Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums
E-minor7

This or That ?

Texan or 28  

15 members have voted

  1. 1. Texan or 28

    • Epiphone Texan
      6
    • Martin D-28
      9


Recommended Posts

This belongs in the Epiphone section, I know, I know. Will set it up there too. 

But listen. Just read that Mother Nature's Son was played on the Epiphone Texan - where I always thought it was the then new Martin D-28. The Mart was brought along to India in 1968 and the tune was written out there. Now what do you acoustic dog-ears say. 

 

Edited by E-minor7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's an Epiphone section?

Not experienced with the vintage Epiphone sound, but have been wrestling with the more sterilized, hollow Martin sound when compared to Gibson lately, and the recording didn't sound particularly Martini. Were fresh strings not a priority for recording back then, or asked another way,  if Epi- what would the saddle have been?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, 62burst said:

There's an Epiphone section?

Not experienced with the vintage Epiphone sound, but have been wrestling with the more sterilized, hollow Martin sound when compared to Gibson lately, and the recording didn't sound particularly Martini. Were fresh strings not a priority for recording back then, or asked another way,  if Epi- what would the saddle have been?

 

 Epi Texans were pretty much a long scale J50.  Same non-scalloped bracing, ADJ saddle bridge, nut width and such as Gibsons.   I came within a hair of buying a '58 Texan a few years back which was a leftover Epi French Heel neck grafted onto a J50 body.  But me being me I dawdled a day longer than I should have.  You might think I would have learned to be more decisive.  But Nah.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

McCartney’s Texan would have originally come with the ceramic saddle, but of course he had it modified to correct the intonation for a lefty.  Perhaps inserts were added to the ceramic saddle, or a whole new saddle was crafted from bone.  One thing’s for sure - That Kalamazoo Texan has historically left it’s mark!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul has both. Blackbird was on the D-28, and probably everything he did that was acoustic on The White Album, and Yesterday was the Texan. I believe he now has a D-28 that is a lefty. The one from '68 is a righty.

Edited by Sgt. Pepper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, bobouz said:

McCartney’s Texan would have originally come with the ceramic saddle, but of course he had it modified to correct the intonation for a lefty.  Perhaps inserts were added to the ceramic saddle, or a whole new saddle was crafted from bone.  One thing’s for sure - That Kalamazoo Texan has historically left it’s mark!

I don't think McCartney had the Texan modified until much much later. Wild as he was he simply compensated by ear.

His guitar also had the no-gos of all no-gos : a ceramic saddle in a hollow plastic bridge.  And actually still features the latter. 

But apart from that, do you vote T or 28 ?
 

Pepper - that's what I thought. But reading the wiki made me listen again and set up this thread. Assume you still hear the big rose-dread on M N S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, 62burst said:

There's an Epiphone section?

Not experienced with the vintage Epiphone sound, but have been wrestling with the more sterilized, hollow Martin sound when compared to Gibson lately, and the recording didn't sound particularly Martini. Were fresh strings not a priority for recording back then, or asked another way,  if Epi- what would the saddle have been?

Agree - zooming in the cans made me think twice. The take doesn't show the solid power of an M dread. 
And no, fresh strings do not seem to have been a must back in day. A lot of the iconic acoustic songs from the golden era clearly was done with faded steel - and sounds terrific that way. 

 

 

 

Epiphone section - have I been dealing with a mirage. . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The discussion of USA-made Epiphone acoustics has, to my understanding, always been considered appropriate for this section.  Which gives me another chance to plug the plastic bridge/ceramic saddle tone as found on my ‘66 Epi Cortez.

There’s something very unique & compelling about that tone, which I first discovered in the ‘70s with a ‘64 Cortez flea market find, and later in a ‘65 Gibson B-25.  After going without it for about ten years, I had to have it again & lucked upon this little gem.  I’ve played a number of examples of the breed that simply sounded dead, but the good ones have all had a percussively metallic punch to them that’s quite special. 

I’d have to think that a J-45/J-50/Texan with the plastic/ceramic combo would be more of the same, but enhanced re bass presence.  I’ve only had the opportunity to play examples of the breed with the rosewood/ceramic pairing, which seems darn close, but perhaps subtly altered.  So overall, I’d consider McCartney’s Texan to historically be a rather unique tonal machine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, bobouz said:

The discussion of USA-made Epiphone acoustics has, to my understanding, always been considered appropriate for this section.  Which gives me another chance to plug the plastic bridge/ceramic saddle tone as found on my ‘66 Epi Cortez.

There’s something very unique & compelling about that tone, which I first discovered in the ‘70s with a ‘64 Cortez flea market find, and later in a ‘65 Gibson B-25.  After going without it for about ten years, I had to have it again & lucked upon this little gem.  I’ve played a number of examples of the breed that simply sounded dead, but the good ones have all had a percussively metallic punch to them that’s quite special. 

I’d have to think that a J-45/J-50/Texan with the plastic/ceramic combo would be more of the same, but enhanced re bass presence.  I’ve only had the opportunity to play examples of the breed with the rosewood/ceramic pairing, which seems darn close, but perhaps subtly altered.  So overall, I’d consider McCartney’s Texan to historically be a rather unique tonal machine.

Plug away - you'll hear me in the choir : My 1963 p-bridge-ceramic-saddled J-45 performs small miracles of its own. I sometimes feel scary symbiosed with that cherry oldie. 

Yes - it surely was a star in the Fab-soundtalog. Nowadays with a new compensated saddle insert, but to the best of my detective-work and knowledge still plastic bridged. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, E-minor7 said:

Plug away - you'll hear me in the choir : My 1963 p-bridge-ceramic-saddled J-45 performs small miracles of its own. I sometimes feel scary symbiosed with that cherry oldie.

So cool that you still have an intact original on a roundshoulder body!  I would imagine very few are left after all the conversions that have been done.

Those poor old plastic bridges have forever been universally trashed, and rightfully so re the non-adjustable type.  But the adjustable hardware version (if structurally stable) is tonally a little miracle worker, imho.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To continue this path a bit, I can't believe the tune below was recorded on the 1965 rosewood D-28 on which it probably was written. 

My theory is that it was quite a challenge for Lennon to handle the newly learned f-picking (can be heard on the Anthology) and he therefore reached for the familiar J-160E.

 

However, , , there's always the possibility that the guitars was EQed out of their real identity. Counts for Mother Nature's Son too.                                                                                                                                    We as listeners are pretty easy to mislead by those desk-knobs and can only guess. Well, that what this thread is trying to do. . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, E-minor7 said:

 

My theory is that it was quite a challenge for Lennon to handle the newly learned f-picking (can be heard on the Anthology) and he therefore reached for the familiar J-160E.

However, , , there's always the possibility that the guitars was EQed out of their real identity. Counts for Mother Nature's Son too.                                                                                                                                    We as listeners are pretty easy to mislead by those desk-knobs and can only guess. Well, that what this thread is trying to do. . 

Could be the shorter scaled J-160E. . . Or- were they messing around with capos back then? If so, the Martin could've been used. Only the two Georges, and/or  the other lads might've known.  

Also- as you've suggested, turned knobs at the mixing desk might've eradicated the original essence of the guitar used in the recording. Then. . .  there's the use of double tracking, '60's analog-style. Best to just sit back n' enjoy.

Btw- on day one of this thread, in my haste (or grogginess) the Martin option was accidentally voted for, so adjust accordingly.

Edited by 62burst

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, 62burst said:

Best to just sit back n' enjoy.

Yes, burst, that's what I been doin' the last 47 years. Then found this Forum. 

Also found an interesting clue. Listen to this naked track in progress. It sounds like the 160, doesn't it. And  then in the end  (4:22) Martins says something. Is he revealing that we hear Harrison's  and that Lennon prefers that one over what could be the new 28. You first-language-English-speakers may be able to define the exact words coming from the control-room upstairs. Look forward to your detections. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is a very cool bit of tape. Such close mic'ing, vocals clear and out front in the mix. And I always thought John's Rock n' Roll voice was his strong suit, but this "rehearsal" clip shows an incredible control of his vocals. Nice, raw, unworked-over by the knobs on the mixing board. 

As to 4:22- I played those last few seconds over and over several times, with different playback devices, and it sounds like "everything's George's Gibson". The "v" sound in everything is not the clearest, but the tape seems to have dropouts on the control room end of the dialogue. Also not familiar with that person's (.. sure that it's George M speaking?) speaking voice. Maybe a fellow Brit could have a better idea.  Really enjoyed hearing that recording, though.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 62burst said:

 Also not familiar with that person's (.. sure that it's George M speaking?) speaking voice. Maybe a fellow Brit could have a better idea.  Really enjoyed hearing that recording, though.

Sounds like G. Martin in the end - not so much in the start. Only thing I'm sure of is that isn't the D-28. 

I am hereby calling Jinder : Mister Jinder, HELP! I need somebody. . 

Yes, it's a daring and vulnerable close-up. Shows J.L. struggling up-hills - the song and intentions stronger than his chops. 

Edited by E-minor7
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This discussion reminds me of the very serious talks we had as teens when we spent time listening over and over to "Louie, Louie" trying to tell if they said "****" in the lyrics. Silly and a waste of time, in retrospect.

So I am just curious why it is so important to "prove" that Lennon used a Gibson rather than a Martin in a particular song? 

Please enlighten me.

RBSinTo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/24/2020 at 9:41 PM, RBSinTo said:

Life as we know it will never be the same?

RBSinTo

 

52 minutes ago, RBSinTo said:

This discussion reminds me of the very serious talks we had as teens when we spent time listening over and over to "Louie, Louie" trying to tell if they said "****" in the lyrics. Silly and a waste of time, in retrospect.

So I am just curious why it is so important to "prove" that Lennon used a Gibson rather than a Martin in a particular song? 

Please enlighten me.

RBSinTo

 Dear RBSinTo-

Nothing to prove, no agenda. It's just that there are some who just like guitars, and get into listening closely to them. And the mystery is fun, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, RBSinTo said:

This discussion reminds me of the very serious talks we had as teens when we spent time listening over and over to "Louie, Louie" trying to tell if they said "****" in the lyrics. Silly and a waste of time, in retrospect.

So I am just curious why it is so important to "prove" that Lennon used a Gibson rather than a Martin in a particular song? 

Please enlighten me.

RBSinTo

Okay, will try. 
There is a broader consensus about Lennon-McCartney switching to Martins during and after India, which would mean The White Album's handful of classic acoustic tunes was done on 28s. Many members here and in the 'acoustic community' over the world regard this as a fact and therefore kind use it as a  compass. What's interesting is that Lennon in this case could have bent away from the idea and preferred the old J-160E instead. Never had the thought (and never read about it anywhere else), but if that is what happened, we not only have a new  inside-look on the white sessions, but also get a fine picture of what the J-160E's sounded/sounds like in their pure acoustic (miked) nature. An information that could work as an indirect comment to fx Midiocre man's J45 thru vox ac15-thread from August 23, , , and the J-160E-discussion in general. 

On a straighter note, the topic can be seen as a plain investigation of acoustic sounds/guitars - with 2 high profile models in play. I'm sure U C.

If you find the theme boring or juvenile, I recommend you to stay out of the thread. Shouldn't be too hard as you made your first (slightly negative) entrance just after it was aired and have known its content for about for 6-7 days.  

If any further Qs - feel free,  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've heard The White Album a billion maybe two billion times. Just listened to it last week in 5.1 surround sound. I think it's better in stereo the one Giles remixed. I have it on mono too and the 2009 remasters, the Super Deluxe version and a Japanese copy on white vinyl I've never played. I used to have it on 8 track, but I loaned it to my friend and he never returned it. I don't know what he played and don't know every nuance of every acoustic the lads played. My Beatles Gear book doesn't say what they used on every song. I also have a book about the recording sessions but it only tells you what song they were working on on any given day. But the original topic was about a D-28 or a Texan I think.

Edited by Sgt. Pepper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Sgt. Pepper said:

I've heard The White Album a billion maybe two billion times. Just listened to it last week in 5.1 surround sound. I think it's better in stereo the one Giles remixed. I have it on mono too and the 2009 remasters, the Super Deluxe version and a Japanese copy on white vinyl I've never played. I used to have it on 8 track, but I loaned it to my friend and he never returned it. I don't know what he played and don't know every nuance of every acoustic the lads played. My Beatles Gear book doesn't say what they used on every song. I also have a book about the recording sessions but it only tells you what song they were working on on any given day. But the original topic was about a D-28 or a Texan I think.

I know you are a heavy whitedophile and who can blame you. Plus you are right about Texan - actually thought about it 10 mins ago while washing dishes. 

This line 

On a straighter note, the topic can be seen as a plain investigation of acoustic sounds/guitars - with 2 high profile models in play. I'm sure U C.

should have said 3 instead of  2 .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ve spent many hours ( as many here have) listening to Some of my favorite songs and wondering who was using what particular instrument.  This is one of those times when we’ll never likely know all the details, but we still enjoy wondering about the “ifs and buts.”  Good song and good discussion.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/1/2020 at 12:11 AM, E-minor7 said:

Sounds like G. Martin in the end - not so much in the start. Only thing I'm sure of is that isn't the D-28. 

I am hereby calling Jinder : Mister Jinder, HELP! I need somebody. . 

Yes, it's a daring and vulnerable close-up. Shows J.L. struggling up-hills - the song and intentions stronger than his chops. 

Reporting for duty!!

I think, having gone to and fro several times in the name of auditory sleuthery, MNS is the Tex and the Julia rehearsal tape is the 160. Possibly the latter is the Texan with VERY old steel but I'm convinced it's the 160, it has that characteristic wool and warmth...wonderful tone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's no great surprise that there aren't a lot of recordings of the J-160e unplugged. There is a YouTube clip of Mark A, formerly of Norm's, banging out a quick strum to emphasize why the ladder-braced '160 is no match for the J-45 until it gets directly plugged in to an amp, but it would be nice to find a "here's what is sounds like unplugged and just mic'ed".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 62burst said:

It's no great surprise that there aren't a lot of recordings of the J-160e unplugged. There is a YouTube clip of Mark A, formerly of Norm's, banging out a quick strum to emphasize why the ladder-braced '160 is no match for the J-45 until it gets directly plugged in to an amp, but it would be nice to find a "here's what is sounds like unplugged and just mic'ed".

Sounds interesting. I've always wondered about the 160 and why it didn't take off like many things do after the Beatles, Stones, Led Zep, Who, et al and others put their seals of approval on by simply using,

One other thing to note on the sound in the clips posted by Em7. Someone in the Beatles camp, maybe Martin, was famous for running anything of theirs that he could through a piece of outboard gear before hitting the console and tape machines. This piece of gear was a variation of a commonly used compressor, IIRC, and was run through it without activating the compressor part of it. Not so far as the gain reduction needle moving, anyhow.  What the compressor did was color the harmonics to the point that they seemed brighter and deeper, but not harsh. It will not change character so much, rather it makes it more audible. 

Some sort of metal alloy in an electrical component within the compressor is supposedly the part that makes it different than the rest of them. However, I've tried the same with a digitally modeled emulation and had a similar result (minus the talent, room, console, mic, pre-amp, tape and more talent). Turns out that it is common practice in today's world to run outboard or software emulations directly or indirectly(parallel) before even applying the first bit of EQ or compression. My own pathetic newbie efforts took an immediatte upturn when I employed the techniques.

Anyhow, hearing that chain hard at work on raw John Lennon guitar and vocals rehearsal was a real treat.  Thanks for posting this, Em7. I'm no good at identifying guitars in or out of context, but it's interesting nonetheless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...