Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

How much technology is too far?


Rabs

Recommended Posts

Posted

How much technology do you think is too far for a guitar? What features would you like to see?

 

I found the Firbird X way too much with on board CPUs and curcuit boards and with the 2010 Standard im just personally not interested in the robot tuning stuff.. I just think in that case the more tech there is the more there is to go wrong...

 

However I do quite like some of the features on the Epi Ultra III which has far more subtle technology in it, I really think that the tuner built into the pickup ring is a nice touch and I like the idea of acoustic pickups too which id like to see more of on Gibsons.. I also wonder what the 2012 Standard will be like (if they do a new one this year).. I know I could just get an Ultra III but im a Gibson sucker.. As said on a sticker that came with my first Les Paul.. "Only a Gibson is good enough" :P

 

If yove not seen the Ultra II check this

Posted

to be honest in my opinion, there's enough synths, computers, ipads, and othe gizmos to keep us well occupied.

 

I'm for the lets keep guitars simple camp.

 

Less is More !

Posted

How much technology do you think is too far for a guitar? What features would you like to see?

 

I found the Firbird X way too much with on board CPUs and curcuit boards and with the 2010 Standard im just personally not interested in the robot tuning stuff.. I just think in that case the more tech there is the more there is to go wrong...

 

However I do quite like some of the features on the Epi Ultra III which has far more subtle technology in it, I really think that the tuner built into the pickup ring is a nice touch and I like the idea of acoustic pickups too which id like to see more of on Gibsons.. I also wonder what the 2012 Standard will be like (if they do a new one this year).. I know I could just get an Ultra III but im a Gibson sucker.. As said on a sticker that came with my first Les Paul.. "Only a Gibson is good enough" :P

 

If yove not seen the Ultra II check this

as far as my personal needs and wants all the new bells and whistles don't make me want to go and get'em!BUT I think that by incorporating so many things in the guitar, could offset some down the road ,effects purchases and bulk of 'em!making things more compact/less equipment to tote around!maybe even lower overall cash outlay for said effects!some might find it to be their cup of tea! :rolleyes:

Posted

I think there was an interesting aspect of this displayed in the 'It Might Get Loud' film.

 

Of the three players two - Page and White - had in essence a pretty simple approach to making their music. They needed a guitar, an amp and, perhaps, a distortion pedal or three (yes; I know Page would eventually spent as long in post-prod as he did in recording but that was really just him fine-tuning things to the point of perfection).

 

The Edge, OTOH, had a very different approach to making HIS music. He wanted to create more of a 'musical landscape' with a wide variety of sounds and he could only achieve this end by extensive use of effects units.

 

Neither way is right and neither is wrong. If you hear sounds in your head and need fx to get there then you'll obviously appreciate advances in technology.

 

Les Paul himself had his 'Les Paulveriser' and his guitars therefore had what amounted to in-built effects which he used as and when he needed them.

 

I'm a basic guy and prefer a basic LP; but if I was a professional, gigging musician then I'd probably jump at the chance to have a whole crate-worth of sounds available in one guitar - including the ability to change tuning accurately and quickly.

 

P.

Posted

I think there was an interesting aspect of this displayed in the 'It Might Get Loud' film.

 

Of the three players two - Page and White - had in essence a pretty simple approach to making their music. They needed a guitar, an amp and, perhaps, a distortion pedal or three (yes; I know Page would eventually spent as long in post-prod as he did in recording but that was really just him fine-tuning things to the point of perfection).

 

The Edge, OTOH, had a very different approach to making HIS music. He wanted to create more of a 'musical landscape' with a wide variety of sounds and he could only achieve this end by extensive use of effects units.

 

Neither way is right and neither is wrong. If you hear sounds in your head and need fx to get there then you'll obviously appreciate advances in technology.

 

Les Paul himself had his 'Les Paulveriser' and his guitars therefore had what amounted to in-built effects which he used as and when he needed them.

 

I'm a basic guy and prefer a basic LP; but if I was a professional, gigging musician then I'd probably jump at the chance to have a whole crate-worth of sounds available in one guitar - including the ability to change tuning accurately and quickly.

 

P.

 

yes I saw that It Might Get Loud, awesome stuff, I liked it also when Jack White made that basic guitar out of a block of wood, a pickup and a string..

 

For me really i think its about reliability.. Ive had one LP for over 10 years now and its still as good as when I got it (if not better with age).. BUT I dont mind some more subtle stuff as i say, like the tuner and the USB port that should last for quite a while id imagine as theres not much to them.. Plus with the way technology moves so quickly anything you buy thats tech based like the X will be outdated in a few years (plus will they still be supporting it technically at that point?).. but a guitar like a LP Trad or Standard could last a life time (if you look after it :) )

Posted

I may be a "Luddite," but...I like guitars, too much, to want

ONE that does everything! I like the feel, and mindset, that

goes along with changing from my Les Paul, to a Strat, or Tele,

or Duo-Jet, or Ric 12-string, etc. The next "robot" guitar

will probably PLAY itself, too. [tongue][thumbdn]

 

Or, as has already happened, in Japan, the next band or "Idol,"

may be a hologram, with holographic instruments.

 

Enough, is enough!!! LOL

 

CB

Guest farnsbarns
Posted

I like guitars (and amps, pedals and cars) that I completely understand. As soon as there's little magic boxes that I couldn't repair I get twitchy. That said, I'd like to try a FBX some time. Gosh I'm complex :)

Posted

I've never been keen on electronic circuitry beyond the "traditional" stuff being built into a guitar,because the guitar almost always outlives the circuitry, both physically, and in terms of it's usefulness, ( Think of the 70's "built in fuzztone and phaser" type instruments, or even the RD series with a built in compressor and expander) My Les Paul still has the same usefulness thirty years after I bought it. I really don't have any effects I bought in 1982 that are still useful.

 

I do like the built in pizeo or magnetic string pickups, however. When recording a clean rhythm track, I often used to mic the amp in isolation, and also mic the strings of the guitar. Blending these to together gave what we referred to as the "acoustic on steroids" sound. My friend got a telecaster with a pizeo bridge and a blend control, and it was the greatest thing ever for reproducing the same sound live. Just get it set up for a normal rhythm sound, then blend in a little "zing."

Posted

I've never been keen on electronic circuitry beyond the "traditional" stuff being built into a guitar,because the guitar almost always outlives the circuitry, both physically, and in terms of it's usefulness, ( Think of the 70's "built in fuzztone and phaser" type instruments, or even the RD series with a built in compressor and expander) My Les Paul still has the same usefulness thirty years after I bought it. I really don't have any effects I bought in 1982 that are still useful.

 

I do like the built in pizeo or magnetic string pickups, however. When recording a clean rhythm track, I often used to mic the amp in isolation, and also mic the strings of the guitar. Blending these to together gave what we referred to as the "acoustic on steroids" sound. My friend got a telecaster with a pizeo bridge and a blend control, and it was the greatest thing ever for reproducing the same sound live. Just get it set up for a normal rhythm sound, then blend in a little "zing."

 

yes you see thats what im talking about.. more subtle tech that is actually useful to a player.. As for built in effects I think most players like to choose their own ones as the built in multi effects are generally never as good as dedicated pedals (even though they are getting better).

Posted

I'm not a fan of the whole 'lets put all this stuff in the guitar' concept at all. Ok, so my gigging days are over but back when I did play I never went out without at least a back-up guitar with me. With the tuner in the guitar, what will I tune the back-up with in case I need it? With the effects in the guitar, what do I play the back-up through? Ok, so I could probably have gotten through most gigs with just an amp, I wasn't and isn't that heavy on effects for most the stuff I play, but still. The same goes for those that bring different guitars for different sounds, tunings, and what not. The more functions you put into one unit, the less flexible you'll be. So I could never see something like the Firebird X or similar as my main guitar for gigs.

Posted

I agree with CB, I like the feel of my different guitars and their sounds. I could sound great if I had a pedalboard the size of a steamer trunk. [biggrin] and the way some of the "famous ones" have their guitars made. Look at Neil Schon, he's got so many mini toggles on his guitars that you would probably need a phonebook sized owners manual to work it [confused] Then there is the players who don't have any board in front of them, it's back stage and a tech is running everything. [rolleyes] I've got one combo pedal, reverb, chorus, and compression, if that doesn't do it I just dazzle em with my blazing finger speed [flapper]

Posted

As I've said before, the argument dates back to when acoustic players badmouthed those new-fangled electrified guitars with exactly the same arguments now made about additional electronics. Well, I've a batch of electrics I'm not going to give up. And a cupla tube amps and a SS amp and a SS PA, and four piezo variation AE and one mag pickup AE, and...

 

I was in the first wave to get a true AE guitar, actually an almost-matched set of Ovation AE, steel and nylon. Didn't care for the diddling to put in the batteries for preamps inside the bodies, but those roughly 40-year-old guitars still work as well as when they were new. All of my "acoustic" guitars currently are AE. Yes, the electric "stuff" probably adversely affects tone when played entirely acoustic, but once through a PA, it's never quite what you think you're hearing anyway, mikes or otherwise.

 

Frankly I wish all my guitars had the sort of control panel one now finds on better AE instruments with volume and tone controls, tuner, phase button, etc. Depending on style needs, I wouldn't mind a robot to do quick alternative tunings.

 

Yeah, there's a lot more to go wrong with that sorta "stuff," but no more really than one had with a tube PA and/or guitar tube amp, etc., as we used in the olden days. I can't forget the adrenalin rush of reseating tubes or adding new ones you hoped hadn't broken in the gear box, broken mike/guitar wires, speaker wires, etc., some of which concerns remain today.

 

Technically a PA and acoustic guitars are not much different than an electric guitar. I doubt many "electric" or AE players regardless of style would dump their guitars and go back to acoustic with/without a PA. The volume never was, or is, consistent, etc., etc., unless you are sitting, didn't wiggle or otherwise move the guitar.

 

Actually solid state well-built is inherently more reliable for gigging than tubes. AE is constantly improving and is far more reliable on stage than a mike which functionally is nothing but a two-part AE rig if you think about it - as I and many other acoustic pickers had to in the olden days.

 

I know I'm not taking a particularly popular position... but I remember folks hollering how the acoustic guitar was a one-piece solution and the new-fangled electric had too much to go wrong inside, with various wires and that #@$%#@$% tube amplifier one never completely might rely on after dragging it cross country to a gig...

 

m

Posted

 

The Edge, OTOH, had a very different approach to making HIS music. He wanted to create more of a 'musical landscape' with a wide variety of sounds and he could only achieve this end by extensive use of effects units.

 

 

My comment on this is look at The Edge's root setup (normal guitar: SG, Les Paul, Strat, etc) into an analog tube amp: AC30.

 

My way is to start with a good, basic setup and then add whatever processing or effects tickle your fancy. The Edge goes berserker with pedals and rack mounted stuff, Nels Cline runs his sixties Jazzmaster through a Korg Kaoss pad, and people like Trent Reznor sample it and put it through a meat grinder. All of this is great as long as you do it outside of the guitar itself.

Posted

the only electronics I want in my guitar are pickups, 4 pots, 2 capacitors, 3 way switch and an output jack.

the only FX I need is an OD pedal, and booster. I don't even go in for any sort of modulation including reverb.

Call me a Luddite as well if you must.

Posted

Sinner...

 

What I literally find funny is that I'll catch static for my AE guitars and such, but functionally I've never used a stomp box any more than as a tuner pedal or to add just a bit of thickness to my light gauge strings.

 

Then I listen to guys arguing over the tone values of this amp over another... which electric requires which sort of amp for what sort of tone...

 

That's a long way from "I like the AJ because of this or the D28 because of that."

 

In fact... it's a lot closer to the Firebird X than the AJ AE is plugged through the board...

 

I'm personally just thankful that we have so many marvelous choices of equipment to fit our own needs - or at least our own perceived "needs." It's a far cry from what I had available 50 years ago.

 

m

Posted

I know I'm not taking a particularly popular position... but I remember folks hollering how the acoustic guitar was a one-piece solution and the new-fangled electric had too much to go wrong inside, with various wires and that #@$%#@$% tube amplifier one never completely might rely on after dragging it cross country to a gig...

 

m

 

I have a dammned new-fangled 1967 Rickenbacker 'lectric guitar, and I tell you what - after only forty-two years, one of them solder joints came undone on the jack socket. You just can't trust those things..........

 

Points well taken as always Milod.

Posted

If people will buy it they will keep making it, I'd buy a SG Robot with all the cyber stuff on it if I had the money, but I don't so I stick with what I do have, basic set up man.

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...