-
Is your '59 175 reissue one of the new 2015 models?
Originally Posted by LyleGorch
-
04-10-2015 12:54 AM
-
Graham, that is SUPERB! Originally Posted by grahambop
-
I've still got the Eastman. Tried the Gibson acoustic L5 the other day and was impressed though - despite having terrible factory strings again.
-
A guitar I wish to own one day is a twin pickup ES175 with P90s. I would hesitate to purchase a new ES175, those that I have tried generally have not impressed me much.
One instrument that did impressed me, while not being a typical choice for a jazz guitar, was a Gretsch Anniversary with hilotrons. That had a great jazz sound, and in many ways wasn't all that different form an ES175 in construction, main thing was that the body was a bit thinner.
-
Off topic, but does anyone know Rob MacKillop personally? It would be good to get in touch with him to find out if everything is alright and see if we can't entice him to come back to the boards.
-
back to the original topic, the Eastman 371/372 sounds nothing like any era 175, neither acoustically or electrically.
And the 175 ain't muddy.
-
After having my 371 for about 6 months, mine is a piece of shiz. Muddy, strings are quiet, etc. It was cheap and my first archtop, so I'm not mad.
-
It's true that the 371 doesn't sound like a 175, but then Eastman never claimed that it would. I owned a 371 for a few weeks, and on its own terms it was a *fabulous* instrument. QC 100% (as opposed to my Tal Farlow), about half of the weight of the Tal, and about twice the acoustic volume. I loved the wide neck! Finish & fit absolutely perfect, nitro finish much less finicky than on the Gibson. A pickup swap helped improve the plugged-in sound, and luckily it's comparably easy to work on the electrics of a single-PU archtop. Ultimately I sold it because it was out-thunked by the TF (and I don't think my playing justifies owning more than one nice archtop) but I kind of regret selling it now! Originally Posted by jzucker
Having said all that, I agree with JZ: if you think you are getting a 175 on the cheap with the 371, forget about it!
-
Agreed on all counts. They look so close essentially, but they're really quite different. Originally Posted by neuroscan
That said, I do prefer the 371 on its own terms—and I've directly compared both several times over the past few years—but I'd still like to own a 175 someday, too.
-
Well, that's the thing: if you define jazz guitar sound as the ES 175 or the L5 sound then the only guitar you're going to want to own is an ES 175 or L5 and nothing else sounds like them. A lot of people on this forum seem to define jazz guitar as one of those two things.
It isn't.
Just my opinion, YMMV. The ES 175 and L5 are not even the gold standard for the sound of jazz guitar. They are just two ways jazz guitars can sound out of many.
I can play jazz on my telecaster, on my Ibanez GB 10, on my carved top guitar, etc., and it still sounds like me. There are slight differences but the overwhelming similarity is there. Sometimes when I listen to recordings from gigs it's difficult to tell which guitar I was playing by the sound of it. It's really rather unfortunate: I keep hoping that there is a guitar that will make me sound like I know what I'm doing!
-
I owned a really nice sounding 371 for a while. But I lost my enthusiasm for it when I brought home an Epi premium 175 -- sounds so much better for me, even though the 371 is a high quality prettier instrument with a better finish.
I traded the 371 for a Joe Pisano AR380 this summer -- no regrets.
-
I had tried several excellent earlier 'greenburst' 371s, but once I heard the 380 was coming out, I waited. And waited. I finally got my 380 last October, and I love it. (Note: Also not a 175, rather just a great, great guitar.)
-
I've been interested in the Joe Pisano AR380 since it was was released. Please post a few thoughts on the instrument, as I'd like to read a bit about the tone it produces, how it compares to its brothers and sisters in the Eastman range, and its quality control. Originally Posted by Longways to Go
-
I owned one for a couple days. Nice playing instrument. Despite some of the previous comments on this thread, I believe it sounds very similar to the 372 but without as much bottom end. It has the typical eastman midrange (middy) tonality to it even though it has parallel bracing. I thought it sounded roughly in the same ballpark as the holst 16 and the painter 16 though not nearly as complex and with the added middy tonality. Originally Posted by Klatu
Overall, the 16" 2.5" archtops don't have enough dynamic range IMO. I have owned the eastman 380, eastman 830 (both the 15" and the 16"), holst 16, painter 16 and benedetto 16" , 2.5" archtops and every one of them suffered from a lack of dynamic range and bottom end.
In some cases this can be desirable. For example, the benedetto was a wonderful solo guitar vehicle.
For me personally, I will no longer consider any 2.5" archtop for personal use. I do love the eastman semi hollows. I love the el rey (except for the balance) and I own a T386. I also love the T186.Last edited by jzucker; 09-18-2015 at 02:34 PM.
-
Klatu,
I've had my 380 a few months & I dig it.
In comparison to the 371, it has richer tone -- perhaps because of the very nice custom Pisano/Armstrong pickups? I really like the pickups in this guitar! My 371 was beautiful BTW. The 380 is not as light and delicate -- it has a very sturdy feel -- and a seemingly tough finish (I guess time will tell on the finish, eh?) True about the lack of big bass -- but that isn't a concern for me -- my thumb is bass heavy.
QC wise, a couple of minor less-than-perfect issues: mine has one small black speck in the finish. The burst finish has no subtle gradation from light to dark -- sloppy IMO. These are non-issues to me --it's a beautiful guitar. The only real problem I've encountered is a buzzing pickguard, which I took care of with a bit of foamy tape.
Tonewise, I really enjoy this guitar -- that's why I bought it. I think the pickups are super. I get great jazz sounds out of the neck with any tone setting. I was also happy to discover that I also get great sounds with both pickups engaged. This guitar is nicely and carefully voiced for jazz IMO.
things I really like:
magnetic truss rod cover is awesome, Gotoh tuners with ebony buttons are solid, 3 piece mahogany neck is really nice.
things I don't like:
Frog & signature inlay is just not my thing. crappy burst fade from light to dark is ?????.
One more thing. I agree with pretty much everything Rich Severson says in his video
Last edited by Longways to Go; 09-18-2015 at 05:50 PM.
-
What does this mean, and how does it affect your performance? Originally Posted by jzucker
-
lack of dynamic range is one of the most important attributes which separate a solid body from a hollowbody. The ability to get dynamic range out of the guitar by varying how hard you pick. The thinner the body, the less dynamic range it has. This translates directly to the range of volume and tones you can get out of the instrument through an amp. Originally Posted by Klatu
additionally, the 2.5" bodies just don't have the depth of tone (fullness) as a bigger body. I've found that 3" depth works ok on a 17" body but for 16" bodies, I like the full depth of a 175. Even though my 175 is plywood, it blew away all the 16"x2.5" guitars I owned in terms of fullness and dynamic range and just plain sounded better for what I do.
Again, however for a more even tone from string to string which is what you want on solo guitar, the 2.5" bodies seem work well.Last edited by jzucker; 09-19-2015 at 08:28 AM.
-
Grahambop, Veddy noice!
-
I would disagree. The 175 and L5 are absolutely classic jazz guitars and embody the sound of '60s and later jazz guitarists from Wes to Martino to Joe Pass to Pat Metheny to Tuck Andress to Jim Hall. Originally Posted by Cunamara
Of course you can play jazz on anything. Ulf Wakenius sounds terrific on a Les Paul copy.
-
thanks! Originally Posted by hanknc
(Was that really in 2015?)
Reply With Quote
Video: The Harmonic Minor Scale in Jazz
Today, 10:47 AM in Improvisation