Post by Tony Ravenscroft on Jun 18, 2022 15:58:54 GMT -6
I was scanning a guitar forum, and a guy asks for input. He wants to find out what differences (if any) he would encounter if he were to take a decent Squier Stratocaster, replace the entire vibrato assembly with wood, and bolt down a much simpler bridge.
The disdain was palpable, like a trickle of warm slime running down the back of your neck --
...and then there was all the random pseudo-smart wankery ("you can't fix the wood that was cut out and so putting wood back in only ruins your tone because now more pieces")
Overall was a sort of derisive "pity" that such a silly project would even be considered... this coming from a bunch of grown-up (
) men () who will happily rip out a $200 pickup they bought last year and replace it with a shiny-new $200 pickup then rave about what geniuses they are for having discovered this Graal and its secret -- which they don't know is actually either "a fool and his money are soon parted" or "you won't go broke betting on stupidity" but they are incapable of grasping it.
Let's dispose of Myth #2 first. I've actually PLAYED an SG, so don't even START to hector me about dive.
The key problem with #3 is that it depends entirely on "the tonewood myth," that a solid-body electric guitar should only be made of a single piece of wood -- quality wood at that -- with no glue whatever. This requires ignoring all the tone-robbing stuff that we stick onto that wood, like pickups, pickguards, potentiometers, switches, and paint, not to mention snugging it against various parts of our body then for good measure pressing our hand and often our arm on it as well. But it also ignores a few centuries of woodworking experience that ultra-thin layers of glue are often more solid than natural irregularities in just about any piece of wood, especially those species so common and cheap that they are readily available for commercially produced solid-body guitars.** The self-styled pundits will often pretend that any glue reduces the guitar body to the equivalent of D-grade CDX sheathing plywood with frequent knots and gaps.
As for #1, while Blackmore is potentially a guitar genius, his opinion remains an opinion. I would suggest to his defenders that they ream out a Les Paul Custom, replace half the wood with springs and chunks and bits of steel, then defend this as a tonal improvement -- moreover, compare the tone of the carved-up LP with how it sounds after the screws go in.
____________________
** - for instance, poplar: as one luthier put it, not a bad choice, simply "boring" because it has no particular quirks of resonance that would give the resultant guitar any sort of the much-ballyhooed "personality." Additionally, poplar is consistent from guitar to guitar, forever and ever, amen, so your chances of finding one standout example are about zero -- any playable "good enough" poplar guitar is pretty much guaranteed to be tonally identical to any other guitar from the same factory and timeframe.
The disdain was palpable, like a trickle of warm slime running down the back of your neck --
- "No, you can't do that, Richie Blackmore says the springs ARE THE SOUND"
- "No, the head dive would make it unplayable"
- "No, don't do all that useless extra work when blocking the bridge would do the same thing"
...and then there was all the random pseudo-smart wankery ("you can't fix the wood that was cut out and so putting wood back in only ruins your tone because now more pieces")
Overall was a sort of derisive "pity" that such a silly project would even be considered... this coming from a bunch of grown-up (
) men () who will happily rip out a $200 pickup they bought last year and replace it with a shiny-new $200 pickup then rave about what geniuses they are for having discovered this Graal and its secret -- which they don't know is actually either "a fool and his money are soon parted" or "you won't go broke betting on stupidity" but they are incapable of grasping it.Let's dispose of Myth #2 first. I've actually PLAYED an SG, so don't even START to hector me about dive.
The key problem with #3 is that it depends entirely on "the tonewood myth," that a solid-body electric guitar should only be made of a single piece of wood -- quality wood at that -- with no glue whatever. This requires ignoring all the tone-robbing stuff that we stick onto that wood, like pickups, pickguards, potentiometers, switches, and paint, not to mention snugging it against various parts of our body then for good measure pressing our hand and often our arm on it as well. But it also ignores a few centuries of woodworking experience that ultra-thin layers of glue are often more solid than natural irregularities in just about any piece of wood, especially those species so common and cheap that they are readily available for commercially produced solid-body guitars.** The self-styled pundits will often pretend that any glue reduces the guitar body to the equivalent of D-grade CDX sheathing plywood with frequent knots and gaps.
As for #1, while Blackmore is potentially a guitar genius, his opinion remains an opinion. I would suggest to his defenders that they ream out a Les Paul Custom, replace half the wood with springs and chunks and bits of steel, then defend this as a tonal improvement -- moreover, compare the tone of the carved-up LP with how it sounds after the screws go in.
____________________
** - for instance, poplar: as one luthier put it, not a bad choice, simply "boring" because it has no particular quirks of resonance that would give the resultant guitar any sort of the much-ballyhooed "personality." Additionally, poplar is consistent from guitar to guitar, forever and ever, amen, so your chances of finding one standout example are about zero -- any playable "good enough" poplar guitar is pretty much guaranteed to be tonally identical to any other guitar from the same factory and timeframe.
