Don Everly’s Everly

[62burst]

On 3/2/2020 at 11:00 AM, JuanCarlosVejar said:

Most of the people who complain about maple not having volume or sustain are people who are used to playing Rosewood or Mahogany.

JC

That line has been going around in my head, trying to figure out what you meant there. 

And I agree about people prejudging that a maple guitar won't "cut through the mix" in a string band. What? Find a hole in the rhythm, syncopate, get into some chord comping, or play with those who take turns lowering their volume for you to take a break.

Edited March 4, 2020 by 62burst

[62burst]

On 3/2/2020 at 11:20 AM, JuanCarlosVejar said:

The idea behind the thinner body depth in the orginal Everly design was to help the notes come out faster and they certainly achieved that .

JC

. . . Do we really know what was behind the Everlys bringing this double pick guarded model out  on the stage? No question what you've mentioned happens here with the thinner body, but there may've been other things at work- the times when the Beatles were trying to combat feedback with the ladder-braced J-160E. . . or maybe an just an up and coming pop duo looking to distinguish themselves from others, and recalling the showstopping looks of Ray Whiltley's SJ-200 cowboy guitar (?).

And I thought that clip you posted of Mark DelMedico, seemingly in his comfy home, playing the Billie Joe Armstrong Dbl p/g guitar, was really finding some warmth in that maple.

[E-minor7]

1 hour ago, 62burst said:

That line has been going around in my head, trying to figure out what you meant there. 

And I agree about people prejudging that a maple guitar won't "cut through the mix" in a string band. What? Find a hole in the rhythm, syncopate, get into some chord comping, or play with those who take turns lowering their volume for you to take a break.

Some fine insight there. Still it has to said that the bluegrass people and most other acoustic ensembles typically avoid maple.

Maybe because they are found too distinguished sounding, , , meaning not robust enough. 

[BoSoxBiker]

Perhaps the question is not sustain, but rather how musical the sustain is? The "pretty" factor of a note dies out quickly while the loud resonant mid-range motor keeps on going, continuing even the loud volume. That much has gotten in the way of sounds I have set out to obtain. A few hundred milliseconds can be a long time.

[Dave F]

14 hours ago, 62burst said:

That line has been going around in my head, trying to figure out what you meant there. 

And I agree about people prejudging that a maple guitar won't "cut through the mix" in a string band. What? Find a hole in the rhythm, syncopate, get into some chord comping, or play with those who take turns lowering their volume for you to take a break.

What about the acoustics used in the early big bands? The L5 and Super 400. All the vintage arch top guitars I’ve owned were maple. 

[E-minor7]

8 hours ago, PatriotsBiker said:

Perhaps the question is not sustain, but rather how musical the sustain is? The "pretty" factor of a note dies out quickly while the loud resonant mid-range motor keeps on going, continuing even the loud volume. That much has gotten in the way of sounds I have set out to obtain. A few hundred milliseconds can be a long time.

^ I have found that the more precise and nuanced a player I have become, the more the type of sustain matters*. And as you say the volume and length play a big role here  - actually exactly like when setting a effect-pedal. A thick long single-note-tail  can occupy  too much space and generate irrational sonic blur in the overall context. 

*besides respons time of course

[Guth]

One thing that I will say about my maple AJ is that it projects incredibly well. This quality is more or less lost on me as I really only play guitar for an audience of one: myself. I wasn’t aware of this aspect of the guitar’s character until my wife pointed it out to me. From my perspective this guitar does not sound to me as if it has any more volume than my other guitars. Apparently it is a different story when listening from the other side of the room. 
 

If projection is a quality that you desire in a guitar I wouldn’t promise anyone that maple back & sides will  guarantee this. but I would say that it likely won’t hurt your chances. This is one reason that it has long been recommend that you either take a friend along with you when you go guitar shopping so that you can listen to how the guitar sounds for yourself from the perspective of anyone else who might happen to be listening. Minus a friend, find someone else in the store to play for you.

Edited March 5, 2020 by Guth

[Leonard McCoy]

On 3/2/2020 at 5:20 PM, JuanCarlosVejar said:

The idea behind the thinner body depth in the orginal Everly design was to help the notes come out faster and they certainly achieved that .

 

 

Yes, I have heard the same argument of making the sides shallower for quicker projection mentioned in the Gibson's Fabulous Flat-Top Guitars book. But I find it hard to believe also because it makes little sense to me even if the parties involved really did theory-craft so at the time. We are talking a mere 1/2" shallower sides compared to the J-185 model (4,375" or 11.1125cm depth down from 4.875" or 12.3825cm). It is more likely that the Everly brothers needed a body shape and depth that would not interfere with their on-stage performances which required them to sing into one mic while standing closely together on stage without bumping into another's guitars. The shallower body depth (as opposed to the J-185) certainly helped achieve that. It also would not hurt that the J-180, same for its older brother, turned out to be an excellent percussive strummer.

Edited April 21, 2020 by Leonard McCoy

[Steve W]

It was one of Neil Diamond’s main guitars throughout his career, especially the early days!

Its a great singer/songwriter axe! Not so boomy or too cannon-like, won’t bury the vocals! I have a friend who has one as well... sounds great mic’d too!

[Guth]

On 4/21/2020 at 9:57 AM, Leonard McCoy said:

Yes, I have heard the same argument of making the sides shallower for quicker projection mentioned in the Gibson's Fabulous Flat-Top Guitars book. But I find it hard to believe also because it makes little sense to me even if the parties involved really did theory-craft so at the time. We are talking a mere 1/2" shallower sides compared to the J-185 model (4,375" or 11.1125cm depth down from 4.875" or 12.3825cm). 

Your use of the adjective mere in this case seems questionable. A 1/2" difference might not seem like all that much when measured in two dimensions, or viewed from the side of the guitar only,. But taking into account the internal volume of the guitar in three dimensions, the impact made by that 1/2" difference would seem fairly significant to me.