Anyone else bored to death by mainstream guitars?

skullfunkerry

I don't have a lot of interest in a lot of the traditional designs (the R8 thread for instance left me cold), so I've always played superstrats or pointy guitars. I do have a Strat now, but it's a Squier with active pickups, a reverse headstock & a Floyd Rose. Talking of little design tweaks, it's got one which I love: the volume knob on a Strat is too close to the bridge & I always end up knocking it by accident; on mine it's been moved down slightly do that doesn't happen any more. It's just a little thing but it literally would have been a deal breaker for me

Arjailer

Yep - bored, bored, bored.

thegummy said:

Other companies do make them, why bother wanting Fender to do it? Just buy one of the other brands?

'cos my local guitar shop stocks about 90% Fender and traditional Fender/Gibson clones, making it a very boring place to browse, and making trying those other brands very difficult.


Cars, computers, keyboards - might currently all have the same basic forms as each other, but the designs of those things haven't remained static for the last 70's years - they've all evolved to where they are now, and continue to evolve every year. If we all bought phones like guitarists buy guitars we'd all be using Nokia 3310 clones.


Anyway, the OP didn't say "Fender, I want crazy designs and burn the old ones! Bwahaha!!!" - he just said "Fender, how about, in addition to the traditional models, you do a strat without a scratchplate and with an ergonomic neck joint?" - hardly controversial.

digitalscream

Henrytwang said:

Fender and Gibson got it right in the 50s. 

Not really. Their designs are all problematic in some way (as is to be expected from the first generation of any product), but the reason they (particularly Gibson) struggle to sell guitars with more modern enhancements and fixes to their original design issues is that they're fighting their own marketing - most of their marketing budget is spent trying to convince everyone that they got it right in the 50s by reinforcing the nostalgic "mojo" argument, and they've done such a good job that their R&D department can't overcome it when they come up with a genuine improvement on those designs.

That's why those improvements generally come in the form of guitars from other manufacturers, with better upper fret access, more solid headstock joins, more interesting electronics, better tuning stability etc etc.

thegummy

Arjailer said:

thegummy said:

Other companies do make them, why bother wanting Fender to do it? Just buy one of the other brands?

'cos my local guitar shop stocks about 90% Fender and traditional Fender/Gibson clones, making it a very boring place to browse, and making trying those other brands very difficult.

Surely you don't live that far away from a normal guitar shop that has all the other guitars in addition to Fender?

Even then, wouldn't it make more sense to urge (or even wish) that particular shop to have more of a varied stock rather than wishing Fender made different guitars so that shop would be more likely to stock them? Even just buy the ones you like online if the shop has such a limited range.

I don't think anyone finds it controversial to wish Fender made guitars similar to other brands, just seems pointless to want them to be made by a specific company.

NickL

Arjailer said:

If we all bought phones like guitarists buy guitars we'd all be using Nokia 3310 clones.

If we all bought phones like guitarists buy guitars we'd all be using bakelite dial phones and bashing them up to make them look older.

Philly_Q

Arjailer said:

If we all bought phones like guitarists buy guitars we'd all be using Nokia 3310 clones.

I'd still be using my Nokia 3310 if it hadn't become impossible to get decent replacement batteries for it.

I had to go all modern and get a Nokia 105.

thegummy

digitalscream said:

Henrytwang said:

Fender and Gibson got it right in the 50s. 

Not really. Their designs are all problematic in some way (as is to be expected from the first generation of any product), but the reason they (particularly Gibson) struggle to sell guitars with more modern enhancements and fixes to their original design issues is that they're fighting their own marketing - most of their marketing budget is spent trying to convince everyone that they got it right in the 50s by reinforcing the nostalgic "mojo" argument, and they've done such a good job that their R&D department can't overcome it when they come up with a genuine improvement on those designs.

That's why those improvements generally come in the form of guitars from other manufacturers, with better upper fret access, more solid headstock joins, more interesting electronics, better tuning stability etc etc.

Marketing, yes, without a doubt.

But isn't there also the fact that changing anything on a guitar will alter the way it sounds so any changes made - even if it makes it practically more functional - will make it sound different to the classic Les Paul so people wanting to sound the same as their favourite records they heard growing up won't be satisfied. Of course there's also the desire to hold a guitar that looks/is the same as those favourite players which comes in to play despite any sound differences.

At one point when I was comparing a Les Paul to a more modern style guitar (PRS Custom) I found myself concerned with making sure the latter could sound like a Les Paul so that I wasn't missing out. But then I had an epiphany that it doesn't necessarily have to sound like a LP (which may seem obvious to some but it is something a lot of us tend to think) and it only matters that it sounds good.

After a while I did actually find I preferred the sound of the LP but it's interesting that, before I really thought about it, I had the idea in my head that the LP sound is the ultimate goal or a necessity. There may well even be some of that kind of thinking subconsciously affecting my choice in the end.

NelsonP

Don't Fender own Charvel now? 

A Charvel pro mod DK24 is pretty much exactly what the OP described, isn't it?

lysander

Haha touche, that's why I bought one Not quite mainstream though, they're few and far between.

Samgb

Greatape said:

This is why I like Reverend

This. I love my Charger HB because it's the best of both worlds. It does those classic sounds but is super versatile with the bass contour control and modern appointments. But most of all it looks fucking cool. Which, lets face it, is more important.  

Danielsguitars

A mash up of fender and gibson appeal to me, i think there's a way to make them better or get rid of annoying things like clunky heels etc or weak points like the headstocks

In fact I'm open to making what i want but it's still got to look like something I'm used to seeing and that's the problem with most companies or nobody will buy them 

roberty

Arjailer said:

Yep - bored, bored, bored.

thegummy said:

Other companies do make them, why bother wanting Fender to do it? Just buy one of the other brands?

'cos my local guitar shop stocks about 90% Fender and traditional Fender/Gibson clones, making it a very boring place to browse, and making trying those other brands very difficult.


Cars, computers, keyboards - might currently all have the same basic forms as each other, but the designs of those things haven't remained static for the last 70's years - they've all evolved to where they are now, and continue to evolve every year. If we all bought phones like guitarists buy guitars we'd all be using Nokia 3310 clones.


Anyway, the OP didn't say "Fender, I want crazy designs and burn the old ones! Bwahaha!!!" - he just said "Fender, how about, in addition to the traditional models, you do a strat without a scratchplate and with an ergonomic neck joint?" - hardly controversial.

 Actually there is a good comparison to be made here. In the guitar world DSP and modelling has been evolving at a rapid rate. Affordable and powerful and clean PA systems have changed live sound for guitarists too. You can still plug a fuzz face into a Marshall stack and use that as your FOH if you really want to, and walk around with a Nokia brick, but you'd look a bit silly

thegummy

roberty said:

Arjailer said:

Yep - bored, bored, bored.

thegummy said:

Other companies do make them, why bother wanting Fender to do it? Just buy one of the other brands?

'cos my local guitar shop stocks about 90% Fender and traditional Fender/Gibson clones, making it a very boring place to browse, and making trying those other brands very difficult.


Cars, computers, keyboards - might currently all have the same basic forms as each other, but the designs of those things haven't remained static for the last 70's years - they've all evolved to where they are now, and continue to evolve every year. If we all bought phones like guitarists buy guitars we'd all be using Nokia 3310 clones.


Anyway, the OP didn't say "Fender, I want crazy designs and burn the old ones! Bwahaha!!!" - he just said "Fender, how about, in addition to the traditional models, you do a strat without a scratchplate and with an ergonomic neck joint?" - hardly controversial.

 Actually there is a good comparison to be made here. In the guitar world DSP and modelling has been evolving at a rapid rate. Affordable and powerful and clean PA systems have changed live sound for guitarists too. You can still plug a fuzz face into a Marshall stack and use that as your FOH if you really want to, and walk around with a Nokia brick, but you'd look a bit silly

Excellent point!

TTBZ

I'm really into the new Shergold Provocateur as a vintage-modern LP/Tele deluxe mashup. Nice contoured body, softer neck heel, straight (ish) string pull, coil taps etc but also has a vintagey unique look especially in the flat grey colour. They should have done a dual P90 version though!

Sassafras

Makers will always cater to the mass market. They're not going to make innovative guitars if they can only sell 3 of them.

guitars4you

Agree with some other comments that there has never been such a good selection of guitars available to the buyer - Big brands or custom builders - So somewhere there should be a make/style/model for you 

I don't think the big 2 companies, should, could or need to cover all options and bases - There was a comment or two a number of years ago that if PRS had have worked at Gibson, designed and produced the Custom 24 and took it to a board meeting, with a view to bringing it to the market, that it would not have happened - As a stand alone company and product the PRS has worked - Within the Gibson range it would have flopped as it is not what Gibson are about 

It could be a big topic that has to many options, opinions and takes to long to write about on a forum - Most companies have an identity which works for them - You can see it within the Ibanez range and the Gibson range - You do get a few models/makes that cross over a bit on the fringes, but I believe you should make and offer what is best for you - Martin + Taylor both tried to enter the electric guitar market - Both flopped - Fender have never had success in the acoustic market (part of the reason they acquired Guild) - So stick to your strengths has been a better option

lysander

Sassafras said:

Makers will always cater to the mass market. They're not going to make innovative guitars if they can only sell 3 of them.

Sassafras said:

Makers will always cater to the mass market. They're not going to make innovative guitars if they can only sell 3 of them.

Ah but that’s the thing, Fender and Gibson have the name and the marketing power to make players *want* the innovation, more than any other brand.
They’ve been choosing to try and convince players that they don’t want any innovation for at least 30 years, but I believe this will hurt them sooner than later.
History is replete with brands that defined the market until they quite suddenly became irrelevant.

richardhomer

Both Fender and Gibson have innovated over the years - various offsets, Electric XII, Marauder (the Fender prototype with pick-ups under the scratch plate), the Coutney Love model (Venus?), active Strats and Teles, Roland-ready Strats, Gibson’s ‘shape’ guitars (V, Explorer), RD series with Moog designed electronics, Tiger Dusk, etc. The reason most of these have failed is a lack of sales (IIRC there were only 38 Explorers made in the 50s). First and foremost a company exists to make money....

axisus

I still love classics, to me the strat, the tele and the LP are all aesthetic perfection. I like some modern stuff, and I can appreciate some, but many I see I just think look weird and a bit wrong.

merciful-evans

I agree with the OP. What is clear from many answers here is that a lot of players cant even imagine much beyond what they know. When I began playing in 1970, I would never have believed that in 2019 we would still be using the same 70 year old sh1t to (largely) play the same old sh1t.