Joe Pass Guitar Pickup Position?

[lawson-stone]

A lot of people speculate and criticize the position of the pickup on the Ibanez JP20 "Joe Pass" model guitar. I was interested today in watching an old video from the BBC, "Oscar Peterson and Friends" where Joe plays "Ain't Misbehavin'" and all along I thought it was the Ibanez... then realized it wasn't.. Joe plays his D'Aquisto in this clip, and the pickup is spaced away from the end of the fingerboard like the Ibanez.

Just adding this bit of information to that discussion. The Ibanez duplicates the pickup position of Joe's D'Aquisto.

It's also here in the concert video:

[mr. beaumont]

The pickup is away from the fretboard on a 175 too, which Joe played for years.

However, I think when Gibson made Joe a custom 175, the pickup was up against the neck.

[lawson-stone]

The pickup is away from the fretboard on a 175 too, which Joe played for years.

However, I think when Gibson made Joe a custom 175, the pickup was up against the neck.

It was. The question I was thinking of was the often asked "Why did Ibanez put the pickup THERE?" Normally some unkind things are said about Ibanez at that point, but the answer is rather clear. Ibanez put the pickup there because that's were it was on Joe's D'Aquisto custom guitar, which the JP20 duplicates in every other fashion as well.

So the real question is, when Jimmy D'Aquisto built a custom guitar for Joe Pass, why did he, a master luthier, put the pickup there?

Suddenly it can't be a question of competence, but it becomes a question of a master luthier's judgment.

[mr. beaumont]

Well, I always I assumed it was for folks who liked to pick right at the end of the fingerboard, so they weren't "feeling" the pickup.

[lawson-stone]

Well, I always I assumed it was for folks who liked to pick right at the end of the fingerboard, so they weren't "feeling" the pickup.

Actually that's a pretty good suggestion. There has been all manner of speculation about this, claims that the placement of the pickup makes the guitar sound "thin" etc. Typically it circles back to some criticism of Ibanez, their designers, whatever. I'm just tossing this bit of data into the loop, namely, that the placement of the pickup was a decision made by a master builder doing a custom guitar, so it likely shouldn't be seen merely as some kind of mistake.

[mr. beaumont]

I don't buy into the pickup position being the reason those Ibanez's can sound "thin," I mean, a 175 is one of the fattest sounding guitars going...

But then again, I'm also not buying into those Ibanez's sounding thin...I've played one, it was excellent.

It is interesting that soooooo many guitars have been made over the years to copy the venerable ol 175, but not many use that pickup placement.

[Franz 1997]

It was. The question I was thinking of was the often asked "Why did Ibanez put the pickup THERE?" Normally some unkind things are said about Ibanez at that point, but the answer is rather clear. Ibanez put the pickup there because that's were it was on Joe's D'Aquisto custom guitar, which the JP20 duplicates in every other fashion as well.

I think if you look carefully, you'll find that the D'A has 20 frets, but the JP20 has 22. This means that, although the pup is in the same relative position to the end of the f/b, in the JP20 it's nearer to the bridge.

[mr. beaumont]

That's definitely a difference-maker.

[Barcia]

My two cents:

Pickups placement

[lawson-stone]

I think if you look carefully, you'll find that the D'A has 20 frets, but the JP20 has 22. This means that, although the pup is in the same relative position to the end of the f/b, in the JP20 it's nearer to the bridge.

that's a good observation. I wonder if relative to the harmonics they are in a comparable spot? I haven't measured, and my screen keeps wiggling when I try to lay my ruler on it ;-)

Maybe the Ibanez folks just saw that space and didn't think through the pickup location relative to the scale-length?

[GNAPPI]

My two cents:

Somehow I don't think Leo or any guitar maker in the 50's had scientists evaluating pickup placement in a lab.

Like the "F" hole I'm pretty sure most pickups were placed for best sound and in the case of an electric git with the pickup design of the time, and as stated above the possibility of the comfort of the player, and ability to mass produce without additional operations or special tooling.

[lawson-stone]

I don't buy into the pickup position being the reason those Ibanez's can sound "thin," I mean, a 175 is one of the fattest sounding guitars going...

But then again, I'm also not buying into those Ibanez's sounding thin...I've played one, it was excellent.

It is interesting that soooooo many guitars have been made over the years to copy the venerable ol 175, but not many use that pickup placement.

I think the ES175 bridge pickup is situated at the second "e" harmonic. Adrian Ingram also says that the pickup was located on the ES175 where it was because the top had a more pronounced arch which necessitated raising the fingerboard clear of the body. In placing the original P90, Ingram says "The necessary pickup height was achieved by moving the unit closer to the centre of the instrument where the height of the arch was more pronounced." (Gibson 175).

Don't know what to think of that, but it's another idea on the 175's placement.

[kenbennett]

I experimented with this about 10 years ago and found that I like the neck pickup slightly towards the bridge from the 4th harmonic, rather than directly under it.

[kenbennett]

My two cents:

Pickups placement

Good article. Thanks for posting.

[stoneground]

The pickup is away from the fretboard on a 175 too, which Joe played for years.

However, I think when Gibson made Joe a custom 175, the pickup was up against the neck.

Here's a quote from Adrian Ingram's book on the 175 pickup placement:-

"A particular feature of the 175's construction is its pronounced top and back. In fact, the curvature meant that the fingerboard had to be raised clear of the body and the pickup situated further away from the fingerboard than was customary on Gibson guitars."

It may be a lucky coincidence that this placement also happens to put the pole pieces under the E harmonic giving the 175 a particular character, I find that this is where the sweet spot for picking also lies. Anyway I like it where it is, away from the fingerboard.

[Archie]

1) The Jp 20 has the extra two frets as someone already pointed out. This means it is further back than the D'aquisto.

2) This rubbish about pickup placement annoys me. You think these mass manufactures are there measuring where the pickup went for harmonics? Thats generous, especially as we know some of the most basic procedures by said companies are even undertaken.

3) There is no special place for the pick up imo, a mm or cm here or there will make imo no audible difference at all, compared to say where you pick from

4) The Jp 20 has a 25'5 scale length as opposed to the Es-175 and the D'aquisto which changes the way you interact with the 16" body anyway. The perfect position is actually directly between the end of the fingerboard and the pickup which was probably the intention but who knows.

As for the guar sounding thin, me and Joe have been over this. It doesnt sound thin, it just sounds more focused. Add the 25'5 scale and you get tighter bass and more pleasing warmer highs (imo), compare that to an Es-175 where it is usually bass heavy, pretty mushy in the lows and shrill on the top and you have the problem I have below.

I have the same issue with Ibanez Artists. They are measurably a better made guitar than the Gibson les paul with nicer pickups (imo) yet go online and every one ses its not as good as a les paul, which fails to take into account what they wanted was actually half the guitar for twice the price.
Now if someone wanted a PRS or Suhr they would love the Ibanez because it would be half the price and pretty much have the same quality and sound but because people (kids and Gibson fanboys) want to compare it to a more often than not over weighted, poorly balanced tonally dull siding Les Paul, now the Artist isn't very good.

Same goes for the Jp-20. Why not compare it to a 125'5 scale 16" guitar and then compare its sound? No because people want to compare it to an Es-175 which is a totally different guitar. So now the Jp sounds thin, yeh compared to a usually bass happy Es-175 it does. Does that mean it is a thin sounding guitar? No!

Anyway hopefully the buyer I met through here will appreciate it when it arrives at some point today, my Jp 20 that is (or now his)

The Jp 20 is a beautiful guitar with some of the nicest lower end sounds you can get considering the depth of the body (another reason why you shouldn't compare it to an Es-175). As a whole considering the body thickness and bout size, id say the guitar sounds just about right. In fact I think it sounds better than its body depth would suggest. So to me it's a success.

THE JP20 IS NOT AN ES-175.. however if you want to listen to something thin and nasty, just watch many of the videos from the 70's of Joe playing his Es-175 :-)

On a guitar half as deep and with a longer scale length.

The truth is, Joe just didnt have good tone. His natural inclination was for a bright treble happy tone imo to compensate for the bass dullness and feedback of his Es-175. His brighter tone didnt sit well with his slightly brighter sounding guitars. If he had compensated by turning the bass up a but, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation!
What you will notice from the videos is that the JP20 has much better bottom end and high end definition as I have found with the guitar myself. Add a heavier set of strings (joe may have well changed thickness to accommodate for the increased tension due to the 25'5 scale) and turn up the bass and you wont have an Es-175 but you will have a very articulate focused sounding jazz box (which is better for chord melody as you need the notes to shine individually), that feels more comfortable.

The Gibson Es-175 sounds bass heavy, less articulate and is more uncomfortable than a JP-20, is the other way to have this discussion isn't it?

Im not trying to rip Gibson or praise Ibanez, I'm merely trying to point out how annoying this argument is. Gibson Es-175's are great guitars, the Ibanez JP-20 is a great guitar, it's just different in nearly all aspects and imo outperforms the Es-175 given its dimensions but I'm not comparing the sound I'm comparing the quality of tone.

[nopedals]

If you have ever tried adding a pickup to an acoustic guitar, you will notice that the spacing is tighter when you get closer to the butt end of the neck. Sometimes you will see dearmond pickups slid almost halfway down in order to fit. So my guess is that they moved the neck pickup a little closer to the bridge to get the optimum amount of pickup clearance.

At least some 1960s guilds (the CA-100 for sure) that had dearmonds were also moved the neck pickup a bit away from the butt end. The current quasi-copy (they put a non-carved top on it and call it a CA-150) does the same thing.

[vintagelove]

1) The Jp 20 has the extra two frets as someone already pointed out. This means it is further back than the D'aquisto.

2) This rubbish about pickup placement annoys me. You think these mass manufactures are there measuring where the pickup went for harmonics? Thats generous, especially as we know some of the most basic procedures by said companies are even undertaken.

3) There is no special place for the pick up imo, a mm or cm here or there will make imo no audible difference at all, compared to say where you pick from

4) The Jp 20 has a 25'5 scale length as opposed to the Es-175 and the D'aquisto which changes the way you interact with the 16" body anyway. The perfect position is actually directly between the end of the fingerboard and the pickup which was probably the intention but who knows.

As for the guar sounding thin, me and Joe have been over this. It doesnt sound thin, it just sounds more focused. Add the 25'5 scale and you get tighter bass and more pleasing warmer highs (imo), compare that to an Es-175 where it is usually bass heavy, pretty mushy in the lows and shrill on the top and you have the problem I have below.

I have the same issue with Ibanez Artists. They are measurably a better made guitar than the Gibson les paul with nicer pickups (imo) yet go online and every one ses its not as good as a les paul, which fails to take into account what they wanted was actually half the guitar for twice the price.
Now if someone wanted a PRS or Suhr they would love the Ibanez because it would be half the price and pretty much have the same quality and sound but because people (kids and Gibson fanboys) want to compare it to a more often than not over weighted, poorly balanced tonally dull siding Les Paul, now the Artist isn't very good.

Same goes for the Jp-20. Why not compare it to a 125'5 scale 16" guitar and then compare its sound? No because people want to compare it to an Es-175 which is a totally different guitar. So now the Jp sounds thin, yeh compared to a usually bass happy Es-175 it does. Does that mean it is a thin sounding guitar? No!

Anyway hopefully the buyer I met through here will appreciate it when it arrives at some point today, my Jp 20 that is (or now his)

Ive never heard anyone say, or any 175 be "shrill on the top end".

[mr. beaumont]

The truth is, Joe just didnt have good tone.

I'd say Joe had an inconsistent tone throughout his career, ranging from perfect to barely listenable.

Joe's early 175 tones are gold standard. People here are looking for that tone constantly.

[lawson-stone]

My intention here wasn't to debate whether Joe Pass had great tone or not--I actually like his tone on almost any of his recordings. I like that he varied his tone and also accepted the realities of playing in the real world, and what those realities meant for guitar tone.

I also have no opinion on the JP20 guitar, never having played it, except that if Joe Pass had truly disliked it, I think he'd have found a way to ditch it rather than keep playing it for so long. I also have heard some very lovely playing on a JP20 and was a heartbeat away from buying one recently. I'm still doubtful if backing away was a good move.

I was really just more interested in the actual "historical" question of why the JP20 ended up with the pickup placed where it was. The only explanation I have heard has tended to be unkind statements about the Ibanez designers. So when I saw this video, realized Joe was playing his custom D'Aquisto, and saw the pickup placement, I thought I'd just share that observation here.

On a custom guitar made for an artist's endorsement, like the Ibanez, I assume that each feature usually involves some preference by the artist. So I doubt the pickup placement is whimsical. Likely there was some reason. Especially on a master luthier's custom build for an artist, I doubt seriously that J. D'Aquisto just slammed the pickup any old way. I imagine he had a reason. I just like rooting around to see if I can find out what the reason(s) might be.

No need to get all defensive about the JP20, Joe Pass' tone (good, bad, indifferent), or anything else. I just wanted to add to the ongoing discussion about this guitar by noting at least superficially that it looks a lot like the pickup placement on the D'Aquisto, of which the Ibanez, along with my Peerless Monarch, to be honest, was/is a copy.

So this is nothing anybody needs to get all prickly and defensive about. Just digging around for some facts to answer a simple question.

[Archie]

My intention here wasn't to debate whether Joe Pass had great tone or not--I actually like his tone on almost any of his recordings. I like that he varied his tone and also accepted the realities of playing in the real world, and what those realities meant for guitar tone.

I also have no opinion on the JP20 guitar, never having played it, except that if Joe Pass had truly disliked it, I think he'd have found a way to ditch it rather than keep playing it for so long. I also have heard some very lovely playing on a JP20 and was a heartbeat away from buying one recently. I'm still doubtful if backing away was a good move.

I was really just more interested in the actual "historical" question of why the JP20 ended up with the pickup placed where it was. The only explanation I have heard has tended to be unkind statements about the Ibanez designers. So when I saw this video, realized Joe was playing his custom D'Aquisto, and saw the pickup placement, I thought I'd just share that observation here.

On a custom guitar made for an artist's endorsement, like the Ibanez, I assume that each feature usually involves some preference by the artist. So I doubt the pickup placement is whimsical. Likely there was some reason. Especially on a master luthier's custom build for an artist, I doubt seriously that J. D'Aquisto just slammed the pickup any old way. I imagine he had a reason. I just like rooting around to see if I can find out what the reason(s) might be.

No need to get all defensive about the JP20, Joe Pass' tone (good, bad, indifferent), or anything else. I just wanted to add to the ongoing discussion about this guitar by noting at least superficially that it looks a lot like the pickup placement on the D'Aquisto, of which the Ibanez, along with my Peerless Monarch, to be honest, was/is a copy.

So this is nothing anybody needs to get all prickly and defensive about. Just digging around for some facts to answer a simple question.

Well let me apologise if I came off prickly. You have to understand we have done this topic to death but thats the nature of forums I suppose. I also did not think of you or your original comment as being what the base of my argument was about. It was merely a statement in amongst the discussing of the Jp-20 which I think is more than fair.

As to your direct question about pick up placement, I doubt there was any more to it than Ibanez copying the distance of the D'aquisto and then adding two extra frets. Perhaps a better question should be "why did they add two extra frets"?

:-)

[Archie]

I'd say Joe had an inconsistent tone throughout his career, ranging from perfect to barely listenable.

Joe's early 175 tones are gold standard. People here are looking for that tone constantly.

I agree but i cant help thinking, when Joe could control his tone (music videos, performances) the tone was generally bad. The only time it sounded awesome was in continental and that one Jack keeps playing from. It's my sneaking suspicion that joe actually didn't have great taste n tone but his engineers did ;-)

[Max405]

I think, in order to comment negatively about the JP-20, the person has to have OWNED one. Not just looked at it in pictures. Not just play it In a store for 20 minutes.

It is a remarkable guitar. Everything about the guitar is amazing. It's not like most other guitars, and that's a good thing!!
It's acoustic sound contradicts its size. It's amplified sound is amazingly unique, which is a good thing. It has the greatest sustain of any guitar I've ever owned. And it shouldn't be compared to a single pickup 175 or a 165. They are very different guitars. In some ways it's better and in some ways the 175/165 is better. Take your pick or own both..
It's the only guitar I know of that Joe Pass actually touched a part of. He signed his name on the label. He was a bit of a comedian when ever I heard him speak. I don't think anyone knows how he really felt about anything except maybe Ellen. Do you really think he would play a guitar for YEARS in front of millions of people that he wasn't comfortable with? Yeah ibanez paid him, but if he couldnt use the guitar at the level played, he would have told them to change it. And he never did.
There is something about picking a guitar string in between the neck and the neck pickup that makes this guitar sound like no other.
BOTH GREAT GUITARS. Although the 165 is purdier...

[Max405]

My intention here wasn't to debate whether Joe Pass had great tone or not--I actually like his tone on almost any of his recordings. I like that he varied his tone and also accepted the realities of playing in the real world, and what those realities meant for guitar tone.

I also have no opinion on the JP20 guitar, never having played it, except that if Joe Pass had truly disliked it, I think he'd have found a way to ditch it rather than keep playing it for so long. I also have heard some very lovely playing on a JP20 and was a heartbeat away from buying one recently. I'm still doubtful if backing away was a good move.

I was really just more interested in the actual "historical" question of why the JP20 ended up with the pickup placed where it was. The only explanation I have heard has tended to be unkind statements about the Ibanez designers. So when I saw this video, realized Joe was playing his custom D'Aquisto, and saw the pickup placement, I thought I'd just share that observation here.

On a custom guitar made for an artist's endorsement, like the Ibanez, I assume that each feature usually involves some preference by the artist. So I doubt the pickup placement is whimsical. Likely there was some reason. Especially on a master luthier's custom build for an artist, I doubt seriously that J. D'Aquisto just slammed the pickup any old way. I imagine he had a reason. I just like rooting around to see if I can find out what the reason(s) might be.

No need to get all defensive about the JP20, Joe Pass' tone (good, bad, indifferent), or anything else. I just wanted to add to the ongoing discussion about this guitar by noting at least superficially that it looks a lot like the pickup placement on the D'Aquisto, of which the Ibanez, along with my Peerless Monarch, to be honest, was/is a copy.

So this is nothing anybody needs to get all prickly and defensive about. Just digging around for some facts to answer a simple question.

And you did good Lawson. Nothing about what you write was negative or classless in any way. I didn't take it that way at all. JD

[mr. beaumont]

I agree but i cant help thinking, when Joe could control his tone (music videos, performances) the tone was generally bad. The only time it sounded awesome was in continental and that one Jack keeps playing from. It's my sneaking suspicion that joe actually didn't have great taste n tone but his engineers did ;-)

I think Joe sounds great in that clip with Ella.

I don't care for the video you posted on the JP-20, but it's not terrible.

Joe made a record with Andre Previn and Ray Brown, "After Hours." Pretty sure he used the Ibanez on that, and it sounds great--different than those old 175 records, much brighter, but not plinky.

Maybe somebody could corroborate--did joe plug straight into sound systems some times, as opposed to using an amp? I seem to remember a video where he's sound checking somewhere and he asks the sound man to put some reverb (with an accent on the second syllable) on his sound, but I can't find it now...that would seem to imply he was plugged into something direct, no? Or I suppose they could have had his amp mic'd up, and if he had that little polytone with him, it was reverbless...

Anyway, we're getting to far away from the intent of the OP, sorry for derailing further.