Is a Recessed Floyd on a Charvel a good idea?

[Chubtone]

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

Look at this guy... all on topic and stuff! This thread has gone down 17 rabbit holes since then but that did start it all.

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.

No, you have coined a new phrase, "John Oates is the godfather of the superstrat".

 

[mikehickey]

No, you have coined a new phrase, "John Oates is the godfather of the superstrat".

Wait till I tell Oates

 

[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.

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

Steve

No, Charvels were Superstrats before Grover even slapped his name on guitars or bought the company from Charvel. They were hotrodded Strats with modded necks, upgradeds pickups, paints and better playability. He basically took all of that the neck thru from Randy's axe and changed the shape a bit and a few specs and came up with the soloist. The soloist was definitely not the first super strat. It might have been the first with those particular specs though.

 

[steve_k]

OK, after all the Charvel chit-chat, I pulled a brand new matte black Charvel out of cave storage. It has been fermenting for a few months. Took the FR out and tore it apart.

42mm KTS brass block reloaded. New Graph-Tech saddles on it. Opened the trem route a little bit on the backside to give it a little downward play and going back together with it. Gonna slap a D-tuna on it while I got it apart.

This one......

Also found an old Jackson I had forget about. I have owned it for quite some time. It was an SL2, but looks like it has been through a scud missle attack. At some point, I pulled the front PU out and converted it to a single humbucker, moved the volume knob back to the switch hole and left it out. Also has a hand signed EVH relic'd and wax potted PU on the bridge.

Back to playing pet coon and fucking perfectly good shit up.

 

[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

No, Charvels were Superstrats before Grover even slapped his name on guitars or bought the company from Charvel. They were hotrodded Strats with modded necks, upgradeds pickups, paints and better playability. He basically took all of that the neck thru from Randy's axe and changed the shape a bit and a few specs and came up with the soloist. The soloist was definitely not the first super strat. It might have been the first with those particular specs though.

I respectfully disagree.

Steve

 

[rupe]

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.

Tom was definitely in the mix...do you always back down so easily?

 

[Gainzilla]

So is there an accepted definition of what a superstrat is or not? So far all I see are opinions...

 

[rupe]

So is there an accepted definition of what a superstrat is or not? So far all I see are opinions...

Until there's an official governing body over all things "superstrat", opinion is all you're gonna get

 

[Gainzilla]

So is there an accepted definition of what a superstrat is or not? So far all I see are opinions...

Until there's an official governing body over all things "superstrat", opinion is all you're gonna get

Ok then

 

[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.

Tom was definitely in the mix...do you always back down so easily?

Oh there are things that Curt and I will never agree on, like his belief Tom Keiffer is the godfather of the rock vibrato, but a man knows when he has been schooled in this case

 

[mysticaxe]

The soloist was definately an extremely innovative guitar (IMO) - it took ideas from BC Rich (neck through), Charvel (Rear mount, trem), Fender (general body shape), Gibson (neck, binding, inlay), and the era (colors, aggressive inlay, pointy headstock). I don't see how you can not think it was innovative.

It is really hard to examine innovation via hindsight. Things that were big risks at the time seem like no brainers because they worked!

I define a superstrat as a strat shaped guitar with a hot humbucker in the bridge. I guess that makes a "fat strat" would qualify as a superstrat...

 

[bigdaddyd]

The soloist was definately an extremely innovative guitar (IMO) - it took ideas from BC Rich (neck through), Charvel (Rear mount, trem), Fender (general body shape), Gibson (neck, binding, inlay), and the era (colors, aggressive inlay, pointy headstock). I don't see how you can not think it was innovative.

It is really hard to examine innovation via hindsight. Things that were big risks at the time seem like no brainers because they worked!

I define a superstrat as a strat shaped guitar with a hot humbucker in the bridge. I guess that makes a "fat strat" would qualify as a superstrat...

To me the very idea of taking everyone else's ideas is not very innovative. Like I said, I like Jacksons quite a bit, but find the Soloist the least exciting. BC Rich had some innovative designs and electronics, but hardly came up with the neck thru idea. I mean, as for colors, aggressive inlay, points...BC Rich was doing that in the 70s. The soloist headstock was a redesign of the 6 on a side pointy which Grover came up with possibly one of the nicest of all the designs out there, but innovative? Hardly. Hell, BC Rich had some really nice ones too.

 

[Chubtone]

Oh there are things that Curt and I will never agree on, like his belief Tom Keiffer is the godfather of the rock vibrato, but a man knows when he has been schooled in this case

I barely believe Tom Keifer is the godfather of his own godchildren. Never even owned a Cinderella record. Blech

 

[irondeth21]

This was a good thread! Heads up too everyone Grover legacy series on sale at music zoo for 1299. Just got an email about it if you got gas from this thread lol.

 

[Gainzilla]

To me the very idea of taking everyone else's ideas is not very innovative.

That depends...IF you take some elses Ideas and reapply them in a different way, other than originally intended, you are by definition being innovative...

You and Steve both bring up valid points( for the most part) and I tend to fall on your side a bit more.

 

[Anonymous]

To me the very idea of taking everyone else's ideas is not very innovative.

That depends...IF you take some elses Ideas and reapply them in a different way, other than originally intended, you are by definition being innovative...

Ding Ding Ding Ding!!!! We have a winner, ladies and gentlemen!!!!

Steve

 

[Schaf]

Wasn't TA involved with the Gunslinger?

Never heard that one, interesting. Tom was offered a job with Kramer as a result of building necks for certain endorsed artists (EVH, Viv, Elliott Easton, Sambora, others???) but turned it down.

Speaking of Kramer, I assume most of you know that their "US" built guitars were actually Japanese ESP parts assembled in NJ. ESP actually got their start as a parts company but eventually began making entire guitars (much like Charvel or Schecter only later).

Many were built by Esp later on, but they sourced necks from Laravee and a company name Sporto many years before that. However, I have 4 Kramer's and they are all ESP made.

Great thread. Good debate without anyone getting pissy. Rare these days.

Schaf

 

[Chubtone]

Good debate without anyone getting pissy. Schaf

OH........ NOW IT IS ON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[FortinAmps]

Good debate without anyone getting pissy. Schaf

OH........ NOW IT IS ON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This thread is a disgrace

 

[Zachman]

So is there an accepted definition of what a superstrat is or not? So far all I see are opinions...

The 1st "Super Strats" were invented by THIS man.