[T Schmidt (trosse)]

p carlino (jimihendrix), on 25 August 2010 - 12:05 PM, said:

Okay...I think I FINALLY understand what your original post means...the current(2010) wording of Gibson SG "ad" found here http://www2.gibson.c...G-Standard.aspx reads...

"When it first hit the scene back in 1961, the Gibson SG (short for Solid Guitar) was the most radical design the electric guitar world had witnessed so far, and it still makes a bold statement today."

I guess you're saying that the SG has been in production for 50 years and is an outdated antique by today's standards and should be retired from production because it's no longer considered radical next to today's fancy newer designs...

That is precisely why it remains so popular today...locking tremolos and seven strings and active pickups and fancy gadgetry are all trends that come and go...but the SG has managed to buck the trends and remains as one of the longest continuous production models ever produced...

The SG is still relevant today as it was 50 years ago because it gives the guitarist what they want and expect...nothing more - nothing less...awesome playability and tone...and it's versatility is an asset...you can play any style from blues to metal to funk to punk to country to rock...yes it "still makes a bold statement today"

Oh dear reading is not for everyone... an oh no... The SG is as fresh and nice as in 1961. I just think that Gibson write a lot of bulls... which have no connection to real world. As well as Gibson makes signatur guitars without connection to real world (Hendrix Strat... erhh Gibson Strat... ha-ha).

That said I own only outdated antique guitars or guitar designs - but unfortunately not a SG (but I used to... a great one which I stupidly sold to musician friend who begged and prayed for it). I have Strats, Gibsons, Epiphones and even an Electromuse from gthe fourties... all very nice and very outdated

[B Putt (Access)]

I understand what you meant.

What is so "Radical" about a double cut two pickup solidbody guitar?

In a word Radical = Pointy.

Just look at the pop culture of the 1980's the more points your guitar had the more "Radical" it was!

So I guess Gibson just knew that pointy tip cutaway solid guitars would be considered "Radical".

I know there was nothing radically different in the technology, materials, construction, etc with this instrument, they were using the term radical in an almost slang sense of the word.

[m dailey (milod)]

All I'm saying is that if you were living when it came out, and were looking to buy a guitar at the time, the SG seemed quite radical. Too radical for me at the time, btw.

Why more radical than Fenders of the era?

The pointy horns probably. I wasn't sold yet on humbuckers. The set neck was a lot nicer than what seemed to be the farm-style Chevrolet pickup ranch truck add-on construction and dashboard switches and dials on Fenders, too.

But it just seemed ... too much. I wanted a real guitar like ... like a hollow Rick I ended up with for a while. Or a 335 which wasn't available anywhere around... or the archtop I electrified (single pole pickup) and added an octave-up G string onto. Or...

Yeah, it already seemed pretty "standard" by the mid 1970s and yeah, not only do I have a mid '70s version of it, it's my #2 guitar.

At this point listening to younger guys, it seems "radical" is largely a matter when you're getting your first impressions of guitars. E.g., Those 80s things and sharp shapes never struck me as "radical" but just ... odd and a bit show-silly for a marketplace rather than real playability as a priority.

m

[j waldo (BadBluesPlayer)]

T Schmidt (trosse), on 24 August 2010 - 09:00 AM, said:

I would like to work for Gibson too btw - but I would change a few things right away. I'm not sure for instance that Henry should be Gibson CEO - so he'll probably not hire me.

Nobody would hire you, period, if they saw this thread.

[m dailey (milod)]

Here's another factor on perspective:

If you were born in 1950, and you saw an SG around age 11, it would just have seemed like another new guitar because everybody called it a "guitar" whether they liked it or not. You'd lack the experience to make personal value judgment comparisons.

If you were born in 1960, it would be old hat by the time you're 10. Born in 1970, you'd see a standard sorta instrument that's pretty traditional 'cuz in ways, until you're age 10 at 1980, stuff like aesthetic and technical design characteristics don't mean all that much to a kid. Keep pushing that up to people born in 1990 and gee, the SG is 40 years old with old technology.

A parallel: Although I was technically born during WWII, nobody is likely to ask me what it was like to be a kid living through that time period because it was over soon after my birth. I remember a few things from 1950 and before, but mostly in images. From 1950 to '55, just "neat stuff" that appealed to a little boy.

Then... I can tell you a lot that I remember from age 10 and forward and was beginning that period of socialization outside the home/school "nest" environment. I was playing music rather consciously as "art" rather than just a toy or something Mom told me to do, for example.

For example, if you're 20 years old right now, the first "gulf war" is a matter of history, not memory. If you're 30, the Vietnam war and economic trials of the '70s are a matter of "history" rather than personal memory. At both ages, the computer is more like a refrigerator that's always been around rather than a shocking new technology you're dying to adopt.

This isn't a matter of "politics," please. It's more a matter of the "you are what you were 'when'" concept. Much of your approach to things comes from your life at around age 10. You've passed the "age of reason" that most still recognize around age 7, and are increasingly comfortable; it's time to break loose a bit from the family umbilical and into stronger peer relationships and recognizing known current events as your "world."

That's not to either validate or invalidate anyone's opinions - but rather to emphasize that it's not even age per se. That "you are what you were, when" concept points to reactions to the world and people you perceive around you at about age 10. In short, there are perspectives "my generation" (whatever your's happens to be) had at age 20 that will be quite different from those of 20-year-olds born 20 years earlier or later.

m

[T Schmidt (trosse)]

m dailey (milod), on 25 August 2010 - 08:44 PM, said:

All I'm saying is that if you were living when it came out, and were looking to buy a guitar at the time, the SG seemed quite radical. Too radical for me at the time, btw.

Why more radical than Fenders of the era?

The pointy horns probably. I wasn't sold yet on humbuckers. The set neck was a lot nicer than what seemed to be the farm-style Chevrolet pickup ranch truck add-on construction and dashboard switches and dials on Fenders, too.

But it just seemed ... too much. I wanted a real guitar like ... like a hollow Rick I ended up with for a while. Or a 335 which wasn't available anywhere around... or the archtop I electrified (single pole pickup) and added an octave-up G string onto. Or...

Yeah, it already seemed pretty "standard" by the mid 1970s and yeah, not only do I have a mid '70s version of it, it's my #2 guitar.

At this point listening to younger guys, it seems "radical" is largely a matter when you're getting your first impressions of guitars. E.g., Those 80s things and sharp shapes never struck me as "radical" but just ... odd and a bit show-silly for a marketplace rather than real playability as a priority.

m

Actually I was living... born 1st of June 1953. But my first electric guitar lovestory in the early sixties was a blond Fender Telecaster. I do remember clearly how cool I thought the "neo-cut-away" of the bodys bass side was... That was truly radical to me.

I couldn't afford it as 12 years old - and not untill I got one years later I though it was a semi hollow guitar.

[T Schmidt (trosse)]

j waldo (BadBluesPlayer), on 26 August 2010 - 05:51 PM, said:

Nobody would hire you, period, if they saw this thread.

Maybe... maybe not - but probably not or maybe... I don't think most companies all over the world need people who just repeat whats common. And I don't - and I've done quite well actually.

PS - Gibson has released a new leaflet with new words about the SG. No radical designs anymore

[m dailey (milod)]

Trosse... <grin>

Heck, you're just a kid. <chuckle>

Seriously, though, I think our age difference is more than sufficient for a different perspective. Stuff was really happening fast in the 1950s, and not just guitars. Mom still used an icebox in the basement in the summertime and I still dumped coal into a furnace stoker before going to bed in the winter time. By 1959 that already was ancient history and has no "reality" to my little bro born in 1950.

The key "age point" is about age 10. For example, when I was 10 long-distance calls were still operator-handled most places; by 1963 most were simply dialed in.

The "you are what you were when" concept came out in the 1980s, but I think it worked especially well at the time because there were certain generational differences brought by experiences of "kids" when they hit about age 10.

I think one reason the concept (marketing and sales use, mostly) worked then, and is seldom mentioned now, is that stuff changes even faster and kids are exposed to so much more than when we were kids.

m

[T Schmidt (trosse)]

m dailey (milod), on 27 August 2010 - 07:08 PM, said:

Trosse... <grin>

Heck, you're just a kid. <chuckle>....


m

'

Heee yes... but that will slowly change as times go by (hopefully as the alternative is not so good either...) At this moment btw my back hurts - so one way or another I do feel old already My mother is 84 and still talks to me like I was 12 "Take your coat on today, it's cold..." "Be carefull when you drive..." That's funny. I have three daughters and four grandchildren

Ad to that btw that Europe always followed USA at least from the end of WW2 but with a 10 years or so delay. So certain trends you experienced in say the mid fifthies did not reach Europe untill maybe mid sixties. I think that delay leaves US citizens and Europeans with slightly different perceptions of what actually happened those years. That has changes radically with globalizing, www and communication satellites. But still some trends coming out of the USA this very moment will still reach Europe delayed. I've sometimes wondered why we in fora like this sometimes miss each others points - but I think my "cultural-delay-theory" is one of the explanations.

[m dailey (milod)]

T....

You are, IMHO, absolutely correct that "you are what you were when" is different in Europe. There even are regional differences in Anglophone North America. I have Korean friends who are absolutely out of the determination of this sort of thing since the world there has such a significantly different "history."

But... <superbig grin> I think Moms are very much similar everywhere. ZB, mein.

Also, I agree that there often are cultural things that cause much misunderstanding. Even in Anglophone North America there are major differences in culture. I also believe that there will be much less difference among "European" and, more slowly, "Asian" cultures as time goes on.

On the other hand... I think the danger to that, perhaps, is that certain cultures are likely to be left behind, causing some great potential international political difficulties that we now see beginning.

As I've said before, it's my solid belief - to the point almost of being "religious" - that cultures that play guitar seem to share more in other aspects than those that do not.

m

[B Moffatt (moff)]

T Schmidt (trosse), on 22 August 2010 - 09:53 PM, said:

Still it's not the words most radical I'm after - but "the most radical design the world had witnessed so far...". No it wasn't the most radical design so far...

The word radical to describe the SG guitar itself - hmmm... is not the first word that comes to my mind either - unless of course somebody think that if you do things the way you always did is radical: Set neck, controls in the wood, two pickups, tune-o-matic bridge, stop tail piece. Is that radical? No. And a solid double cut away body wasn't either in 1961. far from actually!

OK. People seem to be going around in circles on this discussion, arguing semantics, so let's try to explain it this way: Who had the first radical design is not being disputed by the Gibson ad. Gibson is not claiming that the SG was the first radical design, nor is it claiming it to be most radical guitar EVER, just up to that time (1961) - more radical than the designs that came before it (including the Strat, V, Moderne, and Explorer). Let's explain further:

The Strat was around in 1954, and was a radical departure for guitar design (many would argue it was the first, but a certain Mr Bigsby might object). Three years later, the Gibson Flying V, Explorer, and Moderne came along and were even MORE radical than anything that came before, including the Strat, making them the most radical designs to date (or most radical SO FAR). Then, in 1961, the redesigned Les Paul (SG) enters the game and some believe it to be even more radical than the V, Explorer, and Moderne, making it the "most radical design the world had witnessed so far".

The words "most radical so far" do not mean "the first radical design" - it doesn't matter what radical designs predated it. It doesn't mean "most radical ever" - there have been many radical designs since. They simply mean that the design was MORE radical than anything that had come before.

On a personal level, I still think the V Moderne and Explorer are the benchmarks for "radical design", even to this day. Every guitar we see today are simply extensions or derivatives of the original Bigsby, Fender and Gibson designs of days gone by, or are derivatives of the 1960s department store guitars (Dano, Mosrite, Supro). Sure there are some small-quantity luthier-built guitars that are wackier looking, like the guitars people like Prince have been seen playing, but they're more "objets d'art" than guitars.

[H Lane (H-Bomb)]

Due to a more balanced, square-shouldered and semi-symmetrical (at least on the "good" first 5 or 6 years' models) design, the SG never even remotely made me think of "Gibson's answer to the Strat". The comparison ends at "both are double cutaway designs", just as Tele's and LP's have nothing in common aside from both being single-cuts. In fact, if I were going to compare ANY Gibson to a Fender in terms of "competition", I'd say the Firebird non-reverse VS. the Jaguar/Jazzmaster is about as close as you're gonna' get.

See, this topic is EXACTLY why I have begged and begged (along with a few of y'all out there) for Henry and the gang to put a little more of that early-to-mid 60's aesthetic on their SG reissues (most notably a tad more symmetry, and more attention to proper horn bevels and tip-tapering like those "most radical" early models featured...along with a period-accurate AS-NEW finish). Because I don't really blame anyone who's seen a "new" SG in their shop since-- well...1970 on-- for not really being "impressed" due to the slightly "off" shape and slabby, too-cleanly-edged (lack of) contouring. I thought they were going the right direction with the late-1999/2000 introduction of the '61 Reissue w/Maestro (which also featured nicely redesigned tapered horns like the originals, and as far as I can tell that's one thing they HAVE maintained on that model), but the Historic "reissue" to follow took a HUGE step back as far as cosmetics were concerned with the lack of tapered tips and no "as new" cherry red finish options available. But you've gotta' admit, a (for example) '64 or '65 SG Standard has a certain sex-appeal to it that no Strat will ever have. It was sleeker than the traditional LP design, and the fret-access is nothing less than perfect (and something to this day very few guitars can match). Plus, it had the one thing we can all agree on with ALL Gibson designs featuring a mahogany (or even "primarily mahogany") body and P-90's or humbuckers: with VERY minor tweaking they can all sound "like a Gibson", period. Even the hollow-bodied models can acheive LP or SG-like tones, and that's something I have yet to hear any Fender do convincingly. But also, Fenders have certain nuances no other guitar can emulate too, both good and bad. But think about the SG in her golden age, she was a total pinup...curvy, sculpted and gleaming (especially with a nice shiny Maestro on 'em!), whereas most Fenders and other guitars in that same era were still fairly simple slab-bodies with little or no scarfing or aesthetic balance, and as much as I love some of the "novelty" sounds of Danelectros/Silvertones/Kays/etc and other stuff, the sonic attack of the SG just stood out as meaty-but-cutting, warm and smooth. You know? So it in fact was AND is, compared to all the models it sits side-by-side with in the "catalog" quite possibly the most "radical" in most senses of the word. Sure, the Explorer, V, 'Bird and a couple others were radically-SHAPED, but even they were still fairly simple slabs of minimally (or UN-) contoured wood using standard construction. The SG DID stand out as something involving a little more "hands on" luthiery than some guitars due to all the scarfing/bevels/etc as well. It's all a matter of perspective.

And let's face it, guys, 90%+ of the really good, worthy-of-mention modern guitars are rooted in those early Gibsons or Fenders (with VERY few exceptions) in some way or another. So aside from materials and the occasional gimmick, the only really "radical" events to have happened with electric guitarmaking in the past 40 years are some (dubious) improvements in construction methods and electronics. Other than that, well...not much to speak of. And even still, I rely on my original '65 SG Standard (which I WISH Gibson would do an honest reissue of) and my "reissues" (both Gibson AND Epiphone, all about as accurate or inaccurate as the others, none "just right") of that era SG, and I never find the need to stray. Some of us are stubborn, sentimental and genuinely happy enough with those "radical...yet tried-and-true" designs.

H

[m dailey (milod)]

Coming back to a long dormant topic got my head into a little different angle than before, too...

The SG-type Guild I got in the 70s? Come to think of it, I thought of it more as a squashed semi than a board like a "F" guitar.

Hmmmm.

m

[G Clontz (335guy)]

I played an SG for many years. I bought it new in 1969 but it very well could have been manufactured in '68. It had the Gibson Vibrola, which I liked and used often for certain steel guitar like effects. I had been playing guitar for years before and thought the only good electrics werer hollow bodied guitars. I had owned a Gretsch Chet Atkins Nashville and a Martin GT-75. But after playing a friend's SG and seeing Clapton using one in Cream, I chose that guitar. I guess the shape of the guitar didn't concern me that much because I was going for ease of playing and tone, both of which the SG had is spades, compared to my earlier guitars. Most of us younger guitar players back then didn't know much about makes and models and all the technical stuff. I didn't even know how to set-up a guitar and just left it the way it was from the local music store. All we usually did was put slinkys on them and tune them up. Some guys took the covers off the pu's, but I never did. As far as the SG being a radical design, that didn't really occur to me back then. I just wanted a guitar like my buddy's, so I saved up and bought one new. I had earlier played a friend's Firebird, but didn't like it. It seemed too big, I didn't like the sound of the pickups, it was heavy and awkward to me and those banjo tuners seemed odd as well. The SG design is way more user friendly. I don't think the upper horn was necessary, and it made the guitar look a little evil. Gibson couldv'e done a revised LP Special, sorta like the later L6-S of the 70's. That also was a user friendly guitar. But they didn't and the SG is the result. While it sorta looks wicked to me, it is a very user friendly guitar and good tone.