-
A very fine, civil, and informative discussion from everyone. I honestly did learn a lot.
And I am in 100% agreeement, and have also found out firsthand, that for better or worse, I sound like me. There is a very marginal difference in tone from guitar to guitar when I play different brands of similar models of guitars.
But I also agree with the statement that I play better when I play a guitar that INSPIRES ME. And that certain inspiring instrument can change from day to day.
I will leave with this final thought from Robben Ford. He said if you have given up or not played a recently acquired guitar for more than 6 months, then you never gave the guitar a fair chance to reveal itself.
-
09-25-2011 02:51 PM
-
This thread turned into a very interesting discussion - a lot of the things discussed here are imo also true to effects and amps. I know two guys that just use extremely expensive amps, guitars, pickups, effects, cables.. they just use the best. And guess what? They have an OK sound at best. Using the best gear is not going to make you sound amazing and using the same gear the players you love use wont make you sound like them. You do have to work A LOT in your sound (and a good guitar can inspire you to make that)
About the discussion on sound I think there two differences: electrified and acoustic sound. High end archtops usually have an amazing acoustic sound. A guy here just bought a Zeidler and the guys who heard the guitar said that thing sounds magnificent acoustic, like no other archtop they ever heard. I have always heard great things about the acoustic sound of Benedettos and the alikes.
When you go trough an amp there are things that matter a lot in your sound, like pickups or speakers, and the difference between and high end guitar and a good guitar is not so relevant. But I do find a very big difference between my Guild X-500 and a cheap archtop, even electrified. I played recently with a Dearmond, which is a cheap copy of the Guild and the differences were very noticeable. And of course the "inspiration" factor counts a lot, I just play much better with my Guild than with a cheap Ibanez even if they sound the same electrified (which they don't).
I think in the end if you are a pro player and want a good guitar just find a guitar you really like to play and put excellent pickups there. I have a 1965 archtop and a 2009 cheap 335 copy. One costed me 2000€ the other 300€. Love them both. There are plenty of examples of guys that recorded with very cheap guitars (Kurt Rosenwinkel with an epiphone) and very expensive guitars (Anthony Wilson with a Monteleone). In both cases I bet they just loved their guitars no matter their price. Find a guitar that you love and buy it - dont buy it because its cheap and you can save money or because its very expensive and its supposed to be great (have played several expensive and very poor ES175)
-
Yep! That's the curse, right there!
Originally Posted by Kuz
-
I gig with either of my Benedettos (Bambino and Bravo). Both are laminated tops and not that fragile. I have friends that keep the high end guitars at home sitting in the case but I take mine out to the job and use them. Yes, they get nicked and scratched but I bought them pre-owned with some signs of wear so I don't get the blame for putting the very first scratch on them. Originally Posted by benjazzman82
-
I have an Framus AZ 10 that I do use for some gigs where I know it will not be in danger. The guitar I use most of the time is my 175 which I have had forever and has already been through everything. If you gig on a regular basis eventually something will happen so if you have a $10,000 archtop it might be best to leave it home.
-
This realy did turn into quite a discussion and its good to see. Hopfully no toes have been trodden on or noses bent out of joint.
Very healthy to see all points of view from different people.
After just playing 12 hours of jazz in 2 days on the Peerless Jazz City my fingers were so warmed up... its rare that i play for that long. It was only as i was advertising at a wedding fayre. Loved every minute of it and was left with a feeling that i have a good relationship with my guitars... they seem to look after me and i look after them.
One day i may treat myself if i ever get the oportunity to. I am a firm believer that the sound is 99% down to the player. If you are any good you can make most things sound ok. "Feel"... i think we can look into in more depth.
I am sure Micheal shumacher could get a van round a race track quicker than i could in a Porche!
Thanks for alot of lessons learned in this thread.
Ben
-
I tell folks "No piece of gear will improve your sound more than adding an extra hour a day of practice will."
Some listen, some don't.
-
Thats not true. Have bought amps and pedals that made me achieve the sound I was looking for - gear is important to that. To me its not the same playing amp A or amp B, some will give me thing I want other will give me things I don't want.
I could practice the whole day, how is that going to give me the sound of a good hall reverb and a good digital delay? Gear is irrelevant if you don't know how to play but its essential to achieve a desired sound.
-
Obviously, to play guitar, you must have a guitar. And if you're looking for "the jazz sound" as it is most commonly defined, you'll need an amp. Originally Posted by jorgemg1984
Aside from a cord to connect the guitar to the amp, you actually require no other gear. "The jazz sound," came into being without reverb, delay, tremolo, "stomp boxes," "crunch," etc., etc., etc. It is the clean sound of an electric guitar.
Now, that doesn't mean effects can have no place within the broad spectrum of music that is today lumped under the single heading of "jazz." But those effects are not a substitute for knowing how to play an interesting solo, or to get into a rhythm groove that doesn't trash another soloist's time at bat.
-
I think I see what jorgemg1984 is saying. If say he wants, say, the "delay" sound popular with a number of the modern players, he's going to need a delay pedal to get that sound.
-
Yes. Certain sounds you just achieve with pedals - delay, hall reverb, chorus, etc... If you just want clean archtop sound you just need a guitar and an amp. But some people want more and need gear to achieve that.
But of course gear wont teach you how to play. Thats your job. Thats doesnt mean gear is irrelevant - as you can check by reading interviews by the great guitar players. Even Jim Hall says his most loved amp its his Gibson that, guess what, he had Harry Kolbe mod to his taste. Maybe Jim should have spent that time practicing instead of going to Harry to achieve his sound?
-
No argument there, but maybe he needed the break so his callouses could catch up.Maybe Jim should have spent that time practicing instead of going to Harry to achieve his sound?
-
This subject can be summed up with a few statements:
1) Every craftsman cares about his tools.
2) A discerning craftsman desires tools that fit his particular needs.
3) A talented craftsman can make something useful with lesser tools.
4) A poor craftsman makes an inferior product regardless of his tools.
-
Although this raises additional questions, too. Originally Posted by rpguitar
For example, suppose our craftsman has determined that an acoustic L5 is the tool that will meet his or her needs perfectly after affixing a particular suspended pickup to its pickguard.
But comes now, from the shop's back room an L7...built the same year, by the same workers and of woods that are the equal of those used in the L5 desired.
And craftsmen have always agreed to a monetary valuation of this L7 of at least 10% to as much as 40% lower than the L5, while the difference in production cost amounts to no more than an hour's additional labor to obscure more of the L5's ebony fretboard with mother of pearl instead of "dots" and to install a more elaborate head stock inlay. The difference in material costs amount to a few cent's worth of gold electroplating and an L5 emblem on the tailpiece.
In the majority of cases, the craftsman will shell out, in today's money, an additional $1,000 to $2,500 for the "superior" tool, when in reality, during construction both were the same model until the final stages of cosmetic embellishment.
Now, as it happens, I think L5s are among the coolest guitars ever built. Although I no longer own one, I owned one for years. I've thought about buying at least a half dozen others, from non cut acoustics to humbucker equipped CES models, at various times.
But those impulses were not from the practical, pragmatic thought processes of a "discerning craftsman" selecting tools appropriate to the needs of the craft.
Insecurity and a compensating status symbol, a belief in magic, a desire to own something inherently beautiful (at least in my opinion)...sure. All these, and more were factors...as was, I suppose, the belief that I could buy a sound without dedicating as much blood sweat and tears to the endeavor.
God knows, relative to my income and spending ability, I have wasted as much money on gear that I drooled over as anyone ever could.
But I will no longer rationalize it as having been something more than it was.
Last edited by cjm; 09-26-2011 at 01:33 PM.
-
Well, in the case of the average craftsman whose tools are not on display to onlookers or peers, but are instead contained within a private workshop, that person would - being discerning and all - understand that the L-7 is structurally the same as an L-5 and would not necessarily pay the premium. Some still would, because some like to be thought of (even if only to themselves!) as discerning to the degree that only the finest tools will do, even if that degree of extra fineness is attained only by ornamentation. Originally Posted by cjm
Are we having fun yet?
To the guitar player's palette of emotions and decision inputs we must add vanity, whether in the form of how we appear to others, or even just to ourselves. That changes a lot of things we do.
Just so you know I understand your point, I have an L-12 that has a better tone than my L-5. This actually pains me, as I love the L-5 a bit more for what it is than for what it does. It's not to the degree where the L-5 is a poor tool (far from it), but the L-12 just has that something (it's X-bracing, actually) that makes it stand out tonally.
-
Originally Posted by rpguitar
I feel your pain. (Original Copyright Bill Clinton, renewed in 1996.)
My dirty little secret is that I had an L48 of all things, with a Dearmond single coil crudely screwed to the top, that if anything, sounded better through an amp than my L5 and several other L5s I compared it to...
-
A quick reply to rpguitar's question . . . . Yes . . . I am having much fun discussing what this topic has evolved into.
cjm; I think . . in fact I know, that you are dramatically underestimating the differences in costs associated with producing an L5 and an L7. The woods chosen for an L5 are almost always more clear, less grain run out, better cross medular "rays" in the spruce, far better flame in the maple . . . etc. The finger board of an L7 is usually rose wood with the 175 type double parallegram. I've personally stood over and watched the process of wood selection, building and finishing an Eagle . . . as well as a Golden Eagle. It is FAR more than 1 hour's additional work. However, your point on the music/sound/tone that is produced from each is IMO dead nuts on accurate. The L7 is a hell of a fine guitar, by any comparison.Last edited by Patrick2; 09-27-2011 at 09:56 AM.
-
Metaphor time: An L-5 is a supermodel. An L-7 is a hot girl next door. But if you date an L-48, you'll have some 'splainin' to do to your buddies. She's got to have special talents to make that worthwhile.
-
As a general rule, I'd say you're correct...probably more than half of the L5's have nicer looking wood than the majority of L7's...But that's only a general rule because I've run across L5's with wood nearly as plain as the fir and larch framing lumber at Home Depot and L7's with amazing fancy woods...and despite that, the price differential remained. Originally Posted by Patrick2
In other words, the monetary valuation was always based first and foremost on the model designation rather than the intrinsic value (whether that intrinsic value was based on sonic characteristics or visual appeal of the materials -- or both) of the instruments undergoing comparison.
At least that is my opinion -- based on my observations -- and of course, like all my opinions, this opinion is absolutely true unless my wife and/or mother-in-law disagree(s) with it in any particular: in which case, I deny agreeing with my own opinion and suggest further that the person whose opinion it is is either a damned liar, or a fool, or both.
-
There are many reasons I like the guitars that I like; its not ALL just playability and tone. I like old guitars. I can't quantify it...I just do. Every few years, I'll go shopping for something "replaceable" to gig with, and never really find anything. I once bought a new 175 to tour with, because I didn't want to risk taking a vintage guitar. Throughout the whole tour, I regretted not having "my" guitar. My current favorite is my Byrdland. Some might consider it a high-end archtop. People commissioning a Manzer/Bennedetto/Lentz/Triggs etc might not consider it high end. Would I sound like me on an Artcore? Probably. Would I enjoy it? Probably. Would I enjoy it as much? No. Do I feel guilty about owning guitars worth 5 figures? Nope.
That said...whenever I play, I get people that want to talk to me about my guitar. About 50% tell me its beautiful and they're envious. About 50% spew vitriol of some sort about the follies of paying anymore than $800 for a guitar....followed by something about it being "all about the music, and not the tools". Perhaps it should be about what brings us, as individuals, joy. Playing an old archtop brings me joy, and I hope everyone else plays what brings them joy, whether it be a used $400 Artcore, or a million dollar teardropped shape jazz box.
-
That's exactly what it's all about. It's about playing what you want to play and not letting someone else set the standards for you. They usually do that to help rationalize away their jealousy. Like I mentioned before, everyone does what they do for a reason. If you have the scratch to get that joy maker, by all means do it. Originally Posted by customxke
-
Thank you customxke and HFC for this opinion. I could never understand why it's always the guitarists that want to see the money spent for a guitar justified by appropriate playing skills - while it's perfectly OK to spend big $$$ on bull$$$t car cosmetics, overpriced restaurants, jewelry, perfume etc. If you can afford it and it doesn't hurt anyone, buy and do whatever makes you happy, that's what life is about.
-
my thoughts exactly. Originally Posted by Drifter
i don't see any advice here not to buy motorcycles, jet skis, bass boats, big screen TVs with surround sound systems, or Caribbean cruises.
people do that stuff every day and everybody just expects it.
-
There is also hardly any talk here about whether Freightliner or Kenworth offers the better value in a 15 year old class 8 tractor, or if hybrid vigor in brood cattle trumps the desirable breed characteristics of purebred stock.i don't see any advice here not to buy motorcycles, jet skis, bass boats, big screen TVs with surround sound systems, or Caribbean cruises.
There are perhaps reasons for this, although I can't think of why this might be...
At the same time, I've seen no advice not to buy expensive, high end electric archtop guitars, except where the purchase is made with the expectation of it improving the guitarists sound...which despite protestations to the contrary has been the major factor driving high end guitar sales since before plants began to grow in dirt.
As an objet d'art, high end guitars are legitimately desired...and as an indulgence/reward for good behavior or just as something that imparts a warm and fuzzy feeling...it's all good.
To suggest that the shortest path to a good sound is to work overtime wearing out the frets on cheap guitars -- is not to suggest moral depravity on the part of guitarists who also indulge their impulse to collect rare and expensive guitars.
It is however, to assert that two different activities are conflated in the minds of many guitarists, and to remind those (who appear to be more numerous than even I might have estimated) that neither of these activities is necessary to the other.
-
Let me elaborate on my practice vs. gear comment.
No, I wouldn't tell that to Jim Hall. Conversely, Jim Hall wouldn't be trolling internet forums asking what's the best $5,000 archtop...
On a bluegrass mailing list many, many years ago, there was a discussion on contest preparation. Someone quoted Mark O'Connor, who said he doesn't like to practice contest pieces because it interferes with his improvisation. The quoter asked if this was a good strategy. The overwhelming reply was "No. You're not Mark O'Connor."
I'll apply that to this conversation -- it is entirely possible that someone asking about high-end archtops is a fantastic player who opens their ears to the cosmos and lets the music make itself manifest through his fingertips. In that case, by all means, seek out the perfect gear.
For the rest, I still think extra practice will serve better than a new Bennedetto.
(Not that I follow my own advice, of course. I've added two new guitars and an electronic drumkit in 2011.)
Reply With Quote
Recommandations for Hollowbodies for $600 and under?
Today, 05:20 AM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos