Lunch Report - Thursday, March 24th

Lunch: Turns out today is leftover day. It's either leftover homemade Chicken Noodle Soup (my wife made it with enough noodles it's practically a strange hybrid Italian-style pasta dish, but still not bad) or leftover Buffalo Chicken with blue cheese dressing and green beans. My heart's saying Buffalo Chicken, my brain is saying to eat the slightly older Chicken Noodle Soup since A) it's older and B) we can use the pot to make White Chicken Chili. It also looks like we've been on a chicken craze.

G&L Topic: Model/Design/Option You Want that G&L Doesn't/Won't/Can't Offer.

First the question. Is there a model/style of guitar, or some option/configuration you would love to see that G&L does not have for whatever reason?

A bit of backstory. I would love to see a reissue of the Starcaster or some G&L variant. Not the crappy Strats that Fender inexplicably calls Starcasters, even though they are totally just budget/starter Stratocasters as far as I can tell. These guys (pics by way of TDPRI):





I'm a bit of a Radiohead fan, so you can probably figure out where I first saw these. They are kinda cool looking, they really look pretty AND innovative to me. The headstock is strange at first, but grows on you (I think it is cool and matches the body's contours nicely), Jonny Greenwood certainly sounds good playing one, and the more I look at it the design just really, really makes sense for a rock-orientated semi-hollow guitar. Check out that treble-side cutout! It would also be different enough from my Heritage Prospect, or even an H-535/ES-335, to have its own sort of niche. It definitely has me curious. In reality, my Prospect probably covers that niche just fine for the semi-hollow needs. Still, the Starcaster just seems like a really great design in its own right.

From what I can gather Fender has no intention of reissuing or updating the long-abandoned Starcaster, I can guess they would want to keep the design to themselves just in case, and I am not sure if there is any real push for G&L to enter the semi-hollow arena outside of the Thinlines (which might also fit the same niche as well, at least to a certain degree). Even if G&L wanted to make a Starcaster-type reissue, I have no idea what legal issues that would represent. It seems to be a nice reinvention of the H-535/ES-335 style with its own updated design and some really, really smart design specs. Sadly, it seems to have been abandoned despite being apparently a great overall design.

Non-G&L: Creatively Lame or Disappointing Designs/Marketing: Ideas or Results.

For this, what are marketing designs (advertising/commercials, or products) that either seem lame but actually work, OR seem cool but are huge disappointments? Now this one might be a bit of a dead end or it might take off. Hopefully it is at least somewhat amusing to you as a group.

My example for things that seem cool but end up being a huge disappointment is from my own childhood. The Transformers. I guess I cannot say the whole concept was creatively "lame," and I loved them as a kid. Certain examples, when you think about it, were pretty stupid. Primarily:

Soundwave, an evil robot whose awesome transformation was to turn into . . . a cassette-deck boombox:


I understand it was a disguise, and it was cool he could shoot out cassettes that turned into pterodactyls or robotic black panthers, or a robot mini-me. But the way they stretched the laws of physics made it a total stretch. He went from this HYUGE giant robot that could squash trucks to this boombox small enough (not to mention light enough) for some 80's sheik kid to pickup without even so much as dislocating a shoulder. Even as a small child, my grasp of the basics of science made my mind just slip a gear when that happened.

Megatron, the evil robot with a giant canon strapped to his arm that transformed into his disguise of . . . a Walther P38?:


First off, similar to Soundwave, his ability to alter his mass always threw me off. Second, I did not get the design. He went from a robot who could fly and had this HYUGE gun on his arm to a 9mm pistol? Even lamer, he transformed into a small handgun that could not even move or fire itself? And hardly the most inconspicuous design. At least Soundwave's transformation made for an effective disguise. Want to draw attention to yourself? Turn into a gun just lying around. Trust me, NOBODY is going to walk by and not notice that. The toy itself also had part of the barrel & trigger guard sticking out of his crotch in a fairly phallic manner. I know it's one of the constraints of the design, but it tended to come across a bit clunky.

As for creatively lame ideas that actually work? The Snuggy:


I hate to admit it, and I totally, TOTALLY made fun out of these. They are the goofiest idea I have seen in a LONG time. But my wife wanted one, I got it for her, and she loves the thing. Go figure.

-Cheers

Last edited by Halowords on Thu Mar 24, 2011 7:58 am, edited 1 time in total.

Honorable mention for ideas that probably sounded cool but ended up being huge disappointments:

Sea Monkeys: Mine never lasted terribly long, they were too tiny to make out except as moving specs of something I could never quite make out, and as far as I could tell they never looked like this!



Manimal: This was a show about a man who could turn into any animal he chose and used it to stop crime. I loved this as a kid, but recently saw a Charlie Brooker special that referenced it and showed some clips. It did not age well. The imagined sales pitch, summarized by Charlie Brooker on Screenwipe: "A man turning into a snake? That's @#$%in' awesome!"

-Cheers

lunch today will also be leftovers with a salad on the side, I hate my diet, lol

I like your idea of the starcaster, its a beauty. Dont know what other models they should do, so I'll leave that to the other guys to comment.

As far as advertising goes, I agree with you, but my pet peeve is that sometimes I see these amazing commercials on the tv and they are soo good that I talk about them. Then some one say, cool, but what was the product????? I dont know.

So ads that are so good and funny that you never know what they are advertising for.....

As far as advertising goes, I agree with you, but my pet peeve is that sometimes I see these amazing commercials on the tv and they are soo good that I talk about them. Then some one say, cool, but what was the product????? I dont know.

So ads that are so good and funny that you never know what they are advertising for.....

Great point. Advertising seems to have definitely developed into its own art form. Sometimes I think they tend to overshadow (if not flat out obfuscate) what they are actually marketing. I also see commercials that I cannot stand (e.g. McDonald's "I'm Lovin' It!") that make me subconsciously sour on whatever company put that sort of stuff on the television. My daughter will always call us into the room (if we are not already there) and point out what commercials/toys she thinks are awesome. I suppose it works, but it is a bit interesting how they market items whenever I watch it and analyze what they are doing.

-Cheers

Lunch: Looks like it's going to be potato soup from the cafe at work. Wife is buying, so I'm good with that. She says it has celery in it and won't even try it. I don't care, personally. Just something to hold me over until we get home and I can cook something.

G&L Topic: Sorry, that Starcaster looks like it got hot and melted on one side. Can't think of any designs that I'd like to see G&L redo. I think their strength lies in what got them there, and they should continue to play to that. Not saying they should stagnate. Just saying I can't think of any designs I'd like to see, new or old.

Non-G&L Topic: David, you have way too much time on your hands. Or maybe an over active brain cell or two.

G&L Topic: Sorry, that Starcaster looks like it got hot and melted on one side. Can't think of any designs that I'd like to see G&L redo. I think their strength lies in what got them there, and they should continue to play to that. Not saying they should stagnate. Just saying I can't think of any designs I'd like to see, new or old.

Fair enough. I like the Starcaster, even as is. It seems a lot prettier to me than the Gibson Moderne. I'll admit, if the Starcaster body was symmetrical near the bridge/butt end, but with the more offset lower cutaway, it might be a bit more appealing. I think there would be a market for that. I just find the whole package pretty ingenious as it retains most of what people love about semi-hollows but adding just some subtle touches that to me make a lot of sense and fit in with the vision of the guitars Leo had a role in.

As for the rest, yeah, I think the designs of most of what got them to where they are tend to be pretty well thought out. I would probably have said a set-neck, but now that I have spent some time w/ my S-style, the bolt-on really sits with me just fine. I DO think the G-200 would be kind of cool to try out.

Non-G&L Topic: David, you have way too much time on your hands. Or maybe an over active brain cell or two.

Maybe Most of it comes I think from a bit of an overactive mind, and trying to amuse myself whenever I am not mentally engaged. Honestly, I don't have much free time by-and-large. I DO have time where I'm stuck doing things where I have to be there but when I'm watching my daughter watch Sponge Bob and I end up doing laundry or cleaning the counter, this stuff sort of pops up and I sort of think about it. So I'm busy, but my mind is not exactly taxed by this stuff. Besides, I wanted to keep this somewhat entertaining for those of you who bothered to read this. Hopefully this has been somewhat of a success.

-Cheers

I wouldn't mind seeing the G&L G-200 come back for another round. Maybe make a 'thinline' version to go with?

Not much else on my mind right now, could use a nap.

Hello everyone,

Being French my lunch, even on a diet, has to include protein, grains and vitamins. Hence I have today a nice piece of melting-fresh Brie, fresh bread ( I walk to the bakery across the street from work, don't tell my wife) and for vitamins today I will have a Beaujolais Village 2009. Just a drop mind you. Leftover from yesterday's delicious supper. No butter, however tempting it might be, will be added. It will however be missed.
My wife's salad, sadly, jumped out of my briefcase into the wastebasket. Tried as I might, I could not stop it! What a shame.

I am new to G&L and just acquired my first, a Legacy, 2 days ago. I am still in guitar heaven. What a sound!

Being a great reader of comic books in the late 60's, the ads that had me dreaming was, if anyone can remember please raise their hands, that great submarine that had a working periscope AND a torpedo. Tried as I might, my parents never ordered one for me even if I offered to mow the lawn all summer. I still ended up cutting the (*?&? grass and had to settle for the see-through glasses.
Boy, where they a disappointment. I guess my secret love was wearing a lead laden dress as my glasses had no effect whatsoever on her. They kind of looked geeky too!

OOps, I have to go back to work.

À votre santée!

Paul

Would I be at all correct in guessing the Starcaster and G-200 suffer from being what are perceived as being viewed more as "Gibson-style" guitars? I kind of wonder if there is a bit of a duality mindset. It kind of makes sense as Fender and G&L are sort of (largely) in the bolt-on, 25.5" scale, Maple necked, Ash/Alder bodied, generally smaller a/o solid bodied guitar camp. Gibson and Heritage are in the set-neck, 24.75" scale, Mahogany, hollow/semi or archtop-inspired designed guitar camp. Just as a casual observation, it seems that whenever one tries to cross over in the other realm it seems to not go over so hot for one reason or another.

-Cheers

Hello again,

Here are my favorite useless ads from the roaring 60's;



The memories!

Halowords, you are correct in your assumption. A good friend of mine cannot see anything good in a 25.5 bolt-on design. For him the only good combination is a mahogany set-neck with a 24.75 scale. He tried to convince me that I was wasting money buying a GL strat.
IMO the starcaster has a love or hate look (I love the melted guitar comparison, it fits) that is more obvious than the scale. Like the V's. I just can't stand them. But then, they're Gibson...

Au revoir!

Paul

Would I be at all correct in guessing the Starcaster and G-200 suffer from being what are perceived as being viewed more as "Gibson-style" guitars? I kind of wonder if there is a bit of a duality mindset. It kind of makes sense as Fender and G&L are sort of (largely) in the bolt-on, 25.5" scale, Maple necked, Ash/Alder bodied, generally smaller a/o solid bodied guitar camp. Gibson and Heritage are in the set-neck, 24.75" scale, Mahogany, hollow/semi or archtop-inspired designed guitar camp. Just as a casual observation, it seems that whenever one tries to cross over in the other realm it seems to not go over so hot for one reason or another.

-Cheers

The bolt on 25.5 is what I am all about. The starcaster I will pass on though, I agree with the melted comments . My current 7 build is also a strat shape (traditional, not ibanez super strat). I find that the most comfy shape to play on. My ASAT has tummy and arm cuts on it too. Never really cared for carved tops though, not sure why.

Hey Paul, great examples! That reminded me of this little number:



I'm sure these were much more disappointing that the awesomeness I envisioned. I remember imagining a hovercraft that not just floated but flew around a few feet off the ground like something from the Jetsons, or more realistically (to my child's mind) this:



It was totally going to take the place of a car (or bus, boat, plane, etc.). I actually forgot about them until years later when I saw video of one. I knew intellectually the hovercraft I imagined as a kid did not (and really, could not) exist, but it was still much less impressive than I would have hoped.

-Cheers

The starcaster I will pass on though, I agree with the melted comments .

Fair enough. They stopped making them for a reason, the aesthetics could be a big reason why.

The bolt on 25.5 is what I am all about.

If I could ask, why? I am liking something about how the notes ring out on the 25.5" scale, they just seem a bit more, well, ringing, and articulate. I would still like to hear your reasons for preference, just curiosity. As for the bolt-on, I'd be really interested in this (although maybe I should start a new thread or just use the search button, it's not like this is a really new discussion). I am happy the bolt-on doesn't bother me, and it's cool if I ever need to swap it out. That said, I like the set-necks. Mainly because the neck heels CAN be a bit smoother, and they look a bit nicer. That said, tonally I don't notice anything specific that could not have a dozen different causes, all access neck joints (AANJs) are probably a lot better for upper fret access than my current guitars and just as good as a blended neck, and looks matter to me for about 1.5 after I actually play an instrument (I really get oblivious, I could have a hot pink guitar with a picture of Urkel on it and sort of forget about it once the first or second note rang out until I hung it back up). Anyway, anything in particular that made you a bolt-on guy?

My current 7 build is also a strat shape (traditional, not ibanez super strat). I find that the most comfy shape to play on. My ASAT has tummy and arm cuts on it too. Never really cared for carved tops though, not sure why.

I love carved tops. Again though, creature comfort types of contours aside (tummy and forearm cuts), I have to admit they do not exactly add much except looks. Which I find I care a lot less about once I'm actually playing.

I'm still waiting on


and

If I could ask, why? I am liking something about how the notes ring out on the 25.5" scale, they just seem a bit more, well, ringing, and articulate. I would still like to hear your reasons for preference, just curiosity. As for the bolt-on, I'd be really interested in this (although maybe I should start a new thread or just use the search button, it's not like this is a really new discussion). I am happy the bolt-on doesn't bother me, and it's cool if I ever need to swap it out. That said, I like the set-necks. Mainly because the neck heels CAN be a bit smoother, and they look a bit nicer. That said, tonally I don't notice anything specific that could not have a dozen different causes, all access neck joints (AANJs) are probably a lot better for upper fret access than my current guitars and just as good as a blended neck, and looks matter to me for about 1.5 after I actually play an instrument (I really get oblivious, I could have a hot pink guitar with a picture of Urkel on it and sort of forget about it once the first or second note rang out until I hung it back up). Anyway, anything in particular that made you a bolt-on guy?

AANJs are alright I guess, but when you start taking too much away from the neck joint the sound of the guitar changes a bit. If you play a guitar without one long enough you realize that AANJ solves a problem that isn't even an issue. The connection needs to be rock solid. I play a proper thumb behind neck, so I don't care if there is a heel there, doesn't bug me, it is the inside of the lower horn that can cause me issues. I like the ability to swap necks if the worst happens, but I also like how the neck feels relative to the body. The neck through I had felt sort of out of line, and weird. I find they tend to have more snap also, but this is likely the 25.5" scale. I like the increased tension on the strings, and where everything is situated. I find a 25" scale a little crammed.

There are also some differences associated with scale and sound, the harmonic content changes a little, and the pickups (notable the bridge) are generally situated a bit differently (or both are same distance from the bridge, but that makes 'different' positions due to different vibrating length. Scale length and sound are pretty heavily correlated, much more than tone woods people like to exagerrate, they down play the effect of scale. [sarcasm] After all, a 2 humbucker guitar, with a ToM bridge, 24.75" scale made of mahogany sounds darker/warmer because it is made of mahogany, not any craziness about the shapes of wave forms changing and the picking spacing not changing (so the samping is different) and so on. [/sarcasm]

So for me it is mostly a 'feel of the string' thing, and feeling of neck relative to body. Feels studier, more responsive, and you get that little bit of extra forgiveness on harmonics. You can also do the best set up on a bolt on, as you have an extra factor, you can shim the neck if you need to.

Wow, you brought back some memories with that picture of Soundwave. I had one of them as a kid, and I loved it. Transformers are great toys and while I can see how they can be perceived as lame, they are also cunning.

Scenario: Decipticon goes into a room, goes to play his favourite Skid Row cassette in the boom-box on the kitchen bench. Soundwave transfroms and waste's him. Job done.


I hate Coca-Cola ads, where you get a bunch of good looking people half naked on a beach playing with some fantastic toys having a great old time, then they all drink a Coke and go and do things to one another (that last bit is implied, perhaps by my imagination). The reality is that the person you see in supermarket with the 30 can block of cans probably weighs the same as all the attractive people in the ad together.


G&L Starcaster: No thanks! IMO, that's an ugly guitar The pickups look too big, the lower f-hole is obscured by the pickguard and the bridge looks cumbersome. I have an old Baldwin which has that sort of offest thing going on and it's much nicer to look at:





If you like that style guitar you could do a lot worse than a Reverend. I played a couple of these the other day and was stunned at how good they felt. Easily felt as nice as a US Fender. They have very nice, chunky necks. Great finishes, good pickups and hardware. And they look nice too!




As for guitars I'd like them to offer, I'd like to see the ASAT Classic with the saddle lock bridge, like Sam suggested yesterday. They could call it the ASAT Classic Special, or something.



I too like the 25.5" scale. The strings feel better to me over the longer scale. Upper fret access isn't an issue for me, I so rarely go past the 12th fret. The frets up there are just too small.

Ads, I avoid em like a plague. I think Blarg should write some adds, he cracks me up-and he said skid row...

Guitars I would like to see G&L build? A 12 string semi hollow, any body style is OK with me.

I played a Les Paul pretty extensively a couple of times over the years, once a standard and once a custom. After both of those experiments I finally made peace with the fact that I like the 25.5 scale. I thought the shorter scale might make sense because I have small hands, but no dice.

I do love the look of a fixed neck axe, though.

Boy, does that Starcaster take me back! Unfortunately, it's one guitar I never bonded with. The body is great, but I never really cared for the pickups. The Master Volume is useless. Your pic is of a very nice one--I can't recall ever seeing one with that much flame. The thinline acoustic is one guitar that Gibson excels at, though you won't find the 25.5" scale. My ES-330 Long Neck was a great guitar, and I thoroughly enjoy the 335 I have now; as well as my Ibanez Artstar AS-120 and my Hondo clone. Yeah, wish I had a Starcaster--but I probably wouldn't play it much.

The Starcaster actually falls into your category of, "Great idea, but disappointing."

Bill

Ads, I avoid em like a plague. I think Blarg should write some adds, he cracks me up-and he said skid row...

I'm too honest for that game. It'd end up like the film 'Crazy People', a favourite of mine.


[youtube]OxZz-nXTeCs[/youtube]

The Starcaster I have not seen in years. I always thought of them as CBS/Fender's wacky way to get into the 335 market. The bolt on neck and the Wide Range pickups made it sound bright. IMO.
I would like to see G&L come out with a semi hollow similar to a 335. But I never considered G&L or even Fender as a 335 style company. I don't see G&L making a set guitar anytime soon. I don't think its there niche.

Chet

AANJs are alright I guess, but when you start taking too much away from the neck joint the sound of the guitar changes a bit. If you play a guitar without one long enough you realize that AANJ solves a problem that isn't even an issue. The connection needs to be rock solid. I play a proper thumb behind neck, so I don't care if there is a heel there, doesn't bug me, it is the inside of the lower horn that can cause me issues. I like the ability to swap necks if the worst happens, but I also like how the neck feels relative to the body.

I guess I would like a BIT of a rounder, more blended heel. I play thumb-behind-neck, but still find when I slide high enough my thumb just hits the edge of the heel. Granted, it's not a huge deal and I can still stretch to get down there, but it could be a BIT better. I've never had an AANJ, except a brief ownership of an old Carvin DC set-neck that I wish I'd kept. I guess just a smoother transition that kept as much of the substance of the neck joint for stability & sound as possible is my dream (well, that might be taking it a bit far).

There are also some differences associated with scale and sound [snip]

Yeah, I agree. Or to be precise, I've come to the conclusion it all no doubt makes some difference, but there are a lot of factors that realistically I have decided not to put too much emphasis (for me at least) into any one to try and get some magic recipe for The Ultimate Guitar! Not that it is not fun to talk about some of them though.

So for me it is mostly a 'feel of the string' thing, and feeling of neck relative to body. Feels studier, more responsive, and you get that little bit of extra forgiveness on harmonics. You can also do the best set up on a bolt on, as you have an extra factor, you can shim the neck if you need to.

I'm a bit torn. I'm kind of a set-neck junkie, just from playing Hamers, Heritages, and formerly Gibsons. However, I love the one 25.5" scale guitar I have now, which happens to be a bolt-on w/ a fairly heavy Swamp Ash body & Maple neck. As a set-neck Mahogany & Rosewood nut, I should not like this as much as I do. But it sounds really sweet, plays nice, sounds full and bright/clear/articulate without being shrill or sharp or lacking in the bottom end, and I really like it. I can't say this gives me direction on what to get/build next, but it is something to think about. To what conclusion, I'm not quite sure to be honest.

I THINK I want to try a Mahogany or maybe Basswood bodied 25.5" scale set-neck guitar w/ a Mahogany neck and a Maple cap for a SuperStrat kinda build, but could just as easily talk myself into Alder or Swamp Ash body, and maybe go with Maple or Bubinga for the neck instead of Mahogany, am not contemplating bolt-on vs. set-neck, and am toying with an Ebony fretboard. Just for something completely different. So really, there are easily several different guitars I could make out of those options. I'm just going to chat w/ a builder for this (Steve Benford), sort of let him know what I'm looking for, and probably honestly just take his advice. For all I know, with the right setup and amp settings any of them could end up being "the one" that could do what I am envisioning. Then I could go out on the Internet and proclaim I had found the magical blend of tonewoods, neck-setting, pickups, strings, mojo, etc. for the best tone ever!!!!!!!!!!!!!

But I probably won't. I'll probably just have one nice guitar that has one possible flavor out of many, get it setup to sound nice to me, then start looking for that ASAT or Bluesboy I'll eventually be picking up.

-Cheers

Strings and picks are where your tone starts.

I remember Starcasters. That was the first time that Fender modified their standard six string headstock.
I am not counting the Twelve string necks that they modded for some obscure 60's model that I can't remember.

They couldn't give Starcasters away in the 70's. Now they are collectible because there really were not that many made.