What Guitar Companies Don't Want You To Know - from YT

[gandydancer123]

i agree with that part of the vid actually. the fender bolt on was a way to keep costs down. it lets you speed up manufacturing by finishing the body and neck separately, you dont have to wait for the glue to dry, even when done wrong its easy to correct with shims, and, if something is wrong with the neck, it'd be easy to replace.

i like the tom anderson 2 bolt neck joint where the neck heel doesnt fit on a flat surface but sort of half a hexagon, but i imagine if you got that part wrong, you might have to throw away the body or neck. AANJ are nice too and probably easier to get right but fender's square bolt on design still looks like the cheapest way to do a bolt on.

i think its funny though that he himself doesnt ask why these designs are still so popular. it not just tradition. its not just because no one has ever tried building them differently. vox, dan armstrong, parker, and even ovation have tried improving the electric. why havent we all switched to stainless steel frets? why do we still use ancient pots instead of touch screens for controls? why 12 tones to a scale and no semi-tone frets? why are we still using the ancient pickup design instead of the hex synth pickup? why do they still still make the thing out of wood anyway?

good stuff!

[Poundcake]

Ok, I've read the comments here, and then went back to the video. It's a little funny kasi hindi masyado magkatugma. That leads me to the conclusion that hardly anyone actually took the time to intently watch the damn video. Nobody's even touched on Will's reply to Scott Grove's question regarding neck joint design which happen near the 20-minute mark, which is where his discourse (or littany for the naysayers) starts to become interesting. And yes... the video is of Will, not Scott Grove.

I thought about helping to clarify matters, but I'm also worried that nobody will read it either kasi di maiiwasang maging mahaba. So huwag na lang din. Hahaha.

I actually agree with some things that he said such as the neck joint design process. It's a good that he pointed that out. One of the reasons why I've avoided traditional Les Paul designs like the plague even if I find them really aesthetically pleasing and can afford to buy them is because the neck heel design doesn't suit my playing style. I've had my share of Les Pauls in the past (Standard, DC Pro) but I can't use them comfortably for 10-11 hour playing sessions (I play and/or direct music for three different churches every Sunday). That's why I'm happy with the neck heel design of my b3 Fire; I get a really good LP tone out of it and the neck design is significantly more friendly to my hands and wrists. Here's a comparative illustration:

LP neck heel


b3 Fire neck heel


I also agree with his suggestion to not be blindly loyal to traditonal big brands and traditional designs just because they've been existing since the 50s or so. I support small-shop brands that push the envelope in incorporating innovations into the guitars that they build. That's why I've taken a liking to John Suhr's products. His guitars feel very familiar but have a slew of useful features that are legitimate upgrades from traditional designs. Some of these features include string tree-less Strat headstock design, a very wide selection of neck profiles, the Silent Single Coil system, the blower switch and other bits and pieces that matter a lot in the long run. James Tyler and Tom Anderson's guitars are pretty awesome, too.

But again, what I didn't agree with is breaking down the cost of a guitar down to the acquisition cost of the raw materials and very little else. And he did spent quite a bit of time in discussing this. Paying extra to access a builder or manufacturer's expertise in building excellent instruments is perfectly fine. I won't pay too much (i.e. $8-10k+), though

And yes, the guy's name is Will, not Scott. I got confused because of Alex's post. Hahaha

[bryanarzaga]

wills post is something i dabbled in my mind when i was still a kid, what justifies the price of a guitar based from its core components and construction.

for example the levinson Blade was basically like a fender fat strat, they were identical but try explaining that to your dad and his friend who didnt think it was feasible to buy a 14 yr old this type of guitar(1997). i didnt know how to setup a guitar back then other than a trussrod adjustment and lowering saddles/pickups. so the only reason i could tell them was it 'feels perfect', eventually i didnt walk out with any of them (figured my jackson with emg select pickups was ok, so i just bought a dod-tec 4x (which only sounds good through a roland jc)

fast forward to the present, there's a wider variety of guitars, more knowledge shared across the web, tools you start to appreciate stuff thats out there(at least for me),  affordable or expensive, i see potential in guitars..however it still bothers me to buy a 2000-4000 guitar that needs to have a shim..but thats were bolt on are flexible in its own way

here's some neck heel pics on some of my guitars

warrior isabella



warrior knight



carvin dc600



dean evo 2000


dean hardtail



i prefer set-necks and neck through builds as they have less fuss to deal with the neck, dont get me wrong i still love bolt-on's as that design just makes it easy to service