Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


milod last won the day on July 17 2017

milod had the most liked content!


666 Excellent

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Center of the USA

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Good on yah for bringing this thread back. A bit over two years ago "Digger" got things going to bring prayers and positive vibes after I has a stroke that messed up a lot of my left side's "fine motor skills" like typing and <argh!> guitar picking. Today my lady and I were out "shooting" for the local newspaper and basically although I could, nobody else could tell what we'd been through. It's a testimonial to folks here, I think... There was a "roping," cowboys and cowgirls roping calves and steers in timed competition, a car show and quilt show in a small rural neighboring town's Labor Day celebration. Now I've gotta write a news story and process a dozen digital pix for publication, so... Life's good. Cherish it while you can take enjoyment from it. m
  2. Just trying to figure an open G version for this one to make my now-funky left hand sufficiently functional on a cupla pieces. This piece should work well enough that way, and it fits the time and place, especially since we had about a foot of snow early this week... and the buffalo grass is doin' pretty well, been hearing geese and when driving, watching out for elk, deer and even antelope. Kid... Only 60? "Kid" is right! <grin> m
  3. Curious... is that an early Ruger .22? Can't see much of it. Neat pix... Truly. m
  4. Well... For me, guitar-wise it's been a bit rough. Almost exactly two years ago I had a stroke that kinda screwed up my left hand. Luckily not much more. Typing speed down from gusts of 150 to, when I'm at it, around 5-60 wpm. Guitar... well, still in cases mostly. Since my typing is part of making money, albeit down to theoretical half time (now about 35-40 hours for less paycheck, actually), I put emphasis on that. I did give away four guitars to nice young ladies aged 20-50, that I knew would appreciate decent instruments. So... when I finally get tired of the baloney surrounding my "job," I'll get back to pickin' more heavily. I can't tell you how much I miss picking up a guitar and messing with updating how I'd do piece "A" or "B" but then I'm not dead yet, either. m
  5. Izzy... Super that things are working for you. I got a kick out of the term "drum machine," since for a while in the mid '70s when this other guy and I were looking for a human drummer, we used one from that era for a two-or-three gig a week as a saloon house band. If used right folks didn't really think about it, and we kept things moving. That old analog outfit still is packaged and I still have it. Any "drum machine" has many weaknesses compared to even a half-decent human drummer, but it's more fun to practice with, I'm sure, than a metronome. All my best. m
  6. Izzy... Good to see you back... Hope you're still pickin'! m
  7. They look nice... I have a Gretsch G100CE Synchromatic Hollowbody - Black. In ways it's awfully ugly. Single floating pup, controls on the pickguard. It plays well, and I used it in a couple of stage sets, but no way around it, I prefer the shorter scale rather than the 25.5. m
  8. In the olden days for me as a photojournalist I used a number of cameras... Can't even recall the label on my rangefinder; but then there were the 2 1/4 square cameras, as in Rollei... and given that without a pentaprism, one "shot" while seeing things backwards and upside down, shooting basketball was a gas... My first printed color shot was with an old press graphic, sheet film. Frankly my SLR digital Nikons and Photoshop handle current needs quite well, although I still have some film cameras gathering dust or existing as worn-out trophies of travel to other places and even other continents. As others, my darkroom is long gone. The thing is, there are thousands of ways one might consider photography. I'll occasionally think "art shot," but most are those of a working photojournalist - regardless that some few have won awards. Tools, in photography or guitar playing, have importance, but regardless, they're but part of a craftsman's system to produce a result desired at a given point in one's life. Oddly that's even essentially a major message in Musashi's Go Rin No Sho, but must be read as metaphor: "The carpenter will make it a habit of maintaining his tools sharp so they will cut well. Using these sharp tools masterfully, he can make miniature shrines, writing shelves, tables, paper lanterns, chopping boards and pot-lids. These are the specialties of the carpenter. Things are similar for the soldier. You ought to think deeply about this." Ditto the photographer and whatever tools he uses... the tool is still but an instrument... m
  9. Ziggy... I'm not turned on that much by the Joe Pass Epi either. If nothing else, it feels different. A few folks have gone on record in the forum, however, that they'd not swap their JP for a 175. That's because of their "feel" for an instrument. And Epi 175 copies have varied even more than Gibsons through the years. My point is that to me it's playing geometry. Frankly I wasn't that turned on by the 175 at first, regardless Gibson or in the mid '70s the excellent "patent infringement" Ibanez. That changed about 15 years ago when I messed around with string choices that actually fit my playing far better than "the traditional jazz guitar" choices. The minute I had the 9-42 "on," and plugged in, there was a discovery that for me, this was "the" guitar. The real Gibson, a better Epi piece and the Eastman copy all "fit" in that sense. Again, that's me, my average overall body size and shape and arms shorter than average, as in 32-inch sleeves are too long for me in a dress shirt purchase. Is the Gibson almost certainly a better quality of parts and artisan construction than options today or 40 years ago? Yeah, with some variations on individual instruments. But that's not really what I'm talking about. And again, to me it's the actual geometry of the instrument to the player, and that's my priority along with the more pragmatic of one's purchase decisions. A lot also has to do not just with the player's physical body with the overall guitar geometry, but also with the playing geometry given how a given player uses left and right hands, string choices, etc. I return again to my perspective on the LP: Even the best quality, fanciest edition of an LP simply doesn't fit me, either standing in a band or sitting for a solo instrumental or instrumental/vocal. I can appreciate a lot about the LP, but it just doesn't fit me. You could give me one and it simply wouldn't get played. A 175 probably would, but with my strings and setup to get it working for me personally. One might note that the 175 Gibson made for Joe Pass, there were some slight personal variations to the instrument that Pass wouldn't really be specific on, and that he noted are not a "Joe Pass Special" 175. It was a one-off for him to reflect yet more closely his geometry and playing style. A one-pup archtop often gets bad comments too, but having used one on stage for a wide range of saloon band material in my area in the '70s. I'm not one to take that tack given amplification options. For what it's worth, in other circumstances I've also not really cared about the appearance of guitars I played at home or on stage since around 1972 so much as appropriateness to what I was doing. The AE IMHO also brought me a totally different perspective on guitars and setups for what I was doing. To me also, the major weakness in ways of the Gibson electrics is the normal lack of a master volume. Otherwise again, archetypes of instruments most appropriate for many, many pickers, and why they're so often copied in varying quality. m
  10. Leave it to the old guy to be politically incorrect, but... I'd say it's not "Gibson" as much as "Gib-Epi" physical playability. That's both electric and acoustic. It's the shapes and playing geometry. Other pickers may and should disagree, 'cuz we ain't all the same. Now personally, I've never cared for the LP shape and find it difficult to play comfortably, where the SG somehow feels "right" and my only "board" guitar is a Guild S100c, pretty much an SG clone from the 1970s I'll not give up. The shape somehow works whether sitting and playing fingerstyle jazz or messing with the controls to play rock/country in a saloon gig, whatever. I like a 24 3/4 scale. I love the body dimensions and feel of the ES175, the Epi clone or even the Eastman AR371. They have half-played themselves. The Epi and Eastman ain't Gibsons, but I look at it more this way: My wife is just about perfect whether she's dressed and "made up," or ready to go deer hunting; and when she's in full battle-rattle, is and has been super-cute for over 40 years. But its what she is that I like, not the outside dressing that guitar-wise are like abalone or gold plating. Yes, the Epis and my Eastman aren't Gibsons, nor is my 1970s Ibanez "patent infringement" 175 clone, although they're not "cheap crap guitars," but I doubt anyone hears much difference. Frankly I don't feel any real difference. To me, there are certain guitar designs that help me play, and others that don't. Fender electrics don't. Gib-Epi designs do. I'd add that I haven't had access to a Gibson collection to try out in decades, well over 40 years. There's no question in my mind that buying a Gibson is inevitably an "art" choice more than really a pragmatic one. But that's not a bad point. They're great instruments; they're archetypes of a number of musicians' choices for a huge range of expression. I've played a lot of brands, a lot of individual guitars, though, and I'd rather have an Epi version of a Gibson than any Taylor, Martin, Fender, at any price simply on a basis of feel due to overall design. On the other hand, Mother Maybelle's big old acoustic archtop is/was a testament to Gibson longevity and quality - but I didn't really feel comfortable with the size and shape if she gave it to me when she let me mess with it a bit back in the mid-late '60s. But she surely could make it dance with her musically. Now if I get my left hand back functioning at even 50 percent for pickin', and I hit a Gibson that helped me play? Absolutely worth it as a playing artwork. Until then, I'll be messing most likely with a single-pup Eastman 175 clone that still sits in the bedroom or a little small-body, short scale Epi AE that's in my "man cave," or perhaps even the old Guild. m
  11. "Notes" pretty much hit it... I'd add that audiences listen to songs, not "tone" per se. If we're tying to capture a specific sound for a "cover band perfection," yeah, I can understand attempting to match this or that recording. But for an average saloon or "event" gig, it's my observation that the venue, its acoustics, its crowd and PA will make more difference than about anything else "we" might hope to do. Again, to Norton's point, its how the live entertainer presents the "show," including everything that ideally will create a whole that is greater than any of its parts. I get a kick out of folks saying "blues" has a tone expectation when I got into Blues from some pretty famous musicians in everything from a bare crummy flattop to a home-varied 9-string electric to a dixieland largely brass combo, a solo piano or... All of the above have made audiences pleased. m
  12. Retired... I think you have a great point, but we're talking kinda two different things. The "tone" of an individual instrument vs the book selections for a gig. When I was doing saloon band stuff, yeah, frankly we tried to mix things up in terms of general sound as well as tunes. But that's different IMHO from what one expects from an amp from one's electric or one's acoustic through a mike. I see what you're talking about more on the lines of how swing bands would toss in different section and individual solos regardless that their arrangements in general reflected a more identifiable feel. Glenn Miller vs Benny Goodman for example.
  13. Too, what is a "jazz tone?" The Roy Buchanan voice on the start of this little piece is a tribute to the still-great Mundell Lowe who's old enough to be my Dad and still's apparently pickin'. Buchanan has the Tele still pretty much sounding like a Tele, and who's to say what he does ain't "jazz" any more than Joe Pass? So... with apologies to "tone," and praise to pickers who both "Play the song" on very different instruments and with very different technique and versions... Which is "better" or even "more appropriate" tone? Or is it just the song and great pickers with how they hear it? Misty... Roy... Joe
  14. My "jazz guitar" for years was that Guild S100c that's functionally an SG clone. It has marvelous "jazz" tone even with the 8-38 strings on it that some would say are "wrong" and I should use 22-155 gauge for jazz. It wasn't until around 2003 that I messed with that 175 hidden for over 20 years in its dusty case that I went "archtop" for most playing. And that's with 9-42. OTOH, I used an old '50s single pup archtop for country/rock gigs in the late '70s and it worked quite well for CCR songs and such as well as more traditional country and pop for small town saloon audiences. Yes, 9-42. m
  15. I've run into variations of "peer pressure" rather frequently until gray hair took over my head. Direct and indirect peer pressure is more powerful, I think, in many of our musical choices than sometimes we can admit to ourselves, and I'll point three fingers back at me if I try to point at others. For those of us who do, or who have played "out," I think it tends to "go away" as one's musical comrades age, but I still can see some of it. "Oh, you don't have a Martin?" or "Isn't that a jazz guitar?" Yeah, it's an electric archtop I tend to use fingerstyle for "cowboy" songs 'stedda strumming on a big body Marin or Gibson. So what? It's gonna be run through a PA anyway. <grin> m
  • Create New...