AXE® Posted December 7, 2008 Posted December 7, 2008 :Discuss} "In 2001, Frederic Brochet, of the University of Bordeaux, conducted two separate and very mischievous experiments. In the first test, Brochet invited 57 wine experts and asked them to give their impressions of what looked like two glasses of red and white wine. The wines were actually the same white wine, one of which had been tinted red with food coloring. But that didn't stop the experts from describing the "red" wine in language typically used to describe red wines. One expert praised its "jamminess," while another enjoyed its "crushed red fruit." Not a single one noticed it was actually a white wine. The second test Brochet conducted was even more damning. He took a middling Bordeaux and served it in two different bottles. One bottle was a fancy grand-cru. The other bottle was an ordinary vin du table. Despite the fact that they were actually being served the exact same wine, the experts gave the differently labeled bottles nearly opposite ratings. The grand cru was "agreeable, woody, complex, balanced and rounded," while the vin du table was "weak, short, light, flat and faulty". Forty experts said the wine with the fancy label was worth drinking, while only 12 said the cheap wine was. What these experiments neatly demonstrate is that the taste of a wine, like the taste of everything, is not merely the sum of our inputs, and cannot be solved in a bottom-up fashion. It cannot be deduced by beginning with our simplest sensations and extrapolating upwards. When we taste a wine, we aren't simply tasting the wine. This is because what we experience is not what we sense. Rather, experience is what happens when our senses are interpreted by our subjective brain, which brings to the moment its entire library of personal memories and idiosyncratic desires. As the philosopher Donald Davidson argued, it is ultimately impossible to distinguish between a subjective contribution to knowledge that comes from our selves (what he calls our "scheme") and an objective contribution that comes from the outside world ("the content"). Instead, in Davidson's influential epistemology, the "organizing system and something waiting to be organized" are hopelessly interdependent. Without our subjectivity we could never decipher our sensations, and without our sensations we would have nothing to be subjective about. In other words, we shouldn't be surprised that different people like different bottles of cheap wine". If you've read this far, you'll probably get my point. The language used in the wine world isn't that far removed from that of the Les Paul world. There was a comment a while ago that some people might insist they can hear the difference between different pickup ring plastics. It was meant tongue in cheek, but I've seen statements about flame tops being more resonant than plain tops, because the flame fibres "capture stress". Conversely I've seen claims that plain tops are better because of the consistency of the maple giving better resonance. Many people swear they can hear the difference between Brazilian and Madagascan rosewoods, or even different mahoganies. The glue type is supposed to make all the difference to the sound, depending on how crystalline it is, and the mojo of any given guitar is increased by up to 247% by putting some dings in it (or paying someone to do it). With any subject of intense interest, whether Les Pauls, wines, art, growing orchids, breeding dogs or collecting tractors, you have a whole world created that has its own language, history and set of beliefs. A sort of religion. Certain opinions are developed that become fossilised as "fact", and like any religion, dissenting opinion isn't popular. Try claiming that the 1947 John Deere isn't the best tractor ever, and see how far you get. With modern art a canvas covered in paint splashes can be analysed to death, with "experts" declaring they can deduce the hidden meaning from the brushstrokes, and even how the painter was feeling at the time. But these experts can be fooled by a canvas painted by a child or chimpanzee if the back story is convincing enough, and they produce their in-depth analysis accordingly, based on what they THINK they are looking at. Same with the two wine tests above. I think there is a bit of realisation that it is possible to overanalyse Les Pauls or construct "facts" out of thin air, with people refuting claims like "2007 guitars are better because of this or that factor", or even daring to suggest that Brazilian isn't necessarily all it's cracked up to be. There was a post on the other Les Paul forum which included a rant from a dealer, saying that there was no difference between an original 'burst and an Historic, that most of the stuff said about Les Pauls was nonsense, and he gave his reasons for saying that. But because the belief system and language of the Les Paul world are part of what appeals to people it isn't going to change, and the rant seemed to go largely uncommented-on.
RichCI Posted December 7, 2008 Posted December 7, 2008 Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. A guy I know who has an Epi Les Paul owns a very nice guitar that is comparable to any Gibson LP Standard that I've ever played.
Cruznolfart Posted December 7, 2008 Posted December 7, 2008 Bravo, Axe! We all rationalize and justify our own foregone conclusions. The guitar that was, from inception, a "log" is now sold on points that were proven moot by dint of the original concept. Nail some pickups on a 2 X 4, stretch some strings over them and, voila', you've a solid body guitar. Hang some wings on it and cover the top with something purty and it's still a 2 X 4 with magnetic pickups and wire strings.
Tim Plains Posted December 7, 2008 Posted December 7, 2008 Is there a Coles notes version? I don't have all day...
KSG_Standard Posted December 7, 2008 Posted December 7, 2008 Right on Axe! You are no longer a Unicorn, you're post shows that you are thoughtful and perspicacious.
justin.guitar.. Posted December 7, 2008 Posted December 7, 2008 But...... you forgot one thing ... THE PICKGUARDS! That makes all the diffrence!
daveinspain Posted December 7, 2008 Posted December 7, 2008 It's not the pick guard at all.... It's what color pick you use!
justin.guitar.. Posted December 7, 2008 Posted December 7, 2008 Or maybe if your pick matches the pickguard?
Silverbursted Posted December 7, 2008 Posted December 7, 2008 Kind of causes you to pause when people here are slamming Fender, Epiphone, Schecter or BC Rich (well maybe not Epiphone (J/K)), but well done AXE. But here is a question for discussion; there must be some truth to our snobishness when it comes to choosing a Les Paul, whether it be between Gibson over other manufacturers or lines within Gibson that causes us to desire our preceived perfect guitar. Is it vanity or something else? I guess we have all been guilty to some degree of being "cork sniffers".
Thundergod Posted December 7, 2008 Posted December 7, 2008 One of the best threads you have posted AXEman. I was debating something of the like a while ago with some people from the dayjob. In short: our brains are lazy, so they lie to us sometimes.
Thundergod Posted December 7, 2008 Posted December 7, 2008 Is there a Coles notes version? I don't have all day... In short? Gibson Custom shop is great stuff. Gibson USA is better. Epiphone is best. You spent all that money in vain:-" .
FallenRoses Posted December 7, 2008 Posted December 7, 2008 I would agree. My Epi sounds almost as good as my Gibby. Difference is your preference. And of course what you play. On my Epi I play thrash Drop D stuff and metal, and my on my Gibby I play Bluesy Rock and classic hard rock in Half Step. They both have their flavors. And I don't get what y'all mean by pickguards causing different tones or even the colors.
Thundergod Posted December 7, 2008 Posted December 7, 2008 So you don't know about the "pickguard effect"? Man, where have you been? That's basic guitar player knowledge. White pickguards make your guitar sound bright. Black/white/black/white/black (custom) pickguards make it sound dark. Then you have that Nirvana song written by jimmy page and slash for forest gump that says the perfect tone is achieved by buying a pickguard (any color) and painting it creme. You can then install it on the guitar or just leave it in the guitars' case... that is of no importance.
KSG_Standard Posted December 8, 2008 Posted December 8, 2008 I would agree. My Epi sounds almost as good as my Gibby. Easy there big fella! Your reading to much into the original post. Just jerkin your chain!
slimjimdom Posted December 8, 2008 Posted December 8, 2008 Now that's what I'm talking about! Thanks for posting that Axe. Enjoyed it.
Thermionik Posted December 8, 2008 Posted December 8, 2008 . Axe - could you please, please, please post that OP again on the Acoustic forum. They could really benefit from that information. Won't change their opinions but it just might open their eyes a tad.
Bram Posted December 8, 2008 Posted December 8, 2008 Nice read, but I'm not convinced. I've played a bunch of Epiphones and other Gibson copies...they are all nothing compared to the real deal. Why would you upgrade an Epiphone with higher quality pickups/electronics if you can buy the real deal, which also stays in tune far better than the Epi?
ChanMan Posted December 8, 2008 Posted December 8, 2008 Nice post Axe. I have to say I am a bit surprised by your more cerebral side. This test has been done numerous times, and almost always has the same result (Mythbusters Vodka experiment being one exception) Most folks will look at the results and deduce that wine is wine, so the vintage and name are not really important. Thinking people will deduce that some "experts" are often over-blown megalomaniacs who talk as much out of their *** as they do their mouth. Intelects will deduce that people use many different inputs to make decisions; that there is, in fact, a distinct difference between some wines, but that largely, the interpretation will depend on an individuals personal preference... which is often influenced by external factors not at all related to the the actual test being conducted, such as bottles or labels... ... or pickguards or flamed tops.
ALIEN8 Posted December 8, 2008 Posted December 8, 2008 What we believe to be true is only what we have defined, perceived and related to. Common sense is only common to those who understand, and have been taught that understanding. 1 + 1 = 2 because of thousands of years of teaching, not because 1 really means one. When I get my car fixed, I never tell them the problem. They always ask (for fun now) I just say something isn't right. Since I've started doing this, my car has had every single problem fixed - and I'm not paying for BS either, since I actually do know the problem most of the time. The point is to let them figure out the problem and fix it, any good mechanic will, not lead them to a symptom and band aid it. At the end of the day, the only thing I have is my instinct and ability to make decisions.
maestrovert Posted December 10, 2008 Posted December 10, 2008 Heya AXE, would you please post a link to the quote(s) in your OP ? Thank you very much !
tulsaslim Posted December 10, 2008 Posted December 10, 2008 Well done, Axe. I hope everybody understands the very valid point you're making here. It should not diminish anyone's desire to buy a Gibby, though. It sure won't stop me. Heck, everybody knows what determines great tone is what kind of fiber you use in the cloth you use to wipe off your pickup covers..........
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.