What Gibson, Epi, Fender and just about everybody else does right but doesn't work for me

[Notes_Norton]

Obviously it works, because the guitar companies keep doing it.

 

How many versions of LP's, Strats, Tele's and just about every other guitar the major companies make do you need? Or want?

 

You have the signature models, named after ZW, Clapton, Beck, Hendrix, EVH, Randy R, Slash, and just about every other famous picker in the world. Sure it may be built to their specifications with some minor difference over the standard model, perhaps a different pickup, perhaps a different paint job, or something else. But the odds of whatever Slash or Jeff Beck want in their guitar being exactly what I want in my guitar being equal are slim. And if the difference is a pickup, I can put a new pup in for less than the price of having Clapton's 'signature' on the headstock.

 

Then they have the 'road worn' models, and various other color/pickup combinations that simply duplicate the same old guitar with perhaps 10% or less of a difference in sound (when I studied engineering, 10% difference or less was considered the same 'for all practical purposes').

 

Has the electric guitar been perfected with the LP, Strat and Tele designs? Or has the guitar players themselves rejected anything innovative and new in guitar design? (rhetorical question).

 

I admit that I don't understand.

 

Perhaps it's just the signs of a 'mature market'. Everything worth exploiting has been done and the only thing left to do is make endless variations of the same theme. You see that in breakfast cereals and other mature markets.

 

If I had an LP humbuckers and another with P90s, I wouldn't be gassing for anything else LP even if Les Paul came back from 'the great gig in the sky' and had his 'signature' stamped on the body. Gibson is wasting those signature models on me.

 

And if I had an LP with '57 classic' pups in it, and wanted 'burstbuckers', I'd simply swap pickups.

 

I have a Parker DragonFly (super-strat) and it has completely cured my Strat Gas. I love the DF and can't see what another DF, any Fender Strat, or any other Strat clone can do for me, no matter who makes it.

 

On the other hand, it obviously works for Gibson, Epi, Fender, Ibanez and the others, because they crank out endless variations of the same half-dozen guitar styles and never do anything else really innovative.

 

Here's an innovation I'd like to see. A guitar with 3 pickups in it that are instantly interchangeable. Plug in and unplug from the front without taking the cover plate off. While changing the strings, just pull the humbucker out of the neck position and plug in a SC, unplug the middle pup and put in a RPRW P90. And have a collections of plug-in pickups in my guitar case, buckers, P90s, SCs (the SC's also in RPRW and regular variations) and so on.

 

Figuring a way to do this without loosening the strings would be even better.

 

Perhaps somebody has already done this.

 

The Parker carbon reinforced neck and fretboard makes playing a Fly like butter. That's a good innovation, but it seems that it hasn't really caught on like wildfire.

 

The robot guitar thing doesn't seem to be a runaway train either.

 

I'm just rambling on and thinking out loud here. What do you think?

 

Insights and incites by Notes ♫

[Guest FarnsBarns]

Obviously it works, because the guitar companies keep doing it.

 

How many versions of LP's, Strats, Tele's and just about every other guitar the major companies make do you need? Or want?

 

You have the signature models, named after ZW, Clapton, Beck, Hendrix, EVH, Randy R, Slash, and just about every other famous picker in the world. Sure it may be built to their specifications with some minor difference over the standard model, perhaps a different pickup, perhaps a different paint job, or something else. But the odds of whatever Slash or Jeff Beck want in their guitar being exactly what I want in my guitar being equal are slim. And if the difference is a pickup, I can put a new pup in for less than the price of having Clapton's 'signature' on the headstock.

 

Then they have the 'road worn' models, and various other color/pickup combinations that simply duplicate the same old guitar with perhaps 10% or less of a difference in sound (when I studied engineering, 10% difference or less was considered the same 'for all practical purposes').

 

Has the electric guitar been perfected with the LP, Strat and Tele designs? Or has the guitar players themselves rejected anything innovative and new in guitar design? (rhetorical question).

 

I admit that I don't understand.

 

Perhaps it's just the signs of a 'mature market'. Everything worth exploiting has been done and the only thing left to do is make endless variations of the same theme. You see that in breakfast cereals and other mature markets.

 

If I had an LP humbuckers and another with P90s, I wouldn't be gassing for anything else LP even if Les Paul came back from 'the great gig in the sky' and had his 'signature' stamped on the body. Gibson is wasting those signature models on me.

 

And if I had an LP with '57 classic' pups in it, and wanted 'burstbuckers', I'd simply swap pickups.

 

I have a Parker DragonFly (super-strat) and it has completely cured my Strat Gas. I love the DF and can't see what another DF, any Fender Strat, or any other Strat clone can do for me, no matter who makes it.

 

On the other hand, it obviously works for Gibson, Epi, Fender, Ibanez and the others, because they crank out endless variations of the same half-dozen guitar styles and never do anything else really innovative.

 

Here's an innovation I'd like to see. A guitar with 3 pickups in it that are instantly interchangeable. Plug in and unplug from the front without taking the cover plate off. While changing the strings, just pull the humbucker out of the neck position and plug in a SC, unplug the middle pup and put in a RPRW P90. And have a collections of plug-in pickups in my guitar case, buckers, P90s, SCs (the SC's also in RPRW and regular variations) and so on.

 

Figuring a way to do this without loosening the strings would be even better.

 

Perhaps somebody has already done this.

 

The Parker carbon reinforced neck and fretboard makes playing a Fly like butter. That's a good innovation, but it seems that it hasn't really caught on like wildfire.

 

The robot guitar thing doesn't seem to be a runaway train either.

 

I'm just rambling on and thinking out loud here. What do you think?

 

Insights and incites by Notes ♫

 

I totally agree, but, I fall for the marketing like most others, after a couple of years I'll see something that just really takes my fancy, even if it's only a cosmetic difference and in a moment of weakness I'll buy, it'll be heart ruling head and after a few weeks, while I'll still love my new guitar, I'll realise that I was sold to. Thing is, I'll still be happy and I'll not part with the new guitar. It's one of the biggest flaws of the human race, our desire to consume, and it is exploited (couldn't think of a less negative word) by businesses.

 

Businesses are run by managers and executives who wouldn't eat if they didn't do this, so who's to blame?

 

The rich contingent of the human race. Simples. By rich, I mean anyone who has ever had any form of disposable wealth (That's you and me). It is also very evident that in places where there is abject poverty, it takes very little time for consumerism to take over with the slightest influx of wealth.

 

These traits are due to the evolution of the human race occurring in an environment that meant the consumers, the grabbers, the self look after-ers always won. Only in the last few hundred years has this level of commercial consumerism existed.

 

It's the same reason human beings are getting fat, we evolved in circumstances where we had to eat the high suger, low effort foods at every opportunity to gain an evolutionary advantage, now we are in an environment where these things are readily available all the time.

[Riffster]

You also have newer guitar companies that will put out varieties of modelsas they are not bound by the classic designs.

 

The older guitar companies have to compete, stay current even if the modifications to a classic guitar are cosmetic.

 

Not everybody wants a sunburst or black guitar. Some people want their name of their idol on a guitar.

 

If there is a market guitar companies will find it and exploit it, if the market dries up the models are discontinued. A lot of businesses work this way.

[FirstMeasure]

Are you still waiting for a newer, better Saxophone? The Saxophone developed about the same time as the six string Spanish guitar, then came into popularity in the 20's and 30's, much like the guitar did.

 

So, to answer your rhetorical question, "Yes, the Electric Guitar was perfected with the Les Paul and Stratocaster, as well as the ES series and Telecaster." If it was just a case of "Players rejecting innovation", which assumes the innovation was necessary (necessity being the Mother of innovation as well as invention), then kids would be rejecting the electric guitar as stagnant and for Old Guys.

 

That phase has already passed in the guitar world, the clean pickers that swore by hollow body giants and Jazz Music already gave way to the development of the solid body electric. What else does the guitar need? Can it get more comfortable or versatile? Do we Need it to play digital renditions of other instruments? Do we Need to replace Trumpets and Saxophones with digital guitarists?

 

As for the flood of signature stuff, that's not for the players market, that's for the collectors market, or even the hobbyist. I'm a player, but I also like gear. I like the gear that makes my sound and I like the gear that makes their sound. I like to find out what happens when I play an Ibanez Jem through a Carvin Vai Head.

 

So, in summary, I think the Electric Guitar has developed to maturity, just as the Saxophone, Violin, Piano, Trumpet and Flute have.

[charlie brown]

I've never understood this, especially with Fender. They might

as well make "kits," and let you build your own guitar. But, even

with Gibson...it's really just "marketing," and trying to see what

WILL sell. Trying to find another "nitch" market, I guess? I've

bought into it, too, in moments of "weakness," in the past. LOL But,

nowadays (for me) it's more to do with getting 90% or more, of the

tone/playability, at a fraction of the cost of a CS or even regular

line, in some cases. The LP Studio "Tributes" were great, for me...

that way, because I got 2 gold tops, for 1/2 to 1/3 of what one VOS

would have been. Granted, they're not R-6 VOS guitars, but, they look

great, play great, and sound great! And, with my current financial

status, that's "good enough!" ;>)

 

CB

[rocketman]

Mercurio guitars had interchangeable pickups.

 

[Duende]

Are you still waiting for a newer, better Saxophone? The Saxophone developed about the same time as the six string Spanish guitar, then came into popularity in the 20's and 30's, much like the guitar did.

 

hmmm (rubbing 'bum fluff' on chin)

 

I just want top add that the difference is that the sax was was in still in it's first 70/80 years of 'being alive' (LOL) in the 20's/30's. The Spanish guitar (like we have today) was around since the time of Fernando Sor; who was writing much of the stuff we enjoy today, in the very early years of the 19th century, some 200 years ago.

 

Mind you, in the sense that the 20's/30's saw the Spanish (classical) guitar have yet another rebirth, thanks to the pioneering work of Segovia bringing it back into the public eye, then I suppose it could be argued that the 20's/30's was the time of the Spanish guitar's development (or redevelopment), but only in the sense of music and partially design.

 

Matt

[chengin]

Didn't Gibson already try the interchangeable pickup thing with the push/pull Les Paul Push Tone recently. It never really took off and I guess got pushed out of the limelight by the robots and darkfire etc.

 

Gibson Push Tone

 

I thought it was a good idea at the time though and seemed to cover most of the options you suggested Notes. Price as usual was probably an issue and reason it never really took off.

[Notes_Norton]

Are you still waiting for a newer, better Saxophone? The Saxophone developed about the same time as the six string Spanish guitar, then came into popularity in the 20's and 30's, much like the guitar did.

 

So, to answer your rhetorical question, "Yes, the Electric Guitar was perfected with the Les Paul and Stratocaster, as well as the ES series and Telecaster."<...>

 

So, in summary, I think the Electric Guitar has developed to maturity, just as the Saxophone, Violin, Piano, Trumpet and Flute have.

 

I think you are correct, that the electric guitar has matured like other classic instruments.

 

But if I go to Selmer, Keilwerth, or other sax dealers, I don't see the signature models. But mostly models with different finishes on them. So my MacSax which I had plated in silver colored brass, also comes in other finishes like raw brass, silver plate, black nickel, and lacquer. They also make 3 or 4 different designs of bore and bell shape, but no signature models like the "Stan Getz", "Lester Young", "Joe Lovano" or anything else.

 

It seems the sax collectors only go for some of the great vintage saxophones and not the signature series like the guitar collectors do.

 

Mercurio guitars had interchangeable pickups.

 

Had is the big word for me. And looking at your pictures it seems they were replaceable without taking the strings off.

 

I wonder why it didn't take off. Perhaps if Gibson, Ibanez or Fender tried something like this it might have. And if a major company did this, then aftermarket pickup manufacturers would offer compatible pickups. This would be a "lazy modder's" dream come true. But then I have no idea if it would really work or not. If I could figure out what the customers really want, I'd go into the consulting business and make some serious money.

 

I really like the coil tapping humbucker/sc on my Parker. After the warranty wears off, I might try replacing it with a P-Rail just to see what happens. I truly believe that 95% or more of the guitar's tone come from the pickups and not the guitar itself. The guitar offers ease of play and sustain, but the pickups generate the sound.

 

My primary instrument is saxophone, and I have only two tenor saxophones. My 'good' sax and my 'outdoor/backup' sax. On the other hand I Have 4 electric guitars. I don't know what it is about guitars that lend themselves to that, but I admit it got to me, too.

 

However, I'm so happy with my Parker, that I think when the prices of noncollectable go back up, I'll put my ES-330 up for sale.

 

Notes ♫ Norton

[FirstMeasure]

I think you are correct, that the electric guitar has matured like other classic instruments.

 

But if I go to Selmer, Keilwerth, or other sax dealers, I don't see the signature models. But mostly models with different finishes on them. So my MacSax which I had plated in silver colored brass, also comes in other finishes like raw brass, silver plate, black nickel, and lacquer. They also make 3 or 4 different designs of bore and bell shape, but no signature models like the "Stan Getz", "Lester Young", "Joe Lovano" or anything else.

 

It seems the sax collectors only go for some of the great vintage saxophones and not the signature series like the guitar collectors do.

 

 

I think this speaks to the difference in collectors. Saxes would be collected by sax players, signature guitars collected by fans of guitar players and the romantic image of the Guitar Player. I mean, how many sax players does Knucklebonze make action figures for. As long as there's a market for Angus Young action figures, there will be a market for Angus signature SG.

 

If there was a **** Perry action figure there would be a **** Perry signature Sax.

[Notes_Norton]

I think this speaks to the difference in collectors. Saxes would be collected by sax players, signature guitars collected by fans of guitar players and the romantic image of the Guitar Player. I mean, how many sax players does Knucklebonze make action figures for. As long as there's a market for Angus Young action figures, there will be a market for Angus signature SG.

 

If there was a **** Perry action figure there would be a **** Perry signature Sax.

 

I guess Kenny G, David Sanborn, Candy Dulfer, Warren Hill, Mindi Abair, and Dave Koz don't count :-(

 

Of those, Kenny G gets the most airplay, but it's mostly "smooth jazz" and easy listening stuff.

 

I guess that ain't fan stuff.

 

Notes ♫ Norton

[Angry-Again]

What about a Bill Clinton signature sax??????

 

There are a million different guitar makers all over the world, making hundreds of different configurations of guitars, and pickups and strings etc. The sad truth is that no one ever finds "the" guitar that was built for them. Thats why we all have sooo many. I have had dozens of guitars and they are just like cars or for that women. In that, each one though they all perform the same basic functions feels different, looks different, and what makes one person happy, makes another think what a pile of junk. As for new styling and research, I have always had respect for BC Rich for thier far out body and headstock designs. I own a few of them. And while Gibson keeps making LP looking guitars and Fender keeps slamming out strats, (both of which I own one) Bc has been making CRAZY looking stuff that really has the shock factor. The problem with BC Rich has been that they sell a zillion junk China made bronze series warlocks with only a few expensive good models and it ruined thier image. And They all do it. I have a 1997 BC Rich Warlock NJ, and the thing is a beast! It has the hottest factory pickups I ever encountered except for my Sonex 180 Custom. They floyd rose rules and the neck is fast and nice to hold, It is perfect for loud palm muted metal riffs. I cant ever palm mute my strat or Gibsons like I can on that one. Point is, I have different guitars for differnt styles. ill never be happy with just 1.

[Mr. Natural]

What about a Bill Clinton signature sax??????....

 

[insert your own joke here.]

[Guest FarnsBarns]

[insert your own joke here.]

 

The Monica?

[Angry-Again]

The Monica?

ROFLMAO!!!

[Guest FarnsBarns]

ROFLMAO!!!

 

I did not have saxual relations with that woman.

[milod]

In a sense one might make a case that the new firebirdX is everything one might wish for in a guitar. Assuming the electronics are solid it's just everything in one instrument except a true campfire acoustic.

 

And this forum saw some of the nastiest commentary about the people involved in the rollout and the guitar itself. Honestly I didn't understand that degree of fire over a guitar. You want a single instrument that comes as close to a one-guitar solution as possible and and find it meets your needs, it's good.

 

It's yet a step past Notes' Parker. Oddly nobody attacked the Parker.

 

I dunno. I tried a Variax and didn't like the feel. I liked the idea, but the neck and such just didn't make it, IMHO. But that doesn't mean that "you" may not be comfortable with it. I don't like Fender necks, you may prefer that shorter radius.

 

Yeah, I think a lotta guitar colors and designs are silly. For a solidbody something between a Strat and an SG make best sense to me. A 335 ditto for a semi, although I s'pose a case can be made for a full hollow, etc. I love the combination of full hollow archtop yet somewhat smaller size of a 175.

 

I think guitars are different from cellos in that there are far more different sorts of relatively "popular' music that might be played on them both in small ensembles and solo. We're also willing to go for more variation in color and the guitar companies figure that's a good idea.

 

But ... hey, if you wanna think "they" should make an all-around instrument, you're stuck with the Variax/Parker/Firebird concept of a board with some interesting electronics. Without an amp, though... Nope.

 

"We" seem to prefer a "different kinda guitar for different kinda music and technique." Assume guitars only could have one pickup and all had to be a similarly-shaped "board," and we'd still be battling over neck shape and fingerboard radius, nut and bridge width and fret style.

 

I'd tend to agree that the concept of guitar may be pretty mature, but the execution is not. That's not because no guitar is the be-all, but because there are many ways to play many sorts of music no guitar can be a be-all.

 

Hey, I'd love a FirebirdX if Gibbie'd give me one. But I'd still want a backup just in case of disaster; I'd still want an acoustic steel and an acoustic nylon to play on the back porch...

 

m

[Andy R]

IMHO the reason why all the companies continue to do the same thing over and over is because that's what sells. The kids now that are lusting after a Les Paul they can never afford will buy one when they are in their Mid-life years because it was the guitar that was out of reach. Just like the guys my age are doing now.

 

There might be a change when the "real" computer/Guitar hero kids come of age. I pretty much agree that there isn't going to be much of a revolutionary change until the guitar its self can't play whatever the new "revolutionary" new music/sound/tone is.

 

There are some cools new things but most new guitar stuff seems to be kind of gimmicky...

 

I have taken my " les Paul Custom" money and invested it in tools so now I can make whatever guitar I want however I want... I plan on building the guitars I like and replacing the guitars I have bought for the most part. I have a few unique ideas I would like to prototype as well but nothing revolutionary...

 

I dunno Guitars are wood and metal nothing more to me. Some I like better than others. IMHO there is no "magic" a brand gives them. No magic dust or voodoo involved. I used to be afraid to change the tubes and bias my Marshalls because I thought the "Magic" would go away. Finally one day I thought "ah hell there really isn't much to these" so I popped the hood and started doing my own work. That turned into repairs, modding and kit building. I have to say my Metro Amp JTM 45 is my favorite "Marshall" I have ever owned.

 

Anyway I digress...

 

 

Andy

[charlie brown]

Concerning the Firebird-X, as I stated, initially, when they

came out...I don't have any (real) problem, with the "technology,"

("Luddite" that I can be, at times), in the Firebird-X...just the

aesthetics! "Butt Ugly," IMHO. Now...IF it looked like a real

(traditional) "Firebird," or they incorporated that technology,

in a traditional looking LP, SG, or Explorer, then "Yeah," maybe.

Or, even designed a totally new shape, that was much more visually

appealing, with no reference to previous models, at all.

 

But, that's just my 2-cent's worth.

 

CB

[milod]

CB...

 

I'd agree on the name. I guess I don't see it as that ugly and assuming HenryJ told me I could have one and he'd have 'em put on any shape, I'd wanna try that shape first. Kinda reminds me of a jaguar. If the neck, etc., "fit," I'd take that one although yeah, I think a sunburst might look better.

 

I like the idea of what it does, don't care for the price tag, and I guess in ways I quit really worrying about looks on guitars, at least on solid bodies, even when I was a kid.

 

Hmmmm. I wonder what all that neat electronic stuff would be like on a 175 body. <grin> I like that whole "feel" and it's comfortable.

 

Ah, well. No cash for such stuff so I guess I'll go put new strings on my 1950s Harmony with one pickup. <grin. Come to think of it... I like that body shape too. If only the neck were nicer.

 

m

[Notes_Norton]

I don't care much for the looks of the Firebird X that much myself, but the technology does indeed seem very interesting and impressive. Actually, if it had a 6 inline headstock I think it would look better to my eyes.

 

I'm to the point where comfort is as important as looks.

 

Looks are important, because it is show-biz, so the looks have to both be pleasing to me and to the audience that I play for. Fortunately we both agree on that. Any model BC Rich guitar wouldn't be appropriate for us, although they are fine for other genres of music.

 

Comfort is very important to me because I feel I play a little bit better if the guitar is comfortable. While I love my Casino dearly, it's a bit neck heavy and doesn't have great high fret access. My 330 has better fret access but is still a bit neck heavy. Both are nice and light though. My LTD has a nice contour on its back and is balanced well, but it's a bit on the heavy side. My Parker is "just right" for me, but I'm sure wouldn't be for others. All 4 have great necks for my hands.

 

I've really bonded with one volume control near the picking finger. After modding my LTD and now with my Parker, I find that very important and wish Gibson would offer that on their guitars. To me that would be a better option than to have someone's signature on it. I can control the volume as I'm playing and with whatever pickup configuration I might be using.

 

I've also found the longer scale is better for my sized hands, especially when playing past the 12th fret. Easier to play and more comfortable. Live and learn.

 

Tone is third on the list. I actually like the amplified tone of my Casino best of all the guitars that I own, but it is not nearly as versatile as my Parker, and since I play a wide variety of music, and since my Parker is so much more comfortable to play, the Parker comes to the gig with me. I can get strat, lp, acoustic, and almost tele sounds out of it, with the Casino, I can only get p90 sounds.

 

I guess what I'm saying is that I see a use for different styles of guitars. An LP is not a Tele which is not a Strat, which is not a Casino which is not a Flying V and so on. But looking in a catalog, I see 30 or more different strats, all made by Fender. More choice obviously works for Fender, but it does nothing for me. Especially when I look at the price differences for some minor detail change.

 

But that's just me, it obviously is profitable, and the only reason to be in business is to make a profit. If you can't make a profit, the business will fail.

 

And I have to admit that guitarists have more GAS than saxophonists -- on the sax forum there are a few with big collections but most of them are long discontinued models from the 'golden age'. I admit, I'd like a 1960s King Silversonic, but it's an old sax, and saxes have moving parts that wear out, so I wouldn't be gigging with it, so I'll probably never get one - I'm too practical for that.

 

But to the audience, saxes look pretty much alike. Perhaps that is why there is no "Kenny G." model soprano. After all, a huge number of females are into the G man and most male musicians I know like to attract the attention from females (I'm not being sexist, it's just human nature).

 

Right now I'm so happy with my DragonFly that I'm not gassing for anything else. But I'm sure the GAS attack is waiting in the future for me.

 

In fact, I think I have too many guitars. That is why I'm considering parting with my 330 as soon as the collectible market recovers. It's close to the Casino, and the Casino with the Duncan P90s actually sounds better plugged in. If I get enough money for it, I might have Parker make another DF, this one with a P90 soapbar in the mid position. Ooh, do I hear a GAS attack in it's infancy??? Perhaps the guitar manufacturers are into something after all <big grin>.

 

Notes ♫

[tartanbeastie]

My thoughts on this subject are known to the regulars in the forum and yes I agree. too many variations (usually minimal) of the same guitar. Signature series, reissues etc. while I understand theres a market for them I would like companies to aim more towards a players market, for the higher priced sigs etc, why not just have those as part of a custom made series rather than limited or general release? Yes business is about money but I do think its more than possible to build good instruments for the everyday player at the $700-$1000 range without skimping on quality.

I love my SG special faded, bought for what it is, not for the price. i think its better looking than many many other sg,s on the market.

Also, I know I have commented on various posts about body shapes, SG meaning solid guita etc, but dont many paople nowadays, player or not, associate guitar names nowadays with body shape rather than specific guitar brands? I'n not saying its right or wrong, just an observation.

[milod]

Bob...

 

I think we're pretty much on the same page. I don't care for the looks of the Parker myself, but it sounds like a nearly perfect choice for you.

 

Also, my major objection to most Gibson designs is the lack of a master volume in a handy position.

 

You've nailed it, too, on what the audience sees. A sax is just a sax; a guitar is... different, for better or worse, and says something to some audience members and definitely to other band folks.

 

But as you said, playability and "comfort" is my #1 concern. The sound is always a lesser concern or problem.

 

m

[milod]

Tartan...

 

I'm not a bling fan, but I guess I can see why an SG player might want p90s or coil taps in addition to a basic SG. Bill may hate red and demand black and Julie may love red, so I can see colors, too. So now we've got at least six variations of the same guitar body. Add a master volume or not and we've doubled it to 12.

 

I dunno. I like my 175 in sunburst, Caliman loves his black.

 

Yeah, I think a lotta bling is silly, but I like one kinda neck and you like another. Now we've potentially expanded our two colors and one kinda "bling" up to 24 types of SG with just two types of neck and two colors and some moderate variation of pickups/controls.

 

If I were running a guitar company, I dunno. A lot has to do with numbers one knows can be turned fairly quickly. Does a fancied SG sell as fast as a plain one? Does a fancy black SG with P90s sell at all? I dunno.

 

I'll never buy a guitar because it has "Artist Smith" carved on it, but if I really love the playability of the instrument and I'd won the lottery, I'd consider it - but not because of bling or Smith's signature.

 

But others with the cash likely feel differently.

 

In ways I think we're in the best of times precisely because we do have so many options over a huge price range - and that's just with "the gibson family of brands." Heck, just with Gibson alone.

 

Here's where my head is:

 

If HenryJ said, "M, I'll give you a Hummingbird and this choice: Pay us $400 and we'll ship it, or we'll give it to you free if you drive to Montana which will cost you about the same cash and three extra days I know you should be working at your job," I'd have to sell my soul to take the drive and lose the work time just so I could feel a cupla necks before I'd take one home.

 

m

[Crocstar6]

I have wonderful news for you who needs a new guitar style! There are other brands out there!