Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

Guth

Members
  • Posts

    982
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

55 Good

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. The relative spacing of the grain in a guitar top is really important — to the looks of the guitar (if you care about that sort of thing that is). Play enough guitars and you'll find that any theories involving such things can be proven both true and false. In other words, it all comes down to the individual guitar. A good sounding guitar is a good sounding guitar, regardless of any number of things that people tend to fixate on. At least that's been my experience.
  2. I've stated this here before, but my opinion is that when the strings are new, we are hearing much more of the strings themselves when it comes to their impact on the overall tone/sound of an acoustic guitar. But as the strings age through the act of playing, you start to hear more of the guitar itself and less of the strings. A really resonant guitar is far less dependent on having new strings when it comes to sounding lively. Whereas those guitars that are less resonant have little to offer once the new-ness has faded from the strings. Those who prefer the sound of brand new strings and who don't mind changing them often don't have to concern themselves with such things. I myself have never been all that crazy about the sound of brand new strings and generally speaking I simply prefer the tone of more resonant guitar. I didn't tend to hang on to those few guitars I owned that basically sounded lifeless unless they had relatively new-ish strings on them This is why I always liked to find older stings still on the guitars in a shop back when I was hunting for guitars. You can always ask a shop to put on a new set of strings, but if a guitar has new strings on it then you're out of luck when it comes to learning how it sounds with old strings. My first Gibson was a J30. I had a friend who could kill the "new" from strings after just an hour or so of playing, it was amazing. I could change the strings on my J30 right before he showed up, but by the end of the evening that guitar would more or less sound dead. It wasn't a bad guitar, but I never missed it once it was gone.
  3. @62burst - Little Jimmy definitely found the right hat to balance out the visual impact of that guitar next to his low-rise frame. And yes, the guitar in the pool table shot and the guitar above in it's case are indeed one in the same.
  4. Thanks for the update Buc, much appreciated. It's especially good to know that you & yours are well.
  5. FYI Jinder, I'm still in the maple AJ club as well...
  6. My thoughts are with you. Be safe & be well.
  7. I think that a number of comments made above get to the heart of the matter. The AJ was designed to be a powerful flatpicker's weapon with it's long scale and dynamic voicing. (To confuse matters, Gibson being Gibson felt the need to create a short-scale AJ to drum up sales, which might be great guitars, but realistically aren't really AJ's but in name only.) Sticking to the authentic AJ design, it's not surprising that it might be a bit of a miss here on this forum as so many members are strummers / vocalists. But as seen with Jinder and others, there are no absolutes when it comes to the AJ. I myself have 3 Gibsons — a J45TV and two AJ's, one with rosewood back & sides and the other with maple back & sides. As a fingerpicker who doesn't sing, the AJ's design actually works out well for me. This makes sense as in some ways the AJ's voicing reminds me of a more dynamic, louder OM guitar. I'll admit that I've ended up spending more time with the maple AJ than it's rosewood counterpart over the past couple of years. Were I to sell one of my Gibson's the rosewood AJ would be the first to go. To summarize, the Advanced Jumbo is indeed a great guitar, but it's just not for everyone nor ideal for every purpose. I would add that from an aesthetic standpoint, they are amongst the most attractive guitars that Gibson has ever created to my eye — the diamond and arrowhead inlays being my all time favorite fretboard design.
  8. I haven't been to visit this forum in a while so what a nice surprise it was upon checking in to see a post by Rambler referencing content featuring Jinder that was originally posted by EuroAussie. A great triple whammy. I hope that all of you are doing well. (Oh, and as a bonus, it's highlighting a maple AJ.)
  9. I used to struggle with questions like this as my answer was typically something like 9 if I was lucky. But "poorly" would not be the proper choice of words. Instead I would say that the tone of most of the J-45's I've played, Bozeman-made or otherwise did not appeal to me. In your scenario if I was lucky I might find 1 out of 10 that did appeal to me, but not likely. I passed on a lot more than just 10 before finding "My" J-45. This line of reasoning is actually pretty sound unless you are dealing with someone like myself. What I finally figured out years ago here on the forum (after frustrating many here with my so called "dud rate") is this. I simply don't like the "Gibson thump". If there is one thing that people here are apt to say is that they love the "Gibson thump". Not me however. Here's the thing, I love so much about the Gibson tone, but I don't want my guitars to thump. Most J-45's that I've played had it to some degree. The thing is, I've heard a few Gibsons (and a few J-45's in particular) that didn't have it and those were some of the best sounding guitars that I know of. That was the Gibson tone that "I" was looking for. The bottom line is that I prefer a nice articulate low-E string, one that clearly allows me to hear the leading edge of the note when the string is picked. This might be in part due to the fact that I am a fingerpicker almost exclusively. I want the notes coming off of the low-E string to blend in tonally with the other five strings. The thump just doesn't work for me in this case. Putting on a brand new low-E string could mask this to a degree for a short while, but I didn't want to have to frequently keep changing out my strings all of the time as a workaround for something that I thought I could avoid if I kept looking. So that's what I did. I kept looking for years until I found exactly what I was after in a J-45 — as opposed to what everyone else seemed to be looking for. When I found it, I quickly new that I had found THE guitar (the guitar for me that is). I've owned my J-45TV for more than a decade now and it is the last guitar that I'll part with. Never say never.
  10. Man, what a crap shoot. I wouldn't even begin to think of attempting such a purchase without being able to first play any guitar for myself before committing to it. Short of actually being able to play any guitar yourself before buying, I would suggest that you at least consider shopping with one of the dealers that have a solid return policy and who feature videos of each individual guitar being played so you can get some idea about the tone of each guitar before purchasing. I have two AJ's, one rosewood and one maple — they are like night & day. I enjoy them as much for their differences as I do their similarities. I feel very fortunate to own them along with a few other guitars. It's likely that I enjoy the differences between the two different AJ's in part because I favor my J-45TV over both of them. In my case the AJ's represent guitars that I picked up along the way that I just never felt like parting with. But if push came to shove they would both be gone before the J-45. In turn, I have a much easier time imagining replacing either of my AJ's with similar examples than I do the J-45. You are likely in just the opposite situation. I certainly wish you the best of luck with your search.
  11. To expand on what rustystrings said, I'll add this: Surely pretty much everyone here digs guitars. Most all of us likely dig Gibson guitars in particular. But we definitely don't all tend to like exactly the same guitars or even the same Gibson's for that matter. Only you can know what it is in a guitar that appeals to you. What might appeal to me or anyone else would hardly seem to matter by comparison. What defines the difference between a guitar and THE guitar for you is likely different than it would be for me or someone else. Generally speaking though, whenever you happen upon THE guitar, you'll know it and won't need to confirm it with anyone else. If you are searching for a guitar then don't sweat all the details quite so much. If you are searching for THE guitar then you'll know when you're done looking, but it might take some time. There's nothing wrong with either approach. Look at how many guitars some members go through compared to others who might only own one single guitar for their entire adult life. One way or another, everyone manages to find their own way through the guitar gauntlet.
  12. Agreed. But in this particular case, I would automatically rule out Option 1. The way I look at it is that no matter how good a guitar sounds with fresh strings, if it sounds dead with old strings then I know that I can obtain better.
  13. In my experience, a great sounding guitar only continues to improve in appearance over time while most any guitar, no matter how beautiful, with tone that is less than satisfactory will become one that you never want to look at anyway. It is great to play and hear a guitar with a fresh set of strings, but I've always found it to be just as important, if not more so, to get the chance to play them with a much older set of strings. This will tell you just how much of any responsiveness, vibrancy and resonance that you detect is in the guitar itself as opposed to a fresh set of strings. In my opinion, the great guitars still manage to play and sound rather lively even with old strings. The tone will obviously be quite a bit different, but the guitar itself will still seem plenty "alive" on it's own as compared to those guitars that are totally dependent on a fresh set of strings to sound decent.
  14. Buc, I am glad I finally saw this thread as I had missed it earlier. I subscribed to your YouTube channel a while back, partially in hopes that I would be notified when you uploaded new videos. I'm guessing that maybe your channel does not send out such notifications, or else I don't have something set up correctly on my side of things (highly plausible). At any rate, I LOVED this one. When I saw this song included amongst your set list songs on the back of your headstock earlier I was immediately curious how your cover would sound. Rarely do things exceed my expectations when my expectations are high, but you've managed to do so. Thank you so much for sharing this one. I brought a grin to my face that made it appear as if I'd gotten away with highway robbery. I suppose that wasn't too far off of the mark. I feel pretty darn lucky to have viewed this one. Well played my friend!
×
×
  • Create New...