Anyone else bored to death by mainstream guitars?

Sassafras

lysander said:

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.

Gibson brought out the innovative Firebird X, that didn't go well.
People keep coming back to traditional designs for a reason.
I don't see the point of innovation just for its own sake.
Most of it is just commercialism, not because it's necessary.

5redlights

I agree. I thought it was ridiculous when Fender brought out the Meteora as a modern/futurist guitar, and then stuck their oldest pickups in it! 

Same with the Squier Contemporary series. EMGs and locking trems. Really? Modern? 

The Classic Series first came out mid-2000s I think? It's 2019, why aren't there 80s guitars in the Vintera series? I'd suggest it's because they want to use some of those features still for 'modern' guitars. 

The thing that's annoying is that there is the technology out there to try some genuinely new things. Yes, keep the vintage looking/playing stuff, but try and do something new, please! 

People complain that the music industry is killing the guitar, but there's a fair argument to say that the guitar industry is killing itself. If you don't make guitars that new musicians can get the sounds they want from, and want to play, then no one is going to buy them. 

johnl

In fairness to Fender they do make this:



and this:

lysander

@Sassafras the firebird X flopped because it was crap and expensive not because it was innovative.
Gibson gets it wrong every time.
 Instrument innovation is not just about sticking blinking lights, 10 switches and a distortion pedal inside a guitar, it's about improving the small things.
Gibson innovation should start by finding ways to make necks that don't break at the scarf joint if you look at it wrong, or Les Pauls that don't weigh 10 pounds and that actually stay in tune !
 There are changes that are objective
improvements.
 Why doesn't fender change their standard neck heel to be something sculpted and ergonomic not some stupid huge square metal plate ?

Sassafras

Trouble is, no-one likes the improvements Gibson tries to make. They want the guitars they made in the fifties.
I must admit guitar magazines don't help much when every issue features at least one article on boring '58 Bursts.

Neil

lysander said:

Gibson innovation should start by finding ways to make necks that don't break at the scarf joint if you look at it wrong, 

Well there's an innovation already, they don't use a scarf joint.  

lysander

Haha yeah indeed, that was a lapsus

crunchman

lysander said:

 Why doesn't fender change their standard neck heel to be something sculpted and ergonomic not some stupid huge square metal plate ?

Why did PRS make their heel bigger in the 90s?

If a bigger heel avoids dead spots on the neck, which is why PRS changed theirs, then I'd rather have a bigger heel.  Paul Smith (after experimentation) is also convinced that neck stiffness is important to tone.  Stiffness is affected by thickness and length - hence their move from skinny 24 fret necks to thicker 22 fret necks in the 90's.

By luck or judgment, Fender and Gibson got a lot right in the 90's.  The Tele and the Les Paul were earlier, and are not so ergonomic.  A lot more thought, and learning from experience, went into the Strat and 335.  Both of those have good ergonomics.  If you read the story of the development of the Strat, there was a lot of testing and input from players.

The Strat has a few things that can be tweaked, although they are not necessarily improvements.  The modern two point trem is easier to keep stable tuning with heavy use, but it doesn't sound as good.  Again look at PRS, there is a reason he uses a tweaked version of the vintage trem with 6 screws, not a 2 point one.

Fingerboard radius is an issue for some people, although I like 7 1/4".  Fender do make Strats with flatter radius if you want them though.

The things on a vintage Strat that I personally would change is the truss rod adjustment, and the volume knob placement.  The truss rod adjuster is a pain at the body end.  There are a few cork sniffers who say that it makes a tonal difference.  I've not tried enough of both to know for certain.  The volume knob placement is personal preference.  Some people like it where it is.

The Tele is less ergonomic - not just the belly cuts, but positioning of the controls.  I would like a modernized Tele.  I have been frustrated trying to find a Tele with a decent control layout.  Everyone does seem to be fixated on that vintage style one.  Even when they have other "modern" features, they normally still feature that horribly laid out control plate.

lysander

I don't buy for one second that the large square metal plates and lack of contouring do anything to the tone. And I've always been dubious about a lot of PRS claims about tone, but then again I don't really like their guitars nor how do most of them sound ( except the 408 / narrowfield pickups - actual cool innovation ! ) so maybe I just don't get it. If Tom Anderson and Suhr and others of the world best luthiers think they can do ergonomic neck joints without compromising on tone, then that's that. But I think this points to a large part of the issue which is that the electric guitar world is full of tone myths, which again Gibson and Fender have been themselves perpetrating.

terada

Seems odd to me. The moment the big players started making them those designs would themselves become mainstream. 

At which point they’d presumably become boring. And round and round we go. 

guitars4you

Question ? - What or who drives new ideas ? - Players or builders ? - I think that over the years it has been a question of both 

If I look at new ideas regarding design and materials and take the Parker Ply as an example, then yes it is recognisable, yes many of us are aware of them, but it has hardly set the world alight, for whatever reason - This creates a big issue with regards to the economics of running such a business - I don't know the costs of designing a carbon/graphite based neck/body, but initial prototypes etc won't be cheap - Add to that your own design of trem, with or without a piezo and you already have chosen to utilise components that are not part of the mainstream format - Initial tooling will be expensive - Fine if you are going to sell 10's of thousands, but in a bespoke, boutique business, such costs will always make the final product far more expensive, once it has been brought to the market place - Could apply the same thought pattern to Steinberger Guitars, which like Parker offered a fresh approach - The Floyd Rose Guitar offered a few fresh ideas, but again it never took off

Playing styles have changed dramatically over the last 60 years or so - Yet most players still perform on a traditional 21, 22 or 24 fret fingerboard - As such this is the fundamental basis of what is an electric guitar - Change this to much and it no longer becomes a guitar 

Bellycaster

I think most Fender and Gibson Guitars are pure Eye Candy, it doesn't matter whether they were designed in the 1950's/60's or not, they are pure class. Yes, some could be improved from an Engineering perspective (think Headstocks and Tuning), but aesthetically, they are sublime.

I recall in the 80's when I was a teenager, how cool I thought the new Guitar designs were, things like Superstrats etc, stripping off the pickguard, chemi-blacked hardware and modernising the look of the knobs, switches and pick ups.

I think all that looks dated now, while most of the original 50's/60's designs still look timeless.

There's still a few companies who produce those types of Guitars, not only those, but still a big part of their popular range, but they ain't for me.

Aside from Fender and Gibson, Guitars from decades ago that I like the looks of are Gretsch. Yamaha SG's, some Ricks.

Musicman Guitars have come up with some "interesting" designs like the St Vincent and Armada and Albert Lee, but I can't say they have the same appeal for me. I don't really like many of their more "ordinary" shapes like the JP and Silhouette. I do like the Cutlass and the Stingray Guitar and the Axis and Valentine models. Whatever people think of their designs, they make top notch Guitars.

Best Guitar from the last 20 odd years is the USA Peavey Wolfgangs, fantastic tone and quality and the most comfortable neck I've ever played. I bought mine 19 years ago. I don't know if I would buy one today with my current taste as they do look a bit "Rock", I've gone off Flame Tops quite a long time ago too and I'd want a Rosewood board. Don't think they did many Wolfgangs with Rosewood Boards?

I'm not a big fan of the well known PRS Design although I can see how they appeal to others and they are high quality too.

HarrySeven

Philly_Q said:

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.

3310? Modern rubbish!

3210 or nothing!

HarrySeven

Anyone else bored to death by mainstream guitars?




Errrr...

*looks at the H7 stash*

Yup.

lysander

Pics ?

Jonathangus

lysander said:

Pics ?

There are a couple of links in @HarrySeven 's sig which will give you some idea.

roberty

lysander said:

@Sassafras the firebird X flopped because it was crap and expensive not because it was innovative.
Gibson gets it wrong every time.
 Instrument innovation is not just about sticking blinking lights, 10 switches and a distortion pedal inside a guitar, it's about improving the small things.
Gibson innovation should start by finding ways to make necks that don't break at the scarf joint if you look at it wrong, or Les Pauls that don't weigh 10 pounds and that actually stay in tune !
 There are changes that are objective
improvements.
 Why doesn't fender change their standard neck heel to be something sculpted and ergonomic not some stupid huge square metal plate ?

This actually made me feel a bit sick    posted yesterday but I don't know when it happened

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AHhKRqdtGs

Wonky

I'm with op on this too.  Guitar shops full of Lesters and Strats really don't do anything for me.  I'm aware that many of these shops will have maybe five Ibanez to maybe 75 Strats, Tele's and Pauls.  I think that maybe a sign of what the op is saying is right is that the amount of guitar shops closing is vast at the moment.  Maybe modern players are being forced to buy off the net to get something that tickles their bits.
I know a lot of people round these parts love Gibson and Fender and that's great for me.  There's a whole world of interesting and far more cutting edge guitars in the out there and that means that with all you guys buying the same old same old, there's a lot more of the cool forward looking stuff for me.  Carry on people, there's a place for it all.
I also have to say that I'd much rather look at what Harry7 has got incoming than look at yet another Les Paul or Tele.

Arjailer

thegummy said:

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.

Yeah, I know my viewpoint is entirely selfish and based on my personal tastes (non-traditional) and living situation (Aberdeen, with the nearest shop with a decent "non-traditional" stock that I'm aware being 120 miles away in Edinburgh - would love to be proven wrong on that one)  

I've never been comfortable with buying guitars without trying them (at least trying the model, if not the exact guitar), so while 120 miles isn't an insurmountable distance, it does rule out just popping in to see what they've got this month and curtails any impulse buying that might result ... though that might actually be a good thing   

But I get that the vast majority of the market is at odds with my tastes, and there's no reason for that to change - just seems a shame (to me)   

Rocker

Some years ago Fender brought out a Strat that had a slim white pickup, of some type, mounted very close to the bridge.  It might hav been a response to the Line6 guitar which was new around that time.  Never saw one in the flesh or have no idea what the extra pickup did.  At the end of the day, players like a Strat, three pickups as standard and the history of the guitar.