Which new Steel has the vintage ShoBud sound?

Brad Malone · Post by **Brad Malone** » 25 Apr 2009 2:57 pm

Is it the Jackson or the Show-Pro? I know someone on the board has the answer.

Ron ! · Post by **Ron !** » 25 Apr 2009 3:33 pm

IMO the Jackson does.

Brad Malone · Post by **Brad Malone** » 25 Apr 2009 4:26 pm

Thanks Ron, What made me ask the question is my understanding that Lloyd Green plays a Show-Pro and I was wondering why he would not play a Steel that gets the vintage ShoBud sound. Also, Tommy White plays Show-Pro

Ricky Davis · Post by **Ricky Davis** » 25 Apr 2009 4:49 pm

Is it the Jackson or the Show-Pro?

I'm my opinion: "NEITHER"
The Sho~bud is the only new one that gets the Sho~bud sound(and it's a very old steel guitar especially the Sho~bud's before 1977 and way back).
Ricky

Bent Romnes · Post by **Bent Romnes** » 25 Apr 2009 4:53 pm

My opinion is that the Fulawka comes close. No wonder it's dubbed A ShoBud on steroids

John Coop · Post by **John Coop** » 25 Apr 2009 5:05 pm

Donny Hinson · Post by **Donny Hinson** » 25 Apr 2009 5:05 pm

I have to agree with Bent! I don't think anything comes closer to the original 'Bud sound than the Fulawka.

Tom Quinn · Post by **Tom Quinn** » 25 Apr 2009 7:13 pm

Oh John...

Brad Malone · Post by **Brad Malone** » 26 Apr 2009 11:49 am

Thanks Guys, The answer to my question is to find a Sho-Bud with good tone and get it John Cooped..problem solved...Ain't the SGF great.

Bob Knight · Post by **Bob Knight** » 26 Apr 2009 2:59 pm

This one has the "Vintage Sho~Bud Sound"

http://bb.steelguitarforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=157384

Bob

Kevin Hatton · Post by **Kevin Hatton** » 26 Apr 2009 6:06 pm

I agree with Ricky Davis. The original round fronts. If you buy one make sure that it has been gone through by a good Sho-Bud mechanic or you may be very disappointed. The original parts were not reliable over time. Coop parts are outstanding. I also agree that the Jacksons do NOT sound at all like the round fronts, but that's not a bad thing. They have a distinct sound. The Fingertips and Permanants both had there own sound also. There isn't one Sho-Bud sound.

Ken Byng · Post by **Ken Byng** » 27 Apr 2009 1:25 am

JOHN COOP wrote:I agree with Ricky...especially the jackson guitars what a joke !!!!!!!!!!! they must have slept through toolmaking 101 Coop

While I am an admirer and a customer of Mr Coop's parts and engineering capability, this is a pretty cheap shot at some fine people. I have seen the Jackson guitars at close hand, and there is innovation and quality. The Madison does sound retro, and the brothers are better placed than anyone to know what gave the early 'Buds that tone. I haven't heard the Fingertip re-issue, but I have heard some good reports.

Herb Steiner · Post by **Herb Steiner** » 27 Apr 2009 6:35 am

Firstly, let me say that I feel all guitars are individuals, and as such it's very difficult to talk about particular tone in a general way.

Having said that, I've owned 4 round fronts (and currently have two,) and none of them sound like my Fingertip did, which had the 1960's Lloyd Green Fingertip "transparent" high string sound. My red 1970 Professional has a tone on strings 3-5 that is similar, but not like that Fingertip of mine had.

I regret parting with that guitar, but the mechanics were too problematic for me, I had other guitars, and I just didn't feel like futzing with it. So off it went.

The old Fingertips had looonng keyheads, and the sides were cast very narrow. The round fronts had fatter keyheads. The FTs had Grover Sta-Tites, the round fronts had Grover Rotomatics. The pickups were wound differently and mounted differently. The changer fingers had a different radius, shape, and size. There were, IMHO, simply too many differences to make comparisons, other than to say there were several different Sho~Bud "sounds," as Kevin correctly stated. All depending on the model and the era the axe was made.

I will also agree with Ricky in that, given my limited experience sitting behind a few Jacksons and Sho-Pros, neither of them had the '60's Lloyd Green F-tip tone that I could hear. Not that they weren't FINE steel guitars... they were nice and very desireable. They just didn't have the sound that I refer to above.

Above opinion is just from my experience and my damaged old ears. Your mileage may vary.

Fred Glave · Post by **Fred Glave** » 27 Apr 2009 8:12 am

I like my "Brand New" Sho-Bud Pro that John Coop just finished for me yesterday! I was up late last night playing it, and I can tell you that it's just as mechanically responsive and precise as any new steel. But....It sounds the way the steel sounded when you first fell in love with that sound! Thanks again John Coop.

Brad Malone · Post by **Brad Malone** » 27 Apr 2009 10:46 am

Topside all Sho-Buds looked beautiful but underside a lot of them were trash..IMHO

Chris LeDrew · Post by **Chris LeDrew** » 27 Apr 2009 11:15 am

Disclaimer: I have way less experience than many here; I am just going on my own experience with Sho~Buds and recordings that made them famous. With that said, may I ramble.

I too think Kevin brought up a good point. There is no "one" Sho~Bud sound. There's Buddy C. on the Ernest Tubb show; Lloyd on the Charlie Pride stuff; Hal Rugg and Curly on the Wilburn brothers; Ralph Mooney with Waylon as late as the mid 80s. It goes on and on. You know what they all had in common? All the Sho~Buds they played had original undercarriages. Didn't seem to get in the way of them create an enduring, rich legacy of steel guitar. And guess who built them? The Jacksons. Nothing else needs to be said. But I'll keep railing on.....

I have a rack and barrel Professional, all original. It sounds amazing. I wouldn't change that rack and barrel system for all the modern "updates" or "improvements" out there. It works just fine. Take that away, you take away that sound, IMHO. I also am awaiting my second Jackson Blackjack, a guitar that sounds incredible and resembles what I adore about old Sho~Buds. No, it does not sound exactly like an old FT or permanent, but it certainly has similar sustain and tonal character. That's no surprise, considering the builders. Harry wound those old Sho~Bud pickups, and he's winding the new Jackson pickups as well. David's designs have roots in the designs he pioneered in the 60s, but they are much improved and in keeping with technology. The Jacksons are very innovative and forward-thinking. That's what made Sho~Bud succeed and thrive throughout the 60s and into the 70s. What is now an antiquated instrument was once on the cutting edge of steel technology. It's easy to forget that in today's triple-triple cobweb of pedals and levers.

And another word about the old 'Buds. One must not forget that builders did not have precision machinery like they do now. It's easy to say what you want when you're standing behind a CNC machine. Also, if one does not respect a builder's innovations, why would one imitate those very designs? It's akin to the builders of Promat openly laughing at the Emmons company, which would never happen. Having disdain for those you openly emulate mystifies me.

John Coop · Post by **John Coop** » 27 Apr 2009 11:30 am

Ken Byng · Post by **Ken Byng** » 27 Apr 2009 12:15 pm

Chris LeDrew wrote:And another word about the old 'Buds. One must not forget that builders did not have precision machinery like they do now. It's easy to say what you want when you're standing behind a CNC machine. Also, if one does not respect a builder's innovations, why would one imitate those very designs? It's akin to the builders of Promat openly laughing at the Emmons company, which would never happen. Having disdain for those you openly emulate mystifies me.

Well put Chris. We all know of the shortcomings of quality control at ShoBud during a certain period. Trying to keep pace with orders by stamping out parts was not a good decision in retrospect - but - do people still want to buy those guitars? You bet! If people want to upgrade the parts (and I for one have done so) there are a number of people offering this facility. No-one knocks Leo Fender because he didn't put roller or locking nuts and state of the art vibrato units on his early guitars. You just accept that you are buying into a guitar with heritage when you buy a mid to late 70's early 80's ShoBud. It is nice that if you want to upgrade the option is there, and it provides some income for those who wish to supply that demand. Personal attacks on those involved in the guitar when providing replacement parts is like biting the hand that feeds you.

David Doggett · Post by **David Doggett** » 27 Apr 2009 12:41 pm

I know harsh criticism of Sho-Buds sounds ugly to those who worship them. But the rest of us really appreciate the honest opinions. We recently have had threads honestly appraising MSAs and Emmons pedal steels. In spite of some contentiousness, these open slugfests are invaluable to readers. This is not a manufacturers’ forum, but a players’ forum, or maybe more accurately an enthusiasts’ forum. You can’t get these kinds of honest and critical opinions in sources supported by manufacturer advertising. This would all be worthless and uninformative if we all followed the advice of Thumper’s mother in Bambi (If you can’t say anything nice, don’t say anything at all).

Chris LeDrew wrote:...There's Buddy C. on the Ernest Tubb show; Lloyd on the Charlie Pride stuff; Hal Rugg and Curly on the Wilburn brothers; Ralph Mooney with Waylon as late as the mid 80s. It goes on and on. You know what they all had in common? All the Sho~Buds they played had original undercarriages. Didn't seem to get in the way of them create an enduring, rich legacy of steel guitar.

Chris, that’s not the point. All of those early Sho-Bud pedal steelers moved on to later models and/or other brands. If the old ones were perfect, why would they? There was also an enduring, rich legacy of lap steelers before pedal steel. And a legacy of old Indy racers with spoke wheels that couldn’t break 100 mph. It doesn’t take away from those legacies to honestly discuss the tonal and mechanical differences between the older models and later ones. And people shouldn't be made to feel like they are criticizing the old masters if they honestly analyze the problems with the old equipment they played.

If nothing else, it seems there is an honest consensus here that there is no such thing as “that Sho-Bud sound.” I have always been completely baffled by that notion. I haven’t played all the old models, but the several models I have played have all sounded different, and some were very generic. And a major part of the vintage tone is the way the pickups were wound, and had nothing to do with the effects of the bodies and mechanics on tone. Has anyone tried putting pickups wound like the old ones on more modern instruments. That might be the easiest way of all to get the mythical “Sho-Bud sound.”

So, please keep the honest opinions coming, and forget about Thumper’s mom. We’re not all 5-year-olds here.

Fred Glave · Post by **Fred Glave** » 27 Apr 2009 1:09 pm

I don't think players moved on to newer guitars because they were unhappy with the tone, or sound of those old classics. Sho-Bud and Fender hit the nail on the head with tone. Maybe some people can't tell the difference, I don't know. But I think the attraction to the newer designs is due to the mechanics, and engineering that make them lighter in weight, and easier to maintain. Also, many players become involved in manufacturing guitars with their own signiture stamp of approval. It doesn't mean that the guitars are good or bad. It's a matter of taste. I personally don't think there is any new guitar out there that even has the sweet tone of my old Fender 2000. But those guitars are already built, sold and the money spent. People have to live and work to make a buck somehow today. But hey, that's just my opinion.

Skip Edwards · Post by **Skip Edwards** » 27 Apr 2009 2:00 pm

As far as players moving on from their old gtrs..hey, new is new and new is fun. Why not get a new guitar if you can? It doesn't take anything away from the old one - the good as well as the bad.
As far as old p/u's, I believe Tommy White put a late '60's bud p/u on that new black SD10 Sho Pro he recently got.
And as far as the pot metal goes, I'd kinda like to think that idea came from accountants and number crunchers, rather than the Jacksons. Bad call...
Old Buds are the real deal...and what John Coop is doing to them is also the real deal. My hat's off to him for his good work...whatever his opinions may be.
Getting back to the original question...I think the Jackson Madison is the one.
JMHO

btw...my '72 6139 has that vintage Sho-Bud sound. Well, at least one of them.

Brad Malone · Post by **Brad Malone** » 27 Apr 2009 2:14 pm

they must have slept through toolmaking 101 Coop<<

John Coop, You have proven to the world that you are a first class toolmaker. Why have you not built your own Brand of Steel?..I'm am sure there would be a lot of interest because people know you possess the proper skills because of your training and great knowledge of toolmaking.

Brad Malone · Post by **Brad Malone** » 27 Apr 2009 2:26 pm

We’re not all 5-year-olds here<<

Hey DD, I agree with you statements 100%...let the chips fall where they may..this is America and we still have freedom of speech..the Sho-Bud undercarriages were crap. IMHO In 1963 I had to send my Steel back to SB and Duane Marrs installed the tunable collar system...that was so much better then the noisy rack system..cost me about $300

Brad Malone · Post by **Brad Malone** » 27 Apr 2009 2:41 pm

Guys, I was 10 years too early..I meant to say 1973

Chris LeDrew · Post by **Chris LeDrew** » 27 Apr 2009 2:56 pm

David Doggett wrote:I know harsh criticism of Sho-Buds sounds ugly to those who worship them. But the rest of us really appreciate the honest opinions. We recently have had threads honestly appraising MSAs and Emmons pedal steels. In spite of some contentiousness, these open slugfests are invaluable to readers. This is not a manufacturers’ forum, but a players’ forum, or maybe more accurately an enthusiasts’ forum. You can’t get these kinds of honest and critical opinions in sources supported by manufacturer advertising. This would all be worthless and uninformative if we all followed the advice of Thumper’s mother in Bambi (If you can’t say anything nice, don’t say anything at all).

This is all well and good if it can steer clear of blatant rudeness and stay more on the course of "my opinion", etc. There is no credibility in opinions that are based on insults and all-encompassing statements. For instance, saying that ALL Sho~Bud undercarriages are junk is just not a credible assertion. On the other hand, Sho~Buds are just about the only steels that haven't given me trouble under the hood. So yes, it might be one person's bad experience; if so, state that.

I totally support courteous debate, but will stand up for people that I respect when their good name is being dragged through the mud, and when their deceased loved ones are mentioned in an disrespectful light. It riles me, and I won't stand for it. We're talking about wood and metal, for Pete's sake. There's no need to make it personal. It's in very low taste.

The Steel Guitar Forum

Which new Steel has the vintage ShoBud sound?

Which new Steel has the vintage ShoBud sound?

Lloyd Green plays a ShowPro

Sho~Bud Tone

Coop it and like it.

Re: Sho~Bud Tone

Under the skirt

Sho~Bud

John Coop...class act.

To tell the truth.

too early