|
|
Joined:
January 2006
Posts: 1479
Location: Michigan | i don't know about you but in the 60's i started learning the electric guitar and all of the guitars that i could afford to play back then had the action set so high and the neck so thick that my fingers would bleed after a half hour of playing.
that is how i judged the value of a guitar back then.i could not afford a decent guitar back then but i was fortunate to have have a few friends that had gibson sg's and es 335's and some fender mustangs and strat's so i was able to really enjoy those,and that is how i set the grounds on what a great guitar was ( low action and a thin neck )
but my question is back then i judged a guitar on having low action and a thin neck being so easy to play not a brand name and that has always stuck with me.
back then if you would of told me that some day i would enjoy playing a 12 string with a wide neck and higher action i would of grabbed my bong and walked out of the party.
now i see a different side of why guitars have wide necks vrs. thin necks and low set ups vrs.higher set ups.
do any of you share the same thoughts from back then ? GWB |
|
| |
|
Joined:
November 2004
Posts: 367
Location: Eaton, Indiana | Define old... |
|
| |
|
Joined:
January 2006
Posts: 1479
Location: Michigan | u r right , i meant old as in years for an age on a guitar 60's or 70's model. age is only a mental thing when it comes down to human age . GWB |
|
| |
|
Joined:
January 2006
Posts: 5881
Location: Colorado Rocky Mountains | Good observation, GWB. My experience is very similar. I was fortunate to have been "loaned" a two year old Gibson ES-125 and a similar year Gibson amp in 1959 that I then kept for 10 years. The neck was fatter than Fender necks, but the action was low and the scale of the ES-125 was perfect for an early teenager with small hands to learn on. For most of my life, I shied away from anything with a fat wide neck because I was afraid it would be a struggle with my small hands. My first wide neck, the Takamine EF75, changed all that, and these days I have come to appreciate the comfort of playing a wide neck guitar. When learning to play as a youngster, the neck width and profile as well as the string height can be important factors. 50 years ago, you could buy a cheap acoustic in a pawn shop for $10, and $25 would get you something with acceptable action in a beautiful sunburst. It did me. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
December 2001
Posts: 10583
Location: NJ | loved hagstroms in the day they had the thinnest neck
can't stand them now |
|
| |
|
Joined:
November 2009
| Yeah, I had and liked my Hag for the same reason, always sorry I got rid of it. I recently saw one on ebay and took a close look. What a piece of junk!
Back in the sixties I really didn't know how guitars worked, electric or acoustic, only that they did. Now I can use my understanding to help me get more out of the instrument. As for wide vs thin, I don't care. I can work with whatever. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
January 2007
Posts: 137
Location: Massachusetts | I started playing an electric in '56. It was a Supro that I had for a few years before buying a new Fender Jazzmaster in '60. I can remember going to the music store to purchase an orange Gretch cutaway with a tremlo arm. After trying it out it felt uncomfortable to play, I guess it was because of the high action, or a bad set up. Anyways, the store owner handed me the Jazzmaster and it was love at first sight, low action, thin neck, smooth tremelo action. I played that until '72 when I got a Gibson Les Paul, a wider neck, but low action.
I still own both of those, but I have gone onto acoustic guitars also.
The only acoustic that I own with a high action is my classical. The others have nice actions, almost like an electric, but they are high end instruments. To me the neck of the guitar is the most important feature, then comes the sound. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
February 2008
Posts: 747
| Looking back I've never owned a guitar with a bad action. First was a $25 classical bought in Woolworths circa 1966 or 7, next was a Sears solid body followed by a Pan Les Paul and a POS Gibson SG then my Ovation bought in 1975 and a Norman dread about in 2001. Pretty much from the beginning I got into setting them up so they weren't impossible to play. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
April 2008
Posts: 2985
Location: Sydney, Australia | A friend had a cheap Hondo 12 string in the early '80s. The action was so bad that barre chords were impractical (you could make one if you tried really hard, but only for a very short time). We took it to the music shop to get adjusted - they couldn't fix it, but it became a competition in the shop to see who could hold a barre chord down closest to the nut. No one got closer than the 5th fret. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
September 2003
Posts: 9301
Location: south east Michigan | I'm still not a fan of a high action set up... even if it compromises "tone" quality.
I've learned that there any number of playing techniques that will have a much larger impact than what kind of set-up you have.
For instance... just the angle that the pic strikes the strings makes a big difference. If properly done (as per Matt Smiths instructions) you'll notice an immediate improvement.
.
I'm done with fretting over things like bone nuts and saddles, fretboard density, or if the braces have been marinated in Al Dimeola's bath water. My guitars are plenty good enough. I just need to learn how to get the most out of them. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
March 2002
Posts: 15666
Location: SoCal | Originally posted by Slipkid:
I just need to learn how to get the most out of them. Yes you do.
Seriously, I used to be a huge proponent of getting the action up as high as you can for the best tone. That's not always the case. It's a guitar by guitar situation..... |
|
| |
question for you old guitar players from the sixties & seventies
