| Author |
Topic: gibson electraharp |
Daniel McKee
From:
Corinth Mississippi
|
Posted 27 May 2009 5:58 pm |
|
| i would like to know more about the old gibson electraharp steels i read on the internet only 13 were built before world war 2 and after that they quit building them because of the multikord is that true and later built a modified cheaper one. |
|
|
 |
Jim Cohen
From:
Philadelphia, PA
|
|
|
|
Donny Hinson
From:
Glen Burnie, Md. U.S.A.
|
Posted 31 May 2009 5:17 am
|
|
Gibson built a limited number (under 20) of their Electraharps back in the late '30s. Yes, they did infringe upon the Harlin-designed changer, and yes they did have to redesign the changer or face litigation. They came out with a new model in 1941, but it really wasn't much cheaper. They dropped the big wrap-around "deco" cabinet (which wasn't very popular anyway), but their steel still wasn't cheap, and that kept it from becoming very popular. (Gibson placed too much emphasis on looks, and not enough on engineering). They redesigned it several times, offering single, double, and triple neck models (their last redesign being around 1960), and even when they used a more conventional (front) pedalboard configuration, it was still a bulky and clunky design.
Gibson, for all their money and influence, never really "got it" that pedal steels were primarily mechanical devices, and that looks took a back seat to function for most players. Gibson pedal steels are seldom seen anymore, and even the older ones usually sell for no more than $500-$1500. Though very few of the early ones were made, demand for them is also very low, so their prices haven't risen much over the past few years. |
|
|
|
J D Sauser
From:
Wellington, Florida
|
Posted 31 May 2009 1:08 pm
|
|
| Donny Hinson wrote: |
Gibson built a limited number (under 20) of their Electraharps back in the late '30s. Yes, they did infringe upon the Harlin-designed changer, and yes they did have to redesign the changer or face litigation. They came out with a new model in 1941, but it really wasn't much cheaper. They dropped the big wrap-around "deco" cabinet (which wasn't very popular anyway), but their steel still wasn't cheap, and that kept it from becoming very popular. (Gibson placed too much emphasis on looks, and not enough on engineering). They redesigned it several times, offering single, double, and triple neck models (their last redesign being around 1960), and even when they used a more conventional (front) pedalboard configuration, it was still a bulky and clunky design.
Gibson, for all their money and influence, never really "got it" that pedal steels were primarily mechanical devices, and that looks took a back seat to function for most players. Gibson pedal steels are seldom seen anymore, and even the older ones usually sell for no more than $500-$1500. Though very few of the early ones were made, demand for them is also very low, so their prices haven't risen much over the past few years. |
The early Gibson models were a result of a joint effort of a mechanics designer, Gibson's luthiers and a revolutionary steel guitarist.
Yes, Gibson missed a few points but just as Harlin Bros. persisted on a configuration which was probably mandated by luthiers.
Unfortunately and interestingly builders which followed and eventually took over the market seem to have discarded that configuration, maybe because of the the lack of in house luthiers?
... J-D. |
|
|
|
Daniel McKee
From:
Corinth Mississippi
|
Posted 31 May 2009 1:23 pm
|
|
| what did the late 30s models look like. |
|
|
|
J D Sauser
From:
Wellington, Florida
|
Posted 31 May 2009 5:22 pm
|
|
... J-D. |
|
|
|
Donny Hinson
From:
Glen Burnie, Md. U.S.A.
|
Posted 2 Jun 2009 5:09 pm
|
|
| Quote: |
| Unfortunately and interestingly builders which followed and eventually took over the market seem to have discarded that configuration, maybe because of the the lack of in house luthiers? |
J.D., not only the ones that followed, but the major one, the one that preceded all other steel builders (Rickenbacker) knew that the luthier-made, resonating acoustic cabinetry wasn't really necessary or advantageous in an electrified steel guitar - either pedaled or unpedaled. Gibson, with all it's talented woodworkers and warehouses full of fine veneers, wanted to make it like a piano, a piece of classy furniture. And that turned out to be a foray down a dead-end road.
Yep, even the "biggies" muck it up once in awhile.  |
|
|
|
Erv Niehaus
From:
Litchfield, MN, USA
|
Posted 3 Jun 2009 8:08 am
|
|
Many years ago I was looking for a different guitar.
I was getting into the different tunings.
My instructor was a died in the wool Gibson man so one Saturday morning I showed up for my lesson and this monster of a guitar was staring me in the face.
YES, it was the dreaded ElectroHarp!
The cases for it (yes cases, it took two to house this beast), took on a resemblance of what you'd see in an undertaking parlor.
Well, I took it home and tried it out. I couldn't wait to return it the next Saturday.
I then learned about a new guitar on the market called a "Fender". It thought, humm, that's a strange name for a guitar. (Do you play a Fender? Yes, I just take a hammer and beat on the side of the car.)
I took a trip to Minneapolis and visited a music store that handled the Fender line. Once I saw the Fender steels, I was HOOKED. I wound up with a T-8 Stringmaster and tried to erased the memory of that Gibson ElectroHarp from my mind!  |
|
|
|
Jim Sliff
From:
Lawndale California, USA
|
Posted 3 Jun 2009 1:27 pm
|
|
Daniel, shoot me an email and I'll send you all kinds of pics of the working of an EH620 4-pedal model.
It's a tremendous sounding guitar, but mechanically "challenging". But with that big, round-sounding P-90 style pickup on there for lap or console styles it's hard to beat tonewise.
_________________
No chops, but great tone
1930's/40's Rickenbacher/Rickenbacker 6&8 string lap steels
1921 Weissenborn Style 2; Hilo&Schireson hollownecks
Appalachian, Regal & Dobro squarenecks
1959 Fender 400 9+2 B6;1960's Fender 800 3+3+2; 1948 Fender Dual-8 Professional |
|
|
|
