That "Gibson" tone....

[J-200 Koa]

For years I have heard the term "Gibson" tone. Yet, I have never

understood if there is a defining quality that makes a Gibson

a "Gibson".

 

For example, for the last 6 or 7 years , I have played a variety of

Super Jumbo Gibsons....maple, rosewood, koa, etc. Each had a

distinctive sound all to itself. I know a lot of the forum members

here love the round shoulder Gibsons but they sound very different

to me compared to the larger bodies.

 

As a former Martin player, your could always rely on the traditional

Martin sound: they pretty much had the Martin/rosewood

thump that made them famous. So, since Gibson is all over the spectrum

in terms of body shapes and tonewoods, is there really a distinctive

tone that is purely Gibson?

[jefleppard]

i've found that bass end "thud" or "thump" in just about every gibby i've played. as some here have mentioned, that is pretty much a signature tone. there are players here who could pick one out blindfolded but i'm nowhere near there yet.

[grampa]

"Thump" is the word to describe the "Gibson" sound.

[mojo312]

I want to chime in on this.

To my humble ears, I find Martin is as mentioned. Gibson there for sounds good as in different yet soulful.

I can only pick out, on recordings, J45's and Hummingbirds...and then only sometimes.

I like the woody, thump, country sound of these two guitars. I love a good Martin and a good Gibson, very different from eachother.

 

Gibson, because of the many differences in woods and sizes do seem to have a wide range of sounds.

 

As always, the player is most important!

[Modac]

In the 90s, there was an archtop repair shop right down the road a bit from my home. I became pretty codial with the proprietor, who was a really nice guy. I spent a lot of time in there, mostly playing old acoustic archtops that the local jazzers would bring in for tweaks and such. Sometimes for consignment. At any rate, I became pretty good at extracting tone from some of them with bare fingers, which is not actually what they were designed for. Got to play all kinds of great old archtops, and on more than one occasion was sorely tempted to puchase one.

 

I couldn't help but notice that my modest vintage Gibson flatops had a certain tonal quality that was reminiscent of these old archtops. Thinking about that, it made perfect sense. Gibsons builders, at the outset, were mandolin makers, and builders of archtop guitars. Had Martin and others not popularized the flatop, it's not likely that anyone at Gibson would ever have made one. When Gibson entered the flatop market, it stands to reason that their guitars would have a certain tonal kinship with the arch topped instruments they excelled at making, and which was their realm of expertise.

 

That distinctive, dry, hollow, clear, woody, percussive, fundamental tone that you hear in many original Gibson flatop models and from some of the Montana reissues, bears some real kinship to the legendary Gibson acoustic archtop. No other flatops that I know of (except some really fine modern recreations) quite has that distinct flatop/archtop almost hybrid character. That's what's different about Gibsons---to my ears, anyway.

[modoc_333]

there is also a certain complexity to a Gibson. Martins are very direct. Gibsons tend to have more overtones.... there is more ring, but i don't just mean treble. it's almost like a 12 string effect... not exactly, but more so than a martin.

the directness of a martin really gives power. the thump and complexity of a gibson takes up more sonic space.

[Taylor Player]

I have to agree with most of what is said here. Martins are too "dry" and overly bassey for my Taste. My Gibson Advanced Jumbo is tonally very different from my Taylor 612C which is a small body "shimmery" tone, but it still has that overtone sound that speaks to me. It is more of a mature tone similar to a piano. It also has that "Thump" as referenced above. I feel it in my chest every time I strum an open chord on the Gibby.

[onewilyfool]

If I could find a single word to tie my three Gibby's together it would be WOODY.......not that they give me one, just the nature of the sound. Also, warm, a softness to the tone, not vanilla (no offence Martin), smooth......but it is hard to describe sound and tone......hope you get my drift...

[Jayla]

there is also a certain complexity to a Gibson. Martins are very direct. Gibsons tend to have more overtones.... there is more ring' date=' but i don't just mean treble. it's almost like a 12 string effect... not exactly, but more so than a martin.

the directness of a martin really gives power. the thump and complexity of a gibson takes up more sonic space.[/quote']

 

I also hear that kind of "12 string effect" (nicely put) on the B and high E strings of my guitar, which really do ring out! That for me is an important part of the "Gibson sound."

[gearbasher]

 

I also hear that kind of "12 string effect" (nicely put) on the B and high E strings of my guitar' date=' which really do ring out! That for me is an important part of the "Gibson sound."[/quote']

 

I started getting that "12 string effect" only when I switched to Gibson Masterbuild Strings (12s). I was using Guild Bluegrass strings (I don't believe they are available anymore---I could be wrong) . Truthfully I find that extra little "ring" a bit annoying.

[grampa]

My Gibson F-25 will ring on and on with all kinds of overtones giving that "12 string" effect. This guitar is so vibrant that I swear that if I just give it a quick look it will ring out. It's almost scary.

[onewilyfool]

Or you could get a 12 string guitar......sometimes the Rosewood back and sides give so many overtones, that when you strum the guitars, they get "muddy" or the tones seem to overlap and distort things. Rosewood guitars are generally nice for fingerpicking.....where each string gives it's own sound and not muddied up by strumming....at least I've heard guitars like that....

[Jayla]

Or you could get a 12 string guitar......

 

You know, I'm embarrassed to admit it but I've never played a 12-string, I mean not even tried one. I like how they sound, but have yet to actually want to pick one up and give it a go.

[dadeedo]

Good thread....

 

I think Modac nailed it.

 

That distinctive' date=' dry, hollow, clear, woody, percussive, fundamental tone that you hear in many original Gibson flatop models and from some of the Montana reissues, bears some real kinship to the legendary Gibson acoustic archtop. No other flatops that I know of (except some really fine modern recreations) quite has that distinct flatop/archtop almost hybrid character. That's what's different about Gibsons---to my ears, anyway.

 

[/quote']

 

 

I'd just add that my favorite Gibsons have a nasal or airy or throaty quality that you just don't hear in Martins. The trebles are fat (thick with the fundamental note) while good Martins tend to sound glassy with delicate overtones in the trebles.

 

The characteristic Gibson sound is more like a saxophone, while the sound of a good Martin (like the D-18VS I used to own) is more like a french horn. Maybe another comparison would be that the Gibson sound is one more like Lou Rawls and the Martin is more like Sinatra, though I'm only talking about the vocal instrument -- I'd say Sinatra plays his instrument better than Rawls plays his.

 

I like both brands, I just prefer Gibson for playability in general and as having a tone suited to the kind of music I mainly want to play.

[modoc_333]

Or you could get a 12 string guitar......sometimes the Rosewood back and sides give so many overtones' date=' that when you strum the guitars, they get "muddy" or the tones seem to overlap and distort things. Rosewood guitars are generally nice for fingerpicking.....where each string gives it's own sound and not muddied up by strumming....at least I've heard guitars like that....[/quote']

 

no, b/c as i mentioned, it's not exactly a doubling effect like 12 string.... it's just extra harmonics, and the best way i could describe it.

you talk about the rosewood being muddy. i think this helps explain why gibson makes very few rosewood models.

[Rambler]

"dry, hollow, clear, woody, percussive, fundamental". Modac has the Conch.

 

Russ Barrenburg, describing his mpl J45 in AG magazine, mentioned Gibson's "saturated midrange." Ive always though Martin and clones tended to be weaker through the middle. Martin's, tothis ear, sound was tighter (longer scale), deeper (big bass), more ringing Maybe why Ive never quite found a hog Martin I could bond with.

[Rambler]

"good Martins tend to sound glassy with delicate overtones in the trebles."

 

Makes sense. CF & Co was from the 12-fret/classical guitar world, which tends to a strong top and bottom, hollow middle. But bassier than a classical (?), thanks to the Notorious X (brace)...