Controversial Opinion

[Chistopher]

Thinner Squier bodies are better than full sized. They are lighter and more comfortable to play. And if you believe in tone wood, rest assured that my Squier Bullets (of which I have both Strat and Mustang) both sound better than my MIM Strat with a full sized unplugged. Honestly they have some of the best unplugged tone of any of my electrics.

 

[Rex_Rocker]

I have a Squier Classic Vibe that I love. Lots of guitar for the money. Squier overall I feel is better than Epi. I wouldn't say my CV is better than my Epi 1959, but it's not really worse either, and it cost like 2-3 times less.

 

[ehdwuld]

I like thinner lighter guitars

bullets

Ibanez S series

LTD EC's

 

[Seashore]

What's important about "unplugged tone"?

 

[Chistopher]

That's how I play when I'm watching TV or teleworking.

 

[Artie]

One of my favorite guitars is my Peavey Rockmaster. (With a Perpetual Burn.) I'd call it 7/8 size.

 

[Mincer]

I think Mike Rutherford of Genesis & Mike & the Mechanics uses thinner Squires for that reason. They are more comfortable and lighter, and sound good, too. I wish Fender would experiment with thinner Strat bodies, or 7/8th sizes.

 

[Top-L]

Resonant guitar bodies filter out frequencies. They are warmer but don't have the same punch plugged in, imo.

If manufacturers wanted to , they could make every guitar thin. They could save money on wood. Why don't they do this? Is it tradition, or do they know something about tone?

I mean they could use lightweight poplar for their high end models, but they reserve the light wood for their entry level guitars. Why is that?

The irony is that the high end buyers covet lighter guitars but want their strat to be alder, not poplar.

 

[ErikH]

Remember the Les Paul Lite? Thinner body with a belly contour.

My Classic Vibe Strat is full thickness. It’s still pretty light. So are my other two Strat builds.

I’ve had thinner bodies on one or two before and to me they felt cheap.

 

[Mincer]

The Les Paul Lite was a really cool guitar They should revisit that concept.

 

[Chistopher]

I mean they could use lightweight poplar for their high end models, but they reserve the light wood for their entry level guitars. Why is that?

People associate heavier with higher quality in most instances. Since guitarist are superstitious they are more susceptible to this. This is bolstered by the fact that most lighter wood is weaker and therefore cheaper, so guitar makers use it on their mass produced budget guitars where it's per-unit savings would have the most utility. Cheap guitars also use smaller pieces of wood as a cost cutting measure.

In short, people associate NEW light guitars with cost cutting. All that goes out the window when you talk vintage.

 

[Securb]

Remember the Les Paul Lite? Thinner body with a belly contour.

I love my LP Lite it is the white on at the end. It has 100% Les Paul vibe but is so light. I am packing it in the gig bag right now for practice today.

 

[Chistopher]

Remember the Les Paul Lite? Thinner body with a belly contour.

I remember thinking it would be a cool budget line guitar for Gibson to make if they crossed the LP Lite, The Paul, and the LP BFG.

Solid piece of thin mahogany with very little matte clear coat
The Paul style forearm contour, belly cutaway
Wood mounted neck P90 and bridge HB
Les Paul Special style pickguard
No inlays, unpainted headstock, open back tuners

Not only would it be super light and cheap to produce, it's a cool idea that doesn't just look like cost cutting measures.

 

[JMP/HBE]

I had a Squire it was terrible.
Everything on it was cheap af.

 

[Top-L]

People associate heavier with higher quality in most instances. Since guitarist are superstitious they are more susceptible to this. This is bolstered by the fact that most lighter wood is weaker and therefore cheaper, so guitar makers use it on their mass produced budget guitars where it's per-unit savings would have the most utility. Cheap guitars also use smaller pieces of wood as a cost cutting measure.

In short, people associate NEW light guitars with cost cutting. All that goes out the window when you talk vintage.

What I am saying is that there are actual *reasons* that higher end instruments use dense, traditional woods.

I recently had a poplar Jackson in my hands. It was very lightweight, the lightest guitar I have ever had (even lighter than Ibanez sabres I've owned.) How was the tone? It was decently resonant acoustically, although it did not seem to have much bass response. I didn't plug it in and test its amplified tone before returning it. But if I were to characterize the sound, it seemed like a perfectly viable sound, except that it did not appear to have any bass frequencies. It was too different from what I have experienced in my other electrics, that I thought the tone was a bit "sus". Now I avoid guitars built with poplar.

If lightweight resonant guitars were "best", then all the high end guitars would be using composites (like parker Fly), less dense woods, and be chambered. But that is not the case, and I don't think tradition is to blame. I think there are actual good reasons to prefer heavier guitars.

 

[Chistopher]

If lightweight resonant guitars were "best", then all the high end guitars would be using composites (like parker Fly), less dense woods, and be chambered. But that is not the case, and I don't think tradition is to blame. I think there are actual good reasons to prefer heavier guitars.

You're forgetting that guitar companies don't design guitars based off what they think would be best, but rather what would make them the most money. Heavier wood for high end guitars makes the instrument feel like a luxury and for certain woods doesn't add much to the cost to manufacture. And it has the added benefit of being able to market weight reduced models to target another sector of the audience.

 

[Clint 55]

I agree the thinner Squier necks and bodies sound good. They have their own sound which is unique but maybe not better than the thicker Fenders. However, the thing that kills it is the shoddy hardware. I'd say if you got a hardtail, changed the saddles, and did a really good job of putting in a graph tech nut, that would be satisfactory.

 

[NegativeEase]

Everyone has to have a vintage 50s Tele/Broad/Noaster or their tone totally sucks.

Also, buy more Bonamassa junk on his website.

 

[Top-L]

You're forgetting that guitar companies don't design guitars based off what they think would be best, but rather what would make them the most money. Heavier wood for high end guitars makes the instrument feel like a luxury and for certain woods doesn't add much to the cost to manufacture. And it has the added benefit of being able to market weight reduced models to target another sector of the audience.

That is a cynical view. I would hope that a well designed and specified product is the same thing as one that sells well.

I don't think consumers are all idiots. We are 70 years into electric guitar manufacturing, if lighter guitars legitimately sounded better, then as I said, Gibson would have modified the formula for their high end models. Top models would be built with Poplar or composites.

 

[Phantasmagoria]

"Better" is pretty subjective when it comes to Tone anyway. If you want a tighter, punchier/more percussive guitar w/ more immediate & faster attack on both single notes (shred!) & chords a lighter body is the way to go. The mids on these guitars are often more prominent (also excellent for lead playing) As the body is more resonant, harmonic overtones are more complex/livelier too. They may not have the nth degree of deep 'chugga-chugga' bass, but I've never found any of my thinner guitars (basically my Sabre's) to lack bass for any of the kinds of music I play (including doom, death metal & chugga chugga) .

i was watching this video the other day with a custom shop in Germany making popular "modern" guitars and that's basically what the dude says (@ 9.20 mins and again @ 19.20 mins where he discusses Bolt-on vs neck through construction as well)) and yeah...he pretty much says what I've always found to be true myself..

There's somewhere where he actually talks about body thickness as well...can't find it right now..

Edit: Oh, it's the other guy @ 2.10 mins)