What do you think of the Gibson Chet Atkins SST
Jud C. Abts
Solid body. What do you think of its acoustic qualities? What about it as
a guitar as a whole
Future Perfect
when its plugged in..woah!! It sounds wonderful! Very balanced and
crystal clear..its an incredible guitar, and if I could afford it, I'd
buy one. Also, you can make it much louder thru a PA without feedback
due to the solid body (yippie!). It depends what you want to use it
for..if you want to strum and sing at home, get a traditional acoustic
guitar with a pickup for those occasional gigs. If you play out all the
time, or like to plug the acoustic in to a small amp/pa at home, the
Chet is perfect. I like this guitar a lot, but Gibson prices are very
high lately.
Dave
--
*********************************************************************
'Future Perfect' - progressive art music - visit our website at:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Lofts/8082
'Music is a mirror of who we are.' - Robert Fripp
Jud C. Abts
Yup. Plugged in is all I care about--saving for a taylor -12. The price
aint that bad $500-$1400
> 'Music is a mirror of who we are.' - Robert Fripp
david_means
In article <juda-ya02408000R...@news.tiac.net>, ju...@tiac.net says...
>
>Solid body. What do you think of its acoustic qualities? What about it as
>a guitar as a whole
>
>--
>ju...@tiac.net
Excuse me, but I think I feel a rant coming on.
Under what possible circumstances could a solid-bodied guitar that relies on
electronic amplification to make any sound other than a tinny scratch be
considered an acoustic guitar and worthy of discussion in RMMGA? I don't
think I'm being an anal-retentive purist in drawing the conclusion that
this isn't the kind of critter that most of us signed on to talk about.
My dictionary has two definitions of "acoustic" that apply more or less
directly to guitars: 1. operated by or utilizing sound waves, and
2. of, relating to, or being a musical instrument whose sound is not
electronically modified. Pray tell, how does a Gibson SST meet either
definition?
Just because the friggin' thing looks sort of like a flattop (when viewed
from the front), and is endorsed by a famous guitar picker who OCCASIONALLY
plays acoustically, doesn't make it an acoustic guitar! And I will challenge
anyone to get any sort of musical sound out of it without plugging it in.
Let's get it straight... an acoustic guitar is one that is designed to be
capable of producing pleasing musical sounds by directly coupling to the
surrounding air, without any need for electronic amplification. Anybody
wanna challenge me on that?
GRRRRRRRR!
(end of rant)
Dave Means
dme...@fcc.gov
wil...@hg.uleth.ca
In article <5kl9vt$m...@drn.zippo.com>, David Means writes:
>In article <juda-ya02408000R...@news.tiac.net>, ju...@tiac.net says...
>>
>>Solid body. What do you think of its acoustic qualities? What about it as
>>a guitar as a whole
>>
>>--
>>ju...@tiac.net
>
>
>Excuse me, but I think I feel a rant coming on.
>
>Under what possible circumstances could a solid-bodied guitar that relies on
>electronic amplification to make any sound other than a tinny scratch be
>considered an acoustic guitar and worthy of discussion in RMMGA? I don't
>think I'm being an anal-retentive purist in drawing the conclusion that
>this isn't the kind of critter that most of us signed on to talk about.
>
>My dictionary has two definitions of "acoustic" that apply more or less
>directly to guitars: 1. operated by or utilizing sound waves, and
>2. of, relating to, or being a musical instrument whose sound is not
>electronically modified. Pray tell, how does a Gibson SST meet either
>definition?
>
>
I get up every morning and practice for about an hour before going to work.
To avoid waking the wife, I practice on an unplugged Telecaster. Since I
really have no other use for an electric it would make sense for me to
practice on a guitar with a neck, action, and setup that would be similar
to my acoustic, and for this reason I would consider buying a solid body
acoustic. The fact that I could plug it into an acoustic amp, or a P.A.
and get a nice acoustic sound would just be a bonus. The Gibson is just
too expensive for a practicing dummy however. Washburn makes a similar
instrument that's a more appropriate price for a purpose like this.
Now that I think about in the fellow that bought my Takemine travels a lot
in his work and he takes a strat on the road with him for precisely the
same reason. In the evening he sits in his motel room and plays his unplugged
strat.
I think there's a lot of potential interest out there for a solid body
"acoustic" at a reasonable price, simply as an instrument to practice with.
PEte
Future Perfect
David, Means wrote:
>
> In article <juda-ya02408000R...@news.tiac.net>, ju...@tiac.net says...
> >
> >Solid body. What do you think of its acoustic qualities? What about it as
> >a guitar as a whole
> >
> >--
> >ju...@tiac.net
>
> Excuse me, but I think I feel a rant coming on.
>
> Under what possible circumstances could a solid-bodied guitar that relies on
> electronic amplification to make any sound other than a tinny scratch be
> considered an acoustic guitar and worthy of discussion in RMMGA? I don't
> think I'm being an anal-retentive purist in drawing the conclusion that
Yes, a solidbody (gasp) can produce a wonderful acoustic sound..the
Chet does this, and I think that anyone who heard one would not refer to
it as an 'electric guitar'. The Chet is a wonderful alternative for
people who play in bands, hate feedback, hate using microphones, and
just like to plug in and play. I own a thin bodied Guild that doesn't
sound so good unplugged, but plugged in, it sounds better than any Guild
I've tried, and the plugged in sound is all that matters to me when I
play out. So you plug it in, so what?? This, or any other solid-body,
semi-hollow, etc acoustic-sounding guitar deserves to be discussed here,
as it it another tool that we can use.
Dave
--
*********************************************************************
'Future Perfect' - progressive art music - visit our website at:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Lofts/8082
Jud C. Abts
Thin body guild is the closest runner up. I may buy one at some point.
We are discussing acoustic issues not only acoustic flatop Martins, guilds,
etc. When will this newgroup ever learn.
(only some people of course, as guitar newsgroups go, this is the best
Jud C. Abts
> Under what possible circumstances could a solid-bodied guitar that relies on
> electronic amplification to make any sound other than a tinny scratch be
> considered an acoustic guitar and worthy of discussion in RMMGA? I don't
> think I'm being an anal-retentive purist in drawing the conclusion that
> this isn't the kind of critter that most of us signed on to talk about.
We are discussing it's acoustic sound--Ovation ends up in here? Don't read
if you don't care. You should though, and if you haven't tried one you
ought to--better than most other so called acoustic electrics. If you
aren't going to mike the guitar, then go for this style. My opinion
>
> My dictionary has two definitions of "acoustic" that apply more or less
> directly to guitars: 1. operated by or utilizing sound waves, and
> 2. of, relating to, or being a musical instrument whose sound is not
> electronically modified. Pray tell, how does a Gibson SST meet either
> definition?
RELATING TO!! IT RELATES TO THE SOUND OF UNMODIFIED ACOUSTIC SOUND!!!
Jesus your dumb
>
> Just because the friggin' thing looks sort of like a flattop (when viewed
> from the front), and is endorsed by a famous guitar picker who OCCASIONALLY
> plays acoustically, doesn't make it an acoustic guitar! And I will challenge
> anyone to get any sort of musical sound out of it without plugging it in.
>
Ever played one? What do you use by the way?
> Let's get it straight... an acoustic guitar is one that is designed to be
> capable of producing pleasing musical sounds by directly coupling to the
> surrounding air, without any need for electronic amplification. Anybody
> wanna challenge me on that?
>
Nope. Oh wait yes, you are wrong--things enter this newgroup about
acoustic guitars that are amplified. If you go to anything beyond your
bedroom you will maybe understand.
> GRRRRRRRR!
>
> (end of rant)
>
> Dave Means
> dme...@fcc.gov
Not attacking you but attacking you're statements that have nothing to back
them up--try it before you knock it. I thought it was the biggest joke in
the world (solid body acoustic) but it convinced me and even after a year I
am still happy with my decision
david_means
In article <5knmjt$4s...@mars.online.uleth.ca>, wil...@hg.uleth.ca says...
>>>
>>>Solid body. What do you think of its acoustic qualities? What about it as
>>>a guitar as a whole
>>>
>>>--
>>>ju...@tiac.net
>>
>>
>>Excuse me, but I think I feel a rant coming on.
>>
>>electronic amplification to make any sound other than a tinny scratch be
>>considered an acoustic guitar and worthy of discussion in RMMGA? I don't
>>think I'm being an anal-retentive purist in drawing the conclusion that
>>this isn't the kind of critter that most of us signed on to talk about.
>>
>>directly to guitars: 1. operated by or utilizing sound waves, and
>>2. of, relating to, or being a musical instrument whose sound is not
>>electronically modified. Pray tell, how does a Gibson SST meet either
>>definition?
>>
>>
>
>To avoid waking the wife, I practice on an unplugged Telecaster. Since I
>really have no other use for an electric it would make sense for me to
>practice on a guitar with a neck, action, and setup that would be similar
>to my acoustic, and for this reason I would consider buying a solid body
>acoustic. The fact that I could plug it into an acoustic amp, or a P.A.
>and get a nice acoustic sound would just be a bonus. The Gibson is just
>too expensive for a practicing dummy however. Washburn makes a similar
>instrument that's a more appropriate price for a purpose like this.
>
>Now that I think about in the fellow that bought my Takemine travels a lot
>in his work and he takes a strat on the road with him for precisely the
>same reason. In the evening he sits in his motel room and plays his unplugged
>strat.
>
>I think there's a lot of potential interest out there for a solid body
>"acoustic" at a reasonable price, simply as an instrument to practice with.
>
>PEte
>
>
on an unplugged Telecaster or a two-by-four with frets and strings. Just
don't call it an acoustic guitar. ;-)
MHO,
Dave Means
dme...@fcc.gov
david_means
In article <5knpb5$6qs$1...@news9.gte.net>, Future says...
>
>David, Means wrote:
>>
>> In article <juda-ya02408000R...@news.tiac.net>, ju...@tiac.net says...
>> >
>> >Solid body. What do you think of its acoustic qualities? What about it as
>> >a guitar as a whole
>> >
>> >--
>> >ju...@tiac.net
>>
>> Excuse me, but I think I feel a rant coming on.
>>
>> Under what possible circumstances could a solid-bodied guitar that relies on
>> electronic amplification to make any sound other than a tinny scratch be
>> considered an acoustic guitar and worthy of discussion in RMMGA? I don't
>> think I'm being an anal-retentive purist in drawing the conclusion that
>
> Yes, a solidbody (gasp) can produce a wonderful acoustic sound..the
>Chet does this, and I think that anyone who heard one would not refer to
>it as an 'electric guitar'. The Chet is a wonderful alternative for
>people who play in bands, hate feedback, hate using microphones, and
>just like to plug in and play. I own a thin bodied Guild that doesn't
>sound so good unplugged, but plugged in, it sounds better than any Guild
>I've tried, and the plugged in sound is all that matters to me when I
>play out. So you plug it in, so what?? This, or any other solid-body,
>semi-hollow, etc acoustic-sounding guitar deserves to be discussed here,
>as it it another tool that we can use.
>Dave
>--
I'm not saying that the SST isn't a "good guitar" -- it's just not by any
stretch of the imagination an ACOUSTIC guitar. It is, without question, an
ELECTRIC guitar that happens to be designed to try to imitate the sound and
feel of an acoustic guitar. Just like a Soloette, except the Soloette
doesn't pretend to be anything other than a practice guitar.
Okay, maybe I am being anal if being anal means that you believe in accurate
use of the English language. With the right signal processing, any Strat,
Tele, keyboard, or PC can "sound acoustic", but that sure as hell doesn't
make any of them an acoustic guitar.
If you loud band guys would bring it down a notch or two and use a little bit
of intelligence about your sound reinforcement, you wouldn't have to worry
about feedback and you could actually play acoustic instead of pretending
to be acoustic. ;-) The problem is that you won't accept the fact that
playing LOUD and playing acoustic are antithetical (with feedback being
Nature's way of telling you you're playing too loud), so you just use
electric guitars to try to sound "acoustic". A bizarre mindset, in my
opinion.
I guess my beef is that there are other fora for people who want to talk
about non-acoustic guitars (ever hear of rec.music.makers.guitar?) and it
just seems appropriate to keep an acoustic group acoustic.
Seems I'm out of the closet, too, just like Ellen.
Anal and proud of it!
Dave Means
dme...@fcc.gov
Phil McCarty
Not to drag this on and on,
But I, a mere beginner, am thankful to the people who posted the info
about the Chet guitar here in rec.music.makers.guitar.ACOUSTIC,
although I browse both forums. It's hard to find ANY information
about that guitar (unless "Dave Matthews Plays One!" constitutes
'information).
For the record, if I wanted to find out about a guitar that had an
ACOUSTIC sound, and was marketed as such, and was acclaimed for having
a remarkably high-quality ACOUSTIC sound, that you put ACOUSTIC
strings on, created by a luthier famous for his ACOUSTIC playing
style, chances are, I'd come here, but that's probably just my
ignorance speaking so I apologize heartily.
Phil
Future Perfect
> I'm not saying that the SST isn't a "good guitar" -- it's just not by any
> stretch of the imagination an ACOUSTIC guitar. It is, without question, an
> ELECTRIC guitar that happens to be designed to try to imitate the sound and
> feel of an acoustic guitar. Just like a Soloette, except the Soloette
> doesn't pretend to be anything other than a practice guitar.
>
> Okay, maybe I am being anal if being anal means that you believe in accurate
> use of the English language. With the right signal processing, any Strat,
> Tele, keyboard, or PC can "sound acoustic", but that sure as hell doesn't
> make any of them an acoustic guitar.
>
> If you loud band guys would bring it down a notch or two and use a little bit
> of intelligence about your sound reinforcement, you wouldn't have to worry
> about feedback and you could actually play acoustic instead of pretending
> to be acoustic. ;-) The problem is that you won't accept the fact that
> playing LOUD and playing acoustic are antithetical (with feedback being
> Nature's way of telling you you're playing too loud), so you just use
> electric guitars to try to sound "acoustic". A bizarre mindset, in my
> opinion.
>
> I guess my beef is that there are other fora for people who want to talk
> about non-acoustic guitars (ever hear of rec.music.makers.guitar?) and it
> just seems appropriate to keep an acoustic group acoustic.
>
> Seems I'm out of the closet, too, just like Ellen.
>
> Anal and proud of it!
>
> Dave Means
> dme...@fcc.gov
Nature's way of telling us we're playing too loud??? Ya don't play out
much, do ya....
A Strat, Tele, Synth etc can never sound like an acoustic guitar..I play
them all..a Chet SST does. I saw Al DiMeola and Steve Howe play acoustic
guitars..very loud..sounded great. Quiet acoustic music is great
too..there's room for everything. As a working pro who plays acoustic
music as well as electric music..even guitar synth (gasp!!),
I've learned a hell of a lot about sound reinforcement. I know that
acoustic guitar is one hell of an instrument to mike live, as the best
miking position to prevent feedback does not produce the best sound,
especially for playing to crowds of more than 200..and we don't have the
$ for the expensive mikes and EQ's (or the set up time) of the bigger
pros. . What methods any acoustic player uses to amplify his/her
acoustic-sounding guitar is very important to me, as well as anyone on
this newsgroup who performs more than the weekly open mike. Don't be the
'acoustic nazi' here, if 'acoustic sounding piezo equipped
I-painted-my-Taylor-purple-and-run-it-thru-a-Leslie-and-when-I-play-the-
latest-Kottke-song-it-sounds-bitchin' scares the hell out of you,
immediately shut down the computer and go scourge yourself. There is
room for all types of acoustic music here, not just the sit on your
front porch type. I like this newsgroup and will remain here. If you
don't like any topics being discussed, don't read 'em. Keep an open
mind, celebrate diversity..its the music that counts, not the tools.
Dave
R & A Whitaker
Jud C. Abts wrote:
>
> > Under what possible circumstances could a solid-bodied guitar that relies on
> > electronic amplification to make any sound other than a tinny scratch be
> > considered an acoustic guitar and worthy of discussion in RMMGA? I don't
> > think I'm being an anal-retentive purist in drawing the conclusion that
>
> if you don't care. You should though, and if you haven't tried one you
> ought to--better than most other so called acoustic electrics. If you
> aren't going to mike the guitar, then go for this style. My opinion
>
> >
> > directly to guitars: 1. operated by or utilizing sound waves, and
> > 2. of, relating to, or being a musical instrument whose sound is not
> > electronically modified. Pray tell, how does a Gibson SST meet either
> > definition?
>
> Jesus your dumb
>
> >
> > Just because the friggin' thing looks sort of like a flattop (when viewed
> > from the front), and is endorsed by a famous guitar picker who OCCASIONALLY
> > plays acoustically, doesn't make it an acoustic guitar! And I will challenge
> > anyone to get any sort of musical sound out of it without plugging it in.
> >
>
> Ever played one? What do you use by the way?
>
> > Let's get it straight... an acoustic guitar is one that is designed to be
> > capable of producing pleasing musical sounds by directly coupling to the
> > surrounding air, without any need for electronic amplification. Anybody
> > wanna challenge me on that?
> >
> Nope. Oh wait yes, you are wrong--things enter this newgroup about
> acoustic guitars that are amplified. If you go to anything beyond your
> bedroom you will maybe understand.
>
> > GRRRRRRRR!
> >
> > (end of rant)
> >
> > Dave Means
> > dme...@fcc.gov
>
> Not attacking you but attacking you're statements that have nothing to back
> them up--try it before you knock it. I thought it was the biggest joke in
> the world (solid body acoustic) but it convinced me and even after a year I
> am still happy with my decision
>
> --
> ju...@tiac.net
I knew this was going to turn into a flame war as soon as I seen the
first post, which by the way was made by someone who owns a SST and had
posted all over the net what his opinion of it is long before he started
this thread. Did someone say TROLL??
Ray Whitaker
david_means
>Jesus your dumb
<snip>
>Not attacking you but attacking you're statements that have nothing to back
>them up
Whoa, Jud, don't the above two statements reveal some inconsistencies in your
arguments? Geez, all I did was succumb to a temptation to vent about a pet
peeve (the whole concept of elevating anything that "sounds acoustic" to the
status of real acoustic guitar). I will, however, resist the temptation to
lower myself to the ad hominem attack level where you have taken the
discussion. At least Pete Wilson made some rational arguments as to why this
might be an appropriate topic for the group.
>>
(Dave said:)
>> Just because the friggin' thing looks sort of like a flattop (when viewed
>> from the front), and is endorsed by a famous guitar picker who OCCASIONALLY
>> plays acoustically, doesn't make it an acoustic guitar! And I will challenge
>> anyone to get any sort of musical sound out of it without plugging it in.
>>
>Ever played one? What do you use by the way?
No, after a number of years of dabbling in electric guitar, I decided that it
was a helluva lot more fun and challenging to try to get the sound I wanted
directly from my instrument and my technique, rather than relying on
signal processing electronics (I guess it was sort of an aesthetic backlash
to my own career as an electronics engineer). I currently play my Taylor
812-C mostly, and I have a Lowden-designed, Japanese-built cutaway dreadnought
that I keep in alternate tunings so I don't have to retune the Taylor as
much.
>
>> Let's get it straight... an acoustic guitar is one that is designed to be
>> capable of producing pleasing musical sounds by directly coupling to the
>> surrounding air, without any need for electronic amplification. Anybody
>> wanna challenge me on that?
>>
>Nope. Oh wait yes, you are wrong--things enter this newgroup about
>acoustic guitars that are amplified. If you go to anything beyond your
>bedroom you will maybe understand.
>
C'mon Jud, I don't play out much because I'm enough of a realist to know
that my own chops aren't good enough to expect other people to pay money
to hear them. But that doesn't mean I don't know a thing or two about
guitars or the realities of amplifying them. I've been playing and
tinkering with guitars for over 30 years, and doing professional and semi-
professional sound reinforcement work for nearly that long. I suspect that
you haven't even been on the planet that long! ;-)
I've got no beef about the need to amplify acoustic guitars when playing
out, or about discussing that in this group. When one amplifies a real
acoustic guitar properly, he is simply trying to capture its natural
acoustic sound and make it louder so it can be heard. No problem.
Where I draw the distinction, at least for the purpose of discussion in this
group, is at using what are essentially electric guitars, combined with
electronic signal processing effects, to try to imitate an "acoustic sound"
or to get some sort of artificially punched-up version of that sound.
I'm not saying that's not intrinsically valid -- just a topic better suited to
alt.guitar or r.m.m.g..
Peace,
Dave Means
dme...@fcc.gov
wil...@hg.uleth.ca
In article <5ko4bm$h...@drn.zippo.com>, David Means writes:
>In article <5knmjt$4s...@mars.online.uleth.ca>, wil...@hg.uleth.ca says...
>>
>>In article <5kl9vt$m...@drn.zippo.com>, David Means writes:
>>>>a guitar as a whole
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>ju...@tiac.net
>>>
>>>
>>>Excuse me, but I think I feel a rant coming on.
>>>
>>
>>I think there's a lot of potential interest out there for a solid body
>>"acoustic" at a reasonable price, simply as an instrument to practice with.
>>
>>PEte
>>
>>
>Hey, I've got no problem at all with you or anybody else practicing
>on an unplugged Telecaster or a two-by-four with frets and strings. Just
>don't call it an acoustic guitar. ;-)
>
>MHO,
>Dave Means
>dme...@fcc.gov
Okay, I won't call it acoustic, but as a an acoustic guitarist it concerns
me, just as it concerns those who play out more often, (or more success
fully), than myself have to be concerned with how to make their instrument
loud enough to be heard over the banjo player or the electric bassist, and
loud enough that everybody in the room can hear it. This involves
amplification whether you use a mike or a pickup, and in my experience using
a mike means either that the audience can't hear you, (In my case this is
good), or that you fill the room with howling feedback, (even in my case this
is bad). I'm not talking heavy metal volume levels either. I'm talking
about amplifying my guitar so that the people at the back of the room can
hear me.
All that a solid body acoustic means is that you lose the unplugged sound,
which in a band situation, on stage, is irrelevant anyway. The trade you get
is the ability to precisely control your sound which, at least to me, is at
least an interesting prospect. I'm not a pro, but I can make my guitar sound
incredibly better with a just a small amount of chorus or echo. It's
not strictly acoustic, but it works extremely well. I'd be interested in
what the tonal possibilities are with a solid body guitar and a signal
processing rack.
Incidentally the Gibson solid body acoustics are closely based on the
guitars built by Kirk Sands, which are fairly commonly used by instrumental
solo fingerstyle artists, so it's not just a band situation where solid
body instruments have a voice.
Another interesting aspect of course is that solid body
instruments can presumably be made of non-endangered wood, and since we
can expect pickup and amplifier technology to keep advancing, perhaps in
another twenty or thirty years, a true acoustic guitar will be rarity.
Pete
Jud C. Abts
> I knew this was going to turn into a flame war as soon as I seen the
> first post, which by the way was made by someone who owns a SST and had
> posted all over the net what his opinion of it is long before he started
> this thread. Did someone say TROLL??
> Ray Whitaker
I asked people about there opinion of it, not telling them. When you
responded in a way that emphasizes your stupidity, I call you on it
Jud C. Abts
Tons of bands play the chet--acoustic based ones
Jars of Clay
Guster
Dave Matthews (I could care less)
Doubie Brothers attempted to
Allman Brothers were sucessful
This newgroup is about discussing ACOUSTIC sounds, not necessarily, the
Martins Taylors etc. So if I want to discuss the acoustic qualities not
the electric qualities of a gutiar I can
david_means
In article <5kqhnd$kcu$1...@news13.gte.net>, Future says...
><snip>
>I know that
>acoustic guitar is one hell of an instrument to mike live, as the best
>miking position to prevent feedback does not produce the best sound,
>especially for playing to crowds of more than 200..and we don't have the
>$ for the expensive mikes and EQ's (or the set up time) of the bigger
>pros. . What methods any acoustic player uses to amplify his/her
>acoustic-sounding guitar is very important to me, as well as anyone on
>this newsgroup who performs more than the weekly open mike. Don't be the
>'acoustic nazi' here, if 'acoustic sounding piezo equipped
>I-painted-my-Taylor-purple-and-run-it-thru-a-Leslie-and-when-I-play-the-
>latest-Kottke-song-it-sounds-bitchin' scares the hell out of you,
>immediately shut down the computer and go scourge yourself. There is
>room for all types of acoustic music here, not just the sit on your
>front porch type. I like this newsgroup and will remain here. If you
>don't like any topics being discussed, don't read 'em. Keep an open
>mind, celebrate diversity..its the music that counts, not the tools.
>Dave
Dave,
You're making my own argument for me. I'm not scared of that purple-Taylor-
run-through-a-Leslie, but I do know that it's not acoustic. Acoustic music
is the unadulterated (amplified, maybe, but not adulterated) sound made by
acoustic intstruments (and those are instruments that produce their sound
by directly vibrating the surrounding air).
I'm not naive about sound reinforcement. I've been doing it professionally
and semi-professionally for almost 30 years. I know the problems inherent
in amplifying a resonant, hollow-bodied stringed instrument in a big venue.
But that's one good reason why small venues are better for acoustic music.
I also know that there are a lot of good sound people doing a good job of
reinforcing real acoustic instruments, even in difficult environments.
Look, there is a lot more semantics than substance here, and it's pretty
obvious that you and I are from completely different camps that will never
see eye-to-eye on what is acoustic music. I think from past posts I
know that your guitar gods are people like Robert Fripp and Adrian Legg.
Great players, but not what I would call acoustic music -- because the timbre
of the music is dictated to a large extent by the electronics. I happen to
revere folks like Norman Blake, Duck Baker, Guy van Duser, Eric Lugosch, etc.,
who make music firmly rooted in the natural sound of a good acoustic
instrument.
To each his own, but I think you'll find that most of the folks on this group
would consider subjects such as solid-bodied guitars and effects boxes to be
"off-topic" and prefer that they be discussed on one of the other groups where
the majority of the subscribers are happy to talk endlessly about the
relative merits of various stomp-boxes. After all, that is why this group
was started -- to get away from that stuff. Maybe I'm wrong... and if I am,
I'm sure lots of people will be happy to tell me so. :-)
MHO,
Dave Means
dme...@fcc.gov
R & A Whitaker
This is somewhat of a confusing post. You are 15 years old and recently
you posted all over the net what your opinion of the SST is, much to the
dismay of some people who just plainly didn't like your posts. You, at
one point flooded my screen with so many posts that were, now how should
I put this, _STUPID_ that I said something to you via private e-mail. I
remember being quite nice to start off with. Now for my question about
this post. What did I say that you are calling me on? How did I
emphasize my stupidity? That was my only post to this thread. I do
believe indeed that somewhat of a flame war did happen. Where is the
stupidity is being right? For all you other guys out there that may be
thinking about taking up for Apts, search Deja News with his e-mail
address first. It pays to have a better understanding of him before
you jump right in.
Ray Whitaker
JRH1025
A band mate had one, I think it was that model. Black solid body acoustic
thing?
It sounded GREAT as an acoustic in a very loud rock band. Worthless
unplugged. Not good for much except sounding like an acoustic, but it
does a great job. He paid $650 new w/ case (Gibs can sell for 40% off!)
david_means
In article <5kt7of$ap...@mars.online.uleth.ca>, wil...@hg.uleth.ca says...
>
>Okay, I won't call it acoustic, but as a an acoustic guitarist it concerns
>me, just as it concerns those who play out more often, (or more success
>fully), than myself have to be concerned with how to make their instrument
>loud enough to be heard over the banjo player or the electric bassist, and
>loud enough that everybody in the room can hear it. This involves
>amplification whether you use a mike or a pickup, and in my experience using
>a mike means either that the audience can't hear you, (In my case this is
>good), or that you fill the room with howling feedback, (even in my case this
>is bad). I'm not talking heavy metal volume levels either. I'm talking
>about amplifying my guitar so that the people at the back of the room can
>hear me.
>
>All that a solid body acoustic means is that you lose the unplugged sound,
>which in a band situation, on stage, is irrelevant anyway. The trade you get
>is the ability to precisely control your sound which, at least to me, is at
>least an interesting prospect. I'm not a pro, but I can make my guitar sound
>incredibly better with a just a small amount of chorus or echo. It's
>not strictly acoustic, but it works extremely well. I'd be interested in
>what the tonal possibilities are with a solid body guitar and a signal
>processing rack.
><snip>
Ahhh, some civil discourse on the subject! I'm actually starting to like this
thread. Thanks, Pete.
You are the only one who is making any sort of rational argument as to why
this stuff is appropriate fodder for r.m.m.g.a.. Don't get me wrong -- I
fully understand why performers are attracted to instruments like the
Gibson SST and the Kirk Sand guitars.
Since I'm already out of the closet as an anally retentive purist I can
freely admit my hangup about terminology and my predilection for
"real" acoustic guitars. I am one of those guys who is totally
fascinated by the mix of science and black art involved in making
things that will make pretty sounds from a pile of lumber and wire.
On the other hand, as an electronics engineer I know how easy it is to
electronically synthesize just about any sound you want if you know what
you're doing. To me (and this is strictly my personal hangup), it almost
seems too easy to rely on electronic effects to shape your "sound", whether
it be "acoustic" or not. It seems to me to be a much more potentially
satisfying artistic challenge to create instruments which will produce
a range of satisfying sounds without the need for electronic modification,
to use technique instead of stomp boxes to achieve that range, and to use
electricity only as necessary to make the instrument louder so that it can
be heard when absolutely necessary. I'm not saying I'm good at it -- I'm a
fledgling luthier and a mediocre player -- but I love the challenge.
I guess my point is -- and the thing that got my back up in the first place --
that I believe this group was started by folks who shared this fascination
with making music from the raw wood and steel essentials, largely as a
backlash against the mentality prevalent in r.m.m.g. To those of us who are
really into this admittedly traditional mindset, posts about solid-body
guitars and electronic effects set off alarms.
I'm not trying to convert you (I'll leave that to the more evangelical
contingent that seems to be present ;-) ), I'm just trying to explain
where my head was at when I went off on that rant.
>Another interesting aspect of course is that solid body
>instruments can presumably be made of non-endangered wood, and since we
>can expect pickup and amplifier technology to keep advancing, perhaps in
>another twenty or thirty years, a true acoustic guitar will be rarity.
>
Geez, I hope not. Naah... good "real" acoustics can just as easily be made
out of non-endangered woods, they just might not look as pretty. On the
other hand, curly maple doesn't look so bad...
Well, at least this is a more worthwhile thread than "Ovations Suck" or
"Martin vs. Taylor".
MHO,
Dave Means
dme...@fcc.gov
R & A Whitaker
Hi everyone,
I just wanted to show a little proof as to my acusation of Apts being a
TROLL. I thought I would save you guys a little time in Deja News
sifting through his almost 700 posts, and since I was the one being
acused of being stupid I had a little initiative to do the job myself.
Please pay attention to the dates of when they were posted. And the
first one is real interesting too.
Subject: Re: Question of the Day --- Ovations Suck
From: ju...@tiac.net (Jud C. Abts)
Date: 1997/04/20
Message-Id: <juda-ya02408000R...@news.tiac.net>
Newsgroups: rec.music.makers.guitar.acoustic
[More Headers]
In article <335943...@okstate.edu>, Scott Rogers <st...@okstate.edu>
wrote:
> I am so sick of this thread and I am so sick of you accusing people of
> either 1) not being musicians or of 2) just being idiots. I'm sure your
> 18 super-mega nice Sitka spruce topped Ovations sound great. More power
> to you.
>
> But because I do not like the way the Ovation pickups sound (or, hell,
> *any* piezo pickup by itself) does not mean that I am making any
> commentary on you or your playing or your experience or your
> intelligence.
>
> This thread is as absurd as any argument over a subject which, while it
> may possess certain quantifiable aspects, is ultimately subjective.
> Thus, *you* like Ovations. *some people* do not. That's it. End of
> story. There will be no divine intervention here, nor is attacking the
> personalities and professionalism of your "adversaries" an effective
> argumentative tactic.
>
> Please let this thread die like it has needed to for the past month or
> so. I have to go set up for a gig now.
>
> Scott
Thankyou. I will be kicking my self until this madness ends (I began
the
ovations suck thread)
Very sorry
judson
Subject: Re: GIBSON Chet Atkins SST Acoustic? Trace Elliot Amps?
From: ca...@op.net (Carl Christensen)
Date: 1997/03/30
Message-Id: <333ed8a...@news.op.net>
Newsgroups: rec.music.makers.guitar.acoustic
[More Headers]
ju...@tiac.net (Starfire (JCA)) wrote:
>I tried both and well, I think the chet beats the viper in acoustic tone
I'm trying to figure out, are you looking for opinions or just trying to
justify your purchase? You post something originally which I thought
was a
question soliciting opinions, but all of your replies sound like a
goddamn
broken record from the Gibson marketing department!
------
Carl Christensen /~~\_/~\ ,,,
C/C++/VB/Web Consultant | #=#==========# |
Philadelphia, PA USA \__/~\_/ ```
E-mail: ca...@op.net Web: http://www.op.net/~carl
Subject: What do you think of Gibson Chet Atkins SST ?
From: ju...@tiac.net (Starfire (JCA))
Date: 1997/03/23
Message-Id: <juda-ya02408000R...@news.tiac.net>
Newsgroups: alt.guitar
[More Headers]
What do you people think of the solid body acoutic electric from gibson?
I think that this is gibsons biggest innovation.
What about Trace Elliot Acoustic Amps?
Subject: Re: GIBSON Chet Atkins SST Acoustic? Trace Elliot Amps?
From: ju...@tiac.net (Starfire (JCA))
Date: 1997/03/30
Message-Id: <juda-ya02408000R...@news.tiac.net>
Newsgroups: rec.music.makers.guitar.acoustic
[More Headers]
In article <19970329012...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
dmc...@aol.com
(DMCTWO) wrote:
> Ovation Viper kicks the Chet thing from Gibson
I tried both and well, I think the chet beats the viper in acoustic tone
and versatility, matter of preference. 9 out of 10 prefer Gibson
acoustic
electrics to ovation acoustic electrics.
Subject: Re: Question of the Day --- Ovations Suck
From: ju...@tiac.net (James T. Abts)
Date: 1997/04/10
Message-Id: <juda-ya02408000R...@news.tiac.net>
Newsgroups: rec.music.makers.guitar.acoustic
[More Headers]
> James!! WoW! 5 responses to Ovation posts! Actually, I have seen many
> pros with Ovations...they have no trouble making them sond good. Also, I
> have heard amplified J-200's that sound horrible, as well ones that
> sound good. An expensive guitar will only sound as good as the PA and
> mike used to amplify it. Unless you have tons of money, a great
> soundman, great mikes, etc..miking a guitar properly will produce
> feedback, much to the delight of your audience. Besides, just one mike
> can't capture the overtones of a well made acoustic.
>
> Many Ovations do have solid tops, and just think, no South American
> trees has to die for the back.
>
> Dave
Unless you have tons of money, a great
> soundman, great mikes, etc..miking a guitar properly will produce
> feedback, much to the delight of your audience. Besides, just one mike
> can't capture the overtones of a well made acoustic.
All true, but you can at least get a Gibson chet atkins sst--excellent
player or a thinline guild--one of my favorites. PLUS you can't
comfortably play those ovations standing up--i am sorry but its true.
The genius of ovation was making something that could work well for
concerts as far as feedback and ease of use, and then the round back
makes
it impossible to play.
Screw south america when it comes to guitars. Who gives a shit about
the
rainforest? Just kidding I do, but too extreme people are.
Subject: Re: Question of the Day --- Ovations Suck
From: ju...@tiac.net (Jud C. Abts)
Date: 1997/04/20
Message-Id: <juda-ya02408000R...@news.tiac.net>
Newsgroups: rec.music.makers.guitar.acoustic
[More Headers]
In article <paulrace.1632.0025A9BC@-erinet.com>, paulrace@-erinet.com
wrote:
>
> So how many professional quality guitars have you gigged with over the years,
> and how would you rate them for projection, ease of amplification, quality of
> sound through the PA system, and so on?
Gibson Chet Atkins SST--Nice ease of an ovation, only made from wood so
it
sounds like a true acoustic--Nothing beats it through my PA
Gibson J-200 Barrowed from a friend--Better than anything else for me
not
easy to set up but worth it.
Taylor 12 String -- Their top of the line models can't be beat in the
12-strings category (except maybe guild, and I haven't tried several
other
brands, but I just like these taylors)
Breedlove--Ugly ugly acoustic. Their lower end model--I did not like it
at
all, still was much better and more fun than a salad bowl
>
> Did your Taylors and Martins sound better with a mic or with a pickup? Or did
> your Gibson sound worse than your Custom Legend through most PAs even though
> it sounded better in your bedroom?
The taylors sounded better with pickup and the martains always sound
better
with a mic. My gibson sounded much better than the custom legend
through
my PA, and their was no high quality twang annoying the listeners.
>
> Until you've played one professional gig, or owned more than one professional
> quality guitar,
Done both but more importantly, you do not need to own several other
guitars to know which ones you like. I borrow from friends a relatives
guitars I might like and then decide for myself.
Home Power Search Post to Usenet Ask DN Wizard Help
Give us feedback! | Advertising Info | Press Releases
Subject: Re: GIBSON Chet Atkins SST Acoustic? Trace Elliot Amps?
From: ju...@tiac.net (James T. Abts)
Date: 1997/04/02
Message-Id: <juda-ya02408000R...@news.tiac.net>
Newsgroups: rec.music.makers.guitar.acoustic
[More Headers]
In article <19970331042...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
dmc...@aol.com
(DMCTWO) wrote:
> Free ad for Gibson by far !
Hell I hate gibson. They make too many pieces of crap (except Gibson
Montana and the Chet). Ovation is the same way.
Future Perfect
Ah, but I didn't see the word 'traditional' in the name of this
newsgroup. Acoustic music is in process, always changing..theres room
for the traditionalists as well as the visionaries..I like both. From
the posts I've read from people, theres a lot from both camps in this
group. Wonderful! Now that we all know what 'acoustic' means to you, all
I'm asking is that you don't put boundries on what 'acoustic' means to
the rest of us. This newsgroup isn't being spoiled by 2 people on this
group talking about what chorus pedal to buy for their Ovation. Lets not
get into a 'my music is more acoustic than your music' discussion. It
seems to me that the people on this group have spoken, with posts like
"U2 on MTV Unplugged" and "Carvin AE185". Once again, theres room for
everything here..you always have the option of not reading these posts,
but you just may learn something. I grow weary of this discussion. My
part in this thread is over.
Better start swimmin'
Dave
--
david_means
In article <5kvpbf$n99$1...@news5.gte.net>, Future says...
><snip>
>
>Lets not get into a 'my music is more acoustic than your music' discussion.
No need to... it's not relative... it either is acoustic or it's not.
If it isn't made by the instrument directly pushing air molecules around,
my dictionary says it's not. (I can say that sort of thing now that I'm out
of the closet as being anally retentive).
Well, it's obvious that I'm not going to convince you, and you aren't going
convince me, so I think I'll go sit on my back porch with a sprig of
timothy grass in my teeth and do some pickin' an' grinnin'. Good luck with
your battery life.
Dave Means
dme...@fcc.gov
Al Sato
R & A Whitaker <vin_d...@FTC-I.Net> wrote:
> For all you other guys out there that may be
>thinking about taking up for Apts, search Deja News with his e-mail
>address first. It pays to have a better understanding of him before
>you jump right in.
>Ray Whitaker
Ray,
Do as I have done. Certain people's posts never even make it to my
screen. If your newsreader supports killfiles, you are all set. If
not, you can certainly recognize the email addresses of the very few
people whose posts you know you want to disregard. Anything else just
makes something that ought to be fun into something that raises your
blood pressure. It's just not worth it.
Al
--
Respond to: nas "at" centtech "dot" com
This is an attempt to reduce the volume of unwanted commercial email.
DickSchnei
In article <3372B1...@FTC-I.Net>, R & A Whitaker
<vin_d...@FTC-I.Net> writes:
in response to several stupid posts from ju...@tiac.net:
>This is somewhat of a confusing post. You are 15 years old and recently
>> you posted all over the net what your opinion of the SST is, much to
the
>> dismay of some people who just plainly didn't like your posts. You, at
>> one point flooded my screen with so many posts that were, now how
should
>> I put this, _STUPID_ that I said something to you via private e-mail. I
>> remember being quite nice to start off with. Now for my question about
>> this post. What did I say that you are calling me on? How did I
>> emphasize my stupidity? That was my only post to this thread. I do
>> believe indeed that somewhat of a flame war did happen. Where is the
>> stupidity is being right? For all you other guys out there that may be
>> thinking about taking up for Apts, search Deja News with his e-mail
>> address first. It pays to have a better understanding of him before
>> you jump right in.
>> Ray Whitaker
Ray,
While I certainly agree totally with you that this Abts (I don't know if
he is Judson C. or James T. as he has used both names) character is full
of horse crap, I really think that the proper way to handle his useless
and contradictory posts are to e-mail him directly with enough rebuttals
that he finally backs off. He has gotten into flame wars with many of us
besides you and everytime it happens he simply continues to respond with
his stupidity. Hell, I doubt if he even owns *any* of the many guitars
and amps, etc. that he continues to spout off about. If he did he
wouldn't make such ridiculous remarks. Everyone of his posts are full of
such obvious errors and lies (he can't even spell Martin correctly) that
most of us can see through him immediately. If no one responded to him in
the newsgroup then hopefully he will just get bored and move on to some
other pastime for his juvenile fun. I can remember what it was like when
I was a kid like him, and I loved to pester adults with the little
knowledge that I had, embellishing it with lies and exaggeration in the
hope that they would take me seriously. If we ignored him publicly then
he will probably become an "expert" on some other subject and bother some
other newsgroups. Don't allow this nobody to get under your skin to the
point where you appear to be a snob to the frequent newcomers on the
newsgroup. You have built up lots of respect on this forum with those of
us who have been around for a long time and it isn't worth it to have even
a tiny bit of that chipped away with these "flame wars" with some 15 year
old child.
Please don't take this in the wrong way - I am completely in your corner
on this issue. My reason for this post is to let you (and others so
inclined to "get into it" with Jud/James) how I, and others I have
communicated with, feel about this stuff. I certainly realize the danger
in simply letting him post erroneous and misleading information without
calling him on it, as there will always be somebody that will believe him.
However, these sorts of people have been around here in the past and in
most cases repeated personal e-mails pointing out their stupidity usually
works in improving the situation. I have always started out with gentle
suggestions about being careful about making unsubstantiated comments and
if that doesn't work then I turn up the heat.
Thanks,
Dick Schneiders DickS...@aol.com
R & A Whitaker
Hi Dick,
I certainly don't want to give people the impression that I just want to
jump all over someone just for fun, and don't want to lose anyones
respect. That is why I posted the big waste of bandwidth explaining my
original post. I also have tried to deal with Apts via private e-mail
and show him how he was losing credibility with each post he made. And
like you said he responded with more drivel. If I have given anyone out
there in cyberspace the impression that I am a real creep, I truly
apologize.( To everyone except Apts ) I guess it just blew my mind that
several names that I see on a regular basis were responding to his posts
at all, and then when the flames started I just thought I would try to
put things into a little better perspective by pointing out that the
whole thread was just a ploy to start a flame war. My suggestion for
Apts would be to start hanging out in Alt.Flame since he IS an expert at
starting those. Thanks for pointing out to me that I was doing myself
and my reputation an injustice by paying any attention at all to Apts. I
will try to keep from wasting so much bandwidth in the future. I think
I'll just go and bang on some strings instead.<G>
Ray Whitaker
R & A Whitaker
Al Sato wrote:
>
> R & A Whitaker <vin_d...@FTC-I.Net> wrote:
>
> > For all you other guys out there that may be
> >thinking about taking up for Apts, search Deja News with his e-mail
> >address first. It pays to have a better understanding of him before
> >you jump right in.
> >Ray Whitaker
>
> Ray,
>
> screen. If your newsreader supports killfiles, you are all set. If
> not, you can certainly recognize the email addresses of the very few
> people whose posts you know you want to disregard. Anything else just
> makes something that ought to be fun into something that raises your
> blood pressure. It's just not worth it.
Hey guys! Don't worry my blood pressure never went up a lick! In fact I
was smiling when I posted! <G> I got this little grin and said to
myself "you shouldn't have done that". I've thought about the killfiles,
but sometimes a bad thread turns into a good one and I hate to miss
anything.
Ray Whitaker