Is a Recessed Floyd on a Charvel a good idea?

[Anonymous]

Two more early "humbuckerers" to add to the list...

my buddy John Oates had PAFs in his 50s Strat...this picture is from 1975 but I recall a conversation where he said it was maybe around 1973 when he put them in. He has since put it back to single coils a couple of years ago.

and my hero Allan Holdsworth circa 1978 with DiMarzio PAFs in his Dick Knight modified Strat.. which I would guess he put together in late 76- early 77. He told me years ago the guy he sold it to in the UK put it back to single coils and said " He missed the whole point of that instrument"

Many New York session cats had at least a hacked up Strat with a neck humbucker in the 70s too... David Spinozza, Elliot Randall (humbucker in the middle I think) and of course Hiram.

Simply sticking a humbucker in a strat or Ed building the Franky guitar which is based on a front loaded strat is not the innovation to me. Hell anyone could have (and did!) cut a plastic pickguard, do a little hacking to the strat route and install some hums. It was rear loading the electronics and installing the hums to the front of the body without a traditional strat route. that was the cool thing about the Charvels to me. Like Eds original bumblebee... I still give Grover credit for that... as well as the 3 TITE strat thing as well - don't remember anyone doing that before him.

Steve

 

[Chubtone]

Grover was the man, IMO!

 

[bigdaddyd]

Seriously? The Soloist is completely different from a strat to me. The neck is like a Les Pauls with a longer scale length - same wide flat frets. Bound necks, 24 frets. The body is shaped different than a strat - way more streamlined. The pointy headstock is not strat-like.

When I think of a "super strat", I think of the Jackson Soloist, not the Charvel's I love. The (majority of) early Charvel's are basically rear-loaded, humbucker equipped Strats with oiled necks. I just like the Charvels better for my playing style.

Steve

This is sort of my point. I get that the Soloist is different. To me, it is my Hamer Chaparral, which I prefer. I realize the Soloist came first, but I don't see any actual first in it's design. While it is different from a Strat, so is Tele. Grover made improvements that he thought players would like, and he was right. The term "Super Strat" has been used to describe many different types of guitars of the years. For me, I am more like Steve. For a Super Strat I would have to pick, well I don't really have one anymore, but it would have been my old Strathead Schecter which was exactly as you described. I don't consider my Jem a Super Strat, and my Strats may be super, but they are just Strats.

Chronologically speaking I have nothing to complain about with Rupe's post...I agree with most of it. He is dead on. I am simply saying that everything on the Soloist was already done before and therefore can't really be credited to Grover. Soloists, while awesome guitars, never did anything for me. I can't explain why. I always much preferred the Charvel or Gibson style guitars.

Ironically I do love Hamer Chaparral's, especially the setneck ones. They were like the perfect combination of what the Soloist married to a Gibson feel was to me, however, I could never afford one back then. I also loved the Hamer Steve Stevens which came out in '84. Prior to that they were mostly very Gibson. They didn't get really strat shaped to later on.

 

[Chubtone]

This is sort of my point. I get that the Soloist is different. To me, it is my Hamer Chaparral, which I prefer. I realize the Soloist came first, but I don't see any actual first in it's design. While it is different from a Strat, so is Tele. Grover made improvements that he thought players would like, and he was right. The term "Super Strat" has been used to describe many different types of guitars of the years. For me, I am more like Steve. For a Super Strat I would have to pick, well I don't really have one anymore, but it would have been my old Strathead Schecter which was exactly as you described. I don't consider my Jem a Super Strat, and my Strats may be super, but they are just Strats.

Chronologically speaking I have nothing to complain about with Rupe's post...I agree with most of it. He is dead on. I am simply saying that everything on the Soloist was already done before and therefore can't really be credited to Grover. Soloists, while awesome guitars, never did anything for me. I can't explain why. I always much preferred the Charvel or Gibson style guitars.

Ironically I do love Hamer Chaparral's, especially the setneck ones. They were like the perfect combination of what the Soloist married to a Gibson feel was to me, however, I could never afford one back then. I also loved the Hamer Steve Stevens which came out in '84. Prior to that they were mostly very Gibson. They didn't get really strat shaped to later on.

Dang. A nice, reasonable, respect filled post. What fun is that?!!!! LET'S FIGHT ABOUT SOMETHING!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Anonymous]

Seriously? The Soloist is completely different from a strat to me. The neck is like a Les Pauls with a longer scale length - same wide flat frets. Bound necks, 24 frets. The body is shaped different than a strat - way more streamlined. The pointy headstock is not strat-like.

When I think of a "super strat", I think of the Jackson Soloist, not the Charvel's I love. The (majority of) early Charvel's are basically rear-loaded, humbucker equipped Strats with oiled necks. I just like the Charvels better for my playing style.

Steve

This is sort of my point. I get that the Soloist is different. To me, it is my Hamer Chaparral, which I prefer. I realize the Soloist came first, but I don't see any actual first in it's design. While it is different from a Strat, so is Tele. Grover made improvements that he thought players would like, and he was right. The term "Super Strat" has been used to describe many different types of guitars of the years. For me, I am more like Steve. For a Super Strat I would have to pick, well I don't really have one anymore, but it would have been my old Strathead Schecter which was exactly as you described. I don't consider my Jem a Super Strat, and my Strats may be super, but they are just Strats.

Chronologically speaking I have nothing to complain about with Rupe's post...I agree with most of it. He is dead on. I am simply saying that everything on the Soloist was already done before and therefore can't really be credited to Grover. Soloists, while awesome guitars, never did anything for me. I can't explain why. I always much preferred the Charvel or Gibson style guitars.

Ironically I do love Hamer Chaparral's, especially the setneck ones. They were like the perfect combination of what the Soloist married to a Gibson feel was to me, however, I could never afford one back then. I also loved the Hamer Steve Stevens which came out in '84. Prior to that they were mostly very Gibson. They didn't get really strat shaped to later on.

I still don't get what you are saying. The Jackson Soloist was innovative. It took design elements of other guitars, mangled it up with the basic strat and made something new. Having a Les Paul like fretoboard with wide flat frets and binding was not a "first in design" per se, but making it 24 frets and attaching it to a streamlined "strat-ish" body WAS an innovation. It was a new kind of guitar - the first super strat in my opinion. Just because he didn't invent a glass fretboard for it or something no one ever did before doesn't mean it wasn't an innovation or the first super strat. What is credited to Grover is creating the first super strat with the Soloist. Combining the elements he did and customizing the familiar aspects (like the body shape) is something he should be credited with IMO...

Steve

 

[Ayrton]

While I have never really connected with anything Jackson, the soloist really was the next evolution in "superstrats". Grover took what was going on with the Charvel side, and took it to another level.

 

[mikehickey]

I totally agree that rear loading was the first innovation and the Soloist was the epitome of the first jump forward and benchmark in super strat design.Grover really pulled it all together to set the standard. I also think that the first step to get to these designs is these guys putting the humbuckers into Strat guitars... a catalyst so to speak.

 

[Anonymous]

I totally agree that rear loading was the first innovation and the Soloist was the epitome of the first jump forward and benchmark in super strat design.Grover really pulled it all together to set the standard. I also think that the first step to get to these designs is these guys putting the humbuckers into Strat guitars... a catalyst so to speak.

I agree - it certainly was the catalyst...

Steve

 

[rupe]

Combining the elements he did and customizing the familiar aspects (like the body shape) is something he should be credited with IMO...

Steve

There it is!

 

[Gainzilla]

Combining the elements he did and customizing the familiar aspects (like the body shape) is something he should be credited with IMO...

Steve

There it is!

And Also With You...

 

[bigdaddyd]

Seriously? The Soloist is completely different from a strat to me. The neck is like a Les Pauls with a longer scale length - same wide flat frets. Bound necks, 24 frets. The body is shaped different than a strat - way more streamlined. The pointy headstock is not strat-like.

When I think of a "super strat", I think of the Jackson Soloist, not the Charvel's I love. The (majority of) early Charvel's are basically rear-loaded, humbucker equipped Strats with oiled necks. I just like the Charvels better for my playing style.

Steve

This is sort of my point. I get that the Soloist is different. To me, it is my Hamer Chaparral, which I prefer. I realize the Soloist came first, but I don't see any actual first in it's design. While it is different from a Strat, so is Tele. Grover made improvements that he thought players would like, and he was right. The term "Super Strat" has been used to describe many different types of guitars of the years. For me, I am more like Steve. For a Super Strat I would have to pick, well I don't really have one anymore, but it would have been my old Strathead Schecter which was exactly as you described. I don't consider my Jem a Super Strat, and my Strats may be super, but they are just Strats.

Chronologically speaking I have nothing to complain about with Rupe's post...I agree with most of it. He is dead on. I am simply saying that everything on the Soloist was already done before and therefore can't really be credited to Grover. Soloists, while awesome guitars, never did anything for me. I can't explain why. I always much preferred the Charvel or Gibson style guitars.

Ironically I do love Hamer Chaparral's, especially the setneck ones. They were like the perfect combination of what the Soloist married to a Gibson feel was to me, however, I could never afford one back then. I also loved the Hamer Steve Stevens which came out in '84. Prior to that they were mostly very Gibson. They didn't get really strat shaped to later on.

I still don't get what you are saying. The Jackson Soloist was innovative. It took design elements of other guitars, mangled it up with the basic strat and made something new. Having a Les Paul like fretoboard with wide flat frets and binding was not a "first in design" per se, but making it 24 frets and attaching it to a streamlined "strat-ish" body WAS an innovation. It was a new kind of guitar - the first super strat in my opinion. Just because he didn't invent a glass fretboard for it or something no one ever did before doesn't mean it wasn't an innovation or the first super strat. What is credited to Grover is creating the first super strat with the Soloist. Combining the elements he did and customizing the familiar aspects (like the body shape) is something he should be credited with IMO...

Steve

You don't have to agree with me. As I said, I respectfully disagree. I don't consider it innovative. Steinberger was innovative. Parker was innovative. Alembic ...innovative. Jackson....an awesome guitar company that built amazing instruments of which the Soloist was one.

 

[mikehickey]

You don't have to agree with me. As I said, I respectfully disagree. I don't consider it innovative. Steinberger was innovative. Parker was innovative. Alembic ...innovative. Jackson....an awesome guitar company that built amazing instruments of which the Soloist was one.

not disagreeing with you, those are all innovative manufacturing designs for sure, but who really wants an Alembic or a Steinberger or a Parker ??

 

[bigdaddyd]

You don't have to agree with me. As I said, I respectfully disagree. I don't consider it innovative. Steinberger was innovative. Parker was innovative. Alembic ...innovative. Jackson....an awesome guitar company that built amazing instruments of which the Soloist was one.

not disagreeing with you, those are all innovative manufacturing designs for sure, but who really wants an Alembic or a Steinberger or a Parker ??

I would take any over a Soloist. That said, it really is just a matter of taste. I have nothing against the Soloist. I had an awesome ESP Mirage Custom, which was essentially a Soloist copy back in the day...with the Jackson lawsuit headstock. IDK, I just personally don't see the innovation is all. I am down with the rest of what you guys are saying though. I think a lot of it for me has to do with all the time I spent in the past on the JCF forum. To me Leo Fender innovated. Grover Jackson on the other hand deserves massive respect for taking a failing business and turning into an empire based on top notch quality and amazing product. He did it with very little and was short handed at first and is, was, and always will be the man...but I stop short at the word innovator, but that is just my opinion.

 

[Shawn Lutz]

I don't know, The first Jackson ever was innovative, yeah it was a design collaboration with Randy Rhoads but still. The soloist is cool but I also feel nothing really ground breaking, cool and copied by many tho so that says something.

I never was a big soloists fan as I like full sized strat bodies. I get calling them super strats but to me a super strat is any improvement over the 54 Fender, humbuckers, Floyds, large frets, rear routed, choice woods etc. Charvel says it all for me....

 

[rupe]

When the Soloist was officially released in '84, what else was like it? Nothing. Grover's "innovation" was being the first to combine a host of previous innovations into one lethal package for guitarists of that era (although I still credit him with the downsized Strat body/larger cutaway). Even though I own a great one, to this day I don't bond with Soloists like I do certain other guitars...but I give credit where its due. The sidebar discussion was "godfather of the superstrat" not greatest innovator...hard to argue against Grover IMO.

Darrin, you need to post your Chaparral in the Superstrat thread...I love those guitars (as well as the Centaura, Californian, and Diablo).

 

[Digital Jams]

Hot damn RT is back baby.

I LOVE talking this shit!

 

[Anonymous]

Seriously? The Soloist is completely different from a strat to me. The neck is like a Les Pauls with a longer scale length - same wide flat frets. Bound necks, 24 frets. The body is shaped different than a strat - way more streamlined. The pointy headstock is not strat-like.

When I think of a "super strat", I think of the Jackson Soloist, not the Charvel's I love. The (majority of) early Charvel's are basically rear-loaded, humbucker equipped Strats with oiled necks. I just like the Charvels better for my playing style.

Steve

This is sort of my point. I get that the Soloist is different. To me, it is my Hamer Chaparral, which I prefer. I realize the Soloist came first, but I don't see any actual first in it's design. While it is different from a Strat, so is Tele. Grover made improvements that he thought players would like, and he was right. The term "Super Strat" has been used to describe many different types of guitars of the years. For me, I am more like Steve. For a Super Strat I would have to pick, well I don't really have one anymore, but it would have been my old Strathead Schecter which was exactly as you described. I don't consider my Jem a Super Strat, and my Strats may be super, but they are just Strats.

Chronologically speaking I have nothing to complain about with Rupe's post...I agree with most of it. He is dead on. I am simply saying that everything on the Soloist was already done before and therefore can't really be credited to Grover. Soloists, while awesome guitars, never did anything for me. I can't explain why. I always much preferred the Charvel or Gibson style guitars.

Ironically I do love Hamer Chaparral's, especially the setneck ones. They were like the perfect combination of what the Soloist married to a Gibson feel was to me, however, I could never afford one back then. I also loved the Hamer Steve Stevens which came out in '84. Prior to that they were mostly very Gibson. They didn't get really strat shaped to later on.

I still don't get what you are saying. The Jackson Soloist was innovative. It took design elements of other guitars, mangled it up with the basic strat and made something new. Having a Les Paul like fretoboard with wide flat frets and binding was not a "first in design" per se, but making it 24 frets and attaching it to a streamlined "strat-ish" body WAS an innovation. It was a new kind of guitar - the first super strat in my opinion. Just because he didn't invent a glass fretboard for it or something no one ever did before doesn't mean it wasn't an innovation or the first super strat. What is credited to Grover is creating the first super strat with the Soloist. Combining the elements he did and customizing the familiar aspects (like the body shape) is something he should be credited with IMO...

Steve

You don't have to agree with me. As I said, I respectfully disagree. I don't consider it innovative. Steinberger was innovative. Parker was innovative. Alembic ...innovative. Jackson....an awesome guitar company that built amazing instruments of which the Soloist was one.

...which just happened to be the first super strat, for which we give Grover thanks and praise as the creator.

Steve

 

[Anonymous]

When the Soloist was officially released in '84, what else was like it? Nothing. Grover's "innovation" was being the first to combine a host of previous innovations into one lethal package for guitarists of that era (although I still credit him with the downsized Strat body/larger cutaway). Even though I own a great one, to this day I don't bond with Soloists like I do certain other guitars...but I give credit where its due. The sidebar discussion was "godfather of the superstrat" not greatest innovator...hard to argue against Grover IMO.

Darrin, you need to post your Chaparral in the Superstrat thread...I love those guitars (as well as the Centaura, Californian, and Diablo).

You sir, are correct. This is all I was trying to say. Grover is "godfather of the superstrat" with the Soloist...

Steve

 

[Digital Jams]

I stand corrected and officially dropping my torch for TA as the Godfather of the Superstrat, he is still was IMO a driving force during the day and brought great instruments to the masses.


Curt, you have read the final time I type that.

 

[SFW]

Having owned guitars with both styles, I much prefer the recessed Floyds. The just feel better to me.