Lets look at our guitars thread
Discussion
That's fantastic. I actually had an Explorer in 1978, in korina with gold hardware, then a year or so later stupidly part-exchanged it for an electric piano. This must have been the most stupid thing I ever did, as I lost heavily on the piano when I sold that, whereas the Explorer would be worth about £2,500 today had I kept it; you never see the natural korina finish 1976 reissue ones these days and heaven knows I’ve looked.
The last one I saw was in Vintage and Rare Guitars in Bath in 2003, it was a 2000 reissue (yes, a reissue of a reissue!) for £999 and it wasn’t even that immaculate. And some idiot had removed the pickup covers. I’d still have bought it though, and had it restored, had I been able to afford to.
I don't think I'd want one now though, it no longer suits my personality, or my playing style. But you never know, perhaps one day ...
The last one I saw was in Vintage and Rare Guitars in Bath in 2003, it was a 2000 reissue (yes, a reissue of a reissue!) for £999 and it wasn’t even that immaculate. And some idiot had removed the pickup covers. I’d still have bought it though, and had it restored, had I been able to afford to.
I don't think I'd want one now though, it no longer suits my personality, or my playing style. But you never know, perhaps one day ...
A friend of mine had an Explorer about thirteen years ago when he was going through a big Metallica phase (as we all were). It struck me as a typical Gibson: poor ergonomics, dodgy tone, low bang to buck. I said he should have held out for something that suited him more but he couldn't see past the 'correct' shape of the Explorer and consequently never held most of the competition. He gave up playing a while after that, still lumbered with the Explorer.
Baryonyx said:
A friend of mine had an Explorer about thirteen years ago when he was going through a big Metallica phase (as we all were). It struck me as a typical Gibson: poor ergonomics, dodgy tone, low bang to buck. I said he should have held out for something that suited him more but he couldn't see past the 'correct' shape of the Explorer and consequently never held most of the competition. He gave up playing a while after that, still lumbered with the Explorer.
What don't you like about the ergonomics?davidd said:
What don't you like about the ergonomics?
Oh, where to start. Well, the weight is poorly distributed. It has that huge tail section sticking out to your left, under your arm. Despite having such a boat anchor behind the bridge, I still find them to be neck-divey (or tail-divey depending on how long your strap is) and they're as bad standing up as they are sitting down. I have only recently started playing in a classical position but I can't imaging the Explorer lending itself to classical position, which is now my preferred seating method for access to the whole neck. The two piece bridge is an obstacle to playing and isn't comfortable to rest your hand on. The squared sides on the body give it a slabby feeling that I don't like against my wrists or forearms (the body shape of the guitar exacerbates this because there isn't a load of room to anchor above the strings). I don't like the tilt of the headstock, or the fact that the necks are usually gloss finished, and I find Gibson gloss finishes to be some of the tackiest going. I really don't mind a gloss neck when the gloss is glass smooth and doesn't become tacky under playing.
It's all down to personal preference though, as I find all the Gibson designs feel dreadful and sound bad. The V, the Les Paul, the Explorer; they all do a fantastic job of marketing for Fender by making the 50's Stratocaster feel and sound utterly space age by comparison.
I hope this doesn't degrade into a slagging off every guitar ever made, because surely someone somewhere won't like your chosen instrument...FWIW I have a Strat, Tele, an Epiphone Les Paul and a Gibson LP Studio with P90s so I cover quite a few bases with that. I go through cycles where I play one of them more than the rest, but it doesn't mean one is better than the other...just what mood I'm in or what songs I'm learning/playing.
Just think it's bad form slagging off someone's choice of guitar in this thread.
Just think it's bad form slagging off someone's choice of guitar in this thread.
Surely its really a case of horse for courses?
I have a couple of super strat types (an Ibanez and a Westone) as well as a Gibson SG, its the SG that gets played the most as it feels really good. Also I find that I rest the ball of my hand between the bridge and the tail piece, which means my pick is virtually right between the two pick ups, to me this feels very natural.
Also I love the way Gibsons are put together, they are works of art, still not sure about the G force tuners though!
I have a couple of super strat types (an Ibanez and a Westone) as well as a Gibson SG, its the SG that gets played the most as it feels really good. Also I find that I rest the ball of my hand between the bridge and the tail piece, which means my pick is virtually right between the two pick ups, to me this feels very natural.
Also I love the way Gibsons are put together, they are works of art, still not sure about the G force tuners though!
OldSkoolRS said:
Just think it's bad form slagging off someone's choice of guitar in this thread.
Unadulterated love-ins are for single brand forums. PH is at least more interesting because we've got a bit if variety here. So what if we're not keen on Gibsons? Nobody is going to suffer hurt feelings.The problem with Gibson has always been the incredibly old fashioned thinking, and their "form before function" ideology. Huge weights, poorly distributed and sold without any thought for ergonomics. They've been selling the same designs practically unchanged for decades, when Fender were making guitars in the same era that were ergonomic marvels.
Of course, we all appreciate different things and from my personal perspective I want a guitar that makes getting the music in my head out through my hands as easy as possible. Gibson tried this in their 80s with some super strat experiements but they just weren't up to much and didn't sell, so they fell back to selling the same old stuff they'd been doing for decades.
Of course, we all like different things.
Of course, we all appreciate different things and from my personal perspective I want a guitar that makes getting the music in my head out through my hands as easy as possible. Gibson tried this in their 80s with some super strat experiements but they just weren't up to much and didn't sell, so they fell back to selling the same old stuff they'd been doing for decades.
Of course, we all like different things.
Well I don't understand why people call Gibson old fashioned, given that they're by far not the only guitar company still selling 60-yrear-old designs. At least they tried to do something different with the Explorer, Flying V, Firebird and Thunderbird, but the conservative guitar players of the time rejected them.
(Actually many of us are still pretty conservative.)
I can see good in both Gibson and Fender designs as I have owned and played many examples of both over the years.
It's those bloody silly pointy Ibanez things I can't stand.
Still it's a good thing we all have different tastes, or we'd all be fighting over the same guitars.
(Actually many of us are still pretty conservative.)
I can see good in both Gibson and Fender designs as I have owned and played many examples of both over the years.
It's those bloody silly pointy Ibanez things I can't stand.
Still it's a good thing we all have different tastes, or we'd all be fighting over the same guitars.
FreeLitres said:
Personal preference and all that.
Very much so, and especially on the subject of guitars.Over the years (in order), I've owned a Squier Tele, a LP copy, an Ibanez JS Standard, an Ibanez JS Custom, and since 2004 a PRS Santana. I've tried out Strats and SG's also.
The Tele didn't last long, and I have never owned a Strat or a SG for one reason I can think of; they feel like planks and I can't get comfortable with them. It's like their necks and bodies on all of them are in one plane. All the others I've owned (and why I ever sold the JS Custom, I'll never know) have all had necks angled slightly towards my body i.e. there is a very slight obtuse angle where the neck joins the body of the guitar.
Which is a shame, as I love the sound of a Strat!
Evangelion said:
Well I don't understand why people call Gibson old fashioned, given that they're by far not the only guitar company still selling 60-yrear-old designs. At least they tried to do something different with the Explorer, Flying V, Firebird and Thunderbird, but the conservative guitar players of the time rejected them.
(Actually many of us are still pretty conservative.)
I can see good in both Gibson and Fender designs as I have owned and played many examples of both over the years.
It's those bloody silly pointy Ibanez things I can't stand.
Still it's a good thing we all have different tastes, or we'd all be fighting over the same guitars.
I'm not sure if the above is meant to be ironic, Gibson are about as conservative as electric guitar design gets.(Actually many of us are still pretty conservative.)
I can see good in both Gibson and Fender designs as I have owned and played many examples of both over the years.
It's those bloody silly pointy Ibanez things I can't stand.
Still it's a good thing we all have different tastes, or we'd all be fighting over the same guitars.
Mastodon2 said:
I'm not sure if the above is meant to be ironic, Gibson are about as conservative as electric guitar design gets.
To be fair to Gibson they went "modern" in about 61, when they stopped making the old fashioned Les Paul and launched the SG. They did this as sales had slumped and everyone was buying Tele's and Strats.They only re started making LPs when people like Clapton, Paul Kossof, Jimmy Page, pulled them out of the second hand stores and made them ultra desirable again. Ever since then Gibson have become the Morgan of the electric Guitar world, every time they try and do something modern or different they get a barrage of criticism.
Did you know last year they were doing a classic sunburst topped 7 string version of the Les Paul? Bold and yet oddly conservative.....
Evangelion said:
hat their new robot tuners?
(Yes, I know everybody hates them.)
A desperate attempt to try and fit new technology to an old design? It's the equivalent of putting a built-in sat nav into a Lada Riva, it's not going to tempt modern car buyers into getting a classic car, and it's not going to satisfy purists who buy on nostalgia.(Yes, I know everybody hates them.)
Don't get me wrong, I like a bit of nostalgia, I had a Fender Classic Series 50s Reissue Tele that was a great guitar, but it had it's foibles too. The heart of it though, is that the Tele is still a great design today, it's compact and has a great natural weight distribution. When I look at something like a Flying V, I see a design purely intended for form, for shock value on stage, as there is practically no element of it's build that is designed to help make playing it easier, that just wasn't on Gibson's mind when they were building it.
Gassing Station | Music | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff