guitar myths

[Rudi]

Since songstuff reorganised the guitar subforum out. I have been busier on 2 dedicated guitar forums.

 

When I joined the Gibson forum in 2015, I was shocked. There are so many people that believe 1959 was the pinnacle of electric guitar development. That these 'period' instruments are immeasurably better than anything that can be found today. Better indeed than anything else ever could be. One member even stated that he thought that 'PRS guitars seems like a solution looking for a problem'. The attitude explains Gibsons descriptions of their core models as 'period correct' as they attempt to convince the faithful that they are committed to the past.

 

I was shocked that musicians are so conservative, backward looking and obsessed with myth.

 

They are mostly intelligent, knowledgeable and generous people, which makes it all even stranger.

 

[Just1L]

I know nothing about Gibson and really any guitars in general that are actually good. i.e. above the $400 range. So I am asking this as a true question and not being snarky. Are the new guitars as durable as the old guitars? Sure they could have new things the older guitars don't, but are they as durable as old ones that are still around and can be played. I only ask because the reality is they don't make things like they used to, and they definitely don't make them to last as long as they used to. Not sure about guitars though.

[Rudi]

On 6/29/2018 at 9:29 PM, Just1L said:

I know nothing about Gibson and really any guitars in general that are actually good. i.e. above the $400 range. So I am asking this as a true question and not being snarky. Are the new guitars as durable as the old guitars? Sure they could have new things the older guitars don't, but are they as durable as old ones that are still around and can be played. I only ask because the reality is they don't make things like they used to, and they definitely don't make them to last as long as they used to. Not sure about guitars though.

 

Yes, new guitars are as durable as anything produced in the past. These days even the cheaper ones. Though I have no idea about the the starter kit type stuff.

 

No they don't make them like they used to (though I know a couple of people who do). But that is simply a process to produce the instrument. It makes little or no difference to the end result. A CNC machine can shape a neck and body more quickly and accurately than somebody using hand tools. The hand tools add nothing to the process.

 

The materials are much the same. Wood species sources constantly change but for solid  bodies that is not vital IMO. As long as the wood is properly seasoned/heat treated its all good. Acoustics are more complex and wood selection is much more important, so cheap acoustics will be compromised in sound and overall quality. There have always been cheap acoustics though, so again, nothing has changed. There is a school of thought that postulates that old well used acoustic stringed instruments improve in tone after a lot of playing. I used to believe that. Now I am less sure. It makes no difference to solid bodies though.

 

The 1959 Gibsons I referred to are Les Pauls. This is because the late 60's players (who have now been canonized) typically used them. These go for crazy amounts of money, not least because they are rare. Rare because there were few produced as they were not too popular. Money and nostalgia aside, I would rather have something new.

[Rudi]

On 6/30/2018 at 1:02 AM, fasstrack said:

 

 

It's a vessel. Of course I love trying out good guitars as much as the next guy (a pretty top-of-the-line Gretsch is at the top of my wish list). I just don't see making it more important than music

 

A vessel? Yes that's right. I would simply call it a tool.

Its true, we can get distracted by 'the means to an end'. Its like when I joined a camera club in the 80s. There were always a few who seldom produced any pictures.

 

I had little interest in guitars other than a means to an end until 3 years ago. I have been playing for 48 years. So I have several guitars now instead of one. They all get plenty of use so I don't think I'm out of control quite yet.

[Rudi]

On 7/1/2018 at 12:29 PM, fasstrack said:

Every instrument has a culture---and one has to be wary of it when it becomes a 'ghetto'. That's when you hang in the ghetto, listen to only other ghetto denizens and---worst of all---play only or primarily the language (read: licks) of that ghetto.

 

 

Well though I do find myself in a rut from time to time, they are of my own making. There are few guitarists alive now that inspire me and certainly not those revered on the PRS or Gibson forums. 

 

I am very much the outsider in the Gibson Forum. I have been there long enough to be tolerated by most, and friends with a few. I don't know most of the artists and tunes they do. That works the other way about too.

 

But you are right about finding influences of different instrumentation. I used to do that a lot. Elton Dean's saxello playing, Monk's dense chromatic lines or even Anita O'Day's vocal. I don't do that now, at least not knowingly. I realised many years ago that the area that yielded the best results was in phrasing, but I have tried to do this mostly alone.

 

The player who inspired and enlightened me into the magic of phrasing was mainly Jerry Garcia. On at least two occasions while listening to his live recordings, I paused the track and grabbed a guitar to find the 'new' note I heard him play, only to find there was no new note. His use of the note within a phrase made it stand out markedly. I had been fooled into thinking he had altered the scale. That made a deep and lasting impression. I used the word 'magic' deliberately because that's how it seemed to me.

 

I use the forums to learn about the nuts and bolts of maintenance and lutherie more than sharing video and such. At present I'm trying to find some replacement tuners for G-Force with drilling holes in the headstock.