mabyenot Posted May 31, 2006 Report Share Posted May 31, 2006 Im not the kind of person who likes teles or infact any fender. i really find the tele shape very boring and the headstock to bejust plain weird. I prefer gitars more geared towards heavy metal such as ESP's or Jacksons. but the other day i played a Tele in a guitar shop. I was really surprised by how nice it was. It played like a dream. Also i wasn't expecting much in the way of a good overdriven sound. This thing really surprised me, as much as i want to dislike them i am seriously considering saving up for one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorecki Posted May 31, 2006 Report Share Posted May 31, 2006 The phrase that comes to mind, "Don't judge a book by its cover". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rokeros Posted May 31, 2006 Report Share Posted May 31, 2006 Yep, I think the telecaster was a first attempt someone did on a bandsaw..forgot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sepultura999 Posted May 31, 2006 Report Share Posted May 31, 2006 make sure Drak doesn't see this. I like it how people bash teles but they don't bash those cutaway acoustics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crafty Posted May 31, 2006 Report Share Posted May 31, 2006 (edited) I think that Teles are kind of like that semi-homely girl who sings in the choir that no one would ask to the prom, but when you finally give her that mercy date, she's the best you've ever had. For a guitar that was developed in the '40s and based off the classic flat-top acoustic shape, I think it's done very well. Some of the best rock tracks EVER recorded have been with Teles. Even if they pull out the pointy guitars for the concerts or music videos, you can always tell when they laid the track down in the studio with a Tele. Most of the rhythm on Appetite for Destruction was laid down with a Tele, Prince proudly rocks out with his Tele, and the Boss uses the Esquire/Tele for everything. "I can't remember if it was a Telecaster or a Stratocaster, but it had a heart of chrome and a voice like a horning angel"--Meatloaf, intro to Wasted Youth Edited May 31, 2006 by crafty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marksound Posted May 31, 2006 Report Share Posted May 31, 2006 Don't forget Jimmy Page played a bunch of classic Zep tracks on a Tele. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mabyenot Posted May 31, 2006 Author Report Share Posted May 31, 2006 For a guitar that was developed in the '40s and based off the classic flat-top acoustic shape, I think it's done very well. i agree, either its because they got it spot on first try or its because theyve had so long to perfect it. either way its a nice guitar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firefox2551 Posted May 31, 2006 Report Share Posted May 31, 2006 I've always found Tele's pretty cool. Unfortunatly any of the ones I've ever played had a real thick neck that makes my wrist sore. I always play with my thumb behind the neck in the "classical" position, instead of hanging my thim over on the "Blues position". So I like think Necks, the wizards are like heaven to my hands. Someday I may build a tele with a nice thin neck though. That would solve the problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GregP Posted May 31, 2006 Report Share Posted May 31, 2006 I love telecasters. The Yamaha Pacifica tele-style (302 and I'm sure other models as well) updates the shape just a touch and adds a belly contour for comfort. I generally prefer it to the typical tele shape, but there is definitely something to be said for an honest-to-goodness Tele with no updates to it. I like the transparent yellow (not butterscotch, which is opaque) with a black pickguard, like Mike Campbell's on the cover of this month's Guitar Player. Greg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikhailgtrski Posted May 31, 2006 Report Share Posted May 31, 2006 like Mike Campbell's on the cover of this month's Guitar Player. Can you catch something from all that fingerboard grime? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GregP Posted May 31, 2006 Report Share Posted May 31, 2006 Can you catch something from all that fingerboard grime? <shudders> It's truly gross-looking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drak Posted May 31, 2006 Report Share Posted May 31, 2006 How did I get so connected with Teles? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattia Posted May 31, 2006 Report Share Posted May 31, 2006 I still think the Tele headstock is one of the most hideous designs known to man, and I've got this whole love/hate thing going with Fender's designs, and the Tele more than the Strat. I've owned several strats (still own one, have one awaiting finish), and I love the feel, the comfort, but they're a bit square-bottomed, don't flow all that well. But change that, and it looks wrong. Strat gotta be a strat. The only reason I started building a Tele (with a strat-esque headstock; one of the best 6-inline headstock designs known to man) was an argument I had with a friend (re: 'strats rule, teles drool!/no! teles rule and strats drool!/OK, I'll build one of each then, and decide the matter!'), and since then...I dunno. I kinda like the darn thing now. There's something 'right' about them. Something that needs to remain kind of pure, and simple. I think it's the elegance of Leo Fender's minimalist, simplistic, easy to manufacture, no frills designs, really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickguard Posted May 31, 2006 Report Share Posted May 31, 2006 . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Southpa Posted May 31, 2006 Report Share Posted May 31, 2006 I like my all maple tele. They are well balanced and simple, a working man's guitar. And as far as building one goes, its a no brainer. One of the easiest and least expensive guitars to slap together. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thegarehanman Posted May 31, 2006 Report Share Posted May 31, 2006 Around here, every single band has at least one tele in it. The French may suck at rock n roll, but they know a thing or two about great design. Wasn't it the french who built an aircraft carrier that was too short for planes to actually take off from? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drak Posted June 1, 2006 Report Share Posted June 1, 2006 Tele's kick ass. But most people under 30 don't realize it yet. I mean, all of mine are modified somewhat, with more electronic options, rear belly carves, different pickup combinations, chambers in some, but they are absolutely Telecaster in essence, in heart, in basic character they are Telecaster all the way, with the proper bridgeplates, mostly Maple necks, typically Alder construction, etc., they are not simply Tele in shape, but Tele in heart, I made sure of that. If there's a guitar I really can't stomach, it's a Tele modified to be something completely different, like a Tele with humbuckers, or a Tele with a Floyd, or a Tele with a Jackson neck, that kinda stuff roils my innerds, but I'm sure some of mine would roil the innerds of some Telecaster purists too, so oh well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorecki Posted June 1, 2006 Report Share Posted June 1, 2006 If there's a guitar I really can't stomach, it's a Tele modified to be something completely different, like a Tele with humbuckers, or a Tele with a Floyd, or a Tele with a Jackson neck, that kinda stuff roils my innerds, but I'm sure some of mine would roil the innerds of some Telecaster purists too, so oh well. So I take it you're not interesting in building a tele with hums and putting .011 flat's on it either. Bummer. Thought that could make a mello combo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GregP Posted June 1, 2006 Report Share Posted June 1, 2006 If there's a guitar I really can't stomach, it's a Tele modified to be something completely different, like a Tele with humbuckers... Definitely to each their own. I love the various Teles that have come with humbuckers. In particular, I like the humbucker in the neck position (something both Mike Stern and Albert Collins-- who is nothing if not twangtastic-- have done well with), but Tele Deluxes from the 70s are pretty nifty, too, with their dual-bucker configuration. Mainly, I'm insane about hum and I can't handle straight-up single coils any more. Whenever I get around to building a telecaster, it'll have a full-sized chrome/nickel-covered humbucker in the neck position and a stacked pickup in the bridge. Heck, maybe I'll even go full-sized hum in the bridge with one of those aftermarket tele bridges. Greg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tirapop Posted June 1, 2006 Report Share Posted June 1, 2006 Growing up, the Strat was what came to mind when I thought "electric guitar". I discovered the Tele later. Being used to the long pointy horns and that huge sail of the CBS headstock, the Tele's restraint was refreshing. It's elemental, basic. The was nothing about it's shape to shock June Cleaver. You had to do it all with your playing. You'd see them in old B&W photos of bluesmen, country players, early rockers. I think Springsteen and Chrissy Hyndes gravitated to Teles because they were iconic. There was a subliminal statement, picking a Tele, that you were reaching back in time, pre-Strat psychedelia, pre-arena rock, pre-concept album, pre-20 minute drum solo, and all the crap that followed. (Personally, I liked a lot of the crap that followed.) On the record, the Tele is my favorite produciton headstock. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crafty Posted June 1, 2006 Report Share Posted June 1, 2006 For a guitar that was developed in the '40s and based off the classic flat-top acoustic shape, I think it's done very well. i agree, either its because they got it spot on first try or its because theyve had so long to perfect it. either way its a nice guitar Well, Leo Fender didn't exactly "get it right" on the first try according to the history. He gave many instruments away before they were mass produced for research and testing in the real world. The first Esquires didn't have truss rods, either. Leo simply thought people would see the neck as a wearable, replaceable component and just order a new one if the old one warped. He tried using cheaper pine for the bodies for a while, too. Leo never really stopped evolving the Tele line and was designing ASAT improvements right up until he died. Trivia: a lot of people think ASAT stands for "After the Strat, After the Tele". The truth is that Leo read an article about the ASAT missile system and thought it'd be a cool image to think of a guitar shooting down a satellite. So that's how the G&L ASAT came to be named. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lovekraft Posted June 1, 2006 Report Share Posted June 1, 2006 He tried using cheaper pine for the bodies for a while, too. That's interesting - when I was (a lot) younger, we were always told that the original switch from pine to ash was because ash was cheaper (at the time) and looked better under the translucent finishes - since the impetus for the first rosewood fretboards was the fact that maple looked "dirty" under TV lighting, I wasn't surprised. I wonder which is actually true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickguard Posted June 1, 2006 Report Share Posted June 1, 2006 . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drak Posted June 1, 2006 Report Share Posted June 1, 2006 I believe the wood decisions had something to do with local availability, ala the closer the wood, the less shipping involved, and Leo was a stickler for the pennies. So Fender was in California, Gibson was in Michigan, and both would choose locally available quality woods (where and when available) I think is the long and short of it. Same with 1,2, 3, and many laminate piece bodies. 40 years ago, quality woods in wide widths were easily available, but the trees available today are nothing like what they once were, we have forested heavily, especially Walnut (native American resource), Hickory, and Maple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattia Posted June 1, 2006 Report Share Posted June 1, 2006 He tried using cheaper pine for the bodies for a while, too. That's interesting - when I was (a lot) younger, we were always told that the original switch from pine to ash was because ash was cheaper (at the time) and looked better under the translucent finishes - since the impetus for the first rosewood fretboards was the fact that maple looked "dirty" under TV lighting, I wasn't surprised. I wonder which is actually true. Didn't Gibson make their guitars from mahogany because they had a ton of it available? I would suspect in part, yes, and in part because mahogany's a very traditional guitar wood, and Gibson was always a traditional company (mahogany back/sides/necks, even tops, are very common in acoustics). Alder and Ash...not s'much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.