Lets look at our guitars thread
Discussion
Mastodon2 said:
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:
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.
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.
A V has better upper fret access than pretty much anything else surely, as there's no upper body...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.
Current Les Pauls weigh far less than they used to, after they did some analysis on which bits of wood make a difference to the sustain and then took out the bits that were spare. My 2016 Studio is significantly lighter than my 2009 Trad.
But the thing is, it's still a weighty guitar, and has mellow sustain in bucketloads, something that a lighter guitar will always struggle with. I find them really easy to play, much more so than something like an Ibanez, which is why I'm trying to sell my RGA.
And given the second hand values of a Gibson compared to an Ibanez, I can't be the only one who prefers the old fashioned approach...
It all comes down to what you like, really.
I love my Les Paul - I don't think there is anything out of date about it, and ergonomically I think it is a fantastic design. Pickup switch located in a place which gives easy access but you don't knock it accidentally (Strat, I am looking at you) and the separate volume and tone controls for each pickup give you a lot of scope for different tones. Mine has a 50s neck (i.e. baseball bat) which I really like, it is very comfortable. Weight distribution is perfect standing up, and the weight itself doesn't bother me in the slightest. Mine is a 2013 model and doesn't have any of these so called "quality issues" you hear about, in fact I think it looks really good.
On the flip side, my mate has one of these Ibanez Prestige things and I can't get on with it at all. The neck is way too small, the tremolo is very easy to nudge and briefly throw your tuning out, only has one tone and one volume knob, changing strings is a mission let alone changing string gauge, and the pickup switch is in a stupid place. But, he loves it! And unsurprisingly, hates my Les Paul
Never understood people getting precious (not aimed at anyone here, just guitar forums in general) about models / brands etc. Play what you like and accept that others like different things from you I say. I was a member of a guitar group on facebook briefly and it was full of people with Classic Vibe Telecasters telling everyone else they are wasting money and buying stupid guitars, and then those with American Telecasters looking down on anyone who didn't have a USA Fender. Bunch of knobs.
I love my Les Paul - I don't think there is anything out of date about it, and ergonomically I think it is a fantastic design. Pickup switch located in a place which gives easy access but you don't knock it accidentally (Strat, I am looking at you) and the separate volume and tone controls for each pickup give you a lot of scope for different tones. Mine has a 50s neck (i.e. baseball bat) which I really like, it is very comfortable. Weight distribution is perfect standing up, and the weight itself doesn't bother me in the slightest. Mine is a 2013 model and doesn't have any of these so called "quality issues" you hear about, in fact I think it looks really good.
On the flip side, my mate has one of these Ibanez Prestige things and I can't get on with it at all. The neck is way too small, the tremolo is very easy to nudge and briefly throw your tuning out, only has one tone and one volume knob, changing strings is a mission let alone changing string gauge, and the pickup switch is in a stupid place. But, he loves it! And unsurprisingly, hates my Les Paul
Never understood people getting precious (not aimed at anyone here, just guitar forums in general) about models / brands etc. Play what you like and accept that others like different things from you I say. I was a member of a guitar group on facebook briefly and it was full of people with Classic Vibe Telecasters telling everyone else they are wasting money and buying stupid guitars, and then those with American Telecasters looking down on anyone who didn't have a USA Fender. Bunch of knobs.
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 not so much the age of the designs, as the designs themselves and where they took their inspiration from. The Stratocaster is contemporary to many Gibson guitars than feel like boat anchors by comparison. The Strat design is excellent, hence why it has stood the test of time so well. Decent heel, small headstock, contoured edges, useful vibrato system, great tonal flexibility and a nice sound overall. It doesn't weigh much, it balances well. Whether you're a fusion wizard or a country strummer, you'll probably get on with a Strat. By comparison, the Les Paul architecture was rooted in the oldest electric guitars. The design was conservative, and the keen eye will see how close the design is to the acoustic guitars of the day - fat neck, 3+3 angled headstock, bound neck and body, seemingly little care given to ergonomic function. Gibson's later designs tried to be more radical but didn't depart from the traditional construction and Gibson 'feel'. Leo Fender's designs were functional and smartly design. There is a good argument for saying that for a long time, the electric guitar world was dominated by Fender and Gibson derived guitars, on opposite sides of the spectrum. (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.
I'm not much a fan of Gibson guitars, and I don't expect anyone to suffer hurt feelings because of my preferences. I'm also not much a fan of Gibson's business practices. It's one thing to sell of fashioned guitars to traditionalists, but their destruction of other great brands is appalling. For a while, they seemed to be buying out companies just to shelve or wreck their products. They took over Steinberger designs from Ned Steinberger and turned a series of incredible carbon fibre guitars into lame wooden constructs that had lost one of the most important parts of the design, and then sopped back with 'carbon reinforced necks' like that was some consolation. Their appropriation of Tobias basses was similarly troubled and they constructed loads of awful basses in Nashville before finally cracking, but never quite perfecting, the emulation of the product they had bought from Michael Tobias in the first place. The only example of a company that they bought and didn't wreck is Trace Elliot, but only because Trace Elliot's quality had been failing for years. Gibson managed to bring them back to a decent product but lost a huge amount of market traction in the meantime.
Yes that utterly gorgeous (and this is from a man who only plays dreadnoughts). Taylor make some fantastic guitars.
Returning to the subject of recent posts, I think one of Fender's great strengths over Gibson is that their recent changes have been subtle, examples being their TBX controls, locking tuners and two-point trems, which make the guitars play more efficiently without losing the look and feel.
(And, most importantly, the sound.)
Returning to the subject of recent posts, I think one of Fender's great strengths over Gibson is that their recent changes have been subtle, examples being their TBX controls, locking tuners and two-point trems, which make the guitars play more efficiently without losing the look and feel.
(And, most importantly, the sound.)
Dave2P said:
Not quite as classic as some of the stunning guitars on the thread, but recently retrieved from a 15 year hiatus under the bed (thanks to my upstart son buying me a copy of Rocksmith for Xmas)...
Charvel Model 6, from about 1988.
That, my friend, is indeed a classic, and IMHO one of the best on this thread. I have the 650xl which is basically the same axe with the toothpaste logo, and it is without a doubt the best guitar I have ever played. Charvel Model 6, from about 1988.
If you ever wish to sell let me know. I love Charvels
gbbird said:
That, my friend, is indeed a classic
Cheers - not just a cheaper version of a Jackson then??? I bought it to celebrate a new job in late 87 or early 88 I think, and - yes - love the way it plays.I'll own a few more guitars one day, but this one's a keeper; I'll sell it when it wears out...
Gassing Station | Music | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff