johnw Posted July 11, 2010 Report Posted July 11, 2010 Hmmmm, i always had a fancy for the shape of those guitars, feeedback? Quote
DC Ross Posted July 11, 2010 Report Posted July 11, 2010 Some of the best, in my book. I'm surprised they caught on as well as they did, since guitarists are, by and large, such a traditional, fickle lot. Check out this article/interview from the ToneQuest Report: http://www.kenparkerarchtops.com/ParkerTQRDec09.pdf Quote
Workingman Posted July 12, 2010 Report Posted July 12, 2010 Cool interview in the link thanks. Not to be too nit picking but the intro is just wrong. there were lots of factory mass produced guitars out there before rock n rol hit. Many of them were real dogs. Ever play a Stella? Parker in the interview sites the poor quality of many pre rock archtops, including a 1930 Gibson. Quote
Diffidentia Posted July 13, 2010 Report Posted July 13, 2010 Personally I'm a big fan of Parker guitars. So much, in fact, that I'm planning to do a neck-thru Dragonfly (without the carbon back) soon. As for the Parker vs. traditional guitars discussion, Parker has tried to catch the eye of a larger guitarist community by releasing a guitar (still the Dragonfly) that's more in line with "normal" guitars but that still retain some of the features of the original Fly. Quote
Wademeister Posted July 13, 2010 Report Posted July 13, 2010 Love those guitars! I used to want one sooo bad. But I've been playing bass for the last 5 or 6 years and Parker's bass design is disgusting to me. ***? Couldn't make the bass like a larger version of the guitar?! Maybe one day I'll build the bass I think Parker should have made =) Quote
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.