Leaderboard

December GOTM...winner

who should win

  • Total voters
    85
PT said:
Flying V's can and are played sitting down. I've owned one for 32 years and still play it often, sitting down. This is how (not me but for demo purposes):
martin1tn.jpg

I like them, no, I love them.
Click to expand...

Meh, I dislike the idea of having part of a guitar between my legs like that.
The lower point of the V ends up too close to your man parts. :sad:
 
I think the Parker Fly is a hideous guitar.
I also don't care for Explorers.
I don't think the Flying V guitar us ugly at all, but it's definitely not My style.
 
line6man said:
PT said:
Flying V's can and are played sitting down. I've owned one for 32 years and still play it often, sitting down. This is how (not me but for demo purposes):
martin1tn.jpg

I like them, no, I love them.
Click to expand...

Meh, I dislike the idea of having part of a guitar between my legs like that.
The lower point of the V ends up too close to your man parts. :sad:
Click to expand...
Well, that's the part I,like. :blob7:
 
ORCRiST, Congrats!
I just read the complete thread on your guitar and it is indeed an outstanding instrument.
 
DangerousR6 said:
I think you're wrong, the world of 50's and 60's weren't ready for the radical shapes of the V and the EXP and the Modern. The Gibson designers were ahead of their time, thinking into the future. Unlike the brain dead designers of today..And I certainly would love to have a V or an Explorer from '58 or '59, but then again you used the words "unattractive" "impractical" and "poorly conceived". Well they're the 2 of the most sought after guitars in the world...
Click to expand...

The world of the '50s and '60s hasn't changed radically to this point, as far as body shapes are concerned. "Unattractive" "impractical" and "poorly conceived" are still appropriate adjectives for those goofy body styles. You're correct in that those guitars are highly sought after, but only because not many were made at the time - Gibson failed in their attempt to grab market share with outrageous designs. For instance, there were so few "Modernes" built that they're called the "Loch Ness monster" of guitars, since few people have seen one in real life. I happen to know a guy who has one, and Billy Gibbons is known to have one, but past that you may as well say they don't exist. Authentic Flying Vs aren't common, either.

I'm not trying to kick Gibson's ass here at all, I'm just saying they made some bad choices along the way. Almost all businesses do at some point. Doesn't make them failures. Look at Microsoft. Those guys have raised bad choices and pitiful products to a new art form, but they're still a $50B company. As one of my old bosses liked to say: "You can't argue with success"
 
I can get dozens, next time I'm over there. Thing is supposed to be literally mint, but I don't remember it. It's your typical "little old lady from Pasadena" story, where he found this guitar at some desperation sale and got it for nearly nothing because the owner didn't know what she had. Still has the tags and everything. Supposed to be worth quite a pile, if he found the right buyer and wasn't such a puss about keeping every last thing he ever bought since he was a kid. Basement, spare bedrooms and garage look like something out of Stephen King movie, fer crissakes.
 
PT said:
line6man said:
PT said:
Flying V's can and are played sitting down. I've owned one for 32 years and still play it often, sitting down. This is how (not me but for demo purposes):
martin1tn.jpg

I like them, no, I love them.
Click to expand...

Meh, I dislike the idea of having part of a guitar between my legs like that.
The lower point of the V ends up too close to your man parts. :sad:
Click to expand...
Well, that's the part I,like. :blob7:
Click to expand...

Nope, no wood-on-wood action for me. :blob7:


Seinfeld_not_anything_wrong_small.jpg

Not that there's anything wrong with that...
 
Cagey said:
DangerousR6 said:
I think you're wrong, the world of 50's and 60's weren't ready for the radical shapes of the V and the EXP and the Modern. The Gibson designers were ahead of their time, thinking into the future. Unlike the brain dead designers of today..And I certainly would love to have a V or an Explorer from '58 or '59, but then again you used the words "unattractive" "impractical" and "poorly conceived". Well they're the 2 of the most sought after guitars in the world...
Click to expand...

The world of the '50s and '60s hasn't changed radically to this point, as far as body shapes are concerned. "Unattractive" "impractical" and "poorly conceived" are still appropriate adjectives for those goofy body styles. You're correct in that those guitars are highly sought after, but only because not many were made at the time - Gibson failed in their attempt to grab market share with outrageous designs. For instance, there were so few "Modernes" built that they're called the "Loch Ness monster" of guitars, since few people have seen one in real life. I happen to know a guy who has one, and Billy Gibbons is known to have one, but past that you may as well say they don't exist. Authentic Flying Vs aren't common, either.

I'm not trying to kick Gibson's ass here at all, I'm just saying they made some bad choices along the way. Almost all businesses do at some point. Doesn't make them failures. Look at Microsoft. Those guys have raised bad choices and pitiful products to a new art form, but they're still a $50B company. As one of my old bosses liked to say: "You can't argue with success"
Click to expand...
I think you need to put down the crack pipe, the world we live in today is not even remotely as conservative as the world was in the late '50's early '60's. So radical shapes are much more accepted today vs. what was back then. Yes the Modern is the "Loch Ness" of guitars, and is probably with out a doubt THE most elusive guitar in history. But it reverts back to the mindset of the public and probably the marketing of Gibson at the time. But if your friend has one, it's a 1982 reissue, unless he's Billy Gibbons rich. Cause all 49 guitars purportedly that were built were destroyed. Maybe one or two may have left the factory, but that's hearsay... :dontknow:  
 
DangerousR6 said:
I think you need to put down the crack pipe, the world we live in today is not even remotely as conservative as the world was in the late '50's early '60's. So radical shapes are much more accepted today vs. what was back then. Yes the Modern is the "Loch Ness" of guitars, and is probably with out a doubt THE most elusive guitar in history. But it reverts back to the mindset of the public and probably the marketing of Gibson at the time. But if your friend has one, it's a 1982 reissue, unless he's Billy Gibbons rich. Cause all 49 guitars purportedly that were built were destroyed. Maybe one or two may have left the factory, but that's hearsay... :dontknow:  
Click to expand...

Why do I need to be smoking crack to have memories or experience? I'm an old man, as is the guy with the Moderne. We've known each other for 45 years or so. Not just him, but I've known a lot of guys that long. I can remember buying and/or destroying guitars for next to nothing that most people on these music forums would give their left nut for. Hell, my first Gibson was a '61 Melody Maker that I gave $100 for. Can you imagine that happening today? You'd be lucky to even find one, let alone get one at that price. I've seen late '50s/early '60s Strats smashed to toothpicks because the bloody things wouldn't tune. On and on.

You may be right - my buddy's Moderne may be a reissue - but even those are few and far between. That still doesn't change the viability of such an unusual design. Their rarity is testament to that. Like 'em or not, like Gibson or not, like oddball guitar body shapes or not, there's not a large population of the things because they don't make sense. In general, guitar players are a pragmatic bunch because life is hard enough without having to deal with the physical reality of a goofy design.
 
Dave should see that guitar! You could probably get that photo in the fanclub magazine!
wait... dave should PLAY that guitar! borrow him the guitar and let him play it during a concert!
 
I think he captured what he set out to do, and said it quite eloquently in the process.

"I knew from the beginning of the design (and I'd like to think I have a pretty good background in art and
composition) that there is a VERY fine line between 'totally wicked!' and 'Holy f-ing CHEESE...'.
I think we've all seen too many examples of the lame kind, so I was very conscientious of that. But really,
I set out to design a guitar that (conceivably) Dave Murray himself would want to play. Not only that, but I
was dealing with some very serious themes. The Battle of Britain, the Supermarine Spitfire itself a work of
art - stalwart defender of a nation beseiged in a very dark time, and Iron Maiden themselves all demanded respect.
Iron Maiden (whether you love or loathe them) are one of the iconic bands of an era, helped define a whole genre of
music, and are one of the best live performing bands ever. I wasn't about to make anything that I felt didn't
honor every one of them. And I don't mean that in any sort of arrogant way, its simply out of love - for one
of my favorite guitarists, my favorite band, and one of my favorite pieces of history, all of them united by one
song (a hit single at that!  )."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top