Gibson ES-135: is it really so versatile?
Daedalus
rockabilly... but is the Gibson 135 really so versatile as they say? It
looks as if the ES 135 has the best qualities of the 335 & 175 and is very
playable...
I have also read that there is a big difference between a 135 with P100 and
one with classic '57 PAF hambuckers. Does anyone of you can explain the
difference between these two kinds of pickups?
I am seriously considering to buy one (mainly because it is very cheap and
versatile, unlike other Gibsons) as I would like to start playing jazz
without paying the big bucks.
Thanks anyone who would like to answer my questions!
Max
Winston Castro
>I've heard that many guitarists use it for blues, rock, jazz and even for
>rockabilly... but is the Gibson 135 really so versatile as they say? It
>looks as if the ES 135 has the best qualities of the 335 & 175 and is very
>playable...
>
>I have also read that there is a big difference between a 135 with P100 and
>one with classic '57 PAF hambuckers. Does anyone of you can explain the
>difference between these two kinds of pickups?
>
I own one myself. Great axe. I've used it for rock, blues, fusion,
and some pretty straight ahead jazz. I have the P-100 version, some
would argue the classic PAFs provide a better, more traditional.
warmer jazz tone and that's probably true.
I actually like the P-100s myself and don't plan on replacing them.
They are kind of 'in their own world' which is a good fit to my style
of playing, which itself is 'in it's own world'. I'm less interested
in having some "classic jazz tone" or trying to sound like everyone
else as far as having a "proper jazz tone". I'm more interested in
forging ahead with my own unique sounds.
The P-100s are basically humbuckers with an increased high-end
response. The pickup I use 98% of the time is the neck position one by
itself. I like a "dull" bassy tone for the most part and the neck p/u
alone is just about right for me. I might roll off just a tad with the
tone pot on occasion, but it sometimes winds up as sounding too muddy
that way. So I just leave it maxed out. (Full treble) Still sounds
kind of dull and warm even with that.
Of course amps used, amp settings, and room condition make a huge
difference themselves.
It's hard to describe them sonically because I have never really
heard another pick up that sounds anything like them. Seems like
people for the most part love them or hate them. I would suggest
trying both out and see what fits your style of play.
RobertH446
very versitle and get a nice jazz sound
a few more dollars but i see used ones all the time
i have been real happy with the one i bought
bob
Bunker
replaced the P-100's, but probably will after buy a new amp. It's not that
they are BAD, its just that they lack character. There are some really
great replacement pickups out there by Seymour Duncan, Harmonic Designs, Rio
Grande, etc. I really like P-90 sound, and I am not sure if i really want
a HB. And frankly, I don't know how much stock I put in the Gibson 57PAFs.
Just remember, if you get the P-100s, you will not be able to replace later
with humbuckers (the hole is wrong size).
Anyway, very playable. Like the neck. I think the guitar really sings with
flat .11's, and practice alot without plugging in. One thing- Must do
something to keep the strings behind the bridge from ringing.
The 135 with HB is a great deal too, but is more expensive.
Remember, I suck at guitar, and YMMV.
Lee
"Daedalus" <omph...@tin.it> wrote in message
news:44FF6.479$oY1....@news1.tin.it...
KB
Wine red Limited Edition with 2 57 PAF's and really nice gold hardware.
Am I gonna keep it - you bet! Is it my only electric - nope, but it
does make a lot of very nice sounds.
I find it to be quite versatile with a wide range of tones to choose
from. I did try a standard with 2 p-90's and found it to be very
different, the p-90's kinda sucked and really only had one sound IMO.
Like any instrument, if it speaks to you, keep it.
Cheers
Keith
Daedalus wrote:
--
TTFN
Keith & Chris B http://members.home.net/kbeddard/birds.htm
Buster (B&G), Bailey (GW), Red (GJ), Widget(Senegal) and Scotty ('tiel)
--------
96 V6 Ragtop
K&N no snorkle, no screen, no post
Strut tower brace, Pro5.0
Mac pullies
245/45/17 SZ50's on 3 spoke GT take off's
Tom Walls
>
>I bought one last year after wanting one for a looong time. I bought a
>Wine red Limited Edition with 2 57 PAF's and really nice gold hardware.
>Am I gonna keep it - you bet! Is it my only electric - nope, but it
>does make a lot of very nice sounds.
>
>I find it to be quite versatile with a wide range of tones to choose
>from. I did try a standard with 2 p-90's and found it to be very
>different, the p-90's kinda sucked and really only had one sound IMO.
>
I guess you guys have all been speaking of the new 135s. The ones they made
in the 50s with P90s are pretty much "one tone" pickups, as you described.
But it's a great tone! Hard to beat IMHO.
--
Tom Walls
the guy at the Temple of Zeus
http://www.arts.cornell.edu/zeus/
_____________________________________
Mark Guest
the 125's? They appear to be a 125 with fancier appointments (Les Paul type
trapezoid inlays and bound neck), but I have never found a 125 that sounds
or plays anywhere near as nice as my '56 135. Anyone know why?
And while we're on this topic, does anyone have a clue as to why Gibson
decided to recycle the model number?
--
Mark Guest
JazzerWB at JahWho dot com
"Tom Walls" <tw...@cornell.edu> wrote in message
news:9c99k3$ath$3...@news01.cit.cornell.edu...
Tom Walls
says...
>
>Yeah, the old 135's are real sleepers. Are they constructed differently from
>the 125's? They appear to be a 125 with fancier appointments (Les Paul type
>trapezoid inlays and bound neck), but I have never found a 125 that sounds
>or plays anywhere near as nice as my '56 135. Anyone know why?
>
I don't know why, but I do agree with you. I used to have a 125 that was
quite pretty, but the neck didn't feel quite right -- I'm thinking maybe
it was a softer wood than I have in my 135 -- and it's tone was very weak.
Larry Vigneault
for its versatility and feel.
Mark Guest
> I don't know why, but I do agree with you. I used to have a 125 that was
> quite pretty, but the neck didn't feel quite right -- I'm thinking maybe
> it was a softer wood than I have in my 135 -- and it's tone was very weak.
Not trying to put down the new 135's, but I must say that I was pretty
unhappy that Gibson recycled the model number. It sends a message (to me)
that the early 135's were inconsequential. They're not Super 400's, but they
*did* appreciate in value...not all the Gibbies can make that claim (see the
Mark VII(?) series flat-top.)
Larry Vigneault
popularity of the earlier ES-135's, not diminish it.
Winston Castro
Wait just a minute, I believe Gibson used the 135 number and the
entire model as "A tribute to the original 125/135 era thinline
archtop guitars".
Well that's what Gibson's marketing hype was in any case. But
hardly a put down if one can believe them on it.
They wanted to combine the body size and shape of an ES-175 with the
thinbody characteristics of the 125/135 series.
Mark Guest
> Wait just a minute, I believe Gibson used the 135 number and the
> entire model as "A tribute to the original 125/135 era thinline
> archtop guitars".
>
> Well that's what Gibson's marketing hype was in any case. But
> hardly a put down if one can believe them on it.
>
> They wanted to combine the body size and shape of an ES-175 with the
> thinbody characteristics of the 125/135 series.
Hmmm...I dunno. A tribute? Why not reissue? Or rename. Not important, and
certainly not worth much discussion, but they're *not* the same guitar. Even
the 125 and 135 had quite a variance...what with the thinbodies, full-depth,
cuts, non-cuts... Oh well. Maybe they're saving room in the line for a 145
and a 155?
Ramon Cancel
payed mostly rock and blues for many years. I love the neck on the ones
I've played, tends to be meatier than the 175 neck, which is why it suits my
tastes better.
RCC
"Daedalus" <omph...@tin.it> wrote in message
news:44FF6.479$oY1....@news1.tin.it...