[d vallejos (duane v)]

Some day I'll own a Fender, I just gotta find one my frettin fingers like.

[m dailey (milod)]

I almost feel guilty saying this, but I don't particularly care for either. In fact, the LP is one of the few Gibson designs I don't care for. As for Fenders, I never cared at all for the necks, period, regardless of sound - and I'm a "feel" guitar player who figures the amp can cover a multitude of sound sins.

I sometimes like the Tele sound - but not the neck. The strat never, ever, did a thing for me in terms of playing one myself.

Way back a thousand years ago I played a Rick in a band. 'Sokay... but not enough that I ever regretted not having it. I had a Hagstrom 12 solidbody I actually liked, and liked in ways more than a Rick 12 I tried a time or two. I had a Gretsch, liked it a lot, but not enough not to swap it for something or another.

My old early 1970s Guild SG clone with the nicely carved top is my #2 guitar largely because of the neck and overall feel that has convinced me that the SG is "the" solidbody. With stomp boxes and if it had taps to switch to single pole sound, I can't imagine anything better even if a Strat or Tele came with a Gibson-style neck - although that would be nice.

Again, note that my thoughts tend toward "feel" first, then worry about the sound side. Modern electronics have kinda done that to me, I guess.

m

[K Bolas (lespaul1963)]

Milod...I'm just the opposite. I'll adapt to a less comfortable guitar in order to get one with the tonal goodies. I don't care how much electronic wizardry one employs...the tone has to be there to begin with. A tonal turd with fancy electronics = a tonal turd with a fancy "paint job", sound-wise. From a feel standpoint, about the only thing I cannot countenance are skinny, high frets that make the strings feel like they have a sharp edge underneath my fingers.

[m dailey (milod)]

I hear where you're coming from - but I guess I'll never, ever be comfortable with a Fender-type fretboard radius. I like the Martin sound for bluegrass but I've never cared for Martin necks, either.

An electric guitar that plays comfortably can always be modded. It also means I probably can play with better technique from my own perspective - others may play better on some other sorta neck or body style.

But seriously, a great electric guitar will not sound like one through a lousy amp. It will sound different through most amps anyway, even very good ones. I doubt seriously that an Epi SG, LP, dot or ES175 will sound bad when played by a decent player through a decent amp. A Gibson likely will sound better through the same amp by the same player, but probably not as good through a not-so-good amp.

The way stomp boxes and today's "do everything" amps work, and are used by so many solidbody players, I still think the technique is the priority, followed by a decent amp. What constitutes "good tone" in an electric is awfully subjective, too.

Acoustics are a different animal - but there are excellent guitars that don't have either the tone or the "feel" I'd care for.

m

[R Wiggs (b-squared)]

I used 'em both:







Tools in the toolbox.

BB

[K Bolas (lespaul1963)]

Milod, one of my pet peeves about fancy technology laden amps, pick ups and stomp boxes is that they can be used creatively or, like so many of today's younger players utilize them, to hide lousy technique. Some of the newer hard rock and metal artists (two genres I'm pretty sure you don't follow too much) run EMG pick ups, distortion and compression pedals-on-steroids and gobs of amp-generated gain to the degree that everything is smeared together. There's no separation of notes in chords, rapidly played arpeggios (not sweeping) and fast one note lines. Staccato is rendered as a well-executed albeit moist act of flatulence and legato is rendered as the auditory equivalent of the resulting brown skid mark (sorry for the visual...I'm just really passionate about this and am trying to abide by the forum's language rules) Heck, it doesn't matter what kind of guitar be it Gibson, Fender, Ibanez, Jackson, First Act Wal-Mart Special, Hello Kitty Squier, etc., that is played through one of these uber rigs; they all sound the same. I agree, tone is subjective. If I spend major dollars on a high end Gibson, I definitely want it's distinct tonal voice to shine through my rig. If my rig makes the tone indistinguishable from a PRS SE, then, at least for me the subjective thing about tone becomes a little more objective...or should that be objectionable?

[m dailey (milod)]

I guess the point I'm making is pretty much along the lines that I think the guitar is the primary tone creator, but the nuances that arise from a given amp in a given venue are the difference between what I'd consider an acceptable to excellent "sound" and one that's not.

For example, we hear big verbal battles over amps on various Gibbie forums alone. That's fine, 'cuz even my own "stuff" includes some very different preferences in tone among different songs and my concept of how they should sound. E.g., a 20s version of a blues song should have one basic sorta sound and a 50s jazz bit (e.g., Misty) to me should be a clean sound that's heavy on bass and mids but not muddy. Then there's the occasional, "Gee, it'd be fun to do 'Rumble' with a lotta treble and reverb and blast ears out.'"

But the guitar isn't necessarily the determining factor. I'd like to play any of my humbucker babes, hollow, semi or solid, with any of the stuff I like to do and have them work well in terms of sound. So... amps, decent modes of equalizing tone, etc., even a bit of chorus and/or reverb all play a role even in a "I like pure sound" kinda guy. And that's assuming an excellent guitar. Then there are times I wanna pretend I'm really playing a B3 and crank in my Leslie emulator. <grin>

Segovia noted of even the unamplified "classical" guitar that it is an entire orchestra largely because of the range of tones it can be coaxed into.

So... Naaah, we ain't talkin' folks who just want a certain stylistic noise.

m

[R Reed (HRC)]

I like Fenders and Gibsons. My first guitar was a brand new 1973 Stratocaster. I wanted a Les Paul but at the time I couldn't afford a Gibson. Playing in bands in the 70's I knew I wanted the LP sound but stuck with the Strat until I was able to buy a Gibson. I still prefer a Gibson over a Fender but there's certain songs and days where I still use one of my Fenders. If I could only have one or the other it would be a Gibson though...

[K Urkosky (KenG)]

I find that people miss the underlying point here. Both guitar company's designs are 50+ years old and are still great. While other companies bring you the flavour of the month design or constantly position themselves for what's about to come up, Gibson and Fender have more or less stayed true to the Strat, Tele and Les Paul. In this forum I've read about people who seem to only think about what they want Gibson to change to for themselves. Gibson, like Fender & Martin (the Big Three as Dan Erlewine refers to them) are institutions. In this modern era we've destroyed many institutions (intentinonally and un-intentionally) by our words or our actions or our changed beliefs & values. Some institutions were probably destined to go & some were victims of short term values that had they lasted thru the times, would be accepted again.
When I buy a Gibson, I buy into the Nitro finish, the variances in the neck due to hand work, the greater costs for all the efforts that go into the guitars. The adherence to some older manufacturing methods and tools in an effort to retain that history. If I wanted a cloned guitar, where every single one was machine made identically, I have a multitude of companies that offer this. (While consisency is a quality factor, it's not the ONLY quality factor, nor is it necessarily a top one) So rather than destroy one of the few companies still doing things this way, if someone doesn't like what they do (and it's not exactly a secret or kept under wraps) they are free to buy from a company that does things the way they like. I for one, actually want Gibson to stay an institution because once it's become like all others there's nothing to set it apart anymore.

[m dailey (milod)]

Ken...

Yeah, there's no question that we're all playing electric guitar by late 1940s and 1950s basics. All else is simply variation.

I'd go a bit further, though, to suggest that in a sense, functionally we're all still playing 20th century guitar designs even though technically the 6-string tuned to "standard tuning" has been around much longer. The A-E I'd only put to the 1970s because prior to that we had mostly magnetic pickups added to an acoustic or some sort of contact microphone.

But I'll agree that essentially the Gibson v. Fender in electrics is quite significant in several ways - and somewhat less of a difference in ways between Gibson v. Martin.

Here's my prediction: Gibson in general will continue with a "let's build real guitars with set necks and more traditional geometries for strings, its own hb and p90 types of pickups and a more traditional 'build' even with solidbodies," and Fender will continue generally with boards and bolt-on necks and its type of pickups.

At least... until somebody comes up with what they've called in computer software a "killer application." That's something that changes the whole way people look at the instrument - and frequently isn't perceived that way by its creators.

I'm guessing that'll be totally out of the box. Gibson basically switched traditional guitarmaking concepts to its electric lines - even its "solidbodies."

Fender basically took the initial Rickenbacker concept of a banjo - body in one piece and neck bolted on - guitar manufacture.

In neither case has anything really radical happened to change the concept of guitar in the way that the violin family took over from the viol family in an age before electricity.

So far, most of what I've seen has been a matter of gadgetry applied to the same old guitar concept we've had now for a cupla hundred years. What the "killer ap" will be, I don't know. In a sense, you might make a case that the Robot's optional tunings take it further than the pedal steel took the slack key acoustic or lap steel...

But it doesn't seem as if enough people take the instant optional tuning thing seriously unless they already are relatively skilled pickers - and some in the "relatively skilled pickers" camp have attacked it as destroying new players' ability to tune for themselves.

So... I dunno. It's possible that the basic concept of "guitar" already is so developed that stuff like the 7 or 9 string are nothing more than variations on the old "harp guitar" schtick.

I dunno. Robot and chameleon technologies seem awfully neat to me - but then I also was building my own computers before the Mac and PC were in general captivity so I tend to be a technophile if I can afford it.

The "affordability" of either robo or chameleon might be a major deciding factor - but a lot also likely depends on a general of guitar teachers that may not be prepared to teach how to best use either technology and take it into the position of "you play the 'newtar' differently because you can switch from X to Y so easily in the middle of a piece...

--- Key, notice again that I'm tending toward the "technique and comfortable playability" thing as primary and anything else as secondary... Still, I could force myself to work with a Fender or Martin style neck. Am I willing to admit and change my technique to appropriate the idea of using two or three tunings in the middle of a song?

m

[J Farkas (Jeff Farkas)]

D Sawyer (Dan), on 20 July 2010 - 01:59 PM, said:

Interesting. Thanks for the link, Flick.

+1 Good stuff.

[r ferrell (raven999)]

I've always stuck with Gibson/epipohone, and sundry clones, for the sound, but also for play-ability. I've used Jacksons,PRS, and BC Rich, which all to me have a similar feel in the neck, I've matched Deans with my Carvins, and LP's. For me it's mostly about feel, and how easily I can go from one guitar to the other, my fret hand is pretty finicky about that sort of thing. Anymore, it's all Gibby/Epi. I have never liked the sound of any Fender in my music, except for a Tele, so one day, I might buy one, if it's got a rosewood board.

Personally, this whole "war" is like comparing a rose, to a dandelion...

[r akers (wrick)]

Like them both,have a 62 custom tele with a monster fat neck,I like it alot and the big warm tones of the Gibbys.Wish Fender and Gibson could get along and make a double neck guitar split in the middle and have the best of both worlds.Dont have time to switch guitars live as its fast paced and hardly have time to tune.Maybe look into trying the split coils thing, never tried it.Maybe take care of some issues like,need a strat sound on this song,but tele on that one and all out kick ass on others.You know what I mean,when one or the other just isnt going to cut it on certain songs, but you have to push forward with out exchanging and seems like the clock stops and you cant wait til its over.To me it is feel,you know it when you pick it up its magic,a good trusty friend.One of the reasons Id never do a mail order again.

[J Kimble (FLICKOFLASH)]

http://vimeo.com/21060197

[G De Blasio (LtKojak)]

I don't think there's EVER been a war among those guitars, as they're two different tools to do different jobs.

And the music created with those instruments have been also different.

So, actually, this thread is pretty much pointless... which match the Forum it's been published to.

Your Honor, I rest my case!