New Guitar

[MetalJester098]

Firstly as the subject states I be needing a new guitar, Secondly I have £850, Thirdly i'm going to the london guitar show.

If you put the three together theres just one problem,
WHAT GUITAR SHOULD I GET!:Spin:

Ive been considering a gibson gothic sg, but my decision is still a serious one as i dont come across £850 often.

With your help i think i can be safe.

One more thing, i dont want a floyd rose tremelo, unless you can convince me otherwise i dont think its worth it.

Cheers guys.

 

[Silverhaze]

YES!! Get a Gibson!! I had to get that in before all the Jackson fanatics started posting.

An SG is a great choice, I have one and I love it.
NOW, if my math is correct, your 850 is about equal to $1300 US. If thats the case, and you're willing to spend your whole load, I'd look at an SG Standard over the Goth. It's just a better guitar and will hold it's value better. The Goth is pretty much an "SG Special", which is what I have, and it's fine - but a Standard is even better. Since you're going to a show, I'd also look at a Gibson Les Paul Studio (I have on of those too) and a Gibson Explorer. All fine guitars without a trem and in your price range. Definetely play as many guitars as you can, and buy the one that feels the best to you. Playability is much more important than brand name. My Les Paul Studio has a much fuller neck than my SG and if you have smaller hands, it might be a liitle more difficult for you to play compared to the SG - who's neck is much slimmer.

If you're feelin' saucy, you could always pick up a Gibson SG Faded AND a Jackson DKMGT (non trem) for that kind of cash!!

 

[Immortaldemon]

Buy two microphones, boom stands and a P.A system.

 

[Sunbane]

I say: To hell with the brand hype.
Go to the show and play a lot of guitars. Play Jacksons, BC Riches, Ibanezes, Gibsons, Fenders, etc...and decide what you'd like. I personally think Gibson is a bit overpriced - but if it's a good Gibson, it's a damn nice guitar.

I have a special liking for guitars that are good but not so expensive that you'd get too careful with 'em. Guitars are meant to be played with reckless abandon, but I'm not sure I'd like to "go wíld" with a mint condition Gibson LP Classic for instance. I buy used gear...

'bane

 

[MetalJester098]

Cheers for the help guys but I cant find a pricelist for the guitars anywhere, at the moment my choice is wavering to the gibson sg, anyone know where I can find one on the net.

 

[Immortaldemon]

Go to www.turnkey.co.uk for the P.A. system, mics and etc.

 

[Spod2508]

I'd say go to the show, play as many guitars as possible. Once you've found one that you like, go home and order it of music123.com or some other internet store (check the store rating on bizrate.com first).

You'll get the guitar for a few hundred dollars cheaper than you would in a shop.

I've bought 4 guitars off them and I swear, I will never buy a guitar in a shop as long as I live.

 

[MrMajs]

Gibson...

 

[Bryant]

I love Gibsons. I used to have an SG bass and a Marauder electric . Don't overlook Ibenez though. The Ibanez won't retain it's value like a Gibson, but they make a good selection of guitars, not just the fancy floating tremola models.
I would also check out a Paul Reed Smith. They are a little pricy, but they are quality instruments that holds their value well. Aside from the quality of the PRS, you will have to look far and wide to find a guitar with a better finish. They are beautiful instruments.


Bryant

 

[MetalJester098]

Well thanx for all the help guys, just to let you know my purchase was made in the form of a gibson sg standard in heritage cherry for £799 brand new.
Quite a saving

And once again thanx for the help

 

[Silverhaze]

Excellent choice! You're going to love it.

 

[plfffffft]

Ah, well, I missed the boat, but I'll throw in my $.02 just for future reference.

As soimeone else said: Forget about brands. Play as many guitars as you can, as many different styles as you can. And take into account neck width, I prefer either a really thin neck, like a Jackson, or a really thick one, like a Gibson Explorer. I'm weird like that, but that's just me. Also, if you're a lead player, you might want to stick to a 24 fret model, but that's not that important. Also, check out different body woods, because they produce different sounds. If you're a lead player, you might want a maple body, as that produces a lighter sound, just perfect for soloing. If you're more of a rhythm guitarist, like me, you might want mahogony or something like that for your body, as that has a lower, bass-ier, chucnkier sound to it.


And you have to get a guitar that looks cool as hell. I look cool as hell playing my Rhoads, which is one of the reasons I bought it

 

[Sunbane]

If you're a lead player, you might want a maple body, as that produces a lighter sound, just perfect for soloing. If you're more of a rhythm guitarist, like me, you might want mahogony or something like that for your body, as that has a lower, bass-ier, chucnkier sound to it.

I personally think the tonal difference you need for lead vs rhythm could be easilly achieved with just some EQ'ing, and when you're in a band you never just play rhythm or lead exclusively. But whatever floats you boat... =)

I've always also been a rhythm player primarilly, but in my first band I ended up playing more leads than our shred-guy (on our own songs). He'd come to rehearsal and say "Y'know, I can't come up with anything that fits that passage. Can't you do one of your blues things there instead?" So I just applied some mindless pentatonic meedling and everyone was happy...more or less. =P

'bane

 

[Lethe78]

I prefer Jackson. Especially the KV2. However, it is all a matter of what feels right in your hands. Don't go by what everyone else likes, unless you actually like it. First, find the style that fits you. For me, it is a V. The once you figure that out, try out as many of that style that you possibly can.

 

[Bryant]

Great choice on the SG. They are very light-weight, have a pretty fat sound and they have a neck/fretboard that will work well enough for bluesy solos or technical solos. They are also nice looking axes in my eyes as well.

Bryant

 

[Lethe78]

Great choice on the SG. They are very light-weight, have a pretty fat sound and they have a neck/fretboard that will work well enough for bluesy solos or technical solos. They are also nice looking axes in my eyes as well.

Bryant

I don't like the looks of an SG, but I dolike the tone. And they are the lightest guitar the I know of. Maybe Steinburger is lighter....

 

[Immortaldemon]

If you want light, try picking up one of the Parker guitars. All I can say is don't take one outside on a windy day.

 

[Bryant]

I don't like the looks of an SG, but I dolike the tone. And they are the lightest guitar the I know of. Maybe Steinburger is lighter....

The weight of a guitar is more important than many people think. It takes a special person to play a Les Paul Standard. That old Marauder I had was sweet, but even though I had a super wide leather shoulder strap and I'm a pretty decent sized and hard-nosed guy, that guitar flat out hurt me playing it for long periods due to it's sheer solid maple weight.
The SG (I guess they are still mahogany and thin) is a dream on the shoulder. I think the white SGs look flat out menacing with those double horns (cut-aways.) I like the dark mahogany finish as well, but I'm not crazy about the cherry.
As far as Steinberger, the full-bodied ones like Vito Bratta played are sweet, but those little square ones despite the high price felt like a toy to me. Steinberger made the best tremola hands down for years and years as well. I haven't looked into their stuff in almost ten years though.

Bryant

 

[Sunbane]

The weight of a guitar is more important than many people think. It takes a special person to play a Les Paul Standard.

I want one of those badly. =P
Actually, the only guitar I've played that was heavier than a Les Paul, is my Flying V. It's thicker than a Gibson V - imagine a V of the same thickness as a Les Paul - and no bevels anywhere to take the weight out. I'm pretty narrow shouldered, and playing this guitar for long periods was problematic in the beginning, but I've gotten used to it and now I can play it for hours on end. =) I actually prefer heavy guitars now...they just feel very stable I guess.

'bane

 

[Bryant]

Hmmm.... that "V" would be a nightmare for me. I think "Vs" look cool. Wolff plasys one >~ as well, but they were never comfotable for me. On thing is that you can't sit down and play them if you are writing and stuff. They slide off of your leg...
The Firebirds/A20s are ok though and have a cool look. I prefer a strat style body though I don't like Fenders. I have a Vandenberg and an Ibanez that have the strat style body.
My Ibanez is actually an entry level model with a standard tremola, but it's my workhorse. No locking nuts to fuck with and it requires no maintenance. The strings are easy to replace as well. It has a nice clean tone as well as a nasty bridge humbucker growl and a maple neck/fretboard with a medium sized radius. Even without locking nuts, and if the dtrings are stretched, I can dive bomb that baby till the strings sag and it stays in tune pretty well once it's released.
The Vandenberg has all the bells and whistles with locking nuts, a Floyd and the neck rail pickup was so hot, I had to remove it and install a single coil to get a clean tone without having to mess with the volume knob. It has the wide radius neck and an ebony fretboard w/24 frets and is sweet as it can be for the fast work, but it's a booger to change strings and maintain. While I love the way it plays, it's more of a conversational piece and a sentimental favorite as I bought it brand new, in 1991. You couldn't buy it for $1000 from me, but you'd have to string it up and tune it for me for me to play it. I HATE floating tremolas and locking nuts, though I used to think they were a necessity. The only reason is because I hate guitar maintenance. My Ibanez is a hell of a lot more plug and play than Microsoft could dream of.

Bryant