Christian Guitar Forum

Christian Guitar Forum (http://www.christianguitar.org/forums/)
-   Guitar (http://www.christianguitar.org/forums/f13/)
-   -   What is the most versatile electric guitar (http://www.christianguitar.org/forums/t194970/)

phaze7486 08-28-2011 09:48 PM

PRS, they make some super versatile guitars.

Fenderdigitech 08-29-2011 11:19 AM

Strats are very versatile.

daddyo 08-29-2011 12:48 PM

1

Rainer. 08-29-2011 07:16 PM

Jack White makes a guitar (Scene from It Might Get Loud) - YouTube

*shrug*

CheshireCat 08-29-2011 09:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daddyo (Post 3675975)
What guitar would be considered not versatile? Dobro?

Well, not so much "not versatile", as whether it has flexibility of use verses being defined by specificity of use. IOW, Dobros may lend themselves supplely to various personal playing styles, which may lend themselves to various music styles, but there are certain settings where their appropriateness is debatable at best. The same would be said of classical (nylon-string) guitars, vs. the more common steel-string or dreadnought.

Other guitars such as Les Pauls, Strats and their clones, Teles in most settings, PRS's and their clones, and the common dreadnaught and it's clones, are guitars that have proven over the last several decades, or this last century, that they work with many different styles. So, in that instance, they would be considered "more versatile", but, really, any guitar that you can play anything you want on, that is by definition a versatile guitar.

Now, all that said, arguably, the most versatile guitar currently would be a fully optioned, tricked out, and outfitted PRS Hollowbody. That type of guitar, and it's ilk, would give you the most versatility in terms of different sounds, sound styles, as well as music styles played. That, incidentally, is similar to a guitar project I'm working towards.

Chesh

daddyo 08-29-2011 10:20 PM

By what you stated a varied collection would be better as to not halfway any style. Of coarse in a live worship setting this wouldn't be so handy but, in a studio a collection would make more sense.

I have six but find myself using only 1 or 2 for worship. Usually a humbucker equiped Tele and a concert sized acoustic. Just to not be mundane I'll mix and match a Jumbo 12 string, Les Paul and a Strat.

My daughter has convinced that we need a PRS double cut Les Paulish guitar with a Strat type trem.It will be joining us in a couple of months. I guess a Dreadnaught will be next.

I use all that I have but don't consider any of them to be "the do all to end all".

CheshireCat 08-29-2011 10:32 PM

1 Attachment(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by daddyo (Post 3676067)
By what you stated a varied collection would be better as to not halfway any style. Of coarse in a live worship setting this wouldn't be so handy but, in a studio a collection would make more sense.

I have six but find myself using only 1 or 2 for worship. Usually a humbucker equiped Tele and a concert sized acoustic. Just to not be mundane I'll mix and match a Jumbo 12 string, Les Paul and a Strat.

My daughter has convinced that we need a PRS double cut Les Paulish guitar with a Strat type trem.It will be joining us in a couple of months. I guess a Dreadnaught will be next.

I use all that I have but don't consider any of them to be "the do all to end all".

Well, it also depends on how far-ranging your guitar stylings are. If you only play in one or two discernible styles, then you might not need more than just a basic tele, strat, or dreadnaught. If, however, you do a lot more sonically or aurally, then you might need more options.

Case in point: a lot of what I'm into is heavily influenced by Prog-Rock and Prog-Metal, so we are talking about a massive array of sonic material to work with, ergo, having more options.

To that end, the Utah, and any theoretical siggy strat that I would have, will have the following:

* Mag Pickups, N, M, and B
- all combos
- parallel/series
- splitting
- phase inversion
* Piezo (or Acoustic Style) Pickups
* 3-Band EQ
* Sustainer
* MIDI

All those options are well documented and well substantiated technologically speaking, and are regularly used. I was simply wondering what it would be like to fit them into the same instrument.

And, after all, why not? Most of the guitars we've been talking about are solid blocks of wood with various bits of plastic and metal attached to them. If I can bolt this particular collection of bits of plastic and metal onto the block of wood, why can't I bolt that particular collection of bits of plastic and metal onto the block of wood?

Also, all of these systems are very small, and take up very little space inside the guitar, ergo, minimal wood removal. Of course, if you subscribe to the "chambering" schools of thought on guitar construction, you have an infinite amount of space in which to put the controls.

Additionally, I'm only using one or two systems at the most, and most everything is "set and forget", so I'm not constantly tweaking controls.

There is additionally some other advantages to this approach, such as the addition of Artec's QDD2, which gives me four pedals worth of distortion possibilities without having to tap-dance, for instance, and takes up no more space than a tone control, for instance.

Any of these controls, unless I was doing some sort of funky Tom Morello riff, or perhaps volume swells (which I'd probably just use a volume pedal for), I'm just clicking or flicking one or two switches at a time, usually between songs, or perhaps once or twice in a song, and only if I was going from one pickup to another for a lead vs. a rhythm bit.

Not only that, but consider that list again. How many controls does each system really have? How many spots does each control occupy?

* Mag Pickups, N, M, and B
- all combos (a five way blade and a push/pull)
- parallel/series (see above)
- splitting (a three way slider)
- phase inversion (a push/pull)
* Piezo (or Acoustic Style) Pickups (three way toggle coupled with mag system)
* 3-Band EQ (two controls with stacked knobs)
* Sustainer (two toggles and a pot)
* MIDI (two toggles and a pot)
* Artec QQD2 (one pot)

If you figure coupling of push/pulls with various pots, and use mini-toggles, that's not a lot of space to account for. You definitely don't need your guitar to look like this:

http://www.christianguitar.org/forum...1&d=1314683564

And, besides, it's silly to talk about having too many controls on a guitar, only to then talk about all the cool pedals and modeling amps you might have. You are just transferring whatever knobs you might have on the guitar to your other technology.

Chesh

daddyo 08-29-2011 10:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CheshireCat (Post 3676070)
Well, it also depends on how far-ranging your guitar stylings are. If you only play in one or two discernible styles, then you might not need more than just a basic tele, strat, or dreadnaught. If, however, you do a lot more sonically or aurally, then you might need more options.

Chesh

That's true. I guess I can't stand the idea of owning only 1 guitar or amp for that matter. I do like my toys.

CheshireCat 08-29-2011 11:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daddyo (Post 3676072)
That's true. I guess I can't stand the idea of owning only 1 guitar or amp for that matter. I do like my toys.

Well, I like my toys too . . . doesn't mean that each toy doesn't have to be fully tricked out.

Chesh

daddyo 08-30-2011 12:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CheshireCat (Post 3676070)
Well, If you figure coupling of push/pulls with various pots, and use mini-toggles, that's not a lot of space to account for. You definitely don't need your guitar to look like this:

http://www.christianguitar.org/forum...1&d=1314683564

And, besides, it's silly to talk about having too many controls on a guitar, only to then talk about all the cool pedals and modeling amps you might have. You are just transferring whatever knobs you might have on the guitar to your other technology.

Chesh

Wow! I would have to hire a couple of techs just to keep my sound stable. I don't use pedals unless you count my tuner. The only modeling amp I own is a Blackstar HT5 combo. I don't have the talent to use a lot of synth. I just play so the congegation is able to sing a little easier.

I use simple low watt tube amps. Oh I do use a Marshall AS50R but it's basically a solid state 50 watt personal PA for my acoustics. Do everything amps and guitars put me off. They can do most anything and do nothing well.

Ahhh, technology. Making our lives easier.

CheshireCat 08-30-2011 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daddyo (Post 3676085)
Wow! I would have to hire a couple of techs just to keep my sound stable.

Well, usually one tech is all you need. Just ask The Edge.

Quote:

Originally Posted by daddyo
I don't use pedals unless you count my tuner.

Well, you may not, but a lot of people do, as one can imagine.

Quote:

Originally Posted by daddyo
The only modeling amp I own is a Blackstar HT5 combo. I don't have the talent to use a lot of synth. I just play so the congegation is able to sing a little easier.

I use simple low watt tube amps. Oh I do use a Marshall AS50R but it's basically a solid state 50 watt personal PA for my acoustics.

Well, the Utah and it's counterparts weren't really conceived for P&W type setting. I would imagine a "simpler is better" approach to be more apropos in that setting.

Quote:

Originally Posted by daddyo
Do everything amps and guitars put me off. They can do most anything and do nothing well.

Well, I fail to see how that's valid. Sure, I guess some modeling amps might just have a bit too much modeling crammed under the hood to make them practical, but as far as the POC aspect of what I'm working on, how is that valid?

A single three-pickup guitar should be just as functional as three single-pickup-guitars, each respectively with their single pickup in either the bridge, middle, or neck position. It's purely a function of whether a few cubic inches of wood is removed to make space for said pickups, and whether there is a selector switch. The strat has proved this over the last 60 years, as have the LP, and even the tele. Remember, the tele started life as a one pickup guitar, being the Esquire and then the Broadcaster.

Everything on my list has proven superbly functional as an addition to a standard set-up like a strat, tele, and LP. My only question was, why can't we put all of them on one guitar? How does that detriment the functionality of any one particular system, assuming matters of providing juice to the systems aren't an issue (which they aren't) and such, or crosstalk from nearby magnets.

Each system is self-contained and as long as it should do what it is intended to do, then where's the disconnect?

Quote:

Originally Posted by daddyo
Ahhh, technology. Making our lives easier.

Indeed.

Chesh

daddyo 08-30-2011 03:01 PM

Oh I thought that you were saying this directed at me. Just because we have different approaches dosen't mean either is wrong, just different. I wouldn't have a problem playing side by side with you just because of your gear. Actually I would perfer it to have 2 guitar tones at the same time that are distinctly different.

CheshireCat 08-30-2011 11:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daddyo (Post 3676199)
Oh I thought that you were saying this directed at me. Just because we have different approaches dosen't mean either is wrong, just different. I wouldn't have a problem playing side by side with you just because of your gear. Actually I would perfer it to have 2 guitar tones at the same time that are distinctly different.

Don't follow. I wasn't offended by your comments; I was just following the logical argument or train of thought on that. You made some valid points about a P&W setting, for instance, which I can appreciate. The part I challenged was the bit about "do all guitars and amps doing everything, but not very well." Again, it just depends on the nature of the beast, on a case by case basis.

Incidentally, at the end of the day, the Utah, just like any other guitar, is just a hunk of wood with some strings and a pickup on it. No more, no less. If the music that you or I play on it sounds good, great. If not, oh well. Regardless of what innovations I've attempted to make on it, no one has ever once told me that it didn't sound good. In the end, that's really the only thing that matters to me. After that, it's simply translating that good sound into the various different mediums that are available.

Chesh

PS. - All the compliments I've ever received on it in person had nothing to do with any technology attached to it, but only ever specifically dealt with how it played and how it sounded, because that technology was non-existent at the time. It was literally a square cousin of a LP or PRS, and that's it.

daddyo 08-31-2011 12:25 AM

I might get shot for this so let me say that it's only my opinion. I think the do all guitar would be something like the Casio synth guitar and the do all amp smething like a Line6 modeler. To me they are too complicated and hard to use. Because of actually using a noisy fake sounding modeling amp I have gone in the opposit direction with the equipment that I use. Since then the complaints from my typical audience has subsided. With the success I have had using simpler equipment it would be hard for me to recommend or endorse didgital synthetic instruments beyond passive naturaly asperated musical instruments.


As far as the Utah guitar from what i gather it is an instrument that you built yourself. I have to hand it to you. I doubt that I could outdo the factories especially with their CNC machines but I have no qualms about upgrading their electronics and hardware with the aftermarket stuff that is out there.

CheshireCat 08-31-2011 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daddyo (Post 3676264)
I might get shot for this so let me say that it's only my opinion. I think the do all guitar would be something like the Casio synth guitar and the do all amp smething like a Line6 modeler. To me they are too complicated and hard to use. Because of actually using a noisy fake sounding modeling amp I have gone in the opposit direction with the equipment that I use. Since then the complaints from my typical audience has subsided. With the success I have had using simpler equipment it would be hard for me to recommend or endorse didgital synthetic instruments beyond passive naturaly asperated musical instruments.

Well, if that's your definition of a "do-all" guitar, then no wonder! :rofl:

Quote:

Originally Posted by daddyo
As far as the Utah guitar from what i gather it is an instrument that you built yourself. I have to hand it to you. I doubt that I could outdo the factories especially with their CNC machines but I have no qualms about upgrading their electronics and hardware with the aftermarket stuff that is out there.

Well, upgrading, hotrodding, and taking advantage of aftermarket electronics and hardware is precisely where the Utah got it's birth, and was the whole motivation for creating it. It started off as a Squier Bullet with a plywood body. I was going to do, in my estimation at the time (mind you, I was 20), the ultimate hotrod, that of replacing the whole body. (The new neck figured in after the original design process.)

See, back then, to me, switching out a pickup for a new one was hot stuff, so this was several times bigger. The square shape came from not having access to a bandsaw at the time, and then in trying to make it look more palatable, adding some contours, a cutaway, and then some bevels for ornamentation. I had to stick with that because I knew I couldn't manage anything even as simple as a Tele or LP flattop.

At the time, the EMG-85 and the Seymour Duncan Jeff Beck (nka the JB) were the hottest pickups of the time, so that's what went into the Utah. Splitting humbuckers were all the rage, so I added a splitter. EMG had the EMG-BTC circuit (Bass/Treble Control, then lka Bass/Treble Concentric), so one of those went on there. To mix passive and active, they each needed their own pot as a buffer, so, two vol. pots. And to round it out, a Switchcraft LP style toggle switch.

And voila! The Utah 1.0. All the other stuff came much later . . . only cuz it wasn't around when I first started, or I probably would have figured it in to the design.

If you played on it, I'd think you'd find it a very solid guitar, and not some piece of plastic with way too many buttons and knobs on it.

Chesh


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:48 AM.



vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.


Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2