es-175s vs 17 inch Laminate Gibsons
steve
IMO, 175s lack low end richness of tone that the 17 inch Gibson archtops
offer. It's not fair to compare full body guitars to cutaways,but of the
cutaway plywood tops (es-350, Tal Farlow) give me more of what I like in
tone than the 175 (and I like the scale, too). For real killer rich, smokey
tone (but not the best playability..and I dont just mean access above the
12th fret) I love my 1954 es-150. Ive always been a little puzzled by the
near universal appeal of the 175.
Im just saying...
steve
--
"DONT TREAD ON ME"
Gadsden Flag
Five Sharp
Steve wrote:
> IMO, 175s lack low end richness of tone that the 17 inch Gibson archtops
> offer. It's not fair to compare full body guitars to cutaways,but of the
> cutaway plywood tops (es-350, Tal Farlow) give me more of what I like in
> tone than the 175 (and I like the scale, too). For real killer rich,
> smokey
> tone (but not the best playability..and I dont just mean access above the
> 12th fret) I love my 1954 es-150. Ive always been a little puzzled by the
> near universal appeal of the 175.
Funny, I have been moving away from my ES 175 to my Tal Farlow more and more
because of this very reason. The Tal Farlow does have better bass response
and sounds generally fatter than my 175 which is by no means a bad guitar. I
feel that a bigger box (and do not forget the importance of the longer 25.5
scale of the 350/Tal Farlow in this) produces a rich sound more easily.
Interestingly, my ES 350t is a thinline that sounds just as fat as my 175
and 125. I don't think that guitar is much of a compromise at all. You'd be
hard pressed to guess it's thinline just from a recording. With 17 ", the
body is quite big and thicker than you'd think. Great guitar.
It seems the longer scale appeals to me more these days.
#####
Phil
I like the sound of the 17" body and 25.5 scale for sure, but the
ES-175 body size and scale is more comfortable. I've played Tals and
they feel like boats to me. I'll give up some tonal girth for a
guitar I can actually play.
Five Sharp
ES-175 body size and scale is more comfortable. I've played Tals and
they feel like boats to me. I'll give up some tonal girth for a
guitar I can actually play.
That seems to be the problem. I know of two guys that traded in their Tals
(Derek of this group being one) for an ES 175 for this very reason. But you
could never play an L5 with that attitude Phil :) An L5 is even bigger than
a Tal Farlow because it has a slightly deeper body.
Still, once you get used to the bigger body the rewards are obvious. I am no
big guy so if I can play a Tal, anyone can.
#####
Phil
.
> But you could never play an L5 with that attitude Phil :)
I know, bud -- I'm stuck in the small guitar club. Wish I could --
you get a wonderful sound on your Tal.
I actually get a pain in my elbow and upper right back from playing a
17" body 3"+ depth for any length of time. I had a Heritage Eagle of
this size for awhile. Really, I'm most comfy with my Telecaster, but
can't get a great sound out of it for jazz.
Greger Hoel
> Really, I'm most comfy with my Telecaster, but
> can't get a great sound out of it for jazz.
Try out other Teles. There's a lot of very different yet Tele shaped
guitars out there.
--
Sendt med Operas revolusjonerende e-postprogram: http://www.opera.com/mail/
steve
On 5-Oct-2009, "Five Sharp" <hjg.o...@onsbrabantnet.nl> wrote:
> Interestingly, my ES 350t is a thinline that sounds just as fat as my 175
> and 125. I don't think that guitar is much of a compromise at all. You'd
> be
> hard pressed to guess it's thinline just from a recording. With 17 ", the
> body is quite big and thicker than you'd think. Great guitar.
That's the really short scale (23.5" ?), isnt it? Like a Byrdland?
Derek
>That seems to be the problem. I know of two guys that traded in their Tals
>(Derek of this group being one) for an ES 175 for this very reason. But you
>could never play an L5 with that attitude Phil :) An L5 is even bigger than
>a Tal Farlow because it has a slightly deeper body.
>Still, once you get used to the bigger body the rewards are obvious. I am no
>big guy so if I can play a Tal, anyone can.
I am 6'6" and 250lbs, so the 1" difference between the Tal and 175
really wasn't much of an issue for me.
I just favored the tone and playability of the 175 over the Tal. I
think the Tal is a fine instrument, and would not hesitate to own one
again if I thought I was going to use it.
steve
On 5-Oct-2009, Derek <de...@ycoaoffice.com> wrote:
> I
> think the Tal is a fine instrument, and would not hesitate to own one
> again if I thought I was going to use it.
Use it? What has that got to do with wanting to own one?
;^))
Five Sharp
alternative to the Byrdland. Later ES 350t s all had the 25.5 scale, like
the full size ES 350. All reissues like mine have the 25.5 scale.
#####
"steve" <st...@steve.com> schreef in bericht
news:zxqym.24897$tG1...@newsfe22.iad...
Five Sharp
> I just favored the tone and playability of the 175 over the Tal. I
> think the Tal is a fine instrument, and would not hesitate to own one
> again if I thought I was going to use it.
Are you sure? I'd say playability has a lot to do with scale and size
of a guitar for most people. Maybe the single most important variable.
Apart from the scale and size differences I'd say the Tal feels a bit
more like a higher end guitar than my ES 175, so more luxurious. But
for the rest?????
#####
Five Sharp
ES 350t.
"1956 Gibson ES-350T specs: The ES-350T replaces the full body and full
scale ES-350, which is no longer available after 1956."
#####
esiegel
who says he has one that he special ordered?
E
steve
On 5-Oct-2009, esiegel <esie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Anyone here ever heard of laminate top heritage 575, I know someone
> who says he has one that he special ordered?
I saw one sell on ebay a few months ago...blonde, too, and I think it went
for about $1500.
Phil
> På Mon, 05 Oct 2009 18:41:30 +0200, skrev Phil <pdema...@yahoo.com>:
>
> > Really, I'm most comfy with my Telecaster, but
> > can't get a great sound out of it for jazz.
>
> Try out other Teles. There's a lot of very different yet Tele shaped
> guitars out there.
>
> --
> Sendt med Operas revolusjonerende e-postprogram:http://www.opera.com/mail/
Thanks -- The one I have is a 50's style. Its awesome for rock and
country stuff, so I keep it for that. I'm open to specific
suggestions for jazzier Tele configurations...
Greger Hoel
> Thanks -- The one I have is a 50's style. Its awesome for rock and
> country stuff, so I keep it for that. I'm open to specific
> suggestions for jazzier Tele configurations...
AFAIK, there's a Brent Mason model Fender with a neck position mini
humbucker. Fender also has one Tele with mahogany body and neck, as well
as a maple top(or was it spruce?). Then there's Warmoth's universe of
possibilities... The best guitar I've ever played had a 3+3 headstock,
mahogany/rosewood neck; 24 3/4" scale; maple/basswod semi-hollow body with
a maple cap; TV Jones pickups; Tune-O-Matic; Bigsby and, last but not
least, a Tele shape:
<http://www.guitarworks.no/images/Bakgrunn/SA%202000%20010.jpg>
Sonically like a small bodied, semi-hollow Gretsch(I would imagine; I have
never played an actual small bodied, semi-hollow Gretsch), but with the
nice balance of a Tele body.
I guess what I'm saying is that you can cram a world of different sounds
into a Tele shape. OTOH, you might be just fine with any Tele with a
rosewood fingerboard and a neck humbucker...
george4908
> into a Tele shape.
Might try looking for a Tele Jr. All mahogany, set neck, routed semi-
hollow and P-90s:
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-7/1052255/FenderUSACustomShopTeleJr.JPG
It was a Fender Custom Shop model and no longer made except by special
order, but enough were built that you can find them. I have one and
it's great. (It also rocks, if you're into it.)
Tim McNamara
"steve" <st...@steve.com> wrote:
> We all have our personal preferences. Im just saying...
>
> IMO, 175s lack low end richness of tone that the 17 inch Gibson archtops
> offer. It's not fair to compare full body guitars to cutaways,but of the
> cutaway plywood tops (es-350, Tal Farlow) give me more of what I like in
> tone than the 175 (and I like the scale, too). For real killer rich, smokey
> tone (but not the best playability..and I dont just mean access above the
> 12th fret) I love my 1954 es-150. Ive always been a little puzzled by the
> near universal appeal of the 175.
Well, I think (1) it sounds decent, (2) it's durable and therefore easy
to travel with and (3) it (was originally) cheap. Worked well enough
that a lot of jazz guitarists bought one and as a result became
something of a de facto standard.
That doesn't mean it provides the sound *you* want to hear, of course.
Which makes it good that there is choice. I like my carvetop and my
Tele and my weird Frankenstrat and...
> Im just saying...
Whatever that means. I've never figured it out. It's like "My bad."
My bad what? Harrumph, I'm getting old. My parents didn't understand
what "far out!" meant. I seem to have crossed to the high side of the
generation gap.
Tim McNamara
<69c2969f-34a6-43d9...@q14g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,
Phil <pdem...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Really, I'm most comfy with my Telecaster, but can't get a great
> sound out of it for jazz.
Clearly some great jazz tones can be gotten from Teles, so there must be
something that can be done with yours. I think that comfort is pretty
critical in a guitar- an uncomfortable guitar is just in the way and a
barrier to playing.
I have only one 24 3/4" scale guitar for that reason- the short neck is
uncomfortable, making me crowd my fingers, and prefer the 25 1/2" scale.
steve
On 5-Oct-2009, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
> > Im just saying...
>
> Whatever that means.
In my case it means "No offense intended."
Tim McNamara
<4b655ef3-32e6-42f4...@h30g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>,
Phil <pdem...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 5, 12:57�pm, "Greger Hoel" <greg...@blowme.com> wrote:
> > P� Mon, 05 Oct 2009 18:41:30 +0200, skrev Phil
> > <pdema...@yahoo.com>:
> >
> > > Really, I'm most comfy with my Telecaster, but can't get a great
> > > sound out of it for jazz.
> >
> > Try out other Teles. There's a lot of very different yet Tele
> > shaped guitars out there.
>
> Thanks -- The one I have is a 50's style. Its awesome for rock and
> country stuff, so I keep it for that. I'm open to specific
> suggestions for jazzier Tele configurations...
I bought one of the "Squier" Affinity Teles for US$180, strung it up
wiith 12s and voila, Ed Bickert circa "Pure Desmond." Well, except for
the part about being incapable of playing like Ed Bickert or- on a bad
day- even a person with the normal number of fingers.
I was amazed at how easy it was to approximate Ed's earlier tone on that
very cheap guitar. I had to do a little nut work for the thicker
strings, since it seemed to be slotted for .009s, and of course some
intonation and setting the action, and maybe a tweak of the truss rod
(but I don't specifically recall doing that). I found I had to pick
softly and turn up the amp to compensate. It wouldn't sound as
typically "Tele-like" for rock and country the way it's set up. But
hey, for about $200 it's a cheap experiment.
Joey Goldstein
> Really, I'm most comfy with my Telecaster, but
> can't get a great sound out of it for jazz.
I'm sure you've seen my checklist for a good-sounding jazz-Tele... But
here it is again:
Alder body - not swamp ash, not poplar, etc., etc.
57 Classic in neck-position.
500k vol and tone pots. .02 cap for tone pot.
6 saddle Gotoh brass chrome-plated bridge.
.012" - .052" strings. (I like D'Addario Chromes flat-wounds. Ed and
Lorne L. use round-wounds with an unwound G, .016" or .018".)
Maple neck w/Rosewood fingerboard, not a maple fingerboard.
On my guitar I have a 24.75" scale "conversion neck" with rosewood
fingerboard.
Regular 25.5" scale sounds "bigger".
The 24.75" scale has more of an ES-175 vibe and is easier to play with
the heavier strings.
With my short-scale neck and the flat-wounds my guitar sounds like a
cross of Metheny's and Bickert's tones.
--
Joey Goldstein
<http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
<http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
joegold AT primus DOT ca
Derek
>Are you sure? I'd say playability has a lot to do with scale and size
>of a guitar for most people. Maybe the single most important variable.
>Apart from the scale and size differences I'd say the Tal feels a bit
>more like a higher end guitar than my ES 175, so more luxurious. But
>for the rest?????
I have a 25 1/2 inch scale tele in my hands every day just about, and
have had major gas over one of Jim Soloway's 27 inch semihollow
guitars since I was part of the test drive program this spring.
The scale didn't bother me a bit. Maybe part of it was
psychological. I had the VSB, but prefer the Viceroy Burst.
Wonderful guitars.
skip
From observations ,It seems like there are more makers who are making
smaller body guitar these days to address the issue of feedback vs "
jazz" tone vs comfort / playability . As players seem to be demanding
more from their guitar we are seeing guitars such as the sadowsky semi
hollow and Jimmy Bruno model, the Mercury by McCurdy guitars ( see
Sheryl Bailey dvd) ,Marchione Mark Whitfield signature model. Martin
Taylor's Vanden guitar , The Ellsberry L-35 , the out of production
Gibson L5 signature ( 15" body) , the smaller body Eastman, PRS
hollowbody, and many others on the market these days.
Skip
Tim McNamara
<cda7c396-fa7e-4334...@z4g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
skip <ts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
And of course there is the venerable Ibanez GB-10. Small body, fat tone.
steve
On 5-Oct-2009, "Five Sharp" <hjg.o...@onsbrabantnet.nl> wrote:
> No, only the early ES 350ts had the short scale. They were the laminate
> alternative to the Byrdland. Later ES 350t s all had the 25.5 scale, like
> the full size ES 350. All reissues like mine have the 25.5 scale.
Thanks for the info. That guitar looks interesting, but Ive always stayed
away because of what I thought was the short scale.