How is the conservatism of guitarists limiting the innovation within the market?

tomharvey

Hi

I am doing a research project for my A-level music course on 'How is the conservatism of guitarists limiting the innovation within the market?'

I would like to know what guitarists think about the innovation of the guitar, whether the innovation is a positive or negative part of guitar and whether established brands such as 'Gibson and 'Fender' allow for innovation within the market (as they dominate the market). I would also like to find out whether guitarists agree or disagree with these brands making 'reissue' models as some argue that this allows for innovation.

Thanks  

Skipped

I am conservative with guitars but am simply amazed that it has gone on this long.
Each of the last 3 decades should have been the last decade that the big 2 could get away with churning out those 50s designs.
It is not the availability. It is the numbers. The numbers are astonishing.
I think I will stop predicting when it will end even though there are depressing and obvious demographic factors looming large.

What may have helped.... or confused..... is the offset guitars. I have said before that if I had a time machine i would not take the whole forum back to 1959 ( view only configuration ).
 No - I would take you back to 1972. The numbers of second hand Jaguars and Jazzmasters in tiny regional guitar shops would blow your mind.
 Not just unloved guitars.
 Unplayed.
 Covered in dust.
Ignored.
So, when the Offset thing happened, there was no need to invent something different and interesting. It was already there.

p90fool

How about the conservatism of violin or saxophone design?

I think Fender and Gibson are pretty innovative compared to that. 

SteveRobinson

If an innovation makes a real difference (e.g. Floyd Rose) is easy to use and reliable etc. then guitarists will buy it.

If it doesn't and isn't (e.g. the Gizmo) then they won't.

Bidley

I think the last 'new' guitar design that took off would be the JEM/RG. But even that was basically a strat on stereoids.

I think it's a chicken/egg debate really.

richardhomer

Arguably the biggest innovation in the last 30 years has been consist quality - even at the lower end of the market.

Given that a guitar has to work on an ergonomic level and give a sound which pleases the ear, I'm not sure how much innovation is actually needed.

Radical new sounds tend to be a result of developments in amplification and effects - not guitars.

fretmeister

p90fool said:

How about the conservatism of violin or saxophone design?

I think Fender and Gibson are pretty innovative compared to that. 

Guitars sound like guitars.

I wonder if a clarinet made of steel would sound like a clarinet.

I know carbon fibre violins fooled many strad players in a blind test, so that's possible. It was these guys https://luisandclark.com/

I suppose acoustic instrument design is far more influenced by acoustics themselves and that would limit innovation in many areas other than materials

Jack_

I'm disappointed in guitar innovation to be honest, I figured by now guitars should be able to cook and clean, or at least gently massage my genitals while I'm playing.

Cols

At its heart the electric guitar industry is one still mired in 1950s technology; valve amplifiers and coils of wire wrapped around magnets to transform a string vibration into an electronic signal.

There's plenty of innovation out there, but the issue is one of market demand.

One of the principal drivers of mass market appeal is what the most popular artists are using.  Look at any list of top 10 guitarists, and I can virtually guarantee you that not one of them will have started their career after the 1980s.  That limits equipment popularity to what was available 30 years or more ago.  The problem is not one of guitarist conservatism, but the fact that there haven't really been any new guitar heroes for a long time.

Bridgehouse

I've said this before and I will say it again now - why does this conservatism not apply to Basses? There's been some cracking innovation there (just look at amp technology and the sheer range of weird and wonderful designs) and it really doesn't feel like it's locked into 60 year old designs either...

guitars4you

I agree with @richardhomer , that the biggest advancement in the last 10/20 years is the improvement in the mid/low end of the market - Better affordable budget based guitars for entry level players and those on a budget

Add to that the sheer quality of the boutique end of the market - pedals, amps and guitars - which in it self has contributed to the big companies producing both a better and far more consistent  quality of product - strong claims that the golden era of guitar building is with us now not 60 years ago

maybe previous attempts at innovation have failed be it Parker or the Stepp, whilst even products like the Variax are only making token gestures in the grand scheme of things - Yet technology has allowed products like the Line 6 Helix to dominate that sector of the market place - Add to that, that with recording, we can all have access to a better studio package than The Beatles used for Sergeant Peppers - So the market we work in has advanced, it is just at the point of creating the actual note little has changed - Remember that in simple terms, we are only trying to make  a string contact a fret to produce a note, so I could ask what innovation is required to do that

Different discussion point but you could argue the limitation in the guitar market is with players, bands, artists, the record companies and/or the various playstations

p90fool

Bridgehouse said:

I've said this before and I will say it again now - why does this conservatism not apply to Basses? There's been some cracking innovation there (just look at amp technology and the sheer range of weird and wonderful designs) and it really doesn't feel like it's locked into 60 year old designs either...

That's different, bass players have to try to grab some attention somehow.

Skipped

Every time ICBM mentions the Gibson headstock design I find myself wondering how we allowed that to continue....
A working guitar that cannot survive a fall onto a hard surface.
That can only be because of the conservatism of players. That is surely an example of us limiting important  innovation that could have stopped "most" headstock breaks.

UnclePsychosis

@fretmeister a metal clarinet would probably still sound like a clarinet. The thing that makes a clarinet sound like a clarinet is the internal bore profile and the single reed mouthpiece. 

For most woodwind (and brass) instruments material is a secondary effect at best. 

Bridgehouse

p90fool said:

Bridgehouse said:

I've said this before and I will say it again now - why does this conservatism not apply to Basses? There's been some cracking innovation there (just look at amp technology and the sheer range of weird and wonderful designs) and it really doesn't feel like it's locked into 60 year old designs either...

That's different, bass players have to try to grab some attention somehow.

That's true - but they are clearly a much more open-minded lot. 

Spend half an hour on Basschat and you see conversations/discussions that are a different level of non-conservatism: Active vs Passive, 4 vs 5 vs 6 string, Wal vs Alembic vs ??, Advantages of headless for stopping neck dive, Class D lightweight vs valve heavyweight etc etc etc

The Big 3 classic design trap seems not to apply as much. Tho there is universal agreement that a good old P bass can do anything.

brojangles

I think a certain amount of retro-ness is unavoidable when you're dealing with essentially retro instruments like electric guitars - 1950s designs built for 1940s-minded players and then made iconic by people in the 60s and 70s. Outside a few niche guitar-centric genres it's used as a consciously retro instrument in pop music these days and technological innovations are going on elsewhere. 

Gassage

Well, I agree.

As an example 've never understood why they never offered a double ended version of Gabrel's electric dildo.

fandango

Jack_ said:

I'm disappointed in guitar innovation to be honest, I figured by now guitars should be able to cook and clean, or at least gently massage my genitals while I'm playing.

You need to loosen/lengthen the strap. Sorted.

fandango

Cols said:

At its heart the electric guitar industry is one still mired in 1950s technology; valve amplifiers and coils of wire wrapped around magnets to transform a string vibration into an electronic signal.

There's plenty of innovation out there, but the issue is one of market demand.

One of the principal drivers of mass market appeal is what the most popular artists are using.  Look at any list of top 10 guitarists, and I can virtually guarantee you that not one of them will have started their career after the 1980s.  That limits equipment popularity to what was available 30 years or more ago.  The problem is not one of guitarist conservatism, but the fact that there haven't really been any new guitar heroes for a long time.

No new guitar heroes? Not sure I agree ... two to kick it off ...

Jack White
John Petrucci

guitars4you

UnclePsychosis said:

@fretmeister a metal clarinet would probably still sound like a clarinet. The thing that makes a clarinet sound like a clarinet is the internal bore profile and the single reed mouthpiece. 

For most woodwind (and brass) instruments material is a secondary effect at best. 

Just spoke to my Dad about this - Ex pro muso - both Clarinet and Sax - lifetime in the business etc - They still tell the story of a wood clarinet sounding warmer to a plastic/carbon based clarinet - play both, listen to both and the difference is audible - some more subtle than others better nevertheless still audible

dogload

There is plenty of innovation, b ut as has been said, it's got a more limited or specialised appeal - such as 8-strings, fanned frets and so on. Plenty of smaller makers do innovative stuff. 
And lets face it, when Gibson brought out the Firebird X which was pretty innovative it was pilloried, Mind it did look awful!