Interesting design, what your thoughts

Philly_Q

tanihhiavlt said:

Offset said:

Leo would be spinning in his grave.

why do you think he'd be spinning in his grave? 

No other directions to move in?

EricTheWeary

https://i.imgur.com/oslp96U.jpg

Offset said:

Leo would be spinning in his grave.

axisus

They are still going???

I heard that they had folded ....

tanihhiavlt

from that angle taco-mini guitar  

the filling has fallen out!

Offset

tanihhiavlt said:

Offset said:

Leo would be spinning in his grave.

why do you think he'd be spinning in his grave? 

I think he'd be rather disappointed that ~70 years on from the introduction of the Telecaster, this was considered the cutting edge of guitar development.  To some eyes, anyway :-)

WezV

tanihhiavlt said:

from that angle taco-mini guitar  

the filling has fallen out!

Power-Beef

LastMantra said:

No.

Second that.

The headstock is a big no, and the magazine rack body is also a big no.

The saddles are a no, the exposed wiring is a no, the body material and ergonomics are also no.

I dig the colours, and I dig the stainless steel frets.

ICBM

Offset said:

Leo would be spinning in his grave.

Leo would be looking closely at it to see what ideas he could use to improve his products, speed up manufacture or cut costs, or all three.

Leo Fender's approach was the absolute antithesis of conservative design - the whole point of his guitars was that they threw out almost all traditional manufacturing methods in order to produce a guitar that could be mass-produced cheaply and efficiently. As a result the industry reaction was rather negative to begin with - until guitarists saw the benefits.

I'm not saying this is the same - but Fender's very first attempt needed improvement too... contrary to popular belief, the Broadcaster did not spring into being fully-formed and perfect - the bodies were made from soft and easily-damaged pine (the relic look wasn't a thing then), the necks had no truss rods, the headstock was a rather ugly paddle, and the controls were awkward. It took some input and tweaking from musicians before it was what we know today.

Offset

@ICBM "Leo would be looking closely at it to see what ideas he could use to improve his products, speed up manufacture or cut costs, or all three."

I suspect you're right.  But apart from the wacky aesthetic, there isn't much to see here.  Just goes to prove how right LF got it all those years ago, and we're all playing Teles that have changed very little in most cases from the originals.

WezV

Offset said:

...apart from the wacky aesthetic, there isn't much to see here.

compared to 99.999% of other electric guitars, i disagree.

It may not be what a lot of guitarists actually want, but it does offer a lot more innovation than just a wacky aesthetic.

I'm not saying its the future of guitar, but I'm glad people are trying to reconstruct the instrument in new and interesting ways.

Offset

WezV said:

Offset said:

...apart from the wacky aesthetic, there isn't much to see here.

I'm not saying its the future of guitar, but I'm glad people are trying to reconstruct the instrument in new and interesting ways.

I'd acknowledge there's something in what you say Wez, but history tells us that these types of projects tend to fade into ignoble obscurity.  And  'new and interesting' really does count for very little if the offering has all the visual appeal of a poultice hanging off a hospital balcony.

Paul_C

meltedbuzzbox said:

Would definitely have a go if it happened to be in the same room as me.
I'm not sure I would travel to try one.

Let's be fair, most guitarists are very conservative and they like the classic shapes.
Ken Parker made the Parker fly which for me was a real revolutionary approach to guitar building, it was light, made to last forever, used carbon fibre new build processes etc, sustained like nothing else, slightly wider board etc etc

It was all undone by a funny headstock and an "unconventional" top horn.

. . . and the frets fall off.

ICBM

Paul_C said:

meltedbuzzbox said:

the Parker fly which for me was a real revolutionary approach to guitar building, it was light, made to last forever

. . . and the frets fall off.

Sadly true.

WezV

Offset said:

WezV said:

Offset said:

...apart from the wacky aesthetic, there isn't much to see here.

I'm not saying its the future of guitar, but I'm glad people are trying to reconstruct the instrument in new and interesting ways.

I'd acknowledge there's something in what you say Wez, but history tells us that these types of projects tend to fade into ignoble obscurity.  And  'new and interesting' really does count for very little if the offering has all the visual appeal of a poultice hanging off a hospital balcony.

Yeah, but occasionally some of the good ideas stick and add to the next new idea

This may be the next Gittler.   High concept, little appeal, forgotten by most... but even if it is, it will still inspire some music and some other guitar builders. 

 Maybe some of the ideas will make it to the next big builder.   Someone who manages to combine the traditional and modern into something marketable. 

It's clear that we can't keep building guitars like they did in 1959.   Innovation is good

Voxman

Definitely unique design, & I like the sliding pickup concept (ala Dan Armstrong) which is imaginatively taken to a new level with 'detachable' pickup. The bent steel body looks like it would bend pretty easily but that may not be the case in actuality.  
Although I'm very much into more traditional guitars, it's always genuinely interesting to see a very different design concept. I'd be very interested to play it as that's the only way to really judge how it feels and sounds. I've no idea re cost so if it's silly money then it's appeal is likely to be limited to 'arty farty' folk that may be more interested in displaying it in their home as a design/conversation piece, rather than play it as an instrument.

I think it's a pretty safe bet to say this is unlikely to have appeal to pro players.  Certainly don't want to stifle creativity but in truth I'm not really sure what the market is here for something like this. 

Logie

I like it.

DrumBob

Ugh...Just NO. That will never fly. The designer is trying too hard to shock and awe. He's not succeeding. It looks like an upside down thing that holds fireplace logs. 

Guitarists are basically a very conservative lot, as are drummers. I know that for a fact. Drummers have always rejected way out designs. We don't want drums that look like pancakes, short pants, trumpet bells, or empty thread spools. 

Guitarists, most of us I'd wager, want instruments that are tried and true designs and models that were originally built in the 1950's and '60's. 

ICBM

DrumBob said:

Guitarists, most of us I'd wager, want instruments that are tried and true designs and models that were originally built in the 1950's and '60's. 

I don’t - and I don’t own any classic models - but I do want designs that are functional, ergonomic, robust, good-looking and good-sounding. Those attributes are present in most of the classic designs, but not all of them in the same guitar, and many have serious flaws. There isn’t one that’s perfect - not even the Strat, which is probably the closest. An ‘improved’ Strat comes closer still, but there are also other designs which are more modern and do. My PRS Swamp Ash Special is about as close to perfect as I’ve found and it wasn’t designed in the 50s, even if most of its individual features were.

My ‘Strat’ is a slightly different body shape and with different control positions, which fix the Strat’s main fault for me. I also like Ibanez RG/Jems - they’re from the 1980s, possibly almost a vintage guitar now! They’re a good example of a more modern design which is based on a 50s model originally, but with so many detail changes that no part of it is exactly the same (with the possible exception of the middle pickup).

I don’t really understand why so many players seem to want exactly vintage-accurate designs, when so many complain about some detail or other of them…

Philly_Q

ICBM said:

DrumBob said:

Guitarists, most of us I'd wager, want instruments that are tried and true designs and models that were originally built in the 1950's and '60's. 

I don’t - and I don’t own any classic models - but I do want designs that are functional, ergonomic, robust, good-looking and good-sounding. Those attributes are present in most of the classic designs, but not all of them in the same guitar, and many have serious flaws. There isn’t one that’s perfect - not even the Strat, which is probably the closest. An ‘improved’ Strat comes closer still, but there are also other designs which are more modern and do. My PRS Swamp Ash Special is about as close to perfect as I’ve found and it wasn’t designed in the 50s, even if most of its individual features were.

My ‘Strat’ is a slightly different body shape and with different control positions, which fix the Strat’s main fault for me. I also like Ibanez RG/Jems - they’re from the 1980s, possibly almost a vintage guitar now! They’re a good example of a more modern design which is based on a 50s model originally, but with so many detail changes that no part of it is exactly the same (with the possible exception of the middle pickup).

I don’t really understand why so many players seem to want exactly vintage-accurate designs, when so many complain about some detail or other of them…

@ICBM don't you like Rickenbackers, though?  I don't know much about them but it seems to me they've barely changed since the '60s.

LastMantra

WezV said:

It's clear that we can't keep building guitars like they did in 1959.

How so?