|
Gibson Les Paul Custom • 1971, Cherry Sunburst
This is my main axe. Early on in my playing career, I became a convert of humbucking pickups and the overtone-rich, thick sound they produce. The dense mahogany body of the Les Paul Custom is the perfect foundation for the humbuckers’ character. Initially, I was inspired by Michael Bloomfield, one of my first guitar heroes, to seek out a Les Paul. He was one of the early “promoters” of the guitar during the period in the early- to mid-60s when they weren’t being made. I literally found out about Les Pauls from an interview with Bloomfield that I read during this time.
I’m a fan of other popular electric guitars—Teles, Strats, 335s—but I keep coming back to this one for my all-around playing needs. It’s a great versatile instrument for the way I like to play. This particular guitar is borne out of the initial reissue period for Les Pauls that began in 1968. I purchased it in 1978 for $475. Sure, they lack the defining qualities of their late-50s brethren: The one-piece body, flamed top and PAF pickups—and there is a difference in the tone. But this is the best-playing guitar I’ve ever owned, with smooth and buttery action.
|
|
east county guitar |
|
Guitars |
|
Rickenbacker 360-12 • 1965, Mapleglo
Few guitars have launched—or at the very least have become synonymous with—a genre of music. The Rickenbacker electric 12-string is such an instrument. Put in the hands of visionary musicians like George Harrison and Jim (Roger) McGuinn, the 360-12’s unique crystalline sound gave birth to an entirely new way of playing the guitar and inspired trends in song composition that would highlight that sound.
The work of these guitarists was the original source of my lust for owning a Rickenbacker 12-string. But it wasn’t until 1979 that I finally bought this one. The Rickenbacker 12-string sound had gone out of fashion by then (though it was soon to experience a resurgence), so any that were available were not pricey. I got mine for $400. Since then I have insisted on playing at least one or two Byrds songs in any band I have ever been in.
Rickenbackers are not unanimously revered by players and luthiers, though. (One local guitar repair person referred to this one as “piece of shit” when I brought it to him to work on.) To be honest, I have noticed design flaws myself. I quickly realized that the existing 6-saddle bridge was inadequate for intonating the octave pairs of strings. Luckily I was able to find a real 12-saddle brass bridge, and soon installed it. And don’t get me started about how difficult these things are to re-string. But in my opinion, the sound more than makes up for any flaws in practicality for this guitar. No other 12-string sounds quite like a 360-12, not even other Rickenbackers (see below).
|
|
Gibson LG-2 • 1960, Cherry Sunburst
This was my first acoustic guitar. Even though it is classified as a student guitar in Gibson catalogs, I didn’t acquire mine until I had been playing for seven years. Limited funds and my insistence upon buying only “old” instruments (in 1971) forced me to settle for this one instead of a more valuable Gibson or Martin.
Despite its sophomoric image, though, I quickly fell in love with this guitar. The better Gibson acoustics have always had a clear, crisp tone, and this one is a fine example. The fact that the LG-2 is a reduced-size guitar (to accommodate students) enhances its brightness and makes it ideal for bluesy, jazzy and other types of “lead guitar” playing. It’s great for recording due to the absence of the boomy bottom end that can muddy up large dreadnaughts. The LG-2 also has a smaller, narrower neck that promotes playability.
This guitar has been through the ringer more than once and has required substantial work in its past. Kudos to Moze Guitars of La Mesa for largely reconstructing it to its former sound and most of its former appearance.
|
|
Fender Telecaster • 1978, Blond Ash
This late-70s example of a Telecaster is somewhat odd in that it features the now-popular blond ash finish coupled with a rosewood fret board. Usually the blond body is paired with the solid maple neck (also blond in coloring). The only other Telecasters I’ve seen with this combination have been from the same time period. These Telecasters were also the last to include the obsolete removable “ashtray” pickup cover which was eliminated from Teles in the early 80s. (What was the purpose of this piece of chrome? Handrest?) Another characteristic of this guitar is its sheer weight. It’s much heavier than any other Tele I’ve picked up (see Stratocaster below).
This Telecaster, other than being visually appealing, has served well as a second-choice guitar to my Les Paul. Although I prefer the Gibson in most applications, the Telecaster provides a welcome pristine contrast to the darker sounds of the Les Paul. It is especially useful on the more rhythm-focused tunes and has sharper attack for melodic-oriented lead playing. One drawback: The low-radius fret board has too much curvature to allow bending strings in the higher register without deadening out the tone—a perennial problem with traditional Teles.
|
|
Gibson Hummingbird • 1963, Cherry Sunburst
Purchased on New Year’s Eve, 1992, this is the only guitar I ever bought on a whim. I was on vacation in San Francisco with my family at the time when we decided to visit Sausalito across the bay. There among the touristy shops on the main drag was a small sign hanging above a doorway announcing Sausalito Vintage Guitars. Marin County has a few venerable music stores with which I was familiar, but this wasn’t one of them.
We went in to a small upstairs shop and saw a few dozen acoustics, mostly Martins, lining the walls. But there was this one ‘63 Gibson Hummingbird which I picked up to play. It had the classic crisp Gibson timbre I’d come to expect along with a substantial bottom end, too. It intuitively responded to the dynamics of my playing.
I wanted it immediately, but the price tag seemed out of reach—$1395. My hesitancy convinced the saleperson I was trying get the price down, even though I just wanted to get out of there before I spent too much money. He brought it down to $1250 and threw in a servicible Guild case, partly because he was motivated to make one last sale before the end of the year. But we ended up leaving anyway.
The next day, New Year’s Eve, as we were all coursing around the city doing whatever we pleased, I kept talking about the guitar. I wondered outloud whether it was still there, annoying the others in the process. Finally, my daughter and niece said, “Just buy the guitar!” So I did. Put it on a credit card, to be honest.
We went back to Sausalito a couple of years later and the guitar shop was gone.
|
|
Rickenbacker 660-12 • 2005, Mapleglo
I acquired this guitar to replace my older 360-12 with which I had been gigging for close to 30 years. The 360-12 had held up well, but I thought it was only a matter of time before something would happen to it. It had survived claustrophobic bar gigs sitting on a stand next to drunk patrons, numerous boat trips to Catalina, and my own clumsiness. In the end, it was a weak strap loop that sent the 40-year-old guitar plummeting down to a cement patio, putting a crack in the base of the headstock. It was repaired as good as new (by Moze), but, still, it was a sign.
So, I decided to buy a new 660-12 to replace the honored, iconic 360-12. In the process, I thought, I could solve a couple of problems that the older guitar had. First, the 360 has a very narrow fretboard (like a Strat, say), which I would normally prefer. However, on a 12-string, the narrowness leaves very little room between string pairs, causing occasional fingering diffculties. The neck on the 660 is substantially wider. Second, the 660 is a solid body guitar, whereas the 360 is a semi-hollow-body. Because of this, the 360 is prone to feedback on the lower strings if your rig is set with even moderate low-end boost. Not so with the solid 660.
I found, though, that notwithstanding these two “improvements” over the 360-12, the 660-12 is still a different animal than its more famous stablemate. I was adamant on getting the classic “toaster” pickups like the 360 has. But beyond that, the 660 has a noticeably different sound and character. It’s a solid body, of course, which accounts for much of that difference. And its neck is not only wider, but also thicker. Finally, the electronics behave differently and give the guitar a slightly different EQ coloration, even though the controls are the same superficially. These variations are minor, though, and are virtually undetectable to audiences and musicians alike. It’s still a Rickenbacker.
When all is said and done, this 660-12 is a beautiful, supremely playable guitar. (I struggled to get a good photo that showed the subtleties of the finish and the checkerboard binding, but it wasn’t to be.) I still take out the older Ricky from time to time, and I may use it on a special gig once in a while. But officially, it’s retired—for its own good.
|
|
Fender Stratocaster • 1979, Hardtail, Black
Even though I have always been more of a Gibson player, after a certain point I thought I should own a Stratocaster—just for the sake of contrast. And, never being a big fan of whammy bars, I decided my Strat should be a hardtail. Why buy an accessory that I won’t use and might even effect the intonation of the guitar?
As it turns out, hardtail Strats are not as plentitful as one might think, and many seem to be from the ‘70s. A couple that I did come across during my shopping period were too expensive, due to their ‘70s heritage. In a way, I suppose, I was lucky to find the one I did. It, too, is from the ‘70s, but its cosmetic deficiencies weakened its resale value enough that I could afford it at the time (for $525).
It’s not very apparent from the photo, but the finish around the bottom of the guitar has bubbled and buckled up as if someone had begun to strip the finish but changed their mind after starting the job. It’s sharp and jagged in this area—not something you’d want to run your hand over too many times. Everywhere else, the finish is very good for a guitar that is 30 years old. I recently found an exact copy of this guitar from the same year on Craigslist—complete with the deteriorating finish at the bottom—leading me to believe that a design or manufacturing flaw is the culprit.
From the botched finish to the tuning machines, everything on the guitar is original—including the electronics. This being a ‘70s Fender, it’s extremely heavy (like my Tele) compared to newer or older examples, possibily due to Fender’s desire to compete with the more popular—and massive—Gibsons of the decade. The only change I have made is to replane and refinish the fret board and replace the frets to correct wear and slight warping. The guitar plays and sounds like a traditional Stratocaster. Currently I have it set up with heavier-than-normal strings for playing slide.
|
|
Taylor 314-CE • 2003 Natural Blond Finish
Technically, this one belongs to my wife, Terri. It was a Christmas present the year it was made to help her with her songwriting. It’s on the lower, more “affordable” end of the Taylor spectrum of instruments (though nothing Taylor makes could be called cheap or inexpensive). But this is an excellent and very useful guitar, and I am allowed to play it on gigs that require a more acousitc approach.
Taylor pioneered (if not originated) the concept of designing acoustic guitars to be played through amplification systems. Of course, electric guitars had already been invented and developed decades earlier, but they had come to sound like wholly different instruments from their non-electric predecessors. The trick was to make a regular flat-top guitar much louder without appreciably compromising its “acoustic” sound or feel. This was a bit of a contradiction in terms and approaches, but there was a huge demand for this technology. Taylor seized the bull by the horns, and the rest is history. Many manufactures make acoustic guitars with onboard amplification systems, but Taylor is still the leader in the mainstream.
Like the LG-2, the 314-CE is not designed to be a full-sounding guitar across the tonal spectrum. It’s not supposed be. It’s intended more to function as an amplified guitar, plain and simple. (Note the smaller body.) A guitar with a big bottom end would feed back too much when amplified. Why make a guitar that has a lot of low end if you only have to tune it out in the mix?
|
