Learning Guitar recommends

Local store has:
Yamaha F325D $160
Seagull Entourage (Model: 046508K) $530

I'll keep looking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ColonelJLloyd

Haha. Zac hates everything, just not equally. :cool:

---

pretty much. seriously though, a Les Paul sounds awesome. I just wouldn't recommend one for a beginner, at least not one with a traditional headstock. They're kind of fragile and don't hold a tune very well. something like a PRS SE might be a better pick.

https://zagerguitar.com/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zachateseverything

I'd avoid many 335 style guitars (and Les Pauls for that matter) just because of the tuning stability issues inherent in that string path.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zachateseverything

I just wouldn't recommend one for a beginner, at least not one with a traditional headstock. They're kind of fragile and don't hold a tune very well. something like a PRS SE might be a better pick.

---

This is all 300% nonsense. There is absolutely no more or less issues with 24.75 scale length, headstock, tuners, or anything else. If anything most guitarists will tell you it's actually inherently more stable than a bolt-on 25.5 scale length.

I'd recommend two things:

1) Start with an acoustic because you can't fudge it. You either play it right, or you hear the mistake. Yes, it's more difficult, but start with extra light strings.

2) It's good to learn to read music as she learns. If you learn with tabs, etc. later on it's more difficult to try and "convert" your brain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sino

This is all 300% nonsense. There is absolutely no more or less issues with 24.75 scale length, headstock, tuners, or anything else. If anything most guitarists will tell you it's actually inherently more stable than a bolt-on 25.5 scale length.

I'd recommend two things:

1) Start with an acoustic because you can't fudge it. You either play it right, or you hear the mistake. Yes, it's more difficult, but start with extra light strings.

2) It's good to learn to read music as she learns. If you learn with tabs, etc. later on it's more difficult to try and "convert" your brain.

---

Thanks for that. Fortunately we both read music. I'm going to haul her to the local guitar shop and shop with her eyes....and some good recommends from y'all.

Have you checked out the Guitar Centers in you area? Music and Arts? May not be mom & pop places but still a good place to get a feel for various guitars, the shape of the neck, the finish, how it sits on her lap, how it sounds amplified versus not...
Hard to beat a Yamaha at that price but Seagull is definitely nicer. I have a 12 string with a cutaway and it plays awesome... =)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by suhacycles

Have you checked out the Guitar Centers in you area? Music and Arts? May not be mom & pop places but still a good place to get a feel for various guitars, the shape of the neck, the finish, how it sits on her lap, how it sounds amplified versus not...
Hard to beat a Yamaha at that price but Seagull is definitely nicer. I have a 12 string with a cutaway and it plays awesome... =)

---

That's where we are headed....than to Chuck Levin's because it's local and has been around forever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sino

This is all 300% nonsense. There is absolutely no more or less issues with 24.75 scale length, headstock, tuners, or anything else. If anything most guitarists will tell you it's actually inherently more stable than a bolt-on 25.5 scale length.

---

it's not an issue with the scale length, the neck joint, or the tuners. it's strictly the breaking angle the string has to take when it passes through the nut. even if the nut is cut near perfectly there's going to be more friction there than on a guitar with a straight string path. and friction in the nut means tuning problems. there's a reason Gibson invested in robotuners or that gizmos like the string butler are on the market.

and gibson headstocks are notoriously fragile. since they don't use a scarf joint or a volute the headstock is inherently weak. they've even broken while the guitar is in a hardcase.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Diablo de Acero

The lower end models from Martin or Taylor are nice. Yamaha is a good to for a starter guitar. Blue Ridge and Eastman both make nicer guitars than credit for. A good setup is key. I agree that a good local store(keep it local!) is the way to go. As far as electrics go, have her pick out what she thinks looks nice, and sounds nice. Again a good setup is the key. It will play properly and will be easier to play. It will BE more inspiring to play. (everyday). Also at the local stores more teachers are doing lessons via zoom or FaceTime. The ability to ask your teacher questions cannot be understated. I hope she enjoys learning to play!

p.s. Lighter string gauges for beginners can be helpful.

---

Echoing Jay here. Getting a guitar setup is like getting your bike fit dialed. I'm going to have tons more fun playing a "bad" guitar setup to my tastes than a "good" guitar with mile-high action. Virtually all guitars coming off the shelf are going to need some work, some more than others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zachateseverything

it's not an issue with the scale length, the neck joint, or the tuners. it's strictly the breaking angle the string has to take when it passes through the nut. even if the nut is cut near perfectly there's going to be more friction there than on a guitar with a straight string path. and friction in the nut means tuning problems. there's a reason Gibson invested in robotuners or that gizmos like the string butler are on the market.

and gibson headstocks are notoriously fragile. since they don't use a scarf joint or a volute the headstock is inherently weak. they've even broken while the guitar is in a hardcase.

---

Again, that is all pure nonsense. "Nut friction?" "robotuners?" Are you kidding? Honestly, just stop.

It's a perfectly good design, the same as any other. It's been around, with few/no changes, for the last 65+ years with no issues. It has been copied ad naseum without issues. Acoustic guitars have far more tension with nearly identical designs, again, without issues.

The only imaginable way your opinion is even remotely valid is if we're talking about a design with a Bigsby, which we're most definitely not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sino

Again, that is all pure nonsense. "Nut friction?" "robotuners?" Are you kidding? Honestly, just stop.

It's a perfectly good design, the same as any other. It's been around, with few/no changes, for the last 65+ years with no issues. It has been copied ad naseum without issues. Acoustic guitars have far more tension with nearly identical designs, again, without issues.

The only imaginable way your opinion is even remotely valid is if we're talking about a design with a Bigsby, which we're most definitely not.

---

yes, nut friction. burs, grit, etc. if the nut slots on a gibson aren't perfect it won't stay in tune. It doesn't matter if you have a bigsby or not. if you're doing full step bends you're putting the same kind of stress on a string. it doesn't matter if you raise the tension via a bend or the whammy bar, if the nut grabs the string at the higher tension it won't return to pitch when you release the tension. same deal if you tune the string and the nut grabs it. for a guitar to stay in tune with the gibson headstock design, the nut has to be perfect and it often isn't, especially on the student level stuff. I'd recommend beginners avoid them.

and yes, Robo Tuners. Gibson made a big deal about them. Then got sued. It was called G-Force.

https://www.guitarnoise.com/images/f...5-1024x585.jpg

Gibson hasn't changed their guitars in 50 years because their customers won't let them. They freak out about things like a finish changing to something more environmentally sustainable. They assign magical properties to "tonewoods" that were only originally picked because they could be sourced cheaply locally. they are a customer base more focused on tradition and "looking cool" than what actually works.

If you don't agree with me that's fine. But let's not pretend I'm the only person that thinks this way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fhXYCFU7i8

I totally get the reasons for the classic Les Paul headstock break.

Does Gibson run a steeper headstock angle than, say, Martin or Taylor or anyone else who does the classic parallel 3x3 tuner configuration?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by defspace

I totally get the reasons for the classic Les Paul headstock break.

Does Gibson run a steeper headstock angle than, say, Martin or Taylor or anyone else who does the classic parallel 3x3 tuner configuration?

---

Nope. It's completely absurd to say that string tension because of a 15 or 17 degree angle has ever, ever, caused a headstock to break. Headstocks break when they meet a hard surface at velocity. The angle does increase chances of the headstock hitting first as opposed to a Fender, but that's it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zachateseverything

yes, nut friction. burs, grit, etc. if the nut slots on a gibson aren't perfect it won't stay in tune. It doesn't matter if you have a bigsby or not. if you're doing full step bends you're putting the same kind of stress on a string. it doesn't matter if you raise the tension via a bend or the whammy bar, if the nut grabs the string at the higher tension it won't return to pitch when you release the tension. same deal if you tune the string and the nut grabs it. for a guitar to stay in tune with the gibson headstock design, the nut has to be perfect and it often isn't, especially on the student level stuff. I'd recommend beginners avoid them.

and yes, Robo Tuners. Gibson made a big deal about them. Then got sued. It was called G-Force.

https://www.guitarnoise.com/images/f...5-1024x585.jpg

Gibson hasn't changed their guitars in 50 years because their customers won't let them. They freak out about things like a finish changing to something more environmentally sustainable. They assign magical properties to "tonewoods" that were only originally picked because they could be sourced cheaply locally. they are a customer base more focused on tradition and "looking cool" than what actually works.

If you don't agree with me that's fine. But let's not pretend I'm the only person that thinks this way.

---

I've owned at least 15 different Gibson or Gibson copies and if you have issues with tuning, it's because the nut wasn't done correctly, the same as absolutely any guitar, and exactly what that guy said. These have ranged from cheapo Epiphones to arguably the best modern luthier's take on an LP that cost nearly as much as my car. Same for Fender styles. And I've also had some 335 styles from people like Collings. Throw in a few PRSs, others and acoustics along the way and we're probably up to about 70-80 guitars in my lifetime.

There is a reason LPs are the most desired vintage guitar, and it sure ain't that they have issues staying in tune, and even less reason that it would somehow affect a beginners ability to learn.

Again, completely absurd, pure nonsense, and a very unhelpful suggestion. All that youtube guy did was illustrate that a defective or poorly made nut is an issue, again, the same as with any guitar or string instrument for that matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by defspace

I totally get the reasons for the classic Les Paul headstock break.

Does Gibson run a steeper headstock angle than, say, Martin or Taylor or anyone else who does the classic parallel 3x3 tuner configuration?

---

Gibson's typically have a steeper headstock angle than either. Tuner holes on a Martin are closer together than the Gibson pattern which mitigates the issue. I'm unsure about the Taylor guitars. It's probably also less of an issue given how most people play acoustic guitars.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sino

Nope. It's completely absurd to say that string tension because of a 15 or 17 degree angle has ever, ever, caused a headstock to break. Headstocks break when they meet a hard surface at velocity. The angle does increase chances of the headstock hitting first as opposed to a Fender, but that's it.

---

it's not the string tension on the 17 degree angle. it's the 17 degree angle with zero mechanical reinforcement and a fair amount of compromise coming from how the truss rod slot was machined. the headstock can get broken off from getting jostled in the case. you don't need to drop the guitar.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sino

I've owned at least 15 different Gibson or Gibson copies and if you have issues with tuning, it's because the nut wasn't done correctly, the same as absolutely any guitar, and exactly what that guy said. These have ranged from cheapo Epiphones to arguably the best modern luthier's take on an LP that cost nearly as much as my car. Same for Fender styles. And I've also had some 335 styles from people like Collings. Throw in a few PRSs, others and acoustics along the way and we're probably up to about 70-80 guitars in my lifetime.

There is a reason LPs are the most desired vintage guitar, and it sure ain't that they have issues staying in tune, and even less reason that it would somehow affect a beginners ability to learn.

Again, completely absurd, pure nonsense, and a very unhelpful suggestion. All that youtube guy did was illustrate that a defective or poorly made nut is an issue, again, the same as with any guitar or string instrument for that matter.

---

Gibsons are more susceptible to having a bad nut, especially the cheaper ones. That's what I'm saying. That, and you probably want to avoid giving a beginner a guitar that requires a $200 setup to play right.

People want Les Pauls because that's what their heroes played. It's the same reason why people care about strats, teles, or many other guitars. It's an aspirational purchase.

Dudes - regardless who wins this round I think she’s getting an acoustic.

I'm a LP fan. There are two here in the room with me. Because my heroes played Les Pauls, and because they sound like rock music.
Attachment 117578

It's not a tension issue, it's a wood grain issue.

The truss rod cut-away gives very little straight grain in that area of the neck. It could be mitigated by a volute (as in Norlin-era Gibsons) or a scarf joint... but that would be an admission of error. I guess a smaller truss rod cut away would help out too.

I reckon you can design a 17* 3x3 headstock that's plenty strong. Gibson just doesn't do that, because they didn't do that back in 1959.

I don't think I have tuning issues with my Les Pauls, which is why I'm surprised to hear the nut-angle-tuning argument. But I cut my own nuts *shrug*

But lets get back on topic: tubulars vs clinchers?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j44ke

Dudes - regardless who wins this round I think she’s getting an acoustic.

---

That is Hilarious!!!

Attachment 117579
Since we are off topic here.
This one will be visiting my shop next week. Yay!��
When Gibson revisited the steeper peg head
I ended up repairing about a hundred of them in the first
year. Most broke in the case. Case falling or put down
too hard.