I am not a pointy guitar guy myself, but I love Explorers in the right hands
I am fully supportive of folks who dig wacky-looking guitars - I happen to like simple ones, but if you want flames or a skull-shaped axe and it gets you playing more and you have fun - yay you.
But there is just no excuse for this(link to Gibson website)
If you truly believe that the body of the guitar matters to the tone - okay, maybe you don’t think fancy woods matter, and you point to solidbodies made of man-made materials that sound good as proof that you can use other materials - but don’t you still think a guitar should have, well a real body???
I know there are weird travel guitars and Gittler guitars (Google one - basically a metal skeleton) - but those are all trying to solve a problem and compromise body integrity to accomplish something else.
For EVH fans out there, if you remember the guitar he is holding on the cover of Women and Children First - that was an Ibanez Explorer replica (called a Destroyer) that EVH hacked a hunk out of (link to photo) to make it look unique (he’s funny that way). He still regrets doing it because it robbed the tone right out of the guitar…
At best, all you could hope to do is load it with super-high-output humbuckers that dominate the tone and overshadow any influence the body might have. Oh, that sounds like a plan…:rolleyes:
I know, I know - it is a novelty guitar and if some guy buys it as his 27th guitar because it seems fun and he likes Explorers - well, more power to him.
I don’t think it matters at all what a guitar looks like. At a show, a freaky looking guitar is part of the show. Phil campbell is a rock guitar monster, look at one of his freaky looking guitars… http://www.minarikguitars.com/images/artists/philCampbell1.jpg
That guitar is totally uncalled-for. Of course, I want one.
Actually, it seems like a pretty cool idea, although the limited production run pretty much guarantees I won’t get a chance to play one any time soon. Maybe those holes will actually add something to the sound.
I’d bet that that thing produces feedback like crazy at any reasonable volume level. Way back in the day I borrowed a friends guitar for a gig. The guitar had some cut outs similar to the Explorer around the pickup area, though not quite as many*. The guitar was extremely light.
The guitar was unplayable. If you got the volume on the amp past about 1.5 it’d do nothing but feedback.
Slee
*I can’t remember what the hell the guitar was, though I think it might have been a Kramer or a Dean.
I’ll never own anything other than a traditional style, but then I’m no son of Dick Dale either.
I’m intrigued by that Explorer you pictured though. Mainly because I’m wonderin’ would there be enough room in a couple of those cutouts to install a bottle opener, coin purse and toothpick holder?
You could also put mesh over a couple of the holes and use it to drain pasta!
bobo t - Again, I got nuthin’ against The Wacky - the pic you supply (same guitar as Mr. lieu offers a pic of) has a real body - whether or not the shape is to my taste is not the point - it has stuff that resonates to contribute the tone…
Crotalus - really? You don’t think all of those holes will rob the guitar of any chance of sounding good? I mean, sure, there are “chambered” and semi-hollow and hollow bodied guitars - but they all *contain *the open spaces, so the full “guitar system” benefits from any resonance coming from those vibrating hollow spaces. With this thing, there’s simply not much to vibrate and nothing to contain what does vibrate…
OK, one pros of the thing would be that you could loop the cord through it a couple of times and be able to do that lasso thing without it coming unplugged…(the guitar, that is :D). I guess that doesn’t help…quick somebody post a kitty pic!
Here’s one that is similar yet different from the Telecaster forum. The link to the build is here. This one is more of a hollow body, since he covered the front and back with polycarbonate, but visually, it’s similar. I have no idea what it sounds like though. This one I like, the explorer, not so much.
Looks like the guy had fun with it - not my cuppa. At least that one has acrylic top and sides - if anything, it is constructed more like an old Danelectro - like the kind Jimmy Page plays for slide - those are basically hollow with fiber-board/some weird material top and sides. But it *does *have a top and bottom.
And, by the way, those Danny’s never really got all that popular as anything but starter guitars or slide guitars because they sound bright and tinny and don’t take gain very well (in part due to the pickups)…
I’m not a guitarist, but I think Gibson (and everybody else, especially B.C. Rich) try to make guitars that scream,“Rawwkkkk-n-fuckin’ Rolll!!” to the average 17-year old. The one in the OP is a good example.
Sure does, that’s exactly what I’d do. Load that sucker up with EMG 81 in the bridge and an 85 in the neck (although I don’t know where the battery pack would go) plug into a Triple Rec and thrash the everloving shit out of that thing. That one’s not for tone, it’s for flash.
I don’t see it as any worse than a Steinberger as far as body mass. I look at it, and I see the parts remaining as providing all the stiffness of the unexcavated version. I bet it’s a lot better sounding than you all are expecting.
Those of you who have a case of the Fantods after seeing the Holy Explorer might feel better after performing a Google search for the Gibson Reverse Flying V.
