Thoughts to Ponder.

[AXE®]

Not just Les Pauls but Gibsons in General...

 

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.

[TheLiveSoundGuy]

Hey Axe, You're in the acoustic forum. Man you musta had a real good birthday.

[AXE®]

Hey ... I have a Custom Shop Acoustic ...

 

And... it... is... beautiful....

[Thermionik]

.

.

 

Come on acoustic people - somebody must have some input on this topic..... surely..... anybody.....

.

[albertjohn]

Chuffin' Ada!

[TWilson]

I saw John the Baptist in a head of lettuce once. Chuffin' veggie!

[TheLiveSoundGuy]

I saw John the Baptist in a head of lettuce once. Chuffin' veggie!

 

I once saw a head of lettuce in a John.

(don't ask, I didn't)

[onewilyfool]

Hey, I didn't just fall off the turnip truck. I know when someone is subtly trying to talk me out of my Bob Colosi pins, nut and saddle. Making me feel I wasted all that money.....well I'm not buying it!!! When I did these upgrades I noticed several subtle changes, a more rounding of the sound, full bodied but not overpowering, an added purity and delicacy, somehow my guitar seems more integrated. The notes seem to be more well structured with a longer finish. I fully expect the sound to improve over time as the Colosi elements age with the guitar. 2006 was a FANTASTIC year for bone and fossilized ivory!!!

[Thermionik]

;)

.

.

 

onewilyfool:- wily - possibly..... fool - no way, no how.

[Michael]

Axe, very good point!

[jefleppard]

very well written, axe. nice avatar, too. brings many points of the placebo effect to the context of the forum. we hear what we want to hear at times. sometimes i wish i didn't hear what i know i heard. alongside of hard scientific facts there lies the science of deception. i used to be a wine taster/writer too. good cover for a drinking problem.

[AXE®]

So... Is a rose by any other name still a rose?

Or... Is a turd still just, a turd?

[Rambler]

I think its easy to let let bias color opinion when you are pre-disposed to favor/dis-favor something. One way to get a "pre-conceptual" response would be to do the old blindfold test. Then its down to ears or flavors. On that basis, Id say discerning ears can hear the difference.

[onewilyfool]

OK....here's one for you......do you ever read the reviews in say, "Acoustic Guitar Magazine", where the so called expert "reviews" a guitar? Now understand, that the same guitar getting reviewed by the magazine, lays out some hefty dough to advertise in the same magazine, AND probably the company sent over the best example of the guitar ever to leave the factory. Same in car magazines.....the reviews are just never very critical, are soft and generally pretty shallow. These reviewers and the magazine they work for will NOT bite the hand that feeds them. So, I read a great review on the Martin Eric Clapton 000-28, and was gassing for one for a long time. I must have played 20 of them at Guitar Center, Gryphon, and several other guitar places in my neck of the woods, and I found them to be very substandard guitars. Almost all of them were bass challenged and just did not have a good sound, at least for me. One of the guitars at Guitar Center, had a saddle so low, that it would need a neck reset within two years!!!! And the reviewer, the so-called expert gave it a rosy review. So, I gave up, only to find one on craigslist used in my very own town. It was exceptional. I got it, but really 1 out of 20???? So, I think it just goes back to basics, regardless of company, name, reputation, review, forum gushing, etc., etc., it comes down to actually playing the guitar (or several examples of the same guitar) , seeing if you like that particular guitar, and getting it if it is for you. Simple. The rest is just mental masturbation. I've read threads in this forum from members who say something like, I was really gassing for a J-45, but when I went to guitar center I played this fantastic J-100 and wow, I just had to have it. It is like that sometimes....Those experts in Acoustic Guitar Magazine, they use the same techniques and methods to describe guitars as the so called wine experts do to describe wine. The jargon may change, but the B.S. is the same. When a guitar speaks to you, it is yours, no matter what the talking heads have to say about it.....

[mooseguy]

AXE

 

Congratulations- a brilliant piece of writing to ponder and consider.

 

In my not so humble opinion, a lot of the dog doo doo (and cat doo also) that is so freely disseminated by countless reviewers of countless things is primarily based on their own personal snobbery quotient and in how strong it is as directed towards the reader and/or a listener.

 

Moose

 

Who has lately been dropped by the BLUE BOOK OF FAMOUS PERSONS and also the YELLOW PAGES

[LesLawrence]

I find this rant to be pointless. Trying to find some objective truth in matters that are purely subjective is doomed to failure. It should come as no surprise that the perception of taste is colored by other senses (sight) or that the perception of sound colored by sight as well and will vary from one individual to the next including the "knowledge base" of shared sense experiences with others. Ultimately it is only what makes each individual happy that counts.

 

For the person for whom the red tinted white wine evokes the flavor of a red wine, it IS a red wine for him.

 

Cheers,

Les

[brians356]

In the '80s when I was working in the house band in Harrah's Reno there was a bartender there named Rich who had worked there for like 20 years. A bon vivant and raconteur, everyone liked him and he was the quintessential barman's barman. Anyway, he had a standing bet: Blindfolded, you would not be able to correctly identify which of three soft drinks were which - Coke, Dr Pepper, and ginger ale. You could taste and re-taste them as many times as you liked. He claimed he had never lost the bet, and I believe him.

[Doc]

Interesting. I have the rare ability to listen to music, blindfolded, and identify the style (country, jazz, rock and/or roll, etc.). Sometimes I can even identify the exact name of the artist.

 

I can do the same with guitars, violins, pianos etc. I can hear a song and say, "that's a piano" or "that's a kazoo". Some of us have a gift.

[brians356]

That is a gift. Now, I have a blindfold, you got $20 on you?

[onewilyfool]

LOL Doc........

[TWilson]

Re Acoustic Guitar Magazine: I subscribed to it for one year and I never read one negative review of any guitar.

[Always_Black]

Re Acoustic Guitar Magazine: I subscribed to it for one year and I never read one negative review of any guitar.

 

Hmmmm. Are you sure none were negative? Or, is that just your perception? Maybe you read them blindfolded.

[TWilson]

 

Hmmmm. Are you sure none were negative? Or' date=' is that just your perception? Maybe you read them blindfolded.[/quote']

 

Ha! Now that you mention it, I'm not sure. I think I read some of them with one eye closed standing on my left foot.

[ballcorner]

This is a great post that reminds us of many variables in individual tastes. I recently read about a wine tasting where many top experts were invited - they tasted exactly the same wine with two different labels - the grand cru label got all the accolades and the table wine label got all the bad adjectives. They tested the same group of experts with white wine that was dyed to appear red. None of the experts could place the wine as white - instead referring to it with adjectives normally associated with typical reds.

 

It is important to understand that a really good guitar sounds different with each player. The lighter touch people get one reference out of it and the heavier player gets another.

 

It helps also to understand that as a general rule our high frequency hearing deteriorates as we age.

 

Further, and perhaps most important, is the fact that a guitar can be absolutely amazing but have no purpose whatsoever in the arsenal of a particular player. I have a guitar like that - a Tony Rice Santa Cruz - that is more stunning than you can imagine, but I can't sing with it - my voice bleeds into the midrange notes and you can't hear the words.

 

All of these factors contribute to our idea that guitar A is better than guitar B while our best friend might argue the opposite.

 

When I go to buy a guitar I wear a blindfold and my wife hands them to me to play. In this way, I get the best guitar for my ears and voice and am not influenced by appearance or brand.

 

If there were only one way to hear music we would have one brand of speakers (Energy I hope) and one brand of guitars (Gibson, certainly). The wine? Ripple, obviously.

[Thermionik]

.

.

 

Errm, pardon me for being stoopid ballcorner - but aren't the red/white and cru/ordinary bottle experiments the very ones in the OP, posted on the 10th by the esteemed AXE®, and which have been discussed so far? I can only guess that you 'recently read about' it a day ago, at the top of this thread.....