Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

The J-45 is not an entry level guitar?


STAR CHILD

Recommended Posts

This of course is a personal opinion but have to say that J-45 sounds downright awful to my ears. I love the J-45 tone and personally own an SJ but if I showed this clip to somebody who is even a mild Gibson sceptic he would tell me this sounds like a plastic box, and I would agree with him.

 

Theres' some great J-45's out there, but at least to me that certainly was not one of them..

 

May be this will help!!

http://www.earmall.com/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 146
  • Created
  • Last Reply

The highs on the 45 are a bit raw, but the bass is terrific and the G-thump (as I understand it) is right there.

 

And how about that Mart. It comes on like a volcano. M-38s are a more than good guitars, so is the 36 – I never tried and do not know the HJ version. Understand that good old Stefan Grossman is involved (the man who revealed his tunings on the record-sleeves in the 70ties) and wasn't he always connected to quality.

 

Anyway, I won't be the judge here, , , except that I like the Martin hairstyle better.

 

"Flattops should be kept to guitars, not the players"

E-minor7 said that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"a lot of people don't get the Gibson thump" ........

Of the two, the Gibson has a rawer sound, more right-at-you. Some hear that as crude. For others, it's music to our ears. The Martin is more nuanced and refined. The Gibson is like Lighnin' in the video clip, playing at a bar. The Martin has on a suit and tie. ......

 

I've had a few very nice Gibson and Martin guitars. Currently I've got a J-200 Gib and a D-45 Martin. When I play a Martin I go at with a bit of reserve - I never think of them as a guitar I want to let it all out on. Great guitars, great even sound. But I feel compelled to handle them more gently. . . When I play a Gibson I do whatever I feel like - aggressive or subdued strumming and picking. I don't worry. I know whatever I dish out, the Gibson can handle it and still sound great. But most of all it's Gibson's percussive quality in the low end - that thump. It adds something that nothing else out there seems to have. Gibson acoustics can get your ears with their beautiful highs and mids, and they can get you with that gut grabbing, blue collar feel coming from the low end that no one else has. When that's all working together its amazing. And that's what brings in so many players to Gibson acoustics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is my "Working Man" WM-45. The only thing "cheap" that I have found with it is the pickgaurd. This guitar has beautiful full voiced tone and is a quality instrument.

 

Hope you didn't get the impression I was saying the WM 45 was "cheap." I said that Gibson used some alternative materials (like the rosewood-substitute morado on the fretboard, no pick up) and processes (satin finish on some models, no sunburst, no installation of pick-up) to produce a more affordable model than the J-45's of the day. Undoubtedly, they made a fine instrument.

 

I was told they lost money on every one, too! I guess anything can be made more affordable if you also eliminate the profit in it!

 

Red 333

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hope you didn't get the impression I was saying the WM 45 was "cheap." I said that Gibson used some alternative materials (like the rosewood-substitute morado on the fretboard, no pick up) and processes (satin finish on some models, no sunburst, no installation of pick-up) to produce a more affordable model than the J-45's of the day. Undoubtedly, they made a fine instrument.

 

I was told they lost money on every one, too! I guess anything can be made more affordable if you also eliminate the profit in it!

 

Red 333

 

No not at all. You said "more affordable and less costly" which is accurate. I said the pick guard was cheap O:). It does have a satin finish on the back and sides but other than that the materials seem to be very good quality. The workmanship is excellent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

....fairly inconsistent when it comes to tone — a lot of people don't get the Gibson thump, and neither do I.

 

Can you please elaborate? I've never heard of this term, "the Gibson thump." Is this a test thump one makes on the guitar body to check the resonance?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you please elaborate? I've never heard of this term, "the Gibson thump." Is this a test thump one makes on the guitar body to check the resonance?

 

Not a "test thump". B)

 

I took a swipe at it above at #28, here it is -

 

.... When I play a Gibson I do whatever I feel like - aggressive or subdued strumming and picking. I don't worry. I know whatever I dish out, the Gibson can handle it and still sound great. But most of all it's Gibson's percussive quality in the low end - that thump. It adds something that nothing else out there seems to have. Gibson acoustics can get your ears with their beautiful highs and mids, and they can get you with that gut grabbing, blue collar feel coming from the low end that no one else has. When that's all working together its amazing. And that's what brings in so many players to Gibson acoustics.

 

Some folks hear it, some don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not a "test thump". B)

 

I took a swipe at it above at #28, here it is -

 

 

 

Some folks hear it, some don't.

 

ahhh! sorry, i missed that bit at #28 comment. thanks, that does clarify a bit---and i think i know what ya mean!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More bling doth not necessarily a better guitar make. I regret to say that I "blinged" my 1948 J-45 in the late 60s (along with my mind), but it is still just about the sweetest-sounding guitar I own, despite my attempts to ruin it. I wouldn't trade it for any J-200 (sorry, super jumbo fans). That's why so many of us on this forum end up owning so many guitars. But I keep comin' back to that old J-45 after my flings : "baby, you're still the only one I love....just ignore that flashy 000-28 EC you've seen me pickin' when you were asleep. She ain't nuthin' to me."

 

The Gibson sunburst dates to way before WWII, by the way. Look at the earliest Gibsons: most have a 'burst finish of one type or another, some so dark you can barely see the wood.

 

Is the J-45 a professional guitar? Look at photos of any number of professionals as diverse as Mississippi John Hurt and Bob Dylan playing in the 1960s. Plenty of J-45's there.

 

At ain't the axe that determines "pro". It's the guy with the grip on the axe handle.

 

Sound? They're ALL different. Just keep looking for one that speaks your language.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you please elaborate? I've never heard of this term, "the Gibson thump." Is this a test thump one makes on the guitar body to check the resonance?

 

To me it's the dynamic, percussive quality most Gibsons have (in admittedly varying degrees), versus the smoother, more harp-like qualities of some other makers' instruments.

 

Red 333

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... that J-45 sounds downright awful ...

 

May be this will help!!

http://www.earmall.com/

 

Gotta say it ... LOL!

 

Seriously, though, I've got to wonder what someone who thinks the tone of any 1950 J-45 in proper repair, much less one selected for use by a prominent professional, is "awful" is doing on the Gibson acoustics forum. "Less than great", "not a good example of the breed", "not to my taste". "not well suited to the material", ..., fine. But "awful"?!

 

-- Bob R

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that the variety of responses since my previous post somewhat illustrates my point. Even amongst a community of those who appreciate Gibson acoustics, when we individually mention the "Gibson tone" or the "Gibson thump", we're not all on the same page. As far as how I interpret the Gibson thump, a forum member had posted a video here within the last couple of weeks where someone was selling an older slope-shouldered Gibson (I believe it was an SJ). Overall the guitar sounded nice to me, but the low E string sounded like it was coated in rubber. It had volume, but it didn't have a leading edge to the note, like the wood in the guitar was damp. I've played plenty of recent Gibsons over the past few years that exhibited this characteristic to some degree or another. The notes go "thump" like a drum hit with the palm of the hand exhibiting little sustain instead of ringing out with a leading edge like the other strings on the guitar.

 

Anyway, to me it's almost like Gibson is a bit schizophrenic when it comes to the guitars out there in the shops. What sounds fantastic to me, might not be what sounds fantastic to the next person and vice versa. So, they to my ears, they aren't all great (although a lot of them are) and they aren't all disappointing (although a number of them are). I've had times where most of the Gibsons at my local 5-star dealer sounded disappointing to me and other times where multiple guitars caught my ear and were very tempting. I'm probably better off financially speaking with things being this way, because to my ear, the tone of those Gibsons that do appeal to me can't be matched by any other guitar given my sonic preferences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"a lot of people don't get the Gibson thump"

 

 

Sugar babe (Mance Lipscomb)

 

Ernie gets a tone out of both guitars that works for this music. Deep bass, aggressive top, not too much in the way of overtones. Of the two, the Gibson has a rawer sound, more right-at-you. Some hear that as crude. For others, it's music to our ears. The Martin is more nuanced and refined. The Gibson is like Lighnin' in the video clip, playing at a bar. The Martin has on a suit and tie. Which is "better?" Depends on what you mean. For the song? General tone qualities and response? You judge.

 

Judging from the difference, though, you can see why some might see a Gibson as 'entry' level (if not downright inferior). I don't agree, but (assuming they are speaking from experience, not attitude) what's going on in this clips is the difference they are hearing. Rambler

 

It sounds like the recording engineer significantly reduced the volume of the bass after the first few notes were played on the Gibson. Listen through speakers and you can easily hear the volume fade quickly, probably so the recording level would not oversaturate. I can almost picture him riding the EQ.

 

Red 333

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What people are referring to as the "Gibson bass thump" in this particular video is really a result of the Texas blues style, where you mimic the sound of the gut-bucket upright bass by lingering and slightly damping with the thumb pick on the bass strings, rather than attacking sharply. After following this thread, I pulled out my 1948 J-45 (1968 Gibson re-top), and my 2007 Martin 000-28 EC to do some A-B testing.

 

Just listen to the different sound you get by playing an alternating thumb-pick bass (just play the bass strings, and use the open E as the ultimate reference) vs. the same strings/notes played with a flat pick and a sharp attack, not that you would normally play a finger-picked traditional Texas blues that way.

 

No, the two guitars played this style don't sound the same, but I typically play a flat-picked self-taught blues or ragtime/blues style, with Fender medium picks or Dunlop 73's and a very sharp attack to bring out the leading edge of the tone. The bass on the J-45 is far from "thump" with that style of playing: it rings like a bell. Certainly a flat pick and a thumb pick alternating-bass style are going to give very different sounds.

 

A LOT of old-timey blues players use(d) Gibsons because they can produce such a variety of sounds, including that muffled bass thump if you want it.

 

Call it a more gritty, gutsy, less-sophisticated sound if you want, but my old J-45 can produce an astonishing range of blues tones, or it can sound as mellow as a jazz box. I actually bought the 000-28 for fingerpicking. With the 1 3/4" nut, it plays that style more easily than the J-45, but it sounds different--not better.

 

There are probably bad J-45s out there, but there are bad Martin D-28s as well.

 

At $50 in 1966 in Jackson, Mississippi for my well-worn J-45, it was an "entry-level" guitar for a 19-year-old college student (me). It was a real working guitar, nearly worn out even though it was less than 20 years old. It actually sounds a lot better now than it did then, since the braces are mostly attached to the guitar now, rather than floating in space!

 

Good guitars get played. Bad guitars sit in the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gotta say it ... LOL!

 

Seriously, though, I've got to wonder what someone who thinks the tone of any 1950 J-45 in proper repair, much less one selected for use by a prominent professional, is "awful" is doing on the Gibson acoustics forum. "Less than great", "not a good example of the breed", "not to my taste". "not well suited to the material", ..., fine. But "awful"?!

 

-- Bob R

 

Woah Bob. Take it easy on EuroAussie. He knows his Gibson tone and also what he likes. But his first love is the sixties square-shoulder sound. He's coming round to the slopeshoulder thing with his Aaron Lewis. Check out his blind comparison thread from a couple of weeks ago. It was interesting for all who took part, since most of us proved that we don't know Gibson tone as well as we think. For sure this 1950s model is drier sounding than many current Bozeman offerings - and a bit less growly to my ears. Not necessarily every Gibson fan's bag. I like it alot, but I'd still take my modern SJ over it at the moment, just as here I'd take the 2003 SJ over the 1946: My link. I'd love to have the money for a 1940s or early 1950s sloper, and the 1946 does sound magnificent. But to me the 2003 sounds more like home - more rounded, capable of more jazzy warmth. I bet Alton Elliott and Robert Perkins are pleased that they have both, and that they don't sound exactly alike.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What people are referring to as the "Gibson bass thump" in this particular video is really a result of the Texas blues style, where you mimic the sound of the gut-bucket upright bass by lingering and slightly damping with the thumb pick on the bass strings, rather than attacking sharply. After following this thread, I pulled out my 1948 J-45 (1968 Gibson re-top), and my 2007 Martin 000-28 EC to do some A-B testing.

 

Just listen to the different sound you get by playing an alternating thumb-pick bass (just play the bass strings, and use the open E as the ultimate reference) vs. the same strings/notes played with a flat pick and a sharp attack, not that you would normally play a finger-picked traditional Texas blues that way.

 

No, the two guitars played this style don't sound the same, but I typically play a flat-picked self-taught blues or ragtime/blues style, with Fender medium picks or Dunlop 73's and a very sharp attack to bring out the leading edge of the tone. The bass on the J-45 is far from "thump" with that style of playing: it rings like a bell. Certainly a flat pick and a thumb pick alternating-bass style are going to give very different sounds.

 

This is the perfect reference. I'm very familiar with damping/muting of strings as I use it often for blues-based stuff that I play. Now imagine that same muted sound, but in this case, it's natural to the guitar so that the bass notes are rounded/decaying quickly even even you pick the low-E open. There is no ringing like a bell, no real leading edge, just a rather muted, yet loud low end. That is exactly the sound quality that I've experienced numerous times with a good percentage of the Gibsons I've played over the years. I dig the muted tone when I'm the one controlling it, but not when I don't have any other choice. While some must prefer this sound, this is probably not most guitarists cup of tea and I'm guessing experiences like this are where many of the negative comments from others are coming from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What people are referring to as the "Gibson bass thump" in this particular video is really a result of the Texas blues style, where you mimic the sound of the gut-bucket upright bass by lingering and slightly damping with the thumb pick on the bass strings, rather than attacking sharply. .....

 

The bit I posted about the "Gibson thump" wasn't about the video.

 

However, I agree that the posted J-45 clip is not a good example of the "Gibson thump", but more of an example of a fingerpicking style.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Gibson sunburst dates to way before WWII, by the way. Look at the earliest Gibsons: most have a 'burst finish of one type or another, some so dark you can barely see the wood.

 

 

Costellowithextraordinaryburst.jpgOkay then –

Can't see if this is an oldie or something new (it looks mint), but the burst is bound for the dark side of the moon.

Somehow it suits Costello – And I'm sure he can get the thump up'n'goin' on this creature.

 

Now we're at it - wasn't the sunburst idea invented to hide less 'clean' top woods ?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Costellowithextraordinaryburst.jpgOkay then – Can't see if this is an oldie or something new (it looks mint), but the burst is bound for the dark side of the moon.

Somehow it suits Costello – And I'm sure he can get the thump up'n'goin' on this creature.

Now we're at it - wasn't the sunburst idea invented to hide less 'clean' top woods ?

 

Gibsons had sunbursts as far back as when Orville built them, as his then-innovative carved-top mandolins and guitars were meant to evoke violins. Sunburts have been a hallmark of Gibson flattops, archtops, electric guitars, and mandolins ever since.

 

Red 333

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, I agree that the posted J-45 clip is not a good example of the "Gibson thump", but more of an example of a fingerpicking style.

 

Surprising for me. When I hear the very first note he plays on the 45, I think thump. He keeps the bass-notes down with the meaty root of the thumb and thumps away lightly (maybe a bit weak during the song).

But I might be in for a good lesson here. Kahune, j45nick or someone - Can you please set up a clip with what you hear as the authentic THUMP !?!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surprising for me. When I hear the very first note he plays on 45, I think thump. He keeps the bass-notes down with the meaty root of the thumb and thumps away lightly (maybe a bit weak during the song).

But I might be in for a good lesson here. Kahune, j45nick or someone - Can you please set up a clip with what you hear as the authentic THUMP !?!

 

Right on with that.

 

Lets just get down to business, and give us some Gibson love.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, please pony up. And yes, Ernie's tone is dictated to an extent by the particular blues style he is teaching. His '45 may not be the best, but it's a recognizable Gibson sound and gets the general idea across for a comparison. Fwiw, check EH's mid-90s J200. Again, a right-out-there sound and wonderful for what it is, but in a different world from that HJ38.

 

 

 

ps not "better" or "worse" but different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, please pony up. And yes, Ernie's tone is dictated to an extent by the particular blues style he is teaching. His '45 may not be the best, but it's a recognizable Gibson sound and a valid baseline for a Martin comparison. Fwiw, check his mid-90s J200. Again, a right-out-there sound and wonderful for what it is, but in a different world from that HJ38.

 

 

 

That's one. Who can't dig THAT tone?

 

Ready for more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...