-
The two guys in the original video are members of the New West Guitar group (from LA) and are both excellent players. To those who knocked John Storie's playing (he is the L-5 guy), I bet he is a WAY better player than you guys, but hey, IMO, online forums have proven to be a place where hack guitarists can put down the playing of better players than themselves to make up for their own shortcomings. Do you guys have any videos of your own playing to prove your prowess? I didn't think so. OK, that was my rant, now on to what may prove useful:
I own two 175's (a 97 and a 63) and have owned many others through the years and played many others as well. I have a 93 L-5 and have played many others through the years as well. Being a huge fan of Wes and Joe, These guitars have a special place for me and I own 9 other archtops (including two vintage D'Angelicos and a Benedetto), and can make a comparison in my living room about this stuff with the same player (me), the same strings (I use TI 13 flats) and the same amp (Acoustic Image Clarus through a Raezer's Edge Stealth 10).
IMO, the 175 is by far the better guitar for gigging. The L-5 feeds back much earlier and the action is not as consistent (solid top guitars do react to the weather, even with built in pickups). Plywood tops are simply better for an electric guitar. I also think that it is easier to play on the shorter scale. Try a sixth string root G minor 11 on both guitars and you will see what I mean. For solo playing in a studio environment, the greater bass response and higher pitched trebles of the L-5 might be what you want. That said, listen to Joe Pass's tone on the record "Intercontinental Joe Pass". For me it doesn't get much better than that, and that was a 62 175. Jim Hall, Joe Pass, Herb Ellis and Pat Metheny could all afford an L-5, but chose the 175. Think about that.
For guys who use their thumb instead of a pick (like Wes) the brighter tone of the L-5 might be a better fit, but there is still the feedback issue (balloons, plugs, old T-shirts???).
Then one should consider the FACT that every piece of wood is different and each of us likes a different feel and sound. No two 175's (or L-5's) are alike and I think going through ownership of many guitars of the same model is the only way to find the right one for you.
I have many more valuable guitars than my 97 175, but that is the one I grab most often for gigs (I play about 200 paid gigs a year these days). But what is right for me may not be right for you (and vise-versa).
Cheers,
Marc
www.hotclubpacific.com
-
04-09-2015 01:30 PM
-
Yeah. The amp used is an Imperial Tone King, which features on the rhythm channel a FMV bass/treble tone stack. Set where it is in the videos (i.e., bass=2, treble=7), you get flat low bass from the speaker cutoff to 100hz, then a mid-bass/midrange notch (very Fender), followed by an abrupt rise in the high frequencies (over +15db) from 500hz up to the limits of the speakers/guitar's output (probably somewhere around 3,000hz). Here is a graph:
Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
-
Interesting. Imo Es-175's are not good for live stuff in general because they feed back too much. Comparing it to bigger guitar is fine but then to say its a good gigging guitar doesn't work for me I'm afraid. The wail like banshees. Originally Posted by Stringswinger
In fact my L5CES feeds back about the same or slightly less than my 97 Es-175 yet has a much more pleasing tone plugged in and unplugged.
I also think the trebles on the L5 are so much better formed than on the Es-175 where they become brittle and harsh to the ears above the 10th to 12th fret. My l5 stays rounder up till about the 14th 15th.
I see it like this:
If you want a round stable sound that can get a little bass happy, go for an L5
If you want a square blockish sound that can goe from bassy to brittle, go for an Es-175.
In regards to sale length, I personally found the Gibson 24"3/4's scale to be lacking tension. If you dont want to sound country, plinky and plunky, then you need to put about 13's on to get that firmer note but I like thick pics and a strongish attack.
13's on an ES175 in my experience makes it very bassy and thus bad for live performance. Thats why Joe's tone is so thin, like many Es-175 players because they are trying to stop the bass from feeding back. Then you play into the very trebly sound of the ES-175 which again imo does not need further encouragement.
I also think Joe's tone on intercontinental was due to his D'aquisto not an Es-175, unless you can provide me with proof. In 1970 he was playing a D'aquisto as far as I know and that album was recorded in Jun 1970.
This is the bit that gets me though.
"Jim Hall, Joe Pass, Herb Ellis and Pat Metheny could all afford an L-5, but chose the 175. Think about that."
Right so mention the only players that have tone people either love or hate.
Does anyone hate the tone of the L5? I dont think so. The tone of the Es-175 is the most debated, maybe you should think about why that is? Then consider why the likes of Kenny moved away from the Es-175, why Joe pass moved away from the Es-175? Why Jim Hall moved away from the Es-175? lol
It seems to me that your point is that a 60's Es-175 is good. I can agree with that. However the majority of Es-175's do not sound anything like that imo. Joe's live performances on his early Es-175 sound awful. Perhaps he wasn't lucky enough to be given an L5.
I can see your clearly big joe fan and a fan of the Es-175. Imo though your opinion does not match reality, or at least mine. Which is fair enough
Last edited by Archie; 04-09-2015 at 02:31 PM.
-
@ archtopheaven,
The fact that two guys who own both a 175 and an L-5 can disagree on which is better proves my point that this stuff is quite subjective. And you are quite correct that I am a huge fan of Joe Pass and the 175. That certainly colors my thinking on all of this.
Regarding Joe Pass,
He did not have his laminate D'Aquisto (the so called "Jim Hall model") in 1970. He had the acoustic one that we hear unplugged on the first Virtuoso album. I'd bet money that it was not his D'Aquisto on the Intercontinental album, though it might have been something else. It was recorded in Europe. Perhaps it was a borrowed guitar? He is so fluid on that recording that I would bet money (not a lot of money though,) that he did use his 175 on that album.
Joe was playing a 175 in the 60's and 70's, an Ibanez in the 80's and a custom 175 in the 90's. His D'Aquistos were used in concerts and sometimes in the studio from 1970 till his death. At times, due to different amps and/or soundmen, his tone suffered, but IMO, Joe's playing with less than perfect tone is still better than any of our playing with the best tone/gear possible. And I know for a fact that Joe used 13's on his 175...
But as always, YMMV
PS Jim Hall got rid of his L-5 for a 175. He though the L-5 tone was too "tubby". He only moved from his 175 because he got the D'Aquisto laminate. Later he got his Sadowsky. He also used a Polytone amp (at least some of the time) till he died. Everyone has a different taste in gear....
-
Originally Posted by Stringswinger
I will be honest with you, I was surprised at your comments on Intercontinental. The song El Gento, is what I believe to be one of the best recorded jazz tracks of all time. I dont know why but it just strikes me. I actually transcribed the whole thing.
Anyway it was THAT tone, that got me into Jazz guitar but I just cant help think its not an ES-175. I know this might sound a bit rude but it just sounds too good, too balanced, too poppy and with too much depth. I would be exceptionally surprised if it was an ES-175.
It is by far his best tone on any recording imo. We can certainly agree on that.
-
From what I've read, he got rid of his L5 for a .......Les Paul Custom, not realising that the ' tubby' problem was with the venue not the guitar. 6 months later he then got hold of a 175 from Howard Roberts. So the story goes, anyway. The black LP is on at least one JH record cover. Actually I agree with your assessment of the 175 for gigging, but it might not have been that clear-cut for JH, if this version is correct ( source is a UK jazz magazine JH interview) Originally Posted by Stringswinger
-
Originally Posted by Stringswinger
I never met Jim Hall. Maybe you have. He did give an interview in which he said he was playing a gig at a bar with a big U-shaped projection, and that made his L5 sound tubby. He then traded it for a Les Paul. He stated the LP was "cold" sounding. He then traded the Les Paul for the 175. You make it sound like it was a conscious decision/preference on his part. The implication in the interview is that he made a mistake, and didn't appreciate the acoustic weirdness of that particular venue as he should have, traded down in value, but could live with it. He was famously not interested in discussing gear/tone issues, and in his list of priorities gear issues were WAY down on list, probably behind how fast can you play, and how many bebop riffs do you know/use.
FWIW, I think his 175 sounds great. I think a L5 can sound great. I like red Bordeaux, but also like good Burgundies, red and white, but find them overpriced and inconsistent. These tone debates are like religious disputes of the 17th century---probably we should not recreate the Thirty Years War or the Iconoclast controversy of the Byzantine Church.
And to be fair...just because you play well doesn't make you an instant authority on everything related to music, or that everything you/some other musician do(es) is beyond criticism. People are allowed to say someone was rushing in looking at someone's playing. I like Hank Garland's lines better than Barney Kessel's single note playing, but probably think Barney's chordal stuff is better, esp. the later stuff....Do I play anywhere like either of them?! NOT ON YOUR LIFE...as least not now, and probably never. I like some of Pat M's stuff but not all of it, think George B is the best around today--though he keeps it to himself most of the time, like Joe P. but prefer his straight-ahead stuff to the virtuoso type stuff, think Russell Malone really underrated, along with Oscar Moore and Billy Bean,....and on and on.
Once upon a time...there was lively and not always polite review of jazz artists and records...people accused Charlie Parker of ruining jazz...even Louie A. said bop didn't swing and sounded ugly....You know what... I like western swing and a lot of traditional country--honky tonk, Bakersfield kind of stuff, but think what passes for "country"---a bad warmed over version of 70's rock n' roll----blows dead rats, to coin a phrase.
And I'm not even sure that if this rhythm guy was rushing, that that was a bad thing...maybe it was some spirited competition to "push" the other guy, to see if he could keep up and still groove....so relax, both these guys can play, and if they or you can't stand some reasoned opinion about their playing---well who does that leave you with as a potential audience----the great unwashed who don't follow it, don't try to play it, and couldn't care less about it. That would not bode well for either practitioners or people who care about the music.
-
Archtopheaven,
We do agree about Joe's tone on "Intercontinental". Joe did 3 albums on that German label in 1970, "Intercontinental" and "Blue World" (Art Van Damme) in June 1970, then he did another Art Van Damme one, with all the same personnel in November 1970. ("Keep Going")
There are 5 people, who if still alive (Kenny Clare, Art Van Damme and Joe Pass have all left us), and if they still remember, who could answer the question about which guitar Joe used for those German recording sessions:
Eberhard Weber (he is still alive and being a bassist is probably the one who paid the most attention to gear)
Rolf Donner (recording engineer)
Hans Georg Brunner-Schwer (Producer)
Willi Fruth (recording director)
Heribert Thusek (Vibes on the two Art Van Damme dates)
How is your German? This question might be answerable...
-
Strange. I always thought that Intercontinental sounds EXACTLY like it was played on a 175. Originally Posted by ArchtopHeaven
-
@Goldenwave77,
I too like (and play) Western Swing. For a great, almost unknown Western Swing player check out Jimmie Rivers and the Cherokees. and yes, modern Country blows chunks.
-
anyone with ears can ear it's a 175 and not a d'aquisto. Originally Posted by grahambop
-
on a related note, I remember talking to paul bollenback about forums and stuff like this, people obsessing over strings and picks and putting down players while struggling to play moonlight in vermont was cited as why he thinks it's a total waste of time.
-
I reckon the only way to make this a fair comparison would be if the two players swapped instruments halfway thru.
It sounds to me that the 175 guys had a bit more bite and volume on his amp.
-
I reckon the only way to make this a fair comparison would be if the two players swapped instruments halfway thru.
It sounds to me that the 175 guy had a bit more bite and volume on his amp.
After all, it's all subjective...if the l5 guy had been using the 175, he may well have dialled in a more woody, quieter tone. Then the l5 wouldve come over as being the louder of the two.
-
The two players in the original video are great and both guitars sound great too. One thing to consider though is that I think the camera is picking up a lot of acoustic tone. My L5 only sounds like that played acoustically. Crank up the volume and it is very much an electric sound.
-
Whether and/or how a car is damaged is an objective proposition, how a guitar sounds is a subjective one. I'm intrigued by how the two intermingle into an argument.
-
It sounds to me like ATH got a dud of a 175. Sorry for that. My 175's do not feedback at all and being a " local talent " player, I mostly play in some very noisy rooms.
I have both an L-5 and a 175 (two 175's actually) and love all three guitars. At the end of the day, they all sound like me. A few years back Howard Alden was visiting me here in California and we jammed in my living room. He had his Benedetto, so I played my Guild- Benedetto. After a bit, Howard wanted to try my guitar so we switched. He still sounded like Howard and I still sounded like me (damn!).
My friend Bruce Forman ( the best guitar player that most of you have never heard of) once told me that if he ever played a guitar that did not sound like him, he would buy it!
-
Actually that depends on what you mean by 'Dud'. Mine was actually acoustically very pleasing and the reason why I chose it. Originally Posted by Stringswinger
So if 'dud' to you means the guitar has an increased acoustic quality then.......well.......Ummm....
kinda thing.
-
ATH,
No, what I mean is that if you have a plywood guitar that feeds back at low volumes, you have a dud. Simple as that.
-
Which is ironic because Jonathan Kreisberg plays REALLY LOUD with overdrive and doesn't have feedback problems on his 175. You do realize the 175 is the most popular guitar among archtop players in NY, right? Originally Posted by ArchtopHeaven
And Metheny used a 175 for years without feedback problems and he was playing arenas. But what do *THEY* know?
But they obviously don't have the ears that you do which explains why they would play a 175 in the first place.
-
I saw Steve Howe play Madison Square Garden with Yes playing an ES-175 back in the 1970s... Originally Posted by jzucker
Last edited by iim7V7IM7; 04-10-2015 at 01:03 PM.
-
My friend Bruce Forman ( the best guitar player that most of you have never heard of) once told me that if he ever played a guitar that did not sound like him, he would buy it![/QUOTE]
Re: Bruce Forman
Robert Conti has cited Bruce Forman as a guitarist whose playing he likes, and enjoys. Personally, I think Forman is one of a handful of guitarists whose bebop lines are convincing, and enjoyable to listen to. (Besides, the fact that he is open to other types of music, i.e. his "CowBop" band, is just an added bonus.)
-
Just because you saw someone in an arena playing an Es-175 doesn't mean anything. (no offence) I've seen plenty of acoustics played that wouldn't stand a chance. Its called a PA. Heck even Besnons tapes over his F-holes on stage.
Anyway maybe you guys are right. maybe I was trying to get the ES-175 to sound like an L5 and it didn't like it. Again I liked or like a very bassy tone (although one that is well controlled, thats my other grind with the 175, lack of bass clarity when amplified, especially the more you add).
The Es-175 has to my ears a naturally thin trebly sound although some like mine had good depth in the bass.
So my amp settings are usually Bass up till happy, Trebles up to happy and no mids at all. I always play with the mids totally cut.
I suspect a lot of you guys play with a 'mid' emphasis. Thats why i prefer the smaller Japanese ES-175's because the way I have my settings, they perform perfectly. Its a tone much closer to that of an L5 of Tal Farlow, not an Es-175. Although it doesn't quite have the depth of the Tal's and L5's.
I aim for the same clarity that Benson gets with maybe a touch more Bass, ES-175's IMO do not achieve this and hence why I dont care much for them and apparently neither does he.
Even I'm getting tired of talking about ES-175's now.
BTW Stringswinger if your definition of a lam guitar that feeds back means its a dud. I would suggest you don't play an ES-350 or a Tal Farlow cause they are duds as well apparently. Unless you want to argue that they don't feed back either?
Enjoy the rest of the thread guys, I 've made my point, the majority of evidence towards the divisiveness of the ES-175 helps back my case. I've had names of artistes to support claims yet all moved away from the Es-175.
Its all subjective The Es-175 is not for me. Enjoy yours :-)Last edited by Archie; 04-10-2015 at 01:18 PM.
-
From Steve Howe:
I think I was lucky in getting good 175s that tended not to feedback as much as things like L5s and Super 100s because jazz guitars definitely do feedback. And also, the other ingredient is you mustn’t have too much bass or middle on your amp, otherwise that will encourage the bass to feedback. Obviously don’t stand in front of it in a way that produces the feedback. The fourth reason that I thought of is that I use a volume pedal, so if it does feedback, I can control that. I always use a volume pedal—that came from hearing steel guitar players. And the volume pedal means I’m always under control; I can turn the guitar off, tune it, and have it quieter when I want it when the singer is singing. Also, I can voice my notes, so they’re not like Perpetual Change—it starts with voiced chords as opposed to just chink-chink-chink. So there’s a couple of ideas; get lucky with a guitar, tune your amp so that it’s not got too much bass end, and use a volume pedal.
Read more at Ask YES - Friday 12th April 2013 - Steve Howe - Yes
-
It has always struck me as a bit odd that people cite feedback in archtops as some sort of game stopper. I played an archtop in gigs and loud studios for many years. I've seen countless people perfrom on archtops in loud venues. I've never found feedback to be a significant, unmanageable problem. [I only play a semi and a solidbody electric now, but feedback has nothing to do with that.]
John
Reply With Quote
“Shearing style”
Today, 05:26 PM in Comping, Chords & Chord Progressions