lapdawg
I am just finishing up a build and have been thinking about doing a new project. I've been working on a design that takes a bit from the Tele and a bit from Gibson designs. I wrote a list of things I wanted to build into the design and if I recall everything, it looked like this:
1. Light weight & balanced i.e. not neck heavy
2. Must use nice resonant wood. I want a solid body that is loud when not plugged in.
3. Must fit the body comfortably. The strat is great in this regard. The Tele isn't. The LP isn't that great either.
4. Neck angle to the body. 3.4 deg is about right and will work for a Gibson style bridge. The Fender style of neck and body all square is not my first choice. I find that a neck angle makes the guitar easier to hold and improves the fit. It brings it a little closer
5. Good access to the high register. Bolt on necks are not my first choice and make it harder to thin things down and transition smoothly from the neck to the body. One easy way to make a smooth transition is a straight through neck. Given point 2, a straight thru neck makes more sense.
6. Wrap around bridge - easier and cheaper than the tailpiece + bridge. I also prefer it.
7. Must have vol/tone on each pup. I like the ability to toggle from clean to dirty etc. I like the toggle switch next to the dials.
8. I have chosen Steinberger gearless tuners. A lot of traditionalists don't like them. I think nothing else gives the same tuning control. The pegs can also be positioned anywhere on the headstock. I have only been able to get hold of one set. They are unobtanium. The company called itself "Gibson" in name have removed them from the market.
9. Angled headstock. Gibson use 17deg. Mine is reduced to 10deg. I don't want to cut into the headstock for the truss rod nut and for the tool to adjust the truss. On Gibsons this removes a lot of mass and weakens the neck/headstock area.
10. Easy truss access. This will take the form of a spoke wheel nut between the end of the fingerboard and the neck pup. Nothing needs moving or loosening to adjust the truss. I still need to workout how to do this and keep it neat.
11. I was blown away by the TV Jones classic Filtertrons on Rikus' Cabronita build. I have listened a few Gretsch pups, but none of these really got my attention the way these did. They have real sparkle, but also fair grunt. I think these are more than just a compromise between Pafs and Tele pups.
12. Importantly, I want to keep costs down. Figured maple, Mahogany & Gibson hardware are expensive. With the R/$, it makes sense to look for better bang for your buck.
I'm still undecided about whether or not to bind the fingerboard. I have some great Cocobolo that I am going to use for the fingerboard.
Korina will be used for the neck and body with a walnut centre stripe. I have a few really nice pieces. Just from handling, I think it is more resonant than Honduras Mahogany. I'm quite excited about this wood.
The design started as an overlay on a tele drawing. The neck is traced, the rest has turned into something else. I haven't copied anything else directly or looked at other designs whilst drawing, but some clear influences are there.
I have been working out a build plan and the detailed steps and jigs needed to get it done neatly and accurately. Some minor decisions will be made along the way, but its dangerous to start before you can see a clear path to end.
I think that about covers it for now, more to come later.
V8
Mannnnn, this is gonna be good
Proper guitar pron!
Goooooo Lapdawg!
<V8 breaks out the popcorn>
rikus
V8 wrote:
Mannnnn, this is gonna be good
+1!
That's a very interesting list of requirements. I'm super keen on seeing this play out! I'm assuming you've seen Preeb on TDPRI's fender style builds (the Bolt I think he calls them)? He made some very interesting design decisions as a (primarily) LP builder approaching F style guitars.
I'm keen to see what your mind churns out! :goodtimes:
lapdawg
Rikus wrote:
V8 wrote:
Mannnnn, this is gonna be good
+1!
That's a very interesting list of requirements. I'm super keen on seeing this play out! I'm assuming you've seen Preeb on TDPRI's fender style builds (the Bolt I think he calls them)? He made some very interesting design decisions as a (primarily) LP builder approaching F style guitars.
I'm keen to see what your mind churns out! :goodtimes:
Preeb actually started as a Fender builder and moved to the dark side. This country is Fender bedon...
I want to incorporate some things like headstock angle, neck angle & mahogany-like wood into a something that will be at least a little recognisable to Fender players. i.e. a little-bit-other-way-round.
Don't get me wrong - I am also a Fender fan, but have always had an open relationship with them. I see other guitars...
rikus
I didn't know that. I first stumbled across Preeb in his epic LP build thread, so he's cemented as the LP builder in my mind.
singemonkey
Just remember that an electric lives or dies by its aesthetics. The Telecaster is a weird exception because it was the first mass-production solid-body, and people were fond of it by the time prettier guitars came along. If the Tele had never existed, and someone built one now, it would go nowhere.
lapdawg
singemonkey wrote:
Just remember that an electric lives or dies by its aesthetics. The Telecaster is a weird exception because it was the first mass-production solid-body, and people were fond of it by the time prettier guitars came along. If the Tele had never existed, and someone built one now, it would go nowhere.
Exactly. Thats why I am never going to come up with a design that everyone likes. Hopefully some will think its OK. I have shown a few people here and there. Some like it, some think it looks like the lovechild of a pig and a donkey.
Importantly, I am happy with it.
Nitebob
Subscribed! Sic 'em lapdawg!
.....hehehe ?
Chabenda
singemonkey wrote:
Just remember that an electric lives or dies by its aesthetics. The Telecaster is a weird exception because it was the first mass-production solid-body, and people were fond of it by the time prettier guitars came along. If the Tele had never existed, and someone built one now, it would go nowhere.
:'( :sorry:
I sort of agree but also personally consider a Les Paul to look like the leg on an old piano. Both guitars have got, in their standard and original forms, a unique sound. Does that not count for more than the looks? Talented players will go for the sound and ease of playing rather than the looks and they are the guys that others try to emulate - The Tele, Strat and Precision were all considered to be 'far out' when they came out but it was their playablity and sound that made them acceptable.
ezietsman
Chabenda wrote:
singemonkey wrote:
Just remember that an electric lives or dies by its aesthetics. The Telecaster is a weird exception because it was the first mass-production solid-body, and people were fond of it by the time prettier guitars came along. If the Tele had never existed, and someone built one now, it would go nowhere.
:'( :sorry:
I sort of agree but also personally consider a Les Paul to look like the leg on an old piano. Both guitars have got, in their standard and original forms, a unique sound. Does that not count for more than the looks? Talented players will go for the sound and ease of playing rather than the looks and they are the guys that others try to emulate - The Tele, Strat and Precision were all considered to be 'far out' when they came out but it was their playablity and sound that made them acceptable.
The sound would be the only thing to regard if looks wasn't a factor at all, for studio musicians this probably is true. If however, you want to perform and become a successful gigging outfit, lots of little details together makes up the image. The guitar's look is one of these details. So its not a make or break thing but it will stand out if it doesn't fit the rest of the look. A red 335, for instance, would look out of place at a death metal gig and so would a black, spiky guitar with skulls at a jazz gig.
Similarly, people don't always know why something looks wrong but they know it does and people have been looking at Teles, strats and Les Pauls and 335s for an awefully long time and those guitars (not the Tele) are pretty well thought out in terms of aesthetics. If you get it wrong badly enough, your audience will likely notice but may not know exactly what. Don't want to break that 4th wall for no reason.
Chabenda
[/quote]
The sound would be the only thing to regard if looks wasn't a factor at all, for studio musicians this probably is true. If however, you want to perform and become a successful gigging outfit, lots of little details together makes up the image. The guitar's look is one of these details. So its not a make or break thing but it will stand out if it doesn't fit the rest of the look. A red 335, for instance, would look out of place at a death metal gig and so would a black, spiky guitar with skulls at a jazz gig.
Similarly, people don't always know why something looks wrong but they know it does and people have been looking at Teles, strats and Les Pauls and 335s for an awefully long time and those guitars (not the Tele) are pretty well thought out in terms of aesthetics. If you get it wrong badly enough, your audience will likely notice but may not know exactly what. Don't want to break that 4th wall for no reason.
[/quote]
So why do we consider a Les Paul to 'look' ok for hard rock when it more resembles an ancient design like a violin or a cello? And I'm not trying to be rude here with regard to a Les Paul either. From what you have said though I would get the impression that a LP should be used for playing classical or gypsy music? Other than the fact that there are no contours for beer boeps and that the headstock is definitely odd, what else is wrong with a Tele aesthetically? Aii....life is so complicated :roflmao:
ezietsman
I think the answer is that we expect things because of what we're used to. We expect the notes to more or less fall semitones or multiples of semitones from each other, we expect strats for blues (in Cape Town at least), LPs for rock, Teles for country etc because the people brought those things into the foreground used them for that. Its arbitrary but you cannot easily change it. See the fiasco with movies shot and released at high framerates. We expect them to be 24 frames per seconds which is actually really slow, fast motions get blurred. So they tried 48fps (The Hobbit, recently) and people HATE it. It looks cheap (because home movie cameras have been high framerate for a long time) and you can now see other details that would have been lost before. The technology is vastly better but it doesn't necessarily make for better watching.
Not that one cannot change it, its just that the change must be considered. It cannot be arbitrary, it must be designed and take into account what people expect. With guitars you cannot keep everyone happy but you must keep the market you're aiming for happy.
ezietsman
Also, Teles and LPs are not easy to play yet many experienced players choose them over other guitars. Teles are hard because of the puny pickups they have (if you want the real tele sound) and they're uncomfortable. LPs are heavy, dig into your boep, upper fret access is impossible, they flub out on low notes and did I mention that they're HEAVY? They're also the best-sounding electric guitars in the world.
Pointy Ibanez guitars are better in almost every way and yet they mostly don't cause the amount of droolage and GAS these other stupid guitars give us. Look at PRS guitars too. They aim for the LP market and yet again, nowhere nearly as popular as a Les Paul but they are also 'better'. Go figure. People are funny man.
Hasie
Just to add my 2c.
I love LP guitars aesthetically. Hate the weight on them. And then you get like a PRS Tremonti SE, which is lightweight and yet, it is just not a Tokai or a Gibson. I always drool over the LP's. Tele's and Strats are just meh for my taste.
Then there is my Ibanez RG (Prestige series), which is fugly to my eyes at times, but I don't look at it when I play it. But man, that RG is a pleasure to play... And it has 2 humbuckers with coil split capability and 'n single coil. So I can get a wide range of tones from it.
Luckily for us all, our tastes differ.
ezietsman
Don't make the mistake of thinking I'm hating on any guitars here (ok maybe hating on strats a little bit). See my profile pic for reference.
Hasie
ez wrote:
Don't make the mistake of thinking I'm hating on any guitars here (ok maybe hating on strats a little bit). See my profile pic for reference.
Every time I see one of your posts, I try and ignore your profile pic. Makes me want to go out and buy a Tokai LS, every time. You should ask Lance for some commission.
ezietsman
Hasie wrote:
ez wrote:
Don't make the mistake of thinking I'm hating on any guitars here (ok maybe hating on strats a little bit). See my profile pic for reference.
Every time I see one of your posts, I try and ignore your profile pic. Makes me want to go out and buy a Tokai LS, every time. You should ask Lance for some commission.
Haha. It sure is nice.
?
Hasie
ez wrote:
Hasie wrote:
ez wrote:
Don't make the mistake of thinking I'm hating on any guitars here (ok maybe hating on strats a little bit). See my profile pic for reference.
Every time I see one of your posts, I try and ignore your profile pic. Makes me want to go out and buy a Tokai LS, every time. You should ask Lance for some commission.
Haha. It sure is nice.
?
That is evil.
And that guitar is so pretty. Guess I'll have to hit the gym more to get my back and shoulders strong for the Les Paul's weight.
ezietsman
It probably weighs as much or maybe less than your Eclipse.
Lu22
ez wrote:
Don't make the mistake of thinking I'm hating on any guitars here (ok maybe hating on strats a little bit). See my profile pic for reference.
I'm one of the freaks that likes neither the LP or Strat shape - mainly because they're the most commonly knocked off. The fender strat is like the Hello Kitty of guitars. Buuut I am a weirdo that likes pointy guitars so my opinion is void.
