Jump to content

Ed A

Members
  • Content Count

    42
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Ed A

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Location
    Long Island, NY

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. OK... we NEED to know... wondering if it REALLY is his original that was stolen in May '70 and returned to him by Perry Margouleff?... Quality of the pix isnt good enough to see if there is any sign or the two extra switches that were next to the original toggle....
  2. Yes the production mirrored tele is USA and the dragon is MIM, which accounts for the price difference... I personally dont mind that the dragon is MIM, I have and have had a couple MIM roadworns that are silly good quality in terms of the lightweight wood and harder and thinner nitro that is not always seen on many USA models... but after hearing that the dragon is a sticker and not screen printed has me thinking of cancelling my pre order as well...
  3. One of my all-time favorites Zeppelin tracks. The guitar tones the interplay between Bonham and Jones the riffing between Page and Plant is fantastic. Zeppelin often played their studio songs slower than live. In my opinion I much prefer this slower ballsier feel. Same goes with how many more times the original album version is slow and majestic and huge sounding. Zeppelin sped it up so much live it sounded more like an R&B romp. Anyway a couple of interesting things about the studio lemon song. It was recorded live but with a second guitar overdub. Interestingly enough the opening guitar
  4. Well that is absolutely the first time I’ve ever heard that and that actually blows me away! But if I had to guess that is the flying V tracking throughout the entire song all of the slide parts and the rhythm Riffing and chording. Sounds very much like a neck humbucker. I still believe the solo is the telecaster overdubbed with the tonebender pedal. But very cool info!
  5. Yes I get it and I should clarify. When I said the Les Paul is a muddy mess I meant if you try to use it through the same tonebender petal. The toneBender is actually more suited to work with the telecaster. But as far as you not liking the tone as much that’s all good everybody has their own opinions about what we like and don’t like. As I said I love and play les pauls because that is the sound I dig the most.
  6. Well let’s agree to make this a discussion and not an argument. Although I’m not sure either one of us will see things the same way! First let me say that I am a Les Paul and humbucker lover. Been playing them since I first saw Zeppelin at the Nassau Coliseum in 1972. And although I own a telecaster Les Pauls are my weapon of choice. And the sound of the Les Paul through a vintage Marshall with no fuzz at all as Heartbreaker was done on Zeppelin II is my favorite tone of all time. But that being said I can’t agree less about single coil pickups not accepting fuzz boxes well. If you’ve ever tr
  7. Huh? Hey no problem if you are not a big fan of the tone but your comment about fender pickups getting too fuzzy through heavy overdrive? Fender pickups are the perfect match for the tonebender fuzz used on Zeppelin I simply because they are much cleaner than Gibson humbuckers. They are anything but too fuzzy. And as much as I love the combination of the Les Paul and the Marshall that came later, Jimmy Page’s tone on that first album whether it was without the fuzz on Communication Breakdown or with the fuzz on Dazed was absolutely glorious! In my humble opinion of course. 😛
  8. Well as far as the Merv rewound the original pickup thing goes, lets just say that stories can be bent through the years. The simple fact is way back in the 70s Jimmy said that the pickup failed while on tour in Australia and he had it replaced with a newer Gibson pickup. A newer Gibson pickup at the time would have been a T top. The pickup we see in the guitar after Australia has a chrome cover not a nickel one which was what Gibson was using by the late 60s. Now you could say maybe they just put a chrome cover on his original pickup except for when Jimmy took the cover off in the 80s Pictur
  9. I agree with some of this and disagree with some of this.... Yes, some of the folklore about original vintage Les Pauls is based on snobbery and collectibility..... For years I played nothing but custom shop '59 reissues and convinced myself that they sounded just as good as originals... Until I had opportunities to compare, and not just a couple of guitars, but MANY comparisons and it was undeniable that there was a difference in tone.... So what did I do?... I dont have the money to get the same 200k '59 burst as famous rock stars.... I bought a '53 goldtop with a repaired headstock for arou
  10. Hey sixpence, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. And let me be clear I am not saying that current Gibson 59 reissues are bad guitars. They are not they are excellent guitars. But how much comparing have you really done? I have owned at least 50 1959 reissues from 1994 to the present. And I have had a half a dozen vintage Les Pauls including my current 1953 goldtop which has been converted to 57 specs with all original parts including PAF's. Every guitar and every piece of wood is different. Yes there are some older guitars that are dogs just like there are some newer guitars that a
  11. Oh really? Curious how you have come to this conclusion. There is more precision available today due to computer aided machinery but make no mistake today's Gibsons still cannot compare to the originals. Jimmys 1960 black beauty custom will smoke any new Gibson in many ways. First and foremost, the wood. It no longer exists, gone, finito. Gibson can say they are using Honduran mahogany but it is not the same wood used back then. That was old growth, very dry, resonant and light weight mahogany that Gibson can not offer today . Not to mention all of the original glues, construction methods
  12. I have not read through this whole thread but this post above says it all and I totally agree. Plus you further spoke about his loose wrist versus scrubbing from the elbow later on which is a very telltale sign. But a sign of what I am not sure? Did his technique degrade because of lack of practice or did the drug and booze abuse actually affect his motor skills? I know I'm being technical here and only speaking of playing ability. But he did absolutely peak in 1973 and went downhill from there as far as ability and technique is concerned. That's not to say that he still didn't have creative
  13. I couldn't disagree more but hey I totally respect that everyone will have different opinions. Maybe part of it has to do with where you came into Zeppelin and first fell in love with the band for me it was after seeing them live in 72 and buying Zeppelin II as my first album. I was 14 years old and played it to death. Sure the fidelity of the album is not great it is muddy but the sound of the instruments and the performances is perfection to me from the beginning to the end and yeah that includes living loving made too! I started collecting bootlegs in 73 and have pretty much every live
  14. So am I the only here who finds this alternate take to be the gem of all gems!!!.... Sure, love Pod and Keep On Raining, but man my head is still spinning over this alternate take of Bring it on Home.... Im biased because Zep II is my fave album, always will be and as a guitarist, I have alway thought that Jimmys aggressive playing and tone on those two note chords under the vocals is some of the best shit Ive EVER heard recorded. So to hear that awesome sound one more time in a different take blows me away.... And Jimmy never got that sound live which makes this even more special to me..... P
  15. Well when you listen to what Mick Wall says it sounds like its more than just a different mix.... obviously hoping we here something different, vocal, solo, etc...
×
×
  • Create New...