-
I mostly play fingerstyle chord melodies with acrylic nails and flesh and I'm wondering how the ES-175 and Tal Farlow models compare and contrast tonally for this style of playing.
Although both guitars are all maple laminate I know the 175 is deeper and narrower with a shorter scale length and no doubt some additional differences.
Anyway, I'd love to get some thoughts from any players with hands on experience with both guitars.
-
04-26-2015 06:51 PM
-
I had never heard of Andy Brown before I saw this link to a recent performance of his latest CD release show ported yesterday in The Players sub forum.
This fellow is a great, great player and gets a killer fingerstyle tone from his Tal Farlow. I want to play like this when I grow up - only problem is I'm already old enough to be his dad or maybe even grandad.
-
Well I've owned a late 60's ES-175, and a Heritage H550(Their version of the Tal Farlow) While both are laminates, they have different scale lengths and body shapes(sizes). You really need to play both to see what works for you. But if you prefer a smaller body w/ a long scale length I'd recommend a used Heritage Sweet 16. Kind of the best of both guitars plus a solid carved top. They are frequently for sale used at various reliable dealers. Best of luck!
-
He has a Tal Farlow and a 175. I personally like a sparkly sound for Fingerstyle with a longer warm sustain but I really dig his sound. I can imagine that a sharper initial attack can get more tiresome to the ear if not smoothed out. He plays with a 14-59 string gauge and tunes down a whole step for solo and vocal accompaniment playing. You can also see his old peavey bandit(on later looks it's a Peavey Special 130) in the background of the video! Looks pre-transtube to me. Gleaned from here!
http://www.vintagearchtop.com/pdfs/a...ew_02-2010.pdfLast edited by Ric Lee; 04-27-2015 at 03:35 PM. Reason: not a peavey bandit but a special 130
-
Hey Ric, thanks so much for posting the link to the article (and earlier the performance). A Peavey Bandit . . still picking myself off the floor about that.
Originally Posted by Ric Lee
Very interesting about tuning down his ES-175 a whole step. No wonder he needs those ropes for strings.
Curious about your "sparkly sound for Fingerstyle" comment. What guitar of these two - or any other - do you prefer?
Thanks again.
-
Originally Posted by Joe DeNisco
OO you're getting a Tal?
Just make sure you play them first. I had two, one from 2011 and one from 1996.
The 96 one below, is one of the best Gibson archtops I have ever played.
The second one (here), was the worst.
Unfortunately the majority I have played are more like the second one (although they were new ones). Very hard sounding and tight feeling with lots of rattles and metal ringing. Its a typical Gibson inconsistency thing but we all know that.
I think the older ones, pre 2000's are better (but thats just my opinion).
I dont know if this helps. I loved the look too a beautiful guitar no doubt. Opinions may differ of course.Last edited by Archie; 04-27-2015 at 01:06 PM.
-
I wonder if Jim S still has his long scale 16" for sale? Originally Posted by jads57
-
Yeah, those peaveys can sound really nice. Especially with a few speaker swaps to tailor your tone(doubt Andy Brown's done that though!).
I've tried big boxes at a few nice guitar stores, mostly 175's and a few larger boxes like L5's and the like and while beautiful and wonderful to play, to sit comfortably with them is always a bit of a struggle for me. They are most comfortable played in the classical position and depending on the size of the archtop just don't feel as comfortable as a semi-hollow or a solid body, so I've sort of given up on larger size guitars, though a 175 sits pretty well and is not too bad especially if sitting with a strap on the guitar as well to angle it up. I'm pretty small framed 5/6 with not really large hands, so big boat necks don't work for a lot of chord shapes with big telephone wire strings(I don't know how Jimmy Bruno did it in his older Benedetto Manhattan days, though I suspect good setups help!).
I really like big boxes with floating pickups for fingerstyle, but I also like the sparklier sounds for fingerstyle so until I can afford a custom guitar or happen upon a shape that works on a budget I'm going to focus on semi-hollows.
This is the sort of sound I like in the bigger boxes played by the very nice Bob Buford.
But for comfort this is the sort of sound I'm going for in semi-hollow thinline bodies. I'd love a fully hollow thinline archtop to try that out but I can't afford something custom at the moment!
I'm going for something in this vein sonically now. Not as big and round but very sparkly, I may try to turn the pickup tone down and go for some more warmth a la by tele's sound.
I sent Stephen D. Anderson the guitarist in the above vid a message and he was kind enough to respond.
"Yeah, I used the same guitar for all songs on the album, "Remembering the Rain...". I also used it for the live solo guitar videos on here (Melody's Lullaby, Who Can I Turn To, etc). It's a handmade, semi-hollow body electric made by Tom Holmes, with a very wide neck (approx 2" at nut). As for amps, on the album I used 2 set-ups. For most songs I went direct into the board, using a small tube pre-amp. I hadn't planned on it but when I tried it out it sounded so good..."
For another example:
Even the sound profile that FreddyM on youtube gets with his budget semi-hollow an Arbor AJ136 and an older roland cube 60 appeals to me.
So I think rolling back the tone when I like may be the way to go for now until I can move to another stage in my life where I can try some other gits! In the future I'm interested in what a double top archtop guitar of a smaller size might sound like as an acoustic and maybe a thicker topped version for live playing possibly. It's not so much the width 16 of 17 that gets me but just the depth, so if I can find a larger width guitar in a very thin size that is fully hollow that might be fun, but it's all speculation. Everything sounds so different!
I've owned and played a few things fingerstyle, some eastmans the thinline El Rey, the 371 and an 805, and they tend to be pretty bright-ish(lots of other factors involved of course) and other than the El-Rey didn't sit well when seated, though I think with my quilter amp I could tailor it in much more than I was able to before. I also was never really good at protecting the finish and each ding on the top was an ouch moment.
I have a very budget Greg Bennett Samick Royale RL-40 on it's way to me and as long as I get something close to FreddyM's tone stock I'll be happy. I played one before a long way back and I remember it being comfortable. So I'll throw some Thomastik Swing 12's on it and call it a day after a setup. I'll probably swap out the neck pickup for a Dimarzio 36th or something more "foo-foo" if I can get a nice price on it and upgrade the saddle and the tailpiece(though I'll see and wait on that most likely).
Two vids one by Jack Zucker's son and another both similar models in the line give me hope that I can a good sound like I'm looking for.
From what I gleaned in the forum played dead stock into a Peavey Bandit with 12 gauge D'Addario Chromes from a message I sent Jeremy asking about it. Very Joe Pass-like tone as well as excellent playing.
(I think the RL-40 has a bound fingerboard and the one coming to me has abalone, while somewhat gaudy I can live with it and the audience will probably like it...just my dog for now)
Last edited by Ric Lee; 04-27-2015 at 03:36 PM.
-
I've had a fair bit of experience playing both. I love the sleek, thinner neck profile of the Farlow. Farlow's are excellent guitars. However, they are a 17" body - have you had much experience playing a guitar that size? Can be too much for a lot of guys which is why most jazz archtops are 16". I'm tall so I like 17" bodies, but they tend to cramp up a lot of players, especially sitting down. You'll get more bottom end from a 175 due to the thicker body depth, which may be preferable for solo guitar playing. The Farlow is voiced more in the midrange for sitting in the middle of a combo.
Either choice is a good one IMO.
-
Hi, I'm an italian jazz guitar student. I own a Epiphone Joe Pass, but now I have the opportunity to buy a Gibson. Last week I tried some archtops, and I found out the ones I prefer are the ES 175D VOS and the Tal Farlow signature, two very different instruments.
What I'm really try to find is a guitar that has a warm acoustic tone, not too dark. I think the 175D VOS has a more interesting vintage sound compared to the "modern" standard one, also it's much comfortable, because of its smaller scale (I like to use close-position voicing and large chords and I guess the TF is less appropriate for that), but I really enjoyed playing the second one, deeper but balanced sound on the low register, bright punchy tone on the high part of the neck. Also maybe I should say I use Chuck Wayne picking, small picks and much finger work.
I would like to receive some opinions and advices from guitarists that own those instruments. Thanks and sorry for my bad english.
Francesco
-
No contest IMO though I like a darker tone. The VOS 175 sounds plinky to me. I had 3 of them and sold them all.
I don't like the skinny frets on th VOS either. The VOS....some people really love them. Only your ear can decide.
The Tal will hold it's value the VOS will not.
-
They are both good jazz instruments but I would choose the Tal assuming that they are in comparable conditions. They are such good guitars.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
-
5 piece maple neck and long scale seem hard to let go. Farlow sounds sexier to me but 175 is a known jack of all trades workhorse.
-
Francesco,
if I had to choose between either one, I couldn't. I'd have to save more money and buy them both.
But if that's not possible, It would depend on what feels best to you. Like Vinny said, the skinny frets on the VOS 175 are tone robbers. If you played a 175 with larger frets, that has already opened up, I think you would be pleased. But the same goes for the Tal. For the last couple of years, my Tal has had little to no acoustic sound but it too has opened nicely.
If you can't get them both, then you will be happy with either one.
Good luck and let us know what you decide. Welcome to the forum.
Joe DeNisco
-
Both Gibsons are truly classics. It comes down to two things: (1) how do you like 25-1/2" scales? (2) how do you like maple necks?
I owned and played a vintage ES-175 for about 30 years. It was my main guitar and was what a guitar was supposed to sound and feel like, to me.
THEN, I started playing longer-scale guitars with maple necks on a regular basis. I got hooked. I still love the ES-175, but now I am so adjusted to the 25-1/5" scale and maple neck that I would personally choose the Tal Farlow, if it were up to me.
(It also makes jumping over to my Fender solid-body guitars a cinch when I go gigging on them--same scale.)
-
Everything said above +++
The right 175 is a marvel to play, unfortunately not all are.
I've never heard of a Tal that was not superb.
If a player focuses on finding a 175 that moves them AND finds one I could see them never needing a TF. If they just wanted a low risk buy it now, the TF will not disappoint.
-
They are both great guitars. The biggest difference i see is the scale, which to me would be the decisive factor since i really prefer the 24 3/4 shorter scale and it helps me play things i cannot play on a bigger scale guitar. If the scale isn't that important to you, and you are able to try the actual guitars you ll buy, see which one is the better instrument or the one closer to what you like. If you buy used, both are popular guitars so if at some point you 'd like to part with them it wouldn't be difficult to get your money back.
-
IMO what makes a Tal Farlow more assertive than a 175 is in part based on the scale length.
I feel I let go more in terms of tone going back to 24.75 scale than what I get back in comfort of playing, having average size hands.
A reason why on my tele parts caster build with solid mahogany woods, I wanted Les Paul like qualities but with more chime on the bass strings and overall better chord notes definition.
-
I have the VOS1959 ES175. The tone is a little different than what we today associate with the ES175, but strangely, it has really, really grown on me. I ought to sell it, simply because I bought it at a ridiculously low price and could sell it giving the buyer a good deal and clear a nice profit. But when I play it, I just think, no, I want this guitar around.
The skinny frets haven't bothered me, but then I have a really nice ES165 with the larger frets, so I have "that sound" easily available. The skinny frets, if they affect the tone, just give me another color on the palette.
Still, if I could "direct" trade the ES1959 for the Tal Farlow in equivalent condition, I'd do it. I have never heard anyone complain about a Tal Farlow's sound. Nobody says "you have to hunt for just the right Tal Farlow, and when you find it..." Nope. They just say "Got a Tal Farlow… love it!"
That says Gibson figured that TF out.
-
Yes, I have the chance to buy the actual instrument I try. I tried both of them a couple of times, unfortunately I'm still confused. Surely if I will choose the TF I'll have to do a lot of finger strech excersises. It'll be harder, almost impossible for me, to play a Bbmaj7 third inversion this way [x8733x] or a Gm7b5/11 like this [3x36x8]. But maybe I can sacrifice some voicing for a sound that I prefer more.
Another question. There aren't a lot of TF around here. I can't compare it to another TF because it's the only one I found and tried, and it's sold (new) at a price of € 3800, about $ 4000. Do you think it's an appropriate price for that?
-
This is a tough decision. It is hard to imagine that after playing the Tal and the 175, that there would be any question as to which one to buy. The feel of the Tal is more regal. On a longer scale instrument, I feel that the lows are more low. The elegance of the neck and the look of the body are exquisite. When I play out, I always bring the Tal.
But I have both and which one do play all the time? The 175. It's the one reach for. It's what I practice on. I have small hands and short fingers and the 24-3/4 scale does make a huge difference to me.
This is indeed a tough decision. The good thing is, there is no wrong decision.
Joe D
-
Easy--which scale length do you prefer?
-
The longer scale has a notable difference on the sound, and it is a good one. Everything is tighter, particularly the low end. I think it is worth it - I have weird hands where my palms are big but my fingers are fairly average, if not a little short, and had chosen 24.75" or 25" scales in the past. When I got my L5 I knew I had to adjust because that is the instrument I want to be the most comfortable on and, surprisingly, I can now reach the extended chords and intervals that I didn't think would be possible (a 6 fret total distance).
So I wouldn't worry so much about the scale. It will mean some practice time being spent to get your hand used to it but the payoff will be a better sound. Not that the short scale sound is bad, by any means, but luckily the longer scale isn't just a downside of having things be harder to reach since there are sound benefits. And the Tal is such a good guitar. And Lawson is right - I have never heard someone talk about getting a bad Tal.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
-
There are(I think) too many players advising that you can get a git cheaper, that's ALWAYS the case but the issue isn't about the price, it's about variables that have everything to do with... Originally Posted by Francesco Chieffo
The Where? New? Used? Vintage? Color preference? Condition? issues that all come into play, and nobody can say what will fit these except you. But only you can answer these questions with research of past sales and expecting to be disappointed if you want the lowest price.
Just because some poor schnook had a distress sale and had to give a git away at $2000 does NOT SET THE PRICE FOREVER at $2000. Only an idiot would EXPECT ALL of the current comps to be at that price. Almost no one looks at the past HIGHEST price and sets the current value there.
OK, so there are a lot of bottom feeders who want the absolute best price, to them I say enjoy the wait for the wrong color, condition, location, blah blah, blah to get a good deal. I say do the best you can when you can for the one you want and get it if you have the funds.
-
Scale length, 25.25" vs. 24.75", isn't really about comfort. It's about overall sound, like you suggest. Originally Posted by rio
My personal tastes seem to be 24.75" on jazz boxes and 25.25" on solid bodies.
Charlie Hunter, in an interview, said something that stuck with me...I'm going to paraphrase, because I'll never remember it, but he said harmonies on a 24.75" instrument were more blendy, like the Everly Brothers singing harmony. With a 25.5" instrument, things are more seperated, you can hear the voices more infependently. Like a Bach chorale or something.
I like Bach and the Everly Brothers
Reply With Quote
“Shearing style”
Today, 05:26 PM in Comping, Chords & Chord Progressions