Strats Are Just Fine For Shred

barbarianbrute

New member
i hear a lot of guys saying that strats aren't good for shred, but i would obviously disagree. i could site numerous well known examples (yngwie, joe stump, impelliteri, blackmoore, EJ, tec...), but i just don't see any reason why it's better to shred on say an ibanez. i've owned several ibanez, jackson, and bc rich guitars and none of them were particularly any better for shred than my strats.

in fact, a strat with a vintage bridge seems a little easier for the right hand than the stock US strat bridges. what do you guys think? do you really think strats aren't good for shred?
 
Re: Strats Are Just Fine For Shred

I agree. (don't forget Uli). BUT...

One of the important parts of shred style playing is a flat fretboard radius. A Fender these days comes with a 9.5" radius, although the EJ is 12". Ibanez and even Jackson offer 16" radius which is much flatter which allows even lower action. The back contour has a different feel. Some like flat D shape so rest their thumb on the back of the neck, classical style positioning.

Most earlier shredders who played Strats would have the necks shaved anyway.
 
Last edited:
Re: Strats Are Just Fine For Shred

Well I have a Malmsteen Strat with the scalloped board, an EB/MM Axis, an Ibanez RG570, and a Jackson USA Soloist (aside from a few other non-shredder guitars like a Les Paul).

The Jackson seems the easiest out of them all, my fingers just fly on that guitar, second would be the Axis. The action is just sooo low and buzz free on these two guitars, always has been.

The Ibanez neck is too thin for me. Sure it's buzz free and action is low, but it gives my fretting hand fatigue. The Malmsteen strat is amazing for string bends and vibrato, but I don't get the same responsive attack on tapping like I do with the Jackson or Axis.

The key to shredding is a comfortable neck (one that's comfortable to YOU, not someone else), jumbo frets, a good fret leveling and dressing, and that the bridge matches the radius of the fretboard. With that, any strat can shred. I should take my Malmsteen for a professional fret dressing, I assumed for $1400 Fender did a fret dress on it, but the action could be lower.

Also, humbucking pickups are more conducive to shredding due to their higher output, it makes tapping easier.

Any guitar with the right setup can be made to shred. It has more to do with the player. Check out some jazz players like Robert Conti or Les Paul
 
Re: Strats Are Just Fine For Shred

Yngwie also uses scalloped fretboards and extremely light strings. EJ is just not of this earth....LOL, but I bet it's still lower than ya think.
 
Re: Strats Are Just Fine For Shred

I kinda think a scalloped board with low actions wouldn't work. The action on my Malmsteen is the action set at the factory, which is medium high. The tension from the higher action prevents the strings from going sharp when you fret them, I would imagine lower action would make it easier to accidentally make the note go sharp since there's less string tension.
 
Re: Strats Are Just Fine For Shred

Well Strat's are great for shred, and LP's are very good also (good radius), for other than the not-so-good access to higher frets. Though that's not a problem for me. Neither it is or was a problem for YJM, RR, Zakk, and others.
 
Re: Strats Are Just Fine For Shred

Well, you need a flat fretboard (9.5" or more, not the 50ties type) and you need fatter than default pickups. Blackmore in particular doesn't really play through anything close to stock Stratocaster electrics, although his still does use single coils. Not that Blackmore is a shredder in the narrow sense :)

Both Blackmore and Malmsteen use scalloped fretboards. Blackmore's neck is glued on in at least some of his strats (with epoxy no less). Both have dozens of Strats and like only a few selected few. I think we all know what Blackmore does to the ones that don't perform well on stage.

So I'd say it's a little too far a cry to implicate you can just pick up a standard Stratocaster and shred away.
 
Re: Strats Are Just Fine For Shred

I thought Jacksons and Ibanez guitars had a 14" radius? 16" radius would be like a classical guitar or Martin acoustic, and some early Gibsons but not all...

Would it be a mistake to use a bridge with a 12" radius on a guitar with a neck that has a 16" radius? (i.e. a warmoth project)
 
Re: Strats Are Just Fine For Shred

I thought Jacksons and Ibanez guitars had a 14" radius? 16" radius would be like a classical guitar or Martin acoustic, and some early Gibsons but not all...

Would it be a mistake to use a bridge with a 12" radius on a guitar with a neck that has a 16" radius? (i.e. a warmoth project)

no, it wouldn't be a mistake, though to get the best action you should adjust the saddles to match the radius of the neck
 
Re: Strats Are Just Fine For Shred

I thought Jacksons and Ibanez guitars had a 14" radius? 16" radius would be like a classical guitar or Martin acoustic, and some early Gibsons but not all...

Would it be a mistake to use a bridge with a 12" radius on a guitar with a neck that has a 16" radius? (i.e. a warmoth project)

A classical is entirely flat. I think Charvel/Jackson has 16".

You would either use a bridge with individually height-adjustable saddles or just file down the middle saddles on a tune-o-matic.
 
Re: Strats Are Just Fine For Shred

I own a Nissan Maxima and I've driven it through plenty of gravel country roads, snow and sleet etc. Does that means its just fine for offroading ? No it doesn't. Its not a 4x4 and wasn't meant to be one but at the same time it doesn't mean the wheels will fall off if you leave the pavement.

Can you shred on a strat ? Of course. Does that mean that therefor a strat would be a smart choice for shred guitar ? Not hardly, unless of course you make a variety of tweaks.

It would be a pretty foolish purcahse to go and buy a 50's strat with a 7.5" fretboard and some Fender 54 pickups if you wanted to play some shred style guitar.

Maybe you could manage but it would sure be like trying to ice skate uphill wouldnt it ? In other words doable but not without tons of effort.

And why in this world of so many great guitars customized for any given need would you want to do that to yourself ?

Why not get a nice Jackson with ultra low action, flat board, huge frets, ultra hot pickups, double locking floyd and make life easy ?



I could probably cut down a tree with a pocketknife too but wouldn't it be more fun to use a chainsaw ?
 
Re: Strats Are Just Fine For Shred

i have really low action on my ernie ball/music man silo special with a scalloped board and it works just fine..i don't think stock strats are the best choice for shred though- higher output pickups help (YJM, and Blackmore use higher output PUs). Steve Morse used to use a Tele, but that was modified too.
 
Re: Strats Are Just Fine For Shred

I know this: Yng may be easy to poke fun at on so many levels, but he gets a great tone out of his strats: woody and articulate, and aggressive without being over-bright. I like to hear some wood and strings in an overdriven guitar tone, and the majority of superstrat users I hear seem to want to cover their tones in compressed mush. I'm struggling to think of a superstrat user whose tone I really like outside of Edward.

The modern superstrat is a design that has evolved to deliver a high level of playability for certain specialized techniques. Playability is the focus and other aspects such as tonal strength and resonance are decidedly second place. The modern superstrat is generally the choice of the 'notes' player, as opposed to the 'tone' player.
 
Re: Strats Are Just Fine For Shred

I think. like others have said here, Strats are fine for shredding. So are Les Pauls, Teles, etc. You use what you have; at least that's what you did before Charvel, Jackson, and Ibanez RG series. I remember when I was getting into Steve Morse. I saw his Tele. I hated Teles. I had a Strat and a 3/4-size semihollowbody. I remember seeing a pic of Julio Fernandez with a 62 Strat that he had retrofitted a humbucker in the bridge position. Now, bear in mind that this was 1985 and I had never seen that before; other than EVH's "Frankie".

All that said, I believe all the shredder guitars that are Super Strats,and most are, were basically an evolution of the Strat itself if you think about it. Guitar designers basically looked at the Strat and asked themselves, "What can we do to make this guitar faster, louder, yadayadayada.....

That's my take at least....

Then along came Slash......
 
Re: Strats Are Just Fine For Shred

That's it basically.

You get a Strat, make it more sensitive to your fretting (either higher output PUs or like YJM ultra powerful amplification), make the radius flatter, the neck slimmer, the frets bigger/higher, the bridge more responsive and you're set.

However at the same time you now have a SuperStrat...
 
Re: Strats Are Just Fine For Shred

Someone please explain to me, and perhaps the rest of the forum, why there's apparently some absolute about shred requiring paper thin necks with flat radii.

It's clear to me that a guitar doesn't play itself, and the guitar's ability to cover a certainly style is dependent more on the player's ability. I can't shred, but I've never been so arrogant or overconfident in myself to blame that on my gear. That's nothing short of foolish.
 
Re: Strats Are Just Fine For Shred

Someone please explain to me, and perhaps the rest of the forum, why there's apparently some absolute about shred requiring paper thin necks with flat radii.

It's clear to me that a guitar doesn't play itself, and the guitar's ability to cover a certainly style is dependent more on the player's ability. I can't shred, but I've never been so arrogant or overconfident in myself to blame that on my gear. That's nothing short of foolish.

I agree to a point. In the end, you have to pilot whatever you're using. but...

For a couple of years recently my two main gigging guitars were a vintage-style strat and tele, and to be honest they were difficult to play ay kind of complex lead guitar on. Now the stuff I was playing on them was a million miles away from typical 'shred' music, but on the rare occasion where I wanted to shift a gear in a solo, it was, well, pretty hard.

One night around then I playing an out of town festival gig, and the support band had a young guy on lead guitar who was absolutely outstanding. I mean, this kid was up there with Greg Howe. Every kind of chops, great note choices, natural phrasing, everything fitted together musically. Of course (as usual for such a 'notes' focused player) his tone was a bit rubbish and didn't do his very musical playing justice, but it struck me that I used to be able to play a lot of the same stuff he was playing, and I would really struggle to pull any of it off with my current guitars.

After that gig, I got my tele refretted and I couldn't believe how much easier it was to play. It's still not the most totally shred-friendly guitar out there (after all, I want it to sound good), but it really has helped me play more fluently.

Real high end shredders of the super-uptight kind are essentially sportsmen. So they need a high performance instrument. Stuff like ultra-flat radiuses and thin necks do make that extra yard of difference when doing thumb-behind-the-neck stuff like triad sweeps and string skipping with tapping. And it works because those guys are making tiny, precise movements with relative flat dynamic range.

The trade-off is that a super flat radius, low action popsicle neck is generally going to sound thin and is going to be an absolute hinderance if you want to bear down, grab onto that neck and play some greasy rhythm for two hours at a stretch.

So while I'll always want a guitar that sounds good first, and I need it to be able to take a beating, a little playability can go a long way. I got TOO vintage-snob there for a bit.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top