Every been tempted to just settle for one high-end guitar?

[Securb]

Re: Every been tempted to just settle for one high-end guitar?

I think its opposite; more expensive guitars become more specialized players in their genre.

I can't think of a style I couldn't correctly play with my Les Paul. Jazz, Metal, Country, Blues or Rock the guitar covers it all and very well. As you said Gibson bucks your theory.

 

[jon the art guy]

Re: Every been tempted to just settle for one high-end guitar?

I can't think of a style I couldn't correctly play with my Les Paul. Jazz, Metal, Country, Blues or Rock the guitar covers it all and very well. As you said Gibson bucks your theory.

yea. (shrug) it was worth a try.

 

[voggin]

Re: Every been tempted to just settle for one high-end guitar?

When it comes to versatility, I think a better made guitar will more likely be more versatile, not so much from an electronic configuration perspective, but because it will impose fewer limitations on the player's technique. So it will be more adaptable to different genres and sounds because it won't interfere with the player's ability to coax a variety of tones and styles out of it. A very resonant guitar, without dead spots or middling fretwork, and with good, quality pickups allows you more room to explore the inherent abilities of the instrument, rather than forcing you to avoid parts of the neck or unpleasant sounds.

To use the example of acoustics (I know, not 100% analagous) the thing that always amazes me about my Martin is the consistency of volume all the way up the neck. So if I can manage to get my fingers to do what my brain wants in the shape of some crazy, jazzy chording, I know all the notes of the chord will ring true. Also, its great action and fretwork means that I can execute those chords or scales without undue effort. So when it comes to versatility, even though the guitar has its own tonal characteristics, I can play bluegrass or blues or Django-ish stuff with the confidence that if I can pull off the finger side of the equation, the guitar will take care of the rest.

On the other hand, I can totally relate to someone who would like three equivalent or better acoustics to do those different styles (small bodied Gibson for the blues, Martin for bluegrass, I don't know, a Taylor for the gypsy jazz thing.) And they would probably get a better or more accurate tone for the genre than I will with just one guitar. But that's kind of icing on the cake (or maybe decoration on the icing...who wants cake without icing?), and my Martin (a relatively low-end one, a D16) is at the very least adequate for all styles and excellent for others.

 

[wahwah]

Re: Every been tempted to just settle for one high-end guitar?

A good player can cover a lot of territory one a single guitar. They might use more than one, but their skill levels will allow them to do a lot more with one instrument.

But everyone should simply celebrate that most of us have the options and the opportunities. There are some people whose lives don't allow them such options.

I agree with Crusty on this one. I think the main source of versatility lies with the player and nowhere near as much with the wood or pickups as we might think. I always think of the example of Dave Gilmour's classic solo on Another Brick In The Wall. It sounds for all the world to me like the classic Gilmour/Strat combination, but is of course a Les Paul, albeit with P90s. Gilmour's voice as an artist is willing that Les Paul to take on very Strat like characteristics, which Les Pauls rarely do. A very good player can will an instrument to do his bidding, where a lesser player who has not developed an individual voice of their own will be a slave to the inherent tonal characteristics of the instrument. Jeff Beck is another who can will instruments to conform to his voice, making Strats resonate with the fatness you would normally associate with humbuckers, or in his early years, make Les Pauls quack with a hollowness normally associated with Fenders. While a specific type of instrument can enhance a player's signature voice, a good enough player will be able to summon their voice from many different instruments, or derive great tonal variation from one instrument.

On another point, regarding the difference between premium and budget instruments, I would like to add that from my perspective as a touring professional, the issue of road worthiness becomes a major consideration. My old Strat takes about 60 flights per year, and will travel with me in and out of the tropics and temperate zones alike, all year round. It takes a solid instrument to withstand that kind of workload and variety of conditions. It would be a rare $500 guitar that could take that without collapsing under the conditions, showing its flaws and shortfalls when you least need to see them. Green regrowth forest wood and cheap hardware may be fine for the lounge room or occasional jam, but testing conditions will expose its flaws. This cannot be discounted as a consideration as to why so many professional players choose premium quality instruments, coupled with the fact that they are a tax deduction for our business, and are paid for by a few gigs, whilst offering years of service in return. These are not vagaries or nebulous definitions, but experiential knowledge.

As for the one guitar thing, I can only restate my own position. While my career's playing styles have stopped short of Jazz and Metal at the extremes, I have been able to make a living playing a broad range of styles in between these genre bookends with one excellent guitar.



Cheers.......................................... wahwah

 

[jeremy]

Re: Every been tempted to just settle for one high-end guitar?

cheers to that!

 

[MkIII Renegade]

Re: Every been tempted to just settle for one high-end guitar?

I also don't think $1,500 is a sanity-check price point for someone who's truly rich. Some people have doorknobs that cost that much. Handbags. Watches. That's a fairly routine vet bill for some people. Getting into the more pedestrian realms, it's not at all uncommon for non-rich people to have TVs, laptops, and bicycles that cost that much. People prioritize based on what's important to them. Everybody does it, regardless of how much money they have or what they're into.

I'd say $1500 is the sanity-check point for someone who lives in an apartment. If you have a bunch of guitars of that level, but no house, you're doing something wrong.....

I'm all for letting people make their own stupid financial decisions, although I don't favor bailing out idiots with my tax dollars when they end up bankrupt (although sadly, I can't opt out of paying for their mess).

 

[voggin]

Re: Every been tempted to just settle for one high-end guitar?

I'd say $1500 is the sanity-check point for someone who lives in an apartment. If you have a bunch of guitars of that level, but no house, you're doing something wrong.....

I'm all for letting people make their own stupid financial decisions, although I don't favor bailing out idiots with my tax dollars when they end up bankrupt (although sadly, I can't opt out of paying for their mess).

What possible correlation is there between owning a 2K guitar and a 400K house? Sometimes renting is a better financial decision than owning. Especially in some urban centres. People move for career reasons. For some, it would be stupid to buy.

Besides, usually the only "idiots" bailed out with tax dollars are already rich. Normal bankrupts usually only owe money to usurious credit card companies, who have more than got their principal back.

BTW, what does any of this add to the discussion at hand?

 

[Little Pigbacon]

Re: Every been tempted to just settle for one high-end guitar?

I'd say $1500 is the sanity-check point for someone who lives in an apartment. If you have a bunch of guitars of that level, but no house, you're doing something wrong.....

I'm all for letting people make their own stupid financial decisions, although I don't favor bailing out idiots with my tax dollars when they end up bankrupt (although sadly, I can't opt out of paying for their mess).

I think you're conflating two issues that aren't necessarily related. Being on shaky financial foundations is not synonymous with living in an apartment. I'd say if you have a bunch of premium guitars, or say, twenty or thirty guitars of any sort, and you can't pay your rent or your mortgage, you're doing something wrong. There are plenty of people who live in apartments who don't want a house. There are plenty of people who have lost houses because of the same financial irresponsibility you describe, and your tax dollars bailed out the banks that loaned them the money. Like I said before, does getting more guitars for your wasted thousands of dollars make it more okay than getting fewer guitars and saddling yourself with the same net amount of financial hardship? I think it's always assumed that we each have to look out for our own well-being and not screw ourselves for any gear purchase.

 

[DreX]

Re: Every been tempted to just settle for one high-end guitar?

What possible correlation is there between owning a 2K guitar and a 400K house? Sometimes renting is a better financial decision than owning. Especially in some urban centres. People move for career reasons. For some, it would be stupid to buy.

Being on shaky financial foundations is not synonymous with living in an apartment.

It's clear that he's referring to people with "limited funds". The fact that he associates this with apartment dwelling is beside the point.

 

[Little Pigbacon]

Re: Every been tempted to just settle for one high-end guitar?

I think it's a substantial part of his point, and I addressed it as such.

 

[BloodRose]

Re: Every been tempted to just settle for one high-end guitar?

It's hard to say, really, and there are different views of what's high end or low end. I consider a used $1500 lp standard "high end". On TGP, they'd laugh me off the island. On the Agile forum, they'd call me a corksniffer.

Phil, I'm like you, I always think I should have a tele, but I've never found the one for me (now I've f***ing jinxed myself, and tomorrow I'll walk into a shop and find the bastard).

LOL!!! This busted me up! True!!! Yeah, if it isnt a $6k 59 historic or something, it doesnt count.

As far as a tele, I always hated teles.. to me, they were country guitars and being a rivethead, I couldnt have that. Then, one day, I woke up and realized Page used em and they are wicked versatile. So, I said to myself, "Bloodrose, you need a tele to round out the aresenal". I didnt wanna pay big for one, as I didnt think it would use it much. So I shopped all the mid to low priced teles I could find and got a Squier vintage modded tele. Its wickedly versatile and a blast to play. (came with duncan designed pups. put a Duncan Jerry Donahue in the bridge and a GFS firebird pup in the neck

 

[DreX]

Re: Every been tempted to just settle for one high-end guitar?

1.) What inherent qualities make or break the ability of a guitar to "fill in" in the absence of another?

That's relative to how uncomfortable a guitarist is willing to be. It's not fun playing music meant for strats on jazz hallow bodies, but it's not impossible either. IMO guitarists are often "path of least resistance" when it comes to technique, so if a song or solo was played on a Tele, it's usually easiest to play the part on a Tele, in addition to sounding the most similar.

2.) When you go up in quality in a certain type of guitar, are there places where you might gain versatility, either (a) because the guitar begins to transcend some limitations of genre and become closer to a platonic ideal of a musical instrument, or (b) because clever design and technical innovation might allow a progressive-minded builder to include some features that cater to your playing styles and allow you to cover more territory with it than you could with most production models? That is to say, where does versatility become something that you can increase in a single guitar by going more high-end? You can add versatility to any guitar by changing a pickup, adding one, adding switching options, etc. Any guitar. But if you go high-end or bespoke, can you pick up additional versatility -- in any form -- that might similarly make one more guitar redundant for you, or give you a sound or cover a genre that you otherwise couldn't do on a similar mid-level instrument, on top of everything else it's already doing? If you having a great luthier build you a cost-no-object guitar that was supposed to cover as much ground for you as possible, what would you have built, and why?.

Assuming were not talking about Bigsbies, B benders or piezo pickups and those sorts of add-ons, the only subtle upgrades I can think of that change the playability of guitar is steel frets, which make string bends easier to execute, and a "satin finish" neck which lets you grip a neck harder and still have freedom of hand movement without the worry that your sweaty hand will get stuck to the glossy surface.

 

[MetalManiac]

Re: Every been tempted to just settle for one high-end guitar?

That's relative to how uncomfortable a guitarist is willing to be. It's not fun playing music meant for strats on jazz hallow bodies, but it's not impossible either. IMO guitarists are often "path of least resistance" when it comes to technique, so if a song or solo was played on a Tele, it's usually easiest to play the part on a Tele, in addition to sounding the most similar.




Assuming were not talking about Bigsbies, B benders or piezo pickups and those sorts of add-ons, the only subtle upgrades I can think of that change the playability of guitar is steel frets, which make string bends easier to execute, and a "satin finish" neck which lets you grip a neck harder and still have freedom of hand movement without the worry that your sweaty hand will get stuck to the glossy surface.

pcorn:

 

[DreX]

Re: Every been tempted to just settle for one high-end guitar?

LOL!!! This busted me up! True!!! Yeah, if it isnt a $6k 59 historic or something, it doesnt count.

As far as a tele, I always hated teles.. to me, they were country guitars and being a rivethead, I couldnt have that. Then, one day, I woke up and realized Page used em and they are wicked versatile. So, I said to myself, "Bloodrose, you need a tele to round out the aresenal". I didnt wanna pay big for one, as I didnt think it would use it much. So I shopped all the mid to low priced teles I could find and got a Squier vintage modded tele. Its wickedly versatile and a blast to play. (came with duncan designed pups. put a Duncan Jerry Donahue in the bridge and a GFS firebird pup in the neck

IMO, high end is whatever you can't reach without requesting assistance at GC, because this as close as we're going to get to a constant that we have any hope of agreeing upon. And that "can't touch" price point is generally $1500+. But taking a step back, I think people are tending to place the "premium" marker wherever it suits their budget and ego. If you bought a $3000 guitar and I claim the premium mark is $1500, you might take that to mean that I had accused you of over spending by $1500, and take that as an insult, so you move the goal posts to $3000, now your guitar is "premium" and everyone else is playing ****ars.

I also thought Teles were country guitars, and I bought my first one still thinking that was the case. It wasn't until I played it that I discovered it has a versatile growl and that it doesn't even sound twangy unless you play in such a way and plug into an amp that brings the twang out of it. I always knew the neck pickup was beautiful though.

 

[Dr. Vegetable]

Re: Every been tempted to just settle for one high-end guitar?

...It's not fun playing music meant for strats on jazz hallow bodies...

Then you're doing it wrong.

IMO guitarists are often "path of least resistance" when it comes to technique, so if a song or solo was played on a Tele, it's usually easiest to play the part on a Tele, in addition to sounding the most similar.

That's just silly! It's easiest to play the part on the guitar you're already holding than it is to switch to another guitar just because that's what some other guy was holding when he recorded it.

...a "satin finish" neck which lets you grip a neck harder and still have freedom of hand movement without the worry that your sweaty hand will get stuck to the glossy surface.

Yep, you're definitely doing it wrong.

 

[BloodRose]

Re: Every been tempted to just settle for one high-end guitar?

Im going to add one more thing to this thread as I dont know if I mentioned it in my other posts since I think those were mostly on topic and this has become a big discussion of does X guitar make you better or.....

I have too many guitars, I know it based on my budget and skill level. Some are VERY nice, some are well souped up budget guitars. I have discovered that I sound/suck about the same whatever one I play. So.. The only benefit really is that different guitars sometimes inspire different moods.

 

[sosomething]

Re: Every been tempted to just settle for one high-end guitar?

The last couple of posts by DreX actually made a lot of sense to me and didn't seem trollish or baiting at all.

Gotta give credit for the good if we're going to criticize for the bad.

I like that benchmark of "high on the wall at GC" as the differentiator of mid-range and high-end. I also agree that the price point that starts happening is about 1500 bucks.

Prior to this, I would have said anything under 600 was "budget," 601-1599 as "mid-range," and above that is "high end," but I freely admit that these figures are completely arbitrary besides their reflection of my own personal means and the amount of deliberation I would commit to making a purchase.

For the purpose of discussion, I think the mark proposed by DreX is much better.

The only thing I'd disagree with him on is the very limited number of upgrades or features that would affect the general playability of a generic guitar. I would assert that there are a good many other things that would factor there as well, but it's not worth arguing about.

 

[DreX]

Re: Every been tempted to just settle for one high-end guitar?

I like that benchmark of "high on the wall at GC" as the differentiator of mid-range and high-end. I also agree that the price point that starts happening is about 1500 bucks.

Even the "out of reach" thing isn't hard and fast since what GC puts at the top is not the same from store to store, and who knows how they decide such things, but it definitely doesn't require anything close to $3000 or $6000 to make a guitar top shelf at GC. And I think you were right in that $500-ish is about where imported guitars go from being ordinary to something a little extra special, like a nicer birds eye veneer, EMGs, floyd, etc., but still cheaper than a guitar that's made in the US by a big name. Consider the plain jane Epi Dot versus the tricked out Epi Sheraton for example, $300 up to $600. I own a Sheraton, and I'm not interested in a 335 for.. what, $3000?

The only thing I'd disagree with him on is the very limited number of upgrades or features that would affect the general playability of a generic guitar. I would assert that there are a good many other things that would factor there as well, but it's not worth arguing about.

I'm not inclined to argue, just opine. If you were to say "jumbo frets" for example, because this is often listed as a feature, I'd say it's preference despite it being thought of by some as an upgrade. In fact I prefer thin frets.

Another one is fret between binding / fret over binding / fret through binding, Gibson thinks one is an upgrade over another, but as long as you aren't cutting up your fingers on fret ends, I don't think it matters.

 

[sosomething]

Re: Every been tempted to just settle for one high-end guitar?

I'm not inclined to argue, just opine. If you were to say "jumbo frets" for example, because this is often listed as a feature, I'd say it's preference despite it being thought of by some as an upgrade. In fact I prefer thin frets.

Agreed. I like medium and medium jumbos myself, but I agree that frets of any size don't constitute a general upgrade over another.

Another one is fret between binding / fret over binding / fret through binding, Gibson thinks one is an upgrade over another, but as long as you aren't cutting up your fingers on fret ends, I don't think it matters.

That's actually something that came to mind when I was typing my last post.

Only because guitars without over-fret binding - even those that feel smooth as butter in the store - can become edgy and sharp once they're home and the weather changes. I live in Indiana, where atmospheric pressure, temp, and humidity can swing drastically over the course of the week or even the day, and the only guitars I've ever owned that have consistently avoided that problem are my nice Gibsons with that style of binding.

So to me, that's a feature I'll gladly pay a little extra for.

 

[AlexR]

Re: Every been tempted to just settle for one high-end guitar?

The over fret binding is an 'upgrade' simply due to the time it takes to do over and above binding before fretting....its a major PITA.
This is the same with a lot of things.....trapezoid or odd shaped inlays, binding (multiply is an extra time waster), bookmatched carved tops.

These are all visual aspects of course, they either don't change the playability or very minorly do so.