JuanCarlosVejar Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Fellers , who in your opion made the true "working class" or "poor man's" guitar. I read some people say that a Gibson J 35 was it and others say the D 28. who and which model do you believe to be the true working class guitar . thanks JC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rar Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 who in your opion made the true "working class" or "poor man's" guitar. I read some people say that a Gibson J 35 was it and others say the D 28. who and which model do you believe to be the true working class guitar . If these are the two choices, the answer is unquestionably Gibson. Just look at the relative prices and production figures. However, you had to be a pretty serious musician or relatively well-to-do to own either brand in the '30s. For every casual working class musician who played a Martin or Gibson, there must have been hundreds playing Stellas and Washburns and other Chicago factory-built models sold by Sears and Wards. -- Bob R Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zombywoof Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Agree with rar - Any one of the jobbers like Harmony, Regal, Kay, and Oscar Schmidt put more guitars in the hands of more people than Martin and Gibson combined. These were truly the working musician's guitars. Some were actually pretty good sounding guitars - I know cuz I play 'em. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ponty Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 Interesting question. Over the many years I have had interest in acoustic guitars, viewing many photos and CDs, and record covers, it has been my observation that Martin and Gibson were divided by rich and poor, black and white. Why is a Gibson L-1 ,L-00 often seen in the hands of a black bluesman, and a Martin D-45 in the hands of a white singing cowboy? The answer is not because the L-1 is best suited to the blues, but because the economics of the day dictated it. Many of the great early guitarist that we love were poor, and could only afford the least expensive. Now, I am of course aware of exceptions, but the bottom line is Gibson is the working mans guitar. Well, may be not now! I agree with both of the above answers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morkolo Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 Neither, from my experience most working class guitar players never buy a guitar past the $500-$700 mark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lazerface Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 Diddley bow is the poor mans guitar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zombywoof Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 Why is a Gibson L-1 ,L-00 often seen in the hands of a black bluesman, and a Martin D-45 in the hands of a white singing cowboy? The answer is not because the L-1 is best suited to the blues, but because the economics of the day dictated it. Gibsons were few and far between in the hands of the blues players prior to the 1950s. Those in the 1920s and 1930s that did play them often favored more expensive models like the J-35 (Brownie McGhee). Curley Weaver's family recalled that he and some of the other Uptown Atlanta players owned Gibsons. Although nobody recalled what models they played they did remember they were "big" guitars. As Brownie's choice of guitars shows, the argument that the blues players even during the Depression were too broke to buy only the cheapest guitars just don't hold water. Son House recalled being paid $40 a sesssion (about what he could make working int he fields in a year) while an extremely popular artist like Charley Patton could make $40 per side. H.C. Spier who owned a music shop and recording studio in Jackson, MS recalled Memphis Minnnie once blowing into town in a new concertible car and toting the first National Tricone anybody down there had seen. These guys though generally favored guitars like Oscar Schimdt-made Stella concerts because while they were cheap, they were well made and could stand up to life on the road, loud, and sounded good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zombywoof Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 Funny thing is have you seen what those "el cheapo" Stellas are bringin these days. A big box Stella 12 string like Blind Wille McTell and Leadbelly played can fetch over $10K. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rambler Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 As ever, guys played what they could afford. Gibsons and Martins were what the pros looked for, once they were selling records and had radio shows. Like Charlie Monroe's Jumbo or Robt Jr Lockwood's L00. A nice guitar went with star power. As did a suit (not so much now. See the stage wear thread) Nationals were an interesting middle ground. The blues guys that had em (young Gary Davis, Fulton Allen, Scrapper Blackwell, Water Vinson, Bo Carter) were semi-pros, still farming p/t or singing street corners, but making enough from recordings and appearances to afford a loud durable guitar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red 333 Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 I'm sure Paul Fox will chime in; he's an expert on (and written an excellent book about) the many budget brands Gibson either marketed themselves (Kalamzoo, Cromwell, Kel Kroydon, Mastertone, etc.) or built for others (Montgomery Ward, Spiegel's Old Kraftsman, National, Wasburn, etc.) Red 333 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frosty Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 Working class... what do you see in the hands of Woody Guthrie? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rambler Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 Working class... what do you see in the hands of Woody Guthrie? . Both Gibsons and Martins, whatever he could make the down payment on, or "borrow". For him, it was random. For his imitators, from Ramblin' Jack to Bruce Springbean, it's more deliberate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigKahune Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 . Harmony My first acoustic was an old Harmony Stella. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zombywoof Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 Working class... what do you see in the hands of Woody Guthrie? It would seem mostly Martin 00-18 and 000-18s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retrorod Posted March 11, 2012 Share Posted March 11, 2012 Silvertone.... B) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zombywoof Posted March 11, 2012 Share Posted March 11, 2012 Silvertone.... B) That brings us back to Harmony and Kay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
modoc_333 Posted March 11, 2012 Share Posted March 11, 2012 i think the answers referring to other brands are spot on. if we have to stick to Gibson and Martin, then I say Gibson though... at least around my neck of the woods. Very few Martins appear out of the woodwork as "grand daddy's old guitar" it seems like old Gibsons pop up quite frequently though. so, based on this, i would have to say Gibson gets the title. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TommyK Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 Epiphone. Next question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onewilyfool Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 According to Johnny Shines, Robert Johnson's travelling buddy, They both played the el-cheapo Kalamazoo archtops, and not Gibson L-1's as shown in the famous Robert Johnson pic.... Check out "Blues singers and their instruments" below: http://www.earlyblues.com/Blues%20singers%202009.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.