Why are most of us so firmly stuck in the past

Neil

1950's designs suit me down to the ground.

But then I am a bit of a luddite and still collect and use fountain pens and mechanical wristwatches. 

RaymondLin

scrumhalf said:

Why should newer versions of things be better than versions that have come before?

Some things are more or less spot-on from the beginning, and the passage of time doesn't change that. There will probably be small incidents of evolution rather than massive revolution.

I hate the "expiry date" concept for things that function well. That's what the fashion industry aims for. They tell you that what you have is crap and needs replacing, then a year later they tell you that the replacement you shelled out a not inconsiderable sum for is crap and it, too, needs replacing for, would you believe it, a not inconsiderable sum.

Repeat until the penny drops. 

They should be better than before, the word is progress.

computers, cars, buildings, medicine, bridges, planes, the internet, we learn from our past and improve and make it better.

If everyone just stick with what we’ve got then we would still be in caves.

your second point about fashion, that’s a completely different topic. It’s not the function of the product. Fashion is subjective, the function is objective.

Caffeine_Vampire

Truth is that neither designers nor players care for the fact that their personal peak and the peak of the industry they love passed like ships in the night.

Creed_Clicks

What about Ric basses and bigsbys. There are plenty of modern basses with better bridges etc but don’t sound like a Ric and plenty of trem options better than a Bigsby....People still want the “flaws”...

birtner

It’s kind of like asking why is a spade a spade. The constant need to innovate beyond functionality it’s marketing tool

Freebird

birtner said:

It’s kind of like asking why is a spade a spade. The constant need to innovate beyond functionality it’s marketing tool

Beyond marketing, the constant need to innovate is the result of people trying to justify their job titles. Local and Central government is a good example of this, as we drown in an ocean of rules and regulations.

Blueingreen

soma1975 said:

I wonder if there's a similar thread on the Violinfingerboard forums 

Actually violinists are just the same.  One of the Sunday papers did an article several years ago where they did a blindfold test with a number of  highly regarded professional violinists to see if they could tell the difference in sound between top of the range modern violins and some much sought after older ones.  The modern ones weren't cheap by any means, but they were valued at a small fraction of the vintage instruments.

The tests showed that the violinists had no preference for the sounds of the older instruments, in fact there was a very marginal overall preference for the sound of the modern violins.

Interestingly, once the violinists knew the results of the test they didn't accept the rational conclusion, that the older and hugely expensive instruments didn't sound better after all.  They mainly found elaborate rationalisations for justifying their preference for the sound of old violins.  The belief that "older sounds better" was just too important to them to be willing to give it up just because it wasn't supported by the evidence.

Just like many guitarists.

Philly_Q

We're definitely mired in tradition, but Fender and Gibson, in particular, are able to capitalise on that by offering hundreds of different guitars which look pretty much the same as the old ones, but cater to every budget and every personal preference.

If you like the looks of a Strat but want a certain fret size, neck profile, fretboard radius, different pickup configuration, particular finish... it'll probably be out there somewhere, and within the Fender range. 

Most smaller manufacturers can't offer that degree of choice.  They might make a high quality guitar with a load of clever innovations, but if I don't like the range of colours or the only neck shape they offer, I won't be buying it.

Freebird

Blueingreen said:

soma1975 said:

I wonder if there's a similar thread on the Violinfingerboard forums 

Actually violinists are just the same.  One of the Sunday papers did an article several years ago where they did a blindfold test with a number of  highly regarded professional violinists to see if they could tell the difference in sound between top of the range modern violins and some much sought after older ones.  The modern ones weren't cheap by any means, but they were valued at a small fraction of the vintage instruments.

The tests showed that the violinists had no preference for the sounds of the older instruments, in fact there was a very marginal overall preference for the sound of the modern violins.

Interestingly, once the violinists knew the results of the test they didn't accept the rational conclusion, that the older and hugely expensive instruments didn't sound better after all.  They mainly found elaborate rationalisations for justifying their preference for the sound of old violins.  The belief that "older sounds better" was just too important to them to be willing to give it up just because it wasn't supported by the evidence.

Just like many guitarists.

It's all to do with getting in the zone. An old instrument can get you into the right frame of mind if you believe in that sort of thing, which humans tend to do.

JerkMoans

Blimey: do you bourgeois revisionists know nothing of 'Mojo'?

HandwrittenHero

At the end of the day, my playing is sloppy, unrefined if not enthusiastic and comes from feeling rather than too much thinking...may as well use a blunt instrument to do it since all the bells and whistles would be wasted on me!

TTBZ

HandwrittenHero said:

At the end of the day, my playing is sloppy, unrefined if not enthusiastic and comes from feeling rather than too much thinking...may as well use a blunt instrument to do it since all the bells and whistles would be wasted on me!

What if it's the blunt instrument you have to fight and struggle with that's holding you and your playing back?

UncleBiff

This is an intriguing topic and it's interesting to see the different opinions coming through. Leo and Les were geniuses and they created something that was amazing and so well designed it really has lasted the test of time. As a marketing plan what are the big F and G gonna do? Everything they touch other than the classics doesn't sell, so they use they're heritage to form their business plans. Thats great business!
For me I love Fender and Gibson and I was also blown away with Parker and PRS in the late 90's, for different reasons, as well as an old memory of playing a MusicMan Axis and it having the best neck I think I've ever played. I'm just a lover of the guitar. I got into making before owning, or even trying some of the great 'classic' guitars, to this day I have never played a Telecaster apart from in a music shop with my Dad 25 years when I bought an Epiphone Sheraton instead! (I am currently Gassing hard for my first Tele!) but I am influenced and inspired by them all. I have read all the books and seen all the reviews but by not having the experience/influence of any one brand/model I took away aspects and details from all the great guitars, classic and modern, and have been a fan of them all ever since. No 2 guitars are the same, even if they are made the same, it's not an exact science like engineering cars, the character is individual.  
I think you can make a 'better' guitar than they produced back then, but not if those original guitars are the 'bar' you are using to judge the new guitars by. Would Fender make them as they are if they weren't tied to the heritage aspect?
I've had the privilege of playing a lot of high end, custom guitars from lots of different Luthier's and some of them have blown me away, and some of them I've felt are not so great copies of the originals. I prefer the unique takes on the guitar rather than just a copy of a classic personally.
You just have to buy what you like but I'd advise everyone not to be so judgmental and try more brands and models, especially the good custom built stuff that is differs. You may find the guitar you've aways dreamed of, or that might just be an old Strat!

Roland

One point which has not been discussed is the suitability of the guitar to the music. That’s partly the sound. It’s also partly the mechanics of playing. Yes, you can play most types of music on most types of guitar, but some instruments lend themselves to particular styles. It happened with keyboards too. Only an 80s synth is going to give you 80s sounds

On top of that image is a big thing with older players. Not just the marketing image, but the one in our heads which comes from our teenage years.

WiresDreamDisasters

I'm not trying to emulate anything. I'm just trying to have fun.

UnclePsychosis

There's something to be said for "the designs that shaped a cultural revolution become the standard, by definition" but it doesn't explain the (rather sad, in my opinion) obsession amongst some for absolutely perfect replicas of days gone by. The fact that Gibson use things like "the glue this year is more vintage correct than last year" as a sales pitch is absolutely tragic if you ask me.

TTBZ

WiresDreamDisasters said:

I'm not trying to emulate anything. I'm just trying to have fun.

This. I don't buy gear based on what my "heroes" play- I may have done back when I was younger but now I just want good gear that inspires me to play and write stuff. I don't even think many of my favourite players use a Les Paul which is my benchmark for anything - more of them used strats/teles which I can't stand playing.

ThePrettyDamned

I think the big secret is not that they were right to begin with, but that they all sound similar enough it doesn't matter, therefore we just seek approval by matching our look to our heroes.

Broadly speaking, there are single coils, p90s and hunbuggies. The rest is ability to play.

Controversial, I know  

jonnyburgo

The Classic designs are timeless whereas some are really of their time and look cheesy as hell 20-30 yrs later

YellowLedBetterMan

Juvenoia and fear of change. Although arguably they are both the same thing.

I think many people look at days gone by through rose tinted lenses, especially when it comes to anything related to music. What was the norm in your late teens and early 20s will always be the norm in your heart and head and all that crap.

It's why people for some ungodly reason reason love Wings or The Doors, when really anyone under the age of 35 will disagree.

And so it is with guitars. People are so quick to be like Clapton or Jimi that they only want a strat.