How close is an R9 to a real '59?

bodhi

meltedbuzzbox said:

impmann said:

Whenever these debates rage we get folks whittering about them sounding like classic rock recordings. If that's your bag, then great. Down the rabbit hole you go...

For the rest of us, who don't want to sound like Clapped-Out, Page, Kossoff or any of these other guys its all a little bit moot.

Steve Lukather played the solo to Roseanna on a late 50s Burst Les Paul. Depending on who you believe, it may have had EMGs in it. I think I read he still has it, but rarely plays it... preferring a more modern guitar. When you hear him play that solo now on his Musicman Luke, does he sound the same? Of course he does.

As for my credentials for contributing to this conversation - well, I've played the infamous Greenie and my feelings toward it are almost identical to @guitars4you . I wanted to love it but truly couldn't. I genuinely don't think its a great guitar - its been played by some great players on some great recordings. To paraphrase Chet Atkins - if you put it down, how does it sound now?  Kirk Hamster still sounds like Kirk Hamster when he plays it...

There are other examples of me playing, repairing and selling vintage Gibson guitars - but this isn't a penis waving competition.

Fact is, I've worked in the volume guitar production industry - you get good and bad in every batch. Sometimes you get a stand out guitar - it could be made from the same wood stock as the rest but it sounds somehow 'better'. But then I've had others pick up the same instrument and not have the same opinion of it. That's life and always has been the case - anyone that tells you otherwise is talking from their backside.

Are the materials "inferior" now? Depends on your point of view. The rosewood issue has now come to a head - but frankly, even these "golden eared" folk couldn't hear the difference between the different types in a studio environment. The older braz stuff may be darker in colour, but the actual tonal change is microscopic if there is any (my opinion is I'm less than convinced that there is *any* difference).

The mahogany we now have isn't as light/well aged - does it make a difference to the sound? Maybe, but does it 'bad'? No it doesn't - and anyone that's telling you otherwise is trying to sell something.
Maple is maple - the tops on the classic LPs were supposedly really important to the sound, but much is made about the 'hog when it comes to discussions like this and nothing about the maple. There's a reason for that, IMHO...

Pickups/electronics - if you are insane like Joe B, you may believe that the pots are the main contributing factor. I think we can file that under the same baloney that goes with gold plated mains plugs for hi-fi equipment. As for pickups - as @TheGuitarWeasel says the variables there are endless because the specs/work processes were 'fluid' at best. That said, a lot of Gibson humbuckers are pretty ropey sounding IMHO today.

 Terms like "mojo" are used - which is much like believing in fairies. Carry on if you do, I won't tell you not to. Some seem to genuinely believe that there is magic in old guitars that make you play better. That, my friends could be dried out and you could fertilise a lawn.

I'm not going to tell anyone NOT to buy a vintage guitar or lust after one - good luck to you. But I get quite cross when I read opinion dressed up as fact when it comes to them. There is no such thing as magic, so stop using that term. Not *ALL* sound "better" and define "better". One person's better is another person's 'different'.

To address the OP's original question - both guitars are made of similar woods, to a similar design. So they sound similar. They both sound like Les Paul style electric guitars. Do they sound different enough to warrant the price difference? Only you can decide - but my opinion is that a lot written about late 50s Gibsons is fairy dust, flannel, marketing, and blanket sweeping statements. I'm sure there are great ones, and I have no doubt that the guitars mentioned above (with the exception of the Greenie Les Paul) are superb, inspirational guitars. But equally, I've played some superb, inspirational guitars that were made last year.

smashed it

With a subtle hint of obliteration.

Skipped

impmann said:

Pickups/electronics - if you are insane like Joe B, you may believe that the pots are the main contributing factor.

Joe B tours with vintage instruments, at great expense. Is that another reason why you think he is insane?

Is JD Simo insane?

Is Mark Knopfler insane?

Is Neil Young insane?

Paul McCartney records with vintage guitars when he is alone with no one watching.

Is that because he is insane?

Of course it is always possible that all these people are out of step and that you are the only person who is in step. But we should also consider the other possibility.

Once again you are telling this forum that you think that the greatest period in the history of a guitar maker (often called a Golden Era) is a Myth. It would help other forum members if you could indicate if you see other golden periods (for manufacturers) as purely mythical.

Did Ferrari have a Golden Era? Was the reputation earned for that period deserved on the basis of styling and engineering? Or it is a Myth because you say so?

Is everyone out of step except you?

When you handle a Leica film camera made in the second half of the 20th Century, do you immediately recognise the obvious quality of both the materials and the engineering? Quality that would be unmistakable even to a small child.

While you are holding the camera, someone in Cyberspace (who is "angry about something") tells the world that Leica Cameras are "not all that", that the reputation was not deserved, that the Golden Era is a Myth.

Does the camera in your hands diminish in real time  as the troll is typing the words?

Excellent new guitars are being produced in 2018. Buyers who own multiple Historic Les Pauls often tell us that the Historic guitars gradually get better and better each year.

But in what way are they are getting better?

Oh.....They are becoming more accurate.

Closer to the original  = Even more awesome.

What does that tell us about the originals impmann?   

stickyfiddle

@impmann one of the wiz-est comments in recent months/years, that. 

impmann

@skipped my comment about Joe B and 'insane' is to do with his comments about pots recently. Its his choice if he wants to gig these guitars. Clearly he likes them. His choice.

Like I said, I'm not saying there weren't great guitars made years ago, but equally there are great guitars being made today. But consider this: are we being spoon fed that we need to own guitars that are accurate to vintage ones as these are somehow "better"?

Skipped

Ok.

Nobody needs to own a vintage guitar. On numerous occasions I have suggested to buyers that a Custom Shop Gibson or Fender guitar is an educated buying decision for most people who have a job and a family to think about.

Because....they are great guitars. And because the difference reduces even more when the drummer kicks in.

But I cannot accept that the golden era is a myth.It is no more a myth than any  other obvious manufacturing example. Any argument should have ended a long time ago when Paul Reed Smith made it clear that he see the golden era of Gibson guitar production as real. And awesome.

When I pick up a Les Paul Junior that was mistreated (maybe during Punk ), or a vintage guitar that is lacking essential (and routine) maintenance (because the owner is nervous about a refret) it does not dent my perception of Gibson guitars made in the 50s and early sixties. Not at all.

That is because I have gone out of my way to handle and play hundreds of examples that are getting routine maintenance.

meltedbuzzbox

Skipped said:

Ok.

Nobody needs to own a vintage guitar. On numerous occasions I have suggested to buyers that a Custom Shop Gibson or Fender guitar is an educated buying decision for most people who have a job and a family to think about.

Because....they are great guitars. And because the difference reduces even more when the drummer kicks in.

But I cannot accept that the golden era is a myth.It is no more a myth than any  other obvious manufacturing example. Any argument should have ended a long time ago when Paul Reed Smith made it clear that he see the golden era of Gibson guitar production as real. And awesome.

When I pick up a Les Paul Junior that was mistreated (maybe during Punk ), or a vintage guitar that is lacking essential (and routine) maintenance (because the owner is nervous about a refret) it does not dent my perception of Gibson guitars made in the 50s and early sixties. Not at all.

That is because I have gone out of my way to handle and play hundreds of examples that are getting routine maintenance.

I think you have missed the point

Strangefan

The golden era isn't a myth it's just not relevant to a growing number of guitarists, I truly hope one day the vintage bubble bursts  and people start to appreciate a guitar for what it is not what magic it holds.

It will happen, the 6ós.etc are getting less relevant by the year, 

richardhomer

Strangefan said:

 the 6ós.etc are getting less relevant by the year, 

True - aparently Paul McCartney’s recently done one of those Carpool Karaoke TV shows - and no one seems to give a toss about it....

Skipped

meltedbuzzbox said:

I think you have missed the point

My comment is on topic.

I have not mentioned spoon feeding but that does not mean that I won't.

meltedbuzzbox

Skipped said:

meltedbuzzbox said:

I think you have missed the point

My comment is on topic.

I have not mentioned spoon feeding but that does not mean that I won't.

Rule 1 fella...

Skipped

meltedbuzzbox said:

Rule 1 fella...

Talking of Rule 1. Two consecutive posts without any reference to the thread topic. Or Guitars. Or Anything.

Fella.  

If you want to chat.......everyone is waiting.

meltedbuzzbox

Skipped said:

meltedbuzzbox said:

Rule 1 fella...

Talking of Rule 1. Two consecutive posts without any reference to the thread topic. Or Guitars. Or Anything.

Fella.  

If you want to chat.......everyone is waiting.

The Rules. 

This is a forum, not a courtroom. We don’t want to write rules any more than you want to read them. Help us keep the rules simple by keeping to the rules. 

1. Don’t be a dick. This is the most important rule. Every other rule is just this one in more detail. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Skipped

meltedbuzzbox said:

The Rules. 

This is a forum, not a courtroom. We don’t want to write rules any more than you want to read them. Help us keep the rules simple by keeping to the rules. 

1. Don’t be a dick. This is the most important rule. Every other rule is just this one in more detail. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am aware of the forum rules applicable to the Fretboard.

At some point we will have to define "dick" and "timewaster".

My contribution today has included one longish post about golden eras and their justification.

Your contribution has been clipped comments barely related to the thread topic or any other topic.

I am sure you wlll figure it out......

I urge forum members to discuss the thread topic. It shows  respect for the thread starter. And the alternative has no future.

lewism

Resisting the urge to smash my iPad into my forehead, isn’t this all a bit pointless? You either “get” the appeal of vintage guitars or you don’t. Nothing wrong with either opinion, but there are going to be no Damascene conversions to the opposing opinion arguing on the internet. Why don’t we all just state our preference and then move on and not debate it again?

For the record, I get the appeal of vintage guitars.

Strangefan

richardhomer said:

Strangefan said:

 the 6ós.etc are getting less relevant by the year, 

True - aparently Paul McCartney’s recently done one of those Carpool Karaoke TV shows - and no one seems to give a toss about it....

Some guitarists of that era who post on a guitar forum watched a musician on TV...... totally negated my point that did..... Touché. 

TA22GT

lewism said:

Resisting the urge to smash my iPad into my forehead, isn’t this all a bit pointless? You either “get” the appeal of vintage guitars or you don’t. Nothing wrong with either opinion, but there are going to be no Damascene conversions to the opposing opinion arguing on the internet. Why don’t we all just state our preference and then move on and not debate it again?

For the record, I get the appeal of vintage guitars.

This.

For the record I can see both points of view because I'm in both camps.
Neither view is right or wrong it's just a view.
 
State it and let it go.....makes for a peaceful forum.

ourmaninthenorth

I've had a few hours with Greeny too...without question my favourite guitar to date, which includes more guitars than years left to play the buggers.

Worth the money...? Someone thought so. Worth the price of my house? is it fuck.

To my earlier point, they all sound the bloody same in my hands anyway. There are those that claim otherwise, fair play, I can't make such claims. 

There was an experiment done at the LPF years ago, sound clips of 10 vintage Gibson guitars, various models and pickups combinations. The posed question was simply to identify what one was hearing...strange that such an apparently easy exercise as some claim, proved to be universally baffling for the assembled cognoscenti. Not one single person got anything like an impressive correct score, and those people are not without experience. 

I like Gibson guitars, always have, always will. A vintage guitar is what it is, similarly a modern guitar is what it is...the over arching question must be an individual one...what is it you want your guitar to be?

Then spend your scratch, and get on with playing the bugger, and forget how inaccurate the tail-piece placement is, cos here's the news, it doesn't really make a wank of a difference, none of it!! 

Limehouse_Blues

ourmaninthenorth said:

I've had a few hours with Greeny too...without question my favourite guitar to date, which includes more guitars than years left to play the buggers.

Worth the money...? Someone thought so. Worth the price of my house? is it fuck.

To my earlier point, they all sound the bloody same in my hands anyway. There are those that claim otherwise, fair play, I can't make such claims. 

THIS. I've played a few vintage Gibsons including 58 and 59 Standards. The first time I played one there was definitely a mojo / vibe that I wouldn't have picked up from an Epiphone single cut. But SOUND wise, the first time I played a vintage burst I remember thinking to myself, "Well, it sounds a lot like every other Les Paul I've ever played". Played side by side (as I've done with a couple vintage bursts) I can detect subtle differences - neither better nor worse - but they still sounded just like Les Pauls. Which is no big surprise I guess!

Danielsguitars

I've found subtle differences too but not worth arguing about,  it's been said earlier you either like vintage guitars or not, my aim is to get close enough in tone with what I've got available to me right now

The same arguments apply to guitar building wood, i think it makes a difference some don't, I've been tapping rosewood fretboards today and there is a big difference between some, i have Brazilian, old cocobolo and old madagascan, all great wood but produce different sounds

Bridgehouse

You lot still at it?

As a vintage owner I will reiterate my point: Vintage is pointless as a concept - it’s all about individual instruments new or old and how they inspire you to play.