Seymour Duncan why not short legs?

Re: Seymour Duncan why not short legs?

You can adjust the angle of the pickups, up to a point at least. You just have to slightly angle (with pliers) the threaded "flats" of the legs. You may want to use two pairs of pliers. You don't want to exert the force on the leg/baseplate junction. You're just trying to slightly angle the bottom, flat threaded part of the leg.
 
Re: Seymour Duncan why not short legs?

DavidRavenMoon said:
Because a bunch of guitarists live in some fantasy world where every freakin' aspect of their guitar has to match vintage specs. I like to say they pose in the mirror and pretend they have a real 50s LP! Lol.

It's stupid. The whole Gibson humbucker mounting system sucks. Having two mounting screw means you can't angle the pickup parallel with the strings, and they wobble. Especially with the long legs.

But look at Gibson, they decide to try to modernize certain aspects; put the controls on a PCB, widen the neck slightly, use a new nut/zero fret setup, and people freak out and swap those parts for archaic junk. Lol.

Fender has an easier time with modern models for some reason.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

It's because Gibson electrics were an outgrowth of very traditional archtop acoustics but Fender electrics were a radical departure from that tradition from day one. The Les Paul is the most traditional style solid body electric there is and it appeals to ocd traditionalists. (Along with plenty of other players.) I'm an SG guy myself.
You see the same thing in the car world. "Period correct" has turned into a happy place for obsessives.
 
Seymour Duncan why not short legs?

Dave Locher said:
It's because Gibson electrics were an outgrowth of very traditional archtop acoustics but Fender electrics were a radical departure from that tradition from day one. The Les Paul is the most traditional style solid body electric there is and it appeals to ocd traditionalists. (Along with plenty of other players.) I'm an SG guy myself.
You see the same thing in the car world. "Period correct" has turned into a happy place for obsessives.
Click to expand...

I'm aware of that. And it's because Leo Fender wasn't a guitar maker.

But that's not my point. Even with the Les Paul having its looks based on an arch top, to differentiate it from a Fender "slab-o-wood" which Gibson laughed at, you can still update the pickup mounting and other features.

Seth Lover cobbled together a humbucker rather quickly. And again, this was to beat Fender. Seth didn't want exposed poles. But the marketing people wanted adjustable poles because Fender didn't have that. The original PAF prototype was mounted in a P-90 dog ear cover. So it's not like a lot of thought was put into a good way to mount the pickup. It's crude and should at the very least have three mounting screws.

But Gibson is stuck with this dogma of tradition, and customers that don't want anything improved.

And since other pickup makers started making aftermarket pickups, we are stuck with the Gibson and Fender form factors. So they have become generic while still having the flaws.

As a pickup maker myself, this is aggravating.

Notice how in the bass world pickups evolved into direct mount soup bars, often with three mounting screws. Even Leo's later pickups are made this way.

I owned an '81 LP Standard. I would not buy another. I'll just make my own guitar with all these flaws removed. I'm actually making myself an SG. [emoji6]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Re: Seymour Duncan why not short legs?

DavidRavenMoon said:
I'm aware of that. And it's because Leo Fender wasn't a guitar maker.

But that's not my point. Even with the Les Paul having its looks based on an arch top, to differentiate it from a Fender "slab-o-wood" which Gibson laughed at, you can still update the pickup mounting and other features.

Seth Lover cobbled together a humbucker rather quickly. And again, this was to beat Fender. Seth didn't want exposed poles. But the marketing people wanted adjustable poles because Fender didn't have that. The original PAF prototype was mounted in a P-90 dog ear cover. So it's not like a lot of thought was put into a good way to mount the pickup. It's crude and should at the very least have three mounting screws.

But Gibson is stuck with this dogma of tradition, and customers that don't want anything improved.

And since other pickup makers started making aftermarket pickups, we are stuck with the Gibson and Fender form factors. So they have become generic while still having the flaws.

As a pickup maker myself, this is aggravating.

Notice how in the bass world pickups evolved into direct mount soup bars, often with three mounting screws. Even Leo's later pickups are made this way.

I owned an '81 LP Standard. I would not buy another. I'll just make my own guitar with all these flaws removed. I'm actually making myself an SG. [emoji6]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I'm on your side - I strongly prefer humbuckers with 3 or 4 mounting screws.
I was jusr suggesting that Gibson is more locked into tradition because of a contingent of their customers who share a certain set of personality traits compared to Fender and other brands.

People are just weird, though. I read a discussion thread about Carvin pickups and at least half the posts said things like "who would put three screws in a pickup? It just looks so wrong! LOL "
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top