What Is The Guitar Industry’s Obsession With The Past?

Blueingreen

Nowadays, outside of some minority taste genres,  it’s largely a heritage instrument. We may not like it, but it’s the truth.

Electric guitar (with the electric bass guitar) dominated popular music in the 50s, 60s and 70s. It was innovative technology that  provided a wonderful ergonomic solution for musicians. It generated (with pedals) a wide range sounds that were new and exciting. It was portable and could be easily amplified to fill a hall. It worked as a harmonic, melodic and percussive instrument. It was relatively easy to learn the basics well enough to perform, but could also be a platform for virtuosity.  Its obvious rival, the keyboard, tended by comparison to be heavy, expensive and generated sounds that weren't as exciting to the contemporary ear. 

The guitar's place as the sound of modernity has long been usurped by electronics. Even more portable. Generating a wider range of newer sounds. Capable of replicating the sound of a whole band - with percussion, strings, horns. Allowing people with minimal instrumental skills to generate complex music. Able to cannibalise and reproduce all the sounds of past music. Guitar is just too much hard work.  And you have to find guys to play the other parts.

What mainstream popular producers use guitar for now is to wire in "authenticity", a connection to the past.  Because part of the power of music comes from our memories of hearing earlier music, stuff we picked up as a kid from a radio or a movie or tv soundtrack. Whether it’s using a bit of 50s twang on a ballad, a bit of bebop guitar on a hip-hop track, some folky acoustic to signal sincerity or some power chords on the intro to a piece of modern r’n’b, the message is, this track not just a piece of now, it's part of our tradition.  Trained musicians with the skills to play old style instruments have endorsed this music!  String sections and flutes and violins and horns and saxophones did the same job for guitar based music.

And if you want to sprinkle the past on your track of choice, surely an old Tele through a Fender or a Gibson through a Marshall will have more of the old magic dust than a Suhr through a Kemper? And if you do use a Suhr you’ll still need a Tele for the vid.

Because if your job is to represent the past, the best way to look the part is look like you’re from the past. Because naturally the iconography associated with the instrument comes from its heyday. Hank, Elvis, Chuck, B B, Jimi, Eric, Jimmy, Keef, Brooce. Everybody knows what a guitarist is supposed to look like.  And his guitars.

So here's your session guy.  Scraggy hair, retro clothes, beaten up Strat, the Bigsby, the worn 335. Your job is to be authentic, man, by which we mean as ersatz as a Jack Daniels commercial. 

And a bit further down the food chain - you might be a follically challenged, portly gentleman of a certain age whose boss is making his life a misery, who can't understand what his kids see in that grime shite and canvassed for the Tories at the last election, but for 2 hours on a Saturday night you can be a lean, mean rebel who isn't going to take any shit from The Man.  And you cant do that with a PRS.  Hence your relic'd Custom shop Tele and your VOS SG.

Fenders. Gibsons. Helping to keep shit real in 2018!

NelsonP

munckee said:

NelsonP said:

Here's another
Past


...and 30 years later, present:


To be fair the differences are harder to spot on this one.

The new one is a lot bigger

'Period correct' smaller image file.

AlexC

@Blueingreen One of my favourite posts ever! Well said.

Mark1960

I suspect it might be because the majority of gigging bands are covers bands, and they are covering the clasic guitar songs of the 50s, 60s and 70s, and consequently want to sound as authentic as possible, hence the demand for gear from that era, or that looks and sounds like it's from that era.

ICBM

Mark1960 said:

I suspect it might be because the majority of gigging bands are covers bands, and they are covering the clasic guitar songs of the 50s, 60s and 70s, and consequently want to sound as authentic as possible, hence the demand for gear from that era, or that looks and sounds like it's from that era.

But ironically it's mostly those bands where you'll find PRSs, Musicmans, 'modern' Fenders and other versatile, non-classic guitars.

Voxman

I think this is a really interesting topic and observation.  I don't really have any definitive answer, but perhaps it's because, overall, the design of older vintage gear was so fundamentally 'right' that it's harder to be truly innovative.  If you think how far back the original Telecaster, Strat and Les Paul's were first designed, and amps like the original Fender Bassmans, sure there have been loads of variants (some better received than others) and options but overall the fundamental designs haven't fundamentally changed and they just 'work's (Well, valve amp 'idiosynracies' aside).

And combined with a recognised shape, brand awareness and at least reasonable resale value (not counting vintage prices) it can make it harder to come up with genuinely new designs that will appeal to the (typically) main line markets and be profitable.

I suppose digital modelling for both amps and guitars and robot tuners are some examples of real innovations.  By and large these have been pretty successful but won't appeal to everyone.  The advancement of reliable, affordable and good quality PA systems means that there has been a noticeable shift to smaller, lighter amps and digital mfx. 

It's very difficult for designers to know what will be successful and particularly 're digital modelling gear folk who previously paid big bucks for state of the art gear that has since devalued hugely are now typically wary of making such outlays again. Line 6 Variax guitars, Roland synth guitars etc probably fall into this scenario too.  The difficulty with true innovations is that often there is a design and research cost that has to be recovered.

Definitely a difficult conundrum for innovation. 

NelsonP

Well, this was innovative:
https://www.musicradar.com/reviews/guitars/gibson-firebird-x-502631

darthed1981

munckee said:

NelsonP said:

Here's another
Past


...and 30 years later, present:


To be fair the differences are harder to spot on this one.

The new one is a lot bigger

You sir, are a funny f**ker!

Mark1960

ICBM said:

Mark1960 said:

I suspect it might be because the majority of gigging bands are covers bands, and they are covering the clasic guitar songs of the 50s, 60s and 70s, and consequently want to sound as authentic as possible, hence the demand for gear from that era, or that looks and sounds like it's from that era.

But ironically it's mostly those bands where you'll find PRSs, Musicmans, 'modern' Fenders and other versatile, non-classic guitars.

I guess that's because as covers bands they need to be able to create a range of sounds, hence Strats with H/S/S pickups and coil tapped Tele's

Voxman

Mark1960 said:

ICBM said:

Mark1960 said:

I suspect it might be because the majority of gigging bands are covers bands, and they are covering the clasic guitar songs of the 50s, 60s and 70s, and consequently want to sound as authentic as possible, hence the demand for gear from that era, or that looks and sounds like it's from that era.

But ironically it's mostly those bands where you'll find PRSs, Musicmans, 'modern' Fenders and other versatile, non-classic guitars.

I guess that's because as covers bands they need to be able to create a range of sounds, hence Strats with H/S/S pickups and coil tapped Tele's

I think that's a good point. I play in a covers band and use my PRS Cu24 because it does both the humbucker and single coil thing, it also has a great trem if I need it, and string changes are pretty quick too. 

guitars4you

NelsonP said:

Well, this was innovative:
https://www.musicradar.com/reviews/guitars/gibson-firebird-x-502631

does any one know of anyone who either purchased one, or played one

Garthy

It does surprise me that sustainer blocks are simple blocks of brass or titanium, it would be interesting to see what would happen if they were shaped like bells or teardrops or whatever else a bit of R&D could come up with.

I thought the Fly was quite comfortable too.

rossi

It may well turn out to be something within  many of us they dont realize like the aspect ration of  a design that appeals to many subconsciously .I think a 4:3 ratio of length:width or some such .I know it applies in art and many things . Forinstance F1 cars were 4:3 in the 90's before being mucked around with  by the FIA and many hate the change still .It was done to pull the wheels in towards the body and make it safer but it didnt looks so good .no idea if its right ..just an idea.

merciful-evans

I think there is a lot of scope for innovation for all instruments. Technology improves, so why shouldn't design follow?

Materials exist now that can replace wood. Carbon fiber guitars are not affected by humidity. Hathaway (guitar co.) claim that they don't even need trussrods. That's two fine reasons right there.

Flaxwood are resin based synthetic material guitars. I myself have a Switch guitar (entirely plastic) that I won in one of John Robson charity auctions. Its ugly and neck heavy, but it plays and sounds terrific.

Here is carbon fiber model:

ICBM

merciful-evans said:

Here is carbon fiber model:

Too bad all that lovely high-density, long-sustaining and almost indestructible carbon fibre is completely offset by a resonance-killing Kahler whose springs will inevitably stretch and fail... and unfortunately are a real problem to replace with any other system.

It can sometimes be difficult to know which are the right innovations and which are the wrong ones initially though, it has to be said.

impmann

ICBM said:

merciful-evans said:

Here is carbon fiber model:

Too bad all that lovely high-density, long-sustaining and almost indestructible carbon fibre is completely offset by a resonance-killing Kahler whose springs will inevitably stretch and fail... and unfortunately are a real problem to replace with any other system.

It can sometimes be difficult to know which are the right innovations and which are the wrong ones initially though, it has to be said.

Aren’t we a little ray of sunshine today?

Kahler springs stretch? All springs stretch. It’s what they do. If you mean exceed their elastic limit then that does take years in normal use (I’ve also encountered Fender ones that have gone floppy but they were used in a guitar string since 1967 with 12 gauge strings). On a Kahler these are very simple to replace and cost $6 each, so hardly the end of the world...

ICBM

I’m always a ray of sunshine . Just reporting things I find.

Yes, you can replace Kahler springs - now. For many years they were unavailable, and if they stop making them again then they will also be - and unlike Fender (or Floyd Rose) springs, there aren’t literally millions of them around. They do have more of a tendency to fail as well, it’s very common on older ones.

And the Kahler does kill the resonance of the guitar. I started fitting them in the late 80s when I was just starting as a repairer, and always noticed it - even with the saddles set as high as possible they affect the tone and sustain of the guitar. I still have my old routing templates somewhere, but I haven’t needed to use one for about 25 years, thankfully!

So it seems unfortunate that a guitar made from a material of the future should be hamstrung by being fitted with a bridge from the past which would have been better left there...

richardhomer

ICBM said:

And the Kahler does kill the resonance of the guitar. I started fitting them in the late 80s when I was just starting as a repairer, and always noticed it - even with the saddles set as high as possible they affect the tone and sustain of the guitar. I still have my old routing templates somewhere, but I haven’t needed to use one for about 25 years, thankfully!

Gilmour famously had one fitted to his Black Strat and rapidly had it removed, because of its negative impact on its tone and sustain.

57Deluxe

...cos the future's not ours to see...

ICBM

richardhomer said:

Gilmour famously had one fitted to his Black Strat and rapidly had it removed, because of its negative impact on its tone and sustain.

Unfortunately when it did the same to my favourite guitar I 'doubled down' on the problem and recessed the Kahler into the front of the guitar to increase the string angle, which was only partially successful but made it far harder to even contemplate removing. To be fair, it did work well with the Roland GK-2 I had also fitted - unlike other Strat-type bridges it keeps the string height constant over the pickup when used, which is important for the Roland.