Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

I’ll just leave this here


blindboygrunt

Recommended Posts

Guitar players seem to form a romantic attachment to the details and the unique compositions of their instruments, and then attach deeper meaning to those things.

 

I own many guitars, and couldn't care less whether they are spruce, mahogany, alder, ash, basswood, balsa, or plywood.

 

Does it feel good in my hands, does it stay in tune, does it sound really good?

Then it's a keeper.

 

I have really nice acoustics by Martin and Takamine.

My favorite go-to performance keeper of an on-stage acoustic, however, is an inexpensive workhorse.

 

It sounds great, has the lowest, easiest action ever, and I can beat the hell out of it.

It's a $180 JBP acoustic-electric I bought locally ten years ago.

It was on sale for $138, as I recall.

I plastered a KISS sticker on it a few years ago.

It's been dropped, scarred, and patched up.

 

I have absolutely no idea what sort of wood it's made of, and I really don't care.

The thing just feels and sounds great, gig after gig.

 

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hahe he, , , ,

apart from that - no difference between a Dove and a J-60 or Sparrow ? A maple J-45 and old hog ditto, D-18 vs D-28. .

Malarkey

 

 

There absolutely is a difference em

Even to my uncaring ears

 

I think the point in this ‘clickbait’ Or propaganda is to dispel the notion that certain woods are BETTER than others

Being a guitar maker you’re not allowed to use the woods that guitar players consider to be the best woods for a guitar , so they have to convince us to get rid of our ideas

And they MAY be right , not saying they are. But you’ve gotta keep the mind open

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand why they even brought "playability" into the discussion. That's a function of geometry - neck angle, bridge height, string spacing... Nobody (or least I don't) expects a walnut J15 to be less playable than a hog J45. If the same builder built the same guitars using the same templates and the same amount of care, with just different woods, one would expect the playability to be identical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fifty-two guitarists were then brought into a dimly-lit room to play each of the instruments.... When they assessed the sound quality and playability of the guitars, their ratings for all six were very close.

 

Additionally, when 31 of the guitarists were asked to identify which instrument was which based on its sound and feel, they had considerable difficulty doing so.

Does that mean that 21 of the guitarists had no difficulty identifying "which instrument was which"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My local bar once ran a whiskey tasting contest for charity

Of course all the whiskey connoisseurs entered

Not one of them identified their own whiskey

In fact the contest was won by a man who drinks gin

 

The next day all the whiskey connoisseurs came in and still bought the whiskey they think is the best

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being a guitar maker you’re not allowed to use the woods that guitar players consider to be the best woods for a guitar , so they have to convince us to get rid of our ideas

 

It's a Silent Conspiracy! [omg]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What gets me is a tree grows and then dies and falls over, other trees grow and take its place. The trees purpose it to be cut some where in that cycle to be used. I would almost bet some would go as far as to stop the new planting of this tree to make a point.

 

A tree is a renewable resource a forester once told me trees in general grow for 65 years and then they cut them down to use as lumber and replant that area. He says he will be dead and gone but one thing for sure someone else will cut down and use these trees in 65 years, and plant more.

 

If it were true what the study is trying to suggest, the change would have taken place years ago and they would never would have had to waste their time trying to make a point in the cult of sustainability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guitar players seem to form a romantic attachment to the details and the unique compositions of their instruments, and then attach deeper meaning to those things.

 

I own many guitars, and couldn't care less whether they are spruce, mahogany, alder, ash, basswood, balsa, or plywood.

 

Does it feel good in my hands, does it stay in tune, does it sound really good?

Then it's a keeper.

 

I have really nice acoustics by Martin and Takamine.

My favorite go-to performance keeper of an on-stage acoustic, however, is an inexpensive workhorse.

 

It sounds great, has the lowest, easiest action ever, and I can beat the hell out of it.

It's a $180 JBP acoustic-electric I bought locally ten years ago.

It was on sale for $138, as I recall.

I plastered a KISS sticker on it a few years ago.

It's been dropped, scarred, and patched up.

 

I have absolutely no idea what sort of wood it's made of, and I really don't care.

The thing just feels and sounds great, gig after gig.

 

:)

 

Yep!!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hell, I don't know and don't care. All I know is that each of my guitars sounds different from the rest. Of course, I'm 71 now and maybe I'm just hearing things others can't, or I'm not hearing things that others can........Anyway, this dreaded news won't ruin my day, but for those who will fret (lol) over it, there's this.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...