The basic 150/157/LP design is oldfashioned and outadated

[cosmikdebriis]

I disagree.  Kinda.  I think the classics are largely useful, and also have become seen as the norm.  However, I do not think tradition in and of itself is important.  If you create a nice guitar that plays & sounds nice, and looks nice enough to market, you have something that can carve out its own niche and BECOME tradition.

 

I guess I am one of the exceptions.  I like going all across the fretboard.  Not that I am great at it, but I like the range.  And for the most part what I would like to play would be a Heritage H-150 or Gibson Les Paul, or a Heritage H-535 or Gibson ES-335.  That does not mean I am going to shred like a Slayer cover band, but I like having as many options as possible musically.

 

See, PRS guitars have a quite rabid cult following.  I think they are the best looking guitar.  Period.  Would I buy one?  My Hamer sounds great and is similarly constructed, albeit with a 24.75" scale vs. PRS's typical 25" scale.  And PRS guitars are thinner than the LP dimensions.  Would I buy one?  Sure.  Would I buy one to replace an LP-style guitar?  No.

 

One thing that I WOULD do would be to have an LP with all of the comfort contours, slightly deeper more ergonomically friendly cut for better fret access, and a heelless neck hand made by a luthier or build-from-home builder over at Project Guitar or some other instrument building forum, or learn to do woodwork and build my own.  My design would not be totally traditional.

 

However, it would be easy to improve upon "tradition," just not necessarily worth it financially for Gibson & Fender to do so.  Ibanez has done it with their Super-Strats (rounded heel, more stable trem-system with the Floyd Rose and similar, etc.).  So has G&L, and Jackson, Hamer, Carvin, et al.  Hamer has improved upon Gibson's traditional Les Paul DoubleCut design tremendously (albeit I believe thinner and lighter with the possible change in tone).  Warmoth offers some nice creature-comforts on their Telecaster designs.  Traditional?  No.  Better?  I think so.

 

-Cheers

 

An applaud for standing up for what you believe, in the face of adversity ;D

[cosmikdebriis]

The LP design WAS improved upon, by a man named Paul Reed Smith.  I have played some of the upper end PRS guitars. They are truly fantastic. Would I buy one? Probably not. Just doesn't feel right to me to own one. I cannot logically explain it. I guess I  don't feel I belong to the generation that felt a need to improve upon the guitars that started it all.

 

I would say Yamaha improved upon the basic LP with the SG range. Basically a double cut LP. The SG2000 also has a thru neck and many guitars in the SG range have coil taps.

 

Of course, famously, Carlos Santana played an SG, until he went on to PRS. So maybe there's a progression of sorts there?

[111518]

Why the devotion to tradition in guitar design?  I think that's a question that might be answered from a number of perspectives, but the statement that provoked this thread is leading and therefore has channeled the discussion.  If the design is "old fashioned and outdated," the question itself presupposes that the LP is therefore inferior to more modern guitars with the list of more recently produced features --coil taps, neck thru, locking-trem, etc.  (Many of which I would argue are just "new and improved" marketing gimcrackery, but that's a different argument.)  The thread suggests a perspective that values innovation, greater ease of use, greater range of sound, which seems at first glance logical.  But why, logically, stop with a few adjustments to guitar layout and hardware?  Why not have a pitch-correction pedal among your effects, so your bends are in tune, or build such electronic correction into the guitar?  In fact,  in an age of sampling and sequencing, computer-generated sounds, etc., the whole operation of making music by hand in real time on an instrument with a limited range, inherent intonation problems, limits on dynamics and sustain, limits on polyphony, the chance to break strings, etc. is old-fashioned and out-dated.  The electric guitar, Les Paul or Parker Fly, is, as a music-making device inherently old fashioned and outdated, as are all traditional instruments.  The end product is an electrical signal --why not produce it electronically, and take advantage of all the advances electronics place at our disposal?

 

Stravinsky famously said, "limitation is freedom," that there can be no art without structures that define the aesthetic world within you work.  The greatest painting is not a photograph, the greatest sculpture not made from a mold of the original, though both offer greater speed, ease, accuracy, etc.  In today's world, the selection of any instrument, vs. a computer, is a choice to accept a certain set of limitations on the production of sound.  Playing a traditional Les Paul is placing your range of musical choices within certain constraints of tone and range  and perhaps playability.  A guitar with more pickup choices and a locking trem is a different box.  So, is the vibrato produced by that locking trem better than what BB produces on Lucille?  Is a major third bend on the pitch bend wheel of a synthesizer better than when Albert King did it on his V?  Does creating greater ease or breaking sonic barriers necessarily make the music --remember, that is the end product, not the guitar-- "better?"  Only if you've defined your aesthetic in that way going in (I want to hear big trem dive bombs).  Art is linked to tradition because art is by definition creativity and freedom expressed within constraints.  BB's vibrato sounds cool because I know how difficult it is to get that sound, and how few have done it --the beauty comes in part from the limitation.  Cellos don't have frets, Les Pauls don't have 24 frets or locking trems.   

 

There are other ways to explain musicians' devotion to tried and true instruments --they produce comfort in the uncomfortable situation of performance, they communicate as a symbol with the audience about who you are and what sort of music you will play, they give you a sense of physical connection with the musical tradition within which you perform, they make better investments (yuk),  ...the list could go on.  None of this has much to do with where the knobs are or lbs and ozs.     

 

I grew up a Allman Brothers fan and I looked long and hard for a Les Paul beginning in the mid 70s when there was that catch 22 from Norlin: Deluxes had mini buckers, Customs had the fretless wonder setup.  Neither gave the sound and feel people were looking for, so it was either route for buckers or refret, and it seemed to take Gibson forever to catch on and offer the standard.  I finally, after owning a deluxe and then a standard, found a beat up custom, stripped amateurishly from its original black to natural, with super distortions... but it had the greatest neck I'd ever felt, and the best natural resonance of any Paul I'd touched.  I got it refretted, changed pickups, and, unless I ever luck into a P-90 150 or Paul, I can't imagine ever buying another guitar of that type.  It's never been my main axe, because it is pretty narrow in its voice.  But what it does, it does like nothing else could do.  My point is simply that if you want to play in that LP musical world, you take the limits with the beauty --that's the definition of art. 

[Halowords]

Why the devotion to tradition in guitar design?  I think that's a question that might be answered from a number of perspectives, but the statement that provoked this thread is leading and therefore has channeled the discussion.  If the design is "old fashioned and outdated," the question itself presupposes that the LP is therefore inferior to more modern guitars with the list of more recently produced features --coil taps, neck thru, locking-trem, etc.  (Many of which I would argue are just "new and improved" marketing gimcrackery, but that's a different argument.)

 

In my opinion, the inherent flaws in the design of a LP have stayed the same through most interpretations of it.  Companies are not generally trying to improve the Les Paul, they are trying to copy it in some way or another.

 

The thread suggests a perspective that values innovation, greater ease of use, greater range of sound, which seems at first glance logical.  But why, logically, stop with a few adjustments to guitar layout and hardware?  Why not have a pitch-correction pedal among your effects, so your bends are in tune, or build such electronic correction into the guitar?  In fact,  in an age of sampling and sequencing, computer-generated sounds, etc., the whole operation of making music by hand in real time on an instrument with a limited range, inherent intonation problems, limits on dynamics and sustain, limits on polyphony, the chance to break strings, etc. is old-fashioned and out-dated.

 

In that case you are making the guitar into something else.  I like the sound of a LP.  Changing it to have pitch-correction, synth/sampling/computer-generated sounds, or anything that dramatically changes the overall tone of the guitar strips my reason for wanting one.  I am all for design updates, if there is a reason.  However, there is a point where doing too much (i.e. computerizing its sound) makes it less organic, and if it takes away that analog sound structure it potentially limits what I can do with the natural sound of the guitar.

 

The electric guitar, Les Paul or Parker Fly, is, as a music-making device inherently old fashioned and outdated, as are all traditional instruments.  The end product is an electrical signal --why not produce it electronically, and take advantage of all the advances electronics place at our disposal?

 

That is where the subjectivity of personal preference, either in tone, features, etc., takes over.  I find myself liking a more natural sound.  Hence, I have a Marshall Vintage Modern tube amp, would like to get a certain guitar that comes with EMG 81's that I think I will end up replacing with passive pickups, and like the acoustics of stringed instruments and real drums over keyboards and drum machines.  However, I do like Nine Inch Nails and some Industrial music, as well as some techno and electronic-based music once in a while, but those are not my mainstays.

 

Stravinsky famously said, "limitation is freedom," that there can be no art without structures that define the aesthetic world within you work.  The greatest painting is not a photograph, the greatest sculpture not made from a mold of the original, though both offer greater speed, ease, accuracy, etc.  In today's world, the selection of any instrument, vs. a computer, is a choice to accept a certain set of limitations on the production of sound.  Playing a traditional Les Paul is placing your range of musical choices within certain constraints of tone and range  and perhaps playability.  A guitar with more pickup choices and a locking trem is a different box.  So, is the vibrato produced by that locking trem better than what BB produces on Lucille?  Is a major third bend on the pitch bend wheel of a synthesizer better than when Albert King did it on his V?  Does creating greater ease or breaking sonic barriers necessarily make the music --remember, that is the end product, not the guitar-- "better?"  Only if you've defined your aesthetic in that way going in (I want to hear big trem dive bombs).  Art is linked to tradition because art is by definition creativity and freedom expressed within constraints.  BB's vibrato sounds cool because I know how difficult it is to get that sound, and how few have done it --the beauty comes in part from the limitation.  Cellos don't have frets, Les Pauls don't have 24 frets or locking trems.

 

That may be true.  However, two points.  First, there is no feature on a instrument, ANY instrument, that is a substitute for talent.  A good musician will sound great on any instrument (within reason) based on their talent a/o the structure of the song or piece they are playing.  Second, just because BB King can sound cool playing a non-locking vibrato, or Slash does not need 24 frets, or Hendrix could do great vibrato with a Fender style tremolo that goes out of tune if you breathe on it too hard does not mean we should not break boundaries in the pursuit of making better music, creating new frontiers, and doing what we can to make the music WE want using tools conducive to doing so.  I tend to be pretty low-fi myself.  However, I am also more than willing to admit there are some flaws within the traditional instruments that can be, but have not been, changed simply due to lack of financial motivation.  Imagine Hendrix with a quality-built left-handed Super Strat with coil taps, a Floyd Rose or Kahler tremolo, and maybe some active electronics or multi-channel amp.  He was amazing in the Woodstock era, true.  Yet, I think he could have done some amazing things with the technology that was developed after his death.

 

I grew up a Allman Brothers fan and I looked long and hard for a Les Paul beginning in the mid 70s when there was that catch 22 from Norlin: Deluxes had mini buckers, Customs had the fretless wonder setup.  Neither gave the sound and feel people were looking for, so it was either route for buckers or refret, and it seemed to take Gibson forever to catch on and offer the standard.  I finally, after owning a deluxe and then a standard, found a beat up custom, stripped amateurishly from its original black to natural, with super distortions... but it had the greatest neck I'd ever felt, and the best natural resonance of any Paul I'd touched.  I got it refretted, changed pickups, and, unless I ever luck into a P-90 150 or Paul, I can't imagine ever buying another guitar of that type.  It's never been my main axe, because it is pretty narrow in its voice.  But what it does, it does like nothing else could do.  My point is simply that if you want to play in that LP musical world, you take the limits with the beauty --that's the definition of art. 

 

On one hand, I think there is something to the artistic nuances of certain guitars, or of the lack of anti-lock breaks and traction control in muscle cars.  That being said, I believe that art is in the expression.  If you can give yourself a better paintbrush (literally or figuratively) it makes your art no worse.  There is probably a line; I like instrument-based music more than electronic-based, I like hand-drawn art better than CGI.  I respect the old ways, yet I accept change that does not diminish the art used by the tools developed.  If that makes any sense.  I partially agree, but partially disagree.  Not that anybody cares at this point.

 

-Cheers

[JohnCovach]

It's certainly possible for any of us to say that we do not see why tradition should be a factor in our own choices, but there can be little doubt that it is a factor for many guitarists.  If you say you don't see why that should be so, you're not saying it's not so--only that you don't understand it.

 

It's a bit of a cliche to say that certain personalities go with each type of instrument--trumpet players are one way, drummers, another, and singers are different from everybody.  I'd say that guitarists are often traditionalists--I'm sure some are attracted to the guitar in the first place by their tendency for traditionalism.

 

There's hardly a guitar manufacturer that does not understand this completely; just browse the Gibson, Fender, Gretsch, or Rickenbacker lines.  Even the Hofner Beatle bass is back--along with the Hagstrom Swede!  I have to admit that sometimes it's tough to untangle traditionalism from the nostalgic, but that problem is hardly limited to guitars.

[Halowords]

It's certainly possible for any of us to say that we do not see why tradition should be a factor in our own choices, but there can be little doubt that it is a factor for many guitarists.  If you say you don't see why that should be so, you're not saying it's not so--only that you don't understand it.

 

I certainly agree that tradition IS a factor.  I just do not think it should be, at least not blindly.  But yeah, I agree with pretty much everything you said.

 

-Cheers

[Kazwell]

I just remembered. With the LP, there has been an innovation, to a degree. Even Heritage is getting on board with the "chambered" body. Supposed to do two things, add a different tone (more sustain?) and to make them lighter.

 

G word land is pushing it (along with relief holes- ).

 

A lot of other makers are getting on board with this for their heavier solid body guitars-most of them resemble LP's. ESP is one company that comes to mind.

 

So, to a degree, the big manufacturers are moving towards an "innovation" if you will with a classic.

 

Of course Fender came up with this concept years ago, to a degree for the Tele.

[111518]

Thanks John, I think you got to the point I was trying to make more coherently than my dithering.  I was simply trying to shift the discussion a bit by suggesting that for any guitarist to criticize another guitarist's instrument choices for being old fashioned was proverbially the pot calling the kettle black.  All guitarists are traditionalists, when compared to the cutting edge of musical production today, though we each make choices about instruments, amps, effects, looping, etc., that place us on a spectrum.  (I once heard  Segovia play, and it seems like I remember that he refused to play any place where amplification of any sort was used.  Compared to that frame of mind, any Les Paul player is a revolutionary --but both are points on a spectrum of choices.)

 

My second point was that the choices, even very conservative choices, that we make about instruments can be shaped by conscious, thoughtful decisions about the music we want to make --all artists in any genre make choices about their tools and media, and those decisions are determined by more complex factors than ease of use, or versatility.  I again agree with John that in the real world of the electric guitar market in 2008 those choices are too often shaped by other factors like nostalgia, or what the advertising industry calls "lifestyle." (as he's pointed out in earlier posts.) 

[jacques]

Very impressed by the level of sophistication in this thread. I'm proud to be a member of this bunch.

 

After I changed from my Fender Dual Showman to a Carvin Legacy combo I noticed I can play more beautiful on all of my guitars. Every week I take a different one to band rehearsals and every time I am a happy man. All guitars are beautiful!

But all guitars are different too. After playing the Les Paul for a few times in this row, I noticed it has a couple of unique features that must have been designed just for that reason:

 

-a Les Paul never sounds thin

-a Les Paul has a unique and deeply felt presence in the total band sound, also when you play rythm guitar, arpeggios and the like

-a Les Paul is a great jazz guitar when you roll off some treble

-a Les Paul is a great blues guitar when you use some distortion

-a Les Paul has a great neck which makes certain licks quite easy that don't work on other good guitars

 

Some of these qualities have to do with the chunkyness of this axe (both neck and body). The thick neck-to-body connection is part of it.

 

And it is such a beautiful shape that has become an icon. There are no rational reasons for things (and people) becoming icons. We are the happy few that play on such an icon that has even been touched by the people that shaped the first examples in the Fifties.

[Kazwell]

  All guitarists are traditionalists, when compared to the cutting edge of musical production today

 

EXCELLENT POINT 111518!!!! +1

 

When you think modern music-techno rap etc, guitars play a minor role at best. They are even coming up with some guitar simulation plugins now that are starting to sound sort of good-they have a long way to go, but they are waaay better than they used to be. In other words they are closing in.

 

Who is the guitar hero of today according to all the critics at least, JAck White of the White Stripes. This guy is ALL about retro. It's getting to the point where just being a guitar player means you have to look back several years for music to seek inspiration from. Slash was big in getting the younger players back into playing LP-true. Uh let's see, they broke just over TWENTY years ago. And he is one of the "recent" guys.

 

It's really true, By nature we are traditionalists.

[brentrocks]

-a Les Paul never sounds thin

-a Les Paul has a unique and deeply felt presence in the total band sound, also when you play rythm guitar, arpeggios and the like

-a Les Paul is a great jazz guitar when you roll off some treble

-a Les Paul is a great blues guitar when you use some distortion

-a Les Paul has a great neck which makes certain licks quite easy that don't work on other good guitars

 

how right you are

 

the most versitle guitar on earth

 

i also place 140s and 170s in this catagory too

[LPSlinger]

-a Les Paul never sounds thin

-a Les Paul has a unique and deeply felt presence in the total band sound, also when you play rythm guitar, arpeggios and the like

-a Les Paul is a great jazz guitar when you roll off some treble

-a Les Paul is a great blues guitar when you use some distortion

-a Les Paul has a great neck which makes certain licks quite easy that don't work on other good guitars

 

Amen to that!

[cosmikdebriis]

I'm glad I started this one... Certainly got you guys thinking and communicating.  8)

 

My Title may have been "Misleading" but, hey, it was only the bait.

 

There has been a lot of talk about "Traditionalism" in this thread. Well... It may be worth taking into account the age of the people on this forum discussing the issue. Of course I don't exactly know how old you guys are but from our "Average age" thread I'm guessing. most of you are mid 40's ??? Obviously that adds a certain amount of insight and experience to the debate but would an 18yr old see things differently ???

 

Is it the tradition, the quality or perhaps just clever marketing that keeps the kids buying LP's (And Strats etc).

[brentrocks]

Cosmik, you are one thinkin' kind of dude

[Kazwell]

And how many 18 year old kids down with Parker Flys, the modern looking ESP's whatever the flavor of the day in 2008 is, will be buying a "traditonal" guitar twenty five years from now?

 

My guess is plenty.

 

Wisdom comes with age  ;D

 

Here's another thing to ponder.  The LP is basically what,over 50 years old now? Still going strong. These fancy keyboards that drive modern music nowadays, like computers, become outdated in just a few short years.

 

I know it's a wide comparison. Just somethng to ponder.

[cosmikdebriis]

Here's another thing to ponder.  The LP is basically what,over 50 years old now? Still going strong. These fancy keyboards that drive modern music nowadays, like computers, become outdated in just a few short years.

 

I have often thought of widening this "traditionalist" argument to include other instruments. The violin for instance has changed very little in time. However a violin is there as part of an orchestra and is required to produce a specific sound as conceived by the composer.

 

A guitar has a very different role (unless perhaps you're a session musician or in a covers band). It is the epitome of self expression. Which is probably why it's so Goddam sexy >

[Gitfiddler]

According to the latest Harmony Central User Review listings, there are in excess of 30 different Gibby LP models.  Add to that the Heritage guitars modeled after that classic body style and you get the answer to this debate/discussion...

 

Guitar makers will continue to produce what sells.  Basic ecomomic equation proven over and over again...supply and demand.

 

Out of curiosity I also counted the number of different Fender Strat models.  Again, in excess of 30!  Add to that the hundreds of variations on that classic body and it further proves the supply/demand point made above.

[yoslate]

I disagree.  Kinda.  I think the classics are largely useful, and also have become seen as the norm.  However, I do not think tradition in and of itself is important. 

 

If you create a nice guitar that plays & sounds nice, and looks nice enough to market, you have something that can carve out its own niche and BECOME tradition.

 

However, it would be easy to improve upon "tradition,"   Traditional?  No.  Better?  I think so.

 

Sorry, but I'm late to this thread, and haven't read as carefully as I probably should.  My $.02  Halo, I think there's an essential fallacy in your first statement, born out by your last.  Tradition is hugely important.  Tradition only becomes such in terms of the passage of time, as an historic entity.  Tradition not important?  Tell that to the marketing guys at Gibson; I reiterate the term "historic."  Without exception, tradition was, at one time, precedent which became, over time, tradition, thus the genesis of and impetus for new precedent.  History matters in that it defines change.  So, I am, in fact, agreeing with your statements above, with the exception being your initial premise that tradition in and of itself is not important.  It's not simply that tradition "in and of itself" is not important, "tradition in and of itself" does not exist and, therefore, isn't valid as a premise to argue against.

 

slate

[brentrocks]

Sorry, but I'm late to this thread, and haven't read as carefully as I probably should.  My $.02  Halo, I think there's an essential fallacy in your first statement, born out by your last.  Tradition is hugely important.  Tradition only becomes such in terms of the passage of time, as an historic entity.  Tradition not important?  Tell that to the marketing guys at Gibson; I reiterate the term "historic."  Without exception, tradition was, at one time, precedent which became, over time, tradition, thus the genesis of and impetus for new precedent.  History matters in that it defines change.  So, I am, in fact, agreeing with your statements above, with the exception being your initial thesis that tradition in and of itself is not important.  Tradition "in and of itself" does not exist.

 

slate

 

That's deep

[yoslate]

That's deep

 

 

Brent, you probably should add just a bit to that observation, a noun to follow the adjective....  Work is not good right now; just needed to blow off some steam, and I can't get home before my wife, so amp on "11" whammy bar feedback catharsis ain't an option just now.  Sorry fellas....                          :'(               

[JohnCovach]

I certainly agree that tradition IS a factor.  I just do not think it should be, at least not blindly.  But yeah, I agree with pretty much everything you said.

 

-Cheers

 

I'll double back and reinforce this.  I was an early adopter of the ARP Avatar guitar synthesizer back in the 1970s.  But while I was not alone, I was part of a very small minority of guitarists who were interested in synthesis.  Keyboard players love this kind of thing, but guitar players resisted it.  I was a bit disappointed by the whole episode.

 

As far as keyboard players go, they could do with a bit more traditionalism.  Ever since polyphonic synths with presets arrived in the 1980s, keyboard sounds have gotten worse and worse.  Give me some really nice Hammond with a Leslie over the boingy boing that passes for keyboard sounds on so many records.

 

Random thought: what if the idea of playing a guitar in any manifestation is tied to a particular tradition that is bound to fade into the mists of history?  Maybe simply using a guitar at all--150 or whatever--is old-fashioned.

[yoslate]

Maybe simply using a guitar at all--150 or whatever--is old-fashioned.

 

If so, then I have an entirely new take on being referred to as an "Old Fart" and all that implies!                  ;D

[brentrocks]

Brent, you probably should add just a bit to that observation, a noun to follow the adjective....  Work is not good right now; just needed to blow off some steam, and I can't get home before my wife, so amp on "11" whammy bar feedback catharsis ain't an option just now.  Sorry fellas....                           :'(               

 

i didnt intend to "knock" or "offend"...your comment was great dude

[yoslate]

Certainly no offense taken, my friend!  I'm jealous of the fact you get to sit around and spank the plank while you recover.  And I hope the recovery goes well!

 

 

slate

[brentrocks]

Certainly no offense taken, my friend!  I'm jealous of the fact you get to sit around and spank the plank while you recover.  And I hope the recovery goes well!

 

 

slate

 

Thanks Slate...i just received my electro bone stimulator today...i hope it works...i need to get back to work

 

maybe i should hook it up to my amp....maybe it will create some new/wild sound that will revolutionize rock n roll?????