As I've built, modded and set up increasing numbers of guitars over the years, one can't help but notice the astonishing amount of conservatism in development and design.
This is by no means an original thought. Many would tell you the same. But compared to the sheer number of "traditionalists" we are few and far between.
Of course the Broad/Telecaster and Les Paul have stood the test of time admirably. But I can't escape the notion that we decline to stand on the shoulders of giants here. With today's choice of materials, production methods and knowledge we can simply do better.
Consider:
- Weight
We don't really give it much thought (or at least I haven't in the past) but electric guitars are generally a lot heavier than they ought to be.
Consider the huge slab of wood that comprises the body of a Les Paul. How much wood would it actually take to extend the fretboard to the bridge, house a pair of pickups, pots and other electricals?
You could argue we need this to counter the combined weight of the neck with truss rod and tuning machines way over on the headstock so as not to infer neck dive. But there's no law that says tuning machines belong to headstocks. Headless guitars -FUGLY!!- (sorry, allergies.) don't care ever since the eighties, so why should any other?
At any rate, building guitars from just wood (and a steel truss rod) will always result in heavy-ish guitars. You simply need quite a lot of it to counter the deformative forces of the strings. So why not ask bowyers how they roll? They've always been in sort of the same physical predicament. They'll tell you to (duh) go with composites. Or ask Ken Parker, and he'll tell you to (duh) go with composites.
- Neck stability
Today's neck constructions are part of a bit of a hairy solution to suspend strings between two points and be able to wrap your fingers around the part with the frets.
We've gotten so used to it. But just take a step back and consider this. With today's options, having never seen a guitar, would you fancy a solution that would require a big slab of wood, glued or screwed to a skinny part that's too thin to support the load made of wood so yeah, put a steel rod in there.
This results in the various parts of the load bearing construction inhibiting different moduli of elasticity and creep (deformation beyond elastic capacity).
Or, marry some kind of fiber with the wood (and, while we're at it, use a lighter kind) and make the complete string load bearing part one piece. Uniform modulus and virtually no creep.
I'll later elaborate on the practicalities here.
- Fret wear
Why we still use "nickel silver" fret wire? (I.e. copper with a splash of nickel) Well, slap my ass and call me Shirley because I honestly do not know. Worn out frets are no fun at all. And coincidentally, fret leveling and crowning is also a royal b**ch. Let alone, changing them out for new ones. I can do it no problem, but it's a lot of tedious work. Especially in the knowledge that you have to do it again a year or so on.
I'd rather do it once per guitar and never look back again. Weird, right?
- Playability
There's a few no-brainers here. Like getting rid of the huge chunk of wood where the neck meets the body.
But also, and take a step back again, what shape would you have a neck be? Having never before held a guitar in your hands, try imagining a neck that would be 6mm (~1/4 inch) thick. Assuming this is too thin for anyone's liking. How much thicker would it need to be? Twice as thick? Thrice?
This is very much subjective of course, but also hard to make up your mind with the ingrained mental picture noise of a 'modern C' neck for instance.
