JNEELY Posted Monday at 06:47 PM Posted Monday at 06:47 PM I'll keep this really brief. What's electric guitar really about? Well, it's a male dominated genre of musical instrument that delivers POWER and FORM to ALL types of popular music. Yes, it has a few really talented female artist do come to mind. For instance, Jess Greenberg. She is really exceptional! An amazing talent. But 6 string wizards like her, are few and far between. So, the world of lead electric guitar giants is dominated by dudes. Dudes. Sling a a guitar around some guy's neck and he will likely wear it down low with the neck somewhat pointing skyward. That's what dudes do. So, please share your honest opinions. Of the these two horn shapes, which one looks like it's ready for business? I think you know I am getting at. Dear Heritage, you have, and always have had, a HORN problem. Do you see the issue? It's rock thing mainly. Most of the rock guys out there like to rock hard, not semi-hard. End of story. Don't take me word for it though, reach out to Jess and ask her which one she prefers. 2
Spectrum13 Posted Monday at 07:34 PM Posted Monday at 07:34 PM (edited) The early 150's had the same horn and Heritage was asked to change it. If your next post is about the headstock, it works better and Heritage was not sued over it. Most of us on the HOC appreciate function over form. Edited Monday at 07:35 PM by Spectrum13 1 2
TalismanRich Posted Monday at 08:30 PM Posted Monday at 08:30 PM Yeah, it's the horn that's going to make or break a guitar. You simply can't play a guitar if the horn doesn't have the exact dimensions of that someone drew up 70 years ago and endorsed by a Youtube personality. Sorry, I don't get your point other than trying to start a pissing match. Oh yeah, that horn of which you speak has changed numerous times over the years at that "other company". Personally, I think it's the silly poker chip that is holding back the Les Paul player from being successful. Seriously, if the stupid guitar player has to stop, look down at the front of his guitar and decide if he's playing rhythm or "treble", he needs to find another occupation. Speaking of which, how exactly do you play "treble"? Does that mean you can only use the notes on the treble clef? 2 1
Vanschoyck Posted Monday at 10:54 PM Posted Monday at 10:54 PM It's funny, I don't see that when I look at a guitar. I see a slim waist and a round bottom.
JeffB Posted 17 hours ago Posted 17 hours ago Eye roll. Anyway While Im here, check out Tori Slusher. 1 1
Steiner Posted 16 hours ago Posted 16 hours ago Not my thing but, total respect earned. That’s a very talented guitarist. 1
DetroitBlues Posted 16 hours ago Posted 16 hours ago (edited) Since you insist on going down this road... Let's talk about legality.... Gibson sued Heritage over the body shape.... Namely because the first year of H150's were made from unused Gibson Les Paul bodies. So if you want a Gibson Les Paul body with a Heritage headstock, look for a 1988/1989 H150 (can't remember the exact year of production start) Gibson sued because it was their body design... So Heritage changed it ever so slightly to avoid the lawsuit as well as some other "design" restrictions of the time they had with Heritage. In recent years, when new leaders at Gibson decided to go at just about everyone, including Heritage, most of those restrictions were eliminated thanks to the deep pockets of Bandlab. However, I personally believe the sharp cutaway of the 1st gen H140 was the most "accessible" cutaway for the singlecut, solidbody guitar style. Edited 16 hours ago by DetroitBlues
bolero Posted 47 minutes ago Posted 47 minutes ago I think this is one of the dumbest posts I've ever read not only that, there's a LEGAL reason they can't use the Gibson shaped horn
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now