Gibson ES-175 type sound + BUYERS TIP

[sunnysideup]

@lawson-stone - there is nothing specifically I have said that is inaccurate, though obviously it's not, and can't be, a full analysis of JP. I hadn't actually mentioned the Ibanez deal at all. And Joe continued to play the Ibanez after the deal expired - with the Ibanez headstock label covered up (just like Barney and his Gibson ;-).

JP's love of the spanish guitar is pretty well-documented. But the gear he used on his many recording dates is generally not well documented.

Anyone who listens to a wide variety of Joe's recording will hear a wide variety of tones - much wider than the other major classic jazz artists - and that is my main point. Joe was clearly more interested in the music itself than the gear or a specific tone. One doesn't need to be a historian or a personal friend of Joe's to know this, one just needs to listen to the music.

Joe's first 175 was bought as a surprise gift by a fan (or was it a friend?) as Joe was too broke at that time to buy a decent guitar. It was not particularly sought out by Joe. The final guitar that Gibson gave him was most definitely not a 175, check the pickup placements and the body depth, and my understanding is that it had an ebony fretboard, though I can't confirm that.

By the way, I'm just as much a fan of the music that was made on the 175 as anyone on this forum.

[jzucker]

p.s. if only 5% of the sound was the guitar, we should all just play a cheap strat and nobody would know it wasn't an L5.

[Ghostofachance]

I believe that the guitar is 5.038% of sound; the amp, 15.291%.

[lawson-stone]

@lawson-stone - there is nothing specifically I have said that is inaccurate, though obviously it's not, and can't be, a full analysis of JP. I hadn't actually mentioned the Ibanez deal at all. And Joe continued to play the Ibanez after the deal expired - with the Ibanez headstock label covered up (just like Barney and his Gibson ;-).

JP's love of the spanish guitar is pretty well-documented. But the gear he used on his many recording dates is generally not well documented.

Anyone who listens to a wide variety of Joe's recording will hear a wide variety of tones - much wider than the other major classic jazz artists - and that is my main point. Joe was clearly more interested in the music itself than the gear or a specific tone. One doesn't need to be a historian or a personal friend of Joe's to know this, one just needs to listen to the music.

Joe's first 175 was bought as a surprise gift by a fan (or was it a friend?) as Joe was too broke at that time to buy a decent guitar. It was not particularly sought out by Joe. The final guitar that Gibson gave him was most definitely not a 175, check the pickup placements and the body depth, and my understanding is that it had an ebony fretboard, though I can't confirm that.

By the way, I'm just as much a fan of the music that was made on the 175 as anyone on this forum.

The covered up head-stock is a complicated business. When doing TV int one 70's and 80's, many networks, especially the BBC, didn't like giving brand names prominence. So at times the brand name on the headstock was taped over. Also, if your endorsement contract expired and another took effect, performing with the previously endorsed instrument required an adjustment, usually concealing the logo on the headstock.

I don't know if Joe Pass "loved" the classical guitar in any conspicuous way. Anybody who loves guitar will know the appeal of that instrument. But Joe's recordings I think speak loudly for his love of the basic humbucker-equipped archtop played through a clean amp.

The story of Joe's ES175 is well known, of course. More interesting, though, is that in 1992 when he made a custom order, he ordered the well-known ES175 derived single-pickup model seen on nearly all his later albums until he became too weak to play it.

I have the video in a club in which Joe looks up at John Pisano and says, "I can't do this anymore." It's heart-breaking. We can't really base our view of his preferences on that very last album.

All I'm saying is that Joe Pass, to be sure, was not a gear-freak. But to say he was indifferent to tone and good equipment is simply wrong. He could make it happen on any instrument, but given a choice, he liked the ES175. He co-developed the Polytone amplifier. He quit carrying an amp and went with house-amplification in part, he told me, because he preferred the ambient sound of the whole room. That's a tone preference. Joe also tended to make rather sweeping statements with a bit of a wink and a nod. He liked kidding people, and he liked deflecting attention away from his amazing abilities. So he claimed not to play hard stuff, fast stuff, etc. But we know he did play hard and fast. He also played quite a bit with the pick right up to the end, though he spoke mainly about his finger style preference. The guy was a complicated person who often liked to pull your leg a little with what he'd say.

Anyhow, I think we use Joe as an icon of indifference to equipment inappropriately. He did care, but he didn't make this his hallmark, which was what he did with the instruments he chose.

[jads57]

Well Pat Metheny sounds just as good on his Ibanez as his old 175. I know they are constructed more or less to the same specs!

[Jimmy Mack]

Good reading: Pat Metheny interview with Dan Forte in Vintage Guitar magazine - Feb. 2016

Talks about guitars, creativity, jazz, starting out, amps, and a whole bunch more. Quite a lengthy article for VG, and well worth the POA.

[stoneground]

Well Pat Metheny sounds just as good on his Ibanez as his old 175. I know they are constructed more or less to the same specs!

Here’s an interesting comment from Pat on the subject of tone and his guitars:-

Pat Metheny : Question & Answer

I agree with many points in the original post from erictK regarding percentages.

There are those whose talent will overcome any shortcomings the instrument may have but I certainly don’t include myself in that exalted company. Any aspect of the instrument which makes me uncomfortable is likely to scupper any chance I might have of performing well. In short, I like to feel that if my playing is sub-standard then it won’t be the instrument’s fault. If I feel uncomfortable with the setup or sound of my instrument then I am not likely to feel very inspired when playing.

Regarding the percentage table in the original post I would agree that most of the sound (at least 50%) is you. I have two Gibsons set up identically, a 165 and a 345. They are very different guitars but set up with the same action and flatwounds. The neck profiles are subtly different but not enough to bother me. Both are very comfortable and reassuring to play and I feel that any shortcomings in performance will be due to me and not the instrument.

However, on old recordings with guitar and amp set to produce a traditional mellow jazz tone , I am almost embarrassed that I can’t instantly tell which guitar I was playing or even which amp I was using. This should perhaps caution me against being too particular about fine details such as nut and saddle materials since although both guitars feel very different, it is evident that the resulting sounds are very close from the audience’s point of view. You could argue that this also shows there is no perceptible difference (in a blind test) between an early Patent No (345) and a Classic 57 (165) and that the pickup has more of an effect on amplified tone than major structural differences between these instruments; a stoptail semi solid 345 and a full bodied laminate with a zig-zag tailpiece. Obviously the differences would be very evident with sustained overdriven sounds which the 345 would be more suited to. I can hear the difference however, between recordings of the 165 with a 490r before I changed it to a Classic 57.
I would therefore ascribe much more than 5% to the pickup whilst stopping short of Kessel’s 90%.

Guitarists seem to be unique amongst musicians in funding an industry from their endless pursuit of the perfect tone and I am guilty myself. I think I agree with the poster who thinks you don’t need anything other than a decent 16” laminate archtop with a Classic 57 or similar if you are chasing that particular 175 sound.

[mr. beaumont]

I think a good player can make guitars sound similar if they want to, and different if they want to. The instrument doesn't dictate, but it can influence.

I also think 95% of statistics on the internet are made up.

[roegtr]

Wonder how Joe Pass would sound on a Kramer through a Crate clean channel...

[Doctor Jeff]

Joe sure sounded great on the Jazzmaster, which actually has been much more popular with surf bands and roots rockers than jazzers. To my ears his technique was a little different than later archtop work, more staccato and beboppish, still very striking.

[EriktK]

A-B test Gibson vs Epiphone below.

Thank you all for your reactions! In fact everybody agrees, more or less, that the player, the amp, the pick, the pickup, etc have a more profound effect on the guitar tone then the guitar itself. When it's a well built instrument and more or less of the same type. And, yes statistics are made up (or at least adjusted to suit purpose).

Still people easily pay $2000,00 - $2500,00 EXTRA for a name. Then they try to convince them selfs and other that it's really a big difference. 'Image', 'looks', 'lifestyle', 'greed', ...(fill in the blanks) are the real reason for this, not quality (IMO)! Some say, they hear a slight, slight difference hear or there... well, do you pay 7 to 8 times the price for a slight, slight nuance that you'll never hear in a live setting? Do you also do that when buying a car or a house (7-8x)?

Here's a little A-B test Gibson vs Epiphone I did. Everything in this test is the same, except the guitar and pickup. I played a solo on the Epiphone and on the Gibson, then cut it up in peaces and put them in one track, switching back and forth between the two guitar solo's. I only adjusted the volume 'cause the Gibson had hotter pickups.

[davidBb]

After I'd been playing for about 10 years I first learned about set-up. Sure I'd learned about intonation and neck relief and done it myself but it was suggested by someone that a guitar I had could 'play a lot better' (I thought it was alright) and recommended a great luthier to me. A fret dress and a new nut and an expert eye and, bang, I suddenly had a 'plays like butter' guitar.

When I started gigging extensively I picked up an Epi Sheraton. Loved it, but it's tuning stability was so-so, the action couldn't get low without a buzz here and there and the pickups were muddier than I wanted. Again, after some luthier work and some Seth Lovers it played and sounded like a dream. In fact, a few years on I was grabbing it in favour of the crazy expensive Gibson 335 Custom I'd acquired both due to the incredible set-up and because I was a little fearful of using a 2k instrument out of the house.

With imagination the Gibbo did have a touch of extra woody mellow sweetness when played in a living room but we're talking tiny percentage points of difference for 4 times the price. The smell of nitro was nice but nitro meant the back of the neck always got sticky in an unappealing way.

Today the big trend is mid-priced high-end/high-spec made in countries like China and Indonesia. It used to be that an £800 guitar was closer in feel, sound and build to a £400 guitar than a £2000+ guitar. Not anymore.

[vinlander]

In tone chasing, there is far more money being spent on the subtle differences than on getting in the ballpark in the first place.
So it is all a matter of how these differences are important for the individual.

[Doctor Jeff]

Nice test Erik--with my jaded 50-plus year-old ears with the high-level hearing loss I can't tell a speck of difference, in fact can't even decide which is the better sounding guitar. Great playing too, and great tone!

I had an Epiphone Dot back in the day that I felt couldn't get the sound I wanted, but I'm pretty sure with a better setup and maybe a pickup swap I could have made it work.

[Greentone]

A great artist can sound pretty good on a weak instrument. I bought a B3 in Chicago. A very gifted, prominent Southside Chicago gospel organist and I drove it to my home. He ended up playing my beater piano. He played fast, two-handed chromatic scales up and down the keyboard. Then he proceeded to improvise, sounding like Art Tatum, while avoiding every bum note on the piano.

i know guitarists who, when you hand them an instrument, instantly asses it's weaknesses. Then they play in the guitar's sweet spot to make it sound good. These people used to make good salesmen.

[EriktK]

Thanks!

[Klatu]

A great artist can sound pretty good on a weak instrument. I bought a B3 in Chicago. A very gifted, prominent Southside Chicago gospel organist and I drove it to my home. He ended up playing my beater piano. He played fast, two-handed chromatic scales up and down the keyboard. Then he proceeded to improvise, sounding like Art Tatum, while avoiding every bum note on the piano.

i know guitarists who, when you hand them an instrument, instantly asses it's weaknesses. Then they play in the guitar's sweet spot to make it sound good. These people used to make good salesmen.

[Moominpapa]

Erik - I liked your test video. I started watching then closed my eyes so as not to be influenced by the change prompts. In most instances I couldn't even tell when you were switching guitars.

[EriktK]

There is not thát much difference between guitars of similar models (when built well), in my experience. This Gibson and this Epiphone were very, very close. Maybe not every new Epiphone or 335 copy will be that close, I don't know.

But if you put cheap pickups on a expensive Gibson, it will sound worse then a good pickup on a cheap Epiphone (or Ibanez, or...), I think.

DavidBb quote: "Today the big trend is mid-priced high-end/high-spec made in countries like China and Indonesia. It used to be that an £800 guitar was closer in feel, sound and build to a £400 guitar than a £2000+ guitar. Not anymore." I think thats very true.

Bottom line: There are so many good guitars for less money. Add €300,00 for a good pickup and setup, leveling and polishing of the frets.

[lawson-stone]

I'll vouch for that. My The Loar LH650 cost me less than $1000 (and I'm the first owner). It was pretty good, but I replaced the stock Kent Armstrong "licensed" pickup with the KA 12 Pole Johnny Smith, and gave the guitar a good fret level-and-crown, added a tone control, and now it's really an outstanding instrument, still with less than $1000 invested.

I have a "Johnson" JH440 that is visually a striking and beautiful guitar. I gave it a fret-level-and-crown and now it's one of my favorite players. I have $50 invested in the guitar (new!). I am thinking of adding a nice pair of pickups, though the current ones actually sound pretty good.

I still would love to have one Gibson in my stable and have my eyes open, but it's because of the heritage and history, as well as for "that magic something" that none of us Gibson fan-boys ever loses. But I also know my Loar, my Epiphone Broadway, my Peerless Monarch (which needed nothing out of the box), and yes, even my Johnson, can get me 80%-90% "there" in terms of playability and tone.

[davidBb]

Bottom line: There are so many good guitars for less money. Add €300,00 for a good pickup and setup, leveling and polishing of the frets.

Really, really like the ES175 Premium and was able to try one in the local music megastore yesterday. The Satin finish at least looks better than the usual Epi poly gloop and therefore feels much nicer in the hand than a Epi Joe Pass. I noticed it had some sort of Tusq nut (not just cheap plastic), wiring that actually adjusted the volume and tone properly, and, BANG, the Gibson '57s that many people mod their Epi with anyway.

The Peerless Gigmaster, for another £100-150 looks a touch plusher but I don't think the overall sound and the pickups are quite as good as the Epi 175 - seems to be a real gem in the market at the moment.

[icr]

I can sound bad on any guitar/amp combination.

[EriktK]

Me too, if necessary. I did it last night

[GNAPPI]

I think his analysis approximates a 50% accurate description nearly 40% of the time... of that I'm probably 60% sure.

[maarvold]

One interesting aspect of this thread is this:

Although I haven't done extensive research on it, I get a strong impression that the Gibson Custom Shop people know a heck of a lot about the finer points of making instruments that are extremely similar to the historical instruments they are attempting to recreate. This is not how Gibson used to do things; here's an example: I own a 1980 Les Paul Heritage-Standard. That guitar is a really nice instrument and was one of the first attempts I'm aware of where Gibson made a 'tribute guitar' that was similar to the 'bursts and gold tops that are now approaching 'modern Stradivarius' level in stature. But Gibson did some annoying things at the time: 3 piece neck (not 1 piece) on the flame tops, 1 piece neck only available on the deluxe edition, which had a "quilted" top, not a flame top... they also left off the more extreme headstock angle and they put Shaw pickups on it, but they are not particularly PAF-ish to me and are now sitting in a drawer. The guy who owned the music store where I worked at the time I bought it new was of the opinion that Gibson was refusing to repeat a model. Whatever the reason, I made every aspect of my Heritage as close to what it was trying to be as possible and I now love that guitar. But I guarantee I would love it even more if it had a 1 piece neck, nitro finish and the more radical neck angle.

Fast forward to now: Custom Shop instruments that are very much like the originals, but cost a lot of money when compared to the current economy. I just, 4 days ago, bought an Epi ES-175 Premium and it is the most exciting guitar I have encountered in years. It is affordable, has a one piece mahogany neck--something my Heritage will never have--and a nitro finish--again, something my Heritage will never have... it also sounds and plays great right out of the box (the case is extra). Many of the places where it falls short of what I would hope for it to be--a late 50's/early 60's version that says "Gibson" on the headstock--can, and will, be upgraded by me. And it isn't so expensive of an instrument that I am hesitant to make it not "all original". It is a great platform for modding: I love it! And I think Epiphone has taken the path I wish Gibson would have taken since the 80's: make 'the bones' of the instrument correctly first and foremost.