-
Those of you know know me know that I'm mostly into floating pickups on acoustic archtops and earlier eras of electric jazz tones.
However, I really dig Anthony Wilson's Byrdland tone and it fits really well in the swinging style I tend to like. It's fat but really clear and articulate. There's no muddiness or thunk (two things I tend to dislike). The attack envelope of the notes seems really complex, you can hear an acoustic quality even through the amp.
Here are some examples of the sound.
The first clip is from a live performance. Go to 2:15 for the guitar solo.
This one is a studio recording.
So obviously this thread isn't about what gear Anthony is playing. He plays a Byrdland and some large BF Fender (super? twin?). I'm specifically looking for something that has at least a 24.75" scale length.
I had a 57 Byrdland for like 2 day and i had to return it because it had way too many issues for the price I paid. It had the tone. I also had a 1959 ES 350T for a few months and it also had the tone pretty much. However, I had trouble adjusting to the short scale length; it felt like a completely different instrument to me. I can see how the short scale might contribute to this sound: the reduced length produces lower tension (which adds warmth), but the scale length also puts the neck pickup position closer to the bridge (which adds brightness).
Anyway, I'm really curious what other guitars get this kind of sound. Sound clips are appreciated to demonstrate your point.
Obviously the ES-175 can get close to this, but the laminate top doesn't get the complexity of tone in the notes compared to this sound. There's also the L5CES, but with the deep body and longer scale, I think that might be a much bigger, fatter, boomier sound. I could be totally wrong. The Tal Farlow is basically a long scale, laminate Byrdland with a slightly deeper body. Seems like it would be close but with the laminate top it might also not have this kind of depth. The Johnny Smith/Le Grand has a carved top but the pickups seem to be much brighter and floating.
I'm going to ask for this thread that we we table the philosophical question about where tone comes from (it's in the fingers, it's in the mind). There are plenty of threads with that discussion. I have no problem getting a *good* tone or one that is pleasing to me. I'll go as far as saying that for my personal sound that I've developed over the years (acoustic archtop with a floater) I'm at a point where I OWN it. But I'm curious about a different sound than what I've worked on and am asking I'm asking for concrete input on my questions above. There are instrument-specific qualities that relate to Anthony's sound in the first two clips, and I'm hoping for input from people who have experience with a variety of archtops to help share their experience.
I'm happy to be schooled on this subject. I tend to prefer jazz styles antecedent to the 1960s (with some exceptions), so I've only really explored earlier jazz archtops and tend to be pretty ignorant here.Last edited by omphalopsychos; 09-15-2022 at 04:32 PM.
-
09-15-2022 12:14 PM
-
Anthony Wilson played a small concert in my hometown in 2018. He needed an amp so I gave him three choices: Acoustic Image SL-R with Raezers Edge 12 ER; Fender Blues Jr. (modified to 30W with upgraded electronics) with Cannibus Rex 12 " spkr; and a stock Fender Hot Rod Deluxe. To my surprise he chose the Hot Rod. He sounded absolutely great, very similar tone on Diana Krall's Paris recording. Although he played a Brydland on that album, he has since switched to a Monteleone Radio Flyer.
-
That tone is pretty phenomenal. I don't know myself, but following along here to learn
-
Hi, O,
Two comments: After returning to EG (1 1/2 years ago) after over 40 years and awakening my sleeping '66 ES125TC(an entry-level Gibson), I'm beginning to believe that a good Jazz sound is, largely, a factor of a player's skills in 1.) execution, 2.) ears, and 3.) amplifier build and settings. And, I believe it has a greater influence than most electric guitarists will admit. I have played professionally with many great guitarists in the past who played "off the shelf" base-model guitars(Fender/Gretsch/Epiphone) who had a great sound and, some, were easily comparable to those who played artist-model instruments.
Secondly, Diana Krall has been a true work in progress and over her 20-year career continues to get better with age. She is a great song stylist and Jazz pianist, however . . . how did she ever marry that fool from England who " sits on the Advisory Board of the board of directors of the Jazz Foundation of America??? You know . . . that spindly legged "guitarist??"**
Marinero
**
-
Thanks for the replies above. I'm familiar with Anthony's Monteleone. It's strong to say that it replaced the Byrdland. He still uses the Byrdland occasionally, he has a tele and a les paul he takes out at times, and he even uses an Eastman on tour sometimes. They all sound very different from one another. The Monteleone has a much brighter tone on stage than the Byrdland:
I'm going to ask for this thread that we we table the philosophical question about where tone comes from (it's in the fingers, it's in the mind). There are plenty of threads with that discussion. I have no problem getting a *good* tone or one that is pleasing to me. I'll go as far as saying that for my personal sound that I've developed over the years (acoustic archtop with a floater) I'm at a point where I OWN it. But I'm curious about a different sound than what I've worked on and am asking I'm asking for concrete input on my questions above. There are instrument-specific qualities that relate to Anthony's sound in the first two clips, and I'm hoping for input from people who have experience with a variety of archtops to help share their experience.
-
Don’t underestimate Elvis. He has a deep understanding of American music. Instead of his early stuff, try something that’s not forty years old.
-
I've listened to that record more times than I can count and it always sounds like what it is - a Gibson archtop, a PAF and a Twin Reverb. If you get those, you should get close to that tone.
As a side note, against all logic, I never found the Monteleone (with mics, most of the time) approach an improvement.
-
I have an early 60s L5C with floater —originally a Johnny Smith, but I replaced it with a floating CC (Pete Bitloft). What strikes me about this guitar is the nice sustain of the notes (more fuller sounding notes that don’t die off the vine right away), the appreciably decent acoustic sound it has, and the nice “Mixed acoustic-electric” sound it can convey. My teacher sold it to me in 2008, and he said, “if you ever sell this, you’re stupid”.
Not gonna sell it. Or the 175 I bought from youThose are the 6 string jazz boxes I’ll have for life. No need for anything else in the 6 string vein.
-
Omp the tone is right on! I too find it great, not thunk or muddy but cutting without being overly bright. It certainly does not sound like an es 175. I think a L5 could do this and I wonder how much is the amp, amp placement, and room. To my ears even the piano gives off a similar tone that is clear and crisp. Believe it or not the tone reminds me of my Barker 17 inch with a Dearmond 1100. I run it through a Claris R2 but one MAJOR DIFFERENCE..............I not Anthony Wilson and so I can say I can't get it so sound like that. The tone does give remind of it though even though they are miles apart as comparing guitars. Interesting my Barker has a 24 27/32 scale length.
It is so easy to say what his tone is not but to figure out? To me clearly it is his own fingers and his lines do not sound like some of the diarrhea of too much all at once. He is articulate and not just running changes. To me it is really the whole package. Guitar, amp, person, and venue with the acoustics. Give this guitar to me and maybe the tone would match for basic characteristics, but after that it would be all out the window. I could not pull off the "true sound." Pickups in the end make or break the sound. Just listening to Kenny Burrell playing this Super 400 or D'angelico. Listen to the cut from the video he did with Barney Kessell and Grant Green. Then listen to any of his classic recording he does with the Super 400. Vastly different sound but Kenny is still Kenny with his playing.
I recently put flatwounds on my Barker for a change and wow did that change the sound up. Because it is an acoustic archtop the difference in strings will be much great that anything built in when changing for roundwound to flatwound strings. It softens the tone up and makes it more thunk but not the thunk of a 175. My Gibson Legrand with the roundwounds on it now sound completely different than this Barker with the flatwounds. However putting roundwounds on the Barker the sound gets closer.
Instrument specific make me believe that my Super 400ces sounds vastly different through the claris than my D'angelico NY with a Dearmond 1100. I still sound like me but the difference is enough that it even changes the way I play. I remember Joe Pass used to say he would be lazy and practice without and amp on his acoustic D'aquisto. Then he would go to the gig and play his 175 and something different would come out. Joe knew the score.
Finally a Fender amp like a Twin Reverb will not pick up the differences of the instrument nearly as much as the Claris R2. That amp is specifically designed to use with a jazz guitar and pick up the differences in the guitar itself. So back to my comparison. Through a Fender Twin Reverb my D'angelico and Super 400 sound closer in terms of tone because of the amp. I have actually done this very experiment. I spent all day with a friend of mine who has numerous Fender Twins. I love a Fender twin but it does not differentiate between guitars like the Claris R2 or any amp I believe designed like that.
I hope this long answer made some sense because sound is like listening to God..........he speaks to everyone differently.
-
Originally Posted by stevo58
-
"I'm curious about a different sound than what I've worked on and am asking I'm asking for concrete input on my questions above. There are instrument-specific qualities that relate to Anthony's sound in the first two clips, and I'm hoping for input from people who have experience with a variety of archtops to help share their experience." Omphalopsychos
Hi, O,
I don't mean to negate the intent of your question, but I think it is a very difficult thing to generalize about any guitar's sound: specific or general since a player's skill/style has so much to do with their sound. Jim Hall, Pat Metheney, Joe Pass, Herb Ellis, and Steve Howe all played ES175's but, their sounds are very different and the sound one player gets out of an instrument may be impossible for another. So, what are you really asking? I think a reasonable person could distinguish the sounds between a semi-hollow and a full-size archtop but the lines can really blur depending on the player's skills and choice of amplification. What differences/sounds are you specifically talking about?
Marinero
-
Marinero, interesting points I'd love to engage with in a different thread. If you disagree with the premise of my post, please feel free to open up a discussion about it. I'm sure lots of people will want to engage, including me! Just not here since it makes this thread much harder for me to read.
Spook, I think what you're saying is in line with what I would have expected. I've played some CES before but the ones I tried felt overbuilt, the pickups too hot and muddy, and I kind of wrote them off. But from a construction perspective it's the same woods and configuration as a Byrdland, just different dimensions.
Mark, definitely surprised that you picked a guitar with a floating pickup as your closest comp. I've got an L7c waiting for a pickup (it has a McCarty which is cool but way too bright/thin). I was thinking of potentially getting an 1100 for it. I've tried it with my FHC and it sounds great but quite different from this. I'm also curious about your Le Grand. I never really looked at one before I've heard that the BJB is capable of some thicker tones, and I could maybe appreciate an overbuilt acoustic with a floater.
Another guitar that I was curious about was the L5CT. It literally is a 25.5" scale Byrdland. There are hardly any other differences. I've never played one though.
Again, for others if there are similar sounding setups that you've heard and you have sound clips, I'm really curious. This sound has been in my head for a while now and I'm able to get close to it with any of my guitars (mostly pre-60s, pre humbucker guitars) but only nailed it with a Byrdland, which was too uncomfortable. Like I said I have almost no experience with humbucker archtops other than some Eastmans I owned and some Gibsons (ES 175, ES 350T, Byrdland).
-
Do these clips match that sound you mention? They sound close to Wilson's sound in the "Live in Paris" records, to my ears.
-
Jorge, thank you for that! I was going to say P Bernstein gets a similar tone in the studio but I think his sound on the Zeidler has a lot more low end than Anthony's. In person Pete's sound is totally different from the studio because his archtop is so loud. Another P Bernstein sound that I thought is even closer to Anthony's is from back when he played a 175. Again it's similar to Anthony's but I think it's a bit brighter and doesn't have as much texture/complexity as Anthony's. Here's an example.
I had never heard of Sam Kirmayer, but man that is also a great tone! Do you know what guitar he recorded that on? I see clips of him with an Epiphone Triumph and with a Sadowsky Jim Hall.
The Daan Kleijn clip was much more acoustic, but also sounded great.
-
Glad, I could help!
I love those two first Bernstein recordings, really nice to hear how Mehldau sounded so young. I know at some point Peter switched from the 175 to an L5 (before the Zeidler) but not sure which he used on which record. I agree with everything you said about his sound, and while similar to Anthony's, it's not the same.
One thing worth mentioning about Anthony's sound is that, in those first clips you posted, he got, I imagine, stellar post production. The whole "Live in Paris" record sounds great and a Diana Krall record should gets lots of post-production attention. His other record is from Groove Note label, which is an audiophile small label, that gives extreme attention to sound (I think his "Jack of Hearts, same label, sound even better, on the archtop tunes). So, that's a factor too, if you hear "Anthony Wilson" (1997) and "Goat Hill Junket" his sound his a lot brighter and not as pleasent, which I asume is just the consequence of worse post-production, as it's on another label (as a side note, those two records are great to hear is small ensemble arranging skills, which runs in his blood of course - and the second one also features Mehldau, on his "LA phase").
Sam is using the Sadowsky on that record, but he sounds great on the Epiphone too
As I said before, I think the essence of that sound, which I also love, is just a good PAF archtop with a good Fender amp. It's a combination that doesn't work always (I think it works best when you have a solid archtop, but it's not an hard rule), but when it works it's great. It depends on the amp too, I guess - I don't have that much experience with Fender amps but the ones I played went all over the place, from bright, boomy and harsh to sweet and mellow.
-
It certainly is a wonderful sound, that great Gibson carved top with PAF style pickup sound. I used to get that sound right on with a late '60's L5CES. Still don't know why I let that one go.
Having said that, Diana Krall records are reference grade recordings for a reason. Her producer and recording engineers are literally the best of the best. I remember reading somewhere that her producer has a few classic vintage mikes that have been tweaked by one of the masters, that he brings to record her (and others), a U67 in her case IIRC.
What strikes me about this recording is the quality of the recording capture. Great sounding guitar player with a great guitar into a classic Fender amp- and then captured beautifully by someone who knows what they are doing.
When that's done right everything falls into place. I have a recording of myself into a Neve mike preamp recorded directly. I recorded a (Campy) carved arch top with a JS floater, and a laminate guitar with an Armstrong HB.
Damned if I can't now tell which track was which. They both have THE sound (if not the playing!) that you would want. Recording well makes up for a lot of deficiencies.
-
Originally Posted by jorgemg1984
The second one to me sounds closest, Bernstein's sound, which I love, is way darker, and the third is much more acoustic (I have that guitar).
I think the OP is really talking about the set in PAF pickup Gibson carved arch top sound.
-
Omph,
You want a carved Gibson archtop with a set in humbucker played through a Blackface Fender amp.
That is one of the classic Jazz guitar sounds and one of my favorites as well.
-
Originally Posted by jorgemg1984
Note that a good recording starts with a good sound source. Crap in = crap out
Then comes a good recording technique preferably with good equipment. Again crap in = crap out.
And before all there are the fingers that produce the sound and, as Andy Bartosh recently pointed out, a vision of a sound in your head that leads to the fingers producing that sound. Same formula applies.
Many factors involved. Do not try to fix it in the mix. You cannot polish a turd in mastering.
(Excuse my explicit language. No offense meant to anyone! I got those sayings when I was doing quite a lot of mixing and mastering in the fields of electronica and experimental hip-hop stuff in former years. I was often visiting the mastering forum of the platform that was still called gearslutz by then.)
EDIT: Note that there is a small diaphragm condenser mic pointing approximately at the base of the neck picking up the acoustic sound of the guitar.
EDIT 2: Note that the amp (therefore must be an open-back cabinet) is miked from front and back.
-
Originally Posted by jorgemg1984
A mobile phone has one mic only (although the sound quality of a modern phone is astonishing of course.)
-
Originally Posted by bluejaybill
-
Originally Posted by Bop Head
-
Originally Posted by Bop Head
-
First of all, thank you for pointing me in the direction of Anthony. Didn’t know him and am grateful for the shout-out. What a player and such tone.
What I’m hearing in the live Byrdland clip is a Gibson thinline where the guitar and the humbucker are nicely matched (older PAF’s could vary considerably). I would suggest trying out a Gibson Custom ES335 ‘50s reissue for three reasons. First, the Custombuckers in those really match the guitar very well and to my ears it’s very close to that clip. Gibson Custom is very much aware of what we like and don’t like in terms of PAF’s and they can deliver. Second, note that Anthony uses a tune-o-matic bridge instead of a wooden one. The 335 also has a tune-o-matic. Third, there’s real tone to the unwound strings. On too many guitars the plain strings produce a tiny, plinky, harsh tone with no woodiness to it. Not so on Anthony’s Byrdland and not so on my 335. The plain strings sound beautifully woody and have real tone to them.
The rest of Anthony’s magic is in his hands, how he frets a note, how he picks a note. Here’s a guy who totally knows how his guitar will respond and what he needs to do to coax the good stuff out of it. He will sound great with almost any guitar.
-
Byrdland and ES 335 are miles apart IMO. ES 335's are much closer to solid bodies.
Moffa Mithra
Today, 08:31 AM in For Sale