Ibanez Pat Metheny Signature Model

[jorgemg1984]

On his 175 and on Q&A he simply turned the tone control down. Too much IMO...

Precisely my point Jack. His change of tone from bright to dark was much more a choice than result of going from the 175 to the Ibanez. I am positive he could have his early bright sound with his Ibanez if he wanted to (not the store ones, on which I believe your opinions are correct). His dark sound allows him to "get away" with some of his other choices imho.

[3625]

I recall Pat saying somewhere that on his 175 he had to turn the tone way down, whereas on his Ibanez models he didn't have to because they already had that dark tone. I played the Ibanez thinner body 2 pickup version and it definitely had that Metheny sound to it, even acoustically. Each to their own, I've had guitars that I felt were too bright and shrill, especially as they age and the wood dries out. I've read somewhere that the Gibson Martino's are very dark sounding axes as well.

[jzucker]

the mistake they made on the PM100 and PM120 was to build the dark tone into the guitar to the point where even a bright pickup couldn't compensate.

A good 175 can sound bright or dark. Very versatile instrument. Not sure why there's a need for a $3500 copy of a 175 when you can get a decent used 175 for $2kish but I think people just like new, shiny things...

[jorgemg1984]

You're right but finding the good 175s is hard sometimes... played several ones that were not that good in the past. But when they're good they're REALLY good - but these ones are rare, in my experience.

But yes at that price point (3500) even if I went with a new guitar I would start looking other ways like a Sadowsky.

[jzucker]

You're right but finding the good 175s is hard sometimes... played several ones that were not that good in the past. But when they're good they're REALLY good - but these ones are rare, in my experience.

But yes at that price point (3500) even if I went with a new guitar I would start looking other ways like a Sadowsky.

I think that point is highly exaggerated. Even the mediocre 175s sound better and are more versatile than the average PM120 or PM100.

As far as the PM series already sounding dark and not needing to turn the tone control down, I see that as a negative, not a positive. And pat didn't even play one so obviously he didn't dig it.

Again, his classic tones were on a 175 IMO. Plus, the 2nd pickup adds a lot of versatility. I loved my PM120. You can hear it in this clip I did but I loved my 175 and my heritage eagle better.

[3625]

Sure they're a one trick pony soundwise - although the one I tried was first class in its build quality and playability. All the hardware seemed high spec such as the pots, and the fret work was great too- so in terms of a high end factory axe this was as good as it gets - played like butter. I've got a 2006 175, and this Ibanez had the edge in terms of build quality, more on the same level as my L4CES in terms of attention to detail.

[3625]

Donna Lee - cookin' Jack!

[BigMikeinNJ]

Little known factoid: His 175 was held up in Customs after playing a european tour so he used that Ibanez prototype with the wooden tailpiece to record Q&A, read that in a guitar rag about the time the album was released. The article had pics of that guitar in it, not the 175

[jzucker]

the tuners are great but the pots are very cheap mini pots. Not really high quality. I think you're paying a lot for the name and the yen vs the dollar. When the street price was $2200-$2500 they were a lot better IMO.

The necks and setup on the ibanez are definitely much better than gibson. Some of the gibsons require a fret level to get the action low like the ibanez but IMO, that's not a good reason not to get the gibson. A great sounding axe is worth spending time with to get it perfect IMO.

[3625]

I stand corrected on the pots. The pm120 I played belonged to a student who got a good deal on the price when he was in Asia - I wouldn't like to pay top dollar for a new high end Ibanez or Yamaha because the resale on those axes isn't good.

I bought my 175 second hand online (one previous owner) and it was still setup the same as when new. The nut was too high, so I got that fixed plus a fret level, then it was completely fine - action as low as you want without buzz. These new 175's are very different to earlier models, they're built like tanks and have thick tops without much acoustic quality to them - sounds weird but they're almost like a deep bodied semi if you compare them to older ones. Obviously there's no block inside them, but unplugged they sound more like a 'big' 335 than an archtop. I've owned a 59 before, plus I've played others from different decades - they can really vary with sound and feel, which in a way makes them unique and gives a character to them.

[jorgemg1984]

These new 175's are very different to earlier models, they're built like tanks and have thick tops without much acoustic quality to them - sounds weird but they're almost like a deep bodied semi if you compare them to older ones. Obviously there's no block inside them, but unplugged they sound more like a 'big' 335 than an archtop. I've owned a 59 before, plus I've played others from different decades - they can really vary with sound and feel, which in a way makes them unique and gives a character to them.

Precisely my point, 175s vary a lot.

[jzucker]

The tops on the ibanez jazz guitars are about the same thickness as a new 175. I have owned an older 175 and I can concur that the older ones had thinner tops and more acoustic quality but even the new ones seem to get the pat metheny sound better than his namesake models. I would not call them a big 335 though. I have owned a bunch of 335s and currently have a 339 and even a brand new 175 has much more metheny tone than the 339 or 335.

I will say that the 339 gets a very acceptable metheny sound though. Adam Rogers gets a great jazz tone on a 335...

I stand corrected on the pots. The pm120 I played belonged to a student who got a good deal on the price when he was in Asia - I wouldn't like to pay top dollar for a new high end Ibanez or Yamaha because the resale on those axes isn't good.

I bought my 175 second hand online (one previous owner) and it was still setup the same as when new. The nut was too high, so I got that fixed plus a fret level, then it was completely fine - action as low as you want without buzz. These new 175's are very different to earlier models, they're built like tanks and have thick tops without much acoustic quality to them - sounds weird but they're almost like a deep bodied semi if you compare them to older ones. Obviously there's no block inside them, but unplugged they sound more like a 'big' 335 than an archtop. I've owned a 59 before, plus I've played others from different decades - they can really vary with sound and feel, which in a way makes them unique and gives a character to them.

[jorgemg1984]

I bet it would be tough to get a Metheny tone out of a semi-hollow... but some can sound pretty jazzy. I even like Rosenwinkel's tone more than Adam Rogers. Adam Rogers is VERY dark usually... as Ben Monder.

[John Link]

What about the old toothbrush and duct tape?

[jzucker]

When a guitar is amplified to higher volume level, I hear the pickup through the amp, I don't hear any acoustic guitar sound.

I hear it but in the case of metheny, the tone is more of a percussive thing and a feel as opposed to the actual sound of the guitar. When a guitarist plays with electronic keys or sax there is simply no way to hear the acoustic sound of the instrument.

Gone are the days of the Jim Hall trio where everyone played so quietly you could hear the acoustic sound of his 175 .

[jzucker]

What about the old toothbrush and duct tape?

that guitar had a missing pickup too but ibanez didn't copy that I guess.

[jzucker]

but listen to Ulf's tone and tell me it doesn't sound like Metheny? Yes, it's missing a little bit of the hollow quality but he is nailing the feel which is a large portion of that tone....

[Doctor Jeff]

I agree you could get the signature PM sound from almost any guitar with a modest level of chorus and rolling the treble off. It doesn't sound nearly so guitar-specific to me as a lot of guitarist's tones.

He has made a lot of different sounds over the years though, including his synth excursions with the faux-harmonica and of course his acoustic stuff.

[jorgemg1984]

Hmm... I think it resembles Pat's sound, much because he's using a lot of Pat's licks and style of playing. His actual guitar timbre misses the open acoustic sound Pat's archtop brings to the table.

[jorgemg1984]

When a guitar is amplified to higher volume level, I hear the pickup through the amp, I don't hear any acoustic guitar sound.

When way I found around this: cutting the volume (in my case with a volume pedal) and then using a booster or more of the amp's volume. You loose some bite on your sound but it gets much more acousitc and less "pickup". Lage Lund does that a lot.

[jzucker]

Hmm... I think it resembles Pat's sound, much because he's using a lot of Pat's licks and style of playing. His actual guitar timbre misses the open acoustic sound Pat's archtop brings to the table.

I think it's 75% of the way there. I agree it misses some of the acoustic timbre . Incidentally, metheny has never used a chorus effect.

[jorgemg1984]

I think it's 75% of the way there. I agree it misses some of the acoustic timbre . Incidentally, metheny has never used a chorus effect.

True, it does get quite of Pat's vibe. I have actually tried using 335s but I always come back to archtops... I am actually thinking of selling my Cort Source and getting a 3rd archtop. There's always a sweet jazzy vibe to an archtop... Rosenwinkel's Reflections is my favorite of his tone (the only one done with an archtop) and I also like Lage Lund's Sadwosky sound much more than his new guitar sound. Also love Kresiberg's 175 sound, very modern but with that sweet acoustic vibe of archtops.

Yeah I think Pat even gets pissed when people talk about chorus with him. I think he uses a setero delay with different times and that gives him that sort of chorus sound... and on some records I think he just uses reverb but I might be wrong.

[jzucker]

i have a heritage eagle thinline (2" thick) and it's the best sounding archtop I've ever owned. I also have a 339 and I have to say it's as enjoyable as the heritage though it obviously doesn't have the true archtop vibe. However, it does have that metheny percussive thing going on and the sustain and lack of feedback makes it fun to play. Doesn't hurt that it has a killer fusion tone either.

[kris]

I like the Jim Hall sound very much....Pat sounds good but to electric for me.

[jorgemg1984]

i have a heritage eagle thinline (2" thick) and it's the best sounding archtop I've ever owned. I also have a 339 and I have to say it's as enjoyable as the heritage though it obviously doesn't have the true archtop vibe. However, it does have that metheny percussive thing going on and the sustain and lack of feedback makes it fun to play. Doesn't hurt that it has a killer fusion tone either.

Yeah my semi-hollow is a cheap one... Still I have played tons of good ones, I really preffer archtops. Recently played a 10K Buscarino and it was amazing - I think I am asking my luthier to build me a solid archtop, my current two are laminates. My Godin Kingpin actually sounds pretty good for my few pop / rock needs... and I even like my X-500 with my OD pedals, but a good 335 is killer for fusion, no doubt. That Heritage looks killer, only played an Heritage once unfortunatelly.