Hey All...
I didn't sleep last night, so please pardon my lack of articulation.
I was going through several of my guitars in the wee-hours of the morning contemplating their tonal characteristics before sitting back and merely looking at the beauty or lack thereof and I've realized something about myself. That is to say, I realized that I much prefer the beauty of an instrument sensed aurally as opposed to that I experience with my eyes. I can't really explain it other than to say, I much prefer the tones that come out of my ugly guitars as opposed to the ones that look nicer. I have a Baretta strat with and alder body and nothing more than one coat of a hand rubbed flat poly finish on it that sounds absolutely fantastic. I have an ugly Frankentele with nothing more than a tung oil finish that was once described by a studio owner I was doing session work for (this was in about '93) as having God-tone'. I love the way these guitars sound. Not necessarily the way they look... But I love the way they sound.
Then there's the other side of it... I've got a guitar with thick quilted maple top and a burst finish on it. It plays better than the others, it feels better than the others, it looks better than the others. But it doesn't sound as good as the others.
As a 'control' for this train of thought... I used my old 7 string. It used to have this big, thick and cheap finish on it that I couldn't stand. I stripped that sucker down, through a veneer on it and with a few coats of gloss poly on it. I'm not kidding when I say it 'sounds better'. Previously, I had been the self appointed spokesperson against basswood as it tends to color the tone so little. Blekk. My train of thought dictates that the wood should color the sound in order to assist with it's identity as an instrument.
Then I thought back over the years and realized... All of the guitars I preferred (Schecter Custom 7 with flamed walnut top (oiled), Ibanez S540FM that had been stripped and oiled, Schecter Custom with a swamp ash body that'd been wire brushed and oiled, my Baretta Strat as well as the Frankentele) have little or no finish. What gives?!?!?!?!
When I take into account all of the amazing talent I see around this place with regard to finishing, I fall in lust instantly!!! No kidding. I really, really REALLY... want one. I could build one... But wait... All the guitars I've ever built had little to no finish as well.
I came to a couple of conclusions though all of this confusion. I'm embarrassed that it took me 'til my 36th year to come to it too. I'm a 'late bloomer', I suppose.
Cory's newfound opinions...
1) A good 'tone wood' is nothing more than a big hunk of resonant lumber. Ie, the lighter, the better for our purposes here on the forum. For instance... The 'light' Les Pauls I've had the priviledge of playing have always sounded better than the heavy ones. Why? The wood, being lighter, is more resonant. Ash... Same thing... Swamp ash, IMHO, sounds far superior to northern ash. Why? It's lighter and more resonant. And... It sounds better.
2) The lesser the finish, the more representative the tone is to the individual instrument at hand. Therefore, it sounds better, no?
3) If I had my druthers (sp?), I'd prefer to actually be able to feel the raw wood beneath my fingertips. Why? Only because the feel of the raw wood is more organic and grounding to humanity and our attachement to our environment. The more finish you have, the further the musician gets from the natural elements allowing for more of a 'plastic-like' feel. I realize, without any finish the instrument would crumble and fade to dust. However... I bet it'd sound better.
If you made it all the way through this insomnia induced haze of inarticulate 'spewage', you're a better man than I am.
Feel free to shoot me down or offer up some vindication. I posted this to share my thoughts as well as see what you guys think of these topics. Does any of this stuff make sense to you guys? Or have I wasted a night with useless epiphany(sp?).
Ever so respectfully....
Big Cor