i wonder if Gibson was this controversial in the 1940s

Help!I'maRock!

Help!I'maRock!

Mediocringly Derivative
the 1940s saw Gibson introduce the laminate archtop. while partly a cost cutting measure, it was an attempt to reduce feedback at the ever increasing volumes guitarists were playing at. laminate construction drastically changed the sound of the guitar. no longer would it really have much of an unplugged, acoustic voice. the guitar became a truly electric instrument.

given the controversial (and heated) talk on guitar forums regarding alternative materials and processes, regardless of how the company got to them, it seems like the same moment in time.
 
I guessing without the interwebs and 50 magazines dedicated to guitars, most guitarists probably had no idea that a change had been made.
 
Chad said:
I guessing without the interwebs and 50 magazines dedicated to guitars, most guitarists probably had no idea that a change had been made.
Click to expand...

the traditional solid construction were still being produced. Gibson simply added the laminates to their offerings. so both were available to guitarists. i think the difference today is that opinions are formed before the instruments are actually played. in the 40s, you actually had to go to the store to find out about them.
 
Interesting point, Howie.

You're probably right.

Of course, this was before there were a thousand different brands out there.....so making a "cheaper" guitar probably WAS a good idea, as it opened up playing to more people, not just professional musicians. Made it more accessible.
 
Coralkong said:
Interesting point, Howie.

You're probably right.

Of course, this was before there were a thousand different brands out there.....so making a "cheaper" guitar probably WAS a good idea, as it opened up playing to more people, not just professional musicians. Made it more accessible.
Click to expand...

there were lots of cheap brands. the Sears Silvertone family of guitar brands goes back to the 30s.
 
Here's how uncle Jack explained his take on it.

You had two levels of guitars. Harmony/Kay and their slew of brands, then Fender, Gibson, Ric, Gretsch, etc. The former were toys, the latter were for pros.
When he played actively, there was a circuit and you got to know most of the people playing the circuit. They swapped stories, gear and bottles. He said the best way to experience different gear was by the guys on the road trying out each others' guitars and amps.
That's when he learned he like the "sharp" sound of the Fenders over the "soft" sound of the Gibsons.
He said they were all so thrilled when electrics became readily available that they just dove in. For the first time, the guitar could actually be heard.
Didn't sound to me like there was much fussing over how they worked, just THAT they worked.

EG
 
Hmmm. I wonder if those were controversial changes at the time. I think materials costs in 1940 of going laminate versus solid wood were probably not so large, as wood was plentiful and cheap. Anyway, I imagine much like the choices/changes going on in guitar making today, some people hated the differences, some embraced them, and some, and probably most, didn't pay them any mind at all. I think the difference now is that one can find out what thousands of people think about a particular company's product changes pretty much instantly, and this wasn't really possible back then. Of course, I fear many of the people who look up these opinions today lack the ability to realize that a good percentage of them are the ramblings of idiots/trolls/ and those with some crazy agenda (Gibson haters, Gibson lovers, economic reform socialists, people trying to make their previous model more desirable, etc.). I know some people who follow every detail change in a particular guitar, and are convinced they can tell tonal differences in very small changes, and I know some who don't seem to care and don't even know what model guitar they are playing, and I've seen no correlation with musical ability at all.
 
Last edited:
Elias Graves said:
Here's how uncle Jack explained his take on it.

You had two levels of guitars. Harmony/Kay and their slew of brands, then Fender, Gibson, Ric, Gretsch, etc. The former were toys, the latter were for pros.
When he played actively, there was a circuit and you got to know most of the people playing the circuit. They swapped stories, gear and bottles. He said the best way to experience different gear was by the guys on the road trying out each others' guitars and amps.
That's when he learned he like the "sharp" sound of the Fenders over the "soft" sound of the Gibsons.
He said they were all so thrilled when electrics became readily available that they just dove in. For the first time, the guitar could actually be heard.
Didn't sound to me like there was much fussing over how they worked, just THAT they worked.

EG
Click to expand...

That sounds like how I expect that generation of musicians would react. Pretty cool! Also, in the 40s and post war, progress, and faith in man's ability to progress in science, industry, etc. was huge. I would bet there was a lot less skepticism directed at newer things. Man's lamination of the wood was fixing a problem that nature's unmodified product had, at least in that application.
 
sunvalleylaw said:
That sounds like how I expect that generation of musicians would react. Pretty cool! Also, in the 40s and post war, progress, and faith in man's ability to progress in science, industry, etc. was huge. I would bet there was a lot less skepticism directed at newer things. Man's lamination of the wood was fixing a problem that nature's unmodified product had, at least in that application.
Click to expand...

Good point.

Though the seeds of mistrust of progress were already sewn with the A-bomb and two global industrial wars.

Sent from my DROID2 GLOBAL using Tapatalk
 
While solid wood sounds better, laminate is more stable, and thus able to withstand the rigors of the road.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top