Reaction. Casey blew it out the ball park with a grand slam home run. User smiles are teething out on both Mac and PC platforms and on both sides of the Atlantic. In a bad global economy, posts are appearing saying, “I always wanted to buy ____ (insert your favorite PLAY library), now I think I will.” There is joy in Mudville.

What’s so hot about a software update that would cause such a panoply of praise?

Answer: seeing is believing.

In the brief 8-minute video posted below, you’ll see developer Nick Phoenix running a hearty string ensemble from QLSO Platinum with 400 stereo voices streaming off a single 7200 RPM drive in a system with only 6GB of RAM. That’s “just” QLSO. Then there’s the new Symphonic Choirs demo with Word Builder, and finally, a sharp little demo with the QL Piano demonstrating how Mr. Phoenix’s 8-Core Mac Pro running Logic 8.02 responds when the piano pedal is in the down position.

It’s heady stuff.

And after watching these demos, I have four words to say: spring is here. Early.

And none too soon.

With the economy teetering and tech faltering, the industry needs, that’s right, needs EastWest to succeed, probably more than any other sample library developer. That’s because the PLAY libraries, from the beginning as Mr. Phoenix pointed out in a forum, were designed for 8-core systems and beyond. In other words, the future present.

The PLAY libraries demonstrate in a time of soft tech sales, the why of a new machine, specifically, a powerhouse quad-core or eight-core system. The immediate beneficiary of such demonstrations is Intel, because their CPUs power both Mac and PC platforms. The second beneficiary is Apple, who already has an eight-core system ready-to-go with its Mac Pro.

Because of design, EastWest’s Quantum Leap Symphonic Orchestra PLAY Edition can stir the imagination of the public, not to mention the hearts of hundreds of thousands composers in the U.S. alone, by demonstrating how one machine harnesses the sound of a symphony orchestra - literally, on a desktop.

This is the main event. And it’s legitimate news perfect for late night and CNN’s AC360.

Then there’s the price. Just a few years ago, the full edition of QLSO was just under $6000 and ideally you needed a studio with 4-5 computers to run it.

No more.

Now, for under a $1000 street price most anyone can now buy QLSO Platinum, a price that’s comparable to half a month’s rent on a two-bedroom apartment in parts of Los Angeles. Which means the dream is achievable. On a “bare bones” Mac Pro system, a customer can get away with a headphone mix and for a while, ignore the need for a combo audio card/MIDI interface.

On U.S. colleges campuses alone, that can begin spurring a steady demand for thousands of unit sales from faculty and students alike since Mac’s can be bought at special academic pricing, as can Logic, as can now EastWest libraries.

EastWest has one other major benefit they can exploit over any other competitor - they’re in Hollywood. West L.A. more precisely, but close enough for jazz, as musicians are fond of saying. And many, if not most, of their leading customers who are heavyweights in film/TV production are just half-a-commute away, giving EastWest star power to produce formidable MacWorld-like public demonstrations.

There are other libraries that fit on one machine, but none have the price and the Hollywood oomph to drive power system sales like EastWest.

This is a PR fest waiting to happen.

For Apple sales prospects, EastWest needs a few Apple-like training tutorials demonstrating PLAY with Logic and GarageBand.

And with Finale and Sibelius having heavily focused academic distribution both here and abroad, EastWest video tutorials teaching instructors how to implement PLAY products within these programs are definitely needed.

Such promotional efforts could drive EastWest PLAY products into new sales avenues, provided the sales vision matches the development vision.

It’s also good for California. In a state with over 10% unemployment, here is yet another demonstration from the musical technology sector that the spark of innovation and entrepreneurship is alive and well. That has to be an encouragement.

Is the 1.20 update as good as being said on the forums?

It is. Before press, I had just enough time to test 1.20 on a G5 dual 2.7Ghz system with 4GB of RAM running Logic 8.02. I tried it with QLSO Platinum, Gypsy, SD2, and Ministry of Rock. It is far more efficient and system friendly. And yes, on the PC, too, judging by confirming reports coming in from owners of Cubase and Nuendo.

One thing is for sure, a new corner has been turned. Now it really is time to PLAY.

In fact, in the years from about 1961 to 1963, the SG was actually called the SG / Les Paul Custom, but Mr. Paul himself was not particularly fond of the twin cutaway design (in a 1978 interview with Tom Wheeler, he said, “…I didn’t like the shape - a guy could kill himself on those sharp horns”). What’s more, Les was in the middle of a divorce from Mary Ford, and so he chose not to endorse any particular guitar, as it might tend to muddy the financial waters. And so, in 1963, the guitar was designated simply as the Gibson SG. Essentially, there were no Gibson Les Paul’s built from 1963 until its reintroduction in 1968, but that’s a tale for another column.

Though I clearly longed for that top-of-the-line Gibson SG Custom, with its nickel-covered humbuckers and that unusual Gibson Vibrola (which, for some reason, was chosen over the time-tested Bigsby vibrato tailpiece), all I could afford was the SG Special. Instead of humbuckers, the SG Special came standard with a pair of what Gibson called P-90s (and sadly, no vibrato tailpiece at all, just a combination bridge / tailpiece).

AND THE P-90 IS WHAT EXACTLY?

The original P-90 was actually a single coil design, so its tone was somewhat brighter than a genuine humbucker, though not quite as crisp as Fender’s single coil pickups. However, because of its relatively rectangular shape, and the fact that the first P-90s on the original Les Paul Model of 1952 were white, it came to be popularly called the “soapbar” pickup.

Other similar pickups were mounted on Gibson’s semi-hollowbody guitars (like the ES-330) via two triangular flanges, one on the top of the pickup and the other on the bottom, and these came to be called “dog-eared” P-90s. The same pickups were available on Epiphone models (since Gibson was building Epiphone guitars at the time) and the design is best remembered for its appearance on the Epiphone Casino of the mid to late 1960s. All three Beatles bought one and recently, Paul McCartney stated, “If I had to choose one electric guitar, it would be this.” High praise for a man who could own any guitar he might happen to desire.

In any case, I played that Gibson SG for several years before eventually trading up to a Gretsch Tennessean in about 1970. And though the P-90 continued to be in production for many years, it eventually fell out of favor with most guitarists who wanted either that bright, edgy Fender single coil sound or the darker, smoky tones of a real humbucker.

Still, several “guitar heroes” liked the sound of the original P-90s. Leslie West of Mountain used a Les Paul Junior with but a single P-90 in the treble position for many years, and its signature sound can be heard on classics such as Mountain’s “Mississippi Queen” and “Theme from an Imaginary Western.”

PARADIGM SHIFT
Despite the synth-dominated decade of the 1980s and the crass commercialism of much of what we listened to in the 1990s (that’s just my personal opinion, folks), the P-90 pickup proves the axiom that everything that’s old will one day be in fashion again. While Gibson had offered a few vintage reissues with P-90s, it wasn’t until the folks at Paul Reed Smith decided to match up a set of specially-designed “soapbars” and mount them on their popular McCarty model that guitarists began to grasp the sonic potential inherent in this combination.

Today, the McCarty Soapbar is one of the better sellers in the PRS line. Since the pickups are single coil, they can often cut through a mix better than a humbucker equipped instrument, but with some additional midrange growl and tight bass response not normally associated with traditional single coils.

Rolling back the tone control, particularly in the bridge position, produces a raunchy honk that I just have not been able to duplicate using any other guitar. So while it’s true that these are not the quietest pickups around, it’s still a classic tone that will be around for a long time!

The company even went so far as to match their popular Custom 22 model with a trio of soapbar-style pickups. Some dubbed this potent combination “a Strat on steroids,” but that was never the aim of the instrument, though it’s true that the five-position blade-style pickup selector could offer up a reasonable facsimile of the classic “in-between” positions the Strat is so justly famous for.

However, the Custom 22 Soapbar was produced in fairly small numbers and never sold well enough to continue production. Such are the peculiarities of the marketplace, though guitarists who purchased a Custom 22 Soapbar have shown no inclination to let these instruments slip through their fingers.

Fortunately, the McCarty Soapbar fared much better. Perhaps its simpler switching made it more attractive, or possibly its success is based solely on its good looks. In any case, as of this writing, the McCarty Soapbar remains in the PRS catalog along with a few other “soapbar-equipped” models that your Sales Engineer will be happy to tell you about.

What’s that you say? Not looking for a soapbar? Well, that’s okay, as there are hundreds of wonderful guitars currently waiting to be placed into the homes of dedicated, caring guitarists. So give generously - to yourself!

A guitar capo is a clamp device that you position on different frets of the guitar to change the pitch or key of the open strings. I like to describe it to students as a device that “acts” as if it cut off your frets! Scary huh? Joking aside. The capo does (in a sense) remove frets from your guitar…

Before getting into some applications with the capo, lets get some basics out of the way.

1) Put the capo as close to the forward most fret (bar) as possible without disturbing your fingering. Put it on and play a bit to make sure it feels good where you put it, and that you hear no “buzz” from the open strings.

2) Put the capo on “perpendicular”. Make sure it is not angled. Also, make sure it is on fairly tight. Some capos are adjustable, if so, make sure it is on tight enough to secure good tuning. A moving capo may put the strings out of tune.

3) Tune the guitar after you capo! The positioning of the capo will affect the tuning. Of course this will depend on the guitar you are using and other things as well. But, I would recommend you make a habit of this.

Kinds of capos:

There are several kinds of capos. I myself have a few. I primarily use the Shubb adjustable made of stainless steel (I use this mostly for recording sessions). I also use the Kyser quick capo (usually for “live” performance).

I also may use two capos (or have handy) for live playing if there is a particular key change. There are also “partial” capos, “cut” capos, and probably a whole bunch others!

Now, some applications:

The applications I will present go basically from simple, to more advanced. So, if a particular application does not apply to you, move on.

Beginning Application:

If you are a guitarist who plays mostly solo (by yourself), or a beginner, the following may work for you.

For beginners, I might recommend you try a capo if your guitar is physically difficult to play. Often, a beginning guitar (usually a less costly guitar) has strings that are further off the fingerboard, especially in the open, and first positions (the nut of the guitar might be placed too high). Even some good guitars are made this way for better sound. When I taught private guitar (and my wife taught as well) we would recommend this to students (especially young ones) to try this before purchasing another guitar.

For more advanced players, I might recommend the capo for solo guitar pieces, even classical. I realize the classical mentality is to do pieces “as written”, but, much guitar literature is a transcription for guitar, from something else such as a Lute, Harpsichord or other instruments. Knowing music history as I do, I do not think the composers/arrangers would mind, and….well…do they have a choice!

I myself like to do many Bach pieces that are written in “G”, capo’d on the second fret (in “A”). I like the sound there better as it is less muddy (rolls off some low end). Of course this all depends on the guitar you are using, as they are all different, and you just have to experiment a bit to see what works for you. The higher you position the capo (moving forward, towards you), the less bass you’ll have, and the more the sound moves towards something like a mandolin. I’ll get more into applying this below.

You need to know this:

The difference from one fret to another (on the same string), either up, or down is called a “half step” (or “semitone“). So, if you position your capo on the first fret, all of the open strings will now sound ½ step higher (low “E” becomes “F”). Doing songs in a different key than originally notated become easier with this device, of course,…depending on the song style.

Let’s say you have a song with three chords: G / C / D.

Now, if you place the capo on the second fret, you can play the same chords (chord “shapes”) and it will “sound” in the key of “A”: A / D / E.

Keep in mind the chord “shape” (how you finger the chord) remains the same, the chord “sound” changes!

If you wanted to use the same chord shapes but play those chords in the key of “Bb” you would place the capo on the third fret, playing the same G / C / D chord shapes giving you Bb / Eb / F….Make sense?

Lets take it a step further:

You could also place the capo on the first fret and play an “A” chord (standard “A” open chord shape) and it would sound Bb! You can play any open chord you know and do the same. Try it with a “C” chord, a “D”, etc… Fun huh?

This same logic can be also used in learning “Barre Chords” where your first finger in a sense becomes the capo, but with less of the “open string” sound.

One thing I must advise:

If you use a capo primarily to avoid learning other keys and chords, I recommend that you reconsider this idea. If your goal is to be a better overall guitarist and musician, learning those other keys and chords is a must. For quite a number of styles a capo can be a bit of a chore to use and move around. Certainly musical styles that have key changes and or modulatory type chord progressions (lets just say “more“ chords, or more “complex“ chords like a G13 b9, etc.). So, consider learning those chords and keys also!

More applications (recording and performing):

The capo is an invaluable tool in recording. Many acoustic styles don’t incorporate drum kits, electric bass and other instruments that can tend to eat up a lot of the sonic “area” (frequencies) for acoustic guitar. This situation allows for some very creative usage of the capo as a “guitar orchestrating” tool.

For example, I may use three or more recording tracks of acoustic guitar combining nylon and steel string guitars. Each track will contain the same basic chords but played in different positions and/or inversions, even different tunings using the capo to create different voicings. There are many combinations that can be used, and in doing this you can create harp type effects, and other instruments such as the mandolin.

If you have two-three tracks to record on try this simple experiment:

1) Play a regular, open “G” chord, (or G5) with just quarter notes (one strum per beat - keep the tempo fairly slow for now), and just do a few measures. Keep/save that track.

2) For the second track place your capo on the fifth fret and play a “D” (or D2 chord with the same rhythm and tempo, avoiding hitting the low “E“ (sixth string ), and the fifth string (“A). Keep/save the two tracks.

Now, you could stop here and it should sound kinda cool! Or you can………..

3) Place your capo on the tenth fret and play an “A” (or A2) chord combined with the first two tracks.

Now, if you can “pan” (space) your tracks on your recording unit, I would recommend putting the first guitar “center”, the second guitar all the way to the left (hard left as they say), the third guitar hard right. Check it out.

With different guitars (steel string, nylon, etc,) you’ll get some great sounds!

If you used the “2”chords, technically you are doing a little more than a straight “G” chord (triad). You are doing a “G2” or “G add 9” but do not worry about this for now, the combined sound will work in most cases where a basic “G” chord is asked for. If you want or need a “term” for this combined sound, you may call it “Pandiatonic”. Some music theorists also use the term “Plurality” chords/harmony to describe it. For now, don’t worry about that.

If you have a simple recording unit you can do some very pleasant sounds this way.

Now, the arranger in me needs to add: If you do this for recording projects, keep in mind you do not have to do this all the way through a song.

You may opt. for starting with this as an “Intro“ (just using the chords, say from the Verse, or even the chords from the Chorus as a kind of “hint”), but when the actual first verse starts you have just the melody with one guitar accompanying. The combinations are near endless, and “arranging” this way will be for another discussion.

“But I don’t record” you say!…Another (“live”) application:

I have also done this technique in church worship bands where there are two guitars, especially two acoustics. If there are several instruments playing chords (harmonic drivers), I may opt for capoing (especially on higher frets), and playing high chords, somewhat mandolin like. This is one of my favorite things in a folk, alternative worship band setting. Not only do I do this because it sounds cool, BUT, it can also help the overall sound, and especially help with the vocals because you (and hopefully others) are NOT playing all the chords in the same register. You are helping to create some “harmonic space” (a cool term to throw on em!). Everyone playing in the same harmonic space is a rather large problem in many church bands (and again, for another discussion). Non the less, try this…

Lets say your song again uses G / C / D, and lets throw in an E MIN.

Let your other guitarist (assuming there are 2) play the chords as is.

You place the capo on the seventh fret and play these chord shapes: C / F / G / A MIN.

Be sure and practice this BEFORE rehearsal.

For me, I like to use the capo for “sonic” reasons, less than for convenience. Not that convenience is wrong, often it is the best, and faster solution.

The sonic reasons may be somewhat obvious - taking advantage of the “open” strings which on a good acoustic guitar can be heavenly!

If you do use a capo frequently, I would also highly recommend learning “transpositions“. I know some printed music charts tell you where to capo, but, I have found misprints on those charts, especially the lyric/chord symbol types. So, knowing transpositions is a very good thing, and not that difficult to learn! Some companies sell “transposing guides”, such as Shubb: http://www.shubb.com/transposer/index.html

A free guide is available here: http://www.bigcitystrings.com/capo.htm

You can reach Ric Flauding at www.ricflauding.com

Body Woods

Basswood
Basswood is a soft wood with tight grains. Its relatively inexpensive of all the usual guitar woods, and it’s easy on router bits in the factory, easy to sand, and easy to seal and finish. The softness of basswood means that sharp highs are dampened and smoothened. That helps offset the tinny sound associated with knife edged tremolo contacts. The softness also fosters a weaker low end. It’s light in weight, but not because of large pores. Rather it’s low in mass overall. Deep, breathy sub-lows aren’t resonated in Basswood. The reduction in these outer frequencies leaves the mids pronounced in a hypothetical response curve. Its very suitable for the typical guitar range, and very suitable for lead guitar, because of its pronounced “out front” sound. Complex overtones are muted along with the highs leaving a strong fundamental tone.

Production notes: Japanese factories like Ibanez seem to get a tan colored, more uniform Basswood while other Asian factories get a more flawed yellowish basswood. And there seems to be a big difference in tone. A clearer, darker Basswood should produce more sound, while the yellowish lower grade seems to have more of the undesirable tonal qualities of Poplar. A hardtail emphasizes the reduced dynamics of the outer frequencies.

Alder
Alder is light in weight with soft tight pores like Basswood. But there is a large swirling grain pattern to it with harder rings and sections. So imagine a Basswood type texture but with harder rings peppered throughout. That adds to the stiffness, and the complexity of the tones. It retains more of the highs that Basswood softens, but also gives some room to the lows. You have a broader spectrum of tones, which leads to the perception of a little less mids than Basswood.

Production notes: Not much difference between factories, production.

Swamp Ash
Not to be confused with Northern “Hard Ash” Swamp Ash has huge, open pores with hard and soft layers within each ring of the tree. So you basically have a very rigid skeleton with open and softer pores throughout. It is very resonant across the whole frequency spectrum. It has clear bell-like highs, pronounced mids, and strong lows. It has some random combing away of mid frequencies, which will vary the sound per guitar more than Alder or Basswood. Two Ash bodies are more likely to sound more different from one another, whereas Basswood and Alder are more consistent. A heavier piece, or a piece from higher up on the tree will be more dead and lifeless. More dull sounding, because the wood is harder and more uniformly dense. So the sweetness of the soft open pores is gone, and left is the compressed sound of a rigid, non-responsive wood, without all the brightness and sustain of a harder wood or the openness of a softer wood.

Production notes: An Asian mass produced factory guitar should be checked for weight, and openness of grain if the finish allows. Ash used at the big factories has a higher ratio of poor pieces than with smaller boutique builders, or other US builders, probably because it is a US wood.

Mahogany
Open grained with large pores, Mahogany has a more uniform grain pattern and density than Swamp Ash. Its density is constant within the ring and from one ring to the next. So it’s rigidity is inherent in its composition, not in a “skeleton” with soft sections in between. It’s constant density compresses the mids a little, and this can be considered a thick sound, because it does still produce good lows and low mids. Without the mids popping out, being responsive to dynamics, its more of a “wall of sound” Its not that it isn’t midrangey, because it resonates those guitar frequencies well, but its not as responsive to them as an Alder or Ash. It also combs away more upper midrange frequencies for a more nasal sound. It has a good balance of fundamental and overtones for higher register soloing. High notes are richer and thicker than Alder or Ash.

Production notes: There are many different kinds of Mahogany, and unless it has a sparkle to it like some of the Japanese and US guitars it will have a similar sound from one piece to the next. A nicer piece of mahogany has an iridescence to it usually combined with what looks like wide stripes, almost as if it’s been pieced together by multiple 1” strips. Catalog photos often reveal that the endorser gets a better piece than the production line.

Walnut
A darker wood with Ash-like grains, but like mahogany, the density is uniform. It is harder and denser than Mahogany so the tone is brighter, but the open grains make for a complex midrange that seems to be compressed in some frequencies, but dynamic in others. There’s a nasal response to rhythms, while solo notes jump out. It has a lot of advantageous features of the other main guitar woods. It has a snappy attack and solid lows like Ash, but with smooth highs like Mahogany, and textured mids like Alder. The drawbacks are that it’s heavier, and more stubborn in its sound. It doesn’t respond to random pickup changes. The pickups have to be well suited to the guitar. A Walnut body will dictate the tonal signature of the guitar more than the other main woods. A heavy piece will dampen the mids to produce an overly nasal and lifeless sound, so it needs to be light and open grained enough to resonate the main guitar frequencies.

Production notes: Again watch for heavy pieces. The extra weight adds nothing good to the sound except perhaps more sustain. But sustain is abundant in Walnut already.

Koa
Oilier than Mahogany or Walnut, its denser than Mahogany but not as bright as Walnut, due to its actual makeup. It’s an oilier wood like Rosewood, and that dampens some highs in the attack. But then its density makes up for it a little. Think of the highs as present, but compressed. They don’t jump out like glass breaking. They are more omnipresent. And they are more in the upper midrange than the highs. That’s either a very musical sound for someone interested in fundamental, or a less expressive sound for someone into playing hard picking blues.

Production notes: Koa is rare, and it’s expensive with dramatic price fluctuations. It’s often a high cost upgrade. Figured Koa is very expensive, more rare, and cut for tops.

Korina
Somewhat of a “super-mahogany” or “mahogany deluxe” its grains are similar and so is its sound. It’s said to have a sweeter midrange, and be more responsive. Although the grains look similar the material itself is slightly less dense. So if it weighed more than a same-sized mahogany piece it would more likely be due to higher moisture content than higher density.

Production notes: Rarely used, it is more expensive and rare than garden variety Mahoganies. The price of a Korina guitar usually reflects this, plus a little extra markup.

Soft Maple
Used extensively in Korea, it’s not as hard as hard maple. But it’s a little heavy, bright in the upper midrange, and dull sounding in the lows. The extreme snappy highs aren’t there either because the pores are so tight that the highs get compressed. Some redeeming qualities can be brought from it with the right pickups, if you like a brassy, searing upper midrange sound for the bridge or a dry, combed rhythm sound.

Production notes: Korean factories love it, for some reason it’s abundant and cheap for them. It’s harder on router bits than basswood, but they seem to be less concerned with clean, sharp cuts over there, indicating that they do not compensate with more frequent bit sharpening and replacement.

Hard Maple
This wood “shouts”. It is loud with a strong upper midrange, bright highs, and tapered off but very tight lows. A pickup that produces good lows will find them in a Hard Maple body, but they will be tight and will not interact with a loud half stack.

Production notes: Very heavy and hard on tools, its rarely used in factories. It makes a good slim bodied guitar.

Spruce
Very soft to the touch, it is extremely stiff for it’s overall density. Like Alder, it’s another wood with a hard skeleton and soft meat. So in a solid body, it will produce tremendous resonant, open midrange, while retaining high frequency attack, and having good low end breath. Because of the low density overall the sound wouldn’t be perceived as having less midrange than Basswood. The mids will be just as powerful and dynamic amidst the addition of clear highs and lows. Probably the most full frequency body material accepted.

Production notes: Rarely used because its softness requires a heavy finish, or a composite “shell” like the Parkers. The Parker isn’t the best representation of the sound of a Spruce body since there are many other unique construction methods and synthetics used in the Parker. Would work well with veneer caps or a top, and would offset some of the compressed sound you get with neck through construction.

Lacewood
Lacewood is a true multi-density wood. The rum colored skeleton is hard like Koa or Walnut, and the fleshy, grayish tan interior portions like Alder. The dual densities will augment different tones, while combing others out. It’s brighter than Alder, and richer than solid maple.

Production notes: It can be difficult to finish, because the sections absorb finish differently. Oil finishes and heavy poly finishes work better than a softer nitrocellulose or acrylic lacquer. The lacquer finishes will sink over time telegraphing the grain.

Extended Range notes: Another wood well suited for extended lows. Its dual density provides a good skeleton for keeping the lows tight. There’s less of a tradeoff to the higher strings because of the warmth of the softer sections.

Body tops

Tops seem to create a situation where the attack of the notes will be more like the top wood, while the resonance and decay more like the bottom wood. The thickness and carve of a top dictates the degree of its effect on the sound. The glued unit will be more rigid than a single piece, so generally sustain increases.

Maple top on Basswood
The clean attack and even highs of Maple will make up for Basswood’s inherent reduction of those frequencies. The lows will still taper off, but the overall result is more frequencies covered than with either piece alone. Dynamics aren’t reduced, except for in the upper register, where they were less present in Basswood alone. So the improvement in high response is a little more compressed, and not as crisp and responsive in the attack as Swamp Ash for example.

Maple top on Mahogany
The staple of vintage construction, the Maple adds crispness to the mahogany, but the lows and low mids of mahogany are still as apparent. The Maple combs out some of the upper mids, not because Maple lacks in these areas, but because it is vastly different from mahogany in its handling of the upper midrange. There is fighting going on in that range between the two pieces that results in a canceling out of some of those upper midrange frequencies. That’s part of the “smoothness” associated with the Les Paul & PRS types.

Maple top on Alder
Takes Alder to a tone closer to solid Swamp Ash, but without the dynamics. The open resonance of the Alder comes through with the sharper attack and brightness of the Maple on the top end. The effect on the Alder is similar to the effect on Basswood. The upper mids of Maple come through, as Alder does not suppress upper mids.

Maple top on Swamp Ash
A good addition to Swamp Ash but reduces the open, airy dynamics of solid Ash. It mutes the expanded midrange, but doesn’t really comb out any sections. They work well together. It adds a little more rock and country compressed “scream” to the sound at the expense of Ash’s complex lows and low mids.

Rosewood tops
Rosewood tops will add some sustain, by virtue of the density, but also the lamination itself. Its oiliness will dampen the attack and the higher treble frequencies. So Rosewood over Mahogany will really be smooth, while Rosewood over Ash will retain some open midrange resonance. Rosewood over Alder or Basswood will be a sustain boost with little affect on the tone besides the high mid combing from the lamination, since the high dampening from Rosewood is redundant.

Koa tops
Figured or plain Koa tops will sound similar to Maple tops with the exception being that it wouldn’t fight Mahogany backs so much in the upper midrange. Although Maple resonates more upper mids, a Koa top on Mahogany would have less combing and compressing of those frequencies.

Walnut tops
Like Koa, the tops would have just a little less high frequency than Maple, but have less compression and combing with Mahogany backs.

Lacewood tops
Lacewood has a hard “swiss cheese” type skeleton, with soft bits inside the “holes.” Because of its combination of soft and hard sections, it’s more likely to take on the tone of the back wood. Only when thicker will it start to apply its own tonal signature to the body. It’s like drilling ½” holes in Koa and filling them with Alder plugs. It has good top end and sustain from the harder skeleton, and a heavily combed midrange and low end from the smaller, softer sections throughout.

Neck woods

Maple
The most common electric guitar neck wood, Maple has a uniform grain, it’s strong and stable, and it has less reaction from environmental changes than other hardwoods. Its tone is highly reflective, and focuses more energy onto the body wood. All things being equal, bolt-on Maple necks are less of a factor on the guitar’s tone and emphasize the body wood.

Mahogany
The even density makes stable necks, and the open pores make the neck a little more responsive than a maple neck. The Mahogany will absorb a little more of the string vibration than Maple will, and compresses the attack and the highs a little.

Koa
The tone is somewhere between Mahogany and Maple with a little sweeter top end.

Rosewood
Heavy, oily wood, a Rosewood neck will produce excellent sustain while also smoothening out the highs. Generally with greater sustain comes a brighter top end. This is not true of Rosewood. It mutes the high frequency overtones, producing a strong fundamental that still has the complexities of mid and low mid overtones.

Wenge
Stiff, strong, and stable, Wenge trims some high overtones like Rosewood does, while resonating more fundamental mids and low mids due to it’s multi-density “stripes” combing away a little more of the mid and low mid overtones.

Fretboard Woods

Perhaps more significant than neck wood, the fretboard is the place your string launches from. It is the “bridge” on the other side. Fretboard differences are as dramatic as those between a hardtail and a tremolo.

Maple
Very bright and dense, Maple is highly reflective. When used on a fretboard, Maple encourages tremendous amounts of higher overtones and its tight, almost filtered away bass favors harmonics and variations in pick attack.

Rosewood
The most common fretboard, Rosewood is naturally oily, and works well for any surface that sees frequent human contact. The sound is richer in fundamental than Maple because the stray overtones are absorbed into the oily pores

Ebony
Ebony has a snappy, crisp attack with the density of Maple, but with more brittle grains, oilier pores, and a stronger fundamental tone than Maple. It has a tremendous amount of percussive overtones in the pick attack, that mute out shortly thereafter to foster great, long, sustain.

Pao Ferro
Quite simply, Pao Ferro is a wood that falls between Rosewood and Ebony, and the tone follows suit. It has a snappier attack than rosewood, with good sustain, and its warmer sounding than Ebony. Some consider Pao Ferro to represent their favorite aspects of the two.

Extended Range notes

Basswood is not stiff enough for a tight, well-defined low end, especially with a shorter scale. Low notes will have good harmonics, and a good fundamental, but a midrangey tone overall.

Alder has a tighter low end than Basswood, with slightly deeper lows.

Swamp Ash is stiff enough for a crisp low end without becoming muddy. The open pores help resonate low tones. Higher overtones become more apparent in lower registers, for good harmonic content and a sharper attack.

Mahogany’s warm lows and a thick sound overall make extended lows very full and can produce muddiness in the signal. The low notes are very strong and sometimes overbearing for a pickup. A bright, crisp active pickup that thins out the low end could be a good combination.

Walnut’s tight low end and combed midrange dynamics make it well suited for extended range. It won’t get muddy unless it’s a poor specimen with softer yellowish orange areas.

Like Walnut, Koa is a good Mahogany alternative. It will have a tighter low end with less muddiness. The slightly dampened higher overtones will produce a stronger fundamental than Walnut at the expense of a sharper attack.

Korina should respond to extended lows in the same manner as Mahogany. Soft Maple’s dull lows also mean no muddiness in the extended range. It can be a good alternative to Basswood if that’s your main concern. The pickups will have to compensate for the bright upper mids.

Hard Maple will have the tightest lows for the extended range. Low notes will have a sharp attack, plenty of harmonics, and excellent sustain.

Spruce, while capable of reproducing extended lows, is too soft not to get mushy. A neck through, a laminated top, or both would provide the needed rigidity while still highlighting the good points of Spruce. Any laminated top 1/8” or thicker will improve the tightness of the low end. The existence of the lamination will tighten any body’s muddiness. The same qualities hold true in the laminate top descriptions.

Neck Through notes

The neck through construction method produces excellent sustain. The neck wood strongly influences the tone of the guitar, because it occupies perhaps the most important part of the body: the center. There is a nasal, thinner quality to the sound, often augmented with a figured wood top. Your side woods make up far less of the tone than on a bolt on or set neck guitar. You first have to estimate what that neck wood’s tone is like as a body wood, and then accentuate or counteract that with your side woods. So a Hard Maple neck through will be very bright and cutting. If you want to warm it up you’d use Basswood or Spruce sides. But if you like that quality, you might use Ash or Soft Maple sides. The effect is very different than the laminated top sound. A maple top on Basswood is nothing like a Maple neck through with Basswood wings, which sounds more like a Maple body. Generally, the softer woods excel as sides because they add back some low end resonance missing in the construction method, while dampening the highs.

Due to a glitch that, when explained to me, made my head hurt, a few of the photos from that column had to be dropped. So I thought I would do a second column on the various woods manufacturers use in building guitars. This would give me the opportunity to not only show you the PRS photos that got lost, but also showcase a few other exceptional examples of “good wood.” We’ll also talk about some (ahem) alternate materials that manufacturers have tried over the years.

IT ALL STARTS WITH TREES
I love trees. I do. Part of it is my fascination with the various woods used in building guitars and basses, but trees also play an integral role in the cycle of life here on our planet and their many shapes and forms are breathtaking. I’m sure everyone agrees that trees are great, providing valuable building materials and shade on those hot summer days, but most people can’t tell the difference between an ash and a poplar, a beech and an alder. If you can’t, don’t worry, as there won’t be a pop quiz later.

The most “eco-friendly” wood these days is oak. Now most people associate oaks with the ancient, moss-draped live oaks of the south, the kind you might expect to stand in front of a stately mansion in Mobile or a plantation in New Orleans. However, these long-lived trees are not suitable for construction and live out their long (often hundreds of years) life spans without any risk of being made into a bookcase.

Laurel oaks, on the other hand, can grow to gigantic size in under 50 years, and the life expectancy of this tree is normally 75 years or less. They grow fast - often six feet or more per year, so a four-year-old laurel oak can be over 24 feet high, and by 20 years, it may stand 50 to 70 feet tall. I once saw a name brand guitar made of oak, and everyone agreed it looked more like a coffee table than a guitar. Needless to say, very few oak guitars were made.
The earliest guitars evolved from lutes, and the oldest surviving instrument is dated c1590. Antonio Stradivari, who is so famous for his violins, actually built a handful of guitars in the 1680s. For the most part, guitars were built from the same woods used in almost all stringed instruments: Spruce and maple with rosewood or ebony fretboards, and that has pretty much carried over into modern instruments, though additional woods like mahogany, walnut, cedar and ash have found their way into many production models.

EVERYTHING CHANGES: THE FLAME-TOP LES PAUL
It really wasn’t until the appearance of the legendary Les Paul flame tops of 1958-1960 that the average guitar player gave wood much thought at all. In the 1960s, these classics began showing up in the hands of many of the top players like Eric Clapton, Peter Green (Fleetwood Mac), Duane Allman and Mike Bloomfield. Les Pauls were always made from mahogany (backs and necks) with a maple top, but the ealiest examples (from 1952 until 1957) were all “gold tops.” In 1958, Gibson decided to let the wood show through in hopes of increased sales, but nobody could have possibly guessed at what kind of impact these instruments would eventually have on the industry.

Today we know that very few Les Pauls “bursts” were ever made - perhaps as few as 1700. Even fewer had spectacular flamed tops, so it’s no surprise that these guitars are now priced way beyond the reach of mere mortals.

Though Gibson stopped making Les Pauls in 1960 in favor of the newly-designed SG guitar, they suddenly saw Les Pauls popping up everywhere and demand grew. Hmm, where were the sales in those early years? No matter. By 1968, new Les Paul guitars were back in production, though what has come to be known as the Les Paul Standard did not officially appear again until about 1975.

Today, Gibson offers up Les Pauls in many price ranges, from the standard “plain tops” to “Custom Shop” models that sport spectacular maple tops that are actually more breathtaking than those found on the originals. What’s more, Gibson, as well as other companies, actually have finishes that mimic the way a cherry sunburst fades. These include Iced Tea Burst, Honeyburst and Lemon Drop, as well as the darker finishes, Darkburst and Tobaccoburst. Very rarely, when the company finds some really exceptional maple, it may produce natural or antique natural topped instruments (see photo).

PAUL REED SMITH’S “NEW CLASSICS”
Though Paul Reed Smith admits to being more influenced by the mahogany-bodied Les Paul Juniors and Specials, he eventually saw the possibilities that opened up if he began crafting electrics with figured maple tops. His first flame maple came from a dresser owned by a friend’s mother, who honestly didn’t care for the wood, so Paul replaced the wood with plainer cherry and everyone was happy. Eventually, the maple was used to build several guitars, including the one that Carlos Santana began using, and the rest i history.

Over the years, PRS has built guitars with a number of unusual woods, including cedar, redwood and walnut, none of which are normally thought of as being suitable for guitars, but these “one-offs” are now rare, making them highly prized by collectors.

OVER ON THE WEST COAST
No discussion of guitars would be complete without talking about the instruments that were designed and built by Leo Fender beginning in the late 1940s. Up until that time, most acoustic guitars, as well as some early archtop electrics, were built using traditional materials. But Leo was not a guitar player, so it never occurred to him that “breaking the rules” might be a bad idea.

Starting with the original Broadcaster (later renamed the Telecaster), Leo built solid-body instruments using rather untraditional materials. For the bodies of his guitars (and later his basses), Fender used ash rather than mahogany or maple. For the necks and fretboards, he used maple rather than rosewood and mahogany. In doing so, he created a new standard that has carried over into modern Fender guitars.

It’s hard to imagine now, since Fenders have been around for over half a century, but back in the 1950s and even into the ’60s, the blond-necked Fenders were almost shocking! Yet the materials proved to be a perfect match for the design and few can deny that Leo Fender’s instruments created a new sound and a new look that musicians found quite appealing.

Though Fender has built some instruments with flame maple tops and offers rosewood fingerboards as an option on most of their guitars, the original combination of ash and maple has stood the test of time and has spawned plenty of “copycats” over the years. Who would have guessed?

SEARCHING FOR NEW MATERIALS
So successful was Fender’s departure from established woods and finishes that other companies began looking at alternatives. In the 1960s, playing guitar - any guitar - was cool. To cut costs and get instruments into as many eager hands as possible, companies looked for cost effective alternatives.

Danelectros were built using masonite on a wood frame and pickups made from lipstick tubes. Valco turned to fiberglass for their line of distinctively-shaped National guitars. Ampeg introduced guitar bodies made from clear plastic “to improve sustain” (though it did nothing of the sort). Even Gibson turned to chipboard for their short-lived Kalamazoo line of budget electrics.

Other materials included aluminum, various types of plastic and the more successful alternative, graphite (actually a molded epoxy resin strengthened by carbon and glass fibers) first popularized in the original “headless” Steinberger bass guitar.

THE WRAP-UP
While keyboards have evolved dramatically over the last five decades, guitars have not. The most popular models today are the same ones that guitar players bought in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. Odds are very good that certain woods such as mahogany and rosewood will become harder to acquire in the 21st Century. Already some countries (Brazil for example) have banned the export of certain woods and the trend will likely continue.

Line 6’s Variax 500 is built using basswood, a fast-growing tree in the Linden family (though their upscale model 700 features a mahogany body topped off with a swamp ash top) and many acoustic manufacturers have also begun investigating alternative wood.

How these shortages and export bans will affect guitars in the future is anyone’s guess. Some countries have already turned to tree farming as a mainstream industry. Fortunately, many types of trees, including certain maple and ash species are fast growing and can be considered a renewable resource.

Whatever the future may hold, we will always treasure the spectacular woods that created classics like the flame top Les Paul. But while guitar players (myself included) may see a specific instrument with gorgeous tops as a one-of-a-kind work of art, we first and foremost choose our guitars based on tone, playability and overall feel. Knowing that, the guitar’s future seems pretty well secure.

Q: Can you tell me the difference between a Gibson ES-335 Dot Neck and a ES-335 Reissue?

Q: What’s the difference between a Vox AC30 and an AC30 Custom Classic? Are the old ones really worth the money?

Q: Is a ‘62 Epiphone Crestwood Deluxe a smart investment?

I get lots of e-mail on the topic of vintage gear, mostly as it concerns the guitar market, though I do get asked from time-to-time about other items, like analog synths (MiniMoog, anyone?), Rhodes and Wurlitzer pianos and such. I won’t have the space (or the energy) to discuss keyboards in this column, so we’ll save those for another day.

Back in the “old days,” not long after the dinosaurs became extinct, we called anything pre-owned simply “used.” Those guitars typically hung in the back of the store. It never occurred to us in the 1960s and ’70s that any guitar we might own would ever become a collector’s item, much less make the owner a wealthy man. Then again, who would have thought that an old Mickey Mouse lunchbox would one day command a small fortune? There wasn’t even such a thing as “vintage” gear until the late 1980s, though certain instruments, like early Les Pauls and the 1950s Fender models certainly were always in demand, though prices didn’t go through the roof until more recently.

When I started playing in my first band, which was in the mid-60s, the most in-demand guitars were not Les Pauls or Fender Strats, but rather Gibson SGs and ES-335s in cherry red, along with some Gretsches (mainly the Country Gentleman, since George Harrison played one, and to a lesser degree, the 6120 Nashville and the 6119 Tennessean). As far as amplifiers went, the smaller Vox amps were hot, with the most popular being the AC30 (which was renamed The Viscount once Vox amps were distributed and later built by the Thomas Organ company here in the U.S.). They were the hardest to get your hands on back then, at least in South Florida, though supply grew as demand increased. Fender amps, on the other hand, were much easier to find, and most bands bought the “black panel” Fender Bassman, Super Reverb and Twin Reverb models, which were actually surprisingly affordable back then. We’ll talk about those a little later.

When most people think about the mid-1960s music scene - in particular, many of the younger musicians I talk to - they seem to think we all had flame-top Les Pauls, two-color sunburst Fender Strats, or maybe a custom color Jaguar. In fact, in all the years I played in bands, I never saw a Les Paul or Stratocaster on stage and I only saw one Telecaster during that time. I can honestly say that Les Pauls and Strats were few and far between. Our local dealer did get the Fender guitar line in about 1972, and I bought a Strat the following year, though I still used my Gretsch Tennessean on stage because I’d played it so long, I knew exactly how to get the best sounds out of it.

THE MERITS (AND MYTHS) OF VINTAGE GEAR
First off, let me say that the whole vintage market is driven by this simple axiom: Vintage is somehow better than new. It was just built better to begin with and had somehow acquired greater “mojo” over the years. You can choose to believe that or not, but the truth is that the industry as a whole is building the best instruments right now. Quality across the board has never been better. So why go looking for a ‘54 Strat?

There are two answers: As an investment or to be the coolest guitar player in (name your city here). While I’d love to own a ‘54 Strat (or a ‘56 or a ‘58 or a ‘62 and so on), I feel that the vintage market has peaked. It didn’t even really catch fire until about 1990, when Tom Wheeler’s book, American Guitars: An Illustrated History was first published, though the book does not address the issue of vintage guitars at all. Prices for early Strats and Les Pauls were skyrocketing about that time.

Today, you pretty much have to be the owner of a Fortune 500 company to afford a ‘54 Strat or a ‘58 Les Paul, which are still (and probably always will be) the holy grail of collectible vintage guitars. Naturally, there are plenty of other guitars and amps built in the ’50s and ’60s that will set you back a fair chunk of change. In the early 1980s, there was still the slim chance you’d stumble upon an early Gibson or Fender in a pawn shop or one of the dimly-lit mom and pop music stores. Today, it would be safe to say that all of those instruments are gone.

As far as amps are concerned, the biggest bucks still go for the original tweed Fenders, which made their debut in the mid-1950s, and the white, brown and black-covered Fenders built in the early to mid-1960s. The “silverface” Fenders, decked out in perky chrome and blue, made their debut in 1968 are not nearly as collectible, though many of these amps were actually identical to the “black-panel” versions. Vox amps, which were so hot in the Beatle-crazed ’60s, have really only recently started to be appreciated again for their unique combination of looks, sound and features, like the now-famous “top boost” circuit. The “British Invasion” of the 1960s was in large part driven by Vox amps. They were a big part of that era’s distinctive sound. At the time, Fender amps (and to a lesser degree, those made by other manufacturers like Gibson, Gretsch and Magnatone) were nearly impossible to get in the UK.

However, the truth is that very few of these early amps have survived into the 21st Century without a major overhaul, and without knowing the history of such an amplifier, I’d consider buying a ’50s or ’60s amp a pretty risky investment. Still, there is a certain mystique that will always surround vintage guitars and amps and so the market will likely exist for some time, though we’re certainly seeing the market change.

VINTAGE GUITAR SHOWS HEAT UP, COOL DOWN
Through the ’90s, vintage guitar shows grew from local events to become a nation-wide phenomenon. At the time, guitars from the 1960s and ’70s were still available, still relatively affordable. As the vintage boom grew, so too did these shows, to the point that they had to be moved from the local bingo hall to large halls and auditoriums. I went to my first show in 1994 in Jacksonville, Florida. That show was impressive, but nothing compared to the Orlando or Atlanta Shows, which I attended the following year, where there were probably close to 50 dealers from across the country. The stock was mind boggling. But as the years rolled by, the true classic guitars and amps gradually dwindled in numbers.

Today the vintage guitar shows are mostly selling later era Fender and Gibson guitars along with such “rare birds” as the Gretsch Nashville, Tennessean and Country Gentleman, which are only now being truly appreciated. If you’re lucky, you still might be able to get a good deal on a Mosrite Ventures model (which I love, and which deserve a column all their own), a few of the less well-known (but still quite playable) Guild and Epiphone guitars from the ’60s and some early Ibanez “copycats” - these are guitars built to look and play like the most popular ’60s guitars, but in many cases, are superb instruments in their own right. If you didn’t look at the headstock, in many cases you’d never realize you were playing an “import.” These days, you also see more of the so-called “boutique” amplifiers and even clones of the most famous stomp boxes.

There’s one other guitar that’s certainly available today and appreciating in value, and that’s the Paul Reed Smiths - mostly those built while the company was in their Annapolis, Maryland facility, basically pre-1995, when PRS moved to larger quarters in Stevensville. These include the first Customs, Signatures, Limited Editions, first year McCartys and Artist Limiteds, while the biggest bucks are reserved for the ‘85 and ‘86 instruments, the first three Dragons and the various “Private Stock” instruments, which are basically “one-offs” made to the customer’s specifications. Will today’s PRS models become tomorrow’s collectibles? Hmm, hard to say for sure, but I’d guess yes. A Custom 22 with three soapbar pickups can still be found, but they were only built for a short time, so they’re likely a good investment.

I haven’t mentioned acoustic guitars at all yet. There are probably a lot more collectible acoustics available today than electrics. I recently saw a stunning selection of Gibson and Martin acoustics at the Orlando Guitar Show. Many were priced so reasonably that it was hard not to give in to the temptation. Like some of their electrics (the Starfire series for example), Guild acoustics are often overlooked by many players, as are the Epiphone acoustics made during the 1960s and ’70s, which were actually built in the Gibson factory before ultimately being moved offshore. Beatles George and Paul played Gibson J-160s, though Paul recorded the timeless classic, “Yesterday” using an Epiphone.

WHAT ABOUT REISSUES?
Taken all-in-all, today’s reissues are quite often significantly better than most of the original guitars they are built to duplicate. For example, there were actually relatively few Les Pauls built in 1958-1960 that actually had flame maple tops. More often than not, the tops were relatively plain or with just a modest amount of flame or figure. Today however, you can buy a Les Paul reissue with an outrageously beautiful flamed maple top at a price that’s not totally out of reach of us “normal” players.

However, this “reissue” concept has led to some confusion. For example, Gibson builds standard “production line” versions of many of their most famous guitars. So you can buy a fine Les Paul Standard, LP Classic, ES-335 or one of the other ’60s-era Gibson recreations at a price that’s actually quite reasonable, particularly given the quality. There are also upscale versions of these, like the Les Paul Supreme, with its AAAA-grade carved maple top and back.

Then there are the true reissues, which are built by the company’s Custom, Art and Historic division. These are meticulously crafted to the most exacting standards to duplicate the original models right down to the smallest detail. How can you tell the difference? Well, besides looking at the price, which is often a dead giveaway, the Gibson reissues are all specifically called reissues. So if it doesn’t specifically say so, then it’s a production line instrument that will likely be just fine for most players, delivering great sounds combined with classic designs.

Fender also has its own Custom Shop, which builds drop-dead gorgeous, highly accurate recreations of the company’s most prized instruments. In fact, 2004 marked the 50th anniversary of the Stratocaster, which is arguably the most recognizable guitar of all time. Say “electric guitar” to most people and the image of a Stratocaster comes to mind, that’s how pervasive this particular model has become in our culture. For those who cannot possibly afford a real 1954 Strat, a 50th Anniversary Custom Shop replica will do the job quite nicely. At the top of the company’s line of Strats sits the Limited Release 1958 Stratocaster, a master-built version of Fender’s most timeless classic with its three-color sunburst.

As mentioned earlier, Vox amps are getting another serious look today, but your modern AC30 is dubbed the AC30 Custom Classic. How does this differ from the original? Simple: They’ve added the features today’s players want to the classic designs, like a master volume control, blendable channels and an effects loops. Sidenote: If you’ve never heard a Vox tremolo compared to a Fender trem circuit, they are really quite different animals, with the Vox producing a deeper, choppier effect, while the Fender classic tremolo (also called Vibrato on many amps) is smoother throughout its range. Trust me, tremolo added to reverb in 1965 was pretty cutting edge. Add a Maestro Fuzz Tone and you were an instant “guitar hero!”

LET’S WRAP THINGS UP
If you haven’t picked up on my thread here, let me sum things up by saying that vintage gear is cool. There’s certainly no denying that a well played, well built guitar from a bygone era has a certain magic about it. However, I always warn people that quality control back in the ’50s, ’60s and ’70s was often less than perfect. By the 1980s, it was virtually non-existent. My ‘72 Strat (bought in 1973) was a terrific guitar, but I chose it from among three sunbursts that were hanging on the wall. Of the remaining two, one was okay and one was simply awful. Mine was a gem.

Honestly, I can say without hesitation that I have now played guitars from every decade that ranged from terrific to tragically flawed. Nothing that’s shipping from any of the top manufacturers today varies like those old instruments. As I have already stated, quality is at an all-time high. While nobody can predict what instruments will eventually become collector’s items, you simply cannot go wrong buying a midrange guitar or better from the top names. Even some so-called budget guitars are surprisingly playable and sound great. The same goes for today’s amps. Finding the perfect tone today is literally a piece-of-cake.

To learn more about the world of vintage guitars, all you need to do is drop by your local book store or surf the Web to one of the many booksellers’ sites. There are lots of excellent books available today, and (hint) they make a great holiday gift for your favorite guitar player. But be warned, you’ll likely see guitars that most of us would love to own, but few you’ll ever see in real life.

We’d all like a crystal ball that would clue us in on the best investments to make. Who wouldn’t want to own a small piece of Microsoft today? But who could possibly have foreseen just how dominant the company would be in today’s market? For a while, old cameras were a red hot commodity, but values for all but a select few have crashed as the digital revolution has advanced. I doubt anyone could have predicted just how radically today’s megapixel marvels would change the way we take, print and display photos.

So be careful with your hard-earned dollars when it comes to guitars. Want to roll the dice and see if you come up a winner? By all means, do so. There’s a heady satisfaction when you see a $500 investment start to quickly climb in value. Personally, I’m happy with a sure thing.