Guitar Change

[ttmax]

The guitars are no longer what they used to be. In the sense that historical brands have worsened them (fortunately not all of them) while emerging ones or those that produce economic instruments have improved a lot. Or maybe my tastes changed as a boy, I had some Korean epiphones sold because for me, too closed and muffled today, I have 3 (Chinese) and I find them much more balanced and pleasant to listen to. Evidently accomplice the more airy modern sound than in the past? I do not know, the fact is that before an instrument if it was not emblazoned brand did not sound today things have changed, are certainly not € 3,000 guitars, but for example the two economic ibanez and sx almost hold head to the old queens.

If an ibanez for less than 200 euros is so versatile what is to be expected from one that exceeds 3 zeros?

Yet I had always had an idea of ​​a Ibanez meowing rock guitar.

Which model would be ideal for blues?

[Vincent]

If an ibanez for less than 200 euros is so versatile what is to be expected from one that exceeds 3 zeros?

It is a good question. I have cheap and expensive guitars and enjoy them all. I do believe you get more value for money when you spend more but there is a limit. It is difficult to say what that limit is though. Above a certain price diminishing returns are a factor. For example, who needs genuine ruby fret markers?

If you're happy with what you have, stay happy

[Deleted]

It is nice to feel a properly finished instrument with good quality components but, in my experience, I've never needed to go anywhere near three zeros to enjoy it. I reckon my ability to appreciate the finer things in my guitar life tops out at around £600-£700. At that level I am in the Presidential Suite and can appreciate no more. After that it's like pearls before swine to me.

I also would never take a £600 to £700 guitar to any gig, not even if I'd hired the hall myself and invited all the guests. I would be bound to trip over something and knock it off it's stand and cry as my Bollinger baby emptied its exquisite contents over the stage. For me stage=under a £100 guitar.

As for the blues, you can play that on anything from a diddley bow to a $50,000 Les Paul...and no doubt beyond.  In fact didn't Muddy Waters start with just a cable attached to his shack? I'm sure, at that time, he could only have dreamed of any of the Chinese things we turn down.

[ttmax]

Well As I have already mentioned today, there is no need to spend a capital to have a decent instrument.

But never having an ibanez if not when was a boy (amplified acoustics) I was pleasantly surprised by its versatility, by its sound obviously compared to its price but even more by its aesthetic refinement and by its hardware the tuners keep the tuning and the hurry is perfectly rounded, not like on the hb recently purchased.

Have I been lucky or are the ibanez all like that? For example my prs se play better but have cosmetics defects ibanez no and cost 1/4.
I also owned 3 gibson, les paul standard 1983, 335 1987 and sg faded 2003; all sold because they didn't excite me that much.

So I can't compare today, I'd like to try an Ibanez now maybe art, ar or Fs i don't like f. r. bridge.

[LeoThunder]

It seems people have trouble understanding the different concepts of a music instrument and a nice, beautiful or "valuable" object.
They want to believe that spending 10 times the money will give them more instrument quality but they will mostly get a nicer object with exotic materials.

The original Telecaster was a worthy instrument but a terrible object: ugly, simplistic and cheap looking but functional. It did a good job at making music, not at looking elegant or classy. The original Les Paul was a better object but still not on par with the more elaborate and much more expensive hollow-body Gibson of the time.

Spending more money at the bottom of the price range will of course fix the instrument's quality: better set-up possibilities, better or more elaborate parts, more functionality, better matching (including level frets), discarded "lemons". Once that has reached optimal level, more money will mostly go into fantasised improvements, looks or plain luxury. I'm sure a titanium bridge could be made but I doubt anyone would notice a difference. Putting diamonds on a guitar doesn't make it better, it only makes its owner look rich. That guy hand carving motives on a Gibson top at NAMM was such an example of making a unique, expensive object which also happened to be a guitar.

As to pick-ups, I assume that technology and material prices have evolved to make quality cheap, as they do for about anything else. The old brands capitalise on people's ignorance and wishful belief that price equals value.

[LeoThunder]

Regarding pick-up sound, there seems to have been a change in taste or at least in targeted sound along the years.
This video is a good example of a Strat compared to an Ibanez:


The Strat' is more coloured and the Ibanez appears to have a flatter frequency response.
Both are coloured of course, these are magnetic pick-ups and they are far, very far from reproducing the sound of strings, but this is not wanted from them. It might have been in the early days, then the electric guitar sound became its own thing and no one wanted to hear something like a solid body guitar with a microphone in front of it.

Vintage enthusiasts love the old sound of Stratocasters. I don't dislike it but will prefer the wider Ibanez variant and still want both, the same way I sometime like the "rounder" (read limited) sound of a humbucker. I also like to listen to music played both on the piano or the harpsichord (I find it hard to like Bach on the piano, though - too "round", unless it's played crazy by HJ Lim - check her out), and even Haydn on the clavichord is fun.

Back to pick-ups, I don't know if the flattening of the frequency response is the result of a change in taste, of a calling for harsher sounds in the heavy area, or simply the result of evolving technology. I suppose it is the latter which was then put to use. The same thing happened with bass sounds. The Stingray was probably not built for a particular style, more on the assumption that a wider spectrum would be perceived as improved possibilities and therefore quality. After all, it can always be filtered down easily. Overtaken competition relied on preserving "tradition" and kept offering, then re-issuing its old legends.

I still don't know who would ever have wanted to play a Gibson EB3, but I must be wrong:


I have strings of all types on my basses, roundwound, flatwound, tapewound, and I like to vary slightly the balance between pick-ups, more neck or more bridge depending on mood. I don't have a favoured, chosen sound and I keep varying the plucking position too. On guitar, I will sometime take a thinner pick for better highs.

[Deleted]

It's the mix that really dictates what will work. As frequencies get grabbed by various instruments, simply adding more of those frequencies means they cancel each other out. In the end, a mix packed with sizzling cymbals, thumping basses, vocal harmonies, wide ranging keyboards, some percussion and a load of busy sequencing going on, let alone possibly needing space for a vocal to be heard, the guitarists in the band have to decide where they sit (or the producer will tell them). Rhythm playing will then have little space for subtlety or freedom of tempo and can either chug on some humbuckers in the lower mids zone or go bright like Nile Rodgers. Lead work will need to fit between vocal phrases or underpin them in some way if they are not to compete with them.

Simpler arrangements or just soloists will want more detail in their instrument to give plenty of dynamics and expression. They may not even care how in tune they are as 1/4 prebends, modulation, modal thinking, rubato or chromatic playing won't sound ghastly against any other instruments. All are valid in context.

[ttmax]

LeoThunder

We have the same thought 😜

[hartonbenley]

Which model would be ideal for blues?

This one :



Ah. It's not in the list...

So OK : let's go for the 2 Fenders, then.

Cheers,