Why are most of us so firmly stuck in the past

Cranky

I disagree with the premise of the question.

roberty

Pretty sure a solid body electric guitar could be made from synthetic materials that are superior to wood tbh

p90fool

roberty said:

Pretty sure a solid body electric guitar could be made from synthetic materials that are superior to wood tbh

The thing is, wood grows on trees. 

thegummy

RaymondLin said:

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.

Those things you mention there are all about function so technically better for those means they actually are better.

But things to do with art or entertainment is down to people's tastes so technically advanced doesn't necessarily mean the person will like it more.

People still like to eat food from recipes from hundreds of years ago even though meals made with chemicals and liquid nitrogen etc. might be more technically advanced.

Same with music - a synthesizer is more technically advanced than a harp but that doesn't necessarily mean everyone would prefer it.

thegummy

Freebird said:

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.

Excellent post!

GuyBoden

Making dedicated, very very expensive, advanced quad processor computer units to emulate 1950's valve amp designs is a typical guitaristic thing of being "firmly stuck in the past". A dedicated quad processor computer unit could do so much more, with a bit of creativity and a passion for new sounds.

Roland

... and does, but most of the music it is used to play requires traditional sounds. What the digital approach does give is reliability and switching capability. It's analogous to Telex, fax and email. Each can be used to emulate its predecessor, but can do a lot more. Nevertheless the message content can be unchanged.

ICBM

roberty said:

Pretty sure a solid body electric guitar could be made from synthetic materials that are superior to wood tbh

Superior in consistency, stability and durability, yes. But not necessarily superior in feel or tone.

GuyBoden said:

Making dedicated, very very expensive, advanced quad processor computer units to emulate 1950's valve amp designs is a typical guitaristic thing of being "firmly stuck in the past".

I have no interest at all in that - I'm not "anti" it, it just isn't something I've ever wanted or felt the need to use.

Jalapeno

axisus said:

That's like saying Why do we still think Marilyn Monroe is attractive? Why haven't we moved on to chubby girls with shaved heads.

Marilyn was a size 16, no waif-like supermodel !

SPECTRUM001

IMO innovation can be a problematic process, and can take place for the wrong reasons (or marketing) - Just look at the awful 80s guitar/synth thing, necks without headstocks etc.

I have seen knowledge eradicated in my industry because of the move to a data driven regime - which is fine, although the risk is that we lose expertise over a longer sustained period - because we are not respecting the past.

If it ain’t broke etc...

soma1975

The biggest point is that music and making music are emotional processes and anything that helps you be in the zone you need to be in to make music is cool. 

For some that's no restrictions so something ultra modern and well engineered and for others it means a link back to the music that made them want to play in the first place. 

Lewy

soma1975 said:

The biggest point is that music and making music are emotional processes and anything that helps you be in the zone you need to be in to make music is cool. 

For some that's no restrictions so something ultra modern and well engineered and for others it means a link back to the music that made them want to play in the first place. 

Wis'd. This is the point that underlies so many of the debates we have around guitars - innovation vs tradition, relics, nitro vs poly etc etc. The technicalities do not matter. Whether something would be discernible in a blind test does not matter. Whether something like wear and tear is "real" doesn;t matter. It's about creative and performance headspace and even if something that gets you in that space is entirely delusional, it still doesn't matter if it helps you make the music you want to make in the way you want to make it. We also can't forget that music is show biz too and there's a whole layer of iconography that goes along with it which is also perfectly valid.