-
Life on the road takes a toll.
He starts out explaining why he doesn't use his ES-355 on stage.
-
10-20-2017 02:21 PM
-
I don't think you would disagree with any thing he said, he just says it in a rather colourful way, innit?
-
The man is smarter than he looks. Admittedly a low bar.
-
Yeah, the electric guitar was just about born perfect. The technology developed to near-perfection in a very few short years. After that, it was all gew-gaws. Sorry.
-
Yeah, I think locking vibratos were the only real improvement to electrics after the 50s, and even those didn't change much.
To Keith's point about acoustic and electric, he's right, they're two different instruments, requiring different touches and producing different sounds, but still the same in the sense of accessibility to the novice. I love each for their own qualities. In my near-40 years of playing, I've had three periods totalling about 13 years playing acoustic-only. All of them did wonders for my electric playing: strengthening my hands, teaching me to rely on my hands for sound (rather than pedals and an amp), and getting me into genres and styles of playing I otherwise would probably not have explored.
-
I do like Keith Richards as a colorful, rock and roll song writer which happens to play guitar. He actually makes a lot of sense most of the time. Even his primitive type playing and tone is quite appealing! I think this is also why the older designs appeal to him as oppose to say a Parker Fly design.
It really depends what tone you are trying to create and what ultimately personal comfort level. I actually think Ken Parker's Fly Classic is maybe the ultimate solid body guitar available. But that said I've bought and sold 3 of them due to their ease of playing and lack of any specific tone. Being 60 and growing up with old designs I actually prefer the fight in them and their inconsistantcies,LOL!
-
naive to think because keith prefers the original electric guitars, that he wasn't aware of modern tech..if anything he was always ahead of the curve...his fuzz on satisfaction marked the genesis of that pedal (for better or worse...haha), he was using dan armstrong plexiglass guitar (1969) before anyone..travis bean aluminum necks, zemaitas, musicman, etc etc..has always had first dibs at all the new gadgets, guitars and amps..(when he goes into a recording studio, he gets brought all sorts of modern gear to try/use...)
cheers
-
I agree that the major aspects of guitar were in place in the first few years.
Over time, though, there were some significant refinements.
1. Humbuckers
2. Tuneamatic sp? bridge
3. Whang bars that return to pitch (or were those around early?).
4. Arguably, active electronics..
5. More aspects became customizable.
6. hex pickup
But, overall, I think there were bigger changes in the electronics, e.g. pedals, synth, amps and so forth, although the originals were great.
-
I recall reading somewhere that Keef checked those out and his response was "great guitar, but why does it have to look like a bloody machine gun?" Or something like that.
Originally Posted by jads57
But don't we basically agree with him throughout the threads on this site? The revered jazz guitars are basically those early Gibson hollowbodies following in the legacy of the ES-150 and Charlie Christian, on the Gibson side, and the Telecaster on the Fender side. There have been some refinements but the form factor is basically the same.
And what is that guitar Keef is playing in the studio shot? That's lovely!
-
master guitar-maker Joseph Jesselli- disciple of jimmy D'aquisto Originally Posted by Cunamara
Joseph Jesselli - Wikipedia
cheers
-
I guess I was saying that Keith like all of us go for the sound we hear in our heads first and foremost. And that he likes a rawer tone overall vs. a refined one say like Larry Carlton. I was surprised at his reaction to the Parker Fly, but like most people until you gig & or record with one they look strange.
-
I saw Mary Chapin Carpenter play a Parker Fly in concert last night. It and she sounded wonderful.
-
One of the ugliest guitars every designed. Originally Posted by Marty Grass
-
The fly is a prime example of a guitar that gets a lot more attractive afterm you play it. Originally Posted by ruger9
-
I played a Parker just once- I think not a real Parker, though- and ergonomically it was really, really nice. Light, well balanced, sounded fine but I didn't have enough time with it to see what I could dial in. Fit and finish was very good. Carbon fiber neck and phenolic fingerboard felt different than what I am used to.
-
Here maybe this will feel more familiar...
Ken Parker Custom Arch Top Semi-Hollow Body Electric Guitar | Reverb
-
Just like Blue Cheese it's an "Aquired Taste". Very easy to dismiss it from it's looks alone, but once played in real gig situation you will get it! There are many well thought out refinements that aren't visable to the eye, from the trem(flat spring), neck attachment, materials for construction (Basswood Neck and Graphite Reinforced) as well as the body wood as well.
I just find them so easy to play that it makes all other guitars work to play. They also seem to be very nuetral tone wise which can be very good, especially in studio situations.
-
When I played with Larry Coryell (2007), he was playing a Ken Parker acoustic. I asked him what he thought of the Parker Fly and Larry declared it "a guitar with no soul". Ken Parker had sent Larry one and he used it on a few gigs. I asked Larry what solid body guitars he liked. Les Pauls and Telecasters was the answer.
Some of us are stuck in the tradition....
-
Goes to show your manager should deny interviews when his client is pissed....
-
I have no problem with Parker guitars. They are classic compare to some 'ergonomic guitars' . Man, how much easier a guitar to play do you really need?
-
I find Parker Flys quite beautiful.
-
As a form-follows-function guy (Thanks, Bauhaus!), I think the Fly looks fine. I jammed with a guy who had one, and it sounded fine, as well. To each his own. That said, none of my axes, from the PRS C24 to the Telecaster Custom, are going anywhere in my lifetime.
-
much as i love a vintage aesthetic..the sleek look of a really cool hollowbody..nothin beats it!
however ive played a parker fly and it was a shockingly good guitar...ergonomic, but without looking completely akward...and very light and comfy...the straight thru the nut to the tuning pegs design is brilliant...(no added friction)
i also felt the same way about the steinberger guitars...wonderful playability, comfort & lightness, yet with the ability to dial in suprisingly good and varied tones...
not bad guitars to have in the arsenal...i think most would be surprised at how broadranged they can be
cheers
-
Dear lord, the grain on that top is astounding. Originally Posted by guido5
Here maybe this will feel more familiar...
Ken Parker Custom Arch Top Semi-Hollow Body Electric Guitar | Reverb
Pardon me while I take a few minutes of ... uh ... private time.
-
Yeah, I threw up more than a little in the back of my mouth. Originally Posted by Hep To The Jive
I have no problem with Parker guitars. They are classic compare to some 'ergonomic guitars' . Man, how much easier a guitar to play do you really need?
And just to show that this is not a new sickness, an Ovation Deacon from the Naugahyde & avocado carpet era:
I'm sure it plays great, but ye gods ...Last edited by Thumpalumpacus; 10-21-2017 at 06:25 PM.
Reply With Quote
Grant Green, What is This Thing
Today, 01:59 PM in Ear Training, Transcribing & Reading