Tweet
Re: I am soooo sad after NAMM...
I disagree with trying to turn the hands of time backwards and make Stratheads all over the place and making Jacksons neck-through-only. Those days are dead and have been for 20 years, and will be forever dead.
I see no harm in bolt-on Jacksons. Bolt-on construction is less-expensive for both the manufacturer and the customer.
I see no harm in a pointyhead Charvel. Remember, there was no pointyhead until Rhoads came along, so obviously Charvel put a Fender head on a Fender-shaped body. It's common sense. The LP head doesn't look right on a V or Star or Strat, so they all got Stratheads (or Gibson V heads on the few Vs).
There's a fine line between "heritage" and "that's just how it was done". Stratheads are not the core element of Charvel's history, it's the neck profile. You can put a neck profile of a Strathead SD Charvel on a new Pointyhead Charvel and it will feel like a Strathead Charvel.
The shape of the head has nothing to do with the feel of the neck, or the tone, quality, or playability. If it did, you'd all be playing Fenders.
However, I must say I disagree with Fender's "cross-over" attempts i.e. neckthrough Strats and Teles, solid-topped Strats and Teles, and graphics on Strats and Teles.
This, IMO, is definitely not the proper route for FMIC to go.
Fender is synonymous with bolt-on construction. They did some experiments with set-necks, and they've had their few Custom Shop neckthroughs, but offering a production model Fender Strat or Tele with any sort of graphic, rear-loaded electronics (i.e. no pickguard), and neckthrough ala Jackson/Charvel while denying Jackson/Charvel equal use of the Strat head is a sh1tty way to be.
Just as the Strathead is a Fender identifier, neckthrough construction is almost uniquely Jackson. Gibson had the first neckthrough - the Firebird. It was the only neckthrough production model Gibson, and is still the only neckthrough production model Gibson. Gibson are known as "the set-neck company".
At the time that Grover was milking the hell out of neckthrough construction and carving that niche for Jackson out of the existing market, no one else was using it to the same scale. Carvin was still doing Gibson-style bodies and such, and did not start doing neckthroughs until the mid-80's AFTER Jackson's success. They may have had neckthrough basses, but not guitars.
Now, having said all that, one could say "Ah, but then by that logic, Jackson/Charvel can't do bolt-ons, right?" Wrong. Fender is a long-established brand that isn't in danger of losing marketplace identity if a subsidiary uses a similar construction method.
No one sees a Jackson KV-Pro from the back and says "Is that the new Fender? It's got a neckplate".
They WILL look at the front of a Charvel Strathead and ask "Is that the new Fender model?", hence both Charvel AND Fender's images are blurred, which hurts both companies in the long run from a market-identity standpoint.
Show the back of a neckthrough Strat and people will ask if Jackson's doing Strathead Soloists.
If a Fender builder wants to play around with neckthrough, let him walk his ass over to the Jackson side of the shop and build a Jackson, but don't dilute Jackson's image by saying "Hey look, we can do neckthroughs as well".
IMO the Charvel line should have stayed dead, and just introduced the current Charvel-branded models as Jackson models - dot inlays, full-size rear-loaded Strats, Stars, maple/rosewood/ebony, bolt-ons, single and double hums, v-trem and Floyd, two neck profiles (pointy and strathead), pointy headstocks, no binding, etc etc.
Leave the traditional Jackson models (Dinky/Soloist, etc) with the fins and fins only (no dots), head and neck binding (even on imports), as well as both bolt-on and neckthrough construction, and the two Jackson-specific neck profiles.
I disagree with trying to turn the hands of time backwards and make Stratheads all over the place and making Jacksons neck-through-only. Those days are dead and have been for 20 years, and will be forever dead.
I see no harm in bolt-on Jacksons. Bolt-on construction is less-expensive for both the manufacturer and the customer.
I see no harm in a pointyhead Charvel. Remember, there was no pointyhead until Rhoads came along, so obviously Charvel put a Fender head on a Fender-shaped body. It's common sense. The LP head doesn't look right on a V or Star or Strat, so they all got Stratheads (or Gibson V heads on the few Vs).
There's a fine line between "heritage" and "that's just how it was done". Stratheads are not the core element of Charvel's history, it's the neck profile. You can put a neck profile of a Strathead SD Charvel on a new Pointyhead Charvel and it will feel like a Strathead Charvel.
The shape of the head has nothing to do with the feel of the neck, or the tone, quality, or playability. If it did, you'd all be playing Fenders.
However, I must say I disagree with Fender's "cross-over" attempts i.e. neckthrough Strats and Teles, solid-topped Strats and Teles, and graphics on Strats and Teles.
This, IMO, is definitely not the proper route for FMIC to go.
Fender is synonymous with bolt-on construction. They did some experiments with set-necks, and they've had their few Custom Shop neckthroughs, but offering a production model Fender Strat or Tele with any sort of graphic, rear-loaded electronics (i.e. no pickguard), and neckthrough ala Jackson/Charvel while denying Jackson/Charvel equal use of the Strat head is a sh1tty way to be.
Just as the Strathead is a Fender identifier, neckthrough construction is almost uniquely Jackson. Gibson had the first neckthrough - the Firebird. It was the only neckthrough production model Gibson, and is still the only neckthrough production model Gibson. Gibson are known as "the set-neck company".
At the time that Grover was milking the hell out of neckthrough construction and carving that niche for Jackson out of the existing market, no one else was using it to the same scale. Carvin was still doing Gibson-style bodies and such, and did not start doing neckthroughs until the mid-80's AFTER Jackson's success. They may have had neckthrough basses, but not guitars.
Now, having said all that, one could say "Ah, but then by that logic, Jackson/Charvel can't do bolt-ons, right?" Wrong. Fender is a long-established brand that isn't in danger of losing marketplace identity if a subsidiary uses a similar construction method.
No one sees a Jackson KV-Pro from the back and says "Is that the new Fender? It's got a neckplate".
They WILL look at the front of a Charvel Strathead and ask "Is that the new Fender model?", hence both Charvel AND Fender's images are blurred, which hurts both companies in the long run from a market-identity standpoint.
Show the back of a neckthrough Strat and people will ask if Jackson's doing Strathead Soloists.
If a Fender builder wants to play around with neckthrough, let him walk his ass over to the Jackson side of the shop and build a Jackson, but don't dilute Jackson's image by saying "Hey look, we can do neckthroughs as well".
IMO the Charvel line should have stayed dead, and just introduced the current Charvel-branded models as Jackson models - dot inlays, full-size rear-loaded Strats, Stars, maple/rosewood/ebony, bolt-ons, single and double hums, v-trem and Floyd, two neck profiles (pointy and strathead), pointy headstocks, no binding, etc etc.
Leave the traditional Jackson models (Dinky/Soloist, etc) with the fins and fins only (no dots), head and neck binding (even on imports), as well as both bolt-on and neckthrough construction, and the two Jackson-specific neck profiles.
Comment