-
Originally Posted by jzucker
I can agree with 100% of that. And I too, had a great Es-175 but I knew I was lucky.
I think Es-175's sound their best when only played on the d, g and b string and its a great sound. Either side of that and it starts to fall apart, especially in live performance (ime)Last edited by Archie; 03-04-2015 at 08:03 AM.
-
03-04-2015 07:56 AM
-
did you listen to the joe pass clip I posted? Did you think it fell apart *IN ANY WAY* ? Originally Posted by ArchtopHeaven
-
Originally Posted by jzucker
Well I can certainly hear a lot of hollowed out notes and farting (for want of a bette word), compressed upper mids etc..The notes aren't very focused, when he plays fast runs, the remaining howled out bottom of each note, bleeds into the next one, so you don't get that Benson type sound where you can really hear every note. I believe thats the 'thud' factor people talk about with Es-175's, which I don't like very much.
I'm not saying it sounds bad but I wouldn't be totally happy if that was my tone.
Oh and he rarely plays the low E and high E as far as I could tell. Or at least plays the High E way down the neck.Last edited by Archie; 03-04-2015 at 08:34 AM.
-
end of conversation. If you don't think that's one of the greatest guitar sounds ever recorded we're done. He rarely plays the high or low E? Originally Posted by ArchtopHeaven
lololol.
-
If I would have a 175 it is how I would like it to sound, IMHO Joe Pass never sounded better than that, obviously tone is very subjective. Of course it might help I am obsessed with the "thunk" and "doink".
-
I do not care if Joe Pass was playing on a $100 beater or whether there are a few dead notes or a bit of unevenness, not that I hear any of that anyway. When listening to Pass, I am immediately immersed into the pure genius, boundlessness and fluidity of his playing. His sound from recording to recording changes quite a bit based on the venue, studio, guitar, pick or finger style and period, none of which I think "boy his tone or guitar sucks." "Does not hit low E" often, huh?
This thread has taken a strange turn.
Regards,
Rick
-
I think what ATH is saying is that he doesn't appreciate or like the 'thunk'. Originally Posted by jzucker
I do think this recording is great, if a bit lo-fi, and I play a 175 and gig it, but I can see the point that someone who maybe plays a 175 as a solo instrument might feel that there are other instruments that have a higher-fi sound, especially on the bass strings.
For me, the great strength of the 175 is that, by design or by accident, its particular thunky tone happens to sit especially well with other rhythm section instruments, and will both blend in and cut through when needed. I have used many other guitars in this context, incl carved-tops, but I find that the 175 sound just sits right in the mix. Maybe that's not too surprising, considering how long it's been in production and in pro use.
You're wrong about JP not playing the high E , ATH - have another listen
-
I prefer this sort of tone, fast attack, medium-fast decay and the sound of the guitar at least trying to feature. The recoding of Joe you gave, could be any generic chinese/korean $500 guitar (not that is in itself a bad thing).
Now thats tone.
This is joe's best tone, even then it gets a bit muddy for my liking.
Listen to the Joy Spring Jp at 1:49-1:50, the notes just totally fall off into a flat sort of farting noise.
Anyway we're getting way off track and I take full responsibility. My bad
Last edited by Archie; 03-04-2015 at 10:11 AM.
-
So I challenge you to demonstrate. Post a recording where you make a chinese/korean guitar sound like that. Otherwise, it's just hot-air Originally Posted by ArchtopHeaven
-
theres no accounting for taste Originally Posted by jzucker
-
The cover photo in the video shows Joe playing John Pisano's 1940s Epiphone Deluxe, which he used for some acoustic playing, as John has discussed in interviews. John had brought the guitar to that and other sessions and said that Joe gravitated to it because it was a really great instrument (he did not use it on the Virtuoso sessions, though) But the track itself is very obviously the ES-175 that Joe had. The story goes that he received that guitar as a gift from a fan when Joe was at Synanon. A guy named Mike Peak saw Joe playing the Synanon solidbody and felt that he should be playing on a "proper" jazz guitar; Joe didn't own his own guitar at the time. The jazz guitar world owes a debt of gratitude to Mr. Peak! Originally Posted by StevieB
-
Yeah, album covers can be deceiving...the famous Jim Hall live disc, with him cradling that D'Aquisto...but by all acounts of anyone who was at that gig--Jim played, you guessed it--a 175.
I've been a member here for almost 9 years--here's some actual FACTS I can tell you, from my experience here:
1. One of, if not the most chased after tone that people post about here can almost always be traced back to a 175 or 175-ish guitar. Literally hundreds of threads of people looking for the tone of Joy Spring, Early Jim Hall, Early Kenny Burrell, Tal Farlow, etc...
2. People almost always first try to replicate these sounds on the "wrong" guitar. Lots of folks buy Eastmans and then lament why they're so "bright." Lots of Chinese and Korean Epiphones, Ibanezes, etc. People buy these, then post "How can I get a (175-ish) tone out of _________"
3. The folks who eventually end up with 175's realize their tone is not so common, and not so easy to reproduce.
I can't account for taste--you like what you like. But you can't tell me the 175 isn't THE jazz guitar, really, because all evidence suggests against it.
And just a note: I also submit that most people who buy L5's are always surprised by the tone, because perhaps the most famous L5-er, Wes, played with his thumb, and people never realize what a big deal that is tone wise. My guess is anybody here who plays with a pick, if you were to pick up Wes' guitar and play it through his amp, you'd recoil in horror at how shrill it would sound.
-
Another perspective on Gibson guitars-2 key points
This echoes what I've said before, but I think it bears repeating. IMO the genius of Gibson, is that while they pioneered high-quality archtop (acoustics), they were able to go beyond their original mind-set, and design electrified archtops that have a distinctive sound profile. In the case of an L5-CES it is a sound that is big, rich and luxurious, but lacking some of the "layers" and articulation, which some of the more boutique-y thinner soundplate archies have. I've likened it to a Lincoln Town Car rolling down the interstate at 90 mph...you won't feel a bump...it is smooth but not as nimble as other guitars. (The L4-CES I have does 85 mph pretty smoothly, I think.) We all know that L5 sound.
A 175 has more "focus" in its tone. The laminate and the maple give it, to me, a more horn-like character, rather than layers of sound from an acoustic-y archtop, while the latter doesn't stand up that well, to amplification or a lot of surrounding instrumentation. The chunk or the thunk is distinctive, and comes through well. The treble has a pleasing kind of "silvery" nature to it...is the only way I can describe it...cutting but not harsh....
To re-use another metaphor I've made, the electrified Gibsons are like really good lemon Italian ices---not the junky stuff you find in the supermarket, but from a small maker who has a hint of creaminess in it....I can sit down and eat a qt. at a time, and it is satisfying whereas super rich ice cream is OK for the first two bites, and then you've had enough.
(I remember taking some lessons with Peter Mazza, and he had a Super 5, but he said that playing it for long stretches was sometimes "too much"---and that he preferred a slightly "leaner" tone--a Heritage 535 for most of his practicing and some of his playing.)
2nd point: A lot of newer gtr. players obsess about getting the tone they hear on records they know....part of that is when we finally CAN play that Joe Pass passage or the Charlie Christian run--you know it and can hear it...yeah I nailed it. So...we are often drawn to/tend to like sounds we listened to....because it kind of validates our playing...or at least is a reality check, if we're using similar instruments or amps (or at least in the same ballpark, roughly speaking).
To me...when you have someone like say Brian May who built his own gtr. and then created a sound of his own, that is pretty admirable. It's been pointed out that not all 175's sound alike, so I don't want to lean too heavily on that pt. But I still think that Jack Z. is correct in stating that nothing else really nails the 175 sound. Whether that sound is the sound you like/want is up to you...some prefer super rich ice-cream, or cherry ices.
(I've read that when the Beatles traded in their original equipt. for more conventional rock and roll gear...they thought their original stuff---the Vox amps and the semi-hollow body guitars kind of dinky...and lacking oomph. I kind of like the early Beatles stuff---less processed sounding, and closer to them being a really tight live band, and wonder if they would have made as much of a splash, playing Strats into Fender amps---like a million other acts of that time. Maybe it was their great good fortune that they had different gear from everyone else.)
-
This thread makes me wish there was a Not-Like button. Feh.
-
Jim, you've made at least 2 negative posts. Why not just avoid the thread? Originally Posted by Jim Soloway
-
Good question but you're absolutely right. Time to close this one for good and maybe even take a break from the forum for a few days. Originally Posted by Franz 1997
-
This thread certainly has had its highs and lows. I will say the three very recent posts by Cunamara, Jeff Matz and goldenwave77 were excellent and very insightful IMO.
-
Forums would be boring if everyone would agree on everything.
I learned a lot since I am here, mostly that not everything is fact based when it comes to topics or posts but none the less intertaining
-
Let me add, McDonalds fries are much better then Burger Kings.
-
Hope you don't, I'm sick of the more knowledgable people leaving out of disgust or scrapes with folks who should listen more than they type. Originally Posted by Jim Soloway
-
Originally Posted by ArchtopHeaven
Those are Historic models ... which tend to run a little more
Gibson still has a $4K model listed on their web site
Gibson.com: Gibson Memphis ES-175
I believe this web site now shows the MAP ... minimum advertised price ... which is the lowest price a dealer can advertise ..
But most dealers will come down on that price ....
Of course that's the price here in the states .. and maybe in Canada or Mexico ....
for those in the UK, Europe, and other points overseas there seems to be another 10 or 20% added to the price of American stuff what with import costs, duties, and tariffs .... ouch
-
Jim i'll apologise for that. Certainly don't want to upset you and I can see why some of my language is a bit abrupt and in cases exaggerated. Originally Posted by Jim Soloway
I think its fair enough for you to point out. Again my bad.
-
OK guys, you win. I'll be silent.
-
To me you just cannot say the tone of a 175 is bad unless you really do have a lemon.....
A bad guitar (crappy?) would not have the standing that a Gibson 175 has over ""so"" many years.
I am appreciative of a 175 and wished I had snagged a few when I was working in the music store(s) back in college @ $350.00 each new.... dam//// If I only knew.......
We had a wall of them but got turned off by the neck at that time but that was 40 years ago so..... and I was too busy buying and selling my 335's every other month......
Anyway, I don't get the impression that a Sadowsky JH is trying to sound like a 175, they sound nothing alike to me and I prefer the JH tone over the 175 which is why I just bought one.
No interest in trying to emulate JP (or JH for that matter), but the sound is superior to my ears on the JH. I don't need or want a 'thunk' when I play. I don't see why people buy a guitar so they can try to sound like someone other than themselves
...kinda misses the point..
To me, the Sadowsky has a much sweeter tone (JH) and better neck to my liking --key here is to "my" liking.
No absolutes here --no one here can say "nothing compares to the guitar I like" or this model is far superior to everything else out there (paraphrasing) That is just BS....
The time finding a guitar whether Boutique or other would be about the same.....
When people spend that kind of $$ they generally invest time finding out what they need to know.
Before I decided on the JH I spent quite a bit of time considering everything out there in my price range.
I don't think I'm alone in that.....Last edited by jazzimprov; 03-04-2015 at 06:07 PM.
-
In my mind, the boutique guitar market was created for hobbiests and part timers with a lot of expendable income. When you look throughout the history of jazz guitar and look at the guys in NYC who are playing jazz, the vast majority are not using super expensive boutique guitars. In fact, many like ben monder are using cheap korean made ibanez guitars or stock 175s or guild hollowbodies. The ones that are using expensive guitars (bollenback) are usually given or loaned those guitars for PR purposes.
I can't think of too many guitarists who's tone I love who is playing a boutique guitar.
I'll take a 175 or even a Tele.
How about we make a list of current jazz guitar greats and what they are playing?
Reply With Quote
Not really sounding very 'jazzy'. Is it in the...
Yesterday, 11:53 PM in Getting Started