Strings

[ewusie]

Hi everyone,

 

I have a new Gibson Songwriter Deluxe. I teach philosophy now, but for 20 years I was a professional orchestral musician; so I have some measure of musical sophistication.

 

Orchestal musicians buy instruments not for their sound, but for their potential. For instance, a Stradavarious sounds dense and sweet, with an amazing ability to play legato; a Guanarious sounds big a fat with the ability to play loud and spit, and therefore carry out over an orchestra.

 

Everybody sounds slightly different playing the same instrument because of their unique manner of engaging and actuating the instrument. That being the case, what is the potential of a Gibson guitar, relative to a Martin, a Taylor or a Larrive? Sales people tend to be capable enough players, but don't seem to know anything more than what they like.

 

I have performed long enough to know that the instrument that sounds best from the performers perspective is not necessarily the instrument that sounds the best from the perspective of an audience member; thats why so many guitarists use different instruments in the studio, where the microphone can share the intimacy of the precincts of the performer, rather than that of a typical audience member.

 

Why then do so many guitarists (in particular) seem to buy an instrument that is suited to one potential sound, and then spend all their time trying to engineer that very quality out of the instrument? They call it tweaking, conturing, customizing, and personalizing but its effects are never subtle, so it amount to the same thing.

 

Gibson puts the strings on their guitar that service their concept of what a guitar should sound like. They could as easily source cheap strings from any other manufacturer but they choose what they choose for a reason. I can't get far enough away from my own sound to hear its sound propagated in the room. I also know that a guitar that projects into the room leaves little sound behind for the performer to enjoy, while the guitar that surrounds the performer in a fog of sound does so because none of its sound is traveling out.

 

What then is the Gibson sound? Thanks in advance for your insights.

 

I don't know if editing my initial submission like this is how best to reply globally to all of you who have been kind enough to respond (as of 10A.M. Friday August 8), but I just wanted to say that the responses I've recieved have been very lucid and insightful, and not at all eccentrics or confrontational like some forums.

 

Thanks for the warm welcome!

[guitarstrummer]

Welcome to the forum. After reading your entire post, I'm not sure if I missed your question about "strings" or not. If so, sorry.

 

As far as the "Gibson sound", I think everyone has their own opinion. But I look at it as taking the best sound from all of the other guitar manufacturers and combining it to make a Gibson. Once you determine that the Gibson sound is the sound for you, it's hard to do a steady diet from another manufacturer. Nothing else will sound right to you.

[ksdaddy]

Some things just can't be pigeonholed. We don't choose Gibsons necessarily because of one definable sound. There's a lot more to it than that. I think I can speak for the majority of the folks here and tell you that we play for our own enjoyment. True, some are performers, but I said majority. Hence, what sounds best to OUR ears is what will make the difference between guitar A and guitar B being brought home.

 

It's not just flat frequency response, it's not just balance of tone, it's not just sustain or decay; they just sound good to us. The necks feel good to us. They are visually appealing, if not stunning to look at. In spite of their stiff price tag we make whatever sacrifices necessary to own them.

 

They're just good guitars that make us want to make music. It doesn't get (and shouldn't get) any more complicated than that.

[jannusguy]

i'm with KSD here. and as far as tweaking any of my guitars, when i'm making minor changes to pins, saddles or strings, it's only to enhance, or get more of, what i already hear. not to change it. i had 2 buddies over last night for some playing. one had an alvarez and the other, a taylor. by the end of our jam we were all playing my gibbys. it was fun to hear how these different gibsons sounded together. it was great!

[jefleppard]

welcome to the forum. and a likely step from musician to philosopher, i might add! i am a proud SWD owner as well and still have the original strings on mine. forumites are a curious breed. we seem to at points in our western lives where things are good enough to pine over the deatails of our guitars for no reason other that we can, though not meant as a condemnation. after purchasing such (a) sweet, top-end instrument(s), one often finds oneself at the crossroad of what-now? street and is-that-it? ave. tweaking and tinkering become the logical conclusion and, for the most part, no one gets hurt. enjoy your SWD. it is a fine guitar...but still...i want more...

keep on rockin' in the free world.

[Hoss]

Welcome to the forum!

 

You bring up some interesting topics--thanks!

I'm not certain if you and I are saying the same thing, but in my experience, orchestral musicians choose an instrument for its sound and playability. And by 'sound', I mean how it is perceived/projects out in front of the orchestra. (I'll bet you've played next to people who have sounded like 'dirt' to you, but the audience loved their sound!)

 

And I'm not at all under the impression that Gibson strings are the best solution for a guitar. I was most interested in the instrument when I purchased my Gibson(s)- there are cheaper ways to buy strings than with a guitar attached. The strings are a nice profit source for Gibson and other manufacturers. (The Orchestral analogy would be buying a CONN French Horn and only using a Conn mouthpiece with it. ) Brand loyalty is wonderful, but there is a reason you don't see too many forums dedicated to a particular brand of guitar string.

 

There is a Gibson Sound-- it's very different from any other major manufacturer. There are many theories about how this sound evolved, and even how to describe this sound. (I have my own ideas that I won't press on anyone for now!)

So many of us tweak our Gibsons with different pins, strings, saddle/nut materials in an effort to enhance our own perception of that sound. It's not ( I believe) an effort to make one guitar do many things. I have two instruments that I use regularly when playing out, and another four for different purposes. Each is unique, and I use them according to what I'll be performing or recording.

 

Anyway-- nice first post! You really got me fired up--- now off for my nap....

[ballcorner]

Gibson puts the strings on their guitar that service their concept of what a guitar should sound like.

 

Welcome to the forum and congratulations on your new guitar and career change.

 

I am not sure Gibson does actually believe their own strings sound best on their instruments. I agree that they don't necessarily need to focus on costs to such an extent that they ship the guitars with a pack of Chuck's, but I do believe it makes overall business sense to encourage us to buy Gibson strings whether they are best suited to the instruments or not.

 

I put a new pack on for every gig and a new pack every two weeks for practice at home. I play 5 guitars regularly and I own 32. Obviously, my string budget is substantial and I think Gibson, just like Martin or Fender, sees a profitable business in supplying what they build and branding core consumers like myself.

 

The most useful advice I ever found about strings came from Tommy Emmanuel. He says he uses more than one brand, that in his opinion stringing the guitar with the same brand and model of strings over and over again makes them sound dead (maybe the ears work like the olfactory?) so he uses two different brands on each guitar he plays. Two changes are done with the preferred brand and one change is done with the secondary choice. He personally appears to favour Martin and D'Addario.

 

What I found by following his advice, is that my guitars continue to sound fresh to my ears when I go back and forth between two brands of string. I use combinations of John Pearse, Martin SP and D'Addario EJ16s -- all in light guage -- and I clean them after each use.

 

Does my use of non-Gibson strings undermine the intentions of the guitar's builder? I highly doubt it. I would think any of the workers from Bozeman who come on this forum and hear us rave and gloat about our instruments through the week feel a great sense of pride that the guitars are being enjoyed by being played. I know if I built the instruments I would feel better seeing them get played with Pearse strings than hanging on the wall with a fresh pack of Gibsons.

 

Your songwriter is a lovely guitar. Next time you are at the music store buy five packs of different strings. Try them for a week each and see what you like, how they feel and what appeals to you. I am confident that you will never feel your guitar has varied from its core tone no matter what strings you use, but other issues like squeak, roll and sustain might vary quite a bit.

 

Cheers, and thanks for coming to hang out with us.

[albertjohn]

I use combinations of John Pearse' date=' Martin SP and D'Addario EJ16s -- all in light guage -- and I clean them after each use.[/quote']

 

Good idea BC.

 

Ewusie, I too have a SWD and have settled on EJ16s at the moment but I'm going to try this technique.

 

BTW BC, are the Martin SPs the ones with the bronze coloured plain strings? I had a set of them on my 12r some time ago and really liked them.

[rar]

Welcome!

 

Gibson puts the strings on their guitar that service their concept of what a guitar should sound like. They could as easily source cheap strings from any other manufacturer but they choose what they choose for a reason.

 

And the reason that the Bozeman folks use Gibson strings is because higher-ups in Nashville' date=' who know essentially nothing about string or guitar design, require them to. After all, it wouldn't exactly help the reputation of Gibson strings (which went from very good to pretty lousy in a relatively short period of time, for poorly-understood reasons) if they [i']weren't[/i] used on Gibson guitars. Several people in Bozeman -- no names mentioned! -- have told me that, if they could use other strings, they would.

 

My point isn't to dump on Gibson strings -- the J-200s are actually my first choice for several of my guitars -- but rather that there's no reason to think that Gibson strings are any better suited to Gibson guitars than any other brand. Back in the days when the strings and the guitars were manufactured in the same facility, with the same people in charge of the specs for both, maybe there was some argument that Gibson strings were the strings that made Gibson guitars sound the way that the builders wanted them to. But that was a long time ago, and, nowadays, the string plant and the guitar plant are just two independently-operated facilities that happen to share a brand name.

 

-- Bob R

[Modac]

What then is the Gibson sound?

 

Good question. First, let's ask what is Gibson----or what was Gibson? Well, early on, they were manufacturers of mandolins and arch-topped guitars. They did not then make flattops, which was the realm of the Martin company. When these mandolin makers, and builders of carved topped instruments plunged into the word of flattops, it is logical to assume that some of that archtop ethic and technique was expressed in the new flattop designs.

 

I am always struck by the almost hybrid "flattop/archtop" character of many early, pre-war and even wartime Gibson flattops. They tend to have a different voice than other flattops.....they are often more hollow sounding, clearer, and more colorful, tonally, than, for example, some Martins. They are generally dry and very woody sounding, with a strong fundamental----not much bass flab or muddiness. This is all easier to comprehend, if you've ever played a real good old L-5, or even an old L-12, L-10 or L-7...... you can hear right away how the unique archtop tone often colors Gibson's classic flattops.

 

And not to leave out the Montana gang, and the contemporary Gibson acoustics----I've heard it in some of their models, to a greater of lesser degree----though many of them seem to be braced quite heavily for either warranty or amplification purposes. Nevertheless, these guitars are the descendents of some of the classic Gibson flattop designs, and the Montana crew has occasionally caught that classic magic.

 

Not to be overlooked for the Gibsonite, is the attractiveness of the guitars. I don't know about you, but I love the look of them----and I think the visual effect of the Gibson flattop is intoxicating to many. Generally, I find guitarists to be a fairly shallow bunch of typical males, like me, to whom looks are far more important than personality---at least at the initial point of attraction. Good to know that with the right Gibson, you get both.

[ballcorner]

 

 

BTW BC' date=' are the Martin SPs the ones with the bronze coloured plain strings? [/quote']

 

Yes they are indeed the ones with the tinted trebles. I have a 1977 Hummingbird they sound great on and a Martin OM21 that loves to have them for lunch.

 

I tried them on my AJ. They were hideous. The EJ16s, however, which I had stopped using 15 years ago, turned out to be my primary string on the AJ - something I never would have discovered without some experimentation and an open mind.

 

Thanks to rar for that important information - great post. I had always believed Gibson outsourced their strings - had no idea they made them next to the guitars at one point.

 

Thanks to Modac for tackling an explanation I was at a complete loss to convey, and for doing it so well. I had never made the connection between the archtop sounds from Gibson and what I hear from my flat tops, but as soon as I read your post I remembered the trebles ringing on the first L-5 I ever played and how similar that attack is to what I get on my modern era AJ.