Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jwells393
Very unique way they do that truss rod.
|
Truss rod is changing:
http://www.guitarsbyleo.com/gldp/messages/23156.php3
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Johnny Caster
I should have added a third option for 'Yes, but not the headstock'.
Personally, I wish Fender had created some new ideas and continued the evolution rather than "re-invent" his old ones. Telecaster -> Stratocaster -> Jazzmaster -> Jaguar -> ???. Not to mention all the ones inbetween (Musicmaster, Duo-sonic, Bass VI, etc.). I mean who would have guessed that the ??? would be a telecaster with an ugly headstock among other odd features. It could have been so much more, even if he didn't have the name still (which is a shame).
|
Actually, he didn't want to rehash the old designs and was forced into it to get more sales. Look at the different stuff from the early 80's, quite a variety. Sure, many of them look like traditional shapes, but all of those shapes have a very functional approach to the design (including the Fender ones you describe). The evolution was in hardware and electronics. The pickups and controls are not intuitive to many life-long tele players, but that doesn't make them bad.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by david henman
...the trem bridge. very clumsy and overly complex design. impossible to tune, because it cannot find the zero point. don't believe me? ask any guitar tech who has tried to set one up.
otherwise, the tone, playability and build quality are all second to none.
-dh
|
I had an '82 S-500 and the trem was my favorite I've played (for my style of wangbar use). Perfect return to pitch, easy to set up, huge range, great arm feel. YMMV.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by do not be afraid
on example of his "bright ideas" are the mfd humbuckers. the mfd pickups have a completely different sound than other pickups! they're louder than most "vintage" pickups, but they're also brighter, and bassier, with that "hi fi" sound i mentioned earlier, and can be "shaped" much more dramatically by tone controls, equalizers, etcetera, and, most importantly, a player's playing, and does all of this without relying on active circuitry like EMGs, etcetera. quite a remarkable design, and still "bleeding edge" today!
i understand that this stuff isn't for everyone, and, heck, it might not even be for me, but, i don't think it's fair to say that he ran out of ideas!
|
Well said, I agree!
I have never owned a tele-shaped G&L, but have seen a Broadcaster in concert a few times with John Prine and worked on a few ASATs. They aren't teles. Which does not make them bad guitars.