Alan Ratcliffe wrote
So, do you want big, fat, smooth and untwangy, or bright with lots of sustain? ?
well... both actually.
I don't know if you take the word "bright" to mean twangy, but to me it just means enhanced highs? les pauls can be piercingly bright, yet no one ever accused them of being twangy (bar perhaps the peter green out-of-phase mod. even that, not so much...)
in that same interview, Johnson made the very valid point that one usually listens to an electric guitar within the context of a band. Even a three-piece will cover most of the e.q spectrum. eg, bass and kick drum dominating the lows, snare and vocals mids, guitar upper mids and cymbals and other percussion or ambience effects taking up the highs. Now for me, i've always wanted a guitar that sounds MASSIVE!!! think SRV, Johnson lead tone, Woman Tone, Malcolm Young, Joe Bonamassa "Sloe Gin" tone etc etc. so following this impulse, I had a full mahogany guitar with rosewood fretboard and round-sounding alnico 2's made. By itself, this guitar is indeed, MASSIVE sounding. But place it in the context of a band situation, and it doesn't really have it's comfortable 'spot' to sit in the mix. Not to mention, because of its e.q range, it hits overdrive pre-amps and pedals in a very unusual way. I am not taking anything away from the guitar, I TRULLY love it and the fact it is it's own tonal character...
ANYWAY!!! continuing on with Johnson, he said that rosewood boards tended to round out the sound and soften the distinction between where the guitar sat, and didn't sit, in the mix. For this reason, he prefers maple necks and boards for their more-defined e.q perimeter, and therefore the fact the guitar will sound "larger" in a mix.
I don't see the unvalidity of my point, Alan