In a message dated 10/29/99 8:39:04 PM,
synth1@... writes:
>Approaching middle-aged white male, forgoes Harley, opts for
>G&L Legacy Strat in sunburst w/pearl pickguard, rosewood fretboard.
>Actually, I get to expense it for "R&D module development" as "tone
>generator". Hee Hee.
I got you now, Paul. You better put out some great MOTM guitar modules or
I'll blow you in to the tax man.
>One serious Q: is there that much "feel" from a maple vs rosewood? Is it
>looks or
>is there a tonal difference.
The "story" is that maples have better sustain and tone, but are slightly
more difficult to play. I believe the variation between guitars is so much
greater than that to be noticeable. In 74 I bought a new off white maple neck
strat (because those Hendrix at Woodstock posters looked SOOOOOO COOOOOOOOL
-- I already had a 74 sunburst rosewood non-tremelo one; I wonder how many
really white kids bought strats because they thought they'd look like
Hendrix). Neither had good sustain -- strats aren't known for their sustain,
and the vibrato springs don't help that. In 83 someone decided they needed
that guitar more than me, and stole it. I really like strats (and I often use
whammy bars) so I decided to get a really good one and bought a refinished 63
with a rosewood neck -- I still have it, it kicks ass! It has a different
neck radius and fingerboard radius than the 70s ones. In terms of sustain,
tone and playability, it blows the 74 maple neck away. Too many reasons to
list. I'm thinking of building a tele (from a kit -- I only recently started
really liking teles), and if I do it'll be a maple neck, but that's cause all
my other guitars are rosewood.
>looking for leather pants, silk shirt, lava lamp
I think Emerson used to wear the leather pants too, so you've got all your
bases covered.
In a message dated 10/30/99 9:10:23 AM,
thudson@... writes:
>3) Maple is finished w/ poly-what-ever-their-using-these-days. Rosewood
>is inherently oily and doesn't take or need a finish. This probably
>has consequences in terms of hand sweat.
I think that the older Fenders pre 70 (or pre CBS to be sure), had a very
different finish on their maple necks, which allowed those necks to get that
beautiful dirty look as seen on Eric Clapton's (Layla) guitar on the cover of
that Delany and Bonnie album -- that's the guitar that just went for
$500,000, but I'll let my strat go for half that price!
>Two pieces of advice for best tone:
>- Start out w/ a gauge of string that is comfortable, and work your
> way up to a heavier gauge. High E gauge of 008 on a strat is a crime
> against nature. 010 is good 011 is better. I can't use 012's
> because my finger starts separating from my fingernails. SRV use
> to use superglue to fix this same problem.
>- If you want low action, buy a Les Paul. Strats sound better w/ slightly
> higher action.
I used to use 11s, but I've used 9s for a long time (20 years about -- Thomas
grimaces) and have no real complaints about tone or volume, etc. Strats have
a longer scale (string length), and because of the string "Ts" have higher
tension on the strings, so it's always a bit of a fight to bend the strings.
An old blues trick was/is to tune the guitar a half step lower (E flat) which
makes the strings much easier to play. This originally started so guitar
players (maybe guys like T. Bone Walker) could play more easily in horn keys
(e.g., B flat, E flat). I'm quite sure Hendrix tuned like this, and I believe
SRV did too -- so that's the part of using 12s that you don't hear about too
much.
And there is a very strange thing that happens if the front (bass) PU gets
too close to the strings, it will pull the lower strings out of tune. There
is a simple procedure for adjusting this PU, so contact me offlist if you're
interested.
>These are completely subjective opinions and if a scientist w/ a blindfold
>shows up at my door I'll deny ever saying them...
Yeah, but if she's got handcuffs, send her my way -- in the interest of
science of course!
JB