It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Subscribe to our Patreon, and get image uploads with no ads on the site!
Base theme by DesignModo & ported to Powered by Vanilla by Chris Ireland, modified by the "theFB" team.
Comments
they're not doing anything that makes guitars sound or feel better. it's all faffy nonsense.
Very possibly a lot of it.
However, I do *try* and be objective in such matters - although time spent perusing each range on the Ibanez site just leaves me underwhelmed - there is nothing on there which I'd countenance owning.
[Picky Aesthetic Nerd Mode: ON] Incidentally, I can't stand seeing the "CE" symbol and associated text on the rear of headstocks. [Picky Aesthetic Nerd Mode: OFF]
HarrySeven - Intangible Asset Appraiser & Wrecker of Civilisation. Searching for weird guitars - so you don't have to.
Forum feedback thread. | G&B interview #1 & #2 | https://www.instagram.com/_harry_seven_/
As for sounding better, well, again being able to switch between radically different wiring options certainly offers the potential to sound 'better' in some contexts. As does active circuitry. As for feel better, well, some of the things Gibson did to the 'HP' models were about exactly that. But if you want to see a gimmick, you'll see a gimmick.
Again, these brands can't win, if they innovate they're told they should stick to tradition, or accused of 'faffy nonsense' - which is just another way of saying 'I want my guitars to be traditional'.
If they don't innovate, they're told they're relying on nostalgia... You're kinda proving my point here.
Same with Gibson, how about a truly modern, more ergonomic Les Paul style guitar (Edit, better to say 'single cut' style guitar) with all the traditional weaknesses of the original Les Paul addressed but without nonsense such as robo-tuners? OK the new HP models with a 'tummy cut' and so on are part of the way there, but they still seem to have the weak headstock, no straight-pull tuners and so on - there is just so much more that could be done. To my mind the addition of robo-tuners to a guitar that is in so many ways still very traditional just creates an instrument that is neither one thing or another.
I'd take a guess that the problem is that people who want a 'different' guitar, most often aren't very interested in the F/G brands, some might even be put off. Whereas people who are really into those brands, are into the tradition, and are put off by change, innovation, fads or gimmicks. Not everyone, for sure, but I suspect a significant number. Some Gibson owners even moan about PCBs, and rip the electrics out of new guitars to replace them with 'traditional' wiring). This is why Fender stopped promoting the modelling Strat, and it appeared in Rolands catalogue instead.
As for Gibson, unfortunately people have paid too much attention to the Tronical tuners - probably because they were the first major change 'forced' on them in 2014 (as opposed to being an option in 2013). In doing so, they've missed Gibson dropping the over-sized nibs that otherwise displace some usable fret. The fractionally wider 'soloist' neck that combines with the fret-over-binding to give some useful vibrato room. The improved neck access. The control over electronics offered by DIP switches, and so on... I agree that sorting out the potential tuning issues on the headstock design would be a great move, but it comes at a great cost in changing the traditional look - even Tronical went to great lengths not to do this, or even cause a new screw hole in the headstock!
• Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/@Goldeneraguitars
Cort are a brand who span the entire price range, but I find their offerings confusing.
I've tended to turn my nose up at Harley Benton and have only played one; it's unlikely I would ever buy one.
Fender have the Squier range to cover the lower price points, Squier being their budget brand positioned to combat the copies, because they couldn't (or gave up trying to) protect their intellectual property.
Rickenbacker are a company which knows its market and has no aspirations to over-extend itself; they choose the legal route to protect their IP.
I think the problem with the major brands (ie. Fender and Gibson) is that, as with other industries, they simply cannot compete with the economics of globalisation; I bought a 4k HDTV last week for £350 from Tesco, replacing an ageing plasma screen which cost £10k when new - people don't need to spend £000s to get something decent.
The effects of globalisation can be seen across all industries and have forced companies to adapt to stay in business, with those who are unable to finding themselves in difficulties.
As for Gibson, their issues seem to be simply bad management (a flawed business model, ill-considered acquisitions, poor quality control); I hope they survive as a brand in their own right.
Back to the Harley Bentons, as I said, I can't see me ever aspiring to one.
Wouldn't touch either with a bargepole.
Eight-strings guitars? I have enough trouble navigating a six-string guitar to know that 8-strings is a challenge too far. Madness indeed. If you want more strings there's always a Harp. Or a Chinese Guzheng with it's 16 strings and moveable bridges. But the Guzheng takes a lifetime to master, and I don't have a lifetime, what with all the other diversions available in life today's age.
Life's too short, and I just want to play/create music. To that end, is the best innovation to date the combination of consistency in production, overall quality control, reliability in design, and ready availability at reasonable affordability?
The (Fender) Stratocaster is a proven design that has needed very little tweaking over the years to keep it playable and is probably the best all-round guitar design, irrespective of pickup/string/wood choices.
Veering away from guitars for a moment ... and take bicycles, for instance. The main innovation over the last 50 years has been in materials*, but it's still a machine with two wheels, a saddles, pedals and handlebars that you sit on to get from A to B. It's a means to an end, that us humans have adapted to in order to get the best out of it. Change it's design significantly and it's no longer a bicycle - stick an engine on it and it became a motorcycle (which is what someone did back in 1868). That was innovation. Made that two wheeled thing go faster, with less physical effort.
*steel to aluminium to carbon fibre. Even so, Reynolds is still developing steel tubing for bicycles.
Like riding a bicycle, or other practical pursuits, the limitation to getting the best out of a guitar is the player. Effort in improve the player, will yield far greater results and reward than improving a guitar that can't really be improved upon. Innovation has to be genuine, and not just a re-arrangement of existing components or applying different aesthetics (which all manufacturers are involved in doing).
Returning to materials as possibly the main innovation, I suggest the Parker Fly and Ovation ranges with their man-made and carbon fibre bodies were/are at the forefront of taking us away from timber as the main guitar material. Yet, with all the hoo-ha over plastics in the British news over the last few weeks/months, is this innovation in materials a good thing?
The thing with innovation is that it gives us more choice. Ovation's carbon fibre acoustic range doesn't make every other acoustic redundant. Likewise Gibson's G-force doesn't consign traditional tuner heads to the bin. It's not always either/or.
I've probably taken this away from individual design development/features, but I like to look at things in perspective and to consider the bigger picture. Sorry If I've rambled.
Fanned frets, evertune, floyd rose, sustainiac, the whole strandberg thing, alternative & sustainable materials.. etc.etc. all found a market because they actually do something useful. People like traditional les pauls but plenty of others mod them with kill switches, emgs and floyd roses.
Ignoring the frame material, riding a good modern steel framed bike is a very different experience from riding a 50 year old bike.
On the other hand, playing a modern Strat is almost identical to playing a 50 year old one.
Nil Satis Nisi Optimum
I think a lot of bike innovation has been very evolutionary. However, some things like Shimano’s V-brake system could have tanked, but that was revolutionary.
Likewise with guitars, a lot of the development, and maybe Gibson are ahead of Fender here, with G-Force, plug-in solderless wiring looms, apex head joints, speed necks, appears genuinely innovative, when most other manufacturers are still stuck in the past.
Maybe the acoustic g. world has shown just as much, if not more innovation than the electric g., with the development of cross bracing, piezo & electronics, materials, etc. Taylor, for instance.
What we plug them into has changed. How many genuinely analogue delays do you see? The majority are digital these days, and Helix/Kemper/AxeFX etc are making big inroads, but while that has changed the guitars themselves haven't changed much.
You don't want a modelling guitar? Fine. But lots of people DO. Just look at the Variax - that's selling well, but the point is, the Fender modelling strat didn't sell well, and promotion moved to their partner, Roland, before it was discontinued.
This thread started out saying Fender & Gibson don't do "anything truly innovative." Well, they do, even if those innovations don't appeal to you. But their innovations rarely do well, (at least not since the 60s), because their audiences want tradition.
And all those innovations you list have one thing in common - when they've appeared on a Fender or Gibson, they haven't been that popular. Fender make a ton of different Strats, nearly all have trems, but few have Floyd Rose trems. Why? Because they don't sell as well as Strats with traditional trems. Sure, innovation tends to find a market (not always), it's just difficult for F/G to bring innovation to the market - though not for lack of trying.