u/jackzucker

I had a conversation with Steve Holst about his tops compared to a vintage 175 (like my '64).

Hi Steve,

I ended up buying a 64 175 and am curious why it's so resonant. The only other Lam that is comparable is your d'aquisto inspired guitar that I've used for a couple albums.

Your guitar is more resonant than the 64, but also it's a single pickup, and I don't know how much that has to do with it.

But I've owned a bunch of different 175s from almost every decade, and it seems that as you get closer to modern Times they are less and less resonant, and I'm just curious if it's the bracing, the laminate itself, the glues, or what.

=================

Hi Jack,

All good questions! My feeling is that there's a few things in play. It's clear that the quality of wood in the early 175's was much better than what's available now. Whether that translates to the poplar core I don't know. I do believe they used that wood from the beginning but can't be positive. Poplar grows very fast so it's unclear whether newly harvested wood is vastly different from older stuff. I can more easily make the argument that the mahogany and rosewood used in the old days is much better than modern.

I could see where the glue may make a contribution although how much is a guess. Ideally you'd want a glue that dries hard like hide glue. Titebond dries more gummy than hard. No idea what Gibson used back then. Hide glue is a pain to work with but for a long time that was what everyone used.

I think the age of the wood may make a significant contribution. Some woods get quite a bit stiffer and harder over time. The fir studs in my first house (made in 1947) were like iron. Stiffer wood resonates more easily than soft, flabby wood. That was the main reason I chose to use hard maple for all my laminations. Old wood that's stiffened over time and is fairly dry can be very lively acoustically. In the making of my plates there's a lot of moisture introduced through the gluing of the layers together. I've noticed my plates improve over time as all that glue moisture slowly dries out. Might be something similar in the old 175's. Not sure.

Interesting topic for sure.

Steve

Preface, I have taught jazz theory, improvisation and jazz guitar at the university level. I'm the author of the Sheets of Sound for Guitar series books. I'm well versed in traditional and jazz theory.

---------------------------

Do you realize that theory, in particular -- western theory, is an after-the-fact analysis of composed music? We tend to think of theory as rules and formulas when it's simply a common language used to describe what someone else has done.

The common western theory taught in universities is based on the Baroque period of music (1600–1750).

And then, when jazz came along, we tried to analyze it in terms of Baroque rules and principles. Along came Bird, Trane, Herbie, Chick and up and up.

AND WE ARE STILL USING BAROQUE terminology to describe jazz. Of course, Barris Harris, Hal Galper, Dave Liebman updated these principles and helped usher in a period of what we now refer to as "Jazz Theory".

Of course, we are still taking after-the-fact analysis and attempting to generate rules and regulations about what is valid based on looking at things backwards.

Reality check -- You don't play by the rules. YOU MAKE THE RUlES. The rules will bend to follow what you played. If it sounds good, it *IS* good.

With all that being said, can you play a b9 against a Maj7 chord? Answer, YES OF COURSE YOU CAN. Try taking a tune like "You stepped out of a dream" and for ever tonic, Try using an altered dominant tonality. Does it work? Yes, does it fit the rule books? Who cares!!!

Let's stop trying to use western theory (baroque or otherwise) to govern what we can or cannot do in jazz.

Rules are like labels, jazz is not Mayonnaise.

I'll post some more articles like this in the future, perhaps taking these concepts forther.