What makes a [insert guitar name] a [insert same guitar name]?

Tonedef

My knowledge of the different guitars is steadily growing, and most of us can tell a tele from a strat at first glance.

But what makes a strat a strat, ferinstance? Is it the 3 single coils? The shape of the body? Or the style of the bridge? If you took a strat and replaced one or more of the single coils with humbuckers, or gave it some sort of floating or hard tail bridge, is it still a strat?

What about Les Pauls? Does the recipe call for just the right ingredients for it to be called a Les Paul?

And so on...

arjunmenon

A pointy headstock makes an Ibanez ?

BMU

...and a pointier headstock makes an ESP. ?

[deleted]

And a Jackson leaves everyone blind.

Tonedef

It's like herding cats I tell ya! >☹

I was of course referring to architectures and not specific brands. ?

Hammeron

SG Devil Horns >☹

ezietsman

Let me try. Guitar architecture IMO, is pretty much only dependent on the actual body shape. A Blacktop Fender strat with a rosewood fretboard and dual buckers is as much a strat as an Eric Johnson signature is. I'm willing to argue that it will be silly to say a strat MUST HAVE 3 single coils, maple fretboard and neck [whatever wood] body in order to be called a strat. Same with Les Pauls and teles and the others. The original manufacturers produce so many variants called 'Les Paul', 'Stratocaster' etc that in the end the only thing that makes it what it is is the actual design of the body and neck, i.e. the shape.

AlanRatcliffe

A guitar is pretty much whatever the manufacturer chooses to call it.

Tonally, it's a combination of everything (mostly but not limited to: scale length, pickups, bridge, wood choices and body construction style). You can change one or two things and stay in the same tonal range, but the more things you change the further you move from the original tone.

Seventhson

BC rich headstock can be used as a mace ???

---mario---

Seventhson wrote: BC rich headstock can be used as a mace ???

try hay fork ?

a Parker's headstock looks like a pistol (to me atleast)

a Steinberger doesn't have a headstock....

aubs1

...mario... wrote: a Steinberger doesn't have a headstock....

LOL......so it should be disqualified from this thread....... hahaha.... like my gran used to say: "it's good for nothing....." ?

arjunmenon

Stratisfear wrote: And a Jackson leaves everyone blind.

Gandhi would have been proud of you Strat. ?

---mario---

Aubs1 wrote:
...mario... wrote: a Steinberger doesn't have a headstock....
LOL......so it should be disqualified from this thread....... hahaha.... like my gran used to say: "it's good for nothing....." ?

Hmmm, it is a headless instrument with a name who's rights belong to Gibson.... And the original luthier whos name is on those instruments now manufactures electric classical instruments.... I know! It must be harp! deffinately doesn't qualify :-\

?

I still like the idea behind Steinberger's bridge technology, saw one in my first guitar book and thought wtf, 'coz most of them looks like cricket bats, but after some research they proved to be quite intelegently designed for there target market.... techno freaks ?

arjunmenon

...mario... wrote: I still like the idea behind Steinberger's bridge technology, saw one in my first guitar book and thought wtf, 'coz most of them looks like cricket bats, but after some research they proved to be quite intelegently designed for there target market.... techno freaks ?

Good point. They've taken it further with the bridge on the ZT3 which allows you to bend chords in pitch and also allows you to lock the bridge in 5 different positions.

---mario---

Arjun Menon wrote:
...mario... wrote: I still like the idea behind Steinberger's bridge technology, saw one in my first guitar book and thought wtf, 'coz most of them looks like cricket bats, but after some research they proved to be quite intelegently designed for there target market.... techno freaks ?
Good point. They've taken it further with the bridge on the ZT3 which allows you to bend chords in pitch and also allows you to lock the bridge in 5 different positions.

Woh, that sounds awesome, haven't read about that yet, will get in to it.
Is this mr Steinberger's initiative, or Gibson taking Steinberger's design a step further? Just out of curiosity.
I would still like to oneday when I've got some more practical knowledge on guitars stick a Steinberger bridge on a regular guitar, could only prove worthwhile me thinks.

arjunmenon

...mario... wrote:
Arjun Menon wrote:
...mario... wrote: I still like the idea behind Steinberger's bridge technology, saw one in my first guitar book and thought wtf, 'coz most of them looks like cricket bats, but after some research they proved to be quite intelegently designed for there target market.... techno freaks ?
Good point. They've taken it further with the bridge on the ZT3 which allows you to bend chords in pitch and also allows you to lock the bridge in 5 different positions.
Woh, that sounds awesome, haven't read about that yet, will get in to it.
Is this mr Steinberger's initiative, or Gibson taking Steinberger's design a step further? Just out of curiosity.I would still like to oneday when I've got some more practical knowledge on guitars stick a Steinberger bridge on a regular guitar, could only prove worthwhile me thinks.

Not too sure, but it seems more like a Ned Steinberger idea than a Gibson one. Gibson are IMO incapable of creativity or innovation (check out the Robot LP & the dusk tiger..puke).

singemonkey

Tonedef, this is a very subjective area actually. For example, I think that a Les Paul must have the classic curvy body shape, the carved top, the single cutaway, the short scale neck, and a paddle type headstock... and binding. So I don't rate LP Studios. But for many others the binding is irrelevant and they may say it's more about having a stop tailpiece or a maple top - and thus may not like mahogany topped LPs.

It's just a case of when the design goes too far from the template, people no longer recognise what it's referring to. Then it's not that thing anymore. I.e., if 1 is a '58 Les Paul Standard, and 0.6 is an ESP Eclipse, once you get to 0.4, no one's really thinking about it as a Les Paul.

---mario---

Arjun Menon wrote:
...mario... wrote:
Arjun Menon wrote:
...mario... wrote: I still like the idea behind Steinberger's bridge technology, saw one in my first guitar book and thought wtf, 'coz most of them looks like cricket bats, but after some research they proved to be quite intelegently designed for there target market.... techno freaks ?
Good point. They've taken it further with the bridge on the ZT3 which allows you to bend chords in pitch and also allows you to lock the bridge in 5 different positions.
Woh, that sounds awesome, haven't read about that yet, will get in to it.
Is this mr Steinberger's initiative, or Gibson taking Steinberger's design a step further? Just out of curiosity.I would still like to oneday when I've got some more practical knowledge on guitars stick a Steinberger bridge on a regular guitar, could only prove worthwhile me thinks.
Not too sure, but it seems more like a Ned Steinberger idea than a Gibson one. Gibson are IMO incapable of creativity or innovation (check out the Robot LP & the dusk tiger..puke).

Haha, I hear you on that one ?