Flying V Just arrived...
- Thread starter Jokermark
- Start date
Nando Vallart
Epic Member
- Messages
- 8,256
Cool, very classic!
Torment Leaves Scars
Hero Member
- Messages
- 1,343
Gold hardware will look real cool on a white body, especially a V!
For the record, I am kinda partial to gold hardware. :headbang1:
For the record, I am kinda partial to gold hardware. :headbang1:
Torment Leaves Scars
Hero Member
- Messages
- 1,343
Jokermark said:
I dunno about gold with that finish...it might kinda clash. Beautiful V, though!
S
swarfrat
Guest
Nice! The Gibson whacky shapes are really ironic when you think about the music we associate with them and what was popular when they were introduced.
I know I always think 80's hardcore metal (and not the glam pop stuff). Buddy Holly / Jetsons era is not what I think about at all.
I know I always think 80's hardcore metal (and not the glam pop stuff). Buddy Holly / Jetsons era is not what I think about at all.
anorakDan
Hero Member
- Messages
- 709
I believe the Flying V, the Explorer and the Moderne were originally intended to appeal to blues guitarists like Bo Diddley. It's not at all strange that the radical shapes would appeal to a certain segment of electric guitarists of all styles. Those shapes are examples of great industrial design. They still have a desirous effect on people after half a century. Not many of us crafted in the late 1950s still have that kind of popularity!
DangerousR6
Mythical Status
- Messages
- 15,478
Nope, gold will work with that all day long...I have a reissue Korina Explorer with gold hardware, looks awesome..Torment Leaves Scars said:
Torment Leaves Scars
Hero Member
- Messages
- 1,343
DangerousR6 said:Nope, gold will work with that all day long...I have a reissue Korina Explorer with gold hardware, looks awesome..Torment Leaves Scars said:
Looks great on it, but the other guitar looked like it had a different finish...could be the photo, though...
Cagey
Mythical Status
- Messages
- 24,425
anorakDan said:
Great industrial design? No. Great industrial design = suitable to task, aesthetically pleasing and above all, practical. Those guitars are about a million miles from there. They were a desperation move on Gibson's part to appeal to a market they apparently didn't understand very well so they could claw back some market share from Fender. It didn't work because it seems the designers were taking advantage of the ready supply of hallucinogenic drugs that were widely available during that period.
Of course, there's some minor call for those designs now, but it's not significant and largely exists to satisfy those who feel that old=good, never mind the reality of it all. But, that's for those people to live with. If it makes them happy, then who's to say they're wrong?
anorakDan
Hero Member
- Messages
- 709
Cagey said:
A bit of revisionist history there, Cagey?
"Gibson first manufactured prototypes of the guitar (Flying V)in 1957. Production guitars were made of korina wood, a trademarked name for limba, a wood similar to but lighter in color than mahogany. This Flying V, along with the Futura (Explorer) and, initially, the Moderne, made up a line of modernist guitars designed by Gibson's then-president Ted McCarty. These designs were meant to add a more futuristic aspect to Gibson's image, but they did not sell well. After the initial launch in 1958, the line was discontinued by 1959." From Wikipedia
"hallucinogenic drugs that were widely available during that period." In Eisenhower's America? Yeah, right.
"Great industrial design = suitable to task, aesthetically pleasing and above all, practical. Those guitars are about a million miles from there..."
Suitable to task? Strap one of these guitars on, plug it into an amp, it makes music if you can play it. Yep, they suit the task.
Aesthetically pleasing? While this is subjective, I argue that given the number of guitarists who play or own these would consider them pleasing to the eye. I certainly do, and I have a decades long history in the field of aesthetics.
Practical? See Suitable to task. I will surrender the point that the Flying V is perhaps a tad difficult to play while seated, most performing musicians stand up while playing. Otherwise there would be no need for the strap buttons.
"...desperation move on Gibson's part to appeal to a market they apparently didn't understand very well so they could claw back some market share from Fender." Colorfully phrased, but what company in what industry doesn't make seemingly radical marketing decisions in a competitive environment?
Capitalism is little more than desperate decisions made to beat the competition to market.
I stand by my statement. They are examples of great industrial design, like the cars of Harley Earle or Enzo Ferrari. Your opinions notwithstanding, they still have a desirous effect on people after half a century. Not because they're old. If that were the case, you and I would be more popular. The designs make some people go "oooh. I want that." That makes for great industrial design. People still want them.
Torment Leaves Scars
Hero Member
- Messages
- 1,343
Cagey said:
I disagree. While these designs are not the most aesthetically appealing to most, and the fanbase is limited, these shapes are very ergonomical and very "suitable to task. Designs such as the Flying V are excellent guitars to play in a classical position. Designs such as the Explorer balance very well, as well as some of the even more radical designs also.
Cagey
Mythical Status
- Messages
- 24,425
How are they "ergonomical"? Ergonomics is "the science that seeks to adapt work or working conditions to suit the worker". All those V and Z and star shapes do that how? They're uncomfortable as hell. You can't lay your arm on them, you can't sit with them, you gotta pay close attention to what you're standing around so you don't bang the snot out of the wild appendages, keep the kids away so you don't take an eye out, on and on.
I mean, they do function as guitars, but that's not hard to do with an electric. Put some pickups on it and make sure it tunes, and you're there. You can make an electric guitar out of a leaf rake if you want to. That doesn't make it "ergonomic".
I mean, they do function as guitars, but that's not hard to do with an electric. Put some pickups on it and make sure it tunes, and you're there. You can make an electric guitar out of a leaf rake if you want to. That doesn't make it "ergonomic".
It's likely a matter of what is comfortable to a person. But I have always felt very much at ease playing a flying V in a sitting position, with the legs resting on either side of my right leg. It put the fretboard in the same general relationship to my body as my nylon string was when I was a child. My first decent electric guitar when I was 15 was a V. Before that I had some horrible strat knockoff. Standing with either was no different. but sitting I preferred the V. As for Explorers I have never been interested in them much, so I can't say. Just an observation.
Super Turbo Deluxe Custom
Epic Member
- Messages
- 8,318
My first 2 electrics were Explorers. A Harmony copy and a Gibson '76 RI. Both were comfortable sitting down and perfect when standing. Never had a better balanced guitar. During this same time, a friend had a V. Very comfortable sitting down, a la classical style. However, a bit awkward to cowboy chord with it sitting. By comparison, I love Teles (owned 4), but I find them to be slightly neck heavy when standing.
Torment Leaves Scars
Hero Member
- Messages
- 1,343
Cagey said:
Oh, you can't sit with them? Would you like me to post photos? I already explained to you how they do that. The "V" is one of the easiest shapes to just lay back in a chair with and lounge. There isn't ANYTHING to them. Also, they fit snug between the legs so you can easily hold the guitar in a proper "classical position" while playing. While for some it may not be the most comfortable, it still works.
As for the "X" shaped guitars, they fit me perfectly. While standing they balance correctly, when strumming, the knobs are far enough back that I'm not constantly hitting volume/tone/pickup selector switches, not to mention the cuts between the neck and the bottom front "horn" are far enough back that it's very easy to reach the very highest of frets with little to no effort, more-so if the body is a neck-through design. Also, while sitting, they fit comfortably wedged between my legs so once again, I can achieve the correct "classical position" while playing. They stay planted, unlike my tank of a Telecaster, which doesn't balance itself while I'm sitting like any of my radically designed guitars.
Sure, I like "pointy" guitars, but it's not only because I prefer a radically designed instrument. There's also the comfort that comes with them. They fit the shape of my body perfectly, and after owning a few of them, you couldn't pay me to own another Tele or Strat shaped guitar. It doesn't mean I don't like them, it just means I won't be buying another anytime soon. At first I had my reservations about the radically designed guitars, but after playing them, I'm hooked on them.
Let it just be mentioned, some radically shaped guitars are very uncomfortable to sit with, such as some of the B.C. Rich models like the Warlock/Warbeast, Zombie, and Beast. The way the curves are designed, they dig into my leg and are not comfortable at all, and in fact, they're quite painful to sit with.
I own a Telecaster, and I own a J-Bass, very similar in shape to a Strat. Please, tell me how these are ergonomical shapes, and how you can "rest your arm on them," as you put it. Better yet, show me a picture.
As for banging them on things, whose fault is that? Pay attention to your surroundings and you won't have that problem. I'm not going to argue with you that it's not easy to bang a horn on something, but what are you doing, running to the nearest bathroom and standing in the doorway, posing in the mirror while rocking out to your favorite song? There are PLENTY of bashed up Teles and Strats I've also seen, and as far as "poking people in the eye," I haven't had that problem.
