What sorts of necks does Keith play when he's playing his Gibsons?? 50s (thick, rounded) or 60s (thin) necks??

What do you, guitarplayers, prefer: 50s or 60s? Do you think a 60s neck is a 'faster' neck than a 50s neck?

The terms '50s' and '60s neck', are they derived from Gibsons from the 50s and 60s? Was it so that all Gibson (Les Pauls) from 1959 and backwards had thick necks and Gibson (Les Pauls) from 1960 - .. had thin necks? Or is it just a term to make a clear difference between the different necks?

Keiths' Les Paul Customs, the famous sunburst Bigsby Les Paul and other Les Pauls he played in the sixties and seventies... did they have a 50s or 60s neck? And his ES-335 nowadays? What sort of neck do they have?

By definition any Gibson guitar made in the 1950's has a '50's neck. That's logic for you! But, don't take it as anything scientific. Basically, Gibson guitars until 1961 had big, thick U-shape necks. But, they were shaped and sanded to play very comfortable. Around 1961 Gibson recognized the potential of thinner necks, as they were cheaper to make (less hand work), and were faster to play, especially combined with thin fret wire. So, since 1961 the necks became thinner, but until 1965 necks still could be a handfull. From 1965 until 1971 necks became quite thin, but mainly not very wide at the nut. This is the main reason why Gibson's from 1965 until 1970 are not as collectable as earlier Gibson's, the necks are not really comfortable.

Anyway, keith absolutely prefers big necks, as most decent guitarists do. Keith prefers early 50's Tele's, late 50's Les pauls of any kind, the Music Man, the 355's, the Customs: all have big necks.

May I suggest something: buy some guitar books, like Tony bacon's books on Gibson guitars, or A. R. Duchoissoir's books on the Fender Telecaster and Stratocaster. It will provide very basic knowledge on Gibson and Fender guitars. There's no use in buying any expensive gear without understanding WHY you buy it.

Mathijs

It's interesting [and quite amusing]that only quite recently folks are beginiing to realise once more that "big" necks...which actually fit in the hand!... are more comfortable and nicer to play on than the skinny things that most makers have been punting at us for the last 30 years !
[More substantial necks also often produce a better sounding guitar]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-04-16 10:32 by Spud.

I don't know. It seems bar chords are easier on a thin neck.

Granted ;^).
Shallow necks are often preferred by folks who play with the thumb on the back and by technical "shredders".
But most rock players play with the thumb over most of the time...which is far more comfortable and less fatiguing when the neck sits nicely in the palm of your hand...as it does with old U and V shape necks. V shapes are great for folks who have smallish hands as they feel much less bulky than an equally deep U or D shape. V necks are most often assocaited with late 50s Fender guitars...but many an old Gibson neck has the same steeply sloping shoulders on a deep profile. These necks feel and play a lot slicker than they look. ;^)

Well, I have big hands, long fingers, but I definetly prefer shallow necks. Feels better to me. This is just a matter of taste. Same thing goes for rosewood/maple necks. Most people seems to think that maple is the best, but I prefer rosewood. Taste is what it is about.

Hate those thin necks. Especially since I am no shredder; not a fast soloist at all. So most the time I'm playing either chords or 2-3 string riffs. On a thin neck that's a lot harder. And I got fingers like Keith or Elton J too. Big fat fingers LOL
BTW I read that most piano virtuosos have anything but slender beautiful fingers. Most the famous ones have stubby sausage fingers. Just a sidenote.

"...no longer shall you trudge 'cross my peaceful mind."