-
There are certainly no absolutes in this matter John. But speaking in broad general terms, it has always appeard to me, that the vast majority of the arch top playing world does consider the L5 to be the ultra of jazz arch tops. Almost 100% of the time I (we) hear people say they don't own one and wouldn't want to own one . . it has been the guitar's price tag that has driven that sentiment and comment. As many here have said, some even louder than I have said it . . there are a large number of guitars out there that are as good, or even better than the L5. But, they still aren't n L5.
Originally Posted by John A.
-
01-27-2015 05:23 PM
-
Except a real D'angelico Originally Posted by Patrick2
-
I get where you're coming from on that . . and it would be a hard statement for me to argue against. But, even a real D'A . . just ain't an L5. Like wise an L5 . . just ain't a real D'A either. So, taking away the dollar value of each and comparing them as dollar value equals (hypothetically) . . and realizing that they each carry unsurpassed iconic recognition and provenance . . which would you choose? Originally Posted by ingeneri
Except a real D'angelico
For me . . would I rather have an all original 18" D'A New Yorker, or a smaller body Excel . . than have an L5C. Yep!! But, that's comparing acoustic arch tops from each brand. As it relates to inset pup alternatives, would I rather have an L5CES than either of those two? Yeah . . I think I would.
-
years ago I sold my ES-175 and a few other guitars and decided to purchase my dream L5. I found a sunburst 2000 model on Ebay for around $5k and had a blast with that gutiar. So beautiful and indeed iconic. I was a proud owner but sometimes reluctant to take it on gigs. Later I found the L5, while amplified to be gorgeous, acoustically to be sadly dull. The neck was chunky and not in a good way and I didn't feel inclined to practice on it at home. I threw it back on Ebay last year, made the same amount that i bought it for. By chance I found locally an Eastman archtop selling for $1k and was so impressed with the acoustic tone I bought it and have never looked back. After a year with the Eastman I feel very lucky to have found it. I seem to translate my ideas better on this guitar. Who knew. I don't even like the colour and it is certainly nowhere near as beautful as the L5. Soncially, and the playability of it makes me very very happy. My advice to anyone spending significant money on an archtop is to make an event out of it. take a trip to a store with a good collection. try as many hand carved guitars as humanly possible. Turn it into a vacation. You may have to accept that it may take a few purchases before you find one you really like. I personally buy second hand guitars most of the time. I can usually make my money back and keep the pool of money I've budgeted for instruments going much longer than if I bought new.
-
"To you folks who own L-5's, Super 400's, Benedettos, etc., do you actually take them out and gig with them?"
yes
-
Well, sure, obviously, something that isn't an L5 isn't an L5. And if you value an L5 for its ineffable L5-ness, rather than for the details of how it sounds, feels or is made then it's worth every penny of its price and more. But I don't think it's true that the majority of the jazz-guitar playing world actually feels that way, or denies feeling so under the disguise of sour grapes over the cost. It just happens not to be the right guitar for a everybody. There are also a whole lot of people on whom ineffable-L5-ness is lost, but who manage to find guitars that are functionally equivalent and less expensive. Originally Posted by Patrick2
I can't afford an L5 these days, but before they became collectible (and I procreated, thereby losing all discretionary funds for the rest of my life) I could have, and gave it serious consideration once or twice. I think what mainly stopped me was a feeling that I wasn't ready for this serious a single-purpose jazz axe (I've always played multiple genres), and a sense that I probably didn't really know the difference between a good one and a lemon. But not having done so doesn't weigh on me, and if I were to find myself in a situation of not having to think about spending $8 grand-plus on a guitar, I don't think the first thing I'd do is buy an L5. My fantasy object in this realm is probably something with a smaller body and a floater, but I'm not certain what that would be.
John
-
If you love L5's and you have to have one no matter what, I'd go out on a limb and say they're worth it at any price.
If you're one of those who plays something else and makes all the music you can imagine on an instrument you've found is right for you-even if it's not an L5, I wouldn't think the argument is quite as strong. Duh
It's an object of mystique. For some it's a really good instrument to play music on too.
BUT if we were talking a Lee Ritenour or a George Gobel, keep them away from me! I'm insanely lustful when it comes to them...
David
-
Hmmmm Originally Posted by TruthHertz
If you love L5's and you have to have one no matter what, I'd go out on a limb and say they're worth it at any price.
If you're one of those who plays something else and makes all the music you can imagine on an instrument you've found is right for you-even if it's not an L5, I wouldn't think the argument is quite as strong. Duh
It's an object of mystique. For some it's a really good instrument to play music on too.
BUT if we were talking a Lee Ritenour or a George Gobel, keep them away from me! I'm insanely lustful when it comes to them...
David
did you say Lee Ritenour L5
Gibson Custom Shop L5 Signature Lee Ritenour | Rainbow Guitars
-
It's kind of like a prewar Martin dreadnought for bluegrass players. You'll have to liquidate your house to pay for it, your spouse will divorce you and your kids won't speak to you again because they had to work in fast food to go to college- but you won't care. You've got the guitar.
-
To my eyes, the 17" L5 is the most beautiful guitar ever made. Everything clicks in place - size, shape dimensions, decoration - like with no other guitar.
No, I have never owned one. I could afford it, so I have often wondered why. Who knows, maybe because I don't want to discover that "heck, it's just a guitar" with its specific quirks like the other guitars I own.
-
To me this discussion misses out a bit on individuality and focusses too much on brand and image. I have several L5s, and got two more coming by post just now. Whats with me already is surely beautiful and very playable. But it serves the want for a certain tone, not for 'everything you would ever want from a guitar'. I can produce various attractive jazz tones with my ES175s etc, or even with my (adored) '60s Hofners, which the L5 won't provide. And interestingly there is a certain uniformity about the L5 tone, the ones I have follow similar patterns. So is it THAT tone? Honestly - not sure. It's certainly one of 'that' tones, but there truly are other styles of tones which are very attractive and which will enable one to express stuff on the guitar that may sound not just as well on an L5. For example, I would be surprised to learn that Mr Kreisberg doesn't play an L5 because he can only afford an ES175. The much more likely truth is that he uses his laminate box because he can get something out of it which the L5 does not provide. So in the end it's a choice of individuality (whatever that means, you might hopefully imagine what I am trying to say), rather than of brand and image.
-
another great example of how to 'save' 4,300 $... ;-) Originally Posted by Bluedawg
-
I agree with a lot of what Phil says here. I've had 2 L5s, a 60s and a 90s version. If THAT tone is the 'CES' tone that we have heard on seminal recordings, mostly made with L5s, then yes, the L5 has that tone - but it's self-evident that it would have. Originally Posted by Phil in London
It may not be the 'best' electric carved archtop sound - I have luthier guitars that sound more refined to my ear, and have never played a Super 4- but it's very, very good, in the right hands. Considerations of value are of course subjective, as has been articulately argued, so I won't add to that. I chose to sell both my L5s, for primarily ergonomic reasons and because I had another guitar that also got the 'CES' sound, or one close enough to it, for me. I sold my 90s L5 to another forum member, who loves it.
I can confirm that it's unusual to lose money when re-selling an L5! It's naive to think that resale value shouldn't be a consideration when paying out "L5 money" - especially if one is unfamiliar with it as a playing tool. I found the 90s L5 to be quite a heavy guitar, unlike the 60s model.
-
I imagine that most people are referring to the fully electric L-5CES in this thread. Immortalized by Wes Montgomery, played on stage and recorded by many, it's an iconic jazz guitar. It's not necessarily better than its peers in the high echelon of jazz guitars, but it's one of the big boys. Of that there is no doubt. And there are very, very few members in that club. It's a club where quality is not enough for entry. Venerability is a pre-requisite as well.
I own four different L-5s including a CES. The CES really is the only guitar I've found that sounds as it does. It's not perfect. It's on the heavy side (close to 8 lbs). The neck is nice and big, which I like, but the nut width could be wider for the finger style technique I favor these days. It doesn't have much acoustic volume, but then it's not supposed to. A wonderful guitar, though, perfect for what it is. Not irreplaceable, but also not in any way needing replacement. Why should it? It's an archetype.
For me, though, the ultimate L-5 is the first of the breed, a 1920s 16" acoustic model with no aspiration or requirement to ever be amplified. Ideally, its vintage would be as close as possible to the hallowed days when Lloyd Loar himself inspected the tuning of the tone bars and sound board, and signed the label attesting to same. These were the first f-hole acoustic archtop guitars.
(Say that again to yourself quietly before proceeding. It's a big deal.)
I encountered a guitar like this, post-Loar but not by much, at Mandolin Brothers in the summer of 2013. I was not shopping for it or even actively looking for a guitar. But I had fantasized about one and never imagined I'd see one, and yet, here it was. I've told the story before so I won't bore folks. But I sold as much of the farm as I needed to in order to afford this L-5.
At one point I nearly backed out of the transaction due to a case of sticker shock. Here is a bit of what Stan Jay (RIP) told me:
"Roger: I would hope that you would not have to withdraw from this transaction. It is a phenomenally gorgeous guitar of a type that we have not had for sale in at least a decade."
Stan was a salesman of course, but he was also a legitimate maven and quasi-historian. I came to my senses. The L-5 of which I am now the caretaker plays like a concert classical instrument, a quality I have very, very rarely experienced in owning over 100 guitars of all types. Was it "worth the big bucks?" That is a rhetorical question!
-
Phil in London; I don't see that this thread didn't reference individuality, even with much of the focus on brand/model. It's been said quite a few times that only an L5CES, sounds like an L5CES (almost absolute). Perhaps that was too vague? Possibly. I do agree that the L5CES is not the be all end all answer to a player's guitar needs. It was never meant to be. From when it was first developed right up through its gradually refinements, it was intended to be an L5CES. I'm not in agreement that the works of guys like Kreisberg would have sounded as well on an L5CES as that do/will on a 175. I would agree that they would have sounded . . . different. But, not equally as good. I disagree that it wouldn't have sounded as well, unless that comment specifically references the subjectivity of tone. Does a different type guitar pull different extemporaneously creative performances, in terms of musicality, (notwithstanding the tonal aspect of musicality) from players of Kreisberg's level?? Who knows? But, I'll be bold enough to say that shouldn't be the case. We can look at many examples; George Benson sounds like himself on all of his recordings (at least the many I've heard) whether he was playing a D'A, Gibson Johnny Smith, Ibanez, or what ever guitar he was playing. Similarly with Kenny Burrell, Pass, Larry Carlton, Tal . . as well as most any other top level players. Of course, I certainly couldn't see SRV being SRV on a 19" Stromberg . . but, I think you get my point.
Roger; Excellent post! It pretty much sums up why many guys like myself put the L5 guitar on the pedestal that we do.
Which actually brings up another interesting observtion. I said "guys like myself". Why is it that the jazzer ladies don't embrace the L5s" Is it because they can't comfortably "embrace" these big boxes? I can only think of one lady, an African American lady (can't remember her name) from many decades ago, who actually performed with an L5. But, I digress.
So, moving forward . . your stated reasons for not being able to walk away from your 16" 1920s L5 say it all. How accurate would it be for me to assume that you would be able to make the same music on an all acoustic 16" Heritage Sweet 16, or an all acoustic L4 . . as the music you make on the '20s L5? Would it sound different tonally? I'm sure. But, so too would a different 1920s 16" L5.
I would venture (reiterate) an assumption that for the vast majority of people who own an L5CES, it's just as much about what the guitar is . . as it is about what the guitar does.
-
I know Roger will back this observation up: The 20s L5 and the L5CES are essentially two different instruments that happen to share the same name. _Each_ is simply superb, but for entirely different reasons.
If I were asked to name a single guitar to take to a desert island, it would have to be the 20s L5. There is simply no other guitar that has that magic packaged into an acoustic guitar. It is the exemplar of its kind.
The L5CES, on the other hand, is THE instrument that is most fully capable of expressing 50s/60s electric jazz guitar, IMO. It is the numeraire--all other electric guitars for playing jazz are, IMO, measured against the CES.
[note to Roger] I like the notion of "caretaker." These instruments will outlast us; we are just their caretakers for some period of time--you are correct.
-
Good points Patrick. Yes, I can make the same music on my 1933 L-12 which is also a 16" acoustic archtop, and a fantastic one at that. No, I don't need the L-5. If one day, college tuition or un-employment or retirement demands require that I sell that valuable guitar, then sure, I could and would do so without emotionally destroying myself.
However, as long as I can afford to keep the L-5 and reflect its mojo through my musical voice, I will. I don't own it after all, not really. Guitars like that are cared for, not owned.
[Whoops, Greentone digs it too - just saw your post.]
-
"I can only think of one lady, an African American lady (can't remember her name) from many decades ago, who actually performed with an L5"
the great Sister Rosetta Tharpe.
I should have bought this one when it came up for sale @ Mandolin Brothers around 25 yrs ago.
sounded incredible
-
Primus inter pares.
-
Maybelle Carter.
-
"Mother" Maybelle Carter. Yeah . . forgot all about her. She had a really wicked right hand in her finger style technique. Originally Posted by LyleGorch
-
Patrick, this confuses me... you say you "disagree that Kreisberg would have sounded as well on L5 as on 175". Then you say you "disagree that it would not have sounded as well"... (it?)... and in the end you say that Kreisberg should always sound like Kreisberg, irrespective of the instrument... which one is it? ... :-p Originally Posted by Patrick2
-
Yeah . . I confused the shit out of myself as well, when I re-read it. Definitely a "WTF?" quote. If I may qoute the tune as sung by The Chairman of The Board. . . "Let me try again" Correction are in bold type font. Originally Posted by Phil in London
"I'm not in agreement that the works of guys like Kreisberg wouldn't have sounded as well [musically] on an L5CES, as they do/will on a 175. I would agree that they would have sounded . . . different. But, not that they wouldn't have sounded equally as good. I disagree that it wouldn't have sounded as well (good?), unless that comment specifically references the subjectivity of tone."
So, now I'll post this . . before I further confuse myself.
-
What a great photo! A big beautiful lady of jazz, with a big beautiful smile, holding a big beautiful L5C. Thanks Wintermoon. This was indeed the lady I was thinking of. She must have been a little bitty thing of a lady. Look how huge that L5C looks on her. Trying to determine where she's got that guitar strap hooked on the neck/head stock of the guitar.?.? Looks like it just disappears somewhere behind the nut and the first fret. Originally Posted by wintermoon
"I can only think of one lady, an African American lady (can't remember her name) from many decades ago, who actually performed with an L5"
the great Sister Rosetta Tharpe.
I should have bought this one when it came up for sale @ Mandolin Brothers around 25 yrs ago.
sounded incredible
-
the L-5 is a '39 the pic is from '40.
if I had to guess, I'd say it's those early strap holders Gibson was using in the late 30s
it looks like it's attached behind the nut, but the strap is probably hung up on one of the tuners making it look like it's attached behind the nut
Reply With Quote
Why in jazz are the raised 6th and 7th notes...
Today, 03:53 PM in Theory