Am I Just a Victim of Marketing?

I think I'm a target of hype, perhaps marketing, because for 40 years that I've cared about guitars, I've never been able to shake the idea that set neck guitars are the Cadillacs while bolt-ons are the poor man's guitar.

I know that is ridiculous. What is true is that set necks are harder to assemble in a factory system, and I know that mahogany is a more expensive wood than alder, that the tops are often AAA or better. But I don't even own a set neck guitar anymore. I've always been a Strat / Tele guy, and I love Fenders.

But the draw of the set neck force is strong within me. Y'all know I've spoken of my love for SGs. Now, I know it's okay to love both, and really, the differences in their purposes are pronounced. I am rather set in the brands that I like--Fender, Gibson, Gretsch, Ric, and Martin--as well as some lesser known brands.


I know some of you have a preference and others see them as two different creative tools.

Does the hype ever whisper guitar myths in your ear?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ch willie

Does the hype ever whisper guitar myths in your ear?

---

NO!

I've been around long enough to have seen it all......

Guitars with built-in effects pedals, guitars with zero frets, guitars with no frets, guitars with a jillion pickups, guitars with no pickups (at least visibly), guitars with simulators, guitars with emulators, guitars with built-in finger organs, guitars with lucite bodies, guitars with aluminum bodies, guitars that tuned themselves.

All bonafide bullshit IMO.

And as far as the eternal set-neck/bolt-neck debate, that's bullshit too. Both sound equally good. They're merely flip sides of the design-coin philosophy. The tone woods used in construction play a more significant sonic role in a guitar's overall timbre than how its neck is attached to the body.

Hype is just that......hype.

JMOOC, YMMV

Total hype.

Set necks and bolt ons are just different.

As a matter of fact, even the eternal debate about sustain seems to be more BS than actual fact. Well built strats will likely sustain just as well as any set neck around.

I used to be a 100% set neck player, all about SGs and LPs, and actually thought that these mahogany-and-glue guitars would resonate better than modular ones with their bolts, big screws, backplates, metal everywhere, big plastic scratchplates, floating bridges... How wrong I was.

My strat sounds wonderfully when unplugged, much better than my SG. Go figure, but that's a fact.

Apples and oranges, but both are just fine.

One thing I'd add, though, is that Fender doesn't seem to overprice its instruments or advertise them as rich or sophisticated people's luxury items. That was never Fender's proposition in the first place.

Oh yes, I know it's all bullshit. But the subconscious goes back to when I was 12 and had no clue. My buddies thought Strats were okay but Les Pauls were the pinnacle of guitars. The price difference confirmed that the Les Paul was "world's above."

I agree that bolt ons are just as good as set necks. But of course, they're different beasts whose howls are different too.

But over the years, you hear so much crap that you absorb it. It's a bit like how we're massaged into thinking of the ideal woman as blonde haired and blue eyed. We know that's rubbish, but it still has a pull.

I have one set neck guitar - which is nice and really plays well - sounds great (in the right hands) and was not overly expensive (First run Agile AL3000) It is just a different animal than my others. That said - my Epi Dot is prolly my favorite guitar, over my claptoon strat also.

I have one set neck Bass (BB2000 Yamaha) which is in its own class, but not JUST because of the neck through. I think the hardware, finish, fit, rets, materials, etc. sum of all parts are the reason it is a nice bass.

That said - I have 8-9 other basses that are also really nice! My go to is usually the roadworn jazz. I like the 7.25 radius - which to me outweighs the neck through on the Yammi.

that is not only my opnion, but what I have repeatedly found as MY preference(s).

I remember thinking the same thing when I was a kid. The ultimate goal was a Gibson Les Paul. Now I know that the ultimate guitar is the one that works best for whatever you're trying to do at the moment. I have to admit that I still have Name-Brand-itis when it comes to gear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lure555

I have to admit that I still have Name-Brand-itis when it comes to gear.

---

+1

I too am afflicted with "snobosis".

:up

I have pangs of snobosis too. Ha ha. But I'm open now to "off" brands. Agile makes a lefty ES-1275 copy. It's 12 pounds, and I know it's a beast to have around the neck. But I'd using it for recording mostly, and that I do in a chair. BTW, I wear my guitars high like George Harrison, so I don't care if the guit comes up to my chin when I play.... Even an Agile is not in my budget for the foreseeable future.

I think these days it's inevitable that we are all victims of marketing to some extent.
I think as far as guitars go you probably fall into the Fender camp or the Gibson camp as they are the 2 most iconic brands, and I definitely prefer Fenders. I can't say if that's just because I prefer the single coil sound or whether it's because they just look "sexier" but I have 3 Fender Strats, a P90 Jaguar, and a Squier CV Tele whereas I only have One Gibson Les Paul Studio and one PRS SE Custom 24 on the Humbucker side. ( Oh yeah, the price of set neck guitars may also come into it! :wah: ) And yes, I'm a brand snob too otherwise I'd have a Squier Jaguar by now !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ch willie

I have pangs of snobosis too. Ha ha. But I'm open now to "off" brands. Agile makes a lefty ES-1275 copy. It's 12 pounds, and I know it's a beast to have around the neck. But I'd using it for recording mostly, and that I do in a chair. BTW, I wear my guitars high like George Harrison, so I don't care if the guit comes up to my chin when I play.... Even an Agile is not in my budget for the foreseeable future.

---

I fail to see the need for a double-neck in a studio situation.

I think you'd be better served with a stand-alone 12-string.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phantomman

I fail to see the need for a double-neck in a studio situation.

I think you'd be better served with a stand-alone 12-string.

---

I would be and hope to have a Ric 360 12 string one day.

I have just always had a boner for double neck guitars. Don Felder, Jimmy Page, Denny Laine, and Rick Nielsen are to blame. I have fetishized those forever. I'd love to have a real Gibson, but the ones out there are just too expensive for me to ever afford. Agile is not a premium brand, but the six and seven strings my friends have are really great sounding guitars.

At any rate, I won't be buying anything for a long time.

Well Willie, I am a "flipper" and MANY guitars come and go through my grubby untalented hands in a year...Set neck bolt neck crooked neck ----maple mahogany.....pine....whatever......birds eye maple....
Low dollar and (somewhat high dollar) bass, 6 strings, acos....er HELL you get the idea.....

THAT feeling is total marketing. ....what ever feels and sounds good to you-----is right.....if the neck is held on by spit twine duct tape and leather straps----if it sounds good---rock the FOOK out of it.......case in point

https://youtu.be/S-vSZFEWHlo

ALso Check out the bass player. ;)

Excellent case in point. I lost real snobishness years ago when I saw somebody as good as Jaco playing a Squier bass and making that bad boy growl.

I'm no passive fool of marketing. I am totally aware of it when I'm under the sway. It's a strong pull but not so much that it blinds me to other makes. It's just always a little white noise in the background.

Our tastes are socially constructed--it's just that the voices of real experience and practicality have to fight with those of Madison Ave.

I think the correct attitude is to ignore marketing and acknowledge reality. No, bolt-on necks are not "poor man's" guitars (So what if they are!?). Leo did not build them as such. The idea was to develop a guitar that could be built in a modular fashion that could be more readily constructed and delivered for sale. This would reduce build time and decrease costs. By the way, that is the same idea behind the assembly line that builds those Cadillacs!

So, it's less of a "poor-man's" guitar, and more a guitar for the masses.

The set-neck is the neck joint that has been in place for centuries and is used on guitars, cellos, violins, upright basses, etc. As such, it has developed the reputation as being more or less the standard. Anything else will be viewed as a deviation from the standard, or more likely, it may be viewed as sub-standard by those who are tied to that method. A possible exception to this bias is through-neck construction, though those beholden to a set neck may deride that, too. I don't know.

It is true that a set-neck design takes more time and skill to build. As a practical case to support this, look at any low-budget version of a set-neck instrument, it usually will have a bolt-on neck. For example, take the SGs you like, the lower budget Ephiphone variants, the G310 series, have bolt-on necks. Why? It's just less expensive and easier to make. The same can be said for the inexpensive bolt-on Jackson Dinky I just bought, vs. the much more expensive neck-through Jackson Soloist.

Now, at this point, I probably sound like I'm supporting your apprehension about set-neck vs. bolt-neck. I don't mean to, but I think some honest observations are in order. I think we who play bolt-on guitars get sucked into the "quality" argument, when we don't need to. The lower cost is mis-interpreted as being inferior. Though the construction may be easier and less expensive, a bolt-on neck instrument is not inherently of less quality. To the contrary, some would argue that the nature of the joint lends a unique sonic character to bolt-neck guitars.

I think the set-neck vs. bolt-neck debate is quite tired and pointless. The bolt-neck guitar has firmly been established as a viable musical instrument. Price is not the only reason people choose them. Consider ANY of the famous guitar players who you see with Strats or Teles. Are they unable to afford a set-neck instrument? Okay, they may have an endorsement deal from Fender....and they couldn't have gotten a deal from Gibson?! Gibson would not have just as eagerly given an endorsement to Clapton, Beck, Gilmour, Knopfler....?

So, it really comes down to the instrument you like to play. Even if a bolt-on neck were "poor man's" guitar (though, I doubt Clapton is worried about where his next meal is coming from) I would actually take pride in that. But, quite honestly, it is just another way of making a guitar.

I think Buddy Holly, SRV, Clapton, George Harrison, Keith Richards, Ronnie Wood, Beck, David Gilmour, Jimi Hendrix, Ritchie Blackmore and many others didn't really care that their guitars had bolt on necks... :laughing:

I'm sitting here, musing on my guitar collection - not as vast as some of all y'all's...but pretty respectable...and certainly more than I need or deserve...and for the most part, I play every one in some live capacity, which is why I keep them.

I have:

2010's white Fender MIM Stratocaster, maple neck - played at most gigs
2013-ish blackguard FSR MIM Telecaster, maple neck
mid-2000s Gretsch Electromatic Hollowbody, Tangerine with factory pinstripes, added TV Jones p'ups...along with Strat, it's my go-to
PRS SE Custom 22 - used 9/10 times for church services, I think of this as my "church" guitar - very nicely balanced pickups, clear and full
Gibson worn brown SG - beat to hell with Grateful Dead stickers and ceramic p'ups - this is my backyard BBQ jamming on Jerry Garcia guitar.
Epiphone sunburst G400 with aftermarket Bigsby and Bare Knuckles p'ups - a sleeper in my collection, paid $275 and the aftermarket parts alone were worth more!
Epiphone Firebird VII, sunburst with patina'd gold hardware (faded hardware, put another way...) - so cool, don't use it much.
recent Danelectro XII double cut with F-hole
2015 Gibson Les Paul Jr.

Taylor 414CE - old-style preamp, comes to every acoustic gig with me...
Gretsch Rancher Falcon XII acoustic 12 string

And yet...and yet I still look at other guitars.

Where is my Rickenbacker? I'd also like a 2013 or 2014 SG Standard just like Gravity Jim has - but I already HAVE 2 SGs.

So do you see the problem here? It's not just that I'm a victim marketing, but a victim of my own making...I get GAS from others' GAS. And BTW - I never really think about whether a guitar has a set-neck, bolt-on, or neck-through. It all depends on what the classic design is for the various guitars.

I am not saying one is better than the other. I am saying that the thought is in the air; even if it's rubbish to compare them, the thought persists out there that the set neck is superior. As I said earlier, I know it's bullshit, but I, like many people, have heard and absorbed those ideas so that it's like an annoying fly in the ear. I'm strictly Fender with electrics. I don't even own a set neck guitar, and though one day I'll get an SG (or yummy, an ES-1275).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ch willie

I am not saying one is better than the other. I am saying that the thought is in the air; even if it's rubbish to compare them, the thought persists out there that the set neck is superior. As I said earlier, I know it's bullshit, but I, like many people, have heard and absorbed those ideas so that it's like an annoying fly in the ear. I'm strictly Fender with electrics. I don't even own a set neck guitar, and though one day I'll get an SG (or yummy, an ES-1275).

---

You're right. That thought is in the air, and it probably always will be. You say you've absorbed those thoughts. There's nothing wrong with that. I don't see a need to fight it. Maybe, deep down you actually prefer set-necks and think they are somehow better and represent more craftsmanship. I say, that's okay. It doesn't make you a corksniffing snob. I prefer Strats to Teles. I prefer the shape, the controls, the sound, the feel... But, that doesn't mean I think Teles are junk. I also think my $3200.00 Les Paul Custom is superior in many ways to my $278.00 Washburn. But, that doesn't mean the Washburn doesn't mean a lot to me. In fact, often I play the heck out of it while the Lester sits idle.

Getting a bit more personal towards myself...my SG has a B5 style Bigsby. Honestly, I prefer the look of a Maestro and think it is a much classier design than the B5 on my SG. This doesn't make me dislike or look down on my SG, or on others with a B5. It has its own character which I've learned to utilize and appreciate.

I guess my point is, you can like, even prefer, something other than what you have. It doesn't mean you have to pick sides with your guitars or that you have to demonstrate some sort of loyalty. Go ahead...get that SG. Enjoy it I PROMISE you won't stop loving your Fenders!

Truth is, I couldn't really decide which I like better, but I'm more of a Fender guy than anything. The only set neck I've ever played and really like is an SG. I love to look at Les Pauls, but I prefer double cutaways on everything except Teles, which I like every bit as much as Strats.

I appreciate all the input. Interesting takes on the subject.

I think the socially formed subconscious sometimes is a good thing--we learn evaluation in useful ways. But the subconscious is also formed by such forces as peer pressure, the media, and marketing. When it comes to any decision about gear, I weigh these things. Recently I realized that I don't enjoy playing Les Pauls. But the draw of a Les Paul is strong. They're so beautiful and sound so good. But as a wise person on the forum has written, it may be that I like the idea of a Les Paul more than the actual guitar. Because of problems with my hands, the SG's double cutaway is a lot easier for me to play.