-
This might be an easy question for some to answer:
I was watching a very old "Austin City Limits" Pat Metheny Group playing songs mostly (if not all) form the White Album and i eventually noticed that his bridge pickup on the 175 is missing.
I understand that he rarely (if ever used) the bridge pickup but why remove it all together? Will that produce drastically different results than just using the neck pup on the selector.
Unless I am completely insane and it's not missing at all...the video quality is not the greatest, but it's a phenomenal performance.
-
01-09-2012 11:57 AM
-
hi,
as far as I remember from different interviews he had removed because he never used it. I also read once, that his ES175 originally didn't have a bridge pickup, it was an old one with just one pickup and he had a bridge pu built in and later took it out again - don't know if that story is true.
Well, I also think that a bridge pickup doesn't make much sense on a jazz guitar - 335-type guitars are different, though.
-
At the opposite end of the scale, Howard Roberts added a bridge PU to his famous "black" guitar for a while.
-
Yes, but HR was a session musician, playing all sorts of calls. Did he really like the bridge pickup for jazz?
Originally Posted by Flyin' Brian
At the opposite end of the scale, Howard Roberts added a bridge PU to his famous "black" guitar for a while.
-
Hmm interesting...it makes sense I guess...the Ibanez PM35 (which I believe came before the 120) has only the neck pickup..but the newer 120 has both. I never use my bridge pickup only, but from time to time when playing with a nice fat analog chorus on, I will switch to the middle position with both and still get a nice full, warm sound.
-
I would doubt it, except that in his two "strange" albums, Antelope Freeway and Equinox Express Elevator, there are several areas that could be bridge and/or combination. But that's all a guess...who knows? He certainly had a collection for doing movies/TV and other recording dates. Whatever tool works. I love flying open cockpit biplanes, but I'm not about to take one across the Pacific to Hawaii. Originally Posted by BigDaddyLoveHandles
I'm with you on that one. I don't like using the bridge pickup alone, even on my Fenders, although once in a while I get an assignment for a country tune, so out comes the Tele, the compressor and the slap echo. Originally Posted by ruiner54
I'd bet that Ibanez did that just for marketing. I'm sure that for every jazz guy who only wants a neck pickup there are dozens who want some flexibility.
-
I took the bridge PU out of a jazz archtop I once owned. It actually did make a noticeable difference in the sound of the guitar, The top became somewhat more lively and I could definitely hear the difference. You have to put tape over it like he did on the old ES-175 or it can increase the possibility of feedback.Kind of like the big sound-hole on an acoustic makes it more prone to feedback. That's why he had tape over the bridge PU hole on his ES-175.
I never use the bridge PU for jazz / on a jazz archtop. I've seen guys playing rock/blues/ country/ and R&B on jazz archtops. I could imagine them wanting to use the bridge PU. I'm sure that's why they put it on the Metheny model just marketing to possibly sell to the guys who like to play other styles on an archtop. Who knows maybe some fusion players would use it from time to time?
-
Lots of us know the key to that era of Metheny's sound was from the toothbrush in the tailpiece.
-
His 175 doesn't look so nice and fresh in this picture as it did in the Austin City Limits concert in (79?). Apparently he stopped using it because of how fragile it was and how much it got beat up going back and forth to concerts, tours.
-
He has retired it and has said that it's the only material object that he's attached to, although he did bid on and win an L-5 that belonged to Wes Montgomery, his main idol. Originally Posted by ruiner54
From his forum he talks a bit about it and has some strong words for the idea of comparing the 175 and the Ibanez guitars.
Subject: Gibson ES-175 From: John McMillin (n/a) Question: One old friend didn't make the Id tour to Atlanta -- your old Gibson ES-175. That fine old ax had become a legend, the finest-sounding, sorriest-looking guitar I've seen, toothbrush strap holder, duct tape and all. Did it expire, or was it retired? Your new black Ibanez sounds tinny & harsh by comparison. Great playing, though, as always... Pat’s Answer:
i have been seeing comments like that recently on the ag. i miss the 175 too, it just was getting too rickety in the past few years- and i don't really want to fix it up for fear that it might change it. however, i find some of the analysis of the sound differences - especially the really dogmatic ones like this one - pretty funny - sorry, but *i* can't even tell the difference on records or live between the two to any great degree in a number of a/b tests. most of the difference in sound has to do with the room that they are being played in and especially where the tone control is. ok, here's a test for you - on secret story there are 2 songs that are played on the ibanez but sound like the 175 - can you tell which ones they are? also on letter from home, there is one on the ibanez, the rest are the 175. can you name it?
Subject: 175 or Ibanez? From: John Monllos (usa) Question: First of all Pat I love the new CD with Jim Hall!!! I am curious did you play the 175 or the Ibanez on this date? (I can't Tell) it looks like the 175 in the picture. Also do you turn down the tone on the guitar to get a darker sound for this type of date? Thanx for your time... John Pat’s Answer:
hi john it is the ibanez pm-100 on that date; the blonde one. one thing i really like about the ibanez guitars is that i DON'T have to turn the tone control down too much to get a darker sound - those pickups are louder and much fatter sounding than the old gibson ones (although the vintage guitar purist types will no doubt continue to harp on me about how the 175 sounds "so much better" than the ibanez; which honestly is just pure hogwash - and that is coming from the person who loves that 175 more than anyone on earth)the fact that you (and most other people) cannot tell the difference on this record and several others proves my point. hey, i don't sound defensive here, DO I???!?!!
i'm really glad you like the record with jim - it was such a thrill to make for me.
thanks for writing in from pat
-
Whats that extra tailpiece doing there ?
-
Pingu if you're talking about the black piece, it's not a tailpiece, it a controller for the synthesizer he uses. Originally Posted by pingu
Here's mine. Slightly different and I have a stop tailpiece on this guitar so I could mount the controller in its intended position.
-
The PM 120 has been around for a long time-longer than the PM35. Originally Posted by ruiner54
I had a PM20(now discontinued). It had only one pickup.
-
Flyin' Brian
thanks a lot for posting those lines from Pat's forum!!
-
It is a true story that Pat mentions in this Vintage Guitar article. Originally Posted by Gearhead
Can you detail the “modifications” you did to the 175?
It became the thing for me, and remains the standard by which all guitars are judged. The 175, of course, has a fantastic tradition in many ways throughout the history of the instrument, and it’s been cool for me to be a member of that.
Originally, that guitar was a one-pickup, which made it more rare. Being 13, I thought, “Really good guitars have two pickups.” So I took it to my shop class and cut a hole with the jigsaw and ordered another humbucking pickup from Gibson. But it didn’t sound good, and I realized that none of the people I liked used that sound anyway. So I decided to take it out. That’s why there’s a piece of black tape over the hole that I cut in shop class. With the help of a professional guy, because I’d messed it up so much, I reverted it back.
-
Why did you wait 6 years to answer?
Reply With Quote
Monk's Mood
Today, 04:25 PM in The Songs