My 175 vs a new Sadowsky Semi Hollow...
JonD
has been my only guitar for about 7 years, and with which I've
suffered much and achieved the odd breakthrough, is in the other
room. Hopefully it doesn't know what's going on in here...
I'm thinking I want a semi-hollow. I'd like something maybe a bit
more versatile, and, well, a bit more modern and less musically
typecasting than the 175, but the dark Jim Hall sound is still very
important to me. Anyway, I was looking at the Sadowsky semi-hollow.
It looks very nice (especially with the scratch plate), and I've read
some very flattering reviews (including on Jack Zucker's very helpful
page), and the American dollar is not faring very well right now -
which is great news for me (I can get one for around 3,600 Aussie
dollars).
So, a)who's got one?, and b)who wants to make open and frank
comparisons between the Sadowsky and a really nice 2000 Gibson 175
that is genuinely loved, and would be sorely missed? (I can't afford
one without selling the other).
All opinions would be greatly appreciated. Amp wise, I'm using a
JazzAmp 10" with an Alesis Nanoverb.
Thanks guys,
tomsalvojazz
Jon,
First off, I really enjoyed perusing your website. Very tastefully
done.
The Sadowsky Semi Hollow is an awesome guitar. It will not replace
the 175. They are, as you can imagine, different animals. However,
without making comparisons, I can say that the Sadowsky is a very,
very well-made instrument. The guitar is absolutely perfect. The
finish, binding, glue, hardware installation, fret and nut work,
inlays, etc. are flawless. The finish is smooth as glass and not
sticky. The action can be set absurdly low without a buzz to be
found. Good jazz tones can be had even with light strings, depending
on the player's technique.
Tone is similar to the other Sadowsky archtops. It sounds more like
the JB or JH than it does like a 175. It really doesn't have the 175
sound, and some may like it less - or more - than a 175, but it's not
better or worse; just different (how many times have we heard that
before!)
It is WAAAAAAAY more comfortable to play than a 175, though. It
doesn't feedback. And the thinner body, for me, facilitates much more
of a flow of ideas from the brain (when it's working) to the speaker.
It's also light. Even in the very nice hard shell case, it makes for
a noticeably light, easily transportable package.
I definitely know quality, action, fit and finish. This guitar has it
in spades. For a description of the tone, however, and any sort of
tonal comparison, I'd defer to the expert opinion of Jaz.
It would be difficult to advise someone to sell a guitar to buy
another. Your 175 may be perfect for you, and not so easily replaced,
even with a new 175 (if, for example, you ultimately realized that a
Gibson ES-175 is the better choice for you). And, as we know, there
are often sentimental, emotional connections to certain instruments
that "speak to you." I guess this is why some guys will play 25
Strats before finding the right one...
The Sadowskys are precision instruments and Roger is a great guy. You
can't go wrong there. The ideal scenario, of course, would be to
audition the Sadowsky before letting your 175 go...
Hope that helps.
~~~tom
sheets
JonD
Hi Tom,
Thanks so much for your help, and I'm glad you liked the website.
I should be able to get a Sadowsky first and sell the 175 later (I've
got some other guitars stuck in my closet which I might be able to
get rid of first to try and forestall the inevitable). Auditioning
guitars is tough though when you're continents away from either the
shop itself or any of the dealers.
I do really love the sound of my 175, but I'd like something more
versatile, as I said. The Sadowsky seems to be the best bet for
retaining that archtop quality that I need whilst pushing me into new
sounds (most of my gig work is straight ahead modern jazz, but my own
stuff is getting increasingly diverse and I'd like a guitar to reflect
that a little more). One of my teachers has a PRS archtop which I
like, but the Sadowsky sounds like more what I want.
Thanks again for your detailed reply,
Jon
JonD
> ask away. :)
Hi Jack,
How close to the Jim Hall thing do you think the Sadowsky can get?
I've modeled my 175 sound on his (as I'm sure many of us have) and
would like to be able to retain that sound but with a little more
scope. I really just want to know that it's capable of a good helping
of darkness, with a little woodiness into the bargain. I understand
that it won't match the 175 for this, but if it could get 75-90% of
the way, that'd be great. Can you turn the volume down and get a good
4 to the bar thing going?
Thanks for your help. Your review page was really great too.
Narrowed my search down phenomenally.
Jon
tomsalvojazz
>
> - Show quoted text -
Jon, You're welcome; and good luck. The Sadowsky will do blues, funk
and fusion well too. It doesn't have the singing sustain of a 335,
but it passes. Ask Jaz. He'll give you the lowdown. I'd say that if
you could only have one guitar and needed to do straight-ahead jazz,
blues, classic rock, and fusion, you could do that all w/ the SH.
Certainly not with the 175! It won't do strat or tele sounds, of
course.
You could do all those things with an ES-335 too, of course, but I
think the SH falls much closer on the jazz side of the spectrum, and
has more traditional jazz tones than most other semi-hollows.
~~~T
Joey Goldstein
175s have been used for ages on pop, rock and R&B records too.
--
Joey Goldstein
http://www.joeygoldstein.com
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/joeygoldstein
joegold AT sympatico DOT ca
sheets
> On Oct 23, 10:41 pm, sheets <jackzuc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > ask away. :)
>
> Hi Jack,
>
> How close to the Jim Hall thing do you think the Sadowsky can get?
I would say close in an early Scofield or Metheny kind of way but the
guitar doesn't resonate the way a great 175 would due to the center
block. On the other hand, there's never any issue with feedback and it
sustains like a 335.
tomb...@jhu.edu
>
> It is WAAAAAAAY more comfortable to play than a 175, though. It
> doesn't feedback. And the thinner body, for me, facilitates much more
> of a flow of ideas from the brain (when it's working) to the speaker.
>From the photos, it doesn't look like it would be a comfortable sit
down guitar.
invisaman75
Don't do it! Just by a cheap Strat and keep your 175!
David J. Littleboy
Or a relatively cheap Ibanez Schofield model. Perfectly respectable guitar.
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
sheets
Depends how old the 175 is. My experience is that most of them made in
the last 37 years just aren't that great and the ones earlier than
1970 cost a fortunate and usually need to have the neck reglued and
refretted. I'd rather have a sadowsky than an average 175. No contest
IMO. But if all you are doing is standards, the 175 is probably a
better guitar.
David J. Littleboy
"sheets" <jackz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 23, 2:10 pm, "David J. Littleboy" <davi...@gol.com> wrote:
>> "invisaman75" <invisama...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Don't do it! Just by a cheap Strat and keep your 175!
>>
>> Or a relatively cheap Ibanez Schofield model. Perfectly respectable
>> guitar.
>
> the last 37 years just aren't that great and the ones earlier than
> 1970 cost a fortunate and usually need to have the neck reglued and
> refretted. I'd rather have a sadowsky than an average 175. No contest
> IMO. But if all you are doing is standards, the 175 is probably a
> better guitar.
If you are doing standards at all, the 175 is the better guitar.
I can see a Sadowsky Jim Hall or Jimmy Bruno model, but paying top dollar
for an acoustically dead klunker with a block down the middle makes no sense
to me when the Ibanez is as good as it gets in that sort of instrument. I
don't think any of us are that much better than Schofield that we can be
turning our noses up at that instrument.
sheets
> "sheets" <jackzuc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 23, 2:10 pm, "David J. Littleboy" <davi...@gol.com> wrote:
> >> "invisaman75" <invisama...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > Don't do it! Just by a cheap Strat and keep your 175!
>
> >> Or a relatively cheap Ibanez Schofield model. Perfectly respectable
> >> guitar.
>
> > Depends how old the 175 is. My experience is that most of them made in
> > the last 37 years just aren't that great and the ones earlier than
> > 1970 cost a fortunate and usually need to have the neck reglued and
> > refretted. I'd rather have a sadowsky than an average 175. No contest
> > IMO. But if all you are doing is standards, the 175 is probably a
> > better guitar.
>
> If you are doing standards at all, the 175 is the better guitar.
Disagree.
>
> I can see a Sadowsky Jim Hall or Jimmy Bruno model, but paying top dollar
> for an acoustically dead klunker with a block down the middle makes no sense
> to me when the Ibanez is as good as it gets in that sort of instrument. I
Have you played a Sadowsky semi-hollow? It's anything but a dead
klunker. Sheesh.
David J. Littleboy
"sheets" <jackz...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1193170781.5...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Anything with a block down the middle is, by definition, a "dead klunker".
Those guitars have their uses, but they aren't "archtops". Different world,
much closer to being a solid body than being an archtop.
I realize that you don't like archtops (sometimes I wonder if you've even
figured this out yourself), but solidbodies and their cousins are very
different beasts. That's Stryker/Schofield territory, not
Metheny/Rafferty/Affif/#####/Hall/Benson territory.
sheets
> "sheets" <jackzuc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1193170781.5...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Oct 23, 4:09 pm, "David J. Littleboy" <davi...@gol.com> wrote:
> >> "sheets" <jackzuc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > On Oct 23, 2:10 pm, "David J. Littleboy" <davi...@gol.com> wrote:
> >> >> "invisaman75" <invisama...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> > Don't do it! Just by a cheap Strat and keep your 175!
>
> >> >> Or a relatively cheap Ibanez Schofield model. Perfectly respectable
> >> >> guitar.
>
> >> > Depends how old the 175 is. My experience is that most of them made in
> >> > the last 37 years just aren't that great and the ones earlier than
> >> > 1970 cost a fortunate and usually need to have the neck reglued and
> >> > refretted. I'd rather have a sadowsky than an average 175. No contest
> >> > IMO. But if all you are doing is standards, the 175 is probably a
> >> > better guitar.
>
> >> If you are doing standards at all, the 175 is the better guitar.
>
> > Disagree.
>
> >> I can see a Sadowsky Jim Hall or Jimmy Bruno model, but paying top dollar
> >> for an acoustically dead klunker with a block down the middle makes no
> >> sense
> >> to me when the Ibanez is as good as it gets in that sort of instrument. I
>
> > Have you played a Sadowsky semi-hollow? It's anything but a dead
> > klunker. Sheesh.
>
> Anything with a block down the middle is, by definition, a "dead klunker".
Wait - YOU'RE CALLING IT A DEAD KLUNKER AND YOU'VE NEVER PLAYED ONE?!?
invisaman75
> "sheets" <jackzuc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Uh-oh!
David J. Littleboy
Yep. By definition it is. That's what the block down the center does. Kills
the acoustic tone. I played an ES-165 the other day that managed to be a
dead klunker even without the center block due to way to much wood in the
top. Nice electric sound. But these beasts ain't acoustic archtops.
There's nothing wrong with liking dead klunkers; you're in good company with
Stryker and Schofield, two blokes who have produced a lot of great music
with great sounds.
But don't tell me that they're replacements for an acoustic archtop. They're
not.
David J. Littleboy
Yep. I think Jack's giving really bad advice here. A center-block electric
ain't an acoustic archtop, and no matter how much he likes those, and
dislikes acoustic archtops, his advice is badly clouded by that opinion.
He's a true expert on center-block electrics, and if money were no object,
I'd take his advice in a heartbeat (if I had any interest in such a beast;
the Sadowsky guitars are truly gorgeous). But money is an object, and
there's nothing wrong with the Ibanez Schofield model for that type of work.
David J. Littleboy
>>
>> I realize that you don't like archtops (sometimes I wonder if you've even
>> figured this out yourself), but solidbodies and their cousins are very
>> different beasts. That's Stryker/Schofield territory, not
>> Metheny/Rafferty/Affif/#####/Hall/Benson territory.
>>
>
Just be glad I didn't chip in on the Benson vs. Martino thread<g>. Back when
I was starting jazz, I heard that Benson was god, read reviews and bought
several albums. All of which were complete garbage. I finally found his
early work, but I remain seriously pissed at the schmuck.
sheets
> But don't tell me that they're replacements for an acoustic archtop. They're
> not.
whateva.
sheets
> "invisaman75" <invisama...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 23, 1:26 pm, "David J. Littleboy" <davi...@gol.com> wrote:
>
> >> Anything with a block down the middle is, by definition, a "dead
> >> klunker".
> >> Those guitars have their uses, but they aren't "archtops". Different
> >> world,
> >> much closer to being a solid body than being an archtop.
>
> >> I realize that you don't like archtops (sometimes I wonder if you've even
> >> figured this out yourself), but solidbodies and their cousins are very
> >> different beasts. That's Stryker/Schofield territory, not
> >> Metheny/Rafferty/Affif/#####/Hall/Benson territory.
>
> > Uh-oh!
>
> Yep. I think Jack's giving really bad advice here. A center-block electric
> ain't an acoustic archtop, and no matter how much he likes those, and
> dislikes acoustic archtops, his advice is badly clouded by that opinion.
The guy already has an acoustic archtop and he wanted something more
versatile. And I love acoustic archtops. I love how you have decided
you know me better than myself. You're a riot. Go back to your bat-
cave and remember to take the full dosage schedule or your medication.
invisaman75
I had a black Gibson 335(ish?) guitar with no f holes. I bought in the
'80 real cheap. I played it on a RnB gig I was doing one weekend. It
was too freakin' heavy! My shoulder was killing me! I played it two
days and sold it not long afterward. It was a great guitar but not for
me!
sheets
> "sheets" <jackzuc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 23, 4:26 pm, "David J. Littleboy" <davi...@gol.com> wrote:
>
> >> > Have you played a Sadowsky semi-hollow? It's anything but a dead
> >> > klunker. Sheesh.
>
> >> Anything with a block down the middle is, by definition, a "dead
> >> klunker".
>
> > Wait - YOU'RE CALLING IT A DEAD KLUNKER AND YOU'VE NEVER PLAYED ONE?!?
>
> Yep.
'Nuff said. Rack 'em.
invisaman75
Now don't go talking about George Benson! That there ... is fighting
words! LOL :)
No really, GB had a few albums I think the average straight ahead jazz
lover would not like. Probably most of the CTI stuff. A few CTI albums
are some of his best work like "Bad Benson" and "In Concert at
Carnegie Hall".
Regarding Benson vs. Martino: Well is it MMA, Boxing or Tennis?
Mark Cleary
Having played both of these guitars as far as pure verstility I would
probably give an edge to the Sandowsky just because of how it is made. 175's
are used in a variety of ways but they can feedback and don't have some
colors the Sandowsky has for sound. If you really think your 175 is going to
be missed then maybe you should hold tight until your can afford both. Don't
make a decision you will regret since a good 175 is really an item that is
respected. The Sandowsky is a fine guitar and it could be something in the
future for sure that will beat a 175 for valued appreciation but you will
not lose on the 175.
I think either one will do what you want and you really need both guitars.
So on pure advice I would not sell the 175 I would simply pass and do
something to be able to have both guitars even if it means you must get over
GAS. I know it is hard to do but that 175 if it gets you thru will only be a
asset. If you cannot get past this then the Sandowsky will do the trick and
you won;t be out too much. The worst case is you don't like it as well as
the 175 so you sell the Sandowsky and buy another 175. !75 are not rare so
you can simply get another but at what price?
Not the answer you probably wanted but I remain pratical at heart.
--
Mark Cleary makes music on the finest Jazz guitars.
http://hollenbeckguitar.com/
"tomsalvojazz" <toms...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:1193143209....@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
David J. Littleboy
> On Oct 23, 6:31 pm, "David J. Littleboy" <davi...@gol.com> wrote:
>> "invisaman75" <invisama...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Oct 23, 1:26 pm, "David J. Littleboy" <davi...@gol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> Anything with a block down the middle is, by definition, a "dead
>> >> klunker".
>> >> Those guitars have their uses, but they aren't "archtops". Different
>> >> world,
>> >> much closer to being a solid body than being an archtop.
>>
>> >> I realize that you don't like archtops (sometimes I wonder if you've
>> >> even
>> >> figured this out yourself), but solidbodies and their cousins are very
>> >> different beasts. That's Stryker/Schofield territory, not
>> >> Metheny/Rafferty/Affif/#####/Hall/Benson territory.
>>
>> > Uh-oh!
>>
>> Yep. I think Jack's giving really bad advice here. A center-block
>> electric
>> ain't an acoustic archtop, and no matter how much he likes those, and
>> dislikes acoustic archtops, his advice is badly clouded by that opinion.
>
> The guy already has an acoustic archtop and he wanted something more
> versatile.
He'd have to sell the 175 to buy the Sadowsky, which can't do what the 175
does. So that "versatile" doesn't cover what he's already doing. That's not
very versatile. As an _addition_ to the 175, the Sadowsky would probably be
perfect. But it ain't a replacement.
> And I love acoustic archtops.
Really? For something you love, you spend a lot of time complaining about
them, recommending people replace them with center-block electrics.
Derek
to save a few bucks is to buy one used when you get enough cash put
together. Consider me in the "don't sell the 175 or you'll regret it"
category.
JonD
> I am going back to the orginal question on what to do with your situation.
> Having played both of these guitars as far as pure verstility I would
> probably give an edge to the Sandowsky just because of how it is made. 175's
> are used in a variety of ways but they can feedback and don't have some
> colors the Sandowsky has for sound. If you really think your 175 is going to
> be missed then maybe you should hold tight until your can afford both. Don't
> make a decision you will regret since a good 175 is really an item that is
> respected. The Sandowsky is a fine guitar and it could be something in the
> future for sure that will beat a 175 for valued appreciation but you will
> not lose on the 175.
>
> I think either one will do what you want and you really need both guitars.
> So on pure advice I would not sell the 175 I would simply pass and do
> something to be able to have both guitars even if it means you must get over
> GAS. I know it is hard to do but that 175 if it gets you thru will only be a
> asset. If you cannot get past this then the Sandowsky will do the trick and
> you won;t be out too much. The worst case is you don't like it as well as
> the 175 so you sell the Sandowsky and buy another 175. !75 are not rare so
> you can simply get another but at what price?
>
> Not the answer you probably wanted but I remain pratical at heart.
>
> --
> Mark Cleary makes music on the finest Jazz guitars.http://hollenbeckguitar.com/
>
Hi all,
Thanks for all the advice. It's been most helpful, even if it did get
a little scary there for a bit :). Joey is right about the 175 being
used in many other contexts, so maybe it's just the sound of mine that
I want to change. It a bit TOO woody and acoustic sounding for me
right now (never thought I'd say that).
I've been thinking hard and have tried a few other (although
undoubtedly inferior) semi-hollows. I think it's what I want, but the
points about the 175 are well taken. I've got a Martin acoustic, and
a Acoustic Image/Re setup that I don't use anymore (which hadn't
occurred to me before), which, while they won't cover the Sadowsky if
I sell them, will get me some of the way there, which could prevent
the sale of the 175 in the long run. Then I'd have two guitars for
similar jobs, which I feel a bit weird about (I'm not normally into
collecting) but I know a 175 is a pretty big thing to let go.
Anyway, thanks again so much for all your help everyone. If I do make
the big decision, I'll post the definitive 175 vs Sadowsky semi-hollow
review to beat them all :)
tomsalvojazz
The Sadowsky has nothing to do with a 335, a JSM, or most of the other
335-type semi hollow guitars. If you've never played one, you might
assume they relate. Roger said to me "I didn't want to make a typical
semi-hollow. There's enough of that shit around. If you want a 335,
go get a 335." The Sadowsky is not a dead clunker. The block down
the middle is not solid. Go to the Sadowsky website and do your
homework. This block was designed and redesigned until Roger felt it
was just right. Every gram of unnecessary wood has been carved out.
The Sadowsky is less of a dead clunker than many hollow body
archtops. Naturally, it's not for acoustic jazz. But it's more alive
and vibrant than many hollows. Seriously, it sounds nothing like a
335 or a Scofield (BTW, there's no "h" in his name). The Ibanez is a
great guitar for what it is, but you won't get archtop jazz tone out
of it. You WILL out of the Sadowsky. It was conceived with that
purpose in mind. The Sadowsky is a JAZZ GUITAR. The 335 (and clones)
is not. Would you consider a Jim Hall, Jimmy Bruno, D'A Jazzline,
Ibanez GB-200 dead clunkers? Because the Sadowsky SH soulds a hell of
a lot closer to them than any 335-type semi does. Don't get me wrong;
I love 335s. But let's make objective evaluations based on
experience, and not preconceptions.
The OP wanted real, honest answers from people who have played the
thing. Let's not do a disservice to him by spewing BS and cliches.
At least Jack Zucker's analysis is based on having actually played the
guitar. Whether or not Jaz might personally dislike playing hollow
bodies is irrelevant. The fact that someone might have a preference
does not minimize the validity of their opinion. I've always thought
of his evaluations as being pretty objective.
David J. Littleboy
"tomsalvojazz" <toms...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> The Sadowsky has nothing to do with a 335, a JSM, or most of the other
> 335-type semi hollow guitars. If you've never played one, you might
> assume they relate. Roger said to me "I didn't want to make a typical
> semi-hollow. There's enough of that shit around. If you want a 335,
> go get a 335."
Unless I misunderstood the OP's comments, the 335's the standard guitar for
what the OP needs his new guitar to do...
>The Sadowsky is not a dead clunker. The block down
> the middle is not solid. Go to the Sadowsky website and do your
> homework. This block was designed and redesigned until Roger felt it
> was just right.
Unless we're talking about a different guitar, that's a stop tailpiece
guitar.
http://www.walkin.co.jp/guitars/128884.htm
A stop tailpiece/center block guitar is a very different beast from a decent
175.
> Every gram of unnecessary wood has been carved out.
> The Sadowsky is less of a dead clunker than many hollow body
> archtops.
But that's a red herring: just because Gibson is leaving too much wood in
current 165s (I haven't played a recent 175) doesn't mean that a 175 that
sounds like a 175 doesn't sound like a 175.
> Naturally, it's not for acoustic jazz.
So why claim it is? That's the whole (and only) problem here: it's not an
acoustic archtop and can't do the acoustic archtop bit. If the OP has need
of an acoustic archtop, it ain't the right guitar.
It's a gorgeous guitar: I'd love one (since I currently don't own an
"electric").
But not for acoustic jazz...
sheets
> But not for acoustic jazz...
>
Sometimes you say the most stupid !@#$. It's not the size of your
guitar, it's what you do with it. Just ask Mark Kleinhaut, Pat
Martino, John Abercrombie, Paul Bollenback, Randy Johnston, Adam
Rogers, Ben Monder, Kurt Rosenwinkel, Rodney Jones, Mike Stern, Pat
Metheny, Lionel Louke, Dan Wilson, George Benson, Jimmy Bruno and many
others who have used solid bodies and semi-hollow guitars for acoustic
jazz (whatever that is).
da...@redstoneaudio.com
wrote:
> It a bit TOO woody and acoustic sounding for me
>right now (never thought I'd say that).
If it has a rosewood bridge, you might try a good TOM. That takes a
bit of the woody out. It will definitely change the sound, and on a
lot of guitars, a TOM sounds better to me.
dave
da...@redstoneaudio.com
<dav...@gol.com> wrote:
>A center-block electric
>ain't an acoustic archtop, and no matter how much he likes those, and
>dislikes acoustic archtops, his advice is badly clouded by that opinion.
>He's a true expert on center-block electrics, and if money were no object,
>I'd take his advice in a heartbeat (if I had any interest in such a beast;
>the Sadowsky guitars are truly gorgeous). But money is an object, and
>there's nothing wrong with the Ibanez Schofield model for that type of work.
Hey Tokyo Dave,
I just got back from the Arlington Guitar Show in Texas. We were
fortunate enough to get Clint Strong to play at our booth. He brought
his bass player along and they blew the whole place away! Now to the
point----I offered him my Benedetto Bravo to play, and he says "Nah, I
want to play this" and proceeds to sound like anything you would want
to hear on a PARKER FLY!
So it seems that it matters less than one might think what one plays.
(I thought about getting a Fly, but I have learned by now that won't
make me sound like Clint)
Dave
Derek
jump directly in. However, I would like to point out that my PRS
Archtop has a stoptail piece, but no monster block of wood running
thru the middle.
It has a sound post large enough to support the tailpiece, and to
connect the spruce top and maple back. It is without a doubt the most
versatile guitar I have ever owned. The OP mentioned his teacher
having one, and he liking it.
It is not anything like a 335 imo, though it does doe rock/blues
well. After I put a Gibbo 57 in the neck, I have used it for solo
jazz, and it fit the bill quite well. I only mention it as an example
of a stoptail guitar that bridges the gap between a 335 and my 175.
If Roger set out to build a semi with this sort of vibe, it is my
guess he nailed it considering how well he out 175'd the 175 with the
JH. My $.02
Robert Orr
semi. Since I have owned the Sadowsky, I have sold my Fender D'aquisto, my
Yamaha 1200S (L5 copy) and my PRS hollowbody. I still have my Heritage 535
but I never play it. When I first got the Sadowsky, I was not in love with
it, in fact, I tried to sell it right away. I hadn't spent enough time with
it to fully appreciate it. After about two weeks of playing it out on gigs,
I was able to hear things out of this guitar that the others were not
capable of in terms of dynamic range and responsiveness. It does come closer
to the traditional jazz sound than any other semi, so comparisons to the
Ibanez Scofield and the 335 are moot. Those guitars sound more "solid" if
you will than the Sadowsky. Of course they will work, but they will not
sound like the Sadowsky. In addition to having a great neck pickup jazz
tone, the middle position is great for funk rhythm, and the bridge pickup
will do blues or even rock if the amp is set right. It doesn't sound exactly
like a 175 or any big box jazz guitar, but it will cover that ground and
more, and it's a very expressive instrument, not to mention being beautiful
as well. All that being said, I wouldn't sell a guitar that you love to get
the Sadowsky. I would buy it, and keep both for a year, then decide what to
do after that.
"sheets" <jackz...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1193183324.3...@t8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
David J. Littleboy
"tomsalvojazz" <toms...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> The Sadowsky has nothing to do with a 335, a JSM, or most of the other
> 335-type semi hollow guitars.
> Naturally, it's not for acoustic jazz.
"sheets" <jackz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> But not for acoustic jazz...
>
> Sometimes you say the most stupid !@#$.
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
ts...@hotmail.com
> Okay, so here it is. My beautiful, faithful, dependable 175, which
> has been my only guitar for about 7 years, and with which I've
> suffered much and achieved the odd breakthrough, is in the other
> room. Hopefully it doesn't know what's going on in here...
>
> I'm thinking I want a semi-hollow. I'd like something maybe a bit
> more versatile, and, well, a bit more modern and less musically
> typecasting than the 175, but the dark Jim Hall sound is still very
> important to me. Anyway, I was looking at the Sadowsky semi-hollow.
> It looks very nice (especially with the scratch plate), and I've read
> some very flattering reviews (including on Jack Zucker's very helpful
> page), and the American dollar is not faring very well right now -
> which is great news for me (I can get one for around 3,600 Aussie
> dollars).
>
> So, a)who's got one?, and b)who wants to make open and frank
> comparisons between the Sadowsky and a really nice 2000 Gibson 175
> that is genuinely loved, and would be sorely missed? (I can't afford
> one without selling the other).
>
> All opinions would be greatly appreciated. Amp wise, I'm using a
> JazzAmp 10" with an Alesis Nanoverb.
>
> Thanks guys,
>
> Jonwww.jondelaney.com
Amp wise, I'm using a
> JazzAmp 10" with an Alesis Nanoverb.
Would you consider working with a differerent amp that gives you a
wider palette of sounds ?
Skip
Another Cleveland Guy
> Back when
> I was starting jazz, I heard that Benson was god, read reviews and bought
> several albums. All of which were complete garbage. I finally found his
> early work, but I remain seriously pissed at the schmuck.
C'mon, tell us what you REALLY think of him! (I love a good flame
war)
David J. Littleboy
Nah. I'm sitting firmly on both sides of the fences on this one: he's both
the best and worst guitarist of all time. Impressive for one bloke.
Somewhat seriously, though, did he have much of a choice after his early
work? What was selling in those days? He needed to do something to make it
through the late 70s and 80s, and the smooth niche worked. Even Wes was
going smooth just before he died. Maybe we'd be lamenting Wes' wasted
talents if he hadn't.
Was anyone making any money doing straight ahead in those days? Ellis and
Kessel were doing the college circuit in the early part of that period, I
guess.
If we effete pseudointellectual snobs aren't coughing up the money for the
music, it ain't the artists fault for doing something different. And I'm not
helping: I'm still stuck on Sonny Stitt.
JonD
> I'm going to chime in here since I'm the guy who bought Jack's Sadowsky
> semi. Since I have owned the Sadowsky, I have sold my Fender D'aquisto, my
> Yamaha 1200S (L5 copy) and my PRS hollowbody. I still have my Heritage 535
> but I never play it. When I first got the Sadowsky, I was not in love with
> it, in fact, I tried to sell it right away. I hadn't spent enough time with
> it to fully appreciate it. After about two weeks of playing it out on gigs,
> I was able to hear things out of this guitar that the others were not
> capable of in terms of dynamic range and responsiveness. It does come closer
> to the traditional jazz sound than any other semi, so comparisons to the
> Ibanez Scofield and the 335 are moot. Those guitars sound more "solid" if
> you will than the Sadowsky. Of course they will work, but they will not
> sound like the Sadowsky. In addition to having a great neck pickup jazz
> tone, the middle position is great for funk rhythm, and the bridge pickup
> will do blues or even rock if the amp is set right. It doesn't sound exactly
> like a 175 or any big box jazz guitar, but it will cover that ground and
> more, and it's a very expressive instrument, not to mention being beautiful
> as well. All that being said, I wouldn't sell a guitar that you love to get
> the Sadowsky. I would buy it, and keep both for a year, then decide what to
> do after that.
>
>
> news:1193183324.3...@t8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Oct 23, 6:31 pm, "David J. Littleboy" <davi...@gol.com> wrote:
> >> "invisaman75" <invisama...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > On Oct 23, 1:26 pm, "David J. Littleboy" <davi...@gol.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> Anything with a block down the middle is, by definition, a "dead
> >> >> klunker".
> >> >> Those guitars have their uses, but they aren't "archtops". Different
> >> >> world,
> >> >> much closer to being a solid body than being an archtop.
>
> >> >> I realize that you don't like archtops (sometimes I wonder if you've
> >> >> even
> >> >> figured this out yourself), but solidbodies and their cousins are very
> >> >> different beasts. That's Stryker/Schofield territory, not
> >> >> Metheny/Rafferty/Affif/#####/Hall/Benson territory.
>
> >> > Uh-oh!
>
> >> Yep. I think Jack's giving really bad advice here. A center-block
> >> electric
> >> ain't an acoustic archtop, and no matter how much he likes those, and
> >> dislikes acoustic archtops, his advice is badly clouded by that opinion.
>
> > The guy already has an acoustic archtop and he wanted something more
> > versatile. And I love acoustic archtops. I love how you have decided
> > you know me better than myself. You're a riot. Go back to your bat-
> > cave and remember to take the full dosage schedule or your medication.
Thanks heaps Robert, that was very helpful. And just what I wanted to
hear (which is always nice).
JonD
Hi Skip,
I know what you mean. I'm moving to Berlin next year though, and need
something easy to ship, and portable (won't have a car). I've not
found anything like the JazzAmp with as great a sound and clear output
at performance volumes. I've got some effects and things which I'm
thinking about starting to use again, but generally I'm very happy
with the tone of the JazzAmp.
Thanks though,
ts...@hotmail.com
Hey Jon
I've got the jazz amp10 and 12 , and while i love the fat tone for
certain "jazz" styles, I do find it lacking for styles of music which
require more top end. For something small , and portable, you might
also want to consider looking into The possabilities of the Clarus
and/or various speaker configurations that might allow you to get the
sound you are after, especially if you are planning to add effects to
your sound.
I've wrestled with the archtop vs semi solid debate for several years
myself , and finally settled on having both. As they both have
merits . I find that each gtr gets used as per the job I'm working on
at that particular time. anyway good hunting
Skip
JonD
Hi Skip,
I've got a Clarus/RE, and a MiniBrute too, but the JazzAmp still beats
them hands down for lugging around (with the gig bag), and I do really
love the tone. Even teles have sounded good through it. Eventually,
if I keep down the semi-hollow line I might go back to tube amps, but
not until I'm once again the owner of a car. I've also considered
getting a JazzAmp extension speaker. I recently plugged it into my RE
for a bigger sound on a recording and loved it.
Anyway, thanks again for your advice. I think your decision to have
both semi-hollow and archtop is the right one. I'm just trying to
figure out what else I can sell! Maybe the Clarus (the polytone is too
beaten up to sell, but still sounds great).
tom walls
dav...@gol.com says...
>
> "Another Cleveland Guy" <jgi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 23, 7:35 pm, "David J. Littleboy" <davi...@gol.com> wrote:
> >> Back when
> >> I was starting jazz, I heard that Benson was god, read reviews and bought
> >> several albums. All of which were complete garbage. I finally found his
> >> early work, but I remain seriously pissed at the schmuck.
> >
> > C'mon, tell us what you REALLY think of him! (I love a good flame
> > war)
>
> Nah. I'm sitting firmly on both sides of the fences on this one: he's both
> the best and worst guitarist of all time. Impressive for one bloke.
>
> Somewhat seriously, though, did he have much of a choice after his early
> work? What was selling in those days? He needed to do something to make it
> through the late 70s and 80s, and the smooth niche worked. Even Wes was
> going smooth just before he died. Maybe we'd be lamenting Wes' wasted
> talents if he hadn't.
>
IMHO his playing always delivers. I've never heard him play short of
terrific. It's that quasi-disco beat that the "smoothers" love, that
totally sticks in my craw. A lot of guys seem to think it brings
smoldering intensity to the plate. Guys that I really like. It screams
CHEESE to me. Can't stand it.
--
Tom Walls
the guy at the Temple of Zeus
ts...@hotmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
I had a chance to play both the Eastman El Rey and the Sadowsky Semi-
Hollow body , pretty much side by side at one of the trade shows
earlier this year , even though both gtrs are different in terms of
concept and construction , both would allow you to accomplish similar
results. There is also the Gibson ES-336, ES 346 and ES356 family with
the one piece routed out mahogany body which also sounds great for a
variety of music styles.
Skip