which jazz players played fender mustangs?
dunlop212
I have been tinkering with a "frankenstang" I recently bought; a '64
with a 24" A neck, but swapped out pups, weird routing, etc., so it was
cheap. Didn't really intend to play jazz on it, but I was noodling on
it the other night, and really found nothing unsatisfactory about the
way it plays. Actually, it was easier to play than my archtops on a lot
of stuff; voicings like x 15 14 12 10 x were pretty easy. If anything,
single note runs went faster. FWIW, I have good sized hands.
There is some sense in this. The neck is essentially identical to a
jaguar neck (just different decals in 1964, I think). The jaguar, I am
pretty sure, was modeled after the Byrdland (I know that it has been
associated with surf music, but the price point and year of
introduction strongly indicate that it was being intended as a pro jazz
instrument). In other words, in the late 50s/early 60s Gibson and
Fender were pitching small necks, with some success, to pro level jazz
players.
I think part of my aversion to narrow string spacing has been that you
see it today on necks with normal nut widths. I find modern Gibsons and
Epiphones unpleasant to play because they put fender string spacing on
necks with gibson nuts and thin profiles (compare any new Gibson with a
50s 60s model; same nut width, but the strings on the old guitars are
closer to the edges of the fingerboard). On the other hand, a vintage
Byrdland, which has an even narrower string spacing, plays nicely
because the spacing is correct to the nut width and neck profile.
So ... my theory out of all of this is that a well designed neck is a
product of a number of components: neck profile, string spacing, scale,
nut width, rolled edges, and radius. A vintage Byrdland or
Jaguar/Mustang had those elements right, and are perfectly viable
instruments even with small necks.
bob r
at ed_h...@bellsouth.net wrote on 5/20/05 8:53 AM:
Those Mustangs are fun little guitars. I had one back in the '70s and played
many gigs on it. At the time, I never thought it sounded very good for jazz,
but it had the stock pickups, which were a bit thin in tone. It was a breeze
to get around on, though; the neck felt great. And the light weight was
nice; I also had a Les Paul back then and would sometimes take the 'Stang to
a gig just for some relief!
The tremolo system on those guitars was pretty wacky, with that big chrome
"bullet". Worked great for my half-baked Hendrix take-offs. :-)
--
Bob Russell
http://www.bobrussellguitar.com
http://www.cdbaby.com/bobrussell
pmfan57
Bruce? He's using some weird little Fender guitar on the back of the
album. Or is that a Bronco? Or is Bronco the amp? I used to know all
this stuff.
dunlop212
played
> many gigs on it. At the time, I never thought it sounded very good
for jazz,
> but it had the stock pickups, which were a bit thin in tone.
Strat sized, so you can put anything in there. I have a Lace Hot Gold
in the neck slot, and just an empty pup cover in the bridge. Despite
the name, the Lace is actually a nicely mannered pup; they should have
called it a Lace Warm Gold.
> The tremolo system on those guitars was pretty wacky, with that big
chrome
> "bullet". Worked great for my half-baked Hendrix take-offs. :-)
I like the trem system. Kind of a restricted range ala bigsby/jm/jag,
but a simpler design. Plus, you can pull the arm and still work it by
grabbing the "bullet" tailpiece. The simplest trem system is on those
old lucite bodied Dan Armstrongs. Just waggle the neck.
Biffy the Elephant Shrew
At least on my copy of the LP, McLaughlin is shown playing *bass*
(through a Fender amp) on the back cover. There's some weird guitar in
the background, but it ain't a Mustang.
Your pal,
Biffy the Elephant Shrew
bob r
at ed_h...@bellsouth.net wrote on 5/20/05 10:24 AM:
> The simplest trem system is on those
> old lucite bodied Dan Armstrongs. Just waggle the neck.
Hey, my 335 has a trem like that! :-)