Gibson Johnny Smith - Acoustic vs. Electric

[kamlapati]

In a post a few months back, demoing my '77 Gibson Johnny Smith, esteemed forum member nevershouldofsoldit mentioned that he had never heard a JS played acoustically. That was my inspiration for this video.

The editing is pretty simple, so you need to listen to about 90 seconds of acoustic playing before you get to the electric portion. Be patient, 'cause hearing the contrast and the similarities of the two tones is interesting.

I love acoustic archtops, and one of the attractions to me is the similarity of the acoustic and electric tones. They're not identical, but there is definite overlap. I play the JS acoustically quite a bit, it's just quicker and easier than plugging in, especially as I still have the fragile original 1/8" pickguard mounted jack.

Enjoy.

[EllenGtrGrl]

Hmmm, sounds good both electric and acoustic, but I can hear a definite difference. The note attack in electric mode is not as sharp, as it is in acoustic mode. Also, the highs are rolled off in electric mode. IMO, that's to be expected, no pickup system has perfectly captured acoustic sound (not the mixed systems using a mic, and a magnetic or piezo pickup blended together, nor the K&K Pure system that a lot of acoustic players rave). Surprisingly, the midrange level sounds like it's pretty much the same when the guitar is played either acoustically, or electrically.

Thanks for sharing the comparison.

[skiboyny]

I think this might be interesting for many here so thanks for posting. Always lots of curiosity regarding the Johnny Smith. They really have a distinctive sound, quite a bit different than most other Gibsons IMO

[kamlapati]

Gtrgirl, I agree with everything you said! And maybe my emphasis was wrong, I didn't mean to say they sounded the same, only that each contains elements of the other.

Note on amp settings: Johnny Smith and I are both on record as wanting as close to a flat frequency respose as possible. For a Fender Princeton or Deluxe, that means treble and bass both on zero. I could dial up the treble a little to say 3 or four, and get back a little of that acoustic sheen, and that's probably closer to where most folks set their amps. Also, the reverb is set to zero in the vid becuase I didn't wat that to interfere with the comparison, but a touch of reverb would be more normal, and might hint at a more acoustic sound.

Finally, that's the original PU. Johnny Smith was definitely seeking a more acoustic sound than a full HB, but still, it's just a magnetic PU, so yeah.

[Django Johnson]

Thanks for the video comparison. The guitar sounds great either way. Nice playing too!

[nevershouldhavesoldit]

In a post a few months back, demoing my '77 Gibson Johnny Smith, esteemed forum member nevershouldofsoldit mentioned that he had never heard a JS played acoustically.

I certainly appreciate being thought of as esteemed . I love your guitar and playing. But what I said was...

I don't think I've ever heard a JS played acoustically (except when I got to play a few over the years).

And what I meant was that I don't recall ever seeing anyone playing a JS acoustically on a gig or in a concert. They don't seem to be very popular for acoustic use, with players favoring L-5, Super 400, D'A and other iconic unamplified archtops by far. I've played and heard mutiple JS variants (unamplified) that were owned by friends or seen at music stores over the years. They're absolutely lovely guitars. But I've never played one that I would have picked over many acoustic archtops to play unamplified (starting with the L-5CN I bought new in 1970).

IIRC, Gibson made about 1600 Johnny Smiths compared to about 2400 L-5 CESs and Super 400 CESs from introduction of the JS through 1980. Production numbers were much much lower for the L-5C and Super 400C - but I suspect that's because so few up and coming pros used acoustic archtops by then and the old guard already had theirs. Almost all JS production seems to me to have gone to people playing them amplified.

Your JS is beautiful for sure, and it sounds wonderful. But its value to me and most others I know is as an electric instrument.

[Hammertone]

IMO, The Johnny Smith was designed to be played as an electric guitar. I've played many JS guitars, and very few of them stood out as excellent acoustic archtops. This is not to say that they cannot be excellent acoustic archtops, but, in my experience, those have been exceptions to the rule.

And, of course, I have something similar (but with a 25 1/2" scale) that is an exception to the rule - the Gibsellone Award.

[deacon Mark]

To me the sound is similar but not the same at all. The acoustic is just raw type of sound at least I would call it and the electric sound tended to round it more and better bass punch. They both sound good will say different to my ears by quite a bit.

[kamlapati]

I agree that no one would buy a JS and ONLY play it acoustically, that would be kinda silly. But OTOH, sitting right next to another guitar that I am fortunate to care for, its brother, a '77 L-5C, they honestly are very close acoustically. YouTube audio dosen't make audio comparisons easy, and so much is due to technique, strings, mic placement, amp settings, and YouTube audio compression, etc.

I'm not sure we're going to settle this folks! But after all, I mean we're here to argue, not to agree, that would no fun. That's why I posted the vid, and all your comments are appreciated.

[wintermoon]

As many of them as I've played most have not knocked me out unplugged but a friend has by far the best sounding one I've ever heard acoustically. Sure they're primarily meant as electrics but I had no urge to plug that one in, it's big and full sounding w the sustain Smith's are known for.

[JazzPadd]

Thank you kamlapati for the clip.

Nice playing tho I couldn’t really discern a difference (but my ears are shot anyway). I also have a blonde 1970s JS and it’s one of my favorite guitars. The acoustic tone is truly special. Mine has an original PU, although it has the tone knob mod (along with the output jack mod). I play it at home both acoustically and thru a 1960s Vibro Champ (a match made in heaven). I also play out with it, mostly at jams, where I plug into whatever is available.

Play yours in the best of health!

[213Cobra]

I agree that no one would buy a JS and ONLY play it acoustically, that would be kinda silly....

I'm not sure we're going to settle this folks! But after all, I mean we're here to argue, not to agree, that would no fun. That's why I posted the vid, and all your comments are appreciated.

Hmmm.... I must have made an egregious error when I bought my Guild-Benedetto JS (one of the 18 signed on the back of the headstock, by Mr. Smith) to play acoustically. OK, not Gibson. And I do occasionally plug it in. BTW, I don't know what all the talk is about a thick finish is on the Corona G-B JS but the lacquer on mine certainly seems about as thin as any Hutchins Gibson I have, including my 2001 L-5CT Acoustic and same era Wes. The G-B's acoustic volume is dynamically sensitive from whisper to very loud, and tone is harmonically rich, brighter than a typical Gibson, piano-like. Via pickup and an amp, it's responsive and amp-friendly. With a variety of tube and solid state amps, many sounds are available.

I also had, alongside this G-B JS for 15 years, a G-B AA, which I also played acoustically most of the time. It was Benedetto's revamp of the Guild Artist Award, voiced differently from my 1994 Guild AA and differently from the G-B JS. All Guilds, all near look-alikes, three different sounds and feels within a grand scheme of Guildness. I also have played my '94 Guild AA acoustically more than electrically, most of the 31 years I've now owned it. When I bought my G-B JS I played and was considering a couple of Gibson JSs, and preferred the Guild-Benedetto.

I pretty much look at any archtop with a floating pickup as acoustically applicable, including my 2007 ES-165 with BJB floater and the Gibson Solid Formed with CC floater. Those I play acoustically more than half the time. Set-in pickup guitars like my '91 ES-165, the L-5 Wes and others are mostly amplified and I didn't buy them with acoustic expectations.

In the video, I admire and appreciate both the acoustic and electric sounds. Different expressions even when the same composition is played, so do I prefer one over the other? No, I prefer both!. A pickup and a mic, transduce sound to electricity very differently, so both tones are satisfying for different reasons. The beauty of guitars like any of the various JS instances is that you get both.

Phil

[nevershouldhavesoldit]

Hmmm.... I must have made an egregious error when I bought my Guild-Benedetto JS (one of the 18 signed on the back of the headstock, by Mr. Smith) to play acoustically.

I don’t think so. It’s just an uncommon choice for acoustic gigging, based on the fact that I’ve never seen one played acoustically on a bandstand, in concert, or on any other gig. Given the production volume of the JS, there really should be at least a few in use unamplified in performance somewhere in the world, if they’re that good acoustically.

I bet yours sounds fantastic!

[FourOnSix]

I pretty much look at any archtop with a floating pickup as acoustically applicable, including my 2007 ES-165 with BJB floater and the Gibson Solid Formed with CC floater. Those I play acoustically more than half the time. Set-in pickup guitars like my '91 ES-165, the L-5 Wes and others are mostly amplified and I didn't buy them with acoustic expectations.

I'll take it a step further. I regularly play my Borys B120 - a 16" archtop with built in pickups and laminated woods - acoustically, and its tone is magnificent. It may not achieve the dynamic range of a 17" solid top guitar with floating pickups, but it's very satisfying w/o amplification.

[nevershouldhavesoldit]

I'll take it a step further. I regularly play my Borys B120 - a 16" archtop with built in pickups and laminated woods - acoustically, and its tone is magnificent. It may not achieve the dynamic range of a 17" solid top guitar with floating pickups, but it's very satisfying w/o amplification.

Like most of us here, I play my pickup-equipped archtops acoustically almost every day - at home. My carved 17 is fine unamplified for rehearsals, demos and informal auditions. I’ve occasionally used my 16” carved archtop without amplification behind a vocalist in very small rooms. Even my 16” laminated box (with a heavy poly finish) sounds decent for practice. But I wouldn’t use any of them on 99% of gigs without at least a little amplification, whether from the pickup or mic’ed.

The point I raised earlier is that I’ve never seen a JS used acoustically on a gig, and I can’t recall seeing one mic’ed on a stage. That’s not an indictment of its sound - it’s a simple observation that makes me wonder why. I’ve played a few thousand gigs over 60+ years, and I’ve probably been to over 2000 concerts and affairs played by others. I’ve seen many big bands and many intimate cabaret performances with an acoustic archtop. Not one was an unamplified JS that I can recall, and I’ve been fascinated by this the entire time.

I considered a JS when I ordered my L5CN, but I decided the L5 was a better choice for me. I put a DeArmond Rhythm Chief on it IIRC, but I comped acoustically on it. I loved playing tunes like Don’t Be That Way, Let’s Fall in Love etc because my guitar was really the center of the rhythm section. Sadly, the quality of that L5 was terrible and the dealer took it back with no questions asked. It was a ‘69/‘70 and a tribute to cost cutting and efficiency But you just don’t see anyone using a JS as an acoustic on a gig - and I wonder why.

Do you gig with your Borys unamplified?

[FourOnSix]

Do you gig with your Borys unamplified?

No, I don't. I gig almost exclusively with my L-5, also early 70s like yours, but the quality is great (setting aside the basically blah looking woods), and occasionally with my tele. I wouldn't hesitate to take the Borys out on a gig, just haven't yet, but not unamplfied. I don't gig unamplified, period.

[kamlapati]

I am always interested in the acoustic tone of an Archtop, especially a carved top floating PU example, even if its not going to be played acoustically, because of how it influences or determines the electric tone. (Not to mention that we all play acoustically at home.)

Speaking of gigging acoustically... even Taylor and Martin flattops are plugged in 95% of the time nowadays! So not really a surprise to me that we don't see many JS's unplugged.

Thanks for all the contributions. Now at least we have one video comparing these two tones.

[Max405]

Hi Kam,
Excellent comparison. Your GJS sounds incredible, both acoustically and electric. Your choice of pick and strings contributed to the fullness of sound. It hard to hear your own guitar acoustically, so recording it is smart.
By the way, I play my GJS acoustically all the time. I played it for an hour this morning and my wife told me it was the prettiest a guitar ever sounded. And to me it sounds better than my L5. Plugged in they both sound great. For some reason, my GJS sounds like the mids are hollowed out a bit when compared to my L5.
The crazy thing.. years ago, I talked to Patrick and he asked me to play his Wes and then his L5 CES as he sat directly in front of me and he was convinced that the CES (2 pickups) sounded better to him acoustically. Me, I couldn’t tell.
Once again, great stuff Kam. Thank you for sharing buddy.
Joe D

[58flame]

I practice with my 86 Artist Award acoustically facing a wall. It's the best sounding acoustic archtop I own, and the one I like to play the most.