if jackson were aorund back in the day

[jdr94]

i'm gonna say no for the simple fact that the hendrix/page times where of a more groovy and well rounded feel. not sharp and pointy in my opinion. in that time, thin necks probably would have been a turn off as it doesnt feel beefy. more of a slick feeling.

[VitaminG]

im just saying like the radical body designs. and they probably only played gibsons and fenders because those were the only body designs at the time and the best quality.

there were more radical designs than the Strat & LP back then. Check out Gibson's Flying Vee, Explorer, Moderne, Firebird. The Swept-Wing was not a conventional design. Vox put out some really odd shapes.

[bombtek]

Hendrix played a Flying V and he really dug it from what I've read.

[THOMO]

Wasn't the Slash guitar a re toped 59????

[Tommie]

I went looking for a Les Paul in 1986 here in UK and there were none around at all! I bought a Kramer and wasted the rest on some pedals.

[PowerTube]

Wasn't the Slash guitar a re toped 59????

No. It wasn't a Gibson at all. It was a Les Paul copy made by a private luthier, now deceased.

[JACKSONFREAK]

Gibson is probably too busy rebuilding the factory and the inventory after the flood. To risk time off for NAMM. It would be a nice come back if they could make it to NAMM but if they arent on the list by now they probably wont be there. But to the proposed comment of the thread. They picked the instruments they made famous because of the tone and the playability of it at the time. Sure there wasnt much to choose from back then but There was Vox Danelectro, Gretsch, Fender, Gibson. Rickenbacker, and a few other big name or "vintage" manufacturers of the time. Fender just seemed the most versatile and Gibson was the fullest sounding of the day. I love my Jackson/Carvels and always will, But i also love a Strat and a Les Paul and always will. There is just something about them that makes them special and so saought after even after all the new developments and construction designs, brands and models. I guess it's this "prestige" that makes them true classics of the modern day.
Gil

[roodyrocker]

Gibson is probably too busy rebuilding the factory and the inventory after the flood. To risk time off for NAMM. It would be a nice come back if they could make it to NAMM but if they arent on the list by now they probably wont be there. But to the proposed comment of the thread. They picked the instruments they made famous because of the tone and the playability of it at the time. Sure there wasnt much to choose from back then but There was Vox Danelectro, Gretsch, Fender, Gibson. Rickenbacker, and a few other big name or "vintage" manufacturers of the time. Fender just seemed the most versatile and Gibson was the fullest sounding of the day. I love my Jackson/Carvels and always will, But i also love a Strat and a Les Paul and always will. There is just something about them that makes them special and so saought after even after all the new developments and construction designs, brands and models. I guess it's this "prestige" that makes them true classics of the modern day.
Gil

I don't think the flood is the reason Gibson isn't at NAMM. I know the flood hit them pretty bad but for a NAMM display the size they usually put up it would take them no time to build a few guitars. Heck, since the flood they have released the Rhoads sig Les Paul and now in the process of releasing the Eric Clapton sig Les Paul. Those are two big names that I would have released at NAMM if I was Gibson!
I have a few Strats and Les Pauls myself and really like them. However, none of them come close to my Jacksons. Those USA Jacksons are IT

[tonemonster]

My opinion is this:

guitarists are always looking for a better mousetrap. a new sound, a better tone, some new feature, new finish. the retro guys you speak of would have been open to new things and tried what ever was new, maybe it woudl have stuck, maybe it wouldnt have. but I bet they would have looked into them. its the nature of the beast.

and in the spirit of this conversation, I have to say I have tried gibsons, and I have never ever found one I liked. the les paul is an uncomfortable, cumbersome, ugly hunk of shit. I hate them. I would never play one. they suck. period. Strats are "ok" but thats it. they are cheesey, thin sounding, and go out of tune just by looking at the bridge. If I had to play a non jackson/charvel guitar, it would be a PRS, if I couldnt have that it would be a Hamer. I always get a kick out of people who drink the les paul kool aid just because its vintage and retro. who gives a fuck. there are better guitars on the market.

[PowerTube]

I always get a kick out of people who drink the les paul kool aid just because its vintage and retro. who gives a fuck. there are better guitars on the market.

Not to get the thread off-topic, but what I find to be the most insulting is the "road worn" and otherwise "instant mojo" scams. Take the SG Faded series, for example. Give me a break. "Okay, we'll take an SG and instead of painting it, we'll toss on some primer and run a light coat of thin red or whatever across it and it'll be a vintage guitar!"

Recently, when I was on my SG kick, I went to Guitar Center and tried out two: a Standard and a '61 Reissue. The Reissue had a slightly beefier feeling neck, but neither of them felt as thick or as "quality" as a USA Jackson. The funniest part is that the Standard listed at $1199.00 and the '61 listed at $1899.00. I don't see how they can justify it.

[Skizzwizz]

If they had been around when Yngwie started playing, he probably would have never scalloped a neck. Strats have those tiny little frets that give you less control, but if he had owned a Jackson with jumbos...

Jacksons were around when Yngwie broke big....But since his idol is Blackmore, guess he HAD to have a Strat.....