-
Originally Posted by ingeneri
Missed my point entirely that there are many "top players" who are not financially successful. This was even more true back in the day when Jazz was still linked to popular black music and there were many great local musicians populating regional scenese who, for many valid reasons, never moved to New York and became famous.
You must not spend much time around full time working professional jazz musicians if you think they're saving money on their instrument for cruises, rugs, audiophile systems, etc...
I'm not begrudging anyone buying or owning an expensive instrument, but it's a logical fallacy to claim that owning such an instrument is a prerequisite for success. Most of the folks you mentioned started on ES-175s, a professional but not expensive guitar, at that time. The fact that many upgraded later is a reflection of their success, not a cause of that success.
- Django's famous selmers were budget guitars, when he wasn't hocking them. As Mr. B pointed out, he hated the Gibson they give him on his only tour of the U.S. He actually took special glee in trash talk challenging to take down the famous Americans with their fancy L5s using his simple guitar. Nationalism at its finest
- Burrell upgraded to an L5, D'angelico, Epiphone Emperor, and Super 400 AFTER becoming a successful studio and pit orchestra guitarist.
-Johnny Smith likewise, made his money playing for Toscanini at NBC, not jamming later with Parker at Birdland. Smith famously refused to play his Guild signature model and the Gibson JS came out after he had retired to running a music store in Colorado.
-Kessel is one of the most famous and important studio guitarists of the 50's and 60's, he also supplemented his income by owning a music store. Incidentally he hated his signature model and I'm unaware of any evidence he ever played it, but hey, more endorsement income to make ends meet.
- Ellis left the OP trio to work in the LA studios, I believe he was on the Merv Griffin show at one time. His signature guitar wasn't introduced until the 90's and, of course, he never played anything like the later version with a floating pup.
-Grant Green played an ES-330, Gibson's cheap budget guitar, on most of his most legendary BN recordings. The D'aquisto certainly didn't make him a better player or open up new musical options as he veered into funk, soul, and pop vamps in a failed attempt to attain Wes' and Benson's popularity.
I'll defer to others on this, but I believe you're vastly overestimating the cost of a D'aquisto in the 70s and 80s. My understanding was D'aquisto lived on the edge of poverty himself at that time, the archtop long out of style in favor of pointy guitars.
And you you missed my point, which was made first, and you objected to.
i don't intend to start yet another debate - this time about what constitutes a top player or a scuffler. suffice it to say that when you have had success based upon your playing that's a decent indicator of top player, and when you are struggling you are by definition a scuffler. No need to overthink it. The point is that when they are able, they get the guitar that they want - make that guitars plural.
and my point about people compartmentalizing purchases was not aimed at the top pro players. Different point. It is aimed at everyone else who spends a lot on any number of things and then says price x is too much for a mere guitar.
the reality is that they are simply making the allocations according to a choice. They don't have to buy all those other things, they choose to. Only death and taxes can't be opted out of.
and your point about D'Angelico... Do you know the price range or are you simply speculating out loud? If they were greater than or equal to the price of a Gibson at that time, then my point is sacrosanct . So, do you know that the price range was otherwise or not?Last edited by fumblefingers; 09-10-2014 at 02:39 PM.
-
09-10-2014 02:27 PM
-
In other words he played the guitar that he wanted to. He could have played that rather crummy Herb Ellis Gibby and could have acquired one for free, most likely. He chose a better guitar for his preferences though, right? Originally Posted by Greentone
-
Originally Posted by fumblefingers
Well, not all change frequently.
I definitely agree the top players play the guitar they want. I just thought it was misleading to suggest Django was someone who played a "quote" good, expensive instrument.
But I do agree with you that the top pros are playing the exact instrument that works for them--and if it doesn't, or they want to chase a new sound, they find a way to get it. I just disagree that all the top musicians are looking for the ultimate, expensive, holy grail guitar. Kriesberg, for example. His 175 is held together by string and adhesive tape...but while he might spend hours online lusting after other guitars (though I'm guessing not), if he wanted one, he'd have it.
-
Guitars are very cheap by themselves,
what makes them expensive is Wiring !
Look at that !!
Vintage 1958 1959 Gibson LES Paul PAF Wiring Harness Standard Burst Centralab | eBay
christophe
-
fumblefingers,
Right on. Ellis played the guitar he liked. I played that guitar and let me tell you...if he looked the other way, I'd still be playing it. That ES-175 was the best one I have ever played. About 5.5lbs. It had a good acoustic sound--although a laminated guitar. The neck was superb. The guitar felt rock solid.
-
Originally Posted by Hammertone
In keeping with the subject of this thread (price vs. value), feel free to make me an offer anytime. Originally Posted by Patrick2
-
That's because of the mojo. You have to pay a premium for that. I figure my 1961 ES175 must also have that mojo - though, to my ears, both my Painter and my Warmoth partscaster sound better. But maybe the mojo doesn't work on me. Originally Posted by ninjasan
Guitars are very cheap by themselves,
what makes them expensive is Wiring !
Look at that !!
Vintage 1958 1959 Gibson LES Paul PAF Wiring Harness Standard Burst Centralab | eBay
christophe
Last edited by oldane; 09-11-2014 at 09:35 AM.
-
That train left the station. I'm currently selling SEs . . not buying them. Originally Posted by Hammertone
-
just done a shedload of overtime to buy a Heritage 575,
-
What isn't getting much focus on the issue is quality versus longevity of the instrument. We all know how good Gretsch guitars looked and played in the 60's but... how many (even with good care) self destructed over time?
Care has much to do with it, but given that some well known companies outsold Gibson guitars maybe 3 to one in the 70's why is it there are few for sale? Where did they all go? to collections? I don't think so.
So maybe, just maybe things are better and material selection and build ARE equal to a more expensive box, and maybe the long term quality doesn't concern some, but quality and is more than 90 days old. Does anyone else see the stupidity of the J.D Powers 90 day car quality ads? So it's good for 90 days and after several recalls, breakdowns and long term quality the Power's reports don't make you feel better3-4 years down the road.
-
Those 70s Gibsons are around. However, the ones that sold were mostly SGs, 335s, and...far and away...Les Pauls. A LOT of the 70s Les Pauls I have seen have been beat to hell. Put some booze and THC in a guitar player and he just loses sight of where his guitar ends and the cosmos begins. Scratch, gouge, bang, etc. Oh, yeah...and everyone in the 70s "customized" the bejabbers out of his guitar because he had a much better idea as to how to make it sound better than the manufacturer did--brass nut, brass behind the headstock, ...
If a Gibson wasn't a Les Paul, it is likely a shell by now, so that Les Pauls can be "un-customized." Wiring harnesses, tuning machines, bridges, tailpieces, pickups, are all scrounged from the entire ES line to give it up for the Les Pauls. It's simple market dynamics. Look at the number of skeletal ES-175s available on the 'Bay as project guitars...
Regarding Patrick2's Gretsch comment: Boy, howdy! I had a '64 and a '67. Great guitars! The '64 started doing the binding cancer thing. Yikes! The '67, however, remained intact. I wish it could have been the other way around--I thought the '64 was inherently the better guitar, by a nose. (I had an old Melita bridge for it, too.)
-
To give you an idea, here are production numbers for a few Gibson groupings, below. Originally Posted by Greentone
Players, collectors, etc. often have no clue how commonplace some of these instruments are compared to instruments from the 1950s and 1960s:
45,242 - 1971-1980 - all SGs
4,193 - 1976-1980 - LP Specials
70,218 - 1970-1980 - LP w/nickel or chrome hardware
92,281 - 1970-1980 - LP Customs, Anniversary, Artisans etc. with gold hardware
13,210 - 1970-1980 - stupid LPs - Personals, Recordings, etc.
18,543 - 1970-1980 - L6S
7,519 - 1970-1980 - ES3xx with gold-plated parts, including 116 Crests
25,222 - 1970-1980 - ES3xx w/nickel or chrome hardware, including 58 Trini Standards
7,964 - 1970-1980 - ES-175
4,375 - 1970-1980 - Byrdland, L-5, Super V, S-400, Citation
-
Interesting numbers. I would have never guessed that gold-part Les Pauls outsold nickel- or chrome-plated Les Pauls. Come to think of it, though, I DID see a lot of Les Paul Customs in the 70s...and they all weighed 10-12 pounds.
Today, I would rather have one of those than one of the routed, chambered jobbies that are being sold now. Guess I would play sitting down.
Oh, I like the stupid Les Pauls, too. (So did Les)
-
Heh, I couldn't resist. I have no problem with them. OK, I should have called them goofy, instead. Originally Posted by Greentone
For me, almost none of these guitars have necks that I like, so I never bothered with them.
I went the used, fat-neck Hysterical Reissue Les Paul route myself and have been having fun with those.
I suspect that Gibson's US production numbers from @1990 to now (especially for the wide variety of Les Pauls) put those older numbers to shame. Add the God-knows-how-many Epiphone Les Pauls and that's a lot of guitars.
-
Almost certainly you are correct. The period before the 90s was the era ruled by the Stratocaster and Strat-like guitar. Basically, EVH killed the Gibson guitar for a spell. I remember during the 1978-90 period when if the guitar didn't have a hockey stick headstock and a Kahler/Floyd Rose whammy bar...forget about it. Heck, even Gibson put a hockey stick headstock on a couple of their models in that period. What the heck? (Gibson SGX400, Explorer 84)
By the way, where are all of those Kramer guitars today? I haven't seen many (any) Kramer guitars at shows or even in pawn shops. Once upon a time, they were EVERYWHERE!
-
Unlike fat-ass archtop guitars, solid-body instruments are easily stashed under beds and in closets, and forgotten. For now.
-
The dreaded binding rot was bad on some of the old pre war Epiphones too. The old Hofners (while being relatively cheap back then) used to suffer from that too. My 1958 Senator has started to get cracks in the binding. The Hofners also need neck resets more often than Gibsons etc. Mine was reset about 10 years ago. Originally Posted by GNAPPI
-
My experience is that out of the well over 200 vintage Hofners I have worked with in the past 30 years, only one has ever had a binding problem - a mid-1960s 465/S/E2 with brittle binding that is all cracked. Originally Posted by entresz
I agree about the neck resets - a function of the tapered mortice neck joint, which is typical for German archtops, along with almost every violin, viola, cello and upright bass built in the past @400 years. I have a strict policy regarding neck resets on Hofners - they each get one every 50 or 60 years years whether needed or not.Last edited by Hammertone; 09-17-2014 at 10:21 AM.
-
Hello Hammertone Originally Posted by Hammertone
Do you know why a lot of old Hofners break at the Heel of the neck
I have often seen a split repair around there
My 60's blond accoustic Pres has that feature too (love that Pres)
-
Most Hofner necks use a European style of heel construction - they glue a separate piece of wood to the neck to make the heel extension. Take a look at the heel of a typical European-built classical guitar - similar approach. Sometimes, the wood starts to separate if it is too dry, or if the pieces were not properly matched. Sometimes, the finish cracks along the joint, making it look like a problem even where there is no underlying problem. Hofner paid attention to properly drying their wood, but after 50 or 60 years, things can happen.
Sometimes, the guitars are terribly abused and this is where one sees the results of abuse. Hofner developed a dovetail joint to attach the heel piece to the neck so that it could not separate, but that joint is not visible when the neck is attached, and many of those necks have been sawn through by not-so-clever attempts at repair. Most of the ones I have seen did not separate but were broken near that glue line, suggesting stress.
I have repaired these either by removing, refitting and regluing the heel portion, or by filling the gap and polishing the joint when the separation was very small (which is the more typical situation). There are a few old Hofners without this joint, but they are atypical. Pix to come.
-
Moral: live in an area where the weather is moist...but not so moist as to make the instrument fill with mildew.
I have only ever had one guitar that was solid-wood construction develop a crack: one of my '62 Yairi classical guitars is cracked on the treble side of the neck, about 3/8" from the fingerboard. This crack developed when I was living in San Diego, which is basically a coastal desert.
My experience with different guitars has been that Gibson guitars have necks that almost never need neck resets. Guild guitars gradually DO need neck resets. Martins need neck resets after about 20 years (but resets on a Martin are woo-easy, compared to other brands). Gretsch guitars gradually develop the need for a reset. Gretsch archtops are pretty easy to reset. Harmony guitars need resets after awhile. They are not too difficult to pop off.
Fender and other bolt-on guitars have necks that are more prone to twist than to change angle, but angle is easy to fool with.
Regarding binding: I don't know what Gibson was doing, but their binding lasts nearly forever. Gretsch...we know about the problems they experienced. Martin and Guild: I have never had binding problems with these guitars. Harmony: same thing--good binding on relatively inexpensive guitars.
Your experience?
-
$1000 guitars can play and sound just as nice as $20,000 guitars. And they can sound much worse. Same with anything. A $2 watch can keep time as well as a $20,000 watch. You might find that you enjoy a $10 bottle of wine as much as or even more than a $100 or $1000 bottle of wine. A $50 microphone may sound the same to you as $2500 Neumann mic. Originally Posted by eh6794
Doesn't mean that everyone will have the same experience as you. What makes something 'better' is subjective. Sometimes, appreciating what went into something makes it more valuable to you. Sometimes, after you've got some experience, you begin to hear, feel or taste the subtleties that you didn't notice when you first concluded something that costs less was "the same" as something that costs more.
If cost is indeed an overriding factor, that may well color your taste and predispose you to liking the cheaper thing better. Ultimately, it's all about whatever is right for you at whatever point in your life you are at.
I've found that the subtleties are where the focus ends up after you acquire a great deal of experience with something. Wine lovers chase that exceptionally expensive 1/10 of 1% differential between wines. In fact, THAT tiny sliver becomes the most important part. Same with guitars. It's going to sound snooty, but you won't find your own answer to this question until you can appreciate the difference yourself.
So, while you are looking for opinions, keep in mind those opinions each come with experience of the one offering it.
I will add this after reading through this thread - most music made was on whatever guitars were in the hands of the greats. They didn't have lots of dough. They kinda went with whatever was around. This whole world of archtop guitars as art is a pretty modern one. Taken at that level is what I am talking about above. Not about what is needed to make great music. Appreciating the instrument and playing music are two different things. One requires money and love of the guitar. The other requires a life of learning, skill and love of music craft. They can certainly complement and compliment each other, but they are two different things.
BobLast edited by uburoibob; 09-18-2014 at 07:47 PM.
-
Well said Bob! Originally Posted by uburoibob
Kenny Burrell wanted to play saxophone but his folks couldn't afford one and bought him a guitar instead
-
i appreciate your attempts at diplomacy and even handedness and everything. the only problem is that it's not very accurate. Originally Posted by uburoibob
i gave plenty of fact based examples of the greats and their very nice Gibson archtop guitars. there were a few D'Aquisto's and Benedetto's too. let's not rehash ground that has already been conceded.
you were right about one thing - the players didn't necessarily have a lot of money. but they still had great guitars. imagine that!
but that's the canard that's being advanced here. that having a nice guitar is somehow associated with being wealthy. but it's not, because there are possibilities. these possibilities have to do with priorities, with loans, with credit cards, with having a goal and saving for it, and even with sponsorship and endorsements.
just focus on two of the great players for a sec:
1. Gibson made sure that Charlie Christian had the newest and best great archtop in his hands. so it wasn't a matter of "whatever was around"
2. And Wes. He bought that L5 when he was a struggling factory worker with 6 kids and no assurances of success whatsoever. As i said above but will repeat - this is the very guitar that some people are putting on a lofty, foggy, unattainable, snobbery elevated pedestal.
It's rubbish.
You also made a point about nice archtops being a modern thing or some such. That's not true either. Look again at the Gary's Guitars link that I included. What's so recent about the 1930s and 40s? If anyone thinks that fancy, artful archtops are a new phenomena, think again - there were knock out examples early on. Same goes for many instruments as it turns out. Go to the Metropolitan Museum of Art. See the D'Angelico and D'Aquisto archtops. See the guitars that Segovia's widow donated. See the gilded pianos and harps. See the wood figure on the Stradavarius violins. And for a real mind blower, see the super fancy, inlaid to the max lutes from the renaissance. Colorful landscapes and naked ladies all done with fancy inlay etc., etc. There is nothing at all new about building instruments that are incredible works of art unto themselves.Last edited by fumblefingers; 09-18-2014 at 11:39 PM.
-
Research for 1958 shows list price of Gibson L5 sunburst was $600, and to help put it into perspective, list price for a 1958 Ford Fairlane 4dr sedan was $2286. Originally Posted by fumblefingers
Reply With Quote
“Shearing style”
Today, 05:26 PM in Comping, Chords & Chord Progressions