Am I the only one here who prefers guitars with less sustain?

[Jkater]

 

Jazzers: strong attack and short sustain is what archtops (and gypsy jazz guitars) do.

 

 

I was thinking precisely of that. Some stuff is unplayable (convincingly) on guitars with too much sustain.

[BoneNut]

 

I wasn't being defensive. A) You're the one with the long response. B) You speculated I preferred a certain music, and I said that's reductive because I'm without strong preference (as in I listen to a wide variety). C) Do you know what reductive means? D) Your car analogy doesn't work in this context at all. Plus there's a difference between having percussive "technique" and a simple guitar with less sustain. E) As for amps, I prefer my Hiwatt DR103. And personally, I associate "sag and bloom" more with tube rectifiers anyway. Simply saying tube amps sustain more and SS sustain less is simply wrong.

 

 

You're absolutely right about everything JK. Sorry I posted.

[buddhapaugh]

I mean, whenever I solo, I rarely hold onto any note for more than a few beats at very most, and my vibrato is good enough to control how much life I want each note to have. And chords just sound so much more alive when they punch out quick. Anyone else with me here on guitars (and amps) that hit strong and fast? Are we just revering the tired old paradigm simply because its heritage?

 

Isn't anyone who plays a Stratocaster or a Telecaster into guitarts with minimal sustain. That snappy tone of a Strat or Tele is due to the immediate decay of a note struck or played.

 

The Les Pauls and other hardtail/string-through/setneck/neck-thru designs are all meant to encourage the slow decay of notes.

 

So... no... you are not the only one.

 

I'd also say each style has its utilitarian purpose within the overall context of any particular musical composition.

[[J.K.]]

:cry: :mad: :rolleyes:

[johns7022]

Well the nice thing about not wanting sustain...you can walk into any pawn shop, find the cheapest guitars they have and try to pick and choose which guitar resonates the least and sucks the most tone out your playing....

[pixelchemist]

Isn't anyone who plays a Stratocaster or a Telecaster into guitarts with minimal sustain. That snappy tone of a Strat or Tele is due to the immediate decay of a note struck or played. The Les Pauls and other hardtail/string-through/setneck/neck-thru designs are all meant to encourage the slow decay of notes. So... no... you are not the only one. I'd also say each style has its utilitarian purpose within the overall context of any particular musical composition.

 

 

i don't know about your strats but mine sustain quite well if i want them to ... and will do the twang without issue too

[Grantus]

Endless sustain = the face of God

[Alex W]

I prefer Jazzmasters and everyone seems to think their sustain is severly limited.

[Gumkick]

 

Endless sustain = the face of God

 

 

Oh Jeez, you quoted that one post of mine. I gotta point out I posted that on page three of an epic troll thread and I offered it in that spirit. Eric Johnson is great at making music that doesn't much appeal to me but in reality I don't think that makes him, or his tone, less great.

 

Personally my tastes run towards less sustain, I like "stinging" blues tones, Mickey Baker, early Freddy King, but obviously there are tons of great solos which rely on lots of sustain. I'm way too sloppy to play with that much gain myself but I can't really imagine that say Thin Lizzy would be better with T-Bone Walker leads.

 

But does the guitar make that big a difference? I figure you can get more attack, less sustain, with technique and your amp settings, I have a hard time imagining that too much sustain from a guitar would be a big problem.

[robertkoa]

Yes.

[Chill Mike D]

 

The Edge modded a lot of his guitars to reduce the amount of sustain.

 

 

Ah yes, the felt on the saddle trick.