Technology trends- Make thinner guitars?
Moderated By: mods
-
holyCATS1415
- .
- Posts: 1063
- Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 7:18 pm
- Location: MQT, MI
- Contact:
-
holyCATS1415
- .
- Posts: 1063
- Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 7:18 pm
- Location: MQT, MI
- Contact:
i always liked SG's, despite how fragile they are.Chorlton wrote:yeah, ive got an old epiphone SG and it's bad. Too thin. no mojo. Crap.
Still when you played in a punkrock band, having a good guitar isn't exactly important.
Sprial Scratch was recorded using guitars bought from woolworths. Apparantly.
How can you have a guitar where you have to use a strap to make it balance and you cant give it loads to rock out with? meh, different strokes for different folks i guess.evol04gt wrote:i love my sg..... have to use a stupid thick leather strap to balance out the weight...... the only thing i really dont like is that you can WAY to easy slack or unslack the neck with one hand while playing (making jumping around and rocking out TOTALLY a bad idea if you stil want to sound good)
I do love their shape mind.
I don't think you can class the guitar as a technology product any more. Manufacturers are reluctant to do anything that wasn't done in the 60s or late 50s, and guitarist (in general) are reluctant to accept anything new.
Since then we've had the flyod rose and active pickups. Guitarists have taken to the floyd but I'd say a majority think it's a pile of shite. Bassists have taken to active pickups, guitarists said no dice. There are probably other things that have happened but I can't think of any. There are probably a few small things like dual action truss rods (though I imagine these came in in the 60s at some point).
Look at it this way, a hell of a lot of serious guitarists will choose a 3 saddle tele bridge over a technologically advanced 6 saddle, and take those old bent strat saddles over more ergonomic modern flat saddles. There are no logical reasons for those sort of choices other than an extreme reluctance to change.
Guitars also wont get smaller for the comfort factor. The average guitar body size is quite a universal fit as it is.
Since then we've had the flyod rose and active pickups. Guitarists have taken to the floyd but I'd say a majority think it's a pile of shite. Bassists have taken to active pickups, guitarists said no dice. There are probably other things that have happened but I can't think of any. There are probably a few small things like dual action truss rods (though I imagine these came in in the 60s at some point).
Look at it this way, a hell of a lot of serious guitarists will choose a 3 saddle tele bridge over a technologically advanced 6 saddle, and take those old bent strat saddles over more ergonomic modern flat saddles. There are no logical reasons for those sort of choices other than an extreme reluctance to change.
Guitars also wont get smaller for the comfort factor. The average guitar body size is quite a universal fit as it is.
Shabba.
+1James wrote:I don't think you can class the guitar as a technology product any more. Manufacturers are reluctant to do anything that wasn't done in the 60s or late 50s, and guitarist (in general) are reluctant to accept anything new.
Since then we've had the flyod rose and active pickups. Guitarists have taken to the floyd but I'd say a majority think it's a pile of shite. Bassists have taken to active pickups, guitarists said no dice. There are probably other things that have happened but I can't think of any. There are probably a few small things like dual action truss rods (though I imagine these came in in the 60s at some point).
Look at it this way, a hell of a lot of serious guitarists will choose a 3 saddle tele bridge over a technologically advanced 6 saddle, and take those old bent strat saddles over more ergonomic modern flat saddles. There are no logical reasons for those sort of choices other than an extreme reluctance to change.
Guitars also wont get smaller for the comfort factor. The average guitar body size is quite a universal fit as it is.
