DjangoBooks.com
Welcome to our Community!
Categories
- 18.2K All Categories
- 447 General
- 287 Welcome
- 11 Archtop Eddy's Corner
- 82 CD, DVD, and Concert Reviews
- 39 FAQ
- 9 Gypsy Jazz Italia
- 19 Photos
- 30 Gypsy Picking
- 4 Unaccompanied Django
- 4 Pearl Django Play-Along Vol.1
- 1 Gypsy Fire
- 26 Gypsy Rhythm
- 610 Gypsy Jazz University - Get Educated
- 117 Gypsy Jazz 101
- 192 Repertoire
- 146 History
- 98 Technique
- 40 Licks and Patterns
- Daniel Givone Manouche Guitare Method Users Group
- 17 Eddie Lang Club
- 1.1K Gypsy Jazz Gear
- 705 Guitars, Strings, Picks, Amps, Pickups and Other Accessories
- 357 Classifieds
- 41 Recording
- 39 Other Instruments
- 17 Violin
- 3 Mandolin
- 6 Accordion
- 3 Bass
- 10 Woodwinds
- 227 Gypsy Jazz Events
- 91 North America
- 87 Europe
- 49 International
In this Discussion
Who's Online 1
Today's Birthdays
Comments
Yes it is....I was indirectly asked to facilitate the sale but unfortunately he won't send it here for evaluation. Would be nice to check it out...
M
better deal...
Alan
Absolutely. Sometimes it's the instrument, but mostly its bad repair, bad setups, modifications, or things that were not repaired because wingnuts have somehow convinced the guitar buying public that repairing damage and reversing modifications hurts the value. This is an attitude that needs to die out before the instruments die out. We can look to the violin world for inspiration. When we can restore a Strad, but not restore a Strat without reducing its value, man... you know something is wrong.
When you re-string a guitar that has had no string tension for a while, it will sound different for several hours and it is more noticeable on responsive guitars. I could venture a guess as to why but it would just be a guess. All I know is that they do. Regarding guitars that don't like new strings - I'm about to commit heresy, but after working on a lot of vintage guitars and hearing them played by a lot of people with varying levels of experience with gypsy jazz, I'm beginning to believe that vintage guitars that have retained a good amount of treble and reverb are like this... and that it is part perception and part technique. I think it's simply that they are bright voiced guitars because they haven't had the life beat out of them and this seems out of character to us because we are conditioned to think of great vintage instruments as being warm/mellow/dry when actually it's likely that a lot of them weren't like this in their prime when they were being used by Django and his counterparts. A lot of the top players get a fairly warm dry sound from a lively guitar and you look at what they're doing - holding their picks backward and using the blunt end - those amazingly well controlled hands which dampen unplayed strings... and you see how they drive hard into the strings and then immediately chop them off... they are driving a lot of thick midrange energy and then killing the note and driving into the next note. What they're doing is a totally different sport than what most of us are doing. Give a big bright active guitar to a guy like that and he sounds great because he can control it and get whatever tone he wants from it but he can also use those more vibrant aspects of its sound at will... it's a wicked combination. I've known a good handful of top players who have sold dark sounding vintage instruments and/or new guitars that were made to be "dark" sounding because they wanted to be able to have access to more treble and presence when they needed it. But again - these guitars are more difficult to control. I suspect that one of the reasons players like 862 and The Beast is partly because they are in good enough shape to retain a substantial portion of their sparkle. 103 actually has nice topend too. Not all vintage guitars are like that, especially if they have a lot of working cracks, poor repair etc. things that steal topend & sustain & reverb.
Yeah, he keeps saying: "Bob, you must build this guitar - don't get me wrong - I love my guitar, but someone must build one like this and I think you are the one who can do it." Haha... well, I'm game if you are. I've never played 862 - I played its brother 863, but I guess that means nothing as all guitars are unique. But the one Stephane has now is more inspired by an earlier Selmer which actually is the type I favor - a little more folky & sparkly, but variety is the spice of life and it's tough to fault the tone of the late Selmers; clear and musical and well defined - and yet Selmer.
Thanks for letting me talk "Selmers" and simultaneously avoid working on my website. Much obliged... ;-)
I completely agree about reversing bad modifications and mutilations when it can be done. Sometimes, I suppose, so much has been done it's irreversible: the Chaput Selmer the Jacques currently has, for example. I'm going to get to play that guitar next week, so at least we'll see how she sounds. Sometimes, as in the case of my '64 Favino the result of all the cracks, etc. is an astonishing sounding guitar. I talked with Rodrigo about the Favino, and his advice, which I agreed with, was "leave it alone", because it would be almost impossible to improve it, but very easy to make it worse. But most things can be fixed, some easily (like removing the fret dots that had been added to Selmer 103), and some not so easily, as in "how the hell do you cleat a crack on a guitar with a resonator?"
Thanks so much for sharing your thoughts on why some guitars like older vs. newer strings. I used to learn so much from those occasional PM's we had before you got so damned busy doing more important things, like making fabulous guitars, and I am grateful you can find the time occasionally to sneak out of the shop and share a lesson or two for us lesser mortals. It's funny, rhythm players love the Joseph di Mauro, probably because it is more evenly balanced rather than bright, but guys like Rom and Stephane go for guitars like "The Beast" and 863 respectively. I hadn't thought of why, but I think you nailed it.
Michael is probaly the only living human being who has played Selmers 861, 862, and 863, so he may have an opinion here, but I don't see a huge difference between the recordings of 863 and the live sound of 862 these days. I am more than willing to let you build a bench copy for Stephane, and if any one can replicate the sound, I agree you are the guy, but what Stephane is in love with really is the whole vibe and romance of 862, and we both know you could make a thousand copies down to the smallest measurement, and still not guarantee to replicate that exactly. Half could be better and half worse, but the odds are none will be exactly the same. But maybe close is good enough for him. I really wish I could afford to just give it to him, but I can't...and I love it too, especially since I know how un-great it was at the beginning. Alot of love went into making it better, and I am loathe to part with it yet, at least until I can find another one I love as much. Yes, I know the guitar would live a better life with him playing it (I'm more like the abusive husband in the wife-beater...), but I just can't bring myself to let it go just yet. And BTW, the guitar you built for Stephane is utterly amazing and he knows it. I'd love to get my hands on the guitar that inspired it.
Last thoughts: I agree with you about 103. That guitar has a great and sophisticated tone, and has disabused me of the notion that oval holes sounded better. Easier to play: yes. Higher fret access: yes. Better sound: no way. Maccaferri knew what he was doing. I have heard that alot of old d-holes are dogs, and it may be so (I wonder how many of the dogs are post-Maccaferri). If it is, I got lucky with 103. I called it the Ur guitar in an old post, because I swear I can hear the tonal qualities of many of the guitars that came after in it. A hint of Favino honk in places, the bell-like clarity of Busatos in others, the grit of later oval holes... It's pretty clear to me that the oval hole Selmers were trying to replicate the sound of the d-holes, and while I haven't measured it, the eyeballs suggest that the oval hole is about the same area as the opening of the resonator in the d-hole. Modern d-holes sound nothing like it to me, but more like rooms with no furniture in them.
I'll send you a PM, and we can talk about making a bench copy for Stephane when and if you have time and when I can get the guitar to you to study. I'm sure no one else wants to hear that discussion.
If you want to hear just how amazing it is, have a listen to this:
http://youtu.be/2psoBbjHhh0
(Can't seem to get the embed youtube tag working this morning)