Why are Guitar Players So Conservative?
- Thread starter drmilktruck
- Start date
cielski
I Bleed Orange
It's a-me! Glad to be back. Actually, I'm just glad to be.Jesteś Polakiem?
Sorry, that’s the limit of my Polish.
Is that you, Wabash?
You have a lot of friends breathing a sigh of relief.
cielski
I Bleed Orange
I have COPD. I'm just happy to breathe.
As to guitarists being conservatives---other musicians fall into that boat just as easily.
String instruments like violins and cellos and such haven't changed in centuries. Brasses are relatively unchanged. Keyboardists play pianos that haven't changed in centuries, and one of the most popular keyboards, the Hammond Organ, dates from the 1930s and stopped being made originally in the late '60s. Modern keys like synths aren't all that popular. The best upgrades are those that use digital tech, and those mostly emulate older instruments.
A lot of this falls into the category---"If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
That's kind of the point. After 80s shredders, there have been few guitarists embracing the wild, the outrageous, the new, the different in gear. Maybe in dress or behavior, but not in the tools they use. It's sad when Metal guitarists are more interesting gear-wise than rockers.
Yet rock n roll celebrates itself as rebellious. 50s & 60s rockers rejected stale post-WW2 orthodoxy in a lot of ways, but left us with a legacy of a limited number of ways to express yourself in choice of a guitar. Nobody views the other instruments you cite as appealing to cutting edge, heterodox musicians. Their appeal is that they are conservative. (In fact it'd be rebellious if somebody revived the symphony as means to explore new boundaries in popular music. Imagine if Lady GaGa announced that from now on, she'd only record and perform with the New York Philharmonic Orchestra.)
ThePluckedString
Electromatic
This cracked me up! Those guys all look so "conservative".Man remains the same and the machine bends to his intent. No more doomed to change is the guitarist with his guitar, than the hunter and his rifle. -tv
M
I see your point. The shredder axes of the ‘80s were advanced instruments, with features that advanced the art of the instrument. Keep in mind the context; Van Halen’s whammy bar acrobatics were all the rage. This was the era of Floyd Rose vibratos, locking nuts, etc. I have a sincere admiration for these guitars, in much the same way that I admire a Hellcat Dodge Challenger. The Challenger is an amazing piece of technology, but I would never use even half of its power. The shredder guitars offer amazing capabilities, but I’ll never go beyond the limitations of a 60-70 year-old Gretsch design, with a Bigsby, a floating bridge and non-locking machine heads.
Franz Zlabinger
Electromatic
I love traditional guitars from wood and analog electronics also as amp I prefer a all tube amp. I think this combination is the most charming and this natural imperfection makes everything special.
In my opinion with carbon fiber guitars , modellers , plugins and so on , all this charm gets lost.
Wish you all a nice weekend and joy with your gretsch
In my opinion with carbon fiber guitars , modellers , plugins and so on , all this charm gets lost.
Wish you all a nice weekend and joy with your gretsch
Jeremiah_S
Electromatic
I can only speak for Gibson, since I'm more versed with the material, but every time they tried something new, people bashed it. ESP was making all these neat new Eclipse guitars with all the new features, Floyd Rose, Evertune, Cosmo Black hardware, and people were fine with it. Gibson, people only wanted to see the classic shapes with classic features, or it was a disaster.
You make a good point. Guitar manufacturers are somewhat in a bind. They are expected to remain true to their vintage products, which limits their ability to innovate.
Supply and demand. Substitute goods may replace each other in use due to changing economic conditions.
When I was growing up, vinyl records came in 12" cardboard paper sleeve covers that had pictures of guitar players with their guitars on them. A little later MTV came on the scene and we'd see more guitars there. In the '80s Steinbergers and pointy shred guitars were popular. But those faded from the scene when grunge became popular. So I guess the guitars that we see musicians playing influences what we like. And the guitars that popular musicians play can be a sort of marketing. How much of that marketing is intentional and how much is not is a subject for another day.
Entertainment is visual as well as Aural.
Last edited:
Stingray70
Gretschie
We as people get used to what we see and hear.
For example, why did English rock and roll in the 60s ( and into the 70s) often have a harder, "crunchy" or" "edgier" sound? Was it because people in England " liked or enjoyed" it more than the "cleaner" sounds often found in American rock and roll of the 60's? Not necessarily....
Part of the reason is because the tube amps built in England used the style of vaccume tubes or "valves" that were commonly used and available in England ( think Marshall for example) and that's the way those tubes sounded. The tubes typically used and available in the USA were different, and usually produced a cleaner tone (think Fender).
Many of us like the sound of both the Marshall and Fender guitar tube amps although they don't sound the same and are often associated with different styles of music. They also don't tyipically use the same types of tubes, at least not in their "vintage" model amps.. While this is all very generalized, never the less there is a lot of truth in it...
So, why do guitar players play the same guitars created in the 50's? For the same reason..
We use what we have and we get used to or accustomed to the things we use and the sounds we hear....
For example, why did English rock and roll in the 60s ( and into the 70s) often have a harder, "crunchy" or" "edgier" sound? Was it because people in England " liked or enjoyed" it more than the "cleaner" sounds often found in American rock and roll of the 60's? Not necessarily....
Part of the reason is because the tube amps built in England used the style of vaccume tubes or "valves" that were commonly used and available in England ( think Marshall for example) and that's the way those tubes sounded. The tubes typically used and available in the USA were different, and usually produced a cleaner tone (think Fender).
Many of us like the sound of both the Marshall and Fender guitar tube amps although they don't sound the same and are often associated with different styles of music. They also don't tyipically use the same types of tubes, at least not in their "vintage" model amps.. While this is all very generalized, never the less there is a lot of truth in it...
So, why do guitar players play the same guitars created in the 50's? For the same reason..
We use what we have and we get used to or accustomed to the things we use and the sounds we hear....
Last edited:
Fairlane Blue
Electromatic
Here - let me sum it up in as few words as possible.
The original acoustic designs are still be used today. The original electric guitars are being used today as well. Why is this you ask? Because people want something that they can relate to and recognise. Something that works and is a proven formula for a successful outcome. Although cars and houses have come a long way in engineering the same basic principal of four walls a floor and a cieling are still the standard for architecture and cars still only go forwards and backwards despite their outward appearance. Why change it if it isn't broken? The reason why some people introduce radical designs is because all the most popular guitars are trademarked or patented and cannot be copied legally. So they make something that they hope is radical and gets people to look at it and either wonder about it or want it.
Over my guitar-playing life, I've owned and played Parker, Aristides, Steinberger, Kiesel headless, a fan-fret guitar, a 13-pin hexaphonic/midi output Godin (my main gigging guitar for years), and probably some other oddballs I can't recall at the moment. I enjoyed all of them and thought each was an excellent tool. I'm completely open and unreserved about non-traditional designs. None are with me anymore though. Why? Ultimately none were breakthroughs that 'changed the game', though the 13-pin came close.
Guitars are nothing more than the most modern implementation of the lute. Once you get the basics of playability and ergonomics down, with the ability to send voltage to the output jack...there is only so much left you can do to be different. For me that's where the artisanship and quality and attention to detail come into play that really make certain guitars stand out. But there is one more thing, an important thing - the visceral feeling and sensation you get from playing a musical instrument, which for some reason seems enhanced in classic designs, at least for me. That whole impression of hewn wood and wire coming together in your hands in an inspiring way. The more modern designs I've had failed to capture that for some reason.
So if you see me playing a strat or tele it isn't because I'm hopelessly conservative, it's because I really like the way they come together.
Guitars are nothing more than the most modern implementation of the lute. Once you get the basics of playability and ergonomics down, with the ability to send voltage to the output jack...there is only so much left you can do to be different. For me that's where the artisanship and quality and attention to detail come into play that really make certain guitars stand out. But there is one more thing, an important thing - the visceral feeling and sensation you get from playing a musical instrument, which for some reason seems enhanced in classic designs, at least for me. That whole impression of hewn wood and wire coming together in your hands in an inspiring way. The more modern designs I've had failed to capture that for some reason.
So if you see me playing a strat or tele it isn't because I'm hopelessly conservative, it's because I really like the way they come together.
afire
Friend of Fred
Well said. The artisanship and attention to detail stuff has been interesting me more than ever lately.
For years, I liked simple guitars with small inlays, chrome hardware, simple binding, etc. In recent years, my tastes have moved towards more ornate guitars. Some of the fancier Gibsons, like the L-5 Premier, Super 400 Premier, Byrdland, Johnny Smith/LeGrande really appeal to me, these days. The ES 355 is a thin semi-hollow with similar levels of trim to an L-5 Premier, and it’s now my favorite Thinline Gibson. My recent purchase of a Squier CV Jaguar has a bound neck and block inlays. I really like the look.
afire
Friend of Fred
For as long as I can remember I've thought that a cherry ES-355 is the most beautiful guitar ever made. Fortunately I don't get along with Gibson pickups, so I don't need to buy one.
I would tend to agree, the Cherry 355 is one beautiful axe. I remember a Gibson ad with Tony Mottola’s 355, prominently featured.
Gib-buckers are not my favorite, although I’ve made peace with the Gib-buckers in an Epi Dot, that I’ve played on occasion. I don’t know why, but this one guitar is quite nice sounding.
Why try to improve on perfection? I don’t think there is anything more modern than a black guard Telecaster.
But seriously, you could propose a robotic guitar that automatically twists you rtuners to keep the guitar in tune. That would certainly be successful and find its way onto every guitar.
But seriously, you could propose a robotic guitar that automatically twists you rtuners to keep the guitar in tune. That would certainly be successful and find its way onto every guitar.
