avatar

gtoledo3

Aqua Marine

Posts: 4,239 Member Since:23/10/2013

#41 [url]

Mar 16 17 12:02 PM

For sure...though to my memory, there may be a piece of plastic that pops out on some, to make it more playable in sitting position. Not 100% sure. There were plenty of them in the local guitar shop when I was a teen.

The lack of weight can be a little jarring, and the sound of the guitars is very distinct.

I remember the transtrem working well.

Get yourself one of those, and an Ashbory bass with the rubber strings, and you're all set.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashbory_bass

Quote    Reply   
avatar

soapfoot

Ruby Baby

Posts: 7,512 Member Since:04/02/2011

#44 [url]

Mar 17 17 10:34 AM

zmix wrote:
Guitarists and Harley riders are the most conservative "rebels" on the planet...

I'm not sure either could be considered "rebels" anymore.

If you ask a kid under 30 to picture a "guitar player", the first thing to come to their mind will probably be someone their dad's age wearing dockers with a flametop PRS, perhaps at the local pub's Wednesday Night 7:30 PM blues jam.

brad allen williams

Quote    Reply   
avatar

jesse decarlo

Platinum Blonde

Posts: 1,571 Member Since:24/03/2013

#45 [url]

Mar 17 17 11:33 AM

While the point about guitarists being an aesthetically conservative lot is certainly valid in general, visual and tonal aesthetic judgements are both highly subjective. Disliking angular guitar bodies and headless necks isn't inherently any more conservative than disliking active pickups.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

soapfoot

Ruby Baby

Posts: 7,512 Member Since:04/02/2011

#46 [url]

Mar 17 17 11:47 AM

jesse decarlo wrote:
While the point about guitarists being an aesthetically conservative lot is certainly valid in general, visual and tonal aesthetic judgements are both highly subjective. Disliking angular guitar bodies and headless necks isn't inherently any more conservative than disliking active pickups.

True, and Steinberger's designs are well over 30 years old at this point-- had they become slightly more popular in their heyday, they'd now be seen as "conservative"!

Some of the "conservatism" is rooted in pragmatism, too, I think. I recently got an '87 Ibanez JEM 777 on a lark. Turns out it's an AMAZING guitar. Sounds f'ing awesome, and is a joy to play. It's my first guitar with a Floyd Rose-- what a great system!

...In some ways.

The thing with the Floyd is that it takes you half an hour to tune the guitar. Once you get it IN tune, it stays there-- It's been in tune for like a month, with scarcely even an adjustment of the fine tuners! But to get there takes forever. Changing strings takes a sizable chunk of time. I went up a gauge, the whole process of zeroing in on the setup took me a couple of hours. 

If you break a string on a gig, you had better have a roadie ready to hand you a backup, because you cannot continue playing that guitar. To re-tune with 5 strings would take half an hour. To replace the string would require two differently-sized allen wrenches and a fair bit of time.

So I won't gig with the guitar, even though I do some things where it could be cool. The Floyd Rose is just not practical for me.

"Innovative?" Certainly, in its time. Great design? Absolutely. It accomplishes exactly what it set out to accomplish, and filled the need.

Better than a strat vibrato? Well, clearly, IF your measure is "stays in tune when you dive-bomb it." But if your measure is "reliably practical for day-to-day professional use," the answer might be "no." 

On balance, the conventional strat vibrato won in the eyes of history. And I think it's for very good reason. The Floyd Rose is like the point guard who averages a double-double but plays no defense. The strengths aren't enough to offset the liabilities.

brad allen williams

Quote    Reply   
avatar

zmix

Aqua Marine

Posts: 4,288 Member Since:20/01/2011

#47 [url]

Mar 17 17 12:32 PM

So true...

The Steinberger, on the other hand, is impervious to environmental influence (I've taken mine from a frozen car trunk to a sweltering studio and never had to tune it..), dead simple to change strings, and most of it's design was bourne of pragmatic concerns...  The "look" came from eliminating the purely ornamental...

Last Edited By: zmix Mar 17 17 12:35 PM. Edited 1 time.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

soapfoot

Ruby Baby

Posts: 7,512 Member Since:04/02/2011

#48 [url]

Mar 17 17 1:21 PM

zmix wrote:

The "look" came from eliminating the purely ornamental...

Somewhat ironically, perhaps, I've often heard the same said about the Telecaster!

brad allen williams

Quote    Reply   
avatar

gtoledo3

Aqua Marine

Posts: 4,239 Member Since:23/10/2013

#49 [url]

Mar 17 17 2:00 PM

Vintage fetishism did a disservice to Gibson, in some ways, even if it may have been (debatably) good in others.

I will always prefer the fine tuning tail pieces and schaller roller bridges that they had in the 70s and 80s. I am more "even steven" on brass nut vs bone nut, but I think I prefer brass nut to the modern synthetic.

I'm not so particular about it that I MUST change out the tune-o-matic/traditional stop bar for the fine tune+roller bridge, but it's hard not to recognize how much more solid and functional it is.

If you have a Bigsby though, the schaller bridge is definitely the way to go.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

soapfoot

Ruby Baby

Posts: 7,512 Member Since:04/02/2011

#50 [url]

Mar 17 17 2:40 PM

I don't like the added weight of the TP-6 versus an aluminum wraptail, and am rather agnostic on nut material. But one area that I do think was better in the 70s (maybe the ONLY area, for my money) was the volute. That area was in serious need of shoring-up... there's so little "meat" between the truss rod channel and the back of the neck, and the volute helped a bit. Fewer broken headstocks on the volute guitars.

brad allen williams

Quote    Reply   
Add Reply

Quick Reply

bbcode help