If you decided to play professionally, would you buy a Gibson?

[fenrirlupus]

no. why?

 

because i just did some research.

 

i found a gibson es 335 for $2142.77. i subtracted the cost of

 

the tuners

the pickups

the pickup mounting rings/screws

the pickguard

the bridge

the tailpiece

and the strings

 

and i found out that on just the wood, the frets, the inlays, the wiring, the tone/volume knobs, and the strap buttons

 

they ("they" being Gibson and the retailer) make $1593.41.

 

I'd rather get an Epiphone and replace all of the parts listed than get a Gibson and waste most of my money on the name and some good craftsmanship/ paint job using the same kind of wood as an epiphone. It doesn't take much to make an Epiphone look as good as a Gibson anyway.

[charlie brown]

Hey' date=' if pros are playing with Danelectros, the Epiphone headstock is a status symbol.[/quote']

 

LOL! I was just going to make this same point! The "snobs" might look

down their noses, at first...but if you can keep up with them, or even

take them "back to school," they won't care, what you're playing...especially

if the engineer or other artist (if there is one), likes the sound.

 

"It's All ****!" (John Lennon)

 

CB

[byrds1965]

Gibson Shmibson (...see prior thread)

 

Every performance I cover my headstock logo(s) with black tape...' date=' :)

 

[/quote']

 

There is a photo of Donovan, the famous one with Lennon in India, and he has tape over his J45 Gibson logo. Thought it was a capo for years but looks like masking tape. He didn't want to be seen playing a Gibson I guess.

[layboomo]

Endorsements are funny sometimes........there was a certain southern rock band in the 80's that had a backline of 8 peavey full stacks for 2 guitarists......that's 16 4x12 cabs and all but 1 4x12 for 1 of the guitar players were "dummy" cabs not even plugged in....but peavey wanted them to pepper the stage with product. The other guitarist played thru a smaller amp mic'd up and hidden behind the backline.....rediculous but true. Other times you see amps or guitars with taped off logos for similar reasons....the artist either doesn't have permission to use a given logo in a video or whatever....or they are playing something that violates an endorsement contract...so they tape off the logo.

There is another band I won't name made up of former southern rock stars and some top studio guys who play Epiphones out (hotrodded of course) and leave their vintage axes at home when they play alot of little shows......bars and such. They also endorse Epi's.

[Just Strum]

Hey, maybe someone caught this already (I choose not to read the whole thread), But the title is "If you decided to play professionally,..."

 

I've been putting in all this time and all I had to do is decide to be a professional????

[JefferySmith]

Hey' date=' maybe someone caught this already (I choose not to read the whole thread), But the title is "If you [b']decided[/b] to play professionally,..."

 

I've been putting in all this time and all I had to do is decide to be a professional????

You have to make the first step. The second step is to get someone to pay you for listening. That's the hard part.

[Just Strum]

You have to make the first step. The second step is to get someone to pay you for listening. That's the hard part.

 

Oh, so there is more to it. Oh well, I'll keep practicing. First I'll get my wife to listen to me, then I will conquer the world.

[cujo]

I've been getting paid to play guitar for 36 years, I have Gibsons, Martins, Nationals, Fenders, Conns, Deans, Jap copys, and one Epiphone that everybody loves, but I'll not endorse or reccomend that you buy one like it. If epiphones customer service is anything like their moderating- then you should look for a better guitar.

[eor]

Endorsements are funny sometimes........there was a certain southern rock band in the 80's that had a backline of 8 peavey full stacks for 2 guitarists......that's 16 4x12 cabs and all but 1 4x12 for 1 of the guitar players were "dummy" cabs not even plugged in....but peavey wanted them to pepper the stage with product. The other guitarist played thru a smaller amp mic'd up and hidden behind the backline.....rediculous but true. Other times you see amps or guitars with taped off logos for similar reasons....the artist either doesn't have permission to use a given logo in a video or whatever....or they are playing something that violates an endorsement contract...so they tape off the logo.

There is another band I won't name made up of former southern rock stars and some top studio guys who play Epiphones out (hotrodded of course) and leave their vintage axes at home when they play alot of little shows......bars and such. They also endorse Epi's.

the dummy cab thing is pretty much standard for all big metal bands, if not rock bands, too. kinda funny. most of the dummy cabs are empty, too.

 

i remember seeing slayer once and they did the either 8 or 16 cabs per side, but the bottom right/left speakers of the bottom left/right cabs on either side were mic'ed.

 

love,

eor

[gvdv]

I think that it would depend on the guitar.

 

The Casino I just bought is definitely a unique guitar, although I'd probably love a Sheraton and a Gibson ES 335, too, but they're all different beasts.

 

One of my friends went crazy for Epiphone Les Paul standard copies and had about 5 simultaneously at one point. All of the guitars sounded different, just as I spent two months searching for my Les Paul because all of the LP's I tried each sounded different from the others. However, all of these copies don't hold a candle to my Les Paul. They're just not as solid or well finished, and I would say that that is true of a comparison between them and other LP standards I've played.

 

Another consideration would be price. In terms of bang for one's buck, pound, yen or what have you, the Epi's are definitely fantastic. They won't get you all the way there by themselves, but when matched with the right amp and processing gear I think one can do almost anything.

 

GVDV

[JefferySmith]

If it is well balanced and comfortable to play (and good-looking), I can go with just about anything. The Epiphones over $400 all are definitely usable, and can be made to sound better or at least different with some electronics swaps. I was just telling CB off list that the beauty of the current Epiphones is that they cost about twice what they would have cost in 1965, and everything else costs 20X more! I bought a Korean Dot off ebay expecting it to be a beater, but it is finished better than my 1965 ES 335 was.

[charlie brown]

Well, you guys keep bringing up "Dots" and such...and I'll never get money saved for

my ES-345! (Well, I can "dream," anyway!) Jeff, just curious...what color was your "Korean Dot?"

Sometimes, I think it would be fun, to have a "Black" one..and trick it out with gold hardware, and

Gibson 335 style pickguard.

Something about Black guitars, with gold hardware, you know?

 

CB

[JefferySmith]

Well' date=' you guys keep bringing up "Dots" and such...and I'll never get money saved for

my ES-345! (Well, I can "dream," anyway!) Jeff, just curious...what color was your "Korean Dot?"

Sometimes, I think it would be fun, to have a "Black" one..and trick it out with gold hardware, and

Gibson 335 style pickguard.

Something about Black guitars, with gold hardware, you know?

 

CB[/quote']

It's natural, with a maple neck. I think that all maple bodies should have a maple neck and not a mahogany neck. But Lennon's Casino had a maple body and a mahogany neck (and I can't buck that!).

[charlie brown]

Photos?

 

CB

[gvdv]

 

You guys really owe it to yourself to read "Here' date=' There, and Everywhere", an account of the Beatles sessions in the Abbey Road EMI studio. I'm only half way through it, and I feel like I'm learning more about the fab four than I have in any of half a dozen books I've read about the Beatles. For one thing, the author doesn't have an axe grind (no pun intended) like maybe Cynthia Lennon did.[/quote']

Hi Jeffery,

This is getting into different territory than that covered by this thread, but I think that Geoff Emerick actually does have minor axe to grind, and he also makes some mistakes in his book (see Kehew and Ryan's 'Recording The Beatles' for in depth commentary on this stuff. They also have a book coming out which is going to correct Andy Babiuk's take on the Beatles' guitars and musical instruments).

 

GVDV

[byrds1965]

Hi Jeffery' date='

This is getting into different territory than that covered by this thread, but I think that Geoff Emerick actually does have minor axe to grind, and he also makes some mistakes in his book (see Kehew and Ryan's 'Recording The Beatles' for in depth commentary on this stuff. They also have a book coming out which is going to correct Andy Babiuk's take on the Beatles' guitars and musical instruments).

 

GVDV[/quote']

 

I own the book also and it is just his spin on things. You can't help it. I was a communications/journalism major in college and you were supposed to try and delete any feelings and write dry ........Dragnet "just the facts" but this is not a news story.

 

It is obvious that he got on with Paul the best and not so great with George, John and Ringo or Martin. I don't like the trash job he did on Martin when in the book Martin did stay true to his word and give him a job at AIR like he promised when things didn't pan out the way he planned. And Martin was the producer and he brought in Geoff to replace Norman Smith so show some loyalty.

 

He describes Harrison as a very sour untalented songwriter/guitar player up until Abbey Road. And I'm sure there were days Lennon was an asshole but he did remember a conversation he had with Geoff and have him come fishing at his place as he promised to do. Lennon could be very giving or a **** but that was John. He took Martin out to dinner and apologized for things he said and like he told Martin you know when I say some of the stuff I don't mean it.

 

The book had some good stuff in it but it reads like a Paul love fest and Paul was the Beatles. Every other source I have read describes Harrison the same way as Petty and Dylan a beautiful guy, ok sex crazed at times who in that position wouldn't be?, and Ringo just as a normal guy. You can tell by watching Anthology their personalities. Yes you can edit stuff but the real personality will come out anyway. Harrison has a very dry wit which is why he and Lennon got on so well. Lennon had the same quick wit but was louder with it.

 

I remember watching Ringo on Letterman and telling of being with George in the hospital dying and Ringo telling him about a surgery I think Maureen was having and he was worried and was going to go and George even though dying asked Ringo if he wanted him to go with so he would not be alone. Ringo had to stop as he was crying. That doesn't sound like the guys Geoff painted in his book, but they are his memories and his take on things. As long as you go into it knowing something about the band then the book is ok and just another resource.

[charlie brown]

Their personalities, were always readily apparent, to me, anyway.

They never tried to hide it, either. WE made them in to "Gods,"

and then we try to make them fit OUR ideals??! They were just "4

lads from Liverpool, who shook the world!" Do we know all there is to know

about The Beatles....Hell no! Do we NEED to know...nah! We all

take what we need, want, make it what works for us, and that's

the way it is...and has always been...with anyone, really.

 

CB

[JefferySmith]

I'm still reading the book, and it does get more vitriolic than I had anticipated. The way he talks about George Martin makes me cringe (in light of the fact that Martin is still alive and can read it). And one could come away from the book thinking that George Harrison was a pathetic guitarist. Still, it is interesting to read about what happened during those years in the studio. And it's refreshing to see a Beatles book that doesn't harp on about John's sexual preferences.

[charlie brown]

George Martin, WAS the "Fith Beatle!" There's no doubt in my mind, about that.

Recording engineers are just that, the engineers. Good ones, are worth ever cent

they require, but a visionary producer, like Martin, is even more rare, IMHO! So,

for an "engineer" to be trashing someone of Martin's well known, and greatly respected

abilities, seems not only disloyal, but counterproductive....and, well...rediculous.

Emerick may well have been in the "Macca" camp, but "The Beatles," were ALL FOUR!

George was not only an uderstated, and great guitarist (IMHO), he was the "glue"

if you like, that kept Paul's "Pop," and Lennon's "edge" bound together. Take away

ANY of his very "tasty" riffs/leads, and it's all wrong. He was what any great "lead"

guitist should be. The person that puts the perfect solo and fills, to FIT the SONG!

Can't ask for more, than that. As to him being an "untalented" songwriter????

LOL!!!!!!! Rediculous!! His "Beatles" hits alone, disprove that theory, to say nothing

of the "All Things Must Pass" album. He had an "uneven" solo career...but, there are

a LOT of Harrison songs, that have, and will continue to stand "the test of time!"

 

CB

[charlie brown]

Sorry, I know my last post didn't have anything to do with Gibson,

but George played a Lot of Gibson's, during his stint with The Beatles, and after...

Gibson SG, Les Paul ("Lucy"), J-200, ES-345, to name but a few.

And, of course, his Epi "Casino" with bigsby.

 

CB

[byrds1965]

Sorry' date=' I know my last post didn't have anything to do with Gibson,

but George played a Lot of Gibson's, during his stint with The Beatles, and after...

Gibson SG, Les Paul ("Lucy"), J-200, ES-345, to name but a few.

And, of course, his Epi "Casino" with bigsby.

 

CB[/quote']

 

And J160E.

 

The book is Geoff's take on things. It is his memories and he just did not have the personality that meshed well with George, John or Ringo. He did his job well and can have his opinions like everyone, but the Beatles were 4 guys not just the 1 he spins the book to seem like. Martin was the producer and during the Get Back sessions he walked away also. I think this shocked the others so much they decided to go out on a good one and Paul called Martin begging him to come back. Martin called Geoff back then also.

 

To his credit in his prologue Geoff states he wanted to change things and such in recordings and would have things different than Norman Smith. By his own admission he wanted to be the/a Beatles/producer he just didn't come out and say it, so I was not surprised reading the book how his take on things unfolded.

 

Martin was the producer and in Lewison's book somewhere there is an argument between an engineer and Harrison late in the game that ended when Martin came on the talkback and let Harrison have it. So I don't buy Martin ever being afraid of them or losing his ultimate authority.

 

So take the book for what it is another view on things from a different angle.

[charlie brown]

 

And J160E.

 

The book is Geoff's take on things. It is his memories and he just did not have the personality that meshed well with George' date=' John or Ringo. He did his job well and can have his opinions like everyone, but the Beatles were 4 guys not just the 1 he spins the book to seem like. Martin was the producer and during the Get Back sessions he walked away also. I think this shocked the others so much they decided to go out on a good one and Paul called Martin begging him to come back. Martin called Geoff back then also.

 

To his credit in his prologue Geoff states he wanted to change things and such in recordings and would have things different than Norman Smith. By his own admission he wanted to be the/a Beatles/producer he just didn't come out and say it, so I was not surprised reading the book how his take on things unfolded.

 

Martin was the producer and in Lewison's book somewhere there is an argument between an engineer and Harrison

late in the game that ended when Martin came on the talkback and let Harrison have it. So I don't buy Martin ever being afraid of them or losing his ultimate authority.

 

So take the book for what it is another view on things from a different angle.[/quote']

 

J-160E, indeed! LOL! How could I have forgotten those...I own one! Oh, well...

 

And yes, Geoff is entitled to his memories and opinions, like anyone else. I was just

"reacting" to the notion that he had (somehow) betrayed Martin. I wasn't there, so

I have no (real) idea. Memories, like "eye witness accounts," are subject to ones own

prejudices and amendments, over the years. So, who knows? Fun stuff, though...

over the years.

 

CB

[Dave]

Notes_Norton Said:

 

 

So I do not need to show the world by the name on my instrument that I am a decent player. I show them with the notes I play on the instrument.

 

Notes, if you get the chance, check out the Waren Haynes benefit concert (I think 2005) where the Dirty Dozen from New Orleans sit in with Warren. Their sax player, who was phenomenal, played a sax that sounded great, but had more dings in it than an old work truck. I though it was some kind of etch pattern, but as they moved closer, it turned out to be a war torn instrument that had probably seen 30 years of use and thrown in the car with no case.

 

The guy played some sweet solos on a tired looking sax. Worth hearing. It comes on periodically on the satellite networks on Rave or MHD.

[tulsaslim]

Well I did play Gibsons professionally for 17 years back in the days before there were decent Epis and slowly destroyed 3 different Gibson LPs from the rigours of the road. Wouldn't do it again. I'd buy Gibsons but would only use them for studio work. For gigging it would be modded Epis for me. When they get too banged up I'd just pull out the mods & put them in another one.