For Maj6 & #####
sheetsofsound
Please share your thoughts on mahogany vs maple back and sides on a
175.
Maj6th
the less lively.
Maj6th
"sheetsofsound" <jackz...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:26b12fd4-b2f0-41d9...@e7g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
sheetsofsound
> I think the denser the wood the livelier the sound and the softer the wood
> the less lively.
It's not as simple as that. The perception of liveliness / brightness
is effected by the tonal range of the guitar and the resonant peak of
the wood at those frequencies (typically under 4.5k hz)
So, as it turns out, maple makes a more bright sounding guitar than
ebony though it's less dense. This is because ebony moves the resonant
peaks in or above the top-end range of the guitar
Maj6th
If this is true, and I have no reason to believe it isn't, how does this
transfer to the pickup. I believe we are talking about amplified guitars,
at least I was. The properties of the wood in all surfaces of the guitar
has to vibrate and transfer up through the bridge and the saddles (nylon,
composite, brass,) react with the nut and the tailpiece and then be
transferred through the resistance of an electronic harness (even in an open
pot there is resistance) to an amplifier It seems to me that the wood plays
a very small part in an amplified guitar; yes, no?
Majth
Gerry
> It seems to me that the wood plays a very small part in an amplified
> guitar; yes, no?
Ah, that's the basis of the debate!
--
Dogmatism kills jazz. Iconoclasm kills rock. Rock dulls scissors.
Five Sharp
the all "mahogany" ES 175 (meaning mahogany back and sides, not the top of
course) sound somewhat "darker" or "warmer" than the maple bodied ones. That
does not mean they sound necessarily "better" (because that's taste), just a
little different. When I went shopping for mine there were a handful of 175s
in that particular store from the 80s and 90s. I soon found that the two
"best" sounding ones ("best" meaning I liked best) both had mahogany backs
and sides whereas the other ones - the maple ones - sounded somewhat
different (less dark). The oldest one (the 1982) stood out most and that's
the one I bought. Later I found it was also noticeably lighter in weight
than the 1993 175 of a student I had at the time. That guitar I know well
and does sound good too, just a tad different. Mind you, they both sound
like a 175. The differences are slight.
#####
"sheetsofsound" <jackz...@gmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:26b12fd4-b2f0-41d9...@e7g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
ScotGormley
wrote:
> Sure. I think I have said it said it several times here but I believe that
> the all "mahogany" ES 175 (meaning mahogany back and sides, not the top of
> course) sound somewhat "darker" or "warmer" than the maple bodied ones. That
> does not mean they sound necessarily "better" (because that's taste), just a
> little different. When I went shopping for mine there were a handful of 175s
> in that particular store from the 80s and 90s. I soon found that the two
> "best" sounding ones ("best" meaning I liked best) both had mahogany backs
> and sides whereas the other ones - the maple ones - sounded somewhat
> different (less dark). The oldest one (the 1982) stood out most and that's
> the one I bought. Later I found it was also noticeably lighter in weight
> than the 1993 175 of a student I had at the time. That guitar I know well
> and does sound good too, just a tad different. Mind you, they both sound
> like a 175. The differences are slight.
>
> #####
>
>
>
>
> > Dick,
>
> > Please share your thoughts on mahogany vs maple back and sides on a
>
> - Show quoted text -
I most definitely have found my mahogany 175 to be warmer and more
traditional sounding than the higher-maple-content versions. Any of
you folks ever had a Howard Roberts (custom--rosewood f'board or
artist ebony f'board)? Those guitars are all maple (I think the tops
are solid maple)--like a 175 with an oval hole and a floating
"superhumbucking" pickup. Very, very bright. I would up trading mine
for a Heritage eagle (all mahogany, including the top).
TFPainter
> Sure. I think I have said it said it several times here but I believe that
> the all "mahogany" ES 175 (meaning mahogany back and sides, not the top of
> course) sound somewhat "darker" or "warmer" than the maple bodied ones. That
> does not mean they sound necessarily "better" (because that's taste), just a
> little different. When I went shopping for mine there were a handful of 175s
> in that particular store from the 80s and 90s. I soon found that the two
> "best" sounding ones ("best" meaning I liked best) both had mahogany backs
> and sides whereas the other ones - the maple ones - sounded somewhat
> different (less dark). The oldest one (the 1982) stood out most and that's
> the one I bought. Later I found it was also noticeably lighter in weight
> than the 1993 175 of a student I had at the time. That guitar I know well
> and does sound good too, just a tad different. Mind you, they both sound
> like a 175. The differences are slight.
>
> #####
>
>
> > Dick,
>
> > Please share your thoughts on mahogany vs maple back and sides on a
> > 175.
Dick,
Is the inside of your 175 mahogany as well? Just curious...
Tom
sheetsofsound
> It seems to me that the wood plays
> a very small part in an amplified guitar; yes, no?
>
If that were true then a carbon fiber guitar would sound the same with
a pickup as a wooden guitar. It doesn't. A maple fingerboard strat
sounds drastically different from a rosewood fingerboard one. A maple
top Les Paul sounds very different from a mahogany top one. An L5
sounds different electrically than a strat even though they are the
same scale length, etc...
The guitar is not a synthesizer with the strings driving a pitch
conversion algorithm. The pickup reflects the tonal characteristics
and vibration of the instrument.
Phil
Disagree from experience -- I don't have any studies or physics to
back it up, but 30 years playing and listening to guitars tells me
otherwise.
Maj6th
First I want to state that my comments below do not apply to hand carved or
acoustic guitars.
This all started when I said that I had played a Gibson ES165 and in a
comparison to an Epiphone Zephyr they played similarly. The guitar specks
are the same. I also said that if the electronics, strings, and setup were
the same that you could blindfold a player and they wouldn't know which one
they were playing. I also said that in all probability a blindfolded person
would be hard pressed to tell the difference in sound between the two
guitars if they were set up the same; not a particularly radical premise.
I have been playing for about 55 years now. During that time I have played
and owned a lot of guitars and talked to a lot of luthiers and repair men.
You stated, "The pickup reflects the tonal characteristics and vibration of
the instrument." The guitar vibrates as a whole; this is what I've always
heard from luthiers and repairmen throughout my life, and I believe it to be
true. I also believe that all players believe "their" guitar "vibrates as a
whole" better than any other similar guitars; sort of a "my dog is meaner
than your dog" mentality.
If a guitar vibrates as a whole then everything must be taken in account not
just the wood. The weight and composition of all metal parts such as,
tuners, frets, tailpieces, bridges, truss rods, electronics, etc, in
addition to the metal there are the glues, the purfling, the binding, the
fret and head inlays, and it goes on and on. Add to this the fact that
suppliers are constantly being replaced (I'm sure the people who made the
laminate wood for Gibson in the fifties aren't the same ones who makes it
today) and the variables are overwhelming, add to this a player's touch, the
pickup variables, the way the guitar is set up, the settings and type of
amplifier, the weather; all of this is what make an amplified guitar sound
like it does. With all these variables, is seems somewhat absurd that if
you ask a player how they get their tone, they point to the guitar and say,
"the neck is Bango-Bongo wood."
Some guitars truths (subjective) I have discovered in my 55 years of playing
are:
1.. Every guitarist has a better "ear" than all other guitarists.
2.. Every guitarist's guitar vibrates better than all other similar
guitars.
3.. American guitars vibrate better than any other country's guitars.
4.. The more you pay for a guitar, the better it vibrates.
5.. There is a hierarchy of how well foreign guitars vibrate; Japanese
vibrate best, Koreans are next, Indonesians are under both, Chinese are at
the bottom, (none vibrate better than an American guitar.)
6.. The older a guitar, the better it vibrates.
7.. If you play the same guitar that a better player uses, you will play
better.
A friend of mine, Kirk Sands, who makes the Sands guitar, is fond of saying,
"the whole guitar mythology is silly, after all, a guitar is just a bunch of
sticks."
If this is true, then we are all spending our time trying to convince others
that we know which stick's vibrations dominate the tone and also that our
sticks vibrates better than everyone else's sticks.
Maj6th
335
> Sure. I think I have said it said it several times here but I believe that
> the all "mahogany" ES 175 (meaning mahogany back and sides, not the top of
> course) sound somewhat "darker" or "warmer" than the maple bodied ones. That
> does not mean they sound necessarily "better" (because that's taste), just a
> little different. When I went shopping for mine there were a handful of 175s
> in that particular store from the 80s and 90s. I soon found that the two
> "best" sounding ones ("best" meaning I liked best) both had mahogany backs
> and sides whereas the other ones - the maple ones - sounded somewhat
> different (less dark). The oldest one (the 1982) stood out most and that's
> the one I bought. Later I found it was also noticeably lighter in weight
> than the 1993 175 of a student I had at the time. That guitar I know well
> and does sound good too, just a tad different. Mind you, they both sound
> like a 175. The differences are slight.
>
> #####
>
>
>
>
> > Dick,
>
> > Please share your thoughts on mahogany vs maple back and sides on a
>
> - Show quoted text -
I've owned a few 175s over the years mostly from the 80s and 90s.. All
were maple. My current 175 is a mahogany back and sides (1984) and to
me it has a mellower warmer tone than any of the other maple 175s I
owned.
sheetsofsound
> If this is true, then we are all spending our time trying to convince others
> that we know which stick's vibrations dominate the tone and also that our
> sticks vibrates better than everyone else's sticks.
>
> Maj6th
then buy a les paul and be done with it.
Tim McNamara
"Maj6th" <Maj...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> "sheetsofsound" <jackz...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:177c837d-b642-4c94...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com
Sure the wood makes a difference in the amplified sound, otherwise all
guitars of similar design would sound the same and they don't. Even
with plank guitars (e.g., Teles, Strats, Les Pauls, etc.) there is
variation in tonal quality from one to the next within the same models.
The pickup is not static. The guitar string vibrates between the nut
and the bridge. The pickup reads this vibration, yes? If it stopped
there, that'd be the end of the story: the pickup would determine the
sound, modified by the volume and tone controls.
But the vibrating string also creates sympathetic vibration in the
guitar; we call this resonance. In an acoustic guitar, it causes the
body to vibrate which causes the air inside the body to vibrate. The
vibrations escape into the air through the sound hole so they can be
heard as notes. Solid body guitars, having greater mass, vibrate less
in amplitude and would have a higher resonant frequency (Bob Benedetto's
book notes that a top or back plate's resonant pitch drops as more wood
is removed- removing mass and thickness makes the wood more flexible).
The pickup, being attached to the guitar, is also vibrating
sympathetically. This vibration will reflect the natural resonance of
the guitar and is why- or at least part of why- some notes on a given
guitar may jump out loudly or sound dead. The interaction between the
vibrating string and the vibrating pickup will be different than that
between a vibrating string and a non-vibrating pickup (George Barnes
designed his Guild guitar with this in mind, and Allan Holdsworth's
DeLaps and Carvin Fatboy are also designed to isolate the pickup from
string vibration through the body. How well that actually works in
practice, I don't know).
I think that a pickup routed into an archtop will move differently than
a floating pickup will, accounting for some of those differences in
sound.
Maj6th
"Tim McNamara" <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote in message
news:timmcn-4DB2E2....@news-2.mpls.iphouse.net...
Thanks, this is a good logical explaination.
Maj6th
pmfan57
A strat even with full size humbuckers sounds very different than a
Les Paul. You can tell right away it's a strat. And it's not just
the wood, but the bolt on neck, and as Jack mentioned, the fingerboard
surface, make a big difference in sound as well.
Dan Adler
On the other hand, Mordy Ferber can make a strat sound like an archtop
and Steve Howe's 175 doesn't sound jazzy at all, and most people would
have a very hard time telling that Ed Bickert is not playing an
archtop.
sheetsofsound
don't agree with that. Ed Bickert's tone sounds nothing like an
archtop. Sounds great but compare it to grant green. No way...
tom walls
You're both right. I agree that Bickert doesn't sound like an archtop,
but I also agree that most people would have a very hard time telling
that he's not playing an archtop.
pmfan57
>
> - Show quoted text -
True that you can make various settings and adjust the way you play
such that solid bodies can sound more jazzy. But cranked up, a strat,
even with HBs, sounds very different from a Les Paul cranked up.
Which means the wood has a lot to do with the tone.
tom walls
>
> True that you can make various settings and adjust the way you play
> such that solid bodies can sound more jazzy. But cranked up, a strat,
> even with HBs, sounds very different from a Les Paul cranked up.
> Which means the wood has a lot to do with the tone.
I suspect that most luthiers would agree that it's as much magic as it
is science.
Derek
several solid bodied guitars of the same type side by side before thru
the same amp/settings.
Whether they were teles, strats, LPs, SGs or whatever. Each one had
its own subtle, or not so subtle differences.
These are supposed to be the "same" guitar, same woods/parts, etc.
However, they are not the same.
Everything seems to effect the tone. Some things like tone woods can
allow us to predict the outcome, but it truly seems to be that the sum
of these particular parts make as much difference than anything.
I am sure we all have had the experience of playing a higher end
archtop that was tonally dead. I certainly did a couple of years ago,
from a reputable builder.
All the "right" materials for that magic formula. The thing was
totally dead. Some of this is very predictable, but there are times
when it seems to defy the formulas.
Gerry
> don't agree with that. Ed Bickert's tone sounds nothing like an
> archtop. Sounds great but compare it to grant green. No way...
Absolutely. One can tell by the sustain alone.
Gerry
> You're both right. I agree that Bickert doesn't sound like an archtop,
> but I also agree that most people would have a very hard time telling
> that he's not playing an archtop.
I guess that's true. "Most people" might not even be able to identify
that he's playing a guitar. "Most people" believe the world has been
inhabited by aliens from another planet, I understand. Who knows WHAT
they're thinking?
Jeanmi
> On the other hand, Mordy Ferber can make a strat sound like an archtop
> and Steve Howe's 175 doesn't sound jazzy at all, and most people would
> have a very hard time telling that Ed Bickert is not playing an
> archtop.
>
> -Danhttp://danadler.com
As wonderful Ed Bickert's tone is, it's very clear it's not an
archtop: he has a typical solid-body sustain and sure makes a great
use of it.
335
agree. the first time I really listened carefullly to Ed was the
Mutual Street duo album with Rob McConell. There's no mistaking his
tone for an archtop on that album. Same for Pure Desmond...nice sound,
great playing...definitely not a hollowbody guitar though.
icarusi
news:e25a217b-e679-4bd2...@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> Whether they were teles, strats, LPs, SGs or whatever. Each one had
> its own subtle, or not so subtle differences.
>
> These are supposed to be the "same" guitar, same woods/parts, etc.
> However, they are not the same.
You're forgetting 'mojo'! It is surprising given the QC of modern guitars,
to make them exactly the same as far as possible, but they do often sound
and play differently to each other, but are identical in materials and
dimensions.
There used to be the mass=sustain and set-neck=sustain, when other well-made
joints and sympathetically resonant lighter woods would sustain equally well
to mass/set-neck.
icarusi
--
remove the 00 to reply
Dan Adler
> On Nov 17, 1:27 am, Dan Adler <d...@danadler.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 16, 11:26 pm, pmfan57 <jwrag...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 16, 7:43 am, sheetsofsound <jackzuc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 15, 11:07 pm, "Maj6th" <Maj...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > It seems to me that the wood plays
> > > > > a very small part in an amplified guitar; yes, no?
>
> > > > If that were true then a carbon fiber guitar would sound the same with
> > > > a pickup as a wooden guitar. It doesn't. A maple fingerboard strat
> > > > sounds drastically different from a rosewood fingerboard one. A maple
> > > > top Les Paul sounds very different from a mahogany top one. An L5
> > > > sounds different electrically than a strat even though they are the
> > > > same scale length, etc...
>
> > > > The guitar is not a synthesizer with the strings driving a pitch
> > > > conversion algorithm. The pickup reflects the tonal characteristics
> > > > and vibration of the instrument.
>
> > > A strat even with full size humbuckers sounds very different than a
> > > Les Paul. You can tell right away it's a strat. And it's not just
> > > the wood, but the bolt on neck, and as Jack mentioned, the fingerboard
> > > surface, make a big difference in sound as well.
>
> > On the other hand, Mordy Ferber can make a strat sound like an archtop
> > and Steve Howe's 175 doesn't sound jazzy at all, and most people would
> > have a very hard time telling that Ed Bickert is not playing an
> > archtop.
>
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> True that you can make various settings and adjust the way you play
> such that solid bodies can sound more jazzy. But cranked up, a strat,
> even with HBs, sounds very different from a Les Paul cranked up.
> Which means the wood has a lot to do with the tone.
Or the pickups...
Pat Metheny's 175 sounds about as different as possible on "Bright
Size Life", "80/81" and "Tales of the Hudson", and none of them sound
like Steve Howe :-)
pmfan57
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > True that you can make various settings and adjust the way you play
> > such that solid bodies can sound more jazzy. But cranked up, a strat,
> > even with HBs, sounds very different from a Les Paul cranked up.
> > Which means the wood has a lot to do with the tone.
>
> Or the pickups...
>
> Pat Metheny's 175 sounds about as different as possible on "Bright
> Size Life", "80/81" and "Tales of the Hudson", and none of them sound
> like Steve Howe :-)
>
> -Danhttp://danadler.com
Steve Howe utilized the bridge pickup and kept the treble up pretty
often.
hw
"sheetsofsound" <jackz...@gmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:86316188-aed9-43d3...@o23g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
grant green recorded some of his early stuff with a stratocaster and mostly
played an 330. his sound declined when he started using full body archtops
in the late 60s.
Dan Adler
> "sheetsofsound" <jackzuc...@gmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitragnews:86316188-aed9-43d3...@o23g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
There is a whole segment from a George Benson interview where he says
how the secret to Grant Green's sound was in his amp settings. He
never quite revealed what they were in the interview or what the big
deal about it was, but he said it was a revelation to him when Grant
showed him what he does to get his sound consistently live.
Five Sharp
> Dick, Is the inside of your 175 mahogany as well? Just curious...
Yes, it is Tom. It's all mahogany. I must own one of the earliest mahogany
ES 175s because most sources quote the year of introduction of the mahogany
back and sides on the ES 175 as 1983 (continuing up to 1990). My ES 175 is
from late 1982 though (314th day).
#####
sheetsofsound
Works for Wayne Krantz! ;)
Derek
>
> Works for Wayne Krantz! ;)
>
And Leni Stern.
Tim McNamara
<86316188-aed9-43d3...@o23g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,
sheetsofsound <jackz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> don't agree with that. Ed Bickert's tone sounds nothing like an
> archtop. Sounds great but compare it to grant green. No way...
Why would you pick Grant Green, who is mostly associated with
"semi-hollow" guitars (and those are functionally solid body
instruments), as a comparison with Ed Bickert? The only way to prove
this would be to have them swap setups and play, to be able to
differentiate between differences in right hand technique, voicings, etc.
I think this thread is mostly about splitting frog's hairs. Find the
instrument and amp that gives the tone *you* like and don't worry about
what category it falls into. What you play is what counts, not what you
play it on.
Greger Hoel
<tim...@bitstream.net>:
> Why would you pick Grant Green, who is mostly associated with
> "semi-hollow" guitars (and those are functionally solid body
> instruments), as a comparison with Ed Bickert?
Yet they don't sound like solidbodies. Anyhow, there was a thread here
fairly recently, where the consensus was that GG played a thin bodied
hollow. A semi without the center block, if you will.
> The only way to prove
> this would be to have them swap setups and play, to be able to
> differentiate between differences in right hand technique, voicings, etc.
No hollowbody sustains like a solidbody, so it shouldn't be too hard to
measure, if you focus on the sustain envelope.
> I think this thread is mostly about splitting frog's hairs. Find the
> instrument and amp that gives the tone *you* like and don't worry about
> what category it falls into. What you play is what counts, not what you
> play it on.
I think this thread is mostly about hearing what you already know. It's
the easiest thing in the world to tell an archtop from a solidbody, if you
know which is which beforehand. IIRC, Wamble, who's clearly put a lot of
work into his own tone concept, screwed up on a 'blindfold' listening test
where he couldn't identify Joe Pass playing a nylon string. Recently, some
other poster posted a thread here, where he asked if the soundbyte in his
link was a nylon string. Listening is a lot harder when you don't know
what to hear.
--
Always cross a vampire; never moon a werewolf
Jonathan (Cleve)
> Dick,
>
> Please share your thoughts on mahogany vs maple back and sides on a
> 175.
This may be a dumb question, but how can you tell if it's mahogany or
maple? Does a mahogany neck mean it's got mahogany back and sides?
Bg
> På Thu, 19 Nov 2009 00:21:17 +0100, skrev Tim McNamara
> <tim...@bitstream.net>:
>
> > Why would you pick Grant Green, who is mostly associated with
> > "semi-hollow" guitars (and those are functionally solid body
> > instruments), as a comparison with Ed Bickert?
>
it was a great sounding Epiphone HollowBody with a Gibson Pickup on
it.
Bg
Dan Adler
> On 2009-11-17 03:58:58 -0800, sheetsofsound <jackzuc...@gmail.com> said:
>
> > don't agree with that. Ed Bickert's tone sounds nothing like an
> > archtop. Sounds great but compare it to grant green. No way...
>
> Absolutely. One can tell by the sustain alone.
I was just comparing Ed's tone on "Garden Party" to Jim Hall on "Where
Would I Be" and "In Berlin" and they are remarkably similar (except
for low-volume comping of course). And I have another video clip of Ed
playing a 175 and I think you would have a very hard time telling if
you weren't looking. I don't know what any of this proves or
disproves...but at least we're talking about guitars :-)
Tim McNamara
"Greger Hoel" <gre...@blowme.com> wrote:
> P� Thu, 19 Nov 2009 00:21:17 +0100, skrev Tim McNamara
> <tim...@bitstream.net>:
>
> > Why would you pick Grant Green, who is mostly associated with
> > "semi-hollow" guitars (and those are functionally solid body
> > instruments), as a comparison with Ed Bickert?
>
> Yet they don't sound like solidbodies. Anyhow, there was a thread
> here fairly recently, where the consensus was that GG played a thin
> bodied hollow. A semi without the center block, if you will.
I missed that thread, not being a particular Grant Green fan I probably
skipped right over it.
> > The only way to prove this would be to have them swap setups and
> > play, to be able to differentiate between differences in right hand
> > technique, voicings, etc.
>
> No hollowbody sustains like a solidbody, so it shouldn't be too hard
> to measure, if you focus on the sustain envelope.
Unless your style is for short choppy chords, of course. Ed lets chords
ring out not infrequently, but that's his style (probably shaped by an
instrument that allows it). With a style like, say, Joe Pass's the
difference might be less pronounced.
> > I think this thread is mostly about splitting frog's hairs. Find
> > the instrument and amp that gives the tone *you* like and don't
> > worry about what category it falls into. What you play is what
> > counts, not what you play it on.
>
> I think this thread is mostly about hearing what you already know.
> It's the easiest thing in the world to tell an archtop from a
> solidbody, if you know which is which beforehand. IIRC, Wamble,
> who's clearly put a lot of work into his own tone concept, screwed
> up on a 'blindfold' listening test where he couldn't identify Joe
> Pass playing a nylon string. Recently, some other poster posted a
> thread here, where he asked if the soundbyte in his link was a nylon
> string. Listening is a lot harder when you don't know what to hear.
That part makes a lot of sense to me.
Bill C
> This may be a dumb question, but how can you tell if it's mahogany or
> maple? Does a mahogany neck mean it's got mahogany back and sides?
Most 175s have maple back and sides and mahogany neck. The wood on the
mahogany sides/back ones is clearly brown rather than sunburst or
natural maple (light yellow colour).
hw
"Bg" <ott...@hotmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:83193837-c905-4d5c...@b36g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 18, 3:55 pm, "Greger Hoel" <greg...@blowme.com> wrote:
>> P� Thu, 19 Nov 2009 00:21:17 +0100, skrev Tim McNamara
>> <tim...@bitstream.net>:
>>
>> > Why would you pick Grant Green, who is mostly associated with
>> > "semi-hollow" guitars (and those are functionally solid body
>> > instruments), as a comparison with Ed Bickert?
>>
> Grant Green only played that thinline early in his career, eventually
> it was a great sounding Epiphone HollowBody with a Gibson Pickup on
> it.
> Bg
when did he play the epi?
Bg
>
> > Grant Green only played that thinline early in his career, eventually
> > it was a great sounding Epiphone HollowBody with a Gibson Pickup on
> > it.
> > Bg
>
> when did he play the epi?
On "Idle Moments" for sure and gets that big sound on those Lary
Young /,Elvin Jones collaborations.
Bg
Bg
>
> On "Idle Moments" for sure and gets that big sound on those Lary
> Young /,Elvin Jones collaborations.
>
> Bg
He also uses the Epit for his trademark sound on this Vid.
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKW40qCeql8>
Bg
hw
"Bg" <ott...@hotmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:29ef2a2c-d369-4b31...@z3g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
that's his gibson L7. my guess is that he got the epi around 1969 or later.
he used the pickup of his L7 for it, too.
Bg
> "Bg" <ottg...@hotmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitragnews:29ef2a2c-d369-4b31...@z3g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
It seems I saw the Epi headstock inlay on that Video,But I haven't
looked at it recently.
Bg
hw
"Bg" <ott...@hotmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:d4f09ea7-3e71-415c...@h14g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
it's the epiphone on the video, but the L7 on those records you mention.
DougW
> I think this thread is mostly about hearing what you already know. It's
> the easiest thing in the world to tell an archtop from a solidbody, if you
> work into his own tone concept, screwed up on a 'blindfold' listening test
> where he couldn't identify Joe Pass playing a nylon string. Recently, some
> other poster posted a thread here, where he asked if the soundbyte in his
> link was a nylon string. Listening is a lot harder when you don't know
> what to hear.
Interesting. Here's the article. Funny how the interwebs work,
Gregor.
Doug Wamble's Comments: George Van Eps? I feel like I'm hearing a low
string in there—sounds like someone playing seven-string guitar. He
may have had his low string tuned down here, I don't know. The guitar
is recorded very beautifully, very natural. It doesn't have any
effects on it, just a mike in front of a nice archtop guitar. It's a
very intimate sound, and I love hearing the breathing while he plays.
From the early part of it, the melody definitely sounded like Van Eps
but now he's got some bebop kind of vibe going on. Whoever it is
definitely listened a lot to Joe Pass' Virtuoso. It has that lilt to
it and it's super-swinging while also being really nicely laid-back.
That whole approach to solo guitar playing is very Joe Pass. There's a
lot of ways to approach playing solo guitar, of course, but in a jazz
context a lot of guys will go for the real orchestrated, Johnny Smith
kind of thing, where it's a very codified arrangement, even all the
improvisation. But Joe Pass would just start playing and he'd change
keys in the middle of a track or whatever and just go for it. Whoever
it is has a lovely fingerstyle technique going on. I enjoyed that a
lot. Track 1 - After Joe Pass "I Can't Believe That You're in Love
With Me" from Unforgettable on Pablo. Pass, acoustic guitar. Recorded
in 1992. Doug Wamble's Comments: Well, there you go! He was definitely
coming out of Joe Pass [laughs]. This was a much fuller sound than he
got on Virtuoso. Yeah, this was a beautiful recording, and a great
song too. Joe Pass never played bad songs. Was Virtuoso an important
album for you as a developing player? Yeah! There were a few Joe Pass
records that I devoured, like the Ellington record he did with Ray
Brown and Mickey Roker [1980's All Too Soon: The Duke Ellington Album
on Pablo]. And also I Remember Charlie Parker [OJC, 1979] was another
great one I listened to a lot. But Virtuoso was a big one for me. One
of the first CDs that I had was a Count Basie small-group CD from the
'80s, and it had Freddie Green and Joe Pass. Back when I was in
college, there was a record store that would sell those Fantasy/OJC
CDs for $10, and I'd buy about five a week—about what I could afford.
All of my extra money went to buying those CDs, and I would get
anything with Joe Pass on it. He would show up on a variety of things—
the Basie record Mostly Blues...and Some Others [Pablo, 1983], which
also had Lockjaw Davis, Snooky Young and Freddie Green. They called it
a "septem" instead of a septet. And I remember Joe's sound really got
me. His sound was so beautiful, so clear and bell-like. It just had
this attack that I loved. And of course the records that he did with
Oscar Peterson were great. But another thing that compels me about
him, when you hear him play solo, is that his approach was so carried
over to the stuff he did with singers, like Ella Fitzgerald—those duo
records they did on Pablo are incredible. Joe was a consummate
accompanist. I loved his playing. I think all musicians become the
distilled essence of themselves as they get to be older, and it's a
great thing to hear. He just sounded better than ever here. This was
1992? That was near the end for Joe, and he can still play the mess
out of his instrument. He's got an incredible technique but he was
really all about the song. He didn't really care about scales and
things in his solos. His approach was very musical as opposed to
academic, and I love that about him.
pmfan57
I remember you did a really good job identifying players on that
Before and After. Much better than most do. It used to be on the
JazzTimes website, along with a bunch of other Before and Afters, but
they have since taken it down.
Dan Adler
Good words! What about the pre-pablo Joe Pass recordings? I hope
you've heard those. To me, those were his most creative years. Every
chorus was a new melodic invention.
oasysco
> On Nov 16, 7:43 am, sheetsofsound <jackzuc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 15, 11:07 pm, "Maj6th" <Maj...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>
> > > It seems to me that the wood plays
> > > a very small part in an amplified guitar; yes, no?
>
> > If that were true then a carbon fiber guitar would sound the same with
> > a pickup as a wooden guitar. It doesn't. A maple fingerboard strat
> > sounds drastically different from a rosewood fingerboard one. A maple
> > top Les Paul sounds very different from a mahogany top one. An L5
> > sounds different electrically than a strat even though they are the
> > same scale length, etc...
>
> > The guitar is not a synthesizer with the strings driving a pitch
> > conversion algorithm. The pickup reflects the tonal characteristics
> > and vibration of the instrument.
>
> A strat even with full size humbuckers sounds very different than a
> Les Paul. You can tell right away it's a strat. And it's not just
> the wood, but the bolt on neck, and as Jack mentioned, the fingerboard
> surface, make a big difference in sound as well.
And let's not forget the real controllers of tone - wiring,
capacitors, resistors, tone and volume pots, pickup mfr, magnet type,
magnet size, pickup placement, quality of construction of the harness
itself...
Greg
Greger Hoel
So?
Gerry
Hey, that Joe Pass, he was a heck of a guitar player. I've been saying
that for years!
--
Dogmatism kills jazz. Iconoclasm kills rock. Rock dulls scissors.
Greger Hoel
> Interesting. Here's the article. Funny how the interwebs work,
> Gregor.
What's an interweb and how does it work?
Being you, I really should fact check this quote of yours, but I can't be
bothered. You're really just proving my point here. You identify Passisms
en masse, but you can't hear he's playing a nylon string: "just a mike in
front of a nice archtop guitar."
Now, if you pull your head out of your ass for a second, you'll see that
my post isn't about you, but about general, human psychology. Ah well, we
all know that's not gonna happen. Write another post about how bad you're
being treated while you're at it. Being the paranoid that you are, you're
not gonna believe this, but I think your answer here is really good and
informative. But like everybody else you don't identify with here, I'm
really just out to get you.
Tim McNamara
<4f910bee-ce71-4953...@s20g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
oasysco <oas...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Nov 15, 11:07锟絧m, "Maj6th" <Maj...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> > "sheetsofsound" <jackzuc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> > news:177c837d-b642-4c94...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.c
> > om... On Nov 15, 9:09 pm, "Maj6th" <Maj...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I think the denser the wood the livelier the sound and the softer
> > > the wood the less lively.
> >
> > It's not as simple as that. The perception of liveliness /
> > brightness is effected by the tonal range of the guitar and the
> > resonant peak of the wood at those frequencies (typically under
> > 4.5k hz)
> >
> > So, as it turns out, maple makes a more bright sounding guitar than
> > ebony though it's less dense. This is because ebony moves the
> > resonant peaks in or above the top-end range of the guitar
> >
> > If this is true, and I have no reason to believe it isn't, how does
> > this transfer to the pickup. 锟絀 believe we are talking about
> > amplified guitars, at least I was. 锟絋he properties of the wood in
> > all surfaces of the guitar has to vibrate and transfer up through
> > the bridge and the saddles (nylon, composite, brass,) react with
> > the nut and the tailpiece and then be transferred through the
> > resistance of an electronic harness (even in an open pot there is
> > resistance) to an amplifier 锟絀t seems to me that the wood plays a
> > very small part in an amplified guitar; yes, no?
> >
> > Majth
>
> OK, let's look at the factors...
>
> 1. pickup placement - not the same on all guitars, ES175 as a marked
> example
>
> 2. pickup wiring - caps/resistors of various makes and quality; same
> for wiring and pots, variance of magents, the combination of which
> may highlight or attenuate frequency ranges
>
> 3. pickup choice - not all pickups sound the same by every mfr; and
> it stands to reasons that there may infinitesimal differences due to
> a change in supplier of the wire, different finishes used on the
> covers, no voers, etc for the very same model of pickup by the same
> mfr
>
> 4. wood and construction difs
You know, it's funny but as I look around the Web at various web sites
from guitar makers and guitar parts makers (Warmoth, USACG, etc.) I
notice that the opinions presented on those sites about the tonal
effects of various wood differs. For example, some say that a maple
fingerboard is brighter than an ebony fingerboard while others say the
opposite. Some say alder is good for jazz, others say ash. Etc.
A guitar is a complex structure with many interacting components to
produce the final sound and no one factor is completely determinant of
the sound. One of the biggest factors is #1 on Greg's list: pickup
placement. It's hard to make a bridge pickup and a neck pickup sound
the same (although I have heard some folks come very close).
Gerry
> You know, it's funny but as I look around the Web at various web sites
> from guitar makers and guitar parts makers (Warmoth, USACG, etc.) I
> notice that the opinions presented on those sites about the tonal
> effects of various wood differs. For example, some say that a maple
> fingerboard is brighter than an ebony fingerboard while others say the
> opposite. Some say alder is good for jazz, others say ash. Etc.
>
> A guitar is a complex structure with many interacting components..
Likewise humans, likewise musicians.
> to produce the final sound and no one factor is completely determinant of
> the sound. One of the biggest factors is #1 on Greg's list: pickup
> placement. It's hard to make a bridge pickup and a neck pickup sound
> the same (although I have heard some folks come very close).