Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

The Difficulties of Innovating:


Searcy

Recommended Posts

Reverb

 

 

The guitar industry is a tough business. Players tastes are subjective and constantly changing they want gear with better playability, but theyre reluctant to divorce from tradition. Manufacturers are working hard to deliver, but oftentimes reissues of vintage gear end up more popular than their brand new designs.

 

This begs the question why is it so challenging to be successfully innovative in the guitar industry? I spoke with a few people at the epicenter of the electric guitar design market, each with a unique answer about the difficulties of innovating and their rationale for continuing to forge ahead in a sometimes hostile climate.

 

The Visionaries: Ken Parker and Ned Steinberger

 

 

Ken Parkers major innovation was the radical Fly Guitar, which was the vision he shared with Larry Fishman. The Fly guitar was one of the first guitars to feature locking tuners, GraphTech nuts, hardtailing-vibrato systems, piezo and electric pickups, and stainless steel frets. Its most innovative feature was the epoxy exoskeleton, which allowed the guitar have to have an incredibly sculpted neck joint.

 

 

Parker was candid in his comments on innovation and the struggle that faces the designer. When asked about the trouble innovating in the industry, Parker pointed out that it wasnt the industry that made it difficult to innovate, but the age-old unwillingness of the players to try something new.

 

When the Fender Bass first came out, session players who listed it on their business cards would be excommunicated from some groups of upright players who wanted nothing to do with them. Today, of course, thats hard to imagine.

 

While Parker had the foresight to be on the cutting edge of guitar technology, he still understood the reluctance of guitar players, too. In 1990, he was a part of a well-made but complex MIDI guitar project. The projects designer asked Parker at NAMM how many units Parker thought they would sell. Parker replied, About a few thousand. The designer shot back, Well be selling hundreds of thousands! The project went on to lose a million dollars.

 

Guitar players want simplicity, Parker stated. They want 3-4 knobs, only a few choices. Once you get passed one or two choices, their eyes glaze over. More than three choices, and youve lost them.

 

Parker says that innovation in the guitar industry is really driven and accepted by the tiny minority of professional players at their creative peak. Leo Fender was listening to players around him and was responding to their needs. Parker continued, The player at the edge of their ability and top of their game, maybe 1% of players, are willing to embrace innovation. If a player is happy, theyre reluctant to change. That 1 in 7 player who has the ability and obsession to push limits and gets it they are the ones you can seduce.

 

Parker concedes that its hard to be usefully innovative when many of the older instruments were well designed. But he also acknowledges that theres always a place for new ideas. The only question that you have to ask yourself when making something new, Parker says, is does it make better music?

Ned Steinberger

 

Ned Steinberger came to instrument design not from the repair or music world, but from furniture design. When Stuart Spector asked him to design a bass, his completely unique sense of thinking reformed nearly every aspect of the instrument.

 

You have to come in with an open and critical mind, Steinberger relayed, regarding his philosophy. Its not about recognition. You need to come up with ideas that are actually innovative. Its about vision and solving a problem in a meaningful way.

 

 

Steinberger was successful with his bass design because he tackled two huge problems: balance and ergonomics. But even though he was tackling specific design flaws, he was still getting resistance from players. I was able to overcome the hurdles with bass. The innovation was self-evident you could not argue that what I was doing wasnt logical. Still, only a small percentage of players were interested.

 

Jack Westheimer, pioneer of the global guitar world and Steinbergers personal friend, put things into perspective for him. He told Steinberger that the guitar market is a perfume market thats all about fashion. Steinberger says that he was younger at the time and vehemently disagreed he didnt want to be fashionable.

 

But Jack was right, and eventually Steinbergers designs did become fashionable. People were interested in innovation and high-tech [in the 80s]. Our design worked very well, was well-made, had features that no other instruments had, and had a certain style to them.

 

In a market where players are tied to tradition, though, its difficult to forge a career. Steinberger felt the pressure of players desire for vintage, which led to offering full-sized bodies on later instruments. I was concerned with function, not with what people were used to. The headless design is an evolution. It was my own design fantasy. Now, at this stage, I try and make functional advances and to respect traditions without trying to bury those [players] feelings.

 

Steinberger believes that the vintage craze will eventually wane and that new technology will be embraced soon. The guitar players of the past were pioneers, pushing the frontier. But electric guitar is no longer new and different, that [first] trailblazing era is over. With the rise of extended range guitars, the resurgence of headless design, and innovative electronics gaining ground, Steinberger may be right that high tech instruments will be embraced again.

 

 

 

Click the link at the top for the rest ..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reverb

 

 

“Guitar players want simplicity,” Parker stated. “They want 3-4 knobs, only a few choices. Once you get passed one or two choices, their eyes glaze over. More than three choices, and you’ve lost them.”

 

 

 

This speaks to me - Gibson was ahead of the curve when they introduced J.T. Riboloff's Nighthawk, and it took me awhile to get comfortable with it - I now hold the guitar in the highest esteem for being so sonically versatile while remaining relatively simple; a two-pickup Nighthawk gives you an array of five different humbucker/single coil combinations with a knife switch, all controlled with a single volume and tone control. I feel they went too far with the three-pickup models, because the coil tap built into its tone pot presents a bewildering TEN different combinations/possibilities - I challenge anyone to remember that much info and use it purposefully on the fly while playing; it's just too many bells and whistles.

 

An acoustic or single-pickup guitar will make you concentrate on what you can do with your brain and hands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reverb

Parker pointed out that it wasn’t the industry that made it difficult to innovate, but the age-old unwillingness of the players to try something new.

 

 

Absolutely. No one I knew in 1970 was very concerned about what guitar anyone used, but now that these designs are over 60 years old they are revered by players nowadays.

I find it laughable.

 

Fenders were designed to be made cheaply and quickly. Gibson didn't even want to make solid bodies at all, but were compelled to because of Fender's success. Yes these original designs are revered today. Only the passing of time is responsible for that.

 

How likely is it that any company's first models would be right first time, (let alone perceived as perfect)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The vast majority of my guitars are oddballs, partly stock, partly modded, partly both. Half of my basses are oddballs, too, all of them modded. Anyway, their appearance is quite common.

 

I'd love all of my solidbodies to have piezos and switching options, but nevertheless it would take a fair number to accomplish my sonic needs. My only nostalgic point of view is that guitar mods of my own should be invisible and reversible. This is needless for guitars with "stock mods" like my Frank Zappa "Roxy" SGs and my Ibanez Artist that offers 15 switching positions. I think about adding I believe 15 (plus lots of doubled) more through two (invisible!) push/pull switches altering pickup "phases" and - therefore it takes two - single coil selection if applicable.

 

Piezos in solid-body guitars have been a long harboured dream come true for me. I think they aren't as common as they should be due to lack of technical knowledge among guitarists. One can create some useful tones through electric guitar gear, too, but they are made for acoustic tones with full-range amplification. Moreover, most more or less proper acoustic amps don't allow for ground lift. The player connecting the stereo output of a hybrid guitar to both amps or to amp and PA creates a ground loop, and outboards are required for breaking it.

 

Honestly, if the players had known how to handle it, the Fender Nashville Power Telecaster would have become the best-selling electric guitar in the world.

 

Then there are innovations that simply don't do the trick. Instruments calling for specific string makes are not for me, and I think most other players thought that way, too, and avoided buying instruments requiring double ball end strings.

 

Emulating or simulating guitar models won't work at all with any magnetic hexaphonic pickup. Hexaphonic piezos are uncompromised per se, but what about the guitar? How can any of them shift dull notes or modify sustain? What about changing timbers via footswitch? And I don't even ask for different playing feel on the fly! It's just about tone!

 

Emulating amps, speakers or effects is a different story. They put the amp some more steps behind you so to say via latency, that's all. I have to live with three to five milliseconds. Emulating guitars would add some more. It's not as bad as with vocals, strings and wind instruments that don't allow for any digital gear in the monitoring path, but human tolerance for the unavoidable digital slowness is very limited.

 

Our ears are quite sensitive gear, and what doesn't please them, will get sorted out. Mercilessly. Some useful things might have gone under with the useless, too. That's why piezo'd solid-bodies are mainly custom build or mod jobs today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What draws a person to a guitar?

Perhaps the name on the head stock or to emulate a famous musician and then there's price, features, sound and feel of the instrument but looks play such a large part in the purchase decision.

These innovative guitars do not have pleasing lines (in my opinion) and that's what kills them on the sales floor.

Look at the curves on a 335 or a Les Paul or pointy little devil horns on an SG or the jet age looks of a Firebird and compare them to a guitar with the head stock lopped off.

We're a conservative bunch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I quite liked the idea of the VG Strat as a way of doing a range guitar sounds with just one guitar to cart around, and have often wondered why, using similar technology, a guitars signal couldn't be digitally/electronically dropped an octave so you could play bass on a regular guitar..but there's probably a very good reason...

 

Good points raised re amp technology - some of the new ideas seem to be having an impact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

Look at the curves on a 335 or a Les Paul or pointy little devil horns on an SG or the jet age looks of a Firebird and compare them to a guitar with the head stock lopped off.

We're a conservative bunch.

To my informations most headless instruments don't have machine heads at the bottom end - "machine feet" if you will - but call for specific double ball end strings. This is what always made me opt for conventional designs. I think that the wish to select from lots of commonly available strings is not conservative per se.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes Cap, I'm not sure guitarists could be accused of being too conservative in a relative sense - I mean guitarists were 'early adopters' of electrification of the instrument - in effect making it a very different proposition compared to acoustic, then there's hollow body, semi hollow, guitars made of Perspex or graphite, all the colours, shapes etc etc...compared to, let's say, innovative design being adopted for the flute, the violin, the clarinet, blues harp, or even 'cousins' like the banjo or mandolin.

 

Then again, I probably haven't even changed my strings in a year or so. [biggrin]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I quite liked the idea of the VG Strat as a way of doing a range guitar sounds with just one guitar to cart around, and have often wondered why, using similar technology, a guitars signal couldn't be digitally/electronically dropped an octave so you could play bass on a regular guitar.

 

It has been done. My aged Boss BR1600HD has a range of bass simulation patches for regular guitar. Those patches were also in the 'equally aged' Boss V6 signal processor. You can even do it yourself with edits on Line 6 PODs etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes Cap, I'm not sure guitarists could be accused of being too conservative in a relative sense - I mean guitarists were 'early adopters' of electrification of the instrument - in effect making it a very different proposition compared to acoustic, then there's hollow body, semi hollow,

 

Wiki describes the Fender Telecaster as "the world's first commercially successful solid-body electric guitar. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fender_Telecaster

 

That was in 1950, but the first true electric guitar (magnetic pickup) came along in 1931. It was a solid bodied guitar right from the start. It hardly sold at all. Even the more conventional Spanish version in 1935 didnt sell.

Rickenbacker says 'Musicians resisted at first; they had no experience with electrics and only the most farsighted saw their potential. http://www.rickenbacker.com/history_early.asp

 

What this says is that most guitarists didnt want a solid bodied guitar until 30 years after it was invented! In all that time they just continued to tool about with their beloved hollowbodys with pickups attached, complaining the whole time about the ever present feedback problem.

 

IMO, that is both short sighted and conservative. We still are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heck, take a look at the Gibson Les Paul Recording models.

Funny looking pick ups, tons of switches and knobs and sounds available and while it may be a cool guitar not too many people rushed out to buy one along with the matching amplifier.

Even though it was a familiar platform it was just too different.

 

The article was right - four control knobs is pretty much the limit.

Gibson probably sold 1000 Firebird Vs to each Skunk Baxter Firebird.

http://www.gibson.co...r-Firebird.aspx

 

I didn't even consider it, I went right to the Firebird V. Why? The Skunk Baxter model is probably a great guitar but too many switches. Too weird, too different, too innovative.

A VariTone is pretty much my limit for things to fool around with.

 

Guitar players pretty much know what they like and like what they know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wiki describes the Fender Telecaster as "the world's first commercially successful solid-body electric guitar. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fender_Telecaster

 

That was in 1950, but the first true electric guitar (magnetic pickup) came along in 1931. It was a solid bodied guitar right from the start. It hardly sold at all. Even the more conventional Spanish version in 1935 didnt sell.

Rickenbacker says 'Musicians resisted at first; they had no experience with electrics and only the most farsighted saw their potential. http://www.rickenbacker.com/history_early.asp

 

What this says is that most guitarists didnt want a solid bodied guitar until 30 years after it was invented! In all that time they just continued to tool about with their beloved hollowbodys with pickups attached, complaining the whole time about the ever present feedback problem.

 

IMO, that is both short sighted and conservative. We still are.

The irony of it all is that the magnetic pickup was a stopgap, and examination proves it still is and always will be. The serious limitations of magnetic pickups are the business motor for lots of companies. It will always run since the one and only magnetic pickup can't be designed on principle. Physics and the basic mode of operation safely prevent that. You can't design any good one, just more or less poor ones. OK, let's say compromised instead of poor, but you get the point.

 

The guitarists around 1930 may have heard the dramatic limitations compared to both pure string and real guitar tones. Magnetic pickups only transduce a certain comb-filtered section of frequencies depending on each string's tuning pitch, pickup position and attack position. Even-order harmonics appear according to amplitude and pickup height. The electric limitations cut off lots of highs and create a resonance peak right below the cutoff frequency.

 

It was not before the mid 1960's when violinist John Berry and electronics pioneer Les Barcus invented the first piezo pickup. Positioned close to or at the bridge, they are able to transduce the entire string vibration. Their frequency range goes far beyond human hearing abilities, the string pressure reduces distortions to an extremely low level, and the transfer function is only defined by fretting and attack positions, like on a real acoustic guitar, and, as intended by the inventors, even on solid-body instruments.

 

Of course, there's a way to retrieve some honour of magnetic pickups. Transduced through full-range systems, some treble may show up, in particular with the tone control rolled back a little. Passive tone controls, directly connected to the magnetic pickup's hot output respectively with the volume fully raised in 50's circuits and one tone/several volume circuits, first cut off the resonance while leaving highs nearly unaffected due to the impedance response of the oscillating circuit. The common loss of magnetic pickup tone is mainly caused by the woofer-only speaker concepts of next to all electric guitar amplification systems.

 

Nile Rodgers, Dave Gilmour, James Hetfield, Kirk Hammett and many others fed their magnetic pickup signals directly to Hi-Z inputs of mixing boards. This is not a substitute for real piezo tone but an interesting approach. I do it daily when practicing on non-piezo solid-bodies, and still most of my guitars have magnetic pickups only. Their pure tones are definitely great and a nice result considering this stopgap method. [thumbup]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How are we supposed to define "innovative" with regard to electric guitars?

 

Do lots of extra knobs and switches = innovative? That seems to be what most of us are getting at.

 

Personally I think simplicity/ease of use can be seen as a virtue of innovation. If you can accomplish what you need without tons of knobs and switches to worry about, why do extra features = more innovative?

 

This is subjective :) In my opinion, many original designs from the '50s and '60s are as innovative today as they were almost 70 years ago depending on the player's intent.

 

I think the comparison to brass, woodwind, and other stringed instruments was a good one. Has the flute been "revolutionized"? Do we need to revolutionize it when sometimes we just want to hear some flute?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I think the comparison to brass, woodwind, and other stringed instruments was a good one. Has the flute been "revolutionized"? Do we need to revolutionize it when sometimes we just want to hear some flute?

 

I played in a Jazz band until July of this year. We had a flautist (and trumpet & sax players). It gave me some insight into those instruments. To various extents all instruments change through the years. The trumpet player told me about how trumpets in some classical music could not be played without modifying the instrument by cobbling on extra bits of tubing. A trumpet in those days could be in kit form. That was a transitional period for the instrument. Its quite different and more versatile by design now.

 

There is now a high end flute made of titanium. Titanium has faster acoustic response & higher natural resonance than other metals. The parts are anodised (a form of electrical plating) adding a protective film a few microns thick. This is for a 'traditional' flute that could not have been made without advances in materials and their applied tech.

 

If that's not innovative enough, how about this electric wind instrument from Akai http://www.akaipro.com/product/ewiusb

or Yamaha's silent brass models http://usa.yamaha.com/products/musical-instruments/winds/silentbrass/

 

Cap is right about the slow adoption of piezo pickups. These are used extensively on traditional strings. I used to belong to 'the Fiddle Forum' when I was learning violin. They are part of a massive community who define themselves as 'shredders'. Their electric violins (some are 5, 6 and 7 strings) are typically more expensive than our guitars. Check out some of these designs (and prices!) at this shop http://www.electricviolinshop.com/7-string-violins.html

 

Akai electric wind instrument

51ZYDZj-7XL._SX355_.jpg

 

Viper electric fiddle

front_view.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

front_view.jpg

YIKES.. was that designed by Zakk Wyld?? :)

 

And yes.. this subject is very difficult...

 

As someone who has made and (tried) to design some guitars.. I have researched just about every type of guitar you can imagine....

 

And it does seem that the first ones (Gibson and Fender) just got it right.... The thing is, guitars are pretty basic things really, you have the clever part which is how the scale length works everything else is pretty simple. Slab of wood, frets, bridge, nut and tuners. Everything after that is refinement not innovation...

 

So this is no longer a guitar really but an instrument that has some guitar features

 

Ok so take this one... You could say its pretty innovative.. BUT its still basically just a guitar... So its not going to make you sound different or play music better... Its just funky looking.. but you are still gonna play it just like any guitar... So its innovative in its looks and the way its built but not as an instrument or what it offers to a player..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually thinking about it more...

 

I reckon theres another reason... We all have spent so much time on our instruments.. like thousands of hours.... When we come across something new that effects the way we play we resist because we want to be the best players we can so we want to play on what is familiar... and even having too many options (as mentioned) puts people off.

 

So in order for something new to take off.. It REALLY has to offer something new and worth while....

 

Our heroes all played basic guitars (well most of them) and created our favourite music with them and that's a very powerful thing.. It what Fender and Gibson almost base their business on... Famous guitarists who used their guitars....

 

And since to play that music all you need is a guitar experience to play it why do you need anything else... Anything else seems to just get in the way. Like that Gittler guitar, at first it will actually get in the way cos you will need to adjust your playing style... Who can be bothered to spend all that time re-learning to play when you can just pick up a normal guitar and get on with it. HOWEVER maybe if you did it would help (which im sure the creators will tell you it does), but whos really gonna take that chance especially on such an expensive instrument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lots of good points here. Gotta concede to the fact that there IS innovation in brass, woodwind, etc. Hardly anyone is using them except for piezos and wind synths (not too many people using wind synths either) but they ARE out there.

 

Real good point about the modern plating techniques and metal machining.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I would think the greatest innovation was making an electric guitar. It's still just a guitar no matter what shape you wanna make for it. It's a guitar. Why does it need to be innovative?

 

Why do ya think they offer 473 signatures and 1259 reissues each year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...