Gibsons the popsters' acoustic choice?

Subject: Gibsons the popsters' acoustic choice?
From: GUEST,Roger the skiffler
Date: 10 Jul 00 - 09:21 AM

As the resident village idiot, you know I'm always asking stupid questions (but with the helpful answers I get, I'll soon be county idiot)so be gentle with me if the answer is obvious to a musician!
On the occasions when I see a popular music ensemble (what we used to call "groups" or "combos - to me a "band" is somewhat larger than four people) which employs an acoustic or amplified acoustic guitar they mostly seem to be Gibsons.
There could be several reasons for this:
1)It is a small sample,it isn't really true and I should get out more!
2)It's a prominent logo and the only one I recognise
However, in the instrument discussion threads you folkies rarely mention Gibsons as an acoustic choice(I'm well aware of the electric Gibsons' prominence in jazz and blues).
Are they too expensive for folk musicians or just inferior in sound or construction? Or is it just part of the folk tradition?
RtS

Subject: RE: Gibsons the popsters' acoustic choice?
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 10 Jul 00 - 10:15 AM

I don't know what the real answer is but one thing I will say is although they are well made instruments, I have yet to meet a Gibson that has done anything special for me sound wise an if I was thinking in terms of spending a lot of money on a guitar, it would have to have something very special about it - I can think of a couple of Martin's that would suit me nicely for example.

The tone is a very subuctive issue and it could be that one day I meet a Gibson that I would "kill for" but assuming you are correct (I can only think of one Gibson in folk circles round here and the owner normally uses a Sigma), and this is sheer speculation. Perhaps Gibson's don't produce a tone that appeals to many folk players.

Jon (expecting to be shot down in flames for this post)

Subject: RE: Gibsons the popsters' acoustic choice?
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 10 Jul 00 - 10:47 AM

Hi Roger, I'm afraid option "1. may be the most accurate.

Gibson's popularity is greater than ever, although I have to say that Taylor (acoustic-electrics) are probably the "most seen" brands in North America.

Martin of course is still the instrument of choice among most professionals, but I think what really confuses the issue is the number of "custom" hand-made instruments out there.

At a bluegrass festival in say...1970, you'd have seen virtually 100% Martin D-28 guitars, Gibson Mastertone banjos, and perhaps 50% Gibson F-5, or F-2 Mandolins. The prices on the mandolins had started to get into the five thousand dollar range even then, so a lot of Gibson copies were seen.

Today, Martin and Gibson's dominence is less visual because it's just too dangerous to take a vintage D-28, Mastertone, or F-5 to a big gathering. Many players are using substitutes (Taylor, Collings, even Ibanez and some other high-end Japanese instruments can be seen)

At a general folk festival it's not so cut and dried, but I can tell you that my 1903 Gibson F-3 was the only REALLY vintage mandolin at the recent Mariposa festival.

One thing that's happening now is that pickers have more choice than before. Before a player plunks down 5 grand for a guitar, there's a lot of thought. Celtic fingerpickers often prefer Lowdens or Laskins (which are REALLY expensive), but one thing never changes. When the pickers (in every style) sit bullshitting with one another..they often talk about "that ol' Gibson, or Martin" they saw (or used to own).

On the other hand, a fifty dollar harmony in the right hands can sound like gold.

Rick

Subject: RE: Gibsons the popsters' acoustic choice?
From: dwditty
Date: 10 Jul 00 - 11:10 AM

I have noticed that the J45 (The Workhorse) or its electrified version, the 160 (The John Lennon guitar) show up in all kinds of music - folk, country, blues, rock, etc. No other guitars seem to cross the musical categories like these. Martin D28's - bluegrass, Guild - rock, etc. But these Gibson are everywhere. I'd have to say that a J45 I once owned was the easiest guitar I have ever played. Sometimes it seemed to fret itself. Maybe that has something to do with it.

dw

Subject: RE: Gibsons the popsters' acoustic choice?
From: Whistle Stop
Date: 10 Jul 00 - 11:14 AM

I agree with Jon Freeman -- I've never met a Gibson acoustic that really did a lot for me, in comparison to Martins or others in the same price range. However, there are exceptions, and also some specific reasons to consider Gibsons:

1. Exceptions -- Some of the older Gibsons have that certain something that makes them desirable to a particular player. Whether this undefinable quality was inherent in the instrument from the moment it was built, or is the result of years of being played, is hard to say. There are a few really accomplished players that seem to prefer Gibsons these days, including Russ Barenberg and Norman Blake. Some players (like Blake) really like the old Nick Lucas body style (smaller than a dreadnought, but deep).

2. Gibsons have a shorter scale length -- 24.75 inches from nut to bridge saddle, as opposed to the standard 25.5 inches on a Martin. The longer (Martin) scale length means that the strings are at a higher tension, allowing the notes to "blast" out a little more strongly, making these particularly good fpor bluegrass players. But some folks prefer the sweetness of tone that the shorter scale length provides, and/or find it a little easier for small hands to negotiate. [This issue also crops up in the long-standing "Les Paul vs. Strat" debate among electric players.]

3. The vintage vibe -- There is something about the older Gibson acoustics, especially the sunburst models, that is just very appealing. This is part substance, part style, but I think a lot of us are susceptible to both (whether we admit it or not). Somebody like Gillian Welch, for instance, could probably do just as well with a Martin as she does with a Gibson, but her deliberate adoption of a quasi-dust-bowl persona is probably better served by an old sunburst Gibson than it would be by an off-the-rack Martin. [The Martin dreadnought has become so ubiquitous that it just looks like "a guitar" to most people -- even if it's a pre-war D-45 that vintage guitar freaks would drool over. The non-guitar-plauying audience would probably notice the look of a Gibson where they'd ignore the look of a Martin.]

4. The Gibson Jumbo -- This is a different beast altogether, and tends to be quite popular among country and rock'n'roll rhythm guitar players. It's got a great rhythm tone, very full but more even across the tone spectrum than a boomy Martin. Lots of classic rhythm players have played these -- the Everly Brothers, Pete Townshend, Tom Petty, Emmylou Harris, etc.

Subject: RE: Gibsons the popsters' acoustic choice?
From: L R Mole
Date: 10 Jul 00 - 11:39 AM

Boy, what a can of vermicelli this opens up: snobbery and reverse snobbery, country and folk, Shakerist classicism (the spirit, not the guitar type) and decoration/ostentation.Not to mention new and used, import and home-produced, acoustic and /or electric,north and south, and collectors who don't play.And then there's the matter of endorsements by famous people, the relationship, or lack of same, between honesty and advertising, and the blurry line between need, want, and gotta have. I play a Montague acoustic myself, and a Capulet electric. I just can't leave them in the same room unless the cases are fastened.

Subject: RE: Gibsons the popsters' acoustic choice?
From: Whistle Stop
Date: 10 Jul 00 - 12:57 PM

A rosette by any other name...

Seriously, our motivations in choosing an instrument DO go beyond the simple "which one sounds better?" test. We evaluate instruments primarily in terms of sound and playability, but it's not a simple thumbs up or thumbs down evaluation. With respect to sound, the question is what quality of sound you're looking for. Do you play bluegrass runs that should have a lot of single-note punch? Do you play delicate fingerstyle set-pieces that benefit from a piano-like or chimey harpsichord sound? Do you primarily strum chords to back up your singing voice, so that you want something that sounds smooth and rhythmic but without too much presence in the individual notes? Do you play solo (covering the whole tonal spectrum yourself) or with other instruments (like bass) that you want to avoid interfering with? How many of these types of playing do you want to use one guitar for, and what compromises are you willing to make in the interest of versatility? If you're getting ready to drop a couple thousand dollars on a guitar, these and other questions are worth asking. Also worth asking are questions about playability -- do you want low or high action, a big or small body, deep or shallow, tight-waisted or not? It matters.

As for cosmetics, lots of people pretend not to care, but in my experience most do. Ornate vs. understated, sleek and glossy vs. worn-in, etc. -- this matters to people. And again, if you're getting ready to shell out serious money, you may as well get what you want.

Subject: RE: Gibsons the popsters' acoustic choice?
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 10 Jul 00 - 02:15 PM

L R Mole is right of course. Snobbery plays a BIG part in the instruments we choose. I'm a classic offender. I dress sloppily, drive a Ford Escort, buy Radio Shack products (sorry Lej) and wouldn't know one wine (or bottled water) from another......but....I LOVE the mystique, the shape, the SEX appeal of a vintage Martin or Gibson. Sure, the hours I spend fussing over my instruments and constantly doing set-ups, makes them beautiful to play......but the cheapest Korean-made guitar (with a straight neck and good action) can still sound wonderful in the right hands.

Rick(selective snob)

Subject: RE: Gibsons the popsters' acoustic choice?
From: Fortunato
Date: 10 Jul 00 - 03:12 PM

Roger the Skiffle, hello! I own a 1958 J45 Gibson. I have owned and sold two Martins. I'm not a collector, just a player. I use it wherever and whenever I play. When it breaks I get it fixed, when it needs new frets or a bridge I have them done. In my hands and my ear it equals or surpasses the other spruce topped mahogany sided and backed guitars I have owned and/or played (Martins,et al). The sound of a rosewood sided and backed guitar is simply different. The comparison is pointless.

IMOP the playabillity of my Gibson's neck is superior to all but Taylor and Gurion.

I have played Bluegrass,Swing,Old Time, Blues, etc. on it for 38 years in numerous bands and groups. I have never played 'popular music'. Regards Fortunato

Subject: RE: Gibsons the popsters' acoustic choice?
From: Willie-O
Date: 10 Jul 00 - 03:30 PM

The Popster's Choice as I see it is clearly Ovation. Nothing to do with sound, (yech) they're just convenient.

Generally Gibsons have been somewhat more heavily built than Martins which have always had extremely thin tops--in the balance between tone and durability Martin has always leaned towards tone and Gibson the other way. (Relatively slight differences considered objectively, but they change the character of the instruments a lot). People who perform live with Martins, specially outdoors, do a lot more fussing and tuning to keep their thoroughbreds running.

Old Gibsons have gotten a lot more expensive than they were, but nowhere near as stratospheric as Martins.

I like em both, but I like my new guitar better!

W-O

Subject: RE: Gibsons the popsters' acoustic choice?
From: Margaret V
Date: 10 Jul 00 - 11:05 PM

I love my Gibson for many reasons. It's the only guitar I've ever had; it's small and has a really skinny neck that's easy for me to play; the action is painless. Now somewhere down the line I'll have to get something different in addition, because I'm interested in getting a richer, more full sound for some of what I do. But it sounds great for picking country blues. I haven't studied up on the history of different guitar makes and models, so I don't know much about this one. My folks bought it for my older sister around 1965 and it mostly sat in the closet for another decade or more waiting for me to become a teenager and take an interest. . . it was no doubt very cheap at the time of purchase; it says LG0 inside, that's all. Anyone want to offer me some history? Thanks. Margaret

Subject: RE: Gibsons the popsters' acoustic choice?
From: bbelle
Date: 10 Jul 00 - 11:12 PM

Margaret ... I'm not getting into this discussion because most everyone knows how I feel about my Gibson B-25 (or my "wretched little Gibson," as the flamer known as "Twitchy" so eloquently put it several months ago).

I got my very first guitar around 1964 and it was an LG-0. I loved it but bought my B-25 in 1965 because the neck was even skinnier (1 1/2") ... and it's been my best friend for 35 years.

I am currently looking for another guitar ... one with a warmer, smokier sound than my B-25 and better-compliments my "now" voice. A friend asked me "So, why are you getting rid of your B-25?" I told him I wasn't ... I just wanted another guitar.

moonchild

Subject: RE: Gibsons the popsters' acoustic choice?
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 10 Jul 00 - 11:18 PM

Moonchild, I have felt that way about instruments for years, there are sensible guidelines and it is known that some makers tend to produce better instruments than others but ultimately, if YOU love it, it is a great instrument!

Jon

Subject: RE: Gibsons the popsters' acoustic choice?
From: mactheturk
Date: 11 Jul 00 - 08:44 PM

I own a 1962 Gibson Country Western acoustic. It's square shouldered with honey color top, sides are dark cherry. It has a hummingbird pickguard without the artwork. The fretboard inlay is mother of pearl parallelogram design.

I've played almost everyday since 1969. You would think that I would be a little better than I am.

Mac

Subject: RE: Gibsons the popsters' acoustic choice?
From: bbelle
Date: 11 Jul 00 - 08:49 PM

Hey, Mac ... me, too!

moonchild

Subject: RE: Gibsons the popsters' acoustic choice?
From: rangeroger
Date: 11 Jul 00 - 11:08 PM

In 1967 I bought a Gibson LG-3 that came to be my best friend.It played louder than a Martin D35 and yet could be made to speak softly while being finger-picked.One time when I went skiing I brought it inside from 5 degree weather to a fire warmed room.I began to hear funny crackling sounds from inside the case. When I opened the case up, the finish had a million tiny cracks in it.For years the face of that guitar glowed in the right light.
Unfortunately, I killed that guitar in a Jeep accident in 1983.It had been my best friend for many years and I was grief-stricken.I have since replaced it with another 000 size guitar that I dearly love,but I keep the pieces of that "wretched little Gibson" in my back room to constantly remind me of stupid actions.
A luthier friend of mine looked up the serial number and found it was made in 1953.One of only 350. Natalie MacMasters' guitar player plays an old Gibson LG-3.
rr

Subject: RE: Gibsons the popsters' acoustic choice?
From: uncle bill
Date: 11 Jul 00 - 11:41 PM

My J45 is 32 years old. Sound better than the Martins my freinds all own .(I think truthfully its the Elixir strings) . It is my 3rd Gibson and if it dies before I do I'll buy another one. I might consider a Taylor or a Martin but would definitely use an Ovation if I needed something to use as a hanging basket for potted plants. btw, I think I was a "popster" long ago and far away.

Subject: RE: Gibsons the popsters' acoustic choice?
From: bbelle
Date: 11 Jul 00 - 11:52 PM

So damn glad to see you other Gibson-players comes out of the woodwork. I've been real vocal about how much I love my B-25 and I usually get beatup by the Martin-players. They've never changed my mind, though. The worst was Twitchy ... that one hurt my feelings and cut to the quick ... always figured he played a custom Martin and couldn't see the forest for the mother-of-pearl. I recently went to GHS lights and like them very much. For years, I used mediums but they play hell with my fingers. Frankly, if you love your instrument and it suits your needs and sounds good, I don't care what you play ...

moonchild

Subject: RE: Gibsons the popsters' acoustic choice?
From: JedMarum
Date: 11 Jul 00 - 11:53 PM

I have an 1969 Gibson Heritage. Nice guitar, but not a great guitar. It is true, I think, that Martin's generally far surpassed the comparable Gibsons over the years> I also believe (and I am generalizing) that Gibson got their marketshare through clever marekting and endorsments ... while Martin won the respect of the players by producing top quality instruments.

With the advent of some real quality instruments hitting the marketplace, both Martin and Gibson seem to have redoubled their efforts to produce quality. I've seen some interesting Gibsons in the stores these days, but they don't turn me on like the Martins or the Larrivees.

Moonchild, I'd love to see your Gibson one of these days. Sounds like it might be one their gems!

Subject: RE: Gibsons the popsters' acoustic choice?
From: bbelle
Date: 12 Jul 00 - 12:15 AM

Jed ... If I can make it to Dallas for the NTIF next year, I'll surely bring it with me ... hopefully, I'll have my "new" one by then, to bring with me, too. BTW ... your Larrivee is a "honey."

moonchild

Subject: RE: Gibsons the popsters' acoustic choice?
From: Clifton53
Date: 12 Jul 00 - 12:20 AM

My J45 is from the mid-eighties. I fell in love with it visually at first, since it has what I think is an unusual finish, mahogany sunburst. At the time, the price was pretty steep, @600 or so, and I let it hang in the store for a long time, playing it once or twice and telling the store owner, 'damn that sounds good'.

I finally took the plunge and have been more than happy ever since. It has aged along with me, and has never sounded better, or so I've been told.

I don't wish to enter into the eternal debate over which brand is better. I've played other great Gibson's, and some crappy one's too. The same for Martin's.

But these Taylor's now, they are a different breed. I haven't played one yet that I didn't like, and I can't say that for any other make.

Can anyone?

Clifton53

Subject: RE: Gibsons the popsters' acoustic choice?
From: dwditty
Date: 12 Jul 00 - 06:40 AM

My first guitar was a 1917 L1. Badly cracked (which I had fixed). It had been really played as evidenced by the wear of the frets and the scuffed finish on the top. It had such soul. In fact, I've always thought that that little guitar taught me how to play.

dw

Subject: RE: Gibsons the popsters' acoustic choice?
From: Lanfranc
Date: 12 Jul 00 - 07:29 AM

I owned a J45 briefly in the late 60's, I traded it in for the Martin D18 I still have. It's purely subjective, but I have always found Martins to be more comfortable to play for some reason that is hard to define. I also like the boominess/bass projection of the Martin.

A B25 and a J200 have also passed through my hands, and I once guitar-sat a J50 for a friend who went travelling, but a friend of mine has just acquired a 70s Hummingbird which is superb when she plays it, but ordinary when I play it.

What does that tell you?

I'll stick to my Martins and Washburns, until the right Gibson comes along.

Subject: RE: Gibsons the popsters' acoustic choice?
From: GUEST,Roger the skiffler
Date: 12 Jul 00 - 08:55 AM

Thanks to everyone for their tolerance & information. I think there's a consensus that:
A lot of pop groups use other acoustics, often handmades, but as they don't have prominent logos I don't notice them
A lot of folkies use Gibsons but for some reason they don't enthuse about them as much as the Martin boys and girls.
Seems like a theme for a song (tune: Martin and Coys) The Martins and the Gibsons!
I consider myself suitably better educated for your responses. (That's what I'm here for, to steal knowledge from you and leave some tired old jokes as poor exchange!)
RtS
:o)

Subject: RE: Gibsons the popsters' acoustic choice?
From: Jim the Bart
Date: 12 Jul 00 - 09:54 AM

Once again I'm late to the ball, but here is my nickles worth. I don't think it's the quality of Gibsons that makes them show up in "high profile" situations like ads, TV shows, etc. They are great at marketing their product and make sure that up and coming "artists" have a Gibson in their hands when the proverbial Kodak moment arrives. They do a lot of endorsement deals and also custom make a lot of models for artists to make sure the good old Gibson name stays up there in the front.

Although their marketing has always been stellar, Gibson quality - particularly in regard to acoustic guitars - has always been uneven, IMHO. I have seen some awful Gibson acoustics and I have seen some that are really cool instruments. I found my current favorite guitar, an old beat up LGO, in a resale shop. I saw it in the window as I was walking to work. I just about died when I realized it was not the typical second-hand store instrument - an El-Kay or some other no name chunk-of-wood-with-strings. Since the store wasn't open yet, I called my sweet wife and implored her to rush down there and BUY IT, first thing. I had missed the chance to buy a beautiful Gibson Hummingbird (bi-centennial model) once because I had my heart set on a Martin and the loss of that guitar haunted me. I was prepared to pay almost anything for this one without playing it - good, bad or indifferent. The price turned out to be $30. I put about a hundred bucks into fixing it up and after eight years it still plays like a dream and sounds like a million bucks. I consider it make-up karma for the Martin that got swiped, but that's another story. . .

Subject: RE: Gibsons the popsters' acoustic choice?
From: Fortunato
Date: 12 Jul 00 - 10:18 AM

Jed You heard my J45 at the FSGW Minifestival at Eastern Jr High last year. I played a lead and fills on one of the songs you sang. Do you remember?

Fortunato

Subject: RE: Gibsons the popsters' acoustic choice?
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 12 Jul 00 - 11:24 AM

Long live Gibson! From Orville, through Lloyd Loar and the folks who played them publicly and raved. Whether the logo said "Kalamazoo", or "Kel Kroydon" or (in the 60s) "Epiphone". Two of the most "perfect" axes ever made were the "J-45" (or J-50) and the B-25.(and it's Epiphone equivalent)

The J-45 (or J-50, or Epiphone Texan) may be the ultimate workhorse of acoustic music. They stuck an adequate pick-up on it (J-160-E) and it became the Beatles' rhythm guitar. My 1962 "Texan" was the best guitar I ever owned (yup, it's the one I sold to pay the rent...and I still regret it). I bought it after seeing how Tom Rush made his "talk".

The B-25, was the perfect guitar for blues and small hands. Every time I've had a student trying to negotiate a big dreadnought without much luck, I wish I could point them in the direction of a B-25....but they just don't come on the market very often 'cause folks like moonchild hang onto them. Martin's 0-18 is also a perfect axe for smaller folks (but even 6 foot, 220 pound folksingers, like me, love it) but when it comes to necks...I know I'm being heretical here....I'll take Gibson.

One of the things that make Gibson "special" to me is the number of times they've totally screwed up! Remember the "Mark" series? or how about their venture into classicals? Perhaps their silliest instrument was the "Acoustic" low impedance Les Pauls. Those sounded like wet plastecine.

Among all the "classic" acoustic instruments over the second part of this century, my favourites have to be:

Martin D-18

Gibson J-45

Guild (small mahoganny)

Guild 12 string

Martin 0-18

Gibson B-25

Martin D-45...hey I love pearl too!

Gibson J-200

And I'll bet 20 years from now Taylor and Larrivee will be in that list.

Guitar nerd

Subject: RE: Gibsons the popsters' acoustic choice?
From: bbelle
Date: 12 Jul 00 - 12:38 PM

Dear Roger the Skiffer ... Are we reading two sets of posts, here? Other than sending you a picture of me french-kissing my Gibson, how much more enthusiastic do you want me/us to be?

Frankly, I think Gibson-lovers tend to be a little more humble than Martin-lovers. We're more caressing and less pounding.

moonchild

Subject: RE: Gibsons the popsters' acoustic choice?
From: Wesley S
Date: 12 Jul 00 - 12:40 PM

Two of the best guitars I've ever heard were my brothers 60's era B45-12 { those 12-strings were monsters } and a good friends early 60's J-45. I would love to own either of them. I've heard many J-45's that were truly wonderful. Having said that - I tend to find a lot more Martin's that I would want to spend money on and own than Gibsons. Thats especially true of the modern models. I'd hate to think that I was a snob for any brand. It's just a matter of taste. Of course when I hit the lottery I'll get a Santa Cruz, a Collings, an Olsen, another Lowden............

Subject: RE: Gibsons the popsters' acoustic choice?
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 12 Jul 00 - 01:11 PM

Interesting comments, there obviously are some nice Gibson's around and I am beggining to wonder whether I have just been unlucky with the few I have either played or listened to in a purely accoustic environment, maybe one day...

As for their other instruments, I know of an early A Model mandolin round here that I would dearly love to own and a Mando-Cello. I have never had the pleasure of meeting a Mastertone Tenor banjo - again, maybe one day.

Jon

Subject: RE: Gibsons the popsters' acoustic choice?
From: Jed at Work
Date: 12 Jul 00 - 02:04 PM

yes, Fortunato I remember. There are some wonderful Gibsons, and I didn't mean to say that they are bad guitars ... I was generalizing. There are few Gibsons I've heard over the years that I would be thrilled to own ... I guess my point was that the lionshare of Martins are quality guitars, while it seems the exception for Gibson guitars to make that rank.

By the way, I hope I can make it back to FSGW fest or mini-fest next year. I suppose I should be talking to someone there about booking. It was a great time!

Subject: RE: Gibsons the popsters' acoustic choice?
From: Fortunato
Date: 13 Jul 00 - 03:19 PM

Jed, you might want to contact KathWestra about booking.

later, Fortunato

Subject: RE: Gibsons the popsters' acoustic choice?
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 13 Jul 00 - 05:27 PM

Jon, "sound" is so totally subjective. Everyone hears things differently. Funniest of all is when we try to describe an instrument's sound with metaphors that mean nothing to anyone else except ourselves. I know a lot of folks who hate the Gibson "sound", and folks who wouldn't own ANYTHING but a Larrivee. Now a Mastertone banjo? How could ANYONE hate that?

Rick

Subject: RE: Gibsons the popsters' acoustic choice?
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 13 Jul 00 - 07:07 PM

Interesting... I like to think that I am open to giving any instrument a chance on its own individual merits (although if somebody showed me an Ovation that sounded good accoustically, I would probably faint, I know some instruments are likely to be better than others...). I am no player and am in fact getting worse instead of better but I still like to think that I am a reasonable judge of the quality of build of an instrument as well as the sound (or in fact sounds) that I like without being too influenced by the make although I probably am.

Here is one for you Rick, I once had a go on a beat up (very well played/ used) old guitar that I was told(hoping my memory is correct) was a Stan Francis. I loved it - ever heard of them?

Jon

Subject: RE: Gibsons the popsters' acoustic choice?
From: GUEST,MoohTooh
Date: 14 Jul 00 - 01:36 PM

I always have felt I slipped in shit the day I sold a Gibson B-somethingorother to a needy cronie. Oh well. It was very good sounding in DADGAD. Being 35 years old doesn't hurt a guitar's tone. I wish I could have it back. I recently played a newer Gibson I liked, but I don't see too many around here. Mooh.

Subject: RE: Gibsons the popsters' acoustic choice?
From: catspaw49
Date: 14 Jul 00 - 01:48 PM

Wesley....The second 12 I ever owned was one of those wonderful, big' booming, Gibsons and it was the very first guitar I ever had that "got legs." I hope the SOB that stole it has terminal 'roids!!

Jon....When you get here one day, I will be happy to answer your parenthetical question.

I was glad to see Rick mention some Guilds. except for the 12's they don't get a lot of mention around here.....even less than Gibson, but over the years they have retained an excellent reputation, built a lot of fine guitars, been VERY popular with all kinds of performers, and have never gained much "panache" in the collector market. On the one hand, that's too bad.....On the other, there are some fantastic Guilds out there for a lot fewer bucks.

Spaw

Subject: RE: Gibsons the popsters' acoustic choice?
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 15 Jul 00 - 09:01 AM

A STAN FRANCIS GUITAR JON? Of course I've heard of them. A Liverpool maker I believe. His most famous instrument is the 12 string he made for Pete Seeger almost 40 years ago. All those incredible booming bass lines! Ahhhhhh.

Rick

Subject: RE: Gibsons the popsters' acoustic choice?
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 15 Jul 00 - 11:40 PM

Shows my ignorance, I never knew anyone famous had one or was sure that I had remembered the name of the maker correctly.

What I do remember was this one (a 6 sting) was a character and it had balls! - hows about that for meaningless metaphors?

JOn

Subject: RE: Gibsons the popsters' acoustic choice?
From: GUEST,we5rall1
Date: 16 Jul 00 - 10:12 PM

I didn't read all of the replies , but dear moon child , I seem to remember that in the sixties the better your ear got , the better a guitar you wanted and while Martin was tops and someof the old gibson "Hawks and Doves' were easy on the ear as well . I had an old American made Epihone that played like ray price sang , nothing but smooth. I've been through many guitars over the years , and although I am the proud owner of a great FENDER accousti/elec. and a sometimes unbelievable GUILD Starfire 4 (F-hole arch top) my favorite ax is an old VENTURA accoustic. it has a brass bridge ,brass nut , and brass pegs as well. It always tunes well it is very resonant , and the luthier at Mars Music tested it for sound anainst three different TAYLORs , and said he picked the old ventura every time . I guessI'm saying all of that to say this that guitar only sounds as good as he or she who plays it . nuff said.

Subject: RE: Gibsons the popsters' acoustic choice?
From: bbelle
Date: 16 Jul 00 - 11:40 PM

Well, guest, I must be tired and dull tonight because I'm not sure why you singled me out for your response. If you're impuning my ear ... don't. If you're trying to make another point, then please do so in a more organized manner. I'm a stickler for semantics and punctuation and verbage that makes sense.

moonchild

Subject: RE: Gibsons the popsters' acoustic choice?
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 17 Jul 00 - 05:15 PM

Jon, I've never seen a Stan Francis other than Seeger's, but do you know a maker I'm curious about? Zemaitis. I've only seen them in England. Believe Clapton and Harrison (to whom I apologise for stabbing) owned them. Have you seen any?

Rick

Subject: RE: Gibsons the popsters' acoustic choice?
From: bbelle
Date: 17 Jul 00 - 05:26 PM

Rick ... if you don't stop, someone's gonna believe you and they're gonna arrest you and you will spend 30 years in prison. But the upside is that you will be able to write and sing about your experiences ...

moonchild

Subject: RE: Gibsons the popsters' acoustic choice?
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 18 Jul 00 - 08:07 PM

Rick, I hadn't heard of Zematis guitars but it seems that they are quite well known. I have done a bit of searching and found out that Tony Zematis stopped making guitars in April this year. I also found this small article: http://www.vguitar.com/online/messages3/2051.htm

Jon

Subject: RE: Gibsons the popsters' acoustic choice?
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 18 Jul 00 - 09:15 PM

Thanks for the site Jon.

There was a guy over in the States named Bozo(with one of those funny things over the "z") Podunovac, who built stuff very much like Zematis. Very old-world European with lots of blatant (some would say "over the top") decorations. Huge pearl inlays and lots of wood marquetry.

A number of prominent musicians played his guitars but they seemed to gaudy for most people's tastes.

Somewhat similar to the old "SilverBelle" banjos and the odd Paramount or Orpheum. 'Course Gibson made their "Florentine and Bella Voce" (pictures of Italy all over it) so I guess that's what some folks wanted.

Rick

Rick

Subject: RE: Gibsons the popsters' acoustic choice?
From: catspaw49
Date: 18 Jul 00 - 09:30 PM

Hey Rick....Didn't Kottke play them? The Bozos?

AND JON.......If you want to see what Rick is talking about, go to GRUHN GUITARS and click on inventory. Go about 3/4 of the way down and you'll see he has several. Check the ornate 12 string......BTW, Gruhn is another one of those fine places to hang out if you're in Nashville. He occasionally picks up some C/W stars stuff and he always has a few Grammers and some other interesting things. You won't get any "real deals" because George Gruhn has literally written the book on vintage pricing!

Spaw

Subject: RE: Gibsons the popsters' acoustic choice?
From: JedMarum
Date: 18 Jul 00 - 10:43 PM

I think we're all Bozos, on this bus.

(funny how often I get to use that line).

Subject: RE: Gibsons the popsters' acoustic choice?
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 18 Jul 00 - 10:47 PM

Don't remember Paw. But the Reverend Gary Davis sure did. I tried one once and found them extremely neck-heavy. Too uncomfortable for my liking.

Subject: RE: Gibsons the popsters' acoustic choice?
From: catspaw49
Date: 18 Jul 00 - 10:52 PM

You need to run a search on that line Jed....we seem to use it a lot......I used it somewhere the other day. I think we ran a thread on Firesign...or was it just a creep in another?

Spaw

Subject: RE: Gibsons the popsters' acoustic choice?
From: Jim the Bart
Date: 18 Jul 00 - 11:10 PM

Yes, Leo the K. did use a Bozo (with the little thing over the z). It caused a big stir when he appeared with it in concert at NIU in '68 or '69. As did the Firesign Theatre. Ya see, all this stuff is connected.
This may be thread creep, but did anyone see the article about the Everley Bros. in Acoustic Guitar Magazine? They talk about Don's big Gibson on which he created all those memorable intros and revolutionized rock music. It really is a good article.

Subject: RE: Gibsons the popsters' acoustic choice?
From: GUEST,Lyle
Date: 19 Jul 00 - 09:22 PM

Whistle Stop, out of curiosity, when did Norman Blake switch to Gibson? I saw him in the early 70's, and he had a Martin D36 and a 28. Later sang (wrote?) a song about the Martin D18. Guess I'm surprised he went to Gibson!

Lyle

Subject: RE: Gibsons the popsters' acoustic choice?
From: Whistle Stop
Date: 20 Jul 00 - 08:32 AM

Lyle, in more recent days Norman Blake has expressed a preference for Gibsons. He still has both Gibsons and Martins, I'm sure, and I would imagine he still plays both of them. But he's been increasingly drifting into the Gibson camp, particularly the Nick Lucas models. There was a cover piece on him in Acoustic Guitar magazine a few months back, and he talkted about it in some detail. Partly it seems to be that he finds the slightly smaller (but deep) non-dreadnought body style and shorter scale easier to manage (as he said in the article, he's not a big guy), and partly he seems really drawn to the tone (and my cynical side wouldn't be surprised if he finds the old Gibson sunburst aesthetics more in line with his old-time persona). On a couple of his more recent CDs you can see him posing with Gibsons.

Subject: RE: Gibsons the popsters' acoustic choice?
From: Dharmabum
Date: 20 Jul 00 - 08:49 AM

Among some of the possesions I wish I still had, would have to be the Gibson J45 I had in 71. I swapped it for a VW bus, wish I still had that too.

Ron.

Subject: RE: Gibsons the popsters' acoustic choice?
From: Willie-O
Date: 20 Jul 00 - 08:55 AM

The J45 is a big guitar, but much less likely to roll over and kill you.

I want to know, where is this Gibson Camp? Is it across the lake from Martin Camp? I want to spend time on that lake.

Willie-O

Subject: RE: Gibsons the popsters' acoustic choice?
From: L R Mole
Date: 20 Jul 00 - 09:50 AM

Don't know where it is but you probably have to secure the Gibson girls when the Martingales come up...

Subject: RE: Gibsons the popsters' acoustic choice?
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 20 Jul 00 - 11:17 AM

Willie, thanks for bringing back memories.

GIBSON&CAMP! Live from the Gate of Horn! Great album.

Sorry for the bad joke.

Rick

Subject: RE: Gibsons the popsters' acoustic choice?
From: catspaw49
Date: 20 Jul 00 - 11:30 AM

....geeziz......