely right in saying that it takes a different approach to wring the best out of an acoustic archtop - one that very few players who started after about 1970 (when the majority of teachers - at least in the major urban population centers - were still in-the-trenches veterans of the Big Band and early-Bop eras) understand, much less master; as you've discovered, you can't just open the case, whack away, and expect to get the same instant gratification as a flattop guitar of comparable (or even lesser in some cases) quality. Although most guitar junkies are aware that the genre arose from Orville Gibson's attempts to apply the principles of violin construction to fretted instruments, they fail to grasp the necessity of approaching them with a similarly refined technique, one rooted in the bowing of orchestral strings and as much mental as physical: think "glide" rather than "pick," "stroke" rather than "strum" - what the old-time Big Band players used to call "coaxing the velvet out" - and be aware that a couple millimeters' shift in pick position can often create a dramatic shift in tone color... Most players also aren't aware of the all-but-forgotten "classical archtop" style that flourished from about 1925-1940, where an attempt was made to elevate the status of the archtop plectrum guitar to that of the orchestral string family (I've expounded on this topic before in great depth - type "classical archtop" into the AGF search engine for more detailed info); FYI the well-known Mel Bay method was in fact a direct offshoot of this school of thought, providing a near-conservatory-level immersion in technique, theory, and repertoire (particularly in the earlier editions). If you're looking to get a handle on some of the finer technical aspects I'd recommend going to YouTube and typing in "archtop guitar" - there are many period pieces available in their original recorded format, as well as recent remakes by revivalists who recognize their enduring technical and artistic merit; I think you'll also discover that a good archtop, properly played, need not sound steely/strident/one-dimensional as many an uninitiated player will assert, and can be as expressive, in its own way, as a fine classical instrument... Keep the faith...
__________________
"Mistaking silence for weakness and contempt for fear is the final, fatal error of a fool" - Sicilian proverb (paraphrased) |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Is there a particular book or DVD that teaches precisely how to play an acoustic Archtop "properly"?
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
I can relate to this topic, coming up in NJ in the 70's, learning from Italian-American teachers when the Mel Bay books had a D'Angelico New Yorker on the cover. But playing a semi-hollow or a flattop, I never learned any special archtop tricks. The jazz greats I was so lucky to hear all played amplified with the tone we heard from the 50's on.
Absolutely the electric calls for a lighter touch, the amp does half the work! I play with fingers rather than a pick, so my approach is different. But playing amplified archtop vs. acoustic, flattop even, I've learned that what matters with both is playing cleanly and smoothly, and managing sustain & ringing notes. That is, it's both your attack and muting notes. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Yes, I have modified my technique to get the most from an acoustic archtop. I modify my grip on the neck, the tightness that I press the strings, and the attack of my pick.
But once I became aware of that, I've become a more sensitive player and I find myself modifying my technique on ALL guitars. IMO good players know how to get the most from a guitar, and spend a lot less time worrying about which guitar is "better." Welcome to the forum. Anyone who appreciates acoustic archtops, let alone someone who understands the difference between acoustic and electric archtops, will find many friends here! |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
I also change technique between fully acoustic and electric guitars, and I do think that electric archtops are a fundamentally different instrument than an acoustic archtop. In fact, it wasn't until I built an acoustic archtop and it turned out really very well that I discovered how good an acoustic archtop could sound. Two pro jazz players have tried it (one is, I think anyway, writing and recording with it in her studio now, while I finish the acoustic archtop I am building for her, bespoke) and both kind of raved about the feel and the tone.
I play the acoustic a little harder, either finger style or pick. I set it up with higher action, that lets me dig in harder and get great volume without over-playing. I play a lot more single note lines on acoustic, with more separate chord comping. Electric is all about nuance and touch, l play very lightly, a lot of pick and three finger chord work, and frankly, I find it harder to play that way.
__________________
Brian Evans Around 15 archtops, electrics, resonators, a lap steel, a uke, a mandolin, some I made, some I bought, some kinda showed up and wouldn't leave. Tatamagouche Nova Scotia. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Thanks for the replies, they are helping me approach acoustic playing-
Here's an example of a very good player playing in what I'd say most of us consider a '"typical" archtop style, on the Rolls Royce of archtops. He's a great player, and it sounds very good...(but to me, not a $25,000 guitar,lol) Whereas here's a different, much quieter style on acoustic archtop by Howard Alden- beautifully recorded and an amazing player - but in person, probably not much louder than a nylon string classical player- bu this is what I'm intrigued by- |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
The archtops of the 30's and 40's are very different because of the parallel bracing used back then compared to the more recent X bracing. The kinds of thing guitarist were playing, what they wanted out of an instrument was different. Guitarist were very much part of the rhythm section, the didn't play lines and solo's because they wouldn't be heard without amplification. Amps changed that, guitars could be heard and their role expanded and guitars were made with X bracing that game a sweeter and more sustaining tone. Different job, different tool. Unless one is specializing in comping in a big band setting, you will likely be much happier with an X braced guitar. So yes, they are very different animals requiring different techniques.
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
I recently stumbled upon a woebegone '35 L-50 flatback that had suffered a host of indignities:
1. Top stripped of its original sunburst finish, leaving the bare red spruce carved top. 2. A 2" X 1" hole in the top that had been filled with some kind of wood putty. 3. All three back braces loose. 4. Three unstable cracks in the top. 5. No bridge. Well, that poor thing followed me home. I took it to my luthier, who took it into his care and got it sorted out. I also found a period correct replacement pickguard. Now, despite a host of cosmetic flaws, it is playable once again. And I am, for the first time, learning how to play a carved-top acoustic archtop. It requres a totally different approach than my electric archtop ('53 Guild X-150) or any of my flattops. More "pluck" than "strum". Heavier attack. Fewer strings struck when chording. But it rewards the player with a fundamental note that is unique. Sharp, almost nasal when played close to the bridge, but a lot warmer when playing closer to the neck. It has qualities that are attractive to singer-songwriters, give the relatively short sustain and incredible note definition. I wrote a song on it the first time I played it!
__________________
Neal A few nice ones, a few beaters, and a few I should probably sell... |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
I just added a K&K Definity acoustic pickup to my archtop. It adds a good acoustic tone to my Armstrong floating at the neck. I use both as dual source for my archtop going into two separate amps. I have to say the tone is balanced, clear, deep and strong.
__________________
Martin D-28 '67 Cole Clark Fat Lady 2 Taylor Doyle Dykes Custom Alvarez Fender Strat '69 Gibson 1942 Banner LG-2 Vintage Sunburst Gibson SJ-200 Taylor Myrtlewood 12 string Emerald X20 Godin Montreal w/piezo |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|