Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Posts 1 to 50 of 84
  1. #1

    User Info Menu

    I'm wondering what kind of guitar Joe Pass used on his Virtuoso albums...

    Sounds quite acoustic, I love that tone! Anybody know the type of guitar?


  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #2

    User Info Menu

    I'm not 100% sure but I think he might have used the guitar he had made by Jimmy D'Aquisto. I don't know the model but I've seen him in pictures with that instrument.

  4. #3

    User Info Menu

    I couldn't get the video before but I was just able to listen to it and I'm pretty sure that's a D'Aquisto he's playing. It's got miles and miles of great acoustic tone. I don't think he can get that kind of tone out of the ES 175. Why would he want to use an ES175 acoustically?

  5. #4

    User Info Menu

    His main "workhorse"was a cross section of Gibson ES-175 and according to Roy Rose (this months JJG mag) two D'Aquisto's one of which was acoustic the other with one pickup.Two signature Ibanezes;a signature Epiphone Emperor a couple of classicals a Martin 12- string,a Yamaha an Ovation and a battered old Gibson L-5.

    I would say its the acoustic D'Aquisto on the video.

  6. #5

    User Info Menu

    Just checked my old tape and "Round Midnight "and would say definitely sounds acoustic D'Aquisto New York.The image on Youtube is a Gibson Es175 with Florentine cutaway and zigzag tailpiece.

  7. #6

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by TruthHertz
    It was his es-175. An instrument he'd had many many years. It was quite a causual setting, a suggestion that he do some of the things he does when he's by himself. Nothing quite like that had been done so it wasn't the big iconic album it's come to be.
    I'd heard that there were actually other tracks of the recording that had mic'd the amp more, but somehow they were misplaced, and that's why the mic'ing is so acoustic. That's the way I remember the story anyway.

    Yes he had Jimmy D' build him a guitar, a big New Yorker but that 175 was his workhorse.
    David
    I heard the story from Bill Thrasher back around 1980, a friend of Joe's and the author of the Joe Pass Guitar Styles book. They intended to have two tracks, one of the guitar mic'd and one of the amp mic'd. The engineer screwed up and for all the tunes except Here's That Rainy Day he only recorded the mic on the guitar. Since they had a philosophy of only one take on each tune, they just went with it. That's why the tone is so thin and tinny on that album. Who would only mic a laminated es-175? The playing is great though.

    Listen to the tracks and compare Here's That Rainy Day to the rest of the tracks. You can hear a sample of each track at Amazon:

    Amazon.com: Virtuoso: Joe Pass: Music

  8. #7

    User Info Menu

    I hate to be a party pooper but his tone on those albums sounds exactly like a 175 played acoustically. That is, it's a pretty weak sound but better than a 335 or Strat played acoustically.

    By no stretch of the imagination does the acoustic sound of a 175 even remotely compare to a real acoustic archtop. The former will sound weak with no timbre compared to the latter which will have lots of volume and timbre.

  9. #8

    User Info Menu

    The story about the engineer either screwing up or a mechanical problem leading to the electric tracks being unused is always the story I've heard.

    I'm surprised folks like that tone on that record...most folks I know (myself included) aren't a fan...but then again, I think it's one of many bad tones Joe recorded with over the years...I've never heard another player who's "quality of playing" versus "quality of tone from recording" output is so imbalanced.

  10. #9

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
    The story about the engineer either screwing up or a mechanical problem leading to the electric tracks being unused is always the story I've heard.
    Yes. I managed a specialty record store (mostly classical and jazz) in the 70s and 80s and that story was what I heard from insiders at the time.
    Brad

  11. #10

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by mr. beaumont

    I've never heard another player who's "quality of playing" versus "quality of tone from recording" output is so imbalanced.
    I couldn't agree more. Joe is proof that tone is NOT in the fingers lol.

  12. #11

    User Info Menu

    pretty sure i remember reading that exact story in the actual album liner notes. joe's tones (amp on or not) isnt as nearly a pinnacle as his playing is. so weird to have such two extremes. im guessing it is a 50's 175 you are hearing, from back when they had a little bit of a acoustic sound. now they sound like laminate logs.

  13. #12

    User Info Menu

    I think it's a 175 played acoustically. To my ears the 175 has a distinctive "tubby" sound, with less sustain that many jazz guitars. I may be wrong, but that's what my ears are telling me :-)

  14. #13

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by mattymel
    im guessing it is a 50's 175 you are hearing, from back when they had a little bit of a acoustic sound. now they sound like laminate logs.
    It was a 1961 ES175D - he was shown with it at the cover of the orginal vinyl recording. It had the very slim 1961 neck which some players loved, others hated. Joe loved his and later had a dispute with Jimmy D'Aquisto about the neck of the instrument D'Aquisto made for him. Joe found the neck too thick, but D'Aquisto didn't agree and refused to shave it down. The 175 was given to Joe by a benefactor after Joe came out of Synanon. He used it for quite some years until he got the D'Aquisto and later the Ibanez signature guitar. In his last years he was seen with a new one-pickup 175 (with the PU closer to the neck than usual).

    BTW, I don't like very much the acoustic sound of his 175 on the Virtuoso record. It's because of Joe and not the guitar it's a great record anyway.
    Last edited by oldane; 08-11-2011 at 01:58 PM.

  15. #14

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by fep
    I heard the story from Bill Thrasher back around 1980, a friend of Joe's and the author of the Joe Pass Guitar Styles book. They intended to have two tracks, one of the guitar mic'd and one of the amp mic'd. The engineer screwed up and for all the tunes except Here's That Rainy Day he only recorded the mic on the guitar. Since they had a philosophy of only one take on each tune, they just went with it. That's why the tone is so thin and tinny on that album. Who would only mic a laminated es-175? The playing is great though.

    Listen to the tracks and compare Here's That Rainy Day to the rest of the tracks. You can hear a sample of each track at Amazon:

    Amazon.com: Virtuoso: Joe Pass: Music
    This is something like what I heard also, i.e. it is in fact an ES175 recorded just with a mic! I've also heard that Pass did not really like the tone on that album, but wasn't the sort to fuss very much about guitar tone anyway, so let it go.

  16. #15

    User Info Menu

    I stand corrected. I did like that album.

  17. #16

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by mattymel
    pretty sure i remember reading that exact story in the actual album liner notes.
    No, I thought that might have been it, too, but I pulled out the LP (that I've had since the 70s). It's not on there, but I know I heard about it back then. My best guess (it has been 40 years) is that the RCA sales rep (Pablo was distributed by them) who was a jazz buff told me. I'll have to give it a listen and compare it to the sound on "Porgy and Bess" that was definitely recorded acoustically and sounds more like a 175 than I remember VIrtuoso doing.
    Brad

  18. #17

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by brad4d8
    I'll have to give it a listen and compare it to the sound on "Porgy and Bess" that was definitely recorded acoustically and sounds more like a 175 than I remember Virtuoso doing.
    I just did a side by side comparison of Virtuoso and Porgy and Bess. The sound of the guitar, to my old ears, is the same. If the cover of Porgy is to be believed, it's the 175. Again, I'm working partly from memory as I have Porgy on CD and the pic is pretty small, but I remember the LP from the store and am pretty certain it's a 175. The sound I was remembering as different for pass was actully the sound of Peterson's clavichord. Regardless, good playing on both records.
    Brad

  19. #18

    User Info Menu

    ...and Herb, and Jim, and Pat and so many others I admire who played ES175's with such impact. Joe Pass' recordings, for whatever reasons, could never match the experience of sitting a few feet from him and watching, listening, and just letting the power of his music sink in. I was fortunate to enjoy that several times, and it was magical and inspirational. So of course, as soon as I could afford it I bought that guitar, and all these years later, that funky plywood jazz box continues to amaze me with its durability, weight, tone and ideal scale & proportions (for me). It's good for hours of comfortable playing daily, and bears sweat, weather, and all other casualties of playing music with grace and style.

    I have a few other guitars, don't we all? But this one is what got me started, as far as my adventures in the jazz go. If you can find a pre-60's model - times are tough, check the pawn shops - grab it, and enjoy!

  20. #19

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by JimBobWay
    ...and Herb, and Jim, and Pat and so many others I admire who played ES175's with such impact. Joe Pass' recordings, for whatever reasons, could never match the experience of sitting a few feet from him and watching, listening, and just letting the power of his music sink in. I was fortunate to enjoy that several times, and it was magical and inspirational. So of course, as soon as I could afford it I bought that guitar, and all these years later, that funky plywood jazz box continues to amaze me with its durability, weight, tone and ideal scale & proportions (for me). It's good for hours of comfortable playing daily, and bears sweat, weather, and all other casualties of playing music with grace and style.

    I have a few other guitars, don't we all? But this one is what got me started, as far as my adventures in the jazz go. If you can find a pre-60's model - times are tough, check the pawn shops - grab it, and enjoy!
    And I went and sold mine. There's another entry in my most stupidest decision book. It was one of the most comfortable guitars I owned. Then again, I let it go to protect it from the hurricanes I was going through in Florida. I couldn't take it with me during the evacuations and I couldn't bear seeing it under a collapsed roof.

  21. #20

    User Info Menu

    Just played my vynil copy of Virtuoso (1974, Pablo Records) and agree with those who state Joe Plays an ES 175D acoustically. However in "Here's that Rainy Day" it sounds to me like amplified and played at low volume. Did´t find in the liner notes by Benny Green any mention to how the guitar was recorded. The picture shows the fretboard, nut and part of the headstock, the upper part of the treble side with the toggle switch in the neck position and a HB pickup placed at the normal distance form the fretboard as in all 175s. Both the sound and picture tells me Joe played a Gibson ES 175D. The bright sound is typical Pass tone. IMHO.

  22. #21

    User Info Menu

    I was listening to Virtuoso I in the car on the way to work today; man, if I could get like five of those arrangements under my fingers and up to speed I would die with a smile on my face! I've always wondered about how that album was recorded. You can hear string and other extraneous noises on several of the tracks which leads me to conclude that his guitar was miked, not recorded direct or through an amp (except for "Here's That Rainy Day"). On the cover Joe is pictured with his 175, though in Virtuoso IV, which was recorded at the same sessions in Nov. 1973, there's a picture of Joe with what I think is a D'Aquisto. I think I remember an interview with Joe where he said that they simultaneously miked his guitar and also recorded his sound through an amp, but that they lost the amped tracks. I also heard a story that the amp in the studio broke or something like that. In any case, my question is, was it really his ES-175? It's just hard for me to imagine getting that acoustic sound out of that model guitar. Anyone know for sure?

    BTW I'm relatively knew to this forum, so my apologies if this topic has been thoroughly discussed in the past.
    Last edited by Ren; 10-27-2014 at 02:30 PM. Reason: Spelling

  23. #22

    User Info Menu

    The story behind Virtuoso 1 is something along the lines of, the guitar was meant to be mic'd and plugged in and the tones blended, but something went wrong in the process and for many of the cuts, only the mic'd tone remained.

    Judged by how awful that tone is, I'd say it's most definitely an unplugged 175.

  24. #23

    User Info Menu

    I never like the sound on those Virtuoso albums, great playing terrible sound.

    I saw Joe at the Lighthouse around that time and sounded so much nicer with his 175 and Polytone.

  25. #24

    User Info Menu

    FWIW I've heard a rumor that Virtuoso is actually an Ovation Acoustic!?!?!

  26. #25

    User Info Menu

    I love that album; when listening I can so easily forget about the lousy tone - which makes me wonder why so many of us spend so much time chasing the "ultimate tone"

  27. #26

    User Info Menu

    I never thought JP's tone on Virtuoso was all that bad, but maybe that's because I don't have any basis for comparison; all my jazz guitar CDs feature amplified guitar, except for Freddie Green with the Basie band. So I confess I'm not sure what a well-recorded acoustic archtop sounds like. Still, I don't buy the story that Joe recorded those tracks amplified but somehow the studio guys screwed up. So they record like ten tracks and then some knucklehead goes "Oh shit I had the amp channel muted the whole time!" More to the point, when I listen to those tracks, I hear Joe playing pretty aggressively, sounds like sometimes even overloading the board, the way you would play an un-amplified acoustic. By contrast, his playing on the sole amplified track "Here's That Rainy Day" has to my ears a softer touch, with less attack and dynamics. I dunno, what do you guys think?

    BTW I saw Joe three times in the late '80s, once with George Shearing, twice in a solo + local rhythm section setting. He was inspiring.

  28. #27

    User Info Menu

    You have to remember what a SOB Norman Granz was about recording...one take, get the album done in one session. He wasn't going to pop for studio time for a do over if one track on the tape--amped track--was bad. The V1 and V4 records on Pablo were from the same session. It was Joe's 175 un-ampped.
    Last edited by Greentone; 10-28-2014 at 07:39 AM.

  29. #28

    User Info Menu

    Couldn't they just re-amp the guitar track? Run the recorded miced guitar through a nice warm amp and record that.

  30. #29

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Encinitastubes
    Couldn't they just re-amp the guitar track? Run the recorded miced guitar through a nice warm amp and record that.
    Yes, but it would be the acoustic track so it iffy how good it would sound reamped.

  31. #30

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by newsense
    I love that album; when listening I can so easily forget about the lousy tone - which makes me wonder why so many of us spend so much time chasing the "ultimate tone"
    see, for me it is opposite. I find the sound on that record so incredibly bad that I cannot enjoy the music despite the fantastic playing and I always find myself turning it off after thwo minutes. It is real pitty - a reamped version would be fantastic of course.

  32. #31

    User Info Menu

    Joe Pass -fantastic player. He recorded so many Cds.
    Some of them sounds completly different that is good.

  33. #32

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Encinitastubes
    Couldn't they just re-amp the guitar track? Run the recorded miced guitar through a nice warm amp and record that.
    Oh man, someone needs to do that pronto. Great idea.

  34. #33

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Ren
    More to the point, when I listen to those tracks, I hear Joe playing pretty aggressively, sounds like sometimes even overloading the board, the way you would play an un-amplified acoustic. By contrast, his playing on the sole amplified track "Here's That Rainy Day" has to my ears a softer touch, with less attack and dynamics. I dunno, what do you guys think?
    I'm pretty sure the story about losing the amplified tracks is true. Rainy Day was one of the few amplified tracks that survived.

    Consider the possibility that you're onto something, and playing with a very aggressive attack is what Pass is always doing, even amplified. I think the super soft Jim Hall approach to playing electric archtop is a relatively recent development. Martino and Benson both hit the guitar really hard, too.

  35. #34

    User Info Menu

    Here's a quote from the Producer's Notes from Virtuoso No. 4 (right next to a picture of Joe playing what looks like a D'Aquisto):

    "At the same sessions from which came Virtuoso No. 1, he also recorded several numbers which were never subsequently released. This new double album contains the cream of that unreleased material; unlike the other Virtuoso albums, its outstanding feature is that Pass plays acoustic guitar only-another rarity in jazz."

    Well, I suppose that this could be Norman Granz cleverly spinning the loss of the amplified tracks. And the picture of Joe with the D'Aquisto need not have come from the '73 sessions. Still, there's something mysterious to me about this story. Would it have been standard practice in 1973 to record a guitar like an ES-175 by simultaneously miking it and also running it through an amp?
    Last edited by Ren; 10-28-2014 at 03:48 PM. Reason: Spelling

  36. #35

    User Info Menu

    The playing on Virtuoso is so jaw-droopingly good I never gave the tone a second thought. When I mentally compare it to the sound of the 70s McLaughlin-Di Meola-De Lucia trio with those quaking, awful-sounding Ovations, Joe's tone on Virtuoso seems quite acceptable.

  37. #36

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Ren
    Still, there's something mysterious to me about this story. Would it have been standard practice in 1973 to record a guitar like an ES-175 by simultaneously miking it and also running it through an amp?
    That's back when I was working in the studios and was it done back then, yes. Was it common no. My experience was using it with rock with amps really being over driven so have the DI track to mix in to get some note definition helped.

    I didn't work on any Jazz sessions back then and the ones I hung out at didn't have a guitar player. If me would not of put a DI on Joe Pass unless there was something wrong with the amp. Then must of had the amp boxed in with gobo's because you'd think some of the amp sound would of at least bled into the acoustic mic???

  38. #37

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Ren
    Here's a quote from the Producer's Notes from Virtuoso No. 4 (right next to a picture of Joe playing what looks like a D'Aquisto):

    "At the same sessions from which came Virtuoso No. 1, he also recorded several numbers which were never subsequently released. This new double album contains the cream of that unreleased material; unlike the other Virtuoso albums, its outstanding feature is that Pass plays acoustic guitar only-another rarity in jazz."

    Well, I suppose that this could be Norman Granz cleverly spinning the loss of the amplified tracks. And the picture of Joe with the D'Aquisto need not have come from the '73 sessions. Still, there's something mysterious to me about this story. Would it have been standard practice in 1973 to record a guitar like an ES-175 by simultaneously miking it and also running it through an amp?
    Yeah, that photo was probably Joe's current axe at the time the record was released. That happened on the first Jim Hall Live! album with Don Thompson and Terry Clark- Jim played his ES-175 according the the very few photos of those gigs (although it was something like a two week run, so maybe Jim used more than one guitar; I remember reading that when he got the D'Aquisto he still gigged on the ES-175 until he felt he'd gotten used to the D'Aquisto).

    I don't know why anyone would bother to mic an ES-175 in the first place. Good that they did or those albums wouldn't exist at all.

  39. #38

    User Info Menu

    Back in the day, producers and engineers had no idea that an ES-175 was a laminated guitar and a L-5 was a solid-wood, carved guitar. To people accustomed to working principally with horn and piano players in jazz, it was just some guitars--electric and otherwise. Moreover, engineers absolutely hated electric, amped guitars. Honestly, my guess is that the studio where Norman Granz had Pass recording the session in '73 probably had a mic in one channel and Pass through a DI box straight into the board in the other channel.

    Have you ever recorded a 175 into the board? They actually sound great that way. No amp needed. Just add effects in the studio. Hmm? 1973...probably some plate reverb.

    For whatever reason--my guess is a doinky preamp tube in the DI channel, causing an unacceptable hum or dropout for most of the songs--the channel most of us would have preferred was lost. Both channels mixed together would have been a treat for a record done at that time. Pointing a mic right at, say, the 12th fret of Pass' guitar and getting some of the ambient guitar sound, along with the sound of Pass' PAF neck pickup, would have been just super.

    Still, given Granz's philosophy of jazz records, the main thing would have been "get 'er done." [for a good read, see _Norman Granz: the Man Who Used Jazz for Justice_ by Ted Hershorn]
    Last edited by Greentone; 10-29-2014 at 10:11 AM.

  40. #39

    User Info Menu

    I see, so maybe there was no amp involved, just a direct feed to the board, and that track was somehow compromised. That really makes sense to me, because it sounds to me that Joe was playing acoustically, moving as much air as possible, as opposed to hearing himself playing through an amp. According to info on this forum, Joe got his D'Aquisto around 1970; any idea why he would opt for the 175 for those sessions, especially if his intention was to play acoustically?

    Thanks everyone for all these insightful comments!

  41. #40

    User Info Menu

    I dunno, sounds apocryphal to me. I admit I don't know everything about Granz, but he recorded prolifically with all kinds of musicians, including many guitarists--many Kenny Burrell recordings for Verve from the 60's for instance. The idea that A) some studio mistake was responsible for a unique sound and B) no one would notice this while the recording was taking place seems incredible. No one in the control room? No one listening to master tapes during the recording process? Not to mention, how hard would it be to ask Joe to do it again, this time with the amplified input "on"? I mean, he was a true virtuoso, there weren't going to be any bad takes with Joe.

    My guess is Joe insisted on using an unamplified guitar with minimal processing, and he and the producer wanted that sound as a counterpoint to the highly amplified stuff that was coming out in the 70's--Mahavishnu Orchestra, Al Dimeola, etc. Re' guitars, why the 175 when he could have access to a slew of quality acoustic archtops, including D'Aquisto? I think I have read somewhere he even used a flattop, a 12-string and a nylon string on these recordings.

    I would love to know the inside story of how it was recorded--this is sort of the Kind of Blue of solo jazz guitar. There's quite a biography of Joe waiting to be written.

  42. #41

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Doctor Jeff
    I dunno, sounds apocryphal to me. I admit I don't know everything about Granz, but he recorded prolifically with all kinds of musicians, including many guitarists--many Kenny Burrell recordings for Verve from the 60's for instance. The idea that A) some studio mistake was responsible for a unique sound and B) no one would notice this while the recording was taking place seems incredible. No one in the control room? No one listening to master tapes during the recording process? Not to mention, how hard would it be to ask Joe to do it again, this time with the amplified input "on"? I mean, he was a true virtuoso, there weren't going to be any bad takes with Joe.

    My guess is Joe insisted on using an unamplified guitar with minimal processing, and he and the producer wanted that sound as a counterpoint to the highly amplified stuff that was coming out in the 70's--Mahavishnu Orchestra, Al Dimeola, etc. Re' guitars, why the 175 when he could have access to a slew of quality acoustic archtops, including D'Aquisto? I think I have read somewhere he even used a flattop, a 12-string and a nylon string on these recordings.

    I would love to know the inside story of how it was recorded--this is sort of the Kind of Blue of solo jazz guitar. There's quite a biography of Joe waiting to be written.
    Just to play devil advocate when Joe did acoustic recordings he brought is acoustic guitars. <off advocate now>

    I agree with what your saying and a bit hard to understand why they just didn't get another engineer and book another date. Also things happen in the studio and seen gear malfunctions that didn't get noticed till much later. For example Steely Dan's I think it was the Gaucho album. They were always using cutting edge gear and DBX was the hot noise reduction at the time. The mixed the entire album on same two channels of DBX and mixed Steely Dan in the analog days was a nightmare process. They go to master the album and it sounds like crap. Ends up the two channels of DBX were screwed up and the DBX wouldn't decode it right. Ends up the two they mixed on the encoding was bad. They got a hold of DBX who brought in hundreds of channel of DBX to see if any would decode first ones and no luck. The had the budget so they remixed the entire album.

  43. #42

    User Info Menu

    Maybe they set up, had Joe play for a couple hours, then noticed that, uh oh, the board messed up the DI or amp recording. Then they listened back and thought, hey that doesn't sound so bad at all. In fact, it's kind of cool!

    And kept it?

    Or maybe they were setting up and the equipment malfunctioned, and they started talking about changing dates and Joe said, "Ef it, let's just do this," and started spinning gold like Rumpelstilskin.

  44. #43

    User Info Menu

    I always thought the Virtuoso #1 album sounded great. I much preferred it to his "Blues for Fred" album where he played through an amp.

    But I haven't really listened to it carefully for about three years - I just listened to a couple tracks using a lossless file, good headphones, headphone amp and DAC, and I still think it sounds pretty darn good. Perhaps a bit thin on the top strings (but I almost always think that anyway...probably why I always go up a gauge for my B and E), and perhaps slightly unbalanced with the bass strings being a bit overpowering at times, but overall I think the tone is great.

    Kind of shocked to hear some people find the tone unappealing, actually, but to each their own.

  45. #44

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by coolvinny
    I always thought the Virtuoso #1 album sounded great. I much preferred it to his "Blues for Fred" album where he played through an amp.

    But I haven't really listened to it carefully for about three years - I just listened to a couple tracks using a lossless file, good headphones, headphone amp and DAC, and I still think it sounds pretty darn good. Perhaps a bit thin on the top strings (but I almost always think that anyway...probably why I always go up a gauge for my B and E), and perhaps slightly unbalanced with the bass strings being a bit overpowering at times, but overall I think the tone is great.

    Kind of shocked to hear some people find the tone unappealing, actually, but to each their own.
    and this is why we all like different amps, different guitars and different strings, what we define as good tone is soooo subjective, it's even difficult to agree on what defines bad tone (for the most part). Case in point, I respect coolvinny's opinion, however I listen to Blues for Fred often and I like Joe's tone on that recording . . . just my opinion.

  46. #45

    User Info Menu

    I just listened to it today and still can't quite figure it out. I'm not convinced it's a 175 played acoustically, but who knows? I agree with those who like the recording and like the tone. It's a refreshing counterpoint to all the tonal mush that some artists put out.

    I have heard that Steely Dan story as well. I won't discount the small possibility of a major recording mistake, especially in the old RTR days. I think we all would like to think of Joe and Norman Granz listening to the tapes and saying, screw it, the playing's great, let's put it out.

  47. #46

    User Info Menu

    It sounds like a 175 with heavy flatwound strings (13s or 14s) and a medium pick to me. There's very little resonance, everything is kind of plunky.

    He just plays his ass off, so I honestly don't care that much about the tone.

  48. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by Doctor Jeff
    I agree with those who like the recording and like the tone. It's a refreshing counterpoint to all the tonal mush that some artists put out.
    I often find Joe's tone on some of his recordings just baffling, but I think one common denominator is that what he's actually playing is usually easily discernible. I've heard other guys who have great tone, but they lose something when the chord texture is too low/dense and can't actually hear what they're playing all that well.

  49. #48

    User Info Menu

    So this is what I know. Jim Hall has 4 guitars during his lifetime. ES 175, Les Paul, D'Aquisto and a Sadowsky. Mike Stern said Jim played a guitar till it feel apart. On the flip side was Joe Pass. Joe had endorsement deals with Aria and Ibanez. So Joe could have been playing anything. An ES 175 maybe but more than likely it was his Aria or Ibanez JP 20. Joe played what he needed to play based on who was there. But the rumor was he actually liked the Aria. On a side note Aria made a Herb Ellis as well. Not a lawsuits guitar but actual endorsed guitars.

  50. #49

    User Info Menu

    there was no ibanez or aria when Virtuoso 1 was recorded. i thought the acoustic tracks were on an epiphone deluxe.

  51. #50

    User Info Menu

    The more I listen to and appreciate the album, the less I 'm bothered by the weird tone. It just sounds great.

    The best recorded Joe Pass tone I've heard is on the album Intercontinental for the German MPS label. I love that album so much I shelled out for an expensive import rematered CD to replace the scratchy old LP copy I had. Fantastic album.