Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Posts 251 to 300 of 300
  1. #251

    User Info Menu

    I saw Tommy Emmanuelle fall off the stage once he was so drunk. He used to play in Australia with a band called Dragon. The singer Mark Hunter and Tommy were totally wasted. I think they were leaning on each other cause both were struggling to stand. It was one of the best concerts I have been to, the party atmosphere was crazy, I can still remember it 30 years later.

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #252

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by aboutIt
    Music itself is an intoxicant of the senses.
    This statement jumps off this thread like a full-grown blue whale breaching the ocean on a calm day.

    Quote Originally Posted by aboutIt
    It is a pointless activity outside of that.
    …requires deep thought.
    I suspect otherwise.
    I'll get back to you on this sometime in the next couple of years.
    Last edited by Hammertone; 05-19-2016 at 04:16 AM.

  4. #253

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by drbhrb
    Funny, I've presented actual facts demonstrating that tons of great art has been made under the influence. You've just stuck your head in the sand so far. You either must be trolling or this is some powerfully willful ignorance
    Yeah you put Brian Wilson on the same level as Allan Poe (whose alcohol problem has been greatly exaggerated by self-indulgent people just like you, other than the fact that alcohol is much less dangerous than drugs) ... You mentioned about the only known exception, PKD, whose subject matter was altered states, rather what was behind them and in the end was methodically searching for God.

  5. #254

    User Info Menu

    A jazz guitarist would have to be eight miles high to pay what Gibson is asking for a Gibson guitar (sorry, couldn't resist). 😉

  6. #255

    User Info Menu

    If one compares the price of pot and the price of a new Gibson today and also looks at their respective prices in 1970, one could argue that they have both increased at the same rate.

  7. #256

    User Info Menu

    I love Gibson L P Guitars

    if you can make one ! Then you know what is the cost to you ??

    but the difference is ~~~" many people can have income " ??!!

  8. #257

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Stringswinger
    If one compares the price of pot and the price of a new Gibson today and also looks at their respective prices in 1970, one could argue that they have both increased at the same rate.
    Yeah, but while Gibson still produces tobacco burst finishes I have yet to see a cannabis burst. So by inference Gibsons aren't valued as high in some states, double entendre and all.

  9. #258

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by lammie200
    Yeah, but while Gibson still produces tobacco burst finishes I have yet to see a cannabis burst. So by inference Gibsons aren't valued as high in some states, double entendre and all.
    Sad to say, but I have seen a few Gibson bursts that looked as if the painter might have partaken in a bit too much cannabis.....

  10. #259

    User Info Menu


  11. #260

    User Info Menu

    The Reverb article on guitar economics is interesting, but does not factor in two things:

    A) The cost of raw materials used in high end guitars has gone up. This affects Gibson and Martin way more than Fender.

    B) The article compares MSRP. In the 50's and 60's, dealers could get MSRP, today only a fool pays MSRP for a new guitar.

  12. #261

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Stringswinger
    The Reverb article on guitar economics is interesting, but does not factor in two things:

    A) The cost of raw materials used in high end guitars has gone up. This affects Gibson and Martin way more than Fender.

    B) The article compares MSRP. In the 50's and 60's, dealers could get MSRP, today only a fool pays MSRP for a new guitar.
    I can't speak to MSRP, but although prices for raw materials have gone up, they probably haven't gone up enough to justify the price hikes. We'd need real data to prove this out.

    One of the better indicators would be the per unit profit for each model. Obviously speculation, but the gross margin on a '59 Historic LP or L-5, is probably much greater than in the 50s and 60s...perhaps even multiples. Especially since costs for innovation are probably low (been the same formula for decades).

    I bet Hammertone could give us a feel given his relationship with Hofner.

  13. #262

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Stringswinger
    If one compares the price of pot and the price of a new Gibson today and also looks at their respective prices in 1970, one could argue that they have both increased at the same rate.
    There's a joke in there somewhere about Gibsons costing so much because they are high end instruments. <-- high sign

  14. #263

    User Info Menu

    Guys, there is no way the increased cost of a Gibson today (about 50% more than cost of inflation) is due to materials and labor.

    In most businesses, production costs decrease over time as you create efficiencies throughout the production process. Look at the cost of a PC compared to 30 years ago!?!

    It is most definitely due to the prestige factor and collectors. It is what the market will bear, but let's set aside the increased costs argument--it just doesn't hold water.

  15. #264

    User Info Menu

    I bought a new SG Standard around 2004 for MAP which was around $1,200 back then. I just looked online and Guitar Center has 2016's for $1,199.

    Archtops have gone up quite a bit in that time.

  16. #265

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by MaxTwang
    I bought a new SG Standard around 2004 for MAP which was around $1,200 back then. I just looked online and Guitar Center has 2016's for $1,199.

    Archtops have gone up quite a bit in that time.
    Gibson probably has an economy of scale with SG's. Archtops are a small segment of the market and they probably require more labor to build in any case. Especially of the "carved" variety.

  17. #266

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Doctor Jeff
    Guys, there is no way the increased cost of a Gibson today (about 50% more than cost of inflation) is due to materials and labor.

    In most businesses, production costs decrease over time as you create efficiencies throughout the production process. Look at the cost of a PC compared to 30 years ago!?!

    It is most definitely due to the prestige factor and collectors. It is what the market will bear, but let's set aside the increased costs argument--it just doesn't hold water.
    This may be overly technical babble for a music forum, but here it goes...

    Honestly speaking, I think that we can blame some of these recent price increases on Quantitative Easing. Here in the USA the money supply has tripled, as the Fed continues to use novel approaches to monetary policy at the zero-bound (aka inflationary tools) to lift our economy out of the recent recession that was caused by the popping of the housing bubble. Astute financiers, business people and the garden-variety MBA in finance all understand that excessive money supply generates inflation. They realize that when there are 3x as many dollars in circulation today than there were a few years ago, that the value of the dollar isn't what it used to be. They respond by wanting more dollars than they used to want, because a dollar just isn't worth a dollar any more.

    The problem is that inflation doesn't effect all commodities at the same rate. Copernicus (the famous astronomer Copernicus) wrote about this back in the 1500s. He observed that different commodities have different time constants in responding to inflationary pressures, where some commodities changed prices very rapidly with respect to others. Some commodities respond so quickly that people suffer immediate price whiplash, while other commodities respond so slowly that the price pressures are difficult to perceive. Commodities that are quickly consumed tend to change prices the fastest.

    This shouldn't really surprise anyone -- we've all seen how food prices have inflated faster than our paychecks. In some respects I have to think that guitars, being partly a commodity that is based upon consumption of scarce/regulated resources, should have a fairly fast time constant. So there's at least a theoretical reason to explain the economics behind the price changes. Of course, there is a lot to be said about Gibson doubling the prices on instruments just because an MBA knows they can get away with doing it. They take whatever the market will bear. Good for them, bad for you and me.

  18. #267

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by MaxTwang
    I bought a new SG Standard around 2004 for MAP which was around $1,200 back then. I just looked online and Guitar Center has 2016's for $1,199.

    Archtops have gone up quite a bit in that time.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stringswinger
    Gibson probably has an economy of scale with SG's. Archtops are a small segment of the market and they probably require more labor to build in any case. Especially of the "carved" variety.
    Demographics are changing. The baby boomers are seniors now. Some have the income and want for old timey guitars like archtops. I don't think that Gibson is blind to this.

  19. #268

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Stringswinger
    Gibson probably has an economy of scale with SG's. Archtops are a small segment of the market and they probably require more labor to build in any case. Especially of the "carved" variety.
    Quote Originally Posted by lammie200
    Demographics are changing. The baby boomers are seniors now. Some have the income and want for old timey guitars like archtops. I don't think that Gibson is blind to this.

    And:

    1) SG's did see a price increase, but the price has been lowered again. SG buyers must be inflexible on price.

    2) Gibson is facing competition from a glut of SG's on the used market.

  20. #269

    User Info Menu

    Too bad SG's are lousy for jazz! (Or are they? I have not owned an SG since 1980. Maybe an SG with TI flats through a good jazz amp would be OK?)

  21. #270

    User Info Menu

    I got an SG Std and actually play some jazzy riff on it more often than I do on my Les Paul Std mainly because of 2 reasons: its lighter and more comfortable: 6.9 pounds vs 10 and also bit less sustaining than the LP.

  22. #271

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by lammie200
    +1 on this. Those graphs are revealing.

    Again, to belabor the point, I don't think labor and raw material costs have gone up as much as some would claim, and these are generally offset by economies of scale and improved production techniques for the first and finding alternative materials for the second.

    And let's be honest, how much does a 1 oz fingerboard or a .05" slice of veneer contribute to the cost of a 175 for instance? Maple veneer??

  23. #272

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by BeBob
    This may be overly technical babble for a music forum, but here it goes...

    Honestly speaking, I think that we can blame some of these recent price increases on Quantitative Easing. Here in the USA the money supply has tripled, as the Fed continues to use novel approaches to monetary policy at the zero-bound (aka inflationary tools) to lift our economy out of the recent recession that was caused by the popping of the housing bubble. Astute financiers, business people and the garden-variety MBA in finance all understand that excessive money supply generates inflation. They realize that when there are 3x as many dollars in circulation today than there were a few years ago, that the value of the dollar isn't what it used to be. They respond by wanting more dollars than they used to want, because a dollar just isn't worth a dollar any more.

    The problem is that inflation doesn't effect all commodities at the same rate. Copernicus (the famous astronomer Copernicus) wrote about this back in the 1500s. He observed that different commodities have different time constants in responding to inflationary pressures, where some commodities changed prices very rapidly with respect to others. Some commodities respond so quickly that people suffer immediate price whiplash, while other commodities respond so slowly that the price pressures are difficult to perceive. Commodities that are quickly consumed tend to change prices the fastest.

    This shouldn't really surprise anyone -- we've all seen how food prices have inflated faster than our paychecks. In some respects I have to think that guitars, being partly a commodity that is based upon consumption of scarce/regulated resources, should have a fairly fast time constant. So there's at least a theoretical reason to explain the economics behind the price changes. Of course, there is a lot to be said about Gibson doubling the prices on instruments just because an MBA knows they can get away with doing it. They take whatever the market will bear. Good for them, bad for you and me.
    Trying to reflate at the zero interest rate bound though, many economists argue, is like pushing on a string.

    Also, there hasn't been a recovery in wages and in fact, wages have generally been stagnant for decades for most outside of the richest earners. That's well documented. This is the other side of food px > wages. Food, like many commodities, is also considered more short term in nature given give other immediate and exogenous factors (like weather for example). Look at oil for pete's sake...it cratered in 12 months and is taking out lots of companies.

    Look at Europe and Japan...negative interest rates and their economies are still not recovered (Japan about to go into technical recession again). China about to implode perhaps with so much bad debt.

    Point is, there are global factors that would argue against significant balancing reflation despite easy monetary policy...therefore, Gibson should mark down their L5s so we can all consume consume consume and help our GDP!!!!!!!!

    The Cost of a GibsonThe Cost of a GibsonThe Cost of a GibsonThe Cost of a GibsonThe Cost of a GibsonThe Cost of a Gibson

  24. #273

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by BeBob
    This may be overly technical babble for a music forum, but here it goes...

    Honestly speaking, I think that we can blame some of these recent price increases on Quantitative Easing. Here in the USA the money supply has tripled, as the Fed continues to use novel approaches to monetary policy at the zero-bound (aka inflationary tools) to lift our economy out of the recent recession that was caused by the popping of the housing bubble. Astute financiers, business people and the garden-variety MBA in finance all understand that excessive money supply generates inflation. They realize that when there are 3x as many dollars in circulation today than there were a few years ago, that the value of the dollar isn't what it used to be. They respond by wanting more dollars than they used to want, because a dollar just isn't worth a dollar any more.+
    Except that there is zero evidence of the money supply being too large, or of inflation occurring. The US is growing slowly, with stagnant wages and prices, and much of Europe and Asia are in near-depression conditions. There is a worldwide aggregate demand problem, not a money supply problem, and QE ended two years ago without having had all that much effect. What astute financiers and economists understand is that money supply is one of the forces that affects inflation under some but not all conditions, and that in depression and zero-bound interest conditions its effect is not very large. People who remonstrate otherwise (e.g., mainstream political demagogues and TV stock pickers) are not that astute and/or have agendas other than honest discourse. I realize that there's a trope among goldbugs and libertarians that the Fed has done crazy stuff to the money supply, but that's all nonsense. By the consensus view of how to measure it (M2) money supply has grown proportionately with the economy over the last many decades. Since 2001 M2 has grown a bit faster than GDP (roughly 2x vs 1.7x), but that doesn't support any of the hysteria among certain circles about the money supply tripling.

    Quote Originally Posted by BeBob
    The problem is that inflation doesn't effect all commodities at the same rate. Copernicus (the famous astronomer Copernicus) wrote about this back in the 1500s. He observed that different commodities have different time constants in responding to inflationary pressures, where some commodities changed prices very rapidly with respect to others. Some commodities respond so quickly that people suffer immediate price whiplash, while other commodities respond so slowly that the price pressures are difficult to perceive. Commodities that are quickly consumed tend to change prices the fastest.
    Yes, the CPI and other measures of of inflation are aggregates that may mask details of trends within subsets. Some items' price trends fall above the line, some below. But inflation does not mean "some items' prices are increasing, even though others are not." it means "there's a general, sustained increase in prices across a broad spectrum of the economy." You can't argue that inflation is happening by looking only at the components of an index that are rising.

    Quote Originally Posted by BeBob
    This shouldn't really surprise anyone -- we've all seen how food prices have inflated faster than our paychecks.
    Over the last many years, no, we haven't all seen this because food prices have barely risen overall, and not everyone is in the same place on the wage vs price curves. Many people have experienced food insecurity though, but this speaks much more to the problem of economic inequality than it does to inflation.

    Quote Originally Posted by BeBob
    In some respects I have to think that guitars, being partly a commodity that is based upon consumption of scarce/regulated resources, should have a fairly fast time constant. So there's at least a theoretical reason to explain the economics behind the price changes. Of course, there is a lot to be said about Gibson doubling the prices on instruments just because an MBA knows they can get away with doing it. They take whatever the market will bear. Good for them, bad for you and me.
    I think it makes more sense to think of Gibson as a producer of luxury items than as a re-seller of commodities. To the extent that they use true commodities (e.g., non-scarce woods like maple, plastics, metals), price trends in the rest of the industry make it clear that these are not major drivers (good guitars made out of the same stuff keep getting cheaper except for a few producers). Scarcer materials like ebony, rosewood and gold that are increasing in price are a tiny component of the cost of a Gibson guitar. Gibson prices are driven mainly by there being demand to support them, and probably also by financial costs resulting from Gibson's poor credit rating and high debt loads (driven by Gibson's M&A activities).

    John

  25. #274

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by John A.
    ...
    I think it makes more sense to think of Gibson as a producer of luxury items than as a re-seller of commodities...Gibson prices are driven mainly by there being demand to support them, and probably also by financial costs resulting from Gibson's poor credit rating and high debt loads (driven by Gibson's M&A activities).
    I think that I read somewhere that Gibson is considering itself a producer of entertainment goods since they bought audio equipment manufacturer Onkyo. I guess that you could lump that into a luxury item classification. Also, like you said Gibson has some debt service issues. This has all the ear markings of a company losing focus and straying away from its core competencies.

  26. #275

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Stringswinger
    Too bad SG's are lousy for jazz! (Or are they? I have not owned an SG since 1980. Maybe an SG with TI flats through a good jazz amp would be OK?)
    check this out:


    https://www.jazzguitar.be/forum/guita...n-sg-jazz.html

  27. #276

    User Info Menu

    I wouldn't suggest that *all* commodity prices have to be increasing in order for inflation to be taking place. Some commodity prices are inherently deflationary, which spoils the concept that everything needs to be on the increase for inflation to be occurring in an economy. Tech is a good example. The cost of computing power has been falling for decades and will continue to fall, but the prices of many other things continue to rise. What is more likely is that some commodities are subject to inflationary pressures while others are subject to concomitant deflationary pressures. Mathematically speaking this is reflected as some commodities having time constants that are positive while others are negative. The idea is nothing new... Copernicus wrote about this in the 1500s.

    In many respects, we in the USA are now living through the deflationary period that invariably follows as the result of previous inflationary excess. Those who are inclined to inflate a stagnant economy, through the manipulation of monetary supply and credit, want to continue to use moderate inflationary pressure as a growth engine. Unfortunately inflation financed growth is a two edged sword -- it works for a while and then it comes back to bite you. Inflationary expenditures on expansion of manufacturing capacity often results in excessive manufacturing capacity, and deflationary pressure invariably results when the excess manufacturing capacity beings to exert it's own deflationary pressures. If one's view of the time constants is long enough, it becomes evident that inflationary growth is followed by deflationary contraction, and the net result is a zero sum game. Unfortunately those who manipulate these variables don't seem to be learning from the Japanese example of the 1970s. Japan was only able to export it's unemployment for so long; while it worked they had a booming economy followed by a real estate boom. When their economic model failed, they suffered a terrible recession, a real estate collapse, and prolonged zero bound currency manipulation. They're still trying to recover. The lesson from Japan was clear -- none of those methods are suitable long-term approaches. It's just too bad that the guys at the Fed thought they could repeat the same basic experiment and have it yield a totally different outcome.

    Of course, this is evolving into a bit of a thread hijack. Although I believe that there is some inflationary pressure in the Gibson market, I agree that most of the upward pricing pressure on Gibsons comes from those other forces that have already been mentioned.

  28. #277

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by boatheelmusic
    I stand corrected. SG's are great jazz guitars in the hands of a great jazz guitarist.

    Once again. Gibson's rule.

  29. #278

    User Info Menu

    The best jazz performances were played on borrowed guitars. If you want to be like Wes, borrow a guitar. There's no need to buy anything.

  30. #279

    User Info Menu

    Another borrowed guitar: Joe Pass, on the all-acoustic album Apassionato borrowed a vintage Epiphone from John Pisano that the latter's father apparently had played.

    And btw that is one super-hard swinging album that you don't hear much about.

  31. #280

    User Info Menu

    Joe Pass used that borrowed Epiphone Deluxe on Summer Nights as well. Another terrific album.

  32. #281

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Stringswinger
    Joe Pass used that borrowed Epiphone Deluxe on Summer Nights as well. Another terrific album.
    I think they were basically the same session, weren't they? Or close to it?

    Both of those albums are just spectacular, IMO.

  33. #282

    User Info Menu

    John Pisano told me the story about the borrowed Epi. Apparently Joe tried it in the studio and commandeered it.

    Both albums are superb. I think Summer Nights is in the top five best Joe Pass records along with For Django, Virtuoso, Intercontinental and Two for the road.
    Last edited by Stringswinger; 05-25-2016 at 09:09 PM.

  34. #283

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Stringswinger
    John Pisano told me the story about the borrowed Epi. Apparently Joe tried it in the studio and commandeered it.

    Both albums are superb. I think Summer Nights is in the top five best Joe Pass records along with For Django, Virtuoso, Intercontinental and Two for the road.
    It blows me away that some players can simply pick up a guitar they are not familiar with and say, "You know, I think I'll record an album with this.." The more I hear about this kind of stuff, the more I realize how mediocre I am. I could NEVER do that.
    In the early 80's I was recording an album with a band for the San Remo Festival and I brought my beloved D'Agostino D45 Copy. The engineer didn't like the sound of it for some stupid reason so he asked that I play his Martin that he had hanging in the studio. After 3 or 4 takes, I wanted to throw the real thing out the window. I ended up finishing off the recording with my D'Agostino. It sounded great.

  35. #284

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Stringswinger
    John Pisano told me the story about the borrowed Epi. Apparently Joe tried it in the studio and commandeered it.

    Both albums are superb. I think Summer Nights is in the top five best Joe Pass records along with For Django, Virtuoso, Intercontinental and Two for the road.
    Those are absolutely in the stratosphere of great Joe Pass albums. If I get to listening to the Summer Nights/Appassionato pair, I won't turn them off. "That's Earl Brother?" Who ever hears that song anymore.

    Joe Pass had a preternatural knowledge of tunes.

  36. #285

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by aboutIt
    Lawson and Stringswinger, thanks for the recs. I haven't heard those two but will check them out.
    You won't regret it, except for the fact that they will blow most stuff out of the water and you won't want to listen to anything else for days.

    Serious, hard-core, acoustic bebop-swing in an ensemble setting, balls-to-the-walls call the tunes and burn 'em style playing. Amazing stuff.

  37. #286

    User Info Menu

    I would agree and disagree on a few points with "The Cost of A Gibson" post. First off, although I haven't calculated the cost of a Gibson today v yesteryear I did do it for a Stratocaster. In '72 I purchased a new Strat for $275 w/case out the door from Sam Ash on 48th street. Sounds like a steal right? Not so.

    When I cross referenced minimum wages from '72 and the average minimum wage today that Strat should cost a bit over $1600 USD. One can purchase an American made strat for less than $1000 USD today, or at least the last time I looked. I won't be a high end strat but in '72 they didn't have as many options. If Gibson is the same….then I agree that they may not be overpriced. The Custom Shop Guitars? Well, that may be another story. LOL

    As far as Gibson being the best? I'm not sure. I haven't played enough new Gibson guitars to support or refute that but I will say that on any given day one can pick up a "foreign made" guitar and the craftsmanship, playability, sound etc. may be outstanding at a fraction of the cost.

    I have a Chinese made Gretsch Pro Jet (similar to a Duo Jet) that plays as well as any guitar I've ever owned and better than most. The action is super low, maybe too low, with no string buzz, no fret outs or dead spots, nada. It plays great. At 10lbs I don't like the weight but it makes a great sit down guitar. It's an older model with Mahogany sides and back, Maple top, rosewood FB and I can't find anything wrong at all with the construction. The pickups are terrible but if one slapped in a set of DeArmonds, Rickenbacker (no mods needed), or ?? you'd have a hell of a guitar and it cost $340 w/OHSC delivered to my door (used of course) but it probably didn't cost much more when it was new in 2009.

    Now, I also have American guitars which I have an attraction to as well. I believe the line has blurred between American v Foreign in terms of quality in many areas….then again…does anyone outshine the German's when it comes to engineering/tooling manufacturing?

    The reference to Sanders and cars I will disagree with. Not all Sanders, Trump or Clinton voters can put put into their separate pots as stereo types and I'll leave it at that. This is guitars not politics so I won't go there.

    Cars? Well that's an entirely different story. Many so-called "American Made" cars…..are not entirely American Made. In fact aren't many Godin guitars assembled in the US with parts imported from Canada? I read recently that one of the big 3, I believe Ford couldn't be called an American Made car, I forget which line/model, because more than 50% of the parts came from outside the US. Many so-called foreign cars are assembled in the US and so do provide far more jobs than those that are fully assembled and imported. That Foreign/Domestic line is blurred as well.

    Yes, I support "Made in America" but there are times when a foreign made guitar purchase makes sense. Who wants to take your American made arch top or even solid body guitar out on a humid 95 degree outdoor gig. Gibson overpriced? Maybe, maybe not…"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" as the saying goes.

    JMHO

  38. #287

    User Info Menu

    There is a price to pay for everything and it doesn't mean the same thing for everyone.
    For me, regarding guitars, it comes down to how much it costs to bring that perpetual smile on my face when playing it.
    Since last summer, every and I mean every single time I pickup my Tal, just playing the first notes brings an instant smile because it produces the jazz tone I learned to love and strive for.
    It was a revelation for me as yes I was craving for a Tal since the '90s, tried to tweak cheapos to get there without success.
    A Tal was and is still my dream guitar, I know few will believe GAS can be cured, but in my case I have no other archtop envy since last summer wifie is also happy
    The only thing that could still tease me a bit would be an early '60s Tal or better a late '40s 350; but I would never shed that kind of dough on a vintage instrument to play in my living room and I already got the next best thing...
    I love the specific assertive tone of a 25.5 scale laminated maple top Gibson and so far have not heard anything else close enough to it except maybe a Heritage H550.
    My Tal simply has the tone I strive for and the remarkable thing is, it seems not amp dependant as it also sounds great in a cheap Behringer mixer into a living room sound system...It sounds of course even better in my Princeton.
    Was it an expensive move ? as a Canadian it probably would mean it was, because our dollar was sucking big time and still does, so buying from an American was obviously not the best situation.
    However Tals are very scarce up here and rarely cheap and the price I got was very fair, but most important, that smile has not diminished since day 1. There is something in pleasing yourself with something and even better when that honeymoon phase still goes on; means it was definitely a good move.
    That for me justify the cost of a Gibson, it might not to someone else I agree.
    I could have bought an alternative import, set for something else but would still feel that crave in my guts every time a Tal is showing as FS or PSA here...Now it just reminds me how great an instrument I have in my hands and how much pleasure it provides.
    Buy and play what makes YOU happy, if it means spending a bit more for a tone, a name or whatever only you can judge that.
    Last edited by vinlander; 07-16-2016 at 09:59 AM. Reason: typos

  39. #288
    Don't forget that a $3000 guitar gets a really nice setup. The $300 doesn't. Give it the same care during the setup and blindfold yourself. You'll be surprised. Or course, then there are electronics...


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  40. #289

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Stringswinger
    That is a ridiculous conclusion. Perhaps a college level course in logic might be in order?
    I graduated from LaSalle College (now University), a small liberal arts school in Philadelphia in 1971. At that time, every incoming freshman took Logic in the first semester of freshman year as a required course.

  41. #290

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by jazz.fred
    I graduated from LaSalle College (now University), a small liberal arts school in Philadelphia in 1971. At that time, every incoming freshman took Logic in the first semester of freshman year as a required course.
    I took a logic course at NYU in 1975. It was a requirement of my first major (philosophy ). I quickly became disillusioned with that course of study and switched to Economics with a minor in music. The chairman of NYU's Economics department met with me and found my choice of music as a minor curious. He told me that he had never seen that combination before. I told him that music was my passion and that economics was simply to advance my marketability in the job seeking race. He seemed disappointed.
    Last edited by Stringswinger; 07-18-2016 at 06:08 PM.

  42. #291

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Stringswinger
    I took a logic course at NYU in 1975. It was a requirement of my first major (philosophy ). I quickly became disillusioned with that course of study and switched to Economics with a minor in music. The chairman of NYU's Economics department met with me and found my choice of music as a min or curious. He told me that he had never seen that combination before. I told him that music was my passion and that economics was simply to advance my marketability I'm the job seeking race. He seemed disappointed.
    Just imagine the look on his face if you'd have expressed an interest in becoming a jazz musician!

    edit - You were at NYU when I was slaving away at the naval base in Philly.

  43. #292

    User Info Menu

    I would never trash talk a Gibson guitar. The company has taken some marketing steps to try to lure in a younger demographic--with mixed success. (Think robot tuners. I honestly don't believe that the automatic tuners make the guitar play in tune better than I can make it play--auto-tuners have crummy success dropping sharp strings to pitch in a way that will _stay in tune_.) However, I suppose that for the _average_ player the tuners are better than the status quo. Nonetheless, they failed the market test.

    FWIW, Gibson has always built very good guitars overall, with some of their instruments being superb. Also, the value of a Gibson has been pretty good. You pay up front, but the guitar maintains its value, long term. Has anyone lost much if anything on a Les Paul, SG, 335, 175, L-5, etc., holding the guitar for a number of years before selling? I sold _all_ of my Gibsons for much more than I originally paid.

    I continue to prize Gibson guitars, but I also prize Heritage guitars, Guild guitars, Fender guitars, etc. Gibson is great, but it is _not_ the case that only a Gibson is good enough. (They are pretty darned good, though.)

  44. #293

    User Info Menu

    GT, true about the value of a Gibson, my 1968 Les Paul and 1979 ES175CC are both worth significantly more than what I paid for them new. Of course one may not want to wait 48 and 37 years respectively for an instrument to appreciate.

  45. #294

    User Info Menu

    This may not be the right place to add this post, but I have been struck by the notion of various posters who claim that the new Custom Shop Gibsons are not of good quality or not of the quality of yesteryear. I disagree. I have, within the past 12 months, purchased 3 brand new Gibson Custom Shop guitars (L5 CES blond within the past 3 weeks, an L5 Wes and a Tal Farlow). All of these instruments appear to have been impeccably and flawlessly finished. The two L5's are blond and sport highly flamed maple backs and sides, as does the sunburst Tal. When I compare my 25 year old L5 CES to the 3 week old model, aside from the fact that the older cousin is sunburst and has experienced some PUP spring issues that have been resolved, I see very little if any difference in craftsmanship, finish or playability. The older L5 may be a tad darker in tone, but that can be attributed in part to its age and perhaps the less tightly grained wood of the sunburst model. Other than that, there is no difference. I will not get into the discussion about aged wood, etc., as I do not consider myself an expert in that department. But as a player, I see no reason, other than perhaps cost, to avoid the new Custom Shop guitars.

    And to those who feel that luthier made guitars that follow in the tradition of the L5 are a better purchase ... each to his own. However, I own several costly, high end, custom arch tops made by well regarded luthiers that are a marvel to behold and play, but none of them, IMO, can provide the amplified tonality of the Gibson L5 CES or Wes models. It is my opinion that nothing can replace the real deal.

  46. #295

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by plectrum99x
    This may not be the right place to add this post, but I have been struck by the notion of various posters who claim that the new Custom Shop Gibsons are not of good quality or not of the quality of yesteryear. I disagree. I have, within the past 12 months, purchased 3 brand new Gibson Custom Shop guitars (L5 CES blond within the past 3 weeks, an L5 Wes and a Tal Farlow). All of these instruments appear to have been impeccably and flawlessly finished. The two L5's are blond and sport highly flamed maple backs and sides, as does the sunburst Tal. When I compare my 25 year old L5 CES to the 3 week old model, aside from the fact that the older cousin is sunburst and has experienced some PUP spring issues that have been resolved, I see very little if any difference in craftsmanship, finish or playability. The older L5 may be a tad darker in tone, but that can be attributed in part to its age and perhaps the less tightly grained wood of the sunburst model. Other than that, there is no difference. I will not get into the discussion about aged wood, etc., as I do not consider myself an expert in that department. But as a player, I see no reason, other than perhaps cost, to avoid the new Custom Shop guitars.

    And to those who feel that luthier made guitars that follow in the tradition of the L5 are a better purchase ... each to his own. However, I own several costly, high end, custom arch tops made by well regarded luthiers that are a marvel to behold and play, but none of them, IMO, can provide the amplified tonality of the Gibson L5 CES or Wes models. It is my opinion that nothing can replace the real deal.
    My L-5 and my ES-175's are still my favorite gigging guitars. I have yet to play any guitars other than my vintage D'Angelicos that I like as well. And I have played Benedettos, Buscarinos and many others.

  47. #296

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by plectrum99x
    This may not be the right place to add this post, but I have been struck by the notion of various posters who claim that the new Custom Shop Gibsons are not of good quality or not of the quality of yesteryear. I disagree. I have, within the past 12 months, purchased 3 brand new Gibson Custom Shop guitars (L5 CES blond within the past 3 weeks, an L5 Wes and a Tal Farlow). All of these instruments appear to have been impeccably and flawlessly finished. The two L5's are blond and sport highly flamed maple backs and sides, as does the sunburst Tal. When I compare my 25 year old L5 CES to the 3 week old model, aside from the fact that the older cousin is sunburst and has experienced some PUP spring issues that have been resolved, I see very little if any difference in craftsmanship, finish or playability. The older L5 may be a tad darker in tone, but that can be attributed in part to its age and perhaps the less tightly grained wood of the sunburst model. Other than that, there is no difference. I will not get into the discussion about aged wood, etc., as I do not consider myself an expert in that department. But as a player, I see no reason, other than perhaps cost, to avoid the new Custom Shop guitars.

    And to those who feel that luthier made guitars that follow in the tradition of the L5 are a better purchase ... each to his own. However, I own several costly, high end, custom arch tops made by well regarded luthiers that are a marvel to behold and play, but none of them, IMO, can provide the amplified tonality of the Gibson L5 CES or Wes models. It is my opinion that nothing can replace the real deal.
    I think Vinny has said that he thinks the Custom Shop is turning out the best Guitars he has seen in years.
    3 NEW High end Gibsons in 12 months? Wow! I plan on doing the same thing when I win the Powerball drawing. I am trying the "power of Positive thinking" approach..

    JD
    Quote Originally Posted by Stringswinger
    My L-5 and my ES-175's are still my favorite gigging guitars. I have yet to play any guitars other than my vintage D'Angelicos that I like as well. And I have played Benedettos, Buscarinos and many others.
    SS, they do invoke a sense of confidence where it matters most, don't they?
    I gotta get me another 175. It never ends..

  48. #297

    User Info Menu

    "3 NEW High end Gibsons in 12 months? Wow! I plan on doing the same thing when I win the Powerball drawing. I am trying the "power of Positive thinking" approach."

    Hi,
    Yes, I got a little carried away, but they were brand new with warranty and offered at really good prices ... I could not resist. Last week I bought what I think is my last guitar purchase, a Collings Eastside LC Deluxe (bought one a few months ago that I did not like and returned it. But there was so much good hype in re this guitar that I decided to try again from a different reseller, this time with a maple neck and ebony fingerboard as opposed to mahogany and rosewood. Not sure if the last git was a bad build, but this one is wonderful).

    And now, there is no more room at the inn for guitar cases and the play rotation is becoming a tad confusing. Since I cannot think of anything else that would interest me, I think that the GAS is finally over ... I hope.

  49. #298

    User Info Menu

    plectrum99x,

    I think you are right on the money about the recent quality of Gibson's Custom Shop Guitars. The one's I've examined have been excellent--in direct comparison to a very large number of Gibsons that I have played, owned, or long-term evaluated through the years. Gibson seems to be "getting it right" currently with its archtops.

    Like you, I am currently topped up regarding guitars. Otherwise, I wouldn't hesitate to consider, say, a Gibson L-5CES, or perhaps a Tal Farlow. Great guitars. It's one of those periodic times when it's good to be an archtop guitar player, IMO.

  50. #299

    User Info Menu

    I remember walking through the Gibson Showcase store in Nashville a few years ago (before the great 100 year flood)and being shocked at the horrible fit, finish, and general lack of set-up and playability on many of their "Showcased" guitars. So Gibson quality is not always a given. It is, or at least has been at times, very hit or miss.

    Having said that, a good Gibson is a great guitar. I learned to play guitar on a Gibson Les Paul, and have just about always kept at least one Gibson around me ever since.

  51. #300

    User Info Menu

    The Crimson Custom shop is currently at the top of their game IMO. Memphis is still a roll of the dice but so far the 2016's seem to be a lot better QC wise there too.