-
"It's a statement to be made when one is seen playing it in public. It's an attitude. It's a sense of having arrived . . a sense of accomplishment. It's an indulgence. It's an object of self gratification. It's an object from which one derives a certain sense of pride of owning one. It's a guitar that those of us with huge egos can brag on"
If it is not about sound and how it plays and feels and whether it feels right for you and if it will work in your environment, then you have your priorities screwed up.
I appreciate the general idea of a high end instrument in that respect but the the emphasis seems skewed to the wrong side
...just my opinion
JimLast edited by jazzimprov; 07-15-2014 at 02:13 PM.
-
07-15-2014 01:51 PM
-
The "sense of pride" and "indulgence" need not be mutually exclusive with the fantastic sound, feel, and expressiveness of the instrument. In fact the most profoundly satisfying musical objects are all of those things.
The only objection I'd have is if a person focused only on the non-musical "look at me" aspects of the guitar as a possession, rather than as an instrument with which to express oneself. But I don't believe that's the case at all with the gentleman whose words you're objecting to.
I'm proud of my Gibson archtops, ranging in age from 15 to 86 years, and whether I like it or not, they cause a reaction among fellow guitar players because they are beautiful, old (most of 'em), and objects of desire. I couldn't prevent that if I tried. But they don't sit for long on their stands. I play them every single day for as many hours as I can, reveling in their tone, feel, and looks. It's pretty damn satisfying as a package, and nothing to be ashamed of in the least.
-
Not sayin' one bit that anyone should be 'ashamed' of owning an L5 or you couldn't be 'proud' to own one (of course!)
Words like "attitude" "having arrived" " object of self gratification" "those of us with huge egos can brag on"
Just a little over the top for my taste... but I do understand where the poster is coming from don't get me wrong.
This is one beautiful instrument, but that can't be the anchor of the purchase otherwise it is bad advice.
I tend to agree with the other descriptions of proud...etc... though////
-
Cool.
I would definitely stop short of the "having arrived" reference because, frankly, to truly arrive one must play that guitar and make nice sounds come out of it. It's not enough to just buy it. And bragging rarely goes over well.
Pride and braggadocio register on the same meter, but at very different levels.
-
In the end it's just a guitar ....
It's not my business why someone else buys a certain brand or model
I have enough problem trying to understand and manage my own priorities
-
I agree. When I bought my first L-5C fifty-five years ago, I had no sense of "having arrived" because I had hardly started, and didn't know that an L-5 was supposed to be something special--it was simply the nicest guitar in the store, back at a time when a pro music shop would be filled with archtops. I still play them because they look, sound, feel and play great, not because I need to make a statement.
Originally Posted by jazzimprov
As for the ego stuff, I call BS--no one in any of my bands and almost no one in any of our audiences would know an L-5 from a tele. I do occasionally have really old guys come up to me and tell me about when they played guitar in some famous big band and how it looked just like mine, except for the pickups, but that just gives me a taste of what I'll be like in twenty years. When I'm playing, I'm not thinking about how proud I am to have an L-5, but how good it sounds and how well it plays, and which the heck bar was the D.S. sign.
One exception I remember: my big band does four or so gigs every year at a local cafe. We don't fit inside; we set up on the front patio and they open all the doors. The audience has to walk right past us to get in, but I'm at the far end, so no one usually walks past me. After one gig as I was starting to pack up a very spacey-looking guy was heading towards me, walking like a robot, making strange faces while I was getting a bit nervous. He stopped in front of me, raised his hand slowly and pointed to my guitar, which was a Wes-style L-5 Signature in red. Then he intoned in a stentorian voice "That is the singular most beautiful-looking and -sounding guitar I have ever come across." Turned out he was the guitar player with the drummer's small jazz group. His own guitar is a blonde Guild Artist Award, which is hardly a shabby instrument, but he was really impressed with my L-5. Our drummer is outstanding, which makes me think this guy is a great guitarist, so it was quite a compliment.
Danny W.
-
jazzimprov . . how could you possibly profess to have any determination on where an individual's priorities should or shouldn't be? That's pretty arrogant, don't ya think? My priorities are mine and mine alone . . and need not conform to what you think they should, or should not be. Originally Posted by jazzimprov
To your comment of . . "just my opinion" . . I'll not question your opinion at all. However, you too probably should have been equally as considerate to not question mine when I posted it.Last edited by Patrick2; 07-15-2014 at 09:38 PM.
-
Danny, I've got a lot of respect for you. But, you really do need to re-read your post. It's got quite a few conflicting statements within it. Also, the many photos that you've posted over on TGP and here in this forum, do indeed show just how proud you are of your passion for the Gibson L5 guitars. You say you don't need to make a statement? I'm sure that's true as it relates to when you're playing. But, you made a hell of a lot of wonderful statements when you posted all of those photos of those beautiful Gibson L5s. It's very clear to me . . and probably to most others . . that your passion for Gibson L5s goes way beyond how much you like the way they play and sound. Originally Posted by Danny W.
I'm appreciative of your opening comments about having purchased your first L5 some 55 years ago . . and a sense of having arrived was not at all part of the equation factoring into your decision to buy it. Because, back then, the vast majority of people who bought L5s did so for the same reason you did. Back then, it was indeed "just a guitar". The whole historic and iconic vibe of the L5 had not yet developed. But, it's definitely here now . . and has been for the past 3 decades or so. Wouldn't you agree?
Take that robotic old guy who walked up to you and complimented your guitar over and above his own Guild AA. He gets it too. You're comments that a Guild AA is "hardly a shabby instrument" are fully understood to mean that in they're own right, they're every bit as great a guitar as an L5. And, indeed they are. But, they're not a Gibson L5. That has little to do with playability, quality of craftsmanship, quality of componentry, tonal quality . . or anything else. I've got a drop dead gorgeous 1995 Guild AA. One of the finest guitars I've ever put my hands on. But, it ain't an L5 . . at least, not in my eyes.
I would offer as a probably, that as few as 5% of the people who buy a Gibson L5 guitar (in any variant) in current times, do so for the very practicle reasons that you bought your first one some 55 years ago. After all . . what were the choices for high quality arch tops in 1959 . . as compared to today? Who was held in higher esteem as an arch top builder than Gibson back in 1959 . . other than maybe John D'Angelico? And, John wasn't building dual inset pup arch tops. But, the choices today are almost endless.
Take the OP of this thread, for example. After telling everyone on this thread that he really didn't need a guitar that came with all of the hype . . he needed his own musical voice . . he bought the L5CES. Try telling him it's "just a guitar".Last edited by Patrick2; 07-15-2014 at 09:58 PM. Reason: excessive wine consumption induced typos
-
I love my L5 because it looks, sounds, feels, and smells so goooood, which isn't a reaction I get from my other guitars. If others are impressed-that's nice, if not-it doesn't diminish the feeling of playing it one bit. The bottom line is, I have the tone I want, the look I want, the feel I want and the quality I want.
-
A person who owns a desirable object seems to have three basic choices:
1) Share it with others in a generous way;
2) Foist it upon others in an arrogant way; or
3) Disavow its specialness and act as if it's no big deal.
I think it's disingenuous to choose #3, if only because it shows ignorance towards the way the object is perceived by others - even if one genuinely does feel that it's no big deal.
#2 is obviously annoying, and such practitioners are generally shunned.
#1 is really the best, but can be easily misconstrued as #2 by the jealous or shallow amongst the great unwashed, especially on the internet where all types live and breed.
-
Ya see now . . . that's where some of us collectors are really weird. How many of you have gone to trade shows and watched idiots like myself pick up a 40+ year old strat, tele or Les Paul and sniff the guitar and the case?? Nothing turns us on more then the smell of musty, tobacco, alcohol funk! Originally Posted by Broyale
But, I do have to admit . . I'd be just devastated if that smell was present on my L5CES or my L5Wes! ;-)
Haven't quite made that "connection" with the Wesmo just yet. But, they'll have to pry the L5CES . . "from my cold dead hands".
Danny W. or Wintermoon .. or anyone else . . the color of the CES is quite a bit darker than any other that I've seen. It's quite a bit darker than the picture shows. The flash and my poor photography skills didn't really capture the color too well. I'll try to get some better ones up soon. But, what would Gibson have called this shading?
-
It sounds to me like your going through the same process of picking the L5 as you did the Es-175. You seem to pick these iconic models only to find that your not as happy with them as you would have?
Many l5's don't sound great (although many do), QC is not great (but that is the same for any big American manufacturer) and some just don't play well at all.
Its a Hell of a lot of money for a name, when you can buy a Campellone for half the price (if not a little more) and it will be the better guitar.
The problem with a status symbols is that they can leave you open, to feeling disappointed and in some ways exploited by your self.
If you want a guitar to impress people but you don't play it well, 9x's out of 10 behind your back, they're gonna make fun of you. Some would say thats because they are jealous, or some because they say you are a fool.
I can't knock someone for wanting an L5 or someone for owning one but thats because they wanted it for being an L5. Sounds like you want a nice big archtop and that is not always an L5.
Its not always easy to enjoy a guitar you've payed a lot for (especially when you know you've payed over the odds if value and quality are your concern).
Sometimes paying less and getting the better guitar makes it that much more enjoyable. I have wanted an L5 for years, ever since I started playing jazz. I thought they were the holy grail, but soon discovered I could have a lot more fun with something I didn't have to be so precious over.
I bought a Guild X-700 for 1/4 of the price and it plays and sounds just as good as an l5 and I enjoy it that much more, for those reasons.
Of course there are great L5's out there but IMO they are too pricey and with better makers doing the same for less, I doubt I will ever buy one. Guitars are first and foremost for playing, rule number 1 and if thats your number 1 rule, then don't buy an L5.Last edited by GoergeBenson; 07-15-2014 at 11:20 PM.
-
FWIW, when I got my L5, I did feel that "I had arrived" Absolutely! C'mon guys, you are not buying just a "tool", surely you all felt proud of anything you got that made you feel special. No one is entitled to take that away.
-
I have to disagree with the idea that the L-5 was "just a guitar" guitar 55 years ago--it had been the choice of many top players since the 1930s and was the 17" guitar to beat. It's just that I didn't know it at the time Originally Posted by Patrick2
Sure I enjoy posting L-5 photos here, but these forums are not the real world. I've also posted photos of Les Pauls, 355's, Johnny A's Ricks, Fenders, Gretsches, Guilds, Benedettos, Borys's, amps and speakers on various forums--I just like guitar photos. When I post photos of me in a jazz context it's almost always going to have an L-5 because that's what I use to play jazz, but I've owned many other guitars over the years and I'll gladly post photos of those too.
I always point out in my posts that I like the aesthetics of the L-5 as well as the more practical aspects--I make no bones about it. However, if I were ego-driven, I'd still be playing one of the two Benedetto Cremonas I used to own. Much rarer and more prestigious than an L-5, though maybe too expensive to want to use as a daily gigging guitar. Many of the collector friends I used to have looked down their noses at my penchant for Gibsons--they bought D'Aquistos and D'Angelicos, but gigged with much more common instruments. I appreciated those guitars, but was more interested in instruments to gig with rather than rare collectibles.
If you look at the photo I posted earlier you'll see I'm wearing a Casio watch that was $30 when I bought 25 years ago, the cap is a freebie my MIL got from a casino, the shirt is Lands' End from the '80's and the sunglasses are from Costco. Our previous car was 15 years old when we sold it. I don't usually spend money on fashion, but the L-5 seems to provide the right blend of practicality and dress-up that I've found lacking in less-expensive options, and I've never lost money on selling one, so it doesn't even feel like an extravagance to play them.
Danny W.
-
Congratulations on the L5CES. Let us know how much you love her after a few months.
-
Yeah, funny how that happened. I didnt realize that the seller pulled the switch-roo with the cases, until you mentioned it. But it doesnt matter. After spending 30 minutes with the guitar, I would have taken it in a brown paper bag. Originally Posted by 2bornot2bop
-
At the beginning, I think I was concerned with having too many Gibsons, and having them all sound similar. And, of course, the QC issues I have on my ES175. Originally Posted by GoergeBenson
I looked into a few luthier guitars, but none were under $6000 for a 17", craved top; including Campellone.
So then it became a matter of the L5 being the best solid wood, 17", guitar available to me, in my price range.
Once I decided that it might be, I figured that I had to go play it. The L5 has a very different feel and sound than my ES175. I'm very excited about the possibilities and potential I hear in both guitars.
-
Well you could certainly buy a Heritage Golden eagle for around $3000-4000 but be careful of their QC as well. I haven't come across one yet that doesn't have some issue or another, although thats not to say they all do. The early ones are certainly tricky. Originally Posted by Phiberopttic
A good Heritage eagle can be sourced for around $2750. A guild X-700 for around $2,250 and both guitars will please you very much.
I would go for an old Artist Award. they look much nicer IMO and sound damn good. Or you should try the Guild X-500 for around $2000. you'll be surprised how nice they are to play and how 'solid topped' they sound.
-
[QUOTE=Phiberopttic;442780]Yeah, funny how that happened. I didnt realize that the seller pulled the switch-roo with the cases, until you mentioned it. But it doesnt matter.
Priceless! Ya just can't put a price tag on it when you get that kinda feeling over a guitar.After spending 30 minutes with the guitar, I would have taken it in a brown paper bag.
(But, I'm assuming you were talking about a Gucci brown paper bag?
)
-
$5200 is a keen price for a 1997 L5CES. You made out better than I expected. The seller priced the knackered case out of it so yes, you got a brown paper bag deal and you may as well take this knackered case along with you
I like the late 90s Gibsons from the Custom Shop. In my limited experience the late 90s archtops and Les Pauls have very nice finishes and choice maple. Check out any L5CES, Super 400CES and Le Grand made between 1997 and 1999. The Sunburst finish is sensitively done, the maple has nice tendrils of flames. Seems as if Gibson had a particularly nice cache of wood that Jim "Hutch" Hutchins and his band of cunning craftsmen put to great use.
The Gibsons archtops I procured are all made between 2000 and 2012 except for the L10, L12, Super 300 and post-war 17" ES-150. Time to be more selective and start sniffing 90s Gibsons out. In my estimation, the late 90s are the Golden post-Norlin Gibson Era.
-
I have a 1996 Gibson Es-350T (currently for sale in the 'Sale' section cough cough). It is by far the best example of a Gibson I have seen. Woods are stunning, fit and finish is flawless (or can I say Japanese ;-), neck is straight as an arrow and the action is as you want it. Originally Posted by Jabberwocky
$5200 is a keen price for a 1997 L5CES. You made out better than I expected. The seller priced the knackered case out of it so yes, you got a brown paper bag deal and you may as well take this knackered case along with you
I like the late 90s Gibsons from the Custom Shop. In my limited experience the late 90s archtops and Les Pauls have very nice finishes and choice maple. Check out any L5CES, Super 400CES and Le Grand made between 1997 and 1999. The Sunburst finish is sensitively done, the maple has nice tendrils of flames. Seems as if Gibson had a particularly nice cache of wood that Jim "Hutch" Hutchins and his band of cunning craftsmen put to great use.
The Gibsons archtops I procured are all made between 2000 and 2012 except for the L10, L12, Super 300 and post-war 17" ES-150. Time to be more selective and start sniffing 90s Gibsons out. In my estimation, the late 90s are the Golden post-Norlin Gibson Era.
But Ive also had a Tal Farlow from 96 that although was by far the best playing and sounding one I have tried (played aver a handful which is not bad for a UK resident) it did have some lacquer issues and the neck was kind of all over the place but it was thankfully still very playable.
So I guess like all things, yes and no but you could be on to something. 1996 has been the best year for me.
I'll race you lol ;-)Last edited by GoergeBenson; 07-16-2014 at 05:57 AM.
-
just for the record - one can get a mint campellone standard series for around 3,500. i know because i've just done it. they are often available for around 4K - isn't there one on this site right now for around 4k - hardly played - 2013. I stress this is for the record because I'm delighted that you love your new guitar etc. etc. campellone's standard series are at once simple, almost to the point of minimalism (which makes them look more modern than classic gibsons), and absolutely perfectly built. it has the weight of classic gibsons and their neck dimensions - and as i said in an earlier post - it has the classic gibson sound too (though people will contest this i'm sure) but with a tad more fullness and presence. So i love it because i love the L5, L7, Super 400, JS sound. I've been playing Andersen archtops for over two years and the moment I played the first 8 bars of Beautiful Love on this thing I was teleported to heavenly 50's jazz-land. My Andersens don't have the classic sound (they have what you could easily think was a better sound) - the campellone absolutely does. Mine is a small JS style 17'' with a 25'' scale - if i were ever to get another guitar it would have to be the full size 17'' with 25.5 scale - like an L5. But, if I had to, I'd pay more to get a Campellone version of this type of archtop than a classic gibson version. I'm glad that i would not have to - i'm delighted that it would cost me less than half the price.
-
"how could you possibly profess to have any determination on where an individual's priorities should or shouldn't be? That's pretty arrogant, don't ya think? My priorities are mine and mine alone . . and need not conform to what you think they should, or should not be.
To your comment of . . "just my opinion" . . I'll not question your opinion at all. However, you too probably should have been equally as considerate to not question mine when I posted it."
Seriously?
I'm not telling anyone where their priorities should be.
I'm not questioning your opinion... I think that is what you believe...
I'm not telling you to conform to any views other than your own...
I respect your opinion! as I try to do the same with all posters......
I know where you are coming from.... I've been playing 50 years....
What you read is my comment on your comments... not legit?? ..not telling anyone what to think ..."That" would be arrogant,
BTW, I thought was being considerate, (I did edit out some other thoughts)
But !Yes! I think "priorities are screwed up" if a (any) post sounds more like a a Jaguar or Lexus commercial than buying a guitar... --just my opinion! :-)
That is 'my opinion', sorry if that upsets you.... can't help you there...
Of course you can say and think what you want as I have "no interest" in persuading you otherwise, but try to respect another persons viewpoint without taking it personallyLast edited by jazzimprov; 07-23-2014 at 03:50 PM.
-
jazzimprov:
My reaction was to your comment;
"If it's not about sound and how it plays and feels and whether it feels right for you and if it will work in your environment, then you have your priorities all screwed up".
Please excuse me if I misinterpreted that comment . . but it sure did sound like you were telling me where my priorities should or should not be. If I took that comment out of context, then, I'm really confused as to what it actually meant. I do tend to take things personally and it does upset me when I feel that someone is attempting to impose their own beliefs of what's important to them, as being more appropriate than what mine mean to me. That's how I interpretted that comment. If your intentions were not as I perceived them to be, then again . . please excuse my rebuttal.
Just to clear up . . (for those who might still consider me to be a "Gibson fan boy") . . the reason for the comments in my original reply to the OP (post #5 here in this thread) on whether or not he "needed" a Gibson L5;
What I was attempting to stress to him is that for some/many/most of the people who buy that specific guitar .. all of those intangibles are more often than not the driving force behind buying one. As was pointed out by me and others . . there are many many guitars equal to, and some in fact superior to a Gibson L5, if one is only considering the tangible attributes of tone, build quality, playability, good aesthetics, etc..
I don't wish to further belabor this matter or cause this thread to get uglier than it has already gotten . . especially since it's all pretty much moot now with the OP having bought the L5. But, I can't have my words twisted or taken to be offensive because they might have been taken out of context.Last edited by Patrick2; 07-16-2014 at 02:00 PM.
-
Agreed! All is moot now, so on to the next Guitar!
Reply With Quote
Recommandations for Hollowbodies for $600 and under?
Today, 05:20 AM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos