Recording Gibson ES-175

[Quarters]

Tossing up whether to record a Gibson ES-175 for a live performance with a DI box or mic it up.

Opinions?

[rkopald]

Throw it in the trash and get a real instrument. Sorry for the smarmy response. I've had a few ES 175s and they were all crap. All the ones I had the misfortune of owning never, ever mic'd up well. Could be luck of the draw, could be all late 70's ES175s. If I still had mine I'd definitely DI it. Seriously they were pieces of crap. I wish you better luck than I had.

[Jay Kahrs]

You do realize of course, that any and all variations of the ES 175 have pickups right? At the very least there's a big 'ol humbucker in the neck, and likely in the bridge slot too.

So mic the players amp.

Take a DI too if you're so inclined... but it really is sort of a goofy question...

[Quarters]

cheers guys.
bit of a noob question, straight from a noob :P

thanks for your responses.

[Mike O]

Originally Posted by rkopald

Throw it in the trash and get a real instrument. Sorry for the smarmy response. I've had a few ES 175s and they were all crap. All the ones I had the misfortune of owning never, ever mic'd up well. Could be luck of the draw, could be all late 70's ES175s. If I still had mine I'd definitely DI it. Seriously they were pieces of crap. I wish you better luck than I had.

While it can be argued that ALL '70s Gibson are less than earlier and later years, in general ES175s are some of the nicest sounding boxes around. That is IF, like any other intrument, it is played by someone who is looking for what it can offer as strengths. One of the most common jazz guitars in the land.

As with any other guitar, if the player has a sound coming from the amp that he likes, mic it. I DI can sound fine (depending on the player) but will likely miss some of the 'woodyness'. So, like anything else....it all depends; just don't DEFAULT to DI.

Joe Pass
Pat Metheney
Steve Howe
Jim Hall
Herb Ellis
Kenney Burrell
Joe Diorio
Jimmy Raney
Derek Bailey
Babik Rheinhardt (Django’s son)
Toots Thielmans

[jayfrigo]

A good archtop sounds great with a mic on it. An interesting sound also can be to blend amp and acoustic mics. Original archtops had no pickups, so had to sound good in the room. The big bodies helped them to be heard in the context of a large band.

A 175 is really designed primarily to be plugged in though. It's a great guitar when used like that. It's not really intended as an acoustic instrument the way something like an L5 is. It was made as the working man's guitar. A lot of sidemen just couldn't afford an L5 and didn't need to play it acoustic.

The 175 a pressed spruce top as opposed to a real carved top. That makes a difference to the acoustic sound. However, there are recordings of Joe Pass and others playing it acoustic. Of course there are more of them using an amp and flatwounds.

[retractablezing]

Gibson archtops stayed top of the line, even during the Norlin years, the Norlin influence didn't extend to the archtop production nor it did to some other things, except on little things like tuners. it mostly 'effed up the flatops and solid body electrics.

honestly i dunno what the second poster is on about.

as for the OP, if you want a strummy thing to go with your actual sound, mic the actual guitar as well and then blend to taste, but i bet the player is expecting to hear the sound like it's coming out of his amp, so, mic the amp. you'd do that with most anything, let alone with one of the best jazz boxes ever built.

[Mike O]

Originally Posted by retractablezing

Gibson archtops stayed top of the line, even during the Norlin years, the Norlin influence didn't extend to the archtop production nor it did to some other things, except on little things like tuners. it mostly 'effed up the flatops and solid body electrics.

Good advice from you and Jay F.

- Certainly true that the acoustics and solid bodies were hit hardest by Norlin's incomptence. But wasn't it Norlin that "effed up" the neck of the L5 (changed to too thin)? And most I know would argue that fit and finish did suffer on archops as well. The used market seems to reflect that.

Post Norlin seems to have improved.

[henryrobinett]

I never owned a 175. I always wanted one. I have no idea what the dude rkopaid was raving about. Before you throw it in the trash, give me a call. I'd love to have one. I'd put it to very good use!

[rkopald]

Originally Posted by henryrobinett

I never owned a 175. I always wanted one. I have no idea what the dude rkopaid was raving about. Before you throw it in the trash, give me a call. I'd love to have one. I'd put it to very good use!

Well I posted what I was "raving" about. Like I said, the ES 175s I owned were serious dogs. I've played others that sounded fine acoustically, just not mine. So you guys can poo-poo my experience all you want, but guitar companies, almost all of them, do put out dogs once in a while. It happens.

I'm telling you guys, they were dead. Completely. Not all guitar companies are consistent. Pick up any Taylor anywhere on the planet, and chances are that you'll like some of the "entry level" models a whole lot more than their top of the line products. The best sounding 175s I've personally heard and played have all been from the 60's.

I don't know ANYTHING about the history of Gibson, all I can do is speak from my experience, and my experience has been that every single Gibson I've owned and played that was made in the 70's, I hated every single one of them; with two exceptions.
1:I had a friend that had a Johnny Smith model, I believe from 1974, and I thought it was one of the most beautiful sounding archtops I'd ever heard. Funnily enough, the guy that owned it hated the tone!
2: I had a friend who had a 1975 Gibson L 5-S that was sick sounding. I believe Santana and MacLaughlin were into those axes during "Love, Devotion and Surrender"

At any rate, I'm not meaning to sound like I think all Gibson guitars are crap. That's so obviously not at all true. I've heard plenty 'O Gibsons that have made me drool. Mine sucked. Of course now they're all worth a wheelbarrow full of money, and if I would've known that then, I would've held onto them, but I'm not a collector, alas.
My other Gibson was a 1977 Les Paul Special, with 3 humbuckers, and other than playing Robert Fripp lines, that guitar was just awful sounding. Swear.
The best Gibson I've ever heard aside from that Johnny Smith model was this beat to crap old acoustic at a flea market in central Florida. The owner had stripped ALL of the finish off of it and it was just bare wood with a very ratty neck, but my GAWD what a sound! To this day the only guitar I've heard that's as good is the stunning Clarence White Martin D28 owned by Tony Rice.
So don't hate me people! I was just trying to be funny and share my unfortunate experience with some of the many many not good guitars I've had!
I have no grudge against Gibsons or ES175s! I love ES335s, SGs, Explorers, and I had a Heritage arch top that I hated too! So I'm not trying to pan any manufacturer across the board, no pun intended.
Peace, and good luck.

[henryrobinett]

Hey man, I have no doubt. You've played them a lot more than me. And I'm certainly no connoisseur of great guitars. I may have played one that felt really cheap. But I have a '75 LP I think is great and a '77 ES-355 that is the best instrument I've ever owned.

[rkopald]

Originally Posted by henryrobinett

Hey man, I have no doubt. You've played them a lot more than me. And I'm certainly no connoisseur of great guitars. I may have played one that felt really cheap. But I have a '75 LP I think is great and a '77 ES-355 that is the best instrument I've ever owned.

Thanks for the nice reply, Mr Robinett. I wasn't trying to rile anybody.
I was just being a smartass.
I have played a lot of of those crazy 335s and loved every single one of them. I've never played a 355, I don't think.
I do have an Eastman archtop that sounds like GARBAGE plugged in, but acoustically has great tone. go figure.
BTW, got any links to some music you've done? I'd be interested to give it a listen...
Back on topic! Like Jay Frigo pointed out, Joe pass has indeed made some sick recordings on his ES-175s. Guy's one of my favorite players ever for jazz guitar.

[rkopald]

BTW
Isn't the Ibanez Artist, you know, the John Scofield Guitar, a copy of the ES-335?

[retractablezing]

Originally Posted by Mike O

Good advice from you and Jay F.

- Certainly true that the acoustics and solid bodies were hit hardest by Norlin's incomptence. But wasn't it Norlin that "effed up" the neck of the L5 (changed to too thin)? And most I know would argue that fit and finish did suffer on archops as well. The used market seems to reflect that.

Post Norlin seems to have improved.

the finishes changed as well, sure, and some semis were much heavier built (the 335 comes to mind) with the deep finished walnut stuff. top of the line true archtops are very coveted though, but absolutely, there were dogs, there's always a few, it just seems a bit too much to generalize on a proved standard like the 175.

post norlin things have improved drastically. i own a lot of (too many) Gibsons, in its various forms, mostly vintage (vintage Epi, Kalamazoo, Gibson, banners and not, early logos, etc), mostly acoustics though, including a '49 J50 (just 2 years away from Zimmerman's), and i can say the stuff that's been coming out of Bozeman is 10 or 20 years of hard playing away from the truly vintage stuff. the 90s stuff is heavily finished though, but from 2005 onwards, it's all good. i'm talking about jazz boxes and flatops though, have no idea about the solid bodies. don't really care for the finishes on the Bozeman stuff though, but it's light enough that it'll wear off eventually.

[jayfrigo]

Originally Posted by rkopald

I do have an Eastman archtop that sounds like GARBAGE plugged in, but acoustically has great tone. go figure.

Eastman is one of the most affordable ways to get into a real carved top, and I have definitely heard some great acoustic tones out of them. With their background in orchestral string instruments, the carving gives them no trouble. Agreed, however, that the electric tone isn't as nice right out of the box.

For the record, I have a 70's ES-175 that almost plays itself. It walked up to me in the store, tugged on my shirt, and said, "buy me!" What was I to do? And I'm primarily a piano player...

[rkopald]

Originally Posted by jayfrigo

Eastman is one of the most affordable ways to get into a real carved top, and I have definitely heard some great acoustic tones out of them. With their background in orchestral string instruments, the carving gives them no trouble. Agreed, however, that the electric tone isn't as nice right out of the box.

For the record, I have a 70's ES-175 that almost plays itself. It walked up to me in the store, tugged on my shirt, and said, "buy me!" What was I to do? And I'm primarily a piano player...

Nice! I know that mine (ES 175s) were dogs. I was seduced by their looks....It's happened to me a lot more than I care to admit..(ask me about my 1987 Taylor K-22 some time)

My Eastman has really, really good acoustic tone. It mics up really easily, and I can get all sorts of different tonal "colors" out of it by how I play it.

the factory pickup though: Bleechhh. Crapola. I think I mentioned above (??) that the crap Korean tuners that came on mine are just that, crap; and I have some noise issues with the pickguard, but I've found workarounds. The serial number on my Eastman 805CE is 93(!), so I think they were still shaking the kinks out of production when mine was made, but they definitely had the acoustic part down. I've heard LOTS o' folks with sick laminate top Gibsons...
I believe somebody already pointed out Joe Pass. "Virtuoso" is one of my desert island type discs. I read that when they were tracking him for the record, they had an amp mic'd up, and a mic on his guitar, but the channel for the amp went out, and that's why that recording sounds the way it does. Joe pass was one of a kind. I LOVE his tone.
Not anything to do with ES175s, but I had a friend that had an old Kay arhctop that to this day I have not heard its equal. It was springy, if you can believe it. Damn that thing had some fantastic tone. A Kay. Who knew??


Edit: Hey Jay: I also went to Berklee.. 1995. I still am friends with John Baboian. Know that cat? Great guy. Not sure when you went. I also had an arranging instructor that was hilarious. Don't remember his name. I do remember that my guitar lab was right next to Gary Burton's office. I'd sit in the hallway before my class and I could hear him practicing in his office. Too cool. I talked to him a few times and he was always a very, very nice guy to chat with.

[jayfrigo]

Originally Posted by rkopald

Edit: Hey Jay: I also went to Berklee.. 1995. I still am friends with John Baboian. Know that cat? Great guy. Not sure when you went.

Got out in '92. It was a good experience. Don't know John though. Cheers!

[rogerbrain]

Originally Posted by Mike O

While it can be argued that ALL '70s Gibson are less than earlier and later years, in general ES175s are some of the nicest sounding boxes around. That is IF, like any other intrument, it is played by someone who is looking for what it can offer as strengths. One of the most common jazz guitars in the land.

As with any other guitar, if the player has a sound coming from the amp that he likes, mic it. I DI can sound fine (depending on the player) but will likely miss some of the 'woodyness'. So, like anything else....it all depends; just don't DEFAULT to DI.

Joe Pass
Pat Metheney
Steve Howe
Jim Hall
Herb Ellis
Kenney Burrell
Joe Diorio
Jimmy Raney
Derek Bailey
Babik Rheinhardt (Django’s son)
Toots Thielmans

what is a Jazz guitar?

most of the players you list did not play a 175 they play some variant of a carved top acoutic electric...

..the 175 is a PLYWOOD GUITAR.. given it is a nice plywood guitar but still a plywood stunt double jazz wannabe lookalike guitar

they are not crap..but a Super 400 or other carved top it is not.

to the OP - 2 mics. one close on center of the speaker.. one just inside the surround.. AND a DRY DI (no effects) from the guitar and a wet one (post effects) if effects are used.

4 tracks .. you may get lucky

[henryrobinett]

What? No mic on the actual guitar? I love the sound of the real strings/air/ frets/fingers mixed in.

[rogerbrain]

Originally Posted by henryrobinett

What? No mic on the actual guitar? I love the sound of the real strings/air/ frets/fingers mixed in.

oops my bad... stereo pair would be nice.

[retractablezing]

Originally Posted by rogerbrain

what is a Jazz guitar?

most of the players you list did not play a 175 they play some variant of a carved top acoutic electric...

..the 175 is a PLYWOOD GUITAR.. given it is a nice plywood guitar but still a plywood stunt double jazz wannabe lookalike guitar

they are not crap..but a Super 400 or other carved top it is not.

a plywood guitar? ...

if you're referring to the fact that it's laminated, well, so is my 60s Gretsch 6120, and i'm curious to what you'd call that..

the reason that it's not a carved top or an actual acoustic archtop (those were meant to be played acoustically) is cause..well, it's not an acoustic archtop meant to be played acoustically.

[rogerbrain]

Originally Posted by retractablezing

a plywood guitar? ...

if you're referring to the fact that it's laminated, well, so is my 60s Gretsch 6120, and i'm curious to what you'd call that..

the reason that it's not a carved top or an actual acoustic archtop (those were meant to be played acoustically) is cause..well, it's not an acoustic archtop meant to be played acoustically.

Laminated is a fine word. As to 'what I'd call your guitar' .. I would call it 'Your Guitar'.


I was responding to a post that indicated that a ES175 is 'like' a Johnny Smith or Super 400..not even close.

also taking a little swing at the TERM 'Jazz Guitar' in general.

I also gave some real world input on live recording of a solo performance. which would not actually be different for an ES175 than it would for ANY solo electric guitar performance, whether it be a SLAB (tele) or a PLANK (SG) or a LAMINATED or a CARVED TOP semi acoustic.

a bit tongue in cheek on the stereo pair on the guitar itself BUT in the studio I often mic a Tele or P-Bass to get the 'string and fret' sound. Live that would kind of depend on how quiet the room is but could be a real nice touch..

[Mike O]

Originally Posted by rogerbrain

Laminated is a fine word. As to 'what I'd call your guitar' .. I would call it 'Your Guitar'.


I was responding to a post that indicated that a ES175 is 'like' a Johnny Smith or Super 400..not even close.

also taking a little swing at the TERM 'Jazz Guitar' in general.

I also gave some real world input on live recording of a solo performance. which would not actually be different for an ES175 than it would for ANY solo electric guitar performance, whether it be a SLAB (tele) or a PLANK (SG) or a LAMINATED or a CARVED TOP semi acoustic.

a bit tongue in cheek on the stereo pair on the guitar itself BUT in the studio I often mic a Tele or P-Bass to get the 'string and fret' sound. Live that would kind of depend on how quiet the room is but could be a real nice touch..

I didn't see a post where a ES175 is 'like' a Johnny Smith or Super 400.

[rogerbrain]

Originally Posted by Mike O

I didn't see a post where a ES175 is 'like' a Johnny Smith or Super 400.

since 'we' were speaking of ES175 and solo guitar performance, and on said post you refer to the ES175 as a 'JAZZ guitar' and list players, most of whom use guitars that are quite different from an ES175...

I will not profess to know what you ment but I understood this to indicate that the ES175 is in the same class/catagory as a Carved spruce top electric acoustic guitar...if I misunderstood thats my bad.

this is not to the OP's orig Q but is very interesting.

[Mike O]

Originally Posted by rogerbrain

since 'we' were speaking of ES175 and solo guitar performance, and on said post you refer to the ES175 as a 'JAZZ guitar' and list players, most of whom use guitars that are quite different from an ES175...

I will not profess to know what you ment but I understood this to indicate that the ES175 is in the same class/catagory as a Carved spruce top electric acoustic guitar...if I misunderstood thats my bad.

this is not to the OP's orig Q but is very interesting.

First let me say that I hope the original poster's recording goes well!

Please accept my sincere apologies if you took my comment of "certainly one of the most common jazz guitars" to be some sort of attempt to limit the guitar to 'jazz' (I did include Steve Howe in my list of users).

Also, I did not intend imply that an ES175 was in the realm of carved guitars ACOUSTICALLY. Rather my list of players (and comment) was meant to show that very significant artists have and continue to use ES175s to make stellar contributions to music. I believe Metheney (for example) would say the 175 IS in the same class/category as carved archtops; that is with regards to it being useful as a TOOL. Otherwise he would probably play something else.

While several of the players listed did indeed move on to other, generally carved archtop guitars; about half either never really played anything but a 175 (Metheney, Howe, Ellis, Diorio) or used one a very significant portion of their career (Hall, Pass). And the rest (Kenney Burrell, Jimmy Raney, etc.) made very significant recordings on a 175.

Quoting from my original post, "in general ES175s are some of the nicest sounding boxes around. That is IF, like any other intrument, it is played by someone who is looking for what it can offer as strengths. One of the most common jazz guitars in the land."

[ajfarber]

Regardless of the make/model of guitar, I would put jazz guitar into two basic categories.

1: acoustic rhythm guitar. Usually an arch-top guitar, possibly ac "el cheapo" plywood guitar like an old Kay, or something like a Stromberg. (spelling?) This would be for swing or trad style rhythm playing a la Freddie Green. The player might have bronze strings and high action. This type of guitar should only be recorded with a mic. A pickup doesn't work well with bronze strings anyway.

2: electric guitar. A jazz player will usually use an archtop and play through and amp. The sound that the audience, and band, hears is coming from the amp, and the player has figured out how to get "his sound" through the amp. I therefore recommend recording this type of guitar by mic-ing the amp. Ribbon mics work well for this application.

The problem with using a DI is that it mat not reproduce the exact sound that the player intended. I'm sure you could use some amp-modeling plugin to simulate the desired sound, but it's easier to just mic the amp in the first place.

Please resume the argument over the merits of the different Gibson models.

[retractablezing]

Originally Posted by rogerbrain

since 'we' were speaking of ES175 and solo guitar performance, and on said post you refer to the ES175 as a 'JAZZ guitar' and list players, most of whom use guitars that are quite different from an ES175...

I will not profess to know what you ment but I understood this to indicate that the ES175 is in the same class/catagory as a Carved spruce top electric acoustic guitar...if I misunderstood thats my bad.

a bit far fetched no? i didn't reply to what you think you read and inferred and expected everyone to know, i replied to what you wrote.

a plywood stunt double jazz wannabe lookalike guitar - this is what you said to describe the 175. i'd say that's pretty narrow minded to say the least.

the 175 is a standard for a reason (and not just the price when it was launched as a "budget" alternative to the more "serious" jazz boxes), and yes, it's primarily a jazz guitar, and a really good one at that, if not exactly up to your standard of what one should be. one could even argue it's far more versatile than anything you consider a proper jazz guitar, and still fine for lots of ppl that did lots of hits and tons of good music throughout the years.

[henryrobinett]

I wish I had one . . .

[rogerbrain]

Originally Posted by retractablezing

a bit far fetched no? i didn't reply to what you think you read and inferred and expected everyone to know, i replied to what you wrote.

a plywood stunt double jazz wannabe lookalike guitar - this is what you said to describe the 175. i'd say that's pretty narrow minded to say the least.

the 175 is a standard for a reason (and not just the price when it was launched as a "budget" alternative to the more "serious" jazz boxes), and yes, it's primarily a jazz guitar, and a really good one at that, if not exactly up to your standard of what one should be. one could even argue it's far more versatile than anything you consider a proper jazz guitar, and still fine for lots of ppl that did lots of hits and tons of good music throughout the years.

You are being too kind, I am very narrow minded and strongly opinionated when it comes to guitars.

I don’t have the regard for the ES175 that most do.
Not because there are better so called jazz guitars. But, after playing for 45 years and selling guitars (primarily Gibson) for 15 years during the 70’s and 80’s and knowing enough about guitar building and material selection to understand how they contribute to a final product my narrow minded opinion is: I don’t think an ES175 has any more intrinsic value than an Ibanez Artcore.

I had a very pretty ES175 for about a year in the early 80’s. The more I played it and examined the materials and build-out the more I realized it was nothing special, and well overpriced.

should we start a new thread??

[henryrobinett]

No. Your opinion is good. No need to be Stepford musicians. I'm sure it's a cheaper wannabe L5, or my favorite, Super 400. I say that although I've only played one in a store once, many, many moons ago. So what do I know? Similar with the 175. I must also say I have never been bowled over by playig one, the few times I did. It's more the IDEA of having one. I don't really have a thick bodied jazz guitar, unless you count my old Epiphone Broadway. I haven't played that one in years. But that's a long story.

Roger - thanks for your feedback. Good to have that opinion and one who's not afraid to voice it.