The Parker Guitars Forum

Evolution or Intelligent Design? => Evolution or Intelligent Design? => Topic started by: rt0412 on June 06, 2006, 05:55:53 PM

Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: rt0412 on June 06, 2006, 05:55:53 PM
The guitar obviously came into being by man's intelligent design. Whether it will change (evolve?) into something else will still be dictated by man not by nature (or God). Strictly speaking, the guitar will never "evolve" into something else.

Maybe somebody has to define the parameters for defining "Evolution" and "Intelligent Design" that we can all agree upon.
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: Goose_Bend on June 06, 2006, 08:42:24 PM
Not really sure what your talking about, but the guitar is a design that has evolved through more intelligent design to get better and it will continure to get better through intelligent design.
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: Lwinn171 on June 06, 2006, 11:25:15 PM
This argument boils down to semantics, and furthermore is convoluded by people's beliefs (whether scientific or religious). The Parker Fly, for instance, marks several leaps forward in the evolution of the guitar. A lot of science went into the design process. Yet, can I say there was no divine intervention? Well, it's very hard to prove a negative. Who knows what muse was whispering in Ken's ear?
 The "eureka" moment, when you discover a clever soution to a problem, usually happens for me during a moment of distraction. I've heard this refered to as "lateral thinking", though I'm not sure that really describes what I mean.
 The entire concept of "intelligent design" is an interesting way to dodge the two-horned argument, science vs. religion, basically offering a religious answer to the scientific evidence concerning evolution. God works through evolution; it's one of the tools in his chest (as are humans, presumably).
 Evolution seems to imply that guitars change on their own, without human intervention, and that's clearly impossible. Evolution can only happen to things that breed (and as we've discussed in a thread on this very topic, Parker Fly's don't breed, no matter how drunk you get 'em).
 So what is this debate about? Intelligent design by someone other than god? Are you (John Page) trying to imply Ken parker is a god? Evolving the guitar by his own hand? Why are we using these terms to discuss a technological issue? Marketing mistique?

Lawrence Winn
"42.7 percent of all statistics are made-up on the spot."
2001 Fly Classic, Green
Larivee Parlour Guitar
Several inferior others
Mesa Boogie MK IV
Marshall 2-12 cab
Fender acoustasonic 30
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: jamrcat on June 06, 2006, 11:55:31 PM
Lawerence, I find your thoughts to be - well thoughtful and well thought out! [:0]

I think we have beaten this subject around alot over the last few weeks, now when does it end? There are no definitive answers and expecting us all to agree on the subject is unrealistic in my opinion. Agreeing to disagree is probably the most we could all hope for! [;)]


"I did it again today I guess I'm in a rut, I missed an opportunity to keep my big mouth shut!"
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: rt0412 on June 07, 2006, 12:32:13 AM
Ah! Finally somebody who understand...

quote:
Originally posted by Lwinn171

This argument boils down to semantics, and furthermore is convoluded by people's beliefs (whether scientific or religious). The Parker Fly, for instance, marks several leaps forward in the evolution of the guitar. A lot of science went into the design process. Yet, can I say there was no divine intervention? Well, it's very hard to prove a negative. Who knows what muse was whispering in Ken's ear?
 The "eureka" moment, when you discover a clever soution to a problem, usually happens for me during a moment of distraction. I've heard this refered to as "lateral thinking", though I'm not sure that really describes what I mean.
 The entire concept of "intelligent design" is an interesting way to dodge the two-horned argument, science vs. religion, basically offering a religious answer to the scientific evidence concerning evolution. God works through evolution; it's one of the tools in his chest (as are humans, presumably).
 Evolution seems to imply that guitars change on their own, without human intervention, and that's claerly impossible. Evolution can only happen to things that breed (and as we've discussed in a thread on this very topic, Parker Fly's don't breed, no matter how drunk you get 'em).
 So what is this debate about? Intelligent design by someone other than god? Are you (John Page) trying to imply Ken parker is a god? Evolving the guitar by his own hand? Why are we using these terms to discuss a technological issue? Marketing mistique?

Lawrence Winn
"42.7 percent of all statistics are made-up on the spot."
2001 Fly Classic, Green
Larivee Parlour Guitar
Several inferior others
Mesa Boogie MK IV
Marshall 2-12 cab
Fender acoustasonic 30

Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: 123crest on June 07, 2006, 10:11:04 AM
I beleive that the guitar will continue to evolve.  Doesn't progress equal evolution? Don't you think that we (man) evolve over time?  And if we evolve then do you think that anything that comes from us, anything that we create evolves?  So just the simple passing of time causes man, intrument and music to change in a forward moving way--which equals evolution.
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: daynwarren on June 07, 2006, 10:33:31 AM
I agree...marketing mistake.

I really hope this isn't leading up to some new model that strays even further from Ken Parker's brilliant ideas about what the ultimate guitar experience should be.

I say delete the thread and/or drop the topic.

Back to actually discussing Flys...

-Parker Deluxe Single 2 (lipstick tube pickups, crazy pickup switching options!)
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: bno on June 07, 2006, 11:04:47 AM
quote:
Originally posted by jwrooker

I don't see the Parker Fly as evolutionary.  Innovative, yes, but I don't think others will follow design.  It is difficult to manufacutre, the carbon fiber neck is an aquired taste that I never really qcuqired.  A very wise salesperson told me that Parkers are not for everyone and he was right.  I have the highest respect for Ken Parker and what he created but I seriously doubt that, in another 20 years, there will be more guitars like the Fly.
Evolution (n) A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form.

The evolutionary contributions are probably going to be more subtle than the fretboard and a complicated manufacturing process.  

Ken proved that a guitar doesn't have to weigh a ton to get tone.  The use of tone wood, carbon fiber fabric and epoxy to reinforce a lightweight body design and create a resonant structure is probably the biggest innovation.  In that sense, the Fly is evolutionary as it has made an incremental contribution to the concept of what a solid body electric guitar can be.  

I do think in 20 years lightweight guitars will be fairly common place and spread across a number of manufacturer designs.  I wouldn't be surprised to see Gibson make a 5 pound Les Paul with some combination of tone wood and composite materials.  
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: uburoibob on June 07, 2006, 11:40:38 AM
This debate is attempting to induce buzz...

Bob

2000 Parker Fly Artist Custom Hardtail  *  1999 Parker Fly Deluxe w/DiBurro Roland Mod Metallic Red  * 1998 Fly Classic in Transparent Dark Blue (thanks, Darren!) •  Now on a signature reduction program! Just the Flies, maam. *  www.rtmadvertising.com
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: Lwinn171 on June 07, 2006, 12:55:07 PM
I think my playing had to evolve to the point where I could appreciate the playability of the Fly. Evolved to the point where I needed one... My playing has always been a series of plateau's, separated by moments of inspiration that ramp up to the next level in my skill progression. The Fly is currently inspiring my playing... onward and upward... I'd say the Fly is causing me to evolve, in a manner of speaking.
 I can't say enough about how difficult it is to put my ideas forth, using the terminology inherent to this thread. As happened before, the terms evolution and intelligent design are experiencing evolution and/or intelligent design, themselves, as we add our perspectives to their meanings. Cosmic...
 Asking "Intelligent design or Evolution?" frames the question in an unanswerable form, and by design (intelligent or other-wise) is only going to garner conjecture. That said, I suppose it's an interesting debate, as long as we can all agree that there is no right or wrong (and no right or left, either), just ideas and philosophical fun for those so inclined. Like me, apparently...

Lawrence Winn
"42.7 percent of all statistics are made-up on the spot."
2001 Fly Classic, Green
Larivee Parlour Guitar
Several inferior others
Mesa Boogie MK IV
Marshall 2-12 cab
Fender acoustasonic 30
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: JPage on June 07, 2006, 02:08:25 PM
What we are doing is introducing a new ad campaign designed to increase brand awareness of the Parker Guitar line.  One of the things we hope to do is generate "buzz" as Bob stated above and, who knows - maybe a little controversy.  
These are concept ads.  There are several of them complete with more to come.  One ad will run for a period of time and then another will take its place.  

John

Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: Lwinn171 on June 07, 2006, 03:31:11 PM
Just joking, John P. Of course Ken Parker is a mortal, however tallented and insightful he may be. I will be glad to tell others how much I appreciate the thought and design genius that went into the Fly, and I look forward to future discussion in this thread, as well as other topics. I like my Fly so much, I'm glad turn on others to this remarkable guitar. So I was right about it being marketing mistique (not mistake, as someone else said). Well, clearly I'm all for Parker selling as many of them as they can make. If they're still making them 30 years from now, mine will be "vintage" and highly collectable. It's value to me means I'll probably never sell it, no matter what it's value. I'll likely collect more of them...dreaming about a Mojo...

Lawrence Winn
"42.7 percent of all statistics are made-up on the spot."
2001 Fly Classic, Green
Larivee Parlour Guitar
Several inferior others
Mesa Boogie MK IV
Marshall 2-12 cab
Fender acoustasonic 30
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: trap on June 07, 2006, 03:58:14 PM
it's about time parker got an ad campaign going.i've missed the ads in the usual guitar rags.how about getting a major(old school) player endorsee? like prs has santana.lets get clapton,he must be ready for a change.(only kidding). lets think of who might have a bad back and need a fly! surley one of the old farts backs must be screwed up.whaddaya think?
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: jwrooker on June 07, 2006, 04:07:00 PM
quote:
Originally posted by trap

it's about time parker got an ad campaign going.i've missed the ads in the usual guitar rags.how about getting a major(old school) player endorsee? like prs has santana.lets get clapton,he must be ready for a change.(only kidding). lets think of who might have a bad back and need a fly! surley one of the old farts backs must be screwed up.whaddaya think?



Neil young has had a bad back for years..

John Rooker
Rochester, NY
--------------
Gibson ES335 Light Burst
Gibson SG Standard Natural Burst
Gibson ES135 Vintage Sundburst
Carvin AE185 (coming)
Alvarez acoustic
Vox AD15VT, AD50VT & UltraSound AG50DS3
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: uburoibob on June 07, 2006, 04:08:49 PM
But Ken Parker IS a god!

Bob


2000 Parker Fly Artist Custom Hardtail  *  1999 Parker Fly Deluxe w/DiBurro Roland Mod Metallic Red  * 1998 Fly Classic in Transparent Dark Blue (thanks, Darren!) •  Now on a signature reduction program! Just the Flies, maam. *  www.rtmadvertising.com
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: uburoibob on June 07, 2006, 04:15:39 PM
quote:

Neil young has had a bad back for years..
John Rooker



I have a weak back. Discovered it a week back!

Hey John Rooker, Go downtown and check out Bernunzio's new guitar store. Best durned guitar store in forever. I suggested to John that he become a dealer for high-end Flys today. He is considering it seriously. I think it would fit his customer base. He opens officially on Friday when the jazz fest starts. It's on the corner of East Ave and Scio Street. Or there abouts - in the new Sagamore building.

My apologies to the non-Rochester people out there, but a new guitar store in town is big news. Especially a great one with lots of vintage jazz guitars...

Bob

2000 Parker Fly Artist Custom Hardtail  *  1999 Parker Fly Deluxe w/DiBurro Roland Mod Metallic Red  * 1998 Fly Classic in Transparent Dark Blue (thanks, Darren!) •  Now on a signature reduction program! Just the Flies, maam. *  www.rtmadvertising.com
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: 123crest on June 07, 2006, 05:12:02 PM
The first new Parker Campaign ad is out now in this month's vintage guitar magazine--check it out.
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: JSanta on June 07, 2006, 05:14:04 PM
quote:
Originally posted by uburoibob

quote:

Neil young has had a bad back for years..
John Rooker



I have a weak back. Discovered it a week back!

Hey John Rooker, Go downtown and check out Bernunzio's new guitar store. Best durned guitar store in forever. I suggested to John that he become a dealer for high-end Flys today. He is considering it seriously. I think it would fit his customer base. He opens officially on Friday when the jazz fest starts. It's on the corner of East Ave and Scio Street. Or there abouts - in the new Sagamore building.

My apologies to the non-Rochester people out there, but a new guitar store in town is big news. Especially a great one with lots of vintage jazz guitars...

Bob

2000 Parker Fly Artist Custom Hardtail  *  1999 Parker Fly Deluxe w/DiBurro Roland Mod Metallic Red  * 1998 Fly Classic in Transparent Dark Blue (thanks, Darren!) •  Now on a signature reduction program! Just the Flies, maam. *  www.rtmadvertising.com




I know where I'll be headed when I move back!


/jim

"Do not speak.  Unless it improves on silence."
           -Buddha
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: jwrooker on June 07, 2006, 05:22:31 PM
quote:
Originally posted by uburoibob


He opens officially on Friday when the jazz fest starts. It's on the corner of East Ave and Scio Street. Or there abouts - in the new Sagamore building.




Downtown Rochester without an armed escort?  Surely you jest..  [:D]

Hey, I've been out ridin' every morning and I ain't seen no yaller sit down bike out there...  

John Rooker
Rochester, NY
--------------
Gibson ES335 Light Burst
Gibson SG Standard Natural Burst
Gibson ES135 Vintage Sundburst
Carvin AE185 (coming)
Alvarez acoustic
Vox AD15VT, AD50VT & UltraSound AG50DS3
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: rt0412 on June 07, 2006, 05:39:22 PM
quote:
Originally posted by bno

Evolution (n) A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. Maybe we can adopt this definition and get rid of the mystical aspects of the "BUZZ" words.

So, how do we define "intelligent design"? Also, when the process of change is gradual, is it achieved by trial and error and not by "intelligent design"? Maybe we should be using the word "revolutionary" as applied to the Fly guitars?

But it's really a difficult situation for Parker, because the LATER P-series of guitars seems to be a "step back to the future". Hardly "revolutionary" or "evolutionary". Parker is actually going retro.


The evolutionary contributions are probably going to be more subtle than the fretboard and a complicated manufacturing process. Ken proved that a guitar doesn't have to weigh a ton to get tone. We've known that for centuries. Take a classical hollow body guitar. It's lightweight. [;)] Seriously, I don't think people got into solid body guitars because it has "better" tone... it's because they're easier to mass produced.

The use of tone wood, carbon fiber fabric and epoxy to reinforce a lightweight body design and create a resonant structure is probably the biggest innovation.  In that sense, the Fly is evolutionary as it has made an incremental contribution to the concept of what a solid body electric guitar can be. I do think in 20 years lightweight guitars will be fairly common place and spread across a number of manufacturer designs.  I wouldn't be surprised to see Gibson make a 5 pound Les Paul with some combination of tone wood and composite materials. I think you're right... Have you tried a Jay Turser Strat copy? It's so light and resonant. With the right  set of pickups, it would probably be a killer. The workmanship though is a bit on the horrible side (cheap). Recently, Yamaha came up with the model RGX-A2 with a fancy buzz word to describe it - Alternative Internal Resonance (AIR) - another lightweight guitar.


Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: Lwinn171 on June 07, 2006, 10:00:14 PM
I will be the first to admit that the Fly is perfect for ME. Not necessarily for everyone. It fits my style very well, but it's fair to say that won't be the case for some folks. There's nothing "wrong" with traditional designs, which have stood the test of time. But I'm the kind of guy that wants something unique, and I deserve a guitar which plays well (sounds good, stays in tune) as I've been playing 26 + years now. (When you've dealt with cheapo gear for that long you feel it's worth it to get some quality stuff). For me, that path led straight to the Fly. Of course you're hearing the Parker Choir, you're in the Parker Church, right?

Lawrence Winn
"42.7 percent of all statistics are made-up on the spot."
2001 Fly Classic, Green
Larivee Parlour Guitar
Several inferior others
Mesa Boogie MK IV
Marshall 2-12 cab
Fender acoustasonic 30
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: Bill on June 07, 2006, 10:43:21 PM
Agreed JW. I have avoided this thread for awhile because its irrelevant and beaten to death. So of course I'll beat some more.

 I did want to clear up a common misconception by some. This misconception calls to mind an old latin proverb (probably stolin from Greek)  that goes something like,

"Pleased at understanding, we often mistakenly assume we have ascended".[:0]

Evolution has nothing to do with our subjective interpretation of "progress".  It does not mean progressing to a more complex being, or ascending to a better state, or obtaining a more advanced order.

Evolution simply presumes an adaptation more suitable to an organism's reproductive survival.

There are plenty of cases where evolution has resulted in a regression of complexity. We now know, for example,  that some of our simpler modern day bacteria are the descendents of much more complicated organisms that would have been considered more "advanced" or more "elegant" than their modern day descendents. Those genetic lines survived only because some of them became (or stayed) less complex (less "refined") , and that adaptaion somehow was serendipitously (or spiritually)  prejudicial to their replication and survival.


Bottom line: Evolution moves back and forth in all directions. More complex, less complex; more specialized, less specialized, etc. Evolution is not prejudiced toward (or away) from "higher order". Adaptations occur in all directions. Environment determines which, if any, adaptations are "successful" (more favorable toward reproduction). Eventually organisms with that adaptaion become the norm, and the species is said to have evolved to that new standard.

In terms of numbers, one could argue the Parker Guitar has "evolved" from a few handmade one piece "Parker Fly Guitars" , to the mass produced, multiple pieced  varieties of Nite Flys and P Series guitars. Only the market place--not our admiration-- will decide which is better suited to survive.


This is not meant to deflate JP's ad campaign balloon. Just food for thought.[:)]

On that note, US music has wisly thrown a large variety of seeds out to the newly plowed field. Some varieties will flourish under current conditions. Others will fail (but may later flourish under differnt conditions if they can somehow go dormant or just survive long enough ). Anyway, now US music has done the hard work of developement. They can just fertilize and water a bit (advertize) and then sit back and see which varieties are capable of reseeding best. [;)]

Hopefully , some of the hierloom varieties -even if slower to reseed--will still be worth propagating for Parker, just as they are for Gibson and others.[?]. The heirloom varities, afterall, become the measure of evolution. [?][|)][|)][|)]

Custom '03 Hardtail Artist ; Fly Deluxe 2000; Gibson ES137; 1974 K.Yari DY85; Waterproof SchecterDisposable; Martin Backpacker/paddle combo;LarriveeParlor
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: rt0412 on June 08, 2006, 12:03:38 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Bill

I did want to clear up a common misconception by some. This misconception calls to mind an old latin proverb (probably stolin from Greek)  that goes something like,

"Pleased at understanding, we often mistakenly assume we have ascended".[:0]

Evolution has nothing to do with our subjective interpretation of "progress".  It does not mean progressing to a more complex being, or ascending to a better state, or obtaining a more advanced order.

Evolution simply presumes an adaptation more suitable to an organism's reproductive survival.

There are plenty of cases where evolution has resulted in a regression of complexity. We now know, for example,  that some of our simpler modern day bacteria are the descendents of much more complicated organisms that would have been considered more "advanced" or more "elegant" than their modern day descendents. Those genetic lines survived only because some of them became (or stayed) less complex (less "refined") , and that adaptaion somehow was serendipitously (or spiritually)  prejudicial to their replication and survival.

Bottom line: Evolution moves back and forth in all directions. More complex, less complex; more specialized, less specialized, etc. Evolution is not prejudiced toward (or away) from "higher order". Adaptations occur in all directions. Environment determines which, if any, adaptations are "successful" (more favorable toward reproduction). Eventually organisms with that adaptaion become the norm, and the species is said to have evolved to that new standard.

In terms of numbers, one could argue the Parker Guitar has "evolved" from a few handmade one piece "Parker Fly Guitars" , to the mass produced, multiple pieced  varieties of Nite Flys and P Series guitars. Only the market place--not our admiration-- will decide which is better suited to survive.

This is not meant to deflate JP's ad campaign balloon. Just food for thought.[:)] If we adapt the concept of "evolution" as you have presented above, then you're not really deflating JP's ad campaign balloon. In fact, you have described exactly the basic strategy that Parker needs to survive... and that's exactly what they have done with the addition of the NiteFly and P models. All they have to do now is to come up with some creative way of presenting this "evolutionary process of moving back and forth" to the public... which I think, is not going to be an easy task.

On that note, US music has wisly thrown a large variety of seeds out to the newly plowed field. Some varieties will flourish under current conditions. Others will fail (but may later flourish under differnt conditions if they can somehow go dormant or just survive long enough ). Anyway, now US music has done the hard work of developement. They can just fertilize and water a bit (advertize) and then sit back and see which varieties are capable of reseeding best. [;)]

Hopefully , some of the hierloom varieties -even if slower to reseed--will still be worth propagating for Parker, just as they are for Gibson and others.[?]. The heirloom varities, afterall, become the measure of evolution. [?][|)][|)][|)]

Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: trap on June 08, 2006, 06:19:24 AM
bill, sounds like the parable of the seeds!
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: uburoibob on June 08, 2006, 07:14:44 AM
In my humble opinion, the whole idea of evolution vs intelligent design, as it applies to this advertising campaign, is not the strongest approach. For starters, it's not a direct tie-in to the visual. Nor is it going to really be a hot button issue that generates the kind of buzz that Parker is hoping for. It is too complex... trying to place a Parker guitar in a historical perspective is a stong enough image (as I have hopefully demonstrated - drawing more positive buzz with my Parkers in the hands of pivotal historical artists campaign that never ran than this idea, using the same sampling base). Trying to mold the ID vs Evo debate around it only serves to dilute the message, rather than enhance it. And ultimately, while any buzz can easily be reshaped with a few administrative explanations here, taking it to the public only serves to let people who see this debate as frivolous at best go past the ad with an eyeroll. Those in favor of ID will think that it's another hit, trying to minimize their belief. And those in favor of Evo will see it as another sensationalist push to shove a belief down their throats. Ultimately, both sides will turn the page without a benefit... and almost certainly without buzz. A negative/negative situation.

Sorry for being down on this, but I just think it's kind of weak.

Go the artists route (you have my blessing) and start a forum for the public to debate which of their favorite guitarists in history would have used Parker (it happened here exactly as it should). And of course it would come down to a discussion of which current artists should be using Parker... A positive/positive outcome!

I'd love to work with you on it, but if not, go for it. It's a stronger approach and it will hit a demographic you need - read the rich/pro thread...

Bob

2000 Parker Fly Artist Custom Hardtail  *  1999 Parker Fly Deluxe w/DiBurro Roland Mod Metallic Red  * 1998 Fly Classic in Transparent Dark Blue (thanks, Darren!) •  Now on a signature reduction program! Just the Flies, maam. *  www.rtmadvertising.com
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: JPage on June 08, 2006, 09:49:35 AM
http://www.parkerguitars.com/crossroads
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: uburoibob on June 08, 2006, 12:46:43 PM
quote:
Originally posted by JPage

http://www.parkerguitars.com/crossroads




OK. That's headed in a direction that pulls the ID part out of it. The preview of the ad that I saw had it in there, I think.

I think the question of the guitar's proper evolution, as this web page is insinuating, is better than trying to introduce ID into the equation. I think that the ID aspect is confusing, as it would take an intelligent designer to push the evolution of the guitar. A guitar is not capable of evolving on its own. Still, it's a little convoluted as a campaign, but better than keeping ID as a part of the whole thing. The best advice... keep it simple... reward em for reading (intellectual or emotional reward is plenty).

Bob

2000 Parker Fly Artist Custom Hardtail  *  1999 Parker Fly Deluxe w/DiBurro Roland Mod Metallic Red  * 1998 Fly Classic in Transparent Dark Blue (thanks, Darren!) •  Now on a signature reduction program! Just the Flies, maam. *  www.rtmadvertising.com
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: David Tomkins on June 09, 2006, 02:59:32 AM
he's hit the nail on the head - evolution is controlled by the changing environment, not the talents of the organism per se.  many creatures evolved wonderfully and then found themselves in an ice age.  whoops.  to call the Fly evolution, we have to look at the 'guitar environment/market' and decide if the Fly has a better chance of survival than what came before it.  If not, it's not evolution. it's devolution (if that is a word).  The SyntheAxe portable keyboardyguitartypething was touted as the keybard evolving but it didn't survive.  mutation might have been a better term.
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: 908ssp on June 09, 2006, 08:20:49 AM
I have kept out of this because honestly I think it is a bit silly.

But Bob brings up things I agree with it is too complicated a question to have any bearing in a guitar ad. It is like asking "salt or pepper?" Who cares? What's the point? Why do I want to think about this? Sounds like pseudo intellectual gibberish.

Those that do think about or care about the bigger question of ID or Evo? Might very well be offended by the trivialization of what to them is a profound issue and one they are being attacked on in other venues. At a time when many people feel under attack for their beliefs I find it somewhat troubling that we can't have a bit more compassion for their feelings. I don't have to share those beliefs to allow them their beliefs without being trivialized.

I think in context of Guitar players it makes much more sense to ask would those players who sought out new instruments 30 years ago have played a Parker? Guitar players are traditionalist what shaped that tradition and how do you break them out of that tradition?

By the way DT you have good point about the effects of change we describe as evolution. Only time will tell if evolution (Parker) was successful or not.

Alex

(http://home.comcast.net/~908ssp/BoogeClassicTN.jpg)(http://home.comcast.net/~908ssp/DSCN1321TN.jpg)(http://home.comcast.net/~908ssp/DeluxeCageWreckTN.jpg)(http://home.comcast.net/~908ssp/ParkerBassTN.jpg)
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: Musicman1 on June 09, 2006, 08:33:35 PM
I think if Leo Fender's original design was a Parker gtr then that would have been the thing to have.  I could see Les Paul designing a Parker gtr.  I think it was the music that made the solid body electric gtr what it is.  If the Beatles had Parkers, everyone would have had a Parker. I think most designers are trying to avoid copying whats already been done a million times as opposed to evolving.  I think the Parker clearly has roots in traditional design but simply takes new non-wood materials to a new level.  Is this evolution?? Maybe but really it does make for a great product. Let the designers do what they do best.  As gtr players its up to us to evolve musically.  

Musicman1

2005 Parker P44
2002 EB MM Axis Sport
1984 Custom made boutique Strat
1977 Guild D40 NT
1976 Gibson 335 Custom
Wide variety of amps and effects

Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: Lwinn171 on June 09, 2006, 11:38:46 PM
Gibson did, in fact, make a Les Paul Custom Lite. Basically a custom with a really thin body (I think mahogany/maple cap, not really sure). I played one and wanted it, but could not afford at the time. It was this really cool Gibson version of purple-burgandy mist (ala Fender). And it weighed nothing next to a regular Custom, probably 7.5 lbs at a guess, maybe more. I never saw another...

Lawrence Winn
"42.7 percent of all statistics are made-up on the spot."
2001 Fly Classic, Green
Larivee Parlour Guitar
Several inferior others
Mesa Boogie MK IV
Marshall 2-12 cab
Fender acoustasonic 30
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: trap on June 10, 2006, 08:57:34 AM
it seems the ad campaign is a success. it created a discussion,which requires paying attention,which is the purpose of ads.
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: rt0412 on June 10, 2006, 09:49:05 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Musicman1

I think most designers are trying to avoid copying whats already been done a million times as opposed to evolving. I think the Parker clearly has roots in traditional design but simply takes new non-wood materials to a new level. That's a very true statement... but Parker finally bowed to tradition when it introduced a bolt-on NiteFly and then the P-series with more traditional parts. Evolution "moving back and forth"?

Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: jwrooker on June 10, 2006, 10:10:25 AM
quote:
Originally posted by rt0412
That's a very true statement... but Parker finally bowed to tradition when it introduced a bolt-on NiteFly and then the P-series with more traditional parts. Evolution "moving back and forth"?[/purple][/b]



I think that's called trying to survive.  Parker probably would nave folded up its tent long ago if it depended solely on sales of the Fly models.  If you eliminated all but the Fly owners from this forum, it would be a small forum.

John Rooker
Rochester, NY
--------------
Gibson ES335 Light Burst
Gibson SG Standard Natural Burst
Gibson ES135 Vintage Sundburst
Carvin AE185 (coming)
Alvarez acoustic
Vox AD15VT, AD50VT & UltraSound AG50DS3
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: uburoibob on June 10, 2006, 10:24:07 AM
quote:
I think that's called trying to survive.  Parker probably would nave folded up its tent long ago if it depended solely on sales of the Fly models.  If you eliminated all but the Fly owners from this forum, it would be a small forum.

John Rooker


True, John. Kinda sad, but true.

I know we differ on whether the FLY is a better instrument. I think that it is. Not just a subjective appraisal, but a bonafide comment on design, construction, execution, etc. That the world is willing to shell out thousands on yet another Les Paul or Strat is a testament to an unwillingness to even appraise something that's new. The FLY is superior in just about every category to anything else that's out there. If the Fly had a shortcoming, it's that it didn't show flame through sunburst finishes right from the start. Had Parker laminated flame maple to the top, offered vibrant custom transulcent and sunburst (not the ugly ones it offers now - real vintage-style sunburst) finishes, advertised itself with somewhere near the frequency of PRS or Gibson or Fender, offered its dealers some real incentives AND been able to keep up with the resulting demand, things would have been different. The entire industry would be making guitars with exoskeletons, and no guitar would weigh more than five pounds. And they'd all sound great. But it's easy to be a Monday morning quarterback.

I think ultimately it proves that if a fish is gonna grow legs, it had better disguise them as fins until 2/3 of the other fish grow legs or else it is gonna be beaten out of existence. Just the way society is.

Bob

2000 Parker Fly Artist Custom Hardtail  *  1999 Parker Fly Deluxe w/DiBurro Roland Mod Metallic Red  * 1998 Fly Classic in Transparent Dark Blue (thanks, Darren!) •  Now on a signature reduction program! Just the Flies, maam. *  www.rtmadvertising.com
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: trap on June 10, 2006, 10:27:33 AM
add one more thing bob, that the music store salespeople were trained to demo the guitar properly to show it's potential.also seymour duncan pups should have been there from the git go.
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: uburoibob on June 10, 2006, 10:32:29 AM
quote:
Originally posted by trap

add one more thing bob, that the music store salespeople were trained to demo the guitar properly to show it's potential.also seymour duncan pups should have been there from the git go.



Agreed about the music store sales people. PERSONALLY, I like the sound of the DiMarzios, but you are right. Seymour Duncans were all the rage then, and still are. I guess if there's one design oversight, it's not getting pickup manufacturers to be part of the program, offering replacement pickups.

Bob

2000 Parker Fly Artist Custom Hardtail  *  1999 Parker Fly Deluxe w/DiBurro Roland Mod Metallic Red  * 1998 Fly Classic in Transparent Dark Blue (thanks, Darren!) •  Now on a signature reduction program! Just the Flies, maam. *  www.rtmadvertising.com
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: uburoibob on June 10, 2006, 10:34:21 AM
And what the heck, I need one more post to become and Advanced Member, so here it is!

When does my pizza arrive?

Bob

2000 Parker Fly Artist Custom Hardtail  *  1999 Parker Fly Deluxe w/DiBurro Roland Mod Metallic Red  * 1998 Fly Classic in Transparent Dark Blue (thanks, Darren!) •  Now on a signature reduction program! Just the Flies, maam. *  www.rtmadvertising.com
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: Musicman1 on June 10, 2006, 10:57:18 AM
Maybe Parkers true evolution will be somewhat complete if it should become mentioned in the same breath w/the '60 Les Paul, the  '59 Strat, the  '52 Tele, the  '06 Parker...basically a must have in your collection piece. Of course as a Parker player we would say that.  Lets hear it from the mouth of Beck or Clapton or Gibbons etc. I think that would bring Parker full circle.

Musicman1

2005 Parker P44
2002 EB MM Axis Sport
1984 Custom made boutique Strat
1977 Guild D40 NT
1976 Gibson 335 Custom
Wide variety of amps and effects

Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: rt0412 on June 10, 2006, 12:34:07 PM
quote:
Originally posted by uburoibob

PERSONALLY, I like the sound of the DiMarzios, but you are right. Seymour Duncans were all the rage then, and still are. I guess if there's one design oversight, it's not getting pickup manufacturers to be part of the program, offering replacement pickups.Grave mistake on the PUs... reminds me of the "architect's window". It's one of those architect's tricks where they show the client a drawing of what the house will look like. The architect deliberately puts a window somewhere where it's obviously out of place. The client will of course express their dissatisfaction and demand that it be taken out or moved somewhere else. The architect complies and that's the end of the story. The owner "had a say", the "final say" so to speak, in the design of the house.

Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: jwrooker on June 10, 2006, 01:55:23 PM
quote:
Originally posted by uburoibob

And what the heck, I need one more post to become and Advanced Member, so here it is!

When does my pizza arrive?



Get the door..it's Domino's! [8D]

So, does it feel different to be an Advanced Member?  What it really means is that you are now recognized for wasting this much time on the computer.. [:D]

John Rooker
Rochester, NY
--------------
Gibson ES335 Light Burst
Gibson SG Standard Natural Burst
Gibson ES135 Vintage Sundburst
Carvin AE185 (coming)
Alvarez acoustic
Vox AD15VT, AD50VT & UltraSound AG50DS3
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: uburoibob on June 10, 2006, 02:18:05 PM
quote:
VGet the door..it's Domino's! [8D]

So, does it feel different to be an Advanced Member?  What it really means is that you are now recognized for wasting this much time on the computer.. [:D]

John Rooker



I'm feelin all warm and gushy. Good thing, cuz I gotta go set up to play for the Artwalk thing. Outside on this windy, slightly chilly day (June 10). We're playing from 4 to 6:30 pm at 660 East Ave (by Upton Ct), between Goodman and Oxford...on somebody's lawn...hope they know we're coming!). Hope my fingers are OK. I bought a Zoom G2 effects pedal which I will be using for the first time today. That, an AER Alpha and my Fly make for a VERY compact solution. All I need is electricity!

Bob

2000 Parker Fly Artist Custom Hardtail  *  1999 Parker Fly Deluxe w/DiBurro Roland Mod Metallic Red  * 1998 Fly Classic in Transparent Dark Blue (thanks, Darren!) •  Now on a signature reduction program! Just the Flies, maam. *  www.rtmadvertising.com
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: jamrcat on June 10, 2006, 03:52:38 PM
quote:
I gotta go set up to play for the Artwalk thing

I wish I could actually hear some of you guys play, have a great gig Bob!

After 250+ posts here's my secret:
Sometime I sits, and sometimes I thinks.........and sometimes I just sits!

Oh... and John, make mine Papa John's pizza! [:D]

Bellingham, WA
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: trap on June 10, 2006, 04:01:18 PM
welcome bob! you'll get your parker leather jacket any day!
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: jwrooker on June 10, 2006, 04:33:43 PM
quote:
Originally posted by jamrcat

quote:
I gotta go set up to play for the Artwalk thing

I wish I could actually hear some of you guys play, have a great gig Bob!

After 250+ posts here's my secret:
Sometime I sits, and sometimes I thinks.........and sometimes I just sits!

Oh... and John, make mine Papa John's pizza! [:D]

Bellingham, WA



Papa John's it is..

You can hear some of Bob's stuff at:

http://www.margaretexplosion.com

John Rooker
Rochester, NY
--------------
Gibson ES335 Light Burst
Gibson SG Standard Natural Burst
Gibson ES135 Vintage Sundburst
Carvin AE185 (coming)
Alvarez acoustic
Vox AD15VT, AD50VT & UltraSound AG50DS3
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: JSanta on June 10, 2006, 07:59:43 PM
After a little consideration about this topic, I just have to say that I think Parker has made an incredibly intelligent instrument.  They have pushed the limits of functionality/design, yet have still retained the most important aspects of the traditional guitar.  They are not however, the be-all end-all instrument by any means.  They fill an extremely unique niche in the market and I think that they will find even greater success in the coming years.  But there will never be a replacement for the traditional Strat or Les Paul (and for me a PRS), and there are reasons that they have remained popular and in-demand for the last 50 years.  


/jim

"Do not speak.  Unless it improves on silence."
           -Buddha
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: uburoibob on June 10, 2006, 08:15:14 PM
I agree with Jim when he says that the Parker Fly is not the be all and end all. And I agree with John Rooker when talks about the attraction of Fender, Gibson, etc. All I was saying is that in coming to terms with the limitations of more traditional designs, Parker has come up with a better guitar design than anything that has gone before it. From the neck joint, to the exoskeleton, to the vibrato, to the neck and fingerboard design - across the board - the design is better. Does it make the Fly SOUND better or PLAY better? Well, those are subjective terms and are a matter of personal taste. Did it SELL BETTER? Heck no? Why? I think that I addressed that in my post - for the most part, because it DIDN'T "borrow" from the more traditional instruments and, because it sort of went its own way, it was not even considered in many cases by those that would continue to buy Les Pauls or Strats repeatedly. Also, because its customizability, particularly in terms of its pickups, was quite limited. And finally, as with that Trap pointed out - lack of ability on the part of music store staff to impart proper knowledge about the instrument.

I have many guitars - only three of them are Parker Flys. And while I've tried NiteFlys and P-Series guitars, they just aren't in the same league as the Flys. I have a PRS Hollowbody II that I LOVE (although, the neck/body is doing the welcome to summer thing and I have to adjust it tonight). I LOVE my archtops. I LOVE playing my Weissenbron lap steel. But none of them is as advanced and, frankly good, a design as the Parker Fly. But I still LOVE them.

Hopefully, I got my point across.

Bob

2000 Parker Fly Artist Custom Hardtail  *  1999 Parker Fly Deluxe w/DiBurro Roland Mod Metallic Red  * 1998 Fly Classic in Transparent Dark Blue (thanks, Darren!) •  Now on a signature reduction program! Just the Flies, maam. *  www.rtmadvertising.com
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: JSanta on June 10, 2006, 08:26:20 PM
Once again Bob, I think that you are totally right.  I think, simply because of the reasons you pointed out, Parker will be a force to be reckoned with in the future, if not already today.  Once many guitarists just try a Parker, I think they will understand why people talk about them like they do.


/jim

"Do not speak.  Unless it improves on silence."
           -Buddha
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: JSanta on June 10, 2006, 09:05:23 PM
quote:
Originally posted by jwrooker

quote:
Originally posted by JSanta

Once again Bob, I think that you are totally right.  I think, simply because of the reasons you pointed out, Parker will be a force to be reckoned with in the future, if not already today.  Once many guitarists just try a Parker, I think they will understand why people talk about them like they do.




As long as the player fits the one neck fits all approach that Parker takes.  They have a confusing array of models, Deluxe, Classic, etc, etc, but the basic differences are body wood and pickups on the Mojos.  What if I want a thicker neck profile with a different rdaius?  No can do.  What if I want position markers other than those microscopic dots on the side of the neck?   No can do.  The "advanced" technology is also limiting.  The confusing array of Fly models offered by Parker only has two pickup choices..DiMarzio or Duncan JB/Jazz.  This is all fine and dandy for those who have foind something to love in the existing line up..but it is a contributing factor for some of us to avoid the line.  At the $2.5k price level where the Fly sits, the competition offers a much wider choice.  I just ordered a Carvin guitar which is essentially a custom shop instrument and it will cost me $200 LESS than a NiteFly.  If it arrives in the same conditon as my previous Carvin, which was perfect, it will represent a value that nothing in the Parker line can hope to match.

The Parker Fly is a great guitar, but it has limited appeal, it will always be a niche instrument and never a mainstream instrument.  It's own technology makes offering choices other than tone wood or one or the other pickup a difficult task for the manufacturer.

John Rooker
Rochester, NY
--------------
Gibson ES335 Light Burst
Gibson SG Standard Natural Burst
Gibson ES135 Vintage Sundburst
Carvin AE185 (coming)
Alvarez acoustic
Vox AD15VT, AD50VT & UltraSound AG50DS3





I also think that one thing I don't like about companies like Fender is that they have very similar models, with minute differences that sometimes confuse the hell out of me.  When I wanted to get a Parker, I played a few, and each played exactly the same, which was perfectly.  I would on principle have to disagree that their line is confusing, I would have to say that the other "name-brand" companies have a much more confusing product line than Parker.  


/jim

"Do not speak.  Unless it improves on silence."
           -Buddha
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: trap on June 11, 2006, 07:55:26 AM
alot of money can be made with niche customers.
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: jwrooker on June 11, 2006, 08:01:07 AM
quote:
Originally posted by trap

alot of money can be made with niche customers.



Granted, look at Rickenbacker.  There's a one trick pony.

John Rooker
Rochester, NY
--------------
Gibson ES335 Light Burst
Gibson SG Standard Natural Burst
Gibson ES135 Vintage Sundburst
Carvin AE185 (coming)
Alvarez acoustic
Vox AD15VT, AD50VT & UltraSound AG50DS3
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: Bill on June 11, 2006, 08:07:54 AM
I agree with Jim on this one. At least for the Fly series its an easy line up.

As for the Fly being a "Niche instrument". --well of course it is--thank God. And its just the niche for me. The average mainstream guitar sold probably goes for 500 bucks. At the Fly price range, it better be a niche instrument.

As for lack of options? Well if you order a Porche Carrerra you can choose between red, yellow and black. You order this niche car cause it already has what you want. Its a work of art. To vary it too much would only take away from its appeal. If you don't feel that way, you are right to buy something else. But don't expect Porche to pimp out a carrera with extra big wheels or fur on the dash board or a suspension that makes the car jump up and down. If you want that you buy a gremlin or another cheap car and just pimp the h*ll out of it till you get what you want.[:D]

Of course you are right to expect top notch quality and finish. Any advertising will backfire unless that is priority number one.

Its like the talented chief and restrauntuer that unfortounatly opens his restaurant a week earlier than he should have because he advertised the stink out of the grand opening. The employees werent quite trained, the interior wasn't quite ready, the food prep was off cause the oven wasn't broken in. They could not handle the numbers the advertising attracted and everything fell short that first night when everybody was there and the world was watching. The opening reviews were bad. Now despite the fact that he is the best chief in town and would have done a rocking bussiness, his rep is dirt and he folds because he could never turn that bad rep around. His advertising attention worked against him. It would have been way better not to advertise at first. Lay low and get everything up and running and tweaked just right . Then start advertising after a few months.

The Fly is a great guitar. Far superior to anything in its price range and maybe in any range. I love mine. I will buy more. I am a desciple and tell everyone about them.

Since I have never had the pleasure of seeing a new Fly, I can't comment. I can say the fit and finish of my old Flys are just incredable and they still look brand spanking new.
But the company did just move halfway across the country , changed ownership, changed empolyees, possibly retooled, and likly has had some growing paines. Hopefully any bugs are worked out prior to an ad blitz.

Evolution or intellegent design? Who cares. Just hope Parker is ready.

Custom '03 Hardtail Artist ; Fly Deluxe 2000; Gibson ES137; 1974 K.Yari DY85; Waterproof SchecterDisposable; Martin Backpacker/paddle combo;LarriveeParlor
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: uburoibob on June 11, 2006, 09:03:36 AM
My two cents: The Gibson Les Paul - the only choice you've traditionally had for neck size was to buy by vintage: 59 - bat, 60-61 super slim, 52-58 - normal by today's standards. AND it comes with humbucking pickups. Pretty much a one trick pony. The Fender Stratocaster - the same deal, except that they DID at one point offer two widths to the neck... narrow and wide. Parker Fly, same deal. If you start replacing necks and pickups, you don't have a Gibson Les Paul any more, or a Fender Strat. Kinda like religion - when you start picking and choosing doctrine, you lose your denomination.

If you want a Les Paul, you buy a Les Paul. If you want a Strat, you buy a Strat. If you want a Tele, you buy a Tele. If you want a Rickenbacker, you buy a Rickenbacker. If you want a Fly, you buy a Fly.

PRS can be discussed in Gibson and Fender terms - as it is a derivative of both. Guild, in Gibson terms. Gretsch in Gibson and some original terms. Tom Anderson can be described in Fender terms. Same with Brian Moore and countless others.

Ibanez, Samick, etc can be described in Gibson and Fender terms, cuz, for the most part, their entire product lines are derivative.

So, we come down to a really small handful of "base" instruments of which, I believe, the Fly is one of.

If you want a custom instrument, great. There are ways to customize everything out there - some the basic geometry, some only colors and wood/pickup choices. I will say this about the Fly - the neck CAN be fatter. I have an Artist whose neck is about 1/8" fatter than the rest of my Flys.

Anyway, what I am saying is, and it talks to John's original point: If you want a particular guitar, you get it for its attributes. If you want to customize a guitar to make it somethng other than what it is, you start with what you want, and start swapping. That it ends up not being the original instrument is a moot point - it becomes YOUR instrument. In the case of the Fly, it's apparently the lack of customizability that is the issue. Well, perhaps that will change in time. It took 30 years for Gibson to start selling Les Pauls with different sized necks on them. Fender still has pretty limited resources for that - rosewood or maple seems to be the big question there.

So, I see the FLY as I see a stock Les Paul, a stock Strat, a stock Tele, or a stock Rick 325/360. It's simply not as easy to customize it to make it not a Fly...

And I still think it's a superior design...

Bob

2000 Parker Fly Artist Custom Hardtail  *  1999 Parker Fly Deluxe w/DiBurro Roland Mod Metallic Red  * 1998 Fly Classic in Transparent Dark Blue (thanks, Darren!) •  Now on a signature reduction program! Just the Flies, maam. *  www.rtmadvertising.com
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: trap on June 11, 2006, 01:18:20 PM
i would say the fly was superior to any other guitar in it's price range,because i believe it is underpriced. i think when you consider the prices they are charging for a lp,and what you get for that price,it doesn't add up to a great deal to me.  it just seems to me that it takes a lot more work to build a fly than to build a lp. and there are more features,innovations,sound possibilities in the fly. gibson charges that much because of the name,not because it takes that much time and skill to build one. the contours of the fly body are more complex,the carbon exoskeleton is another factor,( i understand they cook it in a pizza oven to bond it),how about the trem system etc? klein guitars go for about 4 grand and they are innovative,but not more so than the fly.andersons aren't cheap either.
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: nightsongs7 on June 12, 2006, 07:03:45 PM
Since evolution is science-fiction, intelligent design will continue to improve guitars almost daily. Since evolution depends on infinite time and impossible chance, evolution is a statistical and logical impossibility. Evolution provides no possibility for the laws of music or math. It can never be an answer to anything that proves design, beauty, usefulness, or reliability. Therefore, the more intelligent the designer, the greater and more wonderful the thing designed!
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: uburoibob on June 12, 2006, 11:17:32 PM
quote:
Originally posted by nightsongs7

Since evolution is science-fiction



OK, we've been resisting this sort of thing until now. Let's keep on doing it...

Bob

2000 Parker Fly Artist Custom Hardtail  *  1999 Parker Fly Deluxe w/DiBurro Roland Mod Metallic Red  * 1998 Fly Classic in Transparent Dark Blue (thanks, Darren!) •  Now on a signature reduction program! Just the Flies, maam. *  www.rtmadvertising.com
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: JSanta on June 13, 2006, 05:43:25 AM
quote:
Originally posted by nightsongs7

Since evolution is science-fiction, intelligent design will continue to improve guitars almost daily. Since evolution depends on infinite time and impossible chance, evolution is a statistical and logical impossibility. Evolution provides no possibility for the laws of music or math. It can never be an answer to anything that proves design, beauty, usefulness, or reliability. Therefore, the more intelligent the designer, the greater and more wonderful the thing designed!



I hate to be a jerk, but this is a guitar forum, there's no reason to make religious or political comments here.


/jim

"Do not speak.  Unless it improves on silence."
           -Buddha
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: jamrcat on June 13, 2006, 09:37:21 AM
quote:
I hate to be a jerk, but this is a guitar forum, there's no reason to make religious or political comments here.


I agree, let's talk guitars! [^]

Bellingham, WA
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: bno on June 13, 2006, 10:35:06 AM
Would Darwin have played a Parker Fly?  I thinks its reasonable to believe that God does.

(http://img54.imageshack.us/img54/9607/thecreationofparker7qx.jpg)
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: sfw on June 13, 2006, 03:29:35 PM
Not to belittle Bob's comment, but actually I really think the Fly does fit in the science fiction realm. <suspend-comments> Theoretically, science is always measurable and repeatable, otherwise it's an accident. I don't think anyone would rationally (note word choice here) argue that there is some serious science behind the innovations in the Fly. The carbon fiber, glass fiber, carved form, as well as the engineering in the tremolo are in themselves relatively new science. Their material application to the guitar world is the fiction part, fiction in the sense of "made-up." Science is the measurable and repeatable, but it is the creativity that is applied to known science that makes-up a new innovation like a Fly. There really are not a huge number of new "base" creations. It really is just the application of creativity to existing components that make all things that are innovative. Fiction is the pinnacle of creativity, in that it is "made-up." That is really what the Fly is to me. It was created. The components all existed, but not really their application in this way, and that is what makes true innovation in my book.

Thus I say it was not Intelligent Design or Evolution, but true creation/enlightenment that brought forth the Fly. As I lean more toward JSanta's view than uburoibob's, I would say that the Fly has attained enlightenment. </suspend-comments>


- Scott

P6 Black (on its way)
PM10; PM20; Franken-Fenders
Randall RM4,RT2/50 (1086, Clean, TopBoost)
Wiggles Murray, Barbie Electric w/matching mic, American Idol electric
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: uburoibob on June 13, 2006, 04:28:50 PM
Hmm, I thought that Jim and I were on the same page...

My comment, by quoting Nightsongs7's comment on "evolution being science fiction" is that I don't agree that this is the place to actually begin debating religion, and by offering a blanket "evolution is science fiction" statement at the beginning of his post, he is clearly trying to be provocative in a context outside of this discussion. I didn't appreciate it. Don't agree with it. I happen to think just the opposite - that the whole notion of Intelligent Design by a diety is science fiction. All I did was what Jim did better - ask to keep religion outta this discussion.

Bob

2000 Parker Fly Artist Custom Hardtail  *  1999 Parker Fly Deluxe w/DiBurro Roland Mod Metallic Red  * 1998 Fly Classic in Transparent Dark Blue (thanks, Darren!) •  Now on a signature reduction program! Just the Flies, maam. *  www.rtmadvertising.com
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: sfw on June 13, 2006, 04:57:06 PM
Opps, sorry for the misread Bob! I guess I'm still drying out from my vacation trip. We definately agree on keeping the discussion on guitars, and probably on a lot of other things too.

My other thoughts however, I do stand by. I think the Fly was a creation, not anything that was just evolutionary. I also believe Fender and Gibson were also creations, and that Les Paul probably made the Fly creatable. But the Fly was its own creation, not just another "derivative."

- Scott

P6 Black (on its way)
PM10; PM20; Franken-Fenders
Randall RM4,RT2/50 (1086, Clean, TopBoost)
Wiggles Murray, Barbie Electric w/matching mic, American Idol electric
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: JSanta on June 13, 2006, 05:13:39 PM
Just for clarification, I'm with Bob on this one lol.


/jim

"Do not speak.  Unless it improves on silence."
           -Buddha
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: 908ssp on June 13, 2006, 05:17:23 PM
quote:
Originally posted by JSanta

Just for clarification, I'm with Bob on this one lol.


/jim

"Do not speak.  Unless it improves on silence."
           -Buddha




ditto  [^]

Alex

(http://home.comcast.net/~908ssp/BoogeClassicTN.jpg)(http://home.comcast.net/~908ssp/DSCN1321TN.jpg)(http://home.comcast.net/~908ssp/DeluxeCageWreckTN.jpg)(http://home.comcast.net/~908ssp/ParkerBassTN.jpg)
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: Bill on June 13, 2006, 06:04:36 PM
Ditto dittoed.[^]


Impossible to argue with religious dogma. Best to let sleeping minds lie[:0]


Lets keep talkin the religion of geetars.
[:)]


Custom '03 Hardtail Artist ; Fly Deluxe 2000; Gibson ES137; 1974 K.Yari DY85; Waterproof SchecterDisposable; Martin Backpacker/paddle combo;LarriveeParlor
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: David Tomkins on June 14, 2006, 01:56:21 AM
hey bno, you forgot to put the glasses and magnifying lens on the bearded bloke in the picture.  quite a resemblance if you ask me.
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: uburoibob on June 14, 2006, 07:23:21 AM
quote:
Originally posted by David Tomkins

hey bno, you forgot to put the glasses and magnifying lens on the bearded bloke in the picture.  quite a resemblance if you ask me.




Jerry Godcia?

Bob

2000 Parker Fly Artist Custom Hardtail  *  1999 Parker Fly Deluxe w/DiBurro Roland Mod Metallic Red  * 1998 Fly Classic in Transparent Dark Blue (thanks, Darren!) •  Now on a signature reduction program! Just the Flies, maam. *  www.rtmadvertising.com
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: Bill on June 14, 2006, 07:30:02 AM
Yichs,BNO,  I'm having Devenchi Code flashbacks...Secret messages everywhere...I think the Cherub behind Jerry is a nude portrait of my Grandmother !!!![:0][:0][:0]

Custom '03 Hardtail Artist ; Fly Deluxe 2000; Gibson ES137; 1974 K.Yari DY85; Waterproof SchecterDisposable; Martin Backpacker/paddle combo;LarriveeParlor
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: uburoibob on June 14, 2006, 07:35:13 AM
Holy Molé!  

I think the cherub your grandmother is sitting on is...gulp...MY GRANDMOTHER!

Bob

2000 Parker Fly Artist Custom Hardtail  *  1999 Parker Fly Deluxe w/DiBurro Roland Mod Metallic Red  * 1998 Fly Classic in Transparent Dark Blue (thanks, Darren!) •  Now on a signature reduction program! Just the Flies, maam. *  www.rtmadvertising.com
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: Bill on June 14, 2006, 07:35:36 AM
Of course the portrait is Michelangelo's and the David T reference is Ken Parker but the flashbacks are real !

Still looks more like Jerry and a miniature of Grandma. And now I see Bob's Granny too. Help.

Custom '03 Hardtail Artist ; Fly Deluxe 2000; Gibson ES137; 1974 K.Yari DY85; Waterproof SchecterDisposable; Martin Backpacker/paddle combo;LarriveeParlor
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: bno on June 14, 2006, 09:33:27 AM
I kind of thought this one was a bit much, but here it is just for shigs and gittles.

(http://img79.imageshack.us/img79/6444/thecreationofparker21oq.th.jpg)
http://img79.imageshack.us/img79/6444/thecreationofparker21oq.jpg

Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: Bill on June 14, 2006, 06:58:38 PM
LOL very good. Stuff like that will force Bob out of the ad bussiness [8D]

Custom '03 Hardtail Artist ; Fly Deluxe 2000; Gibson ES137; 1974 K.Yari DY85; Waterproof SchecterDisposable; Martin Backpacker/paddle combo;LarriveeParlor
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: David Tomkins on June 15, 2006, 02:07:20 AM
[:D] Ha hahahahahaha!!!!!!  That should be on the wall in the factory to remind workers about quality control!!
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: Hamada on June 15, 2006, 03:36:47 AM
Surelly design is not what we are talking about here. Guitar has evolved there and will always do. There'll always be some nifty musician running around with a funky guitar in his hand. Now the other evolution (i.e. number of strings on a guitar, guitars with base strings...) has happened as well, but everytime i've watched people play these instruments they've manage to call them something other than a guitar. That can be seen as evolution too, can't it?
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: uburoibob on June 15, 2006, 07:37:46 AM
I guess I'd like to think of all this as Intelligently Designed Evolution. Recognizing a need to adapt and making adaption happen. Whomever was talking about alignment of random elements over the years was missing the point of evolution. Genetics is not random. Genetics stores information about a species' history, and becomes the database that governs evolution, so to speak. In that sense, every member of every species is their own intelligent designer. Shared limitations can force similar intelligent evolutionary advances across societies. In the guitar world, or the world of inanimate, non-intelligent objects, it DOES take an intelligent designer - the luthier - to bring about change. Ken Parker is an exceptionally intelligent designer. People like Ken, and Leo and Ted and Lloyd and many others have intelligently forced the evolution of the guitar - adapting it not only to the ephemeral needs of popular culture, but looking down the road to what it can become, based on today's technology and anticpated advance in technology in the future.

At least in my humble opinion.

Bob

2000 Parker Fly Artist Custom Hardtail  *  1999 Parker Fly Deluxe w/DiBurro Roland Mod Metallic Red  * 1998 Fly Classic in Transparent Dark Blue (thanks, Darren!) •  Now on a signature reduction program! Just the Flies, maam. *  www.rtmadvertising.com
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: Bill on June 15, 2006, 07:18:41 PM
How bout something  like :

Ken Parker's Intellegent Design was a virtual Revolution in guitar Evolution ! [:)]

Or more simply.

The Parker Fly: A Revolution In Guitar Evolution, The Intellegent Design.






Custom '03 Hardtail Artist ; Fly Deluxe 2000; Gibson ES137; 1974 K.Yari DY85; Waterproof SchecterDisposable; Martin Backpacker/paddle combo;LarriveeParlor
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: Bill on June 15, 2006, 07:25:15 PM
Then you could have a pic of crowe magnon caveman playing a long stick with a string and looking envious standing next to a likeness of Albert Einstien (the pic of him with wild hair and tongue sticking out) rocking out on the Fly. [8D]

Underneath caption reads :

Revolution in Guitar Evolution, the Intellegent Design.

[;)]

Custom '03 Hardtail Artist ; Fly Deluxe 2000; Gibson ES137; 1974 K.Yari DY85; Waterproof SchecterDisposable; Martin Backpacker/paddle combo;LarriveeParlor
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: Bill on June 15, 2006, 07:58:46 PM
URL=http://img148.imageshack.us/my.php?image=pf20807sy.jpg](http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/3343/pf20807sy.th.jpg)[/URL]

Custom '03 Hardtail Artist ; Fly Deluxe 2000; Gibson ES137; 1974 K.Yari DY85; Waterproof SchecterDisposable; Martin Backpacker/paddle combo;LarriveeParlor
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: Bill on June 15, 2006, 08:00:57 PM
URL=http://img164.imageshack.us/my.php?image=1301193uj.jpg](http://img164.imageshack.us/img164/7749/1301193uj.th.jpg)[/URL]

Custom '03 Hardtail Artist ; Fly Deluxe 2000; Gibson ES137; 1974 K.Yari DY85; Waterproof SchecterDisposable; Martin Backpacker/paddle combo;LarriveeParlor
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: simonlock on June 15, 2006, 11:09:40 PM
I feel that it is wasting time replying to this post. It's mundane and there are far to many posts to keep up with. Most posts are just interjected babble anyway. Come on, the rest of the forums are really starting to suffer.

06 Parker Fly Classic
06 Parker Nitefly SA
05 Parker Nitefly M
98 Parker Fly Deluxe
05 Ibanez JS1200
02 Ibanez JS1000BP
05 Ibanez RG1527
04 Ibanez Universe
05 La Patrie Quantum Nylon
Randall RG100SC
Fender Acoustisonic 30 DSP
GNX3
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: rt0412 on June 16, 2006, 07:56:39 PM
He's got my vote on this one... real catchy.

The Parker Fly: A Revolution In Guitar Evolution... The Intellegent Design.

http://static.zoovy.com/img/guitarelectronics/-/albert2

Kinda like the above, but with a Parker Fly instead of a Gibson Les Paul...

quote:
Originally posted by Bill

URL=http://img148.imageshack.us/my.php?image=pf20807sy.jpg](http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/3343/pf20807sy.th.jpg)[/URL]

Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: Jay Terrien on June 19, 2006, 05:35:44 PM
Ironically enough, on page 37 of the latest issue of BASS PLAYER magazine (July 2006, with Tom Petersson on the cover), Steinberger took out a full page ad asking the same question about their Synapse Custom basses.  I scanned the ad and in 5 seconds, I noticed that there's something wrong with the combo headpiece.  It does not appear to be glued flush to the neck.  Meh.

 

quote:
Originally posted by rt0412

The guitar obviously came into being by man's intelligent design. Whether it will change (evolve?) into something else will still be dictated by man not by nature (or God). Strictly speaking, the guitar will never "evolve" into something else.

Maybe somebody has to define the parameters for defining "Evolution" and "Intelligent Design" that we can all agree upon.



***JAY TERRIEN***
"Solo Artist, Bass, Composition, Viola,
BA Music Performance"

E-mail: jay@grasstain.com
HTTP://WWW.JAYTERRIEN.COM
HTTP://WWW.GRASSTAIN.COM
HTTP://WWW.MYSPACE.COM/JAYTERRIEN
**NEWS: My latest album, "ALL THE DOLLS IN THE SAME PLACE", with Pat Mastelotto and Ronan Chris Murphy is finished!!!  Check it out HERE: http://cdbaby.com/cd/terrien
 http://grasstain.com/news_index.htm

**PROGRESSIVE ACOUSTIC/ELECTRONIC DRUMMER and INTELLIGENT/INNOVATIVE "LOW END BASSIST" WANTED FOR TOUR:
http://grasstain.com/music_live.htm

************************************************
"Through the fields, in the night,
All the dark horses ride.
No more reining in,
Now my aim is in sight.
To the wild and the light."

"All The Dark Horses" by
**TRASHCAN SINATRAS**
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: uburoibob on June 22, 2006, 03:17:40 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Jay Terrien[/i]

Ironically enough, on page 37 of the latest issue of BASS PLAYER magazine (July 2006, with Tom Petersson on the cover), Steinberger took out a full page ad asking the same question about their Synapse Custom basses.  I scanned the ad and in 5 seconds, I noticed that there's something wrong with the combo headpiece.  It does not appear to be glued flush to the neck.  Meh.


Might what you're seeing be a part of that sliding capo that seems to be the gimmick/technoadvance on these instruments?

NEVERMIND. That's only on the Trans Scale guitar. Sorry.

Bob

2000 Parker Fly Artist Custom Hardtail  *  1999 Parker Fly Deluxe w/DiBurro Roland Mod Metallic Red  * 1998 Fly Classic in Transparent Dark Blue (thanks, Darren!) •  Now on a signature reduction program! Just the Flies, maam. *  www.rtmadvertising.com
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: uburoibob on June 22, 2006, 03:23:40 PM
About Steinberg's ads:

Sadly, they seem to be first to the party with these ads. They certainly aren't as attractive as the Parker ones. MY TAKE: Dump the Evolution/Intelligent Design thing. It was weak and a stretch to begin with.

There's enough mojo in your photo to go with an entirely different positioning. And that positioning is... drum roll: Guitar Masters choose the best guitars there are. Had Parker been available then, what would the landscape look like today? You've already shot a Robert Johnson standing at (with a little Photoshop work) the crossroads. Django. John Lennon. Etc etc. Your demographic awaits...

Bob

2000 Parker Fly Artist Custom Hardtail  *  1999 Parker Fly Deluxe w/DiBurro Roland Mod Metallic Red  * 1998 Fly Classic in Transparent Dark Blue (thanks, Darren!) •  Now on a signature reduction program! Just the Flies, maam. *  www.rtmadvertising.com
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: jamrcat on June 22, 2006, 03:42:42 PM
quote:
About Steinberg's ads:

Sadly, they seem to be first to the party with these ads. They certainly aren't as attractive as the Parker ones. MY TAKE: Dump the Evolution/Intelligent Design thing. It was weak and a stretch to begin with.

I agree with Bob on this issue. Even if you continue the campaign
Parker will be seen as copying Steinberg. How unfortunate!

I say: Choose like a Master, Play a Parker! [:D]

Bellingham, WA
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: JPage on June 22, 2006, 03:45:11 PM
Actually, we were first and we own the Trademark.

John
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: catoro on June 26, 2006, 09:29:35 AM
everything needs some evolution... adaptation means success... for me the original was amazing, but still I get amazed by the new stuff.
On a wider point of view, a guitar is not yet a mature instrument (compared to violins for example), but I guess Parker is without doubt a step forward.
Evolution is not necessary related to complexity... indeed the less energy expended rule is one of keys of evolution... the less energy you waste, the better for you.
To my taste, we are witnesing a musical evolution here... not mechanical , but electronical and ergonomical.
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: trap on June 27, 2006, 05:52:53 PM
mama bear- mama, ba-ba -goo-goo! oh oh! i'm de-evolving! un- intelligently!
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: jamrcat on June 27, 2006, 06:03:21 PM
quote:
mama bear- mama, ba-ba -goo-goo! oh oh! i'm de-evolving! un- intelligently!
Paul, quickly hit the by-pass switch on that mama bear and step back slowly while you still can! I didn't and I've evolved back to playing too much acoustic stuff on my Parker. My new SD Hot stack and Vintage stack pickups are now being neglected! [:(]

While were on the subject of mama bear, the tip you sent me caused me to miss all my favorite TV shows last night. Mega Thanks!!! [:D]

Bellingham, WA
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: trap on June 27, 2006, 06:56:08 PM
i'll try to fit this into the topic somewhat, i just can't believe that parkers aren't a major force in modern rock.it seems to me that most of the tunes my sons listen to have a similar formula,they start all pretty and acoustic and then ,wham! they kick on the heavy distortion. what guitar could be better suited than the fly for this formula? especially with the mama bear thru a huge pa.it would sound awesome. the difference between the steinberger and the fly is that the fly was designed with the piezo sound in mind.not just an afterthought. the first flys were all acoustic. the body reacts with the piezo differently. perhaps in 20-20 hindsight if parker came out with the mojo first,it would have caught on much quicker with these guys. just some thoughts i've had. and rickey,thanks for the help with mama,your'e review was perfect.
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: Musicman1 on June 27, 2006, 09:34:31 PM
I think the majority of players here, like me, only want to bring one gtr to the gig.  The Parker does so many styles and types of music well and covers alot of bases.  The ROCK STAR wants to be able to change gtrs every song and show off THE GTR COLLECTION and also ISNT doing a 4 hour gig so that a Les Paul isnt breaking his back and causing CTS and numbness etc. Its very difficult to get the ROCK STAR to change mainly because he doesnt want/or have to!!

Musicman1

2005 Parker P44
2002 EB MM Axis Sport
1984 Custom made boutique Strat
1977 Guild D40 NT
1976 Gibson 335 Custom
Wide variety of amps and effects

Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: uburoibob on June 28, 2006, 09:11:04 AM
Well, John, crazy can be good, and in your case, I am here to testify that it is.

John's point, that the fly needs to escape the limitations of shreddom, is well taken. When it gets back to being represented as a versatile instrument rather than the somewhat pigeon-holed instrument it has become, it will find many new homes.

I guess it's a planned, slow growth on US Music's part. You can't even find a new Fly in Rochester, NY. You have to go to one of the more outlying suburbs (and it's not even the suburb with the most shredders) and then you MIGHT find a Fly and/or one of the imports in stock.

So if that's the plan - if selling out a full year's production comes down to a handful of stores with minimal inventory, and then not even advertising in a top-down manner - I guess things are on target.

It's an interesting conumdrum - due in part to previous efforts, Parker is perceived in the same arena as Gibson and Fender. Yet they are a fraction of the size. In terms of branding, this is a godsend. Other companies, including Washburn, try for years to get to this point, and yet they are lumped into the second tier - Ibanez, Washburn, Samick, Takamine, etc.

Anyway, it would seem as if a slow progress is intended, and I can't fault that. I prefer slow growth for my company as well.

So for now, I guess that those of us who see the Fly's huge potential outside of the shredders are just renegades.

Bob

2000 Parker Fly Artist Custom Hardtail  *  1999 Parker Fly Deluxe w/DiBurro Roland Mod Metallic Red  * 1998 Fly Classic in Transparent Dark Blue (thanks, Darren!) •  Now on a signature reduction program! Just the Flies, maam. *  www.rtmadvertising.com
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: jwrooker on June 28, 2006, 10:08:14 AM
quote:
Originally posted by uburoibob

I guess it's a planned, slow growth on US Music's part. You can't even find a new Fly in Rochester, NY. You have to go to one of the more outlying suburbs (and it's not even the suburb with the most shredders) and then you MIGHT find a Fly and/or one of the imports in stock.




Yeah, what's up with that?  Why doesn't the HOG have Parker?  They've got every other guitar in the world!  I think Stutzman's could do a good job with them, but they are a Fender dealer.  I mean..WHO goes out to Webster?  I've heard rumors that God lives out there.  If so, I had better stay here just in case he's less than happy with the last service I played.  [:D]

Does anyone remember the Prince tennis racquet commercials of 10-12 years ago?  They had two guys playing tennis, one was God.  The idea behind the commercial was that if you had perfect strokes, this is all the racquet you'd need and they showed a tennis racquet with this little tiny head on it.  Otherwise, you should be using Prince's new thus and such racquet.  It was a hoot of a commercial and all the pro shops actually had a God's racquet in the store as part of the promotion.  I actually got to play with one...it was impossible, of course.  That kind of promotion probably wouldn't fly in today's hypersensitive politically correct world, but it sure was fun when it ran.  I only bring this up because someone mentioned the Fly as God's guitar in another thread.  



John Rooker
Rochester, NY
(http://www.jwrooker.com/images/BeatGoesOn2.jpg)
--------------
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: bno on June 29, 2006, 11:02:43 AM
quote:
Originally posted by jwrooker

A Les Paul and a Strat on stage will cover a wider array of electric tones than any single guitar, Parker or otherwise.  

Sorry, John, but I think this is misleading.  And if you think about what you're saying here, its an acknowledgement of the need to have at least two if not three guitars to do what one Fly can do.  That's quite an endorsement.  Until you have actually played a Fly and discovered how much tonal territory it really covers, I don't think you can speak authoritatively.  

With respect to the "broken string" argument, on the rare occasion that I do break a string on my Fly, because of the tailpiece design combined with the Sperzel locking tuners, I can restring and tune the Fly in about 30 seconds.  Our other guitarist spends as much time switching guitars as I do replacing a string.  

In other words, because I play a Fly I really can (and do) need only one guitar for the gig.  [8D] (Okay, its true, there is usually a spare Strat hanging around, but I've never had to revert to it.  My biggest fear is that my guitar gets swiped between sets.)

Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: rt0412 on June 29, 2006, 12:56:12 PM
quote:
Originally posted by bno

Until you have actually played a Fly and discovered how much tonal territory it really covers, I don't think you can speak authoritatively.  


I hate to disagree with you BNO, but if you want authentic tones from a Les Paul or a Strat, only the originals will do. A Fly trying to emulate the classic Les Paul or Strat sound will fail miserably and will sound just like a "wannabe". The Fly has it's own sound and is able to cover a wider tonal territory because of the piezo pickup not because of its carbonized lightweight body and neck.

If you add piezos to the LP and the Strat, I'm pretty sure that the two will cover a broader array of sound than any standard Fly can muster. I'll even bet that a Carvin with piezo and mags will cover a wider array of sound than any standard Fly. Heck, the cheaper Shecter C-1 E/A (outfitted with the real Duncan Jazz/JB) will probably do as well. [;)]

The only Fly that can definitely offer a much wider array of sound than most guitars would be the $10,000 Adrian Belew Signature Fly with its built-in Sustainer, Variax and MIDI electronics. If ever I decide to buy a Fly, it will be an Adrian Belew Signature Fly. [^]
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: jwrooker on June 29, 2006, 01:06:07 PM
quote:
Originally posted by rt0412

I hate to disagree with you BNO, but if you want authentic tones from a Les Paul or a Strat, only the originals will do. A Fly trying to emulate the classic Les Paul or Strat sound will fail miserably and will sound just like a "wannabe". The Fly has it's own sound and is able to cover a wider tonal territory because of the piezo pickup not because of its carbonized lightweight body and neck.

If you add piezos to the LP and the Strat, I'm pretty sure that the two will cover a broader array of sound than any standard Fly can muster. I'll even bet that a Carvin with piezo and mags will cover a wider array of sound than any standard Fly. Heck, the cheaper Shecter C-1 E/A (outfitted with the real Duncan Jazz/JB) will probably do as well. [;)]

The only Fly that can definitely offer a much wider array of sound than most guitars would be the $10,000 Adrian Belew Signature Fly with its built-in Sustainer, Variax and MIDI electronics. If ever I decide to buy a Fly, it will be an Adrian Belew Signature Fly. [^]



Wow, Rolly, you do dream BIG!!  I like that!  I agree with you on guitars having signature tones and that's what makes life interesting.  To say you cover LP or Strat tones with a Fly is selling the Fly's own voice short.  I've never had the opportunity to play a Fly.  As Bob said, they are as hard to find here in Rochester as an honest politician.  However, I will have that opportunity soon and I hope to do it before taking delivery of my Carvin because I'd like that playing impression to play a part in my 10 day evaluation period of the Carvin.  



John Rooker
Rochester, NY
--------------
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: rt0412 on June 29, 2006, 01:43:19 PM
quote:
Originally posted by jwrooker

Wow, Rolly, you do dream BIG!!  I like that!  I agree with you on guitars having signature tones and that's what makes life interesting.  To say you cover LP or Strat tones with a Fly is selling the Fly's own voice short.  I've never had the opportunity to play a Fly.  As Bob said, they are as hard to find here in Rochester as an honest politician.  However, I will have that opportunity soon and I hope to do it before taking delivery of my Carvin because I'd like that playing impression to play a part in my 10 day evaluation period of the Carvin.  



Hi John! Yup, I dream big. But really, I don't find anything particularly desirable in a standard Fly. Not even its lightness and carbonized body and neck. I think it's overpriced, has limited options and not so easy to modify. It's lightness is both it's strength and weakness. I also think that the Adrian Belew Signature Fly is overpriced but the features are interesting enough to make me want one (if I have the money). [;)]

It's good that you'll have the opportunity to try the Flys (Bob's I assume). I'll be surprised though if you'll like any of them. I still think that the only Fly you'd like will be a Fly Mojo (Bob doesn't have a Mojo though, I think) or... an Adrian Belew Signature Fly. [8D]
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: jwrooker on June 29, 2006, 02:03:59 PM
quote:
Originally posted by rt0412


Hi John! Yup, I dream big. But really, I don't find anything particularly desirable in a standard Fly. Not even its lightness and carbonized body and neck. I think it's overpriced, has limited options and not so easy to modify. It's lightness is both it's strength and weakness. I also think that the Adrian Belew Signature Fly is overpriced but the features are interesting enough to make me want one (if I have the money). [;)]

It's good that you'll have the opportunity to try the Flys (Bob's I assume). I'll be surprised though if you'll like any of them. I still think that the only Fly you'd like will be a Fly Mojo (Bob doesn't have a Mojo though, I think) or... an Adrian Belew Signature Fly. [8D]



In some ways the Fly's innovative features also limit it's ability to be modded.  I really wish there were other pickup choices.  I'd love to hear what one sounds like with some type of PAF style pickup in it.  I have the same pickups (57 Classics) in my ES335 and ES135 and the two guitars have their own voices.  I'd like to put the same pickup in my SG if I didn't have 10 thumbs, just to see how much the guitar structure affects the tone.  I'd really love to hear Duncan '59's or Seth Lovers in a Fly just out of curiosity.  

Trying otu a Fly is something I need to do, and I have a generous offer to do so and I'm going to take it when we can make the arrangements.  

Anyway..you take care and have fun playing!

John Rooker
Rochester, NY
--------------
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: uburoibob on June 29, 2006, 03:23:14 PM
The Fly definitely has its own sound. One that is the sound I've spent forever searching for, and not finding it in Strats or Les Pauls or Teles or Gretsches or Guids or Ibanezes etc etc. AND, I may be the only person in the world who PREFERS the sound of the first generation DiMarzios in a Fly. I play very cleanly, and the first gen were more hi-fi... they had a broader frequency range and to me... THAT's the sound I've heard forever, and finally have.

This is all so subjective - it's tough to find the right setup when, for years, amplifiers have been made to make specific guitars sound like those specific guitars, only better. For the Fly, these amps are a hinderance, and can and do push frequencies that make no sense for the guitar. So, I have found that the less color and more efficiency the amp brings to the party, the better the Fly sounds.

More than anything, the Fly needs the most exploration to get what it's got to give. The Mojo is an attempt, and don't take this the wrong way, to dumb down the Fly so that it works just like everything else. And from user reviews, it succeeds incredibly well. So, a Mojo with a Boogie, or a Mojo with a Matchless, or a Mojo with a (amp du jour) will sound closer to existing instruments. But a Mojo through an AER or Polytone or Clarus or many more amps that I am pretty sure noone here has heard of will probably not sound very good. Like a Les Paul or Strat through those amps.

Anyway, the Fly has a lot to give if you are willing to look for it. It doesn't have an entire industry built around it the way Gibson and Fender do. But it can provide unique voice if you are willing to invest some time and... most importantly... suspend preconceptions. In many ways, it's closest to a Tele from that respect, but not nearly as much of chameleon as a Tele is.

John, I am around all weekend, so just let me know. If you wanna take one and put it through it's paces with your gear, you are welcome to. I think you'll find that on your Valvetronics Vox, that the AC15 model best suits it. You may like the second gens better.

Or, if you want to wait until you have the Carvin, I think that would probably work. I am not scheduled to be traveling for the next month or so.

Bob

2000 Parker Fly Artist Custom Hardtail  *  1999 Parker Fly Deluxe w/DiBurro Roland Mod Metallic Red  * 1998 Fly Classic in Transparent Dark Blue (thanks, Darren!) •  Now on a signature reduction program! Just the Flies, maam. *  www.rtmadvertising.com
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: jwrooker on June 29, 2006, 03:34:15 PM
quote:
Originally posted by uburoibob

The Fly definitely has its own sound. One that is the sound I've spent forever searching for, and not finding it in Strats or Les Pauls or Teles or Gretsches or Guids or Ibanezes etc etc. AND, I may be the only person in the world who PREFERS the sound of the first generation DiMarzios in a Fly. I play very cleanly, and the first gen were more hi-fi... they had a broader frequency range and to me... THAT's the sound I've heard forever, and finally have.




I know you are a fan of classic jazz boxes.  Do you like the sound of the old DeArmond pickups?  There were supposed to be very Hi Fi in nature.

John Rooker
Rochester, NY
--------------
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: bno on June 29, 2006, 03:43:32 PM
quote:
Originally posted by jwrooker

quote:
Originally posted by bno

Sorry, John, but I think ... you think ...  ... I don't think ... I can ... In other words ... fear ... gets swiped


You're mistaking what I meant to say and that's what ... I'm not saying ... You can get ... a Fly but big freakin' deal! [:D]

I simply cannot risk ... that last time I ... NEEDED ...  Otherwise, ... I don't care what ... I was saying.  The only thing I speak authoritatively on is my own playing.

Besieds, ... [W]e're both playing and that's all that matters.

Ah, yes, the lively art of misconstruationating.  I didn't respond to what you thought you meant, I commented on how I read what I wanted to think you said.  But I usually can agree with most of what you seem to be saying, except ...  well, I do happen to believe that the Fly is a very special guitar that is simply better playing and more versatile than any other guitar I've ever owned or played.  So, for my playing situation, it's the ideal workingman's gigging guitar.  [8D]  

Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: uburoibob on June 29, 2006, 05:55:41 PM
quote:
[I know you are a fan of classic jazz boxes.  Do you like the sound of the old DeArmond pickups?  There were supposed to be very Hi Fi in nature.

John Rooker
Rochester, NY
--------------



Those DeArmond pickups are something I typically don't like. The classic jazz boxes, to me, sound best with bronze strings on them and a pair of mics - condenser mics in particular - in front of them... a large diaphragm placed roughly at the neck joint for high end and articulation (prefer Neumann TLM 103 or 193 depending on guitar), and a small diaphragm (prefer Neumann KM 184) aimed at the lower bout where the bridge hits it, for low end and tone. Put em together, and to my ear, that's what a great archtop should sound like.

Here's a link to a Steve Greene Trio track that I recorded using that setup:
http://www.stevegreene.com/download/track18.mp3
He's playing a 1947 Gibson L7 non-cutaway acoustic archtop there.

As far as pickups on Jazz boxes, a floating pickup at the neck joint works, best, and yeah, sometimes those old DeArmond Rhythm Chiefs do the job, as does a nice Johnny Smith pickup - but it's a way different sound than the acoustic sound. Pickups mounted to the face of the guitar, ala an ES 175 or an L5CES or Super 400CES all have their own sound too.

To me, the sound of the Fly, if I had to qualify it, with the combo of the neck HB and the Piezo dialed in at about 7/8 with the piezo tone at neutral and the HB tone backed off a tiny little hair sort of delivers that stark clean sound of a Tele pickup, with the richness of a Les Paul P90 or PAF HB neck pickup, with an acoustic quality that is simply not available any place else.

I imagine that sound would drive shredders up a tree, cuz it would fizz them out big time, but through the right amp, it's the most expressive sound I've ever had.

Funny, but that setting on the Fly Classic (gen 1 pups), with the new little Zoom G2 with a custom setting, through my little AER acoustic cube amp has become my "all my life I've been looking for this sound" sound. Doesn't do it with the Gen2 pups, although I think with some tweaking on the Zoom G2, I could probably make those work too. The bottom end on the Gen 2s is too wide for me, and needs to be reigned in a bit. The Gen 1s are perfect. I SHOULD have ordered those from Ed Roman, and may just do that and throw them into my Deluxe. The Artist, I am just gonna leave alone.

Bob

2000 Parker Fly Artist Custom Hardtail  *  1999 Parker Fly Deluxe w/DiBurro Roland Mod Metallic Red  * 1998 Fly Classic in Transparent Dark Blue (thanks, Darren!) •  Now on a signature reduction program! Just the Flies, maam. *  www.rtmadvertising.com
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: rt0412 on June 29, 2006, 06:31:26 PM
quote:
Originally posted by jwrooker

In some ways the Fly's innovative features also limit it's ability to be modded.  I really wish there were other pickup choices.  I'd love to hear what one sounds like with some type of PAF style pickup in it.  I have the same pickups (57 Classics) in my ES335 and ES135 and the two guitars have their own voices.  I'd like to put the same pickup in my SG if I didn't have 10 thumbs, just to see how much the guitar structure affects the tone.  I'd really love to hear Duncan '59's or Seth Lovers in a Fly just out of curiosity. I wish I can help you. I'm willing to install the '57 Classics in your SG for you, but the shipping probably would cost you a lot. Maybe you can ask around the university or the hospital if they know somebody who is handy with a little bit of electronics. If you find somebody who knows electronics and willing to do it for you but not familiar with guitar electronics, he can visit http://www.guitarnuts.com

Trying otu a Fly is something I need to do, and I have a generous offer to do so and I'm going to take it when we can make the arrangements. I'd like to suggest that you schedule your trying out the Fly's a couple of days AFTER receiving your Carvin. Get yourself familiarized first with your Carvin... what each knob and switches are for. Then you'll be better equipped to do an AB comparison between your AE185 and the Flys.

Anyway..you take care and have fun playing!

Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: jwrooker on June 29, 2006, 08:38:59 PM
quote:
Originally posted by uburoibob


To me, the sound of the Fly, if I had to qualify it, with the combo of the neck HB and the Piezo dialed in at about 7/8 with the piezo tone at neutral and the HB tone backed off a tiny little hair sort of delivers that stark clean sound of a Tele pickup, with the richness of a Les Paul P90 or PAF HB neck pickup, with an acoustic quality that is simply not available any place else.




Well you've got my attention.. :) I definitely want to hear your Fly's sometime.

John Rooker
Rochester, NY
--------------
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: jwrooker on June 29, 2006, 08:45:25 PM
quote:
Originally posted by uburoibob


John, I am around all weekend, so just let me know. If you wanna take one and put it through it's paces with your gear, you are welcome to. I think you'll find that on your Valvetronics Vox, that the AC15 model best suits it. You may like the second gens better.




That's very generous, but I wouldn't want to bring one home.  I am very protective of my guitars and I wouldn't expect anyone else to lend one of their valued instruments out.  We'll talk and make some arrangement.

Interesting tht you think the AC15 model would work best.  I haven't found any one of my guitars I like with that model.  I used the Fender Twin with the NiteFly M, but prefer the Tweed Bassman with the ES335 and the Southern NiteFly.  Then there's always the JCM800 for fun.  Rics sound good with the AC15 model.

John Rooker
Rochester, NY
--------------
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: bno on June 30, 2006, 08:39:47 AM
quote:
Originally posted by jwrooker

 . . .the Tweed Bassman . . .
 Highly recommended, particularly if you have a power soak or attenuator so you can stress the tubes without breaking windows.  Better yet, use the Twin for the piezos and the Bassman for the mags.  Smooth.
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: corksailor on July 02, 2006, 04:32:24 AM
This certainly a topic and a half...  I can't say I read every post (life's too short for that) but I read a number and scanned to get the thread...

I have to agree with some that Parker is not on the mainstream road of guitar evolution... it's a bit of a side road that has pleased many, but not all.  I think the lack of seeing Parkers being played on the media/professional shows (sure, give me the usual list of those who do, but it really hasn't gotten out there considering the years Parkers have been out now) indicates it as a sideroad.

I love mine, but it's not for everyone.

Personally I can see evolutionary flow heading more in the direction of electronics than body... I think the Line6 Variax's are forging a trail, the electronics are getting there, though the machines themselves leave something to be desired (haven't tried the latest models, though).  I think we are on the cusp of a whole new world of guitars as technology starts to find its place.

IMHO




Corksailor
P-38
Fishman Loudbox 100
Fender Ultimate Chorus
Little Peavey
Seagull Acoustic
Yamaha 12 string
Yamaha Magicstomp
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: pikliakit on July 07, 2006, 03:02:15 AM
Has anybody ever considered the guitars from the old old days (1500s)?  The guitar has already evolved from a braceless, cat-gut-strung 4 string instrument to 5 strings, then 6 all the while with the introduction of more and more support.  Once the initial problem of structure was resolved in the accoustic guitar, the quest for volume proceded, first with the introduction of the steel string (and the modern tuners), then with the resonator guitar, and finally with the electric.  So I would say that the guitar has already evolved.
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: silloh122 on July 10, 2006, 04:23:12 PM
What guitar comes close in the style and way a Parker is built??Fender and Gibson should be ashamed for not thinking of the type of material the parker uses on their necks.My opinion, no other company comes close to the intelligence of Parker.I think intelligent and evolution.
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: David Tomkins on July 11, 2006, 05:55:53 AM
evolution is about environment and need.
intelligent is about aspirations and need.

how's that for a short and concise post?
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: uburoibob on July 11, 2006, 07:28:48 AM
I prefer to think of it as this:

Intelligent Design is taken at face value. As a designer with a respectable IQ, I consider myself an intelligent designer, and the work that I do is intelligent design. I have utlilized this term since before the religious movement appropriated it. I see it as nothing more than what it says at face value.

Evolution is about adapting to environment - either through intentional intervention or involuntary need (depending on the situation).

Divine Intervention is about God's workings on earth. Not about Intelligent Design or Evolution. If you believe in this, you can apply it easily to the other two.

In general, it kinda cheeses me off that certain factions have to appropriate "regular language" to foist a point of view on the those that might not share it, so that it might find it's way into the vernacular and, eventually, legislation.

The world is WAAAY too divided right now, and even within our own American society, there are those who would seek to continue to divide us further - just listen to the radio, watch cable TV or pay attention to those in office.

Finally, taking advantage of this divide to create a faux debate in this forum is sorta deplorable. Is the idea here "Divide for Buzz"? Sorta sounds like an election season...

Bob

2000 Parker Fly Artist Custom Hardtail  *  1999 Parker Fly Deluxe w/DiBurro Roland Mod Metallic Red  * 1998 Fly Classic in Transparent Dark Blue (thanks, Darren!) •  Now on a signature reduction program! Just the Flies, maam. *  www.rtmadvertising.com
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: pikliakit on July 11, 2006, 03:38:18 PM
right on, man!
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: silloh122 on July 12, 2006, 12:17:00 PM
I have played alot of guitars in the past.I have an American Fender strat,ES 135 Gibson,Custom 22 Prs,ES 333 Gibson,1979 gibson les paul fire brand,and a old Ibanez hollowbody to name a few.All of these guitars are great in there own way.I have never seen or heard of a guitar as light that carries the tone like a parker .I have had my own Prs worked on by Pro guitar techs and my prs does'nt feel as good or stays in tune like a parker.I don't even have to clean the neck on my Parker as much as my other guitars.Not putting the other companies down but intelligent design does play a major role somewhere.    Al
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: telecasterkid on July 12, 2006, 12:46:13 PM
If I may respond on two fronts, one as a player and one as music store owner. I own two flys. A deluxe and a classic. As a player I would have to say that the fly is the most innovatively designed guitar I have ever owned and played. They remain my "go-to" instruments when I play live as well as when I record. I own several other guitars (Fender, EBMM, PRS, etc.) but yet I still find myself reaching for my flys. To me as a player I want and demand consistency in my instruments, extreme quality, and versatility. Does it emulate the Fenders and Gibsons of the tone world? To me I think yes you can get an approximation BUT.....Parkers definitely possess their own tone, and do I care? No. This is all been hashed 'round the mulberry bush forever it seems. Evolution vs. Innovation. Both!!!
As far as a store owner goes, I have done my part for the planet so to speak. When I first opened my store almost two years ago I had this dream like so many before me..."I'll only carry the very best" Well then reality sets in and you realize as an owner you have bills to pay and you have to sell, sell , sell. I am a modest little shop that has survived against the big guys by offering the best products that I can, AND what sells, knowledge about the products, personalized service and follow up. So I say all that to say this. In my little city of Orange Park, Florida (near Jacksonville, Florida) the name recognition game is in full swing. There are including myself probably 2-3 other Parker owners that I know of personally and no where to get them, seems to be no interest as well. So how does Parker advertise where Fender, Gibson, Peavey, Ibanez and so on have such a firm stronghold? I wanted to become a dealer because I think there is definitely potential but IMHO people go for what they know......Is the fly too far out there or science fiction like many have said? I realize that a lot of it is simply demographics if one wants the best they simply need to go to the nearest GC. That's advertising for you... We have one if not the smallest GC here in Jax and they are struggling. It's all the lower priced, lower quality that sells. I know because I see lots of repairs. A campaign of sorts to get Parkers to the masses. Can it be done or will it remain a novelty to all but the faithful few? That's my take.......

Thanks for listening,


Kevin Schertell
www.burningindecember.com
CD "No Way Out" Available now!
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: Rozz on July 12, 2006, 11:01:40 PM
Intonation through the entire length of the neck and ultra clear tones on every fret every note is all I need from a guitar (the ergonomics and weight/balance plays a big part as well).
I haven't found that in any guitar yet but Parker Flys.  I own all the standard Fender Teles and Strats and Les Pauls, Ibenezs and I could go on.  just because it has a historically famous name and particular sound does'nt mean that you have to follow some stupid law of tradition and go get one.  Might as well just whip yourself with your guitar strap while your at it. oh and find a good chiropracter for your back.  I know guys in my home town who still believe that reverb is a blasphemous beast.  What they don't understand is that dry sound is really the freak of nature.  Reverb occurs naturally in nature.  In the famous words of Frank Zappa,
"Just shut up and play yer guitar"

Jerry Rosner
Original Yuma, Arizona Mad Man
Emerald Green Fly Classic
P-36
Gibson Chet Atkins Nylon
Vetta II
Gallien Kruger Guitar Amp through 4X10 Yamaha Cab.
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: msf on July 17, 2006, 09:51:57 AM
I wonder why a standard wooden neck was used instead of the composite neck and stainless steel frets of the electric? My guess is marketing. People who want an acoustic are often conservative and hung up on "woodenness".
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: Musicman1 on July 17, 2006, 10:03:39 PM
That is an interesting point msf with the exception being Ovation which seemed so revolutionary and controversial when it first came out but eventually became very sucessfull. Yet it does seem that acoustically players prefer wood. I have owned Ovations and I really like the tone and their neck feel but the rounded back always was a problem for me.

Musicman1

2005 Parker P44
2002 EB MM Axis Sport
1984 Custom made boutique Strat
1977 Guild D40 NT
1976 Gibson 335 Custom
Wide variety of amps and effects

Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: Dustin on July 24, 2006, 08:53:32 PM
This whole commercial scam is trivial. The clear answer for guitar is evolution. I get so sick of people reminicing about the old. Im not saying that old is bad, when it comes to amps i tend to lean on the fatter sounds of jcm 800 or 900s.

but when it comes to guitars, modern is better, the electric guitar started out as hunk of wood wit magnets, then progressed into the les paul, tele, and strat.then later moved into charvel, ibanez, and schecter. And now we have parker and steinberger. the most modern you can get. The answer is evolution

guitars only sound nicer as generations improve on the ideas.
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: jamrcat on July 24, 2006, 09:06:02 PM
quote:
but when it comes to guitars, modern is better, the electric guitar started out as hunk of wood wit magnets, then progressed into the les paul, tele, and strat.then later moved into charvel, ibanez, and schecter. And now we have parker and steinberger. the most modern you can get. The answer is evolution

guitars only sound nicer as generations improve on the ideas.
Dustin welcome to the forum! [:D] I agree with your statement...I can hear the rumble of those that disagree, but for me I was never that impressed with the old stuff. Now keep in mind I believe that out of every 100 to 200 guitars theres one that for some reason probably just by accident, shows up that is superb. I appreciate your input! [^]

Bellingham, WA
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: pikliakit on July 26, 2006, 10:35:40 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Dustin

This whole commercial scam is trivial. The clear answer for guitar is evolution. I get so sick of people reminicing about the old. Im not saying that old is bad, when it comes to amps i tend to lean on the fatter sounds of jcm 800 or 900s.

but when it comes to guitars, modern is better, the electric guitar started out as hunk of wood wit magnets, then progressed into the les paul, tele, and strat.then later moved into charvel, ibanez, and schecter. And now we have parker and steinberger. the most modern you can get. The answer is evolution

guitars only sound nicer as generations improve on the ideas.


1. You skipped the ES-335 after the Les Paul.  
2. What the hell does "Intelligent Design" mean pertaining to guitar?  The guitar has changed and improved, therefor it was not the product of intelligent design
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: uburoibob on July 27, 2006, 07:32:01 AM
quote:

2. What the hell does "Intelligent Design" mean pertaining to guitar?  The guitar has changed and improved, therefor it was not the product of intelligent design



I would hope that it means what it always has until a couple of years back and to the right - that a human being applied intelligence to a design.

Bob

2000 Parker Fly Artist Custom Hardtail  *  1999 Parker Fly Deluxe w/DiBurro Roland Mod Metallic Red  * 1998 Fly Classic in Transparent Dark Blue (thanks, Darren!) •  Now on a signature reduction program! Just the Flies, maam. *  www.rtmadvertising.com
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: pikliakit on July 27, 2006, 09:34:14 PM
quote:
Originally posted by uburoibob

quote:

2. What the hell does "Intelligent Design" mean pertaining to guitar?  The guitar has changed and improved, therefor it was not the product of intelligent design



I would hope that it means what it always has until a couple of years back and to the right - that a human being applied intelligence to a design.

Bob

2000 Parker Fly Artist Custom Hardtail  *  1999 Parker Fly Deluxe w/DiBurro Roland Mod Metallic Red  * 1998 Fly Classic in Transparent Dark Blue (thanks, Darren!) •  Now on a signature reduction program! Just the Flies, maam. *  www.rtmadvertising.com



I can agree to that, but you all know what I meant, and you can gather it from context.  If what you said is what "Intelligent Design" means as far as guitars go, than evolution and intelligent design are the same thing.
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: uburoibob on July 27, 2006, 09:35:51 PM
Yep. I was agreeing with you.

Bob

2000 Parker Fly Artist Custom Hardtail  *  1999 Parker Fly Deluxe w/DiBurro Roland Mod Metallic Red  * 1998 Fly Classic in Transparent Dark Blue (thanks, Darren!) •  Now on a signature reduction program! Just the Flies, maam. *  www.rtmadvertising.com
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: pikliakit on July 27, 2006, 09:44:54 PM
. . . oh. . . ok. . .
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: quintessencesluglord on July 29, 2006, 04:48:22 PM
"Evolution isn't an easy process. It's painful and takes time. Those who don't keep up with change eventually fade away but it doesn't mean they don't put up a fight."- I. Forget

Seemed appropriate.

This is in essence the nature vs. nurture debate as applied to guitars.

The timbre of a guitar would be the evolution (nature). How to best manipulate it would be the intelligent design (nurture).

So how do you best nurture one's nature, or does one's nature determine how it can be nurtured?
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: pikliakit on July 30, 2006, 09:57:25 PM
It is in human nature to nurture something one loves, and humanity loved the guitar, so it was natural to nurture the instrument
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: godindave on September 05, 2006, 02:39:42 PM
The old axiom "Variety is the spice of life" works for me. I really value the intelligent, innovative, risky work of Ken Parker and others and have spoken with my wallet (too many times). Still, I appreciate the traditional instruments, amps, etc. My wife hasn't killed me yet since I'm safe: it's not like I'm picking up a variety of women!
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: tildeslash on September 05, 2006, 03:14:46 PM
Evolution progresses or happens due to environment and surroundings.
Intelligent design can be based within evolution, support evolution or be independent.
I think a Parker guitar is an intelligent design due to the fact it’s enhancing what already exists.

A guitar exists but not much was happening within the guitar world environment and surroundings.
Sure we had a burst of evolutionary changes per decade but nothing to push it to it’s current refinement.  

The framework of guitar is constant but it’s properties is variant.

Parker is intelligent design within the framework of guitar.
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: Guitarman1117 on October 26, 2006, 09:51:25 PM
Every guitar design, "improvement" or innovation has its steps forward BUT there are always some drawbacks, no matter how minor. Common examples are that a LP or any guitar made in that design of woods, basic or exotic, are heavy and can bite into the shoulder of the average player. Even wide padded straps can't make it lighter. The round-back design may be as old as the Lute in the middle ages and the early mandolin or the (Spanish-Latin) acoustic bass guitar, but it has a habit of rolling-out or sliding down and end up more in position for a standing acoustic "lap" steel player. Also, the "V" shaped guitars aren't very comfortable to play in a sitting-practice position and tend to slide off the leg. The Fender Strat's "Original Contour Body" evolved from the Tele because the extra comfort cuts added to the Strat were drawn from complaints about the Tele's overly basic sharp-edged body. (Why wasn't it ever "contoured"?)

Sadly, The great eye-catching design of the Parker Fly involves an upper arm that can bite into one's breast-bone, especially when sitting. It may be a small flaw in an other-wise fabulous approach to guitar design and innovation, BUT it is the one complaint I have heard many times, not unlike the Tele's bow to the Strat. I am sure the newer, more LP-ish design eliminates any such problem, but (naturally) lacks the unique and distinctive outline of the basic Fly design. (Why Ken or his people didn't just shave or round-off that back corner of the arm, I have no clue.) Again, the opportunity to build the lightest double-neck was also missed. The big drawback with a double-neck is (and has always been) the weight, even more so than the extra cost. However, nothing is ever perfect and some glitch is bound to creep into the best design. I've owned Fenders, Mosrites, Gibsons, Rickenbackers, Hamers and a few other brands. I still have my '72 Ric-12, an '86 PRS and a Parker NiteFly. Any of which I run through a Vox, a Mesa/Boogie or a Marshall. (BTW: I am also surprised that "Parker" isn't a contender in the amp market. If Fender and others can do it.... well, why not Parker? -GM1117

Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: sfw on October 30, 2006, 06:41:17 AM
Parker is owned by US Music and so is Randall amps. I think they are leaving the expertise and Amp space to Randall most likely. Also, I don't think the Parker guys really have the bandwidth to move into the amp space. Although, it might be a longer term goal to cross brand a Randall amp into a Parker brand. Maybe when Randall has an acoustic module for the RM4, for example. Don't forget that cross branding is the evolution of marketing :)

- Scott

P6 Black (on its way)
PM10; PM20; Franken-Fenders
Randall RM4,RT2/50 (1086, Clean, TopBoost)
Wiggles Murray, Barbie Electric w/matching mic, American Idol electric
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: 908ssp on October 30, 2006, 07:35:31 AM
Fender and Gibson but every one else has pretty much failed to do both guitars and amps. PRS couldn't pull it off, Rickenbacker amps are no more, Vox guitars are extinct, Ibanez doesn't sell amps none that I have seen. There are a few exceptions Musicman which was a Leo Fender Co did. Suhr sells a CCA line of boutique amps. Anyway US music has there hands full with the Randall line. Their joining forces with Egnator should be a good thing.

I know I would want Dave Zimmerman involved in a Parker amp project if they were going to put the Parker name on an amp. He is the inventor of the SAG circuit which is a marvelous way of controlling the volume of the amp without messing up the tone. He made a small line of amps called Maven Peal just amazing designs.

[^]

Alex

(http://home.comcast.net/~908ssp/BoogeClassicTN.jpg)(http://home.comcast.net/~908ssp/Artist100TN.jpg)(http://home.comcast.net/~908ssp/DSCN1321TN.jpg)(http://home.comcast.net/~908ssp/DeluxeCageWreckTN.jpg)(http://home.comcast.net/~908ssp/DeluxeRed100TN.jpg)(http://home.comcast.net/~908ssp/ParkerBassTN.jpg)
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: Guitarman1117 on October 30, 2006, 10:33:08 AM
Some really interesting comments and info there guys, thanks. How about a few insights &/or opinions on a Parker Double-Neck? Any possibility the P-10 or 20 series gets a model with a trem? (P-15 or P-25? LOL) Also: I can't be the only one who has posted a comment about the "breast-bone" dig from the Fly's upper arm..... Yes, No?
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: sfw on October 30, 2006, 02:37:17 PM
Double Necks and sternum digs have been discussed at length, try the forum search. In short though, not enough market for a double neck, unlikely on the pm15/25 trem, and some people have a sternum jab and most don't. Enjoy.

- Scott

P6 Black (on its way)
PM10; PM20; Franken-Fenders
Randall RM4,RT2/50 (1086, Clean, TopBoost)
Wiggles Murray, Barbie Electric w/matching mic, American Idol electric
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: bno on October 30, 2006, 03:43:17 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Guitarman1117

Some really interesting comments and info there guys, thanks. How about a few insights &/or opinions on a Parker Double-Neck? Any possibility the P-10 or 20 series gets a model with a trem? (P-15 or P-25? LOL) Also: I can't be the only one who has posted a comment about the "breast-bone" dig from the Fly's upper arm..... Yes, No?

Oh, no.  This is a well documented feature.  Some solutions were, wear hockey shoulder pads, a kevlar vest or develop a large fatty deposit on your breast bone (a "uni-boob").  Actually, I've taken to wearing a substantial padded bra and that seems to do the trick, except for the underwire digging into my ribs.  It seems to be an issue that only affects vertically challenged men under six feet tall and of average build (who have a tendency to slouch over their guitar when playing.)  Tall skinny glam rock string-bean low riding gunslinger types think we're a bunch of sissies.  As do the pyrotechnicians who where their guitar under their chin...[:p]
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: Guitarman1117 on November 14, 2006, 08:59:09 AM
BNO: LOL......... you're a hoot...... thanks for the chuckle & "inside" info. Keep on Rockin'
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: p42 rocker on November 24, 2006, 06:34:33 PM
i think that the guitar has evolved over history. guitars designs have many imperfections today, and i think in a 200 yrs they will to, it all depends what your intrested in playing
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: Dann Glenn on March 06, 2007, 12:59:37 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Guitarman1117
How about a few insights &/or opinions on a Parker Double-Neck?


I'd love to have a Parker double-neck. Given the light-weight of the Fly, a double neck probably wouldn't weigh much more than some Gibsons etc. I wonder if the custom shop would consider...hmm...[:D]

Dann


Dann Glenn
Parker Guitarsâ„¢ Endorser
http://www.dannglenn.com
(http://www.gguitars.com/images/pa351605/pa3510605_3_thumb.jpg)
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: Bill on March 23, 2007, 06:17:17 AM
I know this is a dead thread but since its formated to not die I thought I'd throw this in.


Evolution plus intellegent design/mind equals a pretty cool finding reported by the Washington Post via Journal of Science

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/22/AR2007032201841.html?referrer=email

All I need know is a little genetic enhancement for guitar playing, singing, making money, staying fit w/o excersize, anti aging...
Custom '03 Hardtail Artist ; Fly Deluxe 2000; Gibson ES137(4sale); 1974 K.Yari DY85; SchecterDisposable; Martin Backpacker/paddle combo;LarriveeParlor(4sale);VoxAD30VT;SWR California Blonde(broken)
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: WKG on April 11, 2007, 09:47:55 PM
quote:
Originally posted by pitgirl42

The guitar "god" came to me last night swinging a Les Paul and he commandeth that I strike down the unbelievers inshallah



meh...he's too old, fat and slow to be hangin round here...[:p]

[:D]

2005 Fly Mojo, Dusty black
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: Diad on April 15, 2007, 01:30:02 PM
As I suggested on the marketing thread, I think the Parker motto should be changed to, "Evolution THROUGH Intelligent Design."  This should satisfy both the Creationists and the Darwinists. [:D]  The techs at Parker should always be striving to innovate and expand the sound, versatility, affordability and playability of Parker guitars.  Parker is already much farther along than the rest of the pack (also known as the Neanderthals) and thus has obviously generated substantial customer loyalty.

I think that if I could afford to purchase Parker Guitars, Inc., I'd change the business model to a direct-sales model similar to Carvin's in order to increase profits while maximizing affordability for my customers.  I suspect we'll be seeing this from a lot more guitar manufacturers soon.  With the Internet, we're seeing the demise of many of the less efficient brick-n-mortar outlets in favor of online merchants offering products at more competitive prices.  Why not cut out the middle men completely with online sales?  In order to be successful doing so (since people can't touch and feel the product), this should include a lot of videos and sound samples (with full disclosures of amplifiers and effects being used to produce the sounds).  I mention the disclosure thing because I think Carvin's website falls far short of what it should be.  For example, they don't post photographs of their stock model guitars in many cases (they post photos of guitars with option-added features - misleading), they don't have enough sound samples, no video samples that I recall, and they don't disclose how sample sounds were achieved with their guitars (amps, effects, mods, etc. - also misleading).  Plus, they're sloppy with a lot of typos and such.
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: rt0412 on June 26, 2007, 01:14:44 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Diad

As I suggested on the marketing thread, I think the Parker motto should be changed to, "Evolution THROUGH Intelligent Design."  This should satisfy both the Creationists and the Darwinists. [:D]  The techs at Parker should always be striving to innovate and expand the sound, versatility, affordability and playability of Parker guitars.  Parker is already much farther along than the rest of the pack (also known as the Neanderthals) and thus has obviously generated substantial customer loyalty.

I think that if I could afford to purchase Parker Guitars, Inc., I'd change the business model to a direct-sales model similar to Carvin's in order to increase profits while maximizing affordability for my customers.  I suspect we'll be seeing this from a lot more guitar manufacturers soon.  With the Internet, we're seeing the demise of many of the less efficient brick-n-mortar outlets in favor of online merchants offering products at more competitive prices.  Why not cut out the middle men completely with online sales?  In order to be successful doing so (since people can't touch and feel the product), this should include a lot of videos and sound samples (with full disclosures of amplifiers and effects being used to produce the sounds).  I mention the disclosure thing because I think Carvin's website falls far short of what it should be.  For example, they don't post photographs of their stock model guitars in many cases (they post photos of guitars with option-added features - misleading), they don't have enough sound samples, no video samples that I recall, and they don't disclose how sample sounds were achieved with their guitars (amps, effects, mods, etc. - also misleading).  Plus, they're sloppy with a lot of typos and such.

I agree. A lot of Parker guitars were bought sight unseen... like mine for example.

Rolly
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: Eruption on July 06, 2007, 08:25:58 AM
Guys,I think the guitar is a great design.
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: Eruption on July 25, 2007, 07:39:58 PM
I find the cutaway models not as nice as the non cutaway ones

2007 Parker Fly Deluxe
1958 Silvertone s-710
1987 Yamaha Rgx 1212s
1990 Yamaha Rgx 112
1995 Yamaha 120sd
1985 Tokai super V
1979 Hondo Longhorn
2004 Yamaha Rbx 774
1998 Laney Lc15r
2001 Yamaha Dg60
...and some more secrets...
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: Piplodocus on August 17, 2007, 07:43:29 AM
I'd like to add a point in general to the old Evolution or intelligent design argument is that most people (sorry if this sounds condescending) is that they DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT EVOLUTION ACTUALLY IS AND HOW IT WORKS!!!!!

Evolution is not some magic thing where an elephant could become a cat, it doesn't work like that. Elephants are good at being elephants so they'll stay very elephant-y and only evolve further if neccessary by adapting to their surrounds and changing habitat, or alternatively they'll go extinct (probably more likely with man's current use of the planet and destruction of large wild habitats).

Evolution is a thing based on quicker death of the not-quite-as-well adapted, and hence better stuff being left longer to reproduce. A modern monkey is unlikely to evolve into a man, but they both come from a monkey type thing that wasn't sucessful in the long run that had offspring that had more offspring that after hundreds of thousands of years some variations became men and some monkeys, and the vast vast vast majority all disappeared and are nowhere to be seen.

In a similar way a piano will not evolve into a guitar or vice versa. They are both related to a cave-man's vine stretched over a prehistoric margerine tub(!) idea but are now too separate and will only continue to diversify away from each other (except the ideas of using electronics in both to try to make the same kinds of sounds, but that's not the point I'm getting at here).

The guitar was well suited to music because it has a good range and is easy-ish to play. Therefore the world ended up with the guitar being one of the more popular folk type instuments. When the guitar got electrified though (because it wasn't loud enough) and people started overdriving amps, blues and rock and roll music evolved from the idea and further enhanced the instrument. More and more people learnt it and it has further evolved. The good parts of design improvements were copied and improvements made. Parker are still here by doing well in the "evolution race" and are more popular now than ever because they are better adapted to the changing world of musicians. Due to electric guitars still being a new invention though and quality of manufacture being he beggest part in how good a guitar is early incarnations of the electric still abound today (such as strats, LPs, etc.), so the true evolution cannot be seen so clearly in the bigger picture. To see this I'd like to see electric guitars in 1000 years.

So to talk about evolution in the true sense OR intelligent design  with guitars is an oxymoron. Cheap crap guitars that are ultra affordable have done well in the modern marketplace are an evolution in one way, and top quality parkers are an evolution in another. They have both been designed with an intelligent mind; one mind being that being able to provide better instruments to the poorer people is one intelligent thought, and the other that making something with better features for more money another.

Likewise in the broad sense guitars are all evolved from earlier things. Ken Parker didn't wake up one morning and invent a Parker Fly without guitars existing. They are all refinements or a new slight evolution to existing ideas.

Therefore Parkers are an Evolution (that's doing well in the current environment of guitar players, and not dying out), that use intelligently designed improved features as their advantage (to stop them dying out to lesser brands). So it's both.

Sorry if this seems a bit long-winded but I'm sick of seeing creationists explain some half-baked thing badly where they obviously don't actually understand what evolution is and how it works and impressionable people take up their poor argument. This isn't meant to be any attack on belief in God or anything. Believe in God as much or as little as you like in my opinion. Just don't think Evolution is some kinda unlikely un-godly "magic". Find out what it is first. Sorry if this sounds ranty, but I find the world amazing and astounding on many levels so just get sick of people thinking it's only a few thousand years old and that God buried dinosaurs just to mess with our heads. That's a lot worse than me deciding Ken Parker invented guitars in their entirety yesterday morning during a 5 minute bath, and doesn't do any kind of justice to the slow process of change over time creating the amazing thing we see now all originating from a few small and truely great ideas and rules.

Right, I'm off to investigate the wonders of how our amazing universe of interconnecting patterns and beauty works again, and to enjoy playing my Parker...  :)
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: rt0412 on August 19, 2007, 04:27:44 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Piplodocus

I'd like to add a point in general to the old Evolution or intelligent design argument is that most people (sorry if this sounds condescending) is that they DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT EVOLUTION ACTUALLY IS AND HOW IT WORKS!!!!! And you KNOW how it works, right? May I point out that evolution is not a fact, it's a theory.

Evolution is not some magic thing where an elephant could become a cat, it doesn't work like that. As per theory of evolution, we all came from a single-celled Adam... so, how certain are you that after so many thousands or millions of years the elephant will not evolve in to a cat? Certainly, it's easier to believe an elephant evolving to a cat than a single-cell blob evolving to an elephant.

Cheap crap guitars that are ultra affordable have done well in the modern marketplace are an evolution in one way, and top quality parkers are an evolution in another. Some cheap guitars are not crap and have "evolved" enough that they're actually better than the ones they "evolved" from.

Right, I'm off to investigate the wonders of how our amazing universe of interconnecting patterns and beauty works again, and to enjoy playing my Parker...  :) Agreed.

Rolly
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: Piplodocus on August 21, 2007, 05:47:14 AM
quote:
Originally posted by rt0412

quote:
Originally posted by Piplodocus

I'd like to add a point in general to the old Evolution or intelligent design argument is that most people (sorry if this sounds condescending) is that they DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT EVOLUTION ACTUALLY IS AND HOW IT WORKS!!!!! And you KNOW how it works, right? May I point out that evolution is not a fact, it's a theory.
Sorry, my mistake, I mean I know how the THEORY works. I get fed up with people who argue against it with a flawed argument due to not knowing what the theory actually is. If you explain the theory of evolution poorly in a biased way then it does sound a lot more far fetched than if it's explained properly. When people imply that evolution theory thinks things only diversify in a good way, and therefore thinks that everything magically gets better then it makes it look silly. Evolutionary drivers are about things dying off leaving a net increase in better stuff left, not about stuff wierdly becoming something more complex as if by magic. That was the point I was trying to make.

Evolution is not some magic thing where an elephant could become a cat, it doesn't work like that. As per theory of evolution, we all came from a single-celled Adam... so, how certain are you that after so many thousands or millions of years the elephant will not evolve in to a cat? Certainly, it's easier to believe an elephant evolving to a cat than a single-cell blob evolving to an elephant.
I meant in the relatively short term. It's easy to see how a single celled thing evolved into a slightly more complex thing like a bacteria, then that evolved into more complex things similar in complexity to slugs, anemones, snails, shrimps, crabs, etc. I don't think I put this point very well. As for a single celled Adam it's very interesting to know where to start and what was first defined as being a cell. That's a bit of a chicken and egg situation really. What came first the chicken or the egg? Neither; a lesser chicken like thing and a thing born in an egg without a shell. Possibly a small dinosaur and an egg. Since we've been farming birds and their eggs chickens have been doing very well in general numbers...

Cheap crap guitars that are ultra affordable have done well in the modern marketplace are an evolution in one way, and top quality parkers are an evolution in another. Some cheap guitars are not crap and have "evolved" enough that they're actually better than the ones they "evolved" from.
Yep, sure. I was just trying to point out that cheap crap guitars are also an evolution in the true sense. They didn't used to exist as much. Now there are loads and they sell a lot! Hence they have "evolved" as specialised survivors in the "guitar gene pool", their specialisation being costing less than 1 decent pickup!

Right, I'm off to investigate the wonders of how our amazing universe of interconnecting patterns and beauty works again, and to enjoy playing my Parker...  :) Agreed.

Rolly

Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: Andi on August 21, 2007, 06:27:53 AM
quote:
Originally posted by rt0412

And you KNOW how it works, right? May I point out that evolution is not a fact, it's a theory.


It's both. Evolution has been observed, hence it is a fact. There is also the theory of evolution, which seeks to explain the mechanisms behind the observed fact.
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: cy2989 on August 21, 2007, 09:03:53 AM
Piplodocus said: "In a similar way a piano will not evolve into a guitar or vice versa."


Well I guess that shoots down my idea for the Guitariano.  It's ok, it was really heavy to hold on your lap.



(http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s217/cy2989/parkersignature.jpg)
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: cgarlie on August 29, 2007, 10:04:24 AM

Especially after you've gotten use to the weight of that Cedar Bronze;-)

Parker Mojo
Parker Cedar Bronze
Parker Deluxe w/ RMC
Gibson '83 Lucille
SRV Custom Strat
PRS SAS
(Original) Dan Armstrong "See-through"
Burns Shadows Custom
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: PeterE on November 07, 2007, 09:14:12 AM
Guys - I realize this thread has been going for a long time - but surely this tag line is simply a marketing line, a joke or play on words in other words.

The point is NOT to get involved in the evolution controversy but to use these hot buttons to address an issue that DOES apply to Parker guitars:  is the Fly a development of the electric guitar or is a blinding new development?  And also I think the tag line means: "who cares which one it is - what we have here is a great guitar."
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: bostjan on November 13, 2007, 12:20:03 PM
Ibanez makes amps.  They aren't terrible, either, but not spectacular.

Anyway, is the new Gibson Robot Les Paul intelligent design or evolution?  I opine that it is neither, because I've seen Jimmy Page playing on a Les Paul with the same system on the bridge instead of the headstock for decades now.
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: David Bahar on April 17, 2008, 06:20:30 PM
Everyone  here will know the Guitar Came to the west via  the Indian Sitar. Over the many 100s of years the shape, like the name has change. Whats to say in 500 1000 years the guitar may change as it has in the past[?]
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: David Bahar on April 20, 2008, 12:21:51 PM
And the real answer for me is in the  Olive Branch
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: CesarLebel on April 26, 2008, 01:43:59 PM
Interested in Juan Alvarez Flamenco Guitar From Dwayne . Sorry for posting on this thread but im new and cant seem to e-mail dwayne .
If someone can get in touch with him Im interested in his Flamenco Guitar
Thanks
Cesar
cesarlebel@gmail.com
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: Solidfuel on July 05, 2008, 01:20:57 PM
Well, I've read through most of this post, and I guess I have something to add. Being an old nerd who's hobby has been the study of the acoustics of loudspeaker speaker and musical instrument construction, I have collected quite a bunch of books on the subject from the 20th century. One of my favorites is a series of little books put together by the Walt Disney Studios during WW II for prepping trainees for radar and radio theory and repair. The first text covers basic audio design. Basic Pythagorean quarter wave harmonics is discussed (aka music theory) and a discussion of organ pipe and violin design. Cutting to the chase: a Spanish guitar is two bouts joined to the atmosphere at a common opening. One bout is 1/4 the length (longest point from the sound hole) of the wave length of the lowest frequency the guitar can reproduce, and the other is 1/3. When this proportion is met there resonant reinforcement shared between the two bouts. Conveniently, the Spanish guitar shape is ergonomically perfect like a bicycle seat, so the the Spanish guitar is truly a wonderful design. From my own experience building guitars, and making acoustic experiments with guitar and violin shapes (and making successful modifications), this two bout proportion also applies in some degree to the solid wood guitar constructions as well. Granted, the resonance of the wood use to construct an electric guitar is far more important than it would be in creating the efficiency of an acoustic instrument. Yes, there are many other variables, but it is my experience that a Tele sounds like a Tele no matter what the neck and body are made from. It is my opinion that Parker guitars represent a giant evolution in guitar construction, but are probably a step backwards in the natural evolution of the traditional Spanish guitar proportions, both ergonomically and acoustically. Form and function are at cross purposes. Having studied art led me to Parker guitars in the first place, and Mr. Parker is a master of design of the First Water in my book. I think he has produced some wonderful designs, but I think the efforts to conserve weight have led to compromises in the sound of some of his instruments. Maybe some day we'll meet and we could discuss some acoustic improvements that I have discovered that work well with guitars. But I doubt that as these improvements definitely don't add to the inherent beauty of the Spanish guitar, and Mr. Parker seems to be in it 'for the beauty'. He also shows a love for improvements in construction and materials of the guitar. There is nothing wrong with that. I like my Parker for what it is, thank you very much. Even if were to sound like a Tiffany turd (and it doesn't!), Parker's are the best crafted Tiffany turds out there! Who knows? Maybe Parkers will be known someday for being the best sounding guitars as well as those with the best action and fit.
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: PRC on July 08, 2008, 05:28:30 AM
I think guitars should evolve with years. Why not? Everything does.[8]
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: jefsummers on July 10, 2008, 08:24:00 PM
Ummm, so which is it? Did you find Parker because of studying art like the post above, or by getting one from a friend who was an Alaskan fisherman like in one of your other posts?

1998 Parker Fly Deluxe
1998 Fender Std Strat
2002 Epiphone Dot
1999 Danelectro Hodad 12 string electric
1963 Gibson Melody Maker
Various acoustics
Marshall AVT150 with 1960A Lead Cab
Vox AD30
Boss GT-8, Roland GR-30
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: David Bahar on July 31, 2008, 08:09:07 PM
just to add the spanish guitar came across the water with the barbers thats why most of the music played on it is in those types of keys and modes,

Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: joethelion on September 02, 2008, 01:08:55 PM
Hi Parker Fans,

I'm new around here, having recently bought my first, a P36. I've much enjoyed a brief trawl ... some fascinating contributions from very interesting, capable members. This thread struck me as being more worthwhile than some suggest.

On the 'evolution thingy' ... our language is so complex and sophisticated; concerning both science and art in its construction and use. It continually adapts with changing environment and culture ... thus creating new purposeful codes of language and useage ¡K with successive generations. Language is a messaging device, as are musical instruments. Both are founded in science and art.

The study of evolution is a mature science. Precision is the vital purpose of science. Laws derive, with predictive power. That is the prime value of science. Art is not necessarily rational and has somewhat less predictive power. Undoubtedly, some arts (and artists) are highly predictable. That may, or not, enhance effectiveness and value. In my relative ignorance, Parkers defy no scientific laws; and merely challenge custom and practise, in hitherto, quite unique, stimulating, artful ways. That speaks loudly, in an increasingly un-listening world.

Of itself, evolution concerns attaining enduring fitness for purpose, in ever-changing scenarios. In my view, the prime purpose of the seminal Parker design was to innovate so distinctively, as to establish and endure, with adequate certainty of assured growth on-going. Little point, commercially, otherwise. Initially, innovation was the prime issue. Now maturing, successive evolution becomes paramount to the brand; and it¡¦s getting harder to do so in such obviously seminal ways. Rational design was, and remains, a pivotal success factor.  

My first-prized guitar is a Guild Songbird. Had I sought to shock the seller, at that time, I would have fitted a distinctive passive (on a stiff sound-hole blank), to blend with the Fishman, and also provide a ¡¥pseudo-stereo¡¦ out. No great innovation, really. I would then have dreamt of re-designing the body and neck, and of fashioning a novel guitar, with high quality materials, advanced components and materials, manufactured to the closest tolerances permissible at specific price-points.

The body would have demonstrated distinctive art, governed by a precise ergonomic framework of key dimensions. The neck would have derived from widely popular forms. The headstock would have uniquely complemented the body. I would likely have retained a tuned hollow body, however. My overall philosophy would have been in achieving enduring fitness for purpose. I would have sought ownership amongst the avant-garde; and next generation.

I don¡¦t know precisely what my own purpose would have been, though. If only ¡K ƒº

Ken knew, as did Rickenbacker. Rickenbacker changed music per se, for the better. That¡¦s my wish for Parker.

Cheers all.


P36, Natural.
Guild Songbird, Natural.
Gibson LPS SL, Black.
Fender Lead III, Black.
"Jim Harley" 330/12, FG.
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: Monsieur Obscure on February 16, 2009, 08:06:49 PM
I'd say it's a combination of the two. It is based on earlier, ore-existing forms, but has been developed and advanced through intelligent design by the likes of Ned Steinberger and Ken Parker.

Cheers.

~ Christopher


"...cultivate eloquent silence..."
- St Gregory of Sinai


Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: Monsieur Obscure on February 16, 2009, 08:15:23 PM
quote:
Originally posted by jefsummers

Ummm, so which is it? Did you find Parker because of studying art like the post above, or by getting one from a friend who was an Alaskan fisherman like in one of your other posts?

Maybe at the precise moment that he made the discovery while studying art, an Alaskan fisherman walked through the door and handed him a Fly...

Cheers.

~ Christopher


"...cultivate eloquent silence..."
- St Gregory of Sinai


Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: 4mula97 on April 29, 2009, 12:15:48 AM
i would say it was neither intelligent design nor evolution.  Ken saw the need for a product that was a verstile, light weight, well playing, long lasting, and good looking guitar.  he researched all of the needs to make this product, probably made some mistakes, and eventually offered th Fly.

i believe it is the worlds best guitar (even though it isnt the favorite one that i own) on the market now.  for instance this guitar could also be described as having a monocoque body.  the monocoque design has been used for years in high-end super cars (ferrari, lamborghini, and so on)  and on race cars (indy, cart series and others)  airplanes (almost all aircraft that go 500knots or faster).  so in that respect he took an idea (that has already been tested) that would add strength, rigidity, and durability and applied it as necessary to his guitar.  

it then seems like he spared no expence in finding the best electronics that sound good in almost any combination of effects, amp, musical styles, etc...  he then trimmed the fat (so to speak) and produced a guitar that is actually worth the price tag in the sense that you get what you pay for (what i mean by that is that there are no extras, and everything on the Fly has a purpose) which in this case is the best guitar on the market.  if you spend the same amount of money on gibson, fender, PRS, or gretsch you get to say that you own a gibson, fender, PRS, or gretsch but none of thos manufacturers even come close to the many uses of a Fly.

maybe if you could think of the production of the Fly in the same sense that Delorean did when producing his car.  you could see where i was comming from.  it was designed to have everytthing you need in a car that would last forever (although most would say that Delorean failed in this, but i have never seen an old beat up rusty Delorean sitting around).

maybe intelligent design, but i have a hard time believing that Ken drew a picture of the Fly at dinner one night, and then built it the next day.  i might be wrong though.  i think there was a lot of trial and error.  maybe some one here who has know Parker personally during his design process can help me understand.

i think the design of this guitar falls more into "common sense" than anything else.

the evolution of the guitar would be the ability to follow and produce the everchanging desires of what kind of music we like to hear.  kind of like the use of active pick ups, and the sustainiac, variax systems, things like that.

these are just my opinions, dont be offended if you disagree, but i would like to hear your thoughts.

99Fly Classic
BC Rich Mockingbird
Some cheap strat copy that sounds great!!
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: Waggerman on March 28, 2010, 02:12:42 PM
Hi all. I'm new here and, as so many of us newbies seem to do, my first stop off is this excellent thread.

I figure all members of this forum love the design Ken Parker came up with. The weight, the resonance of the guitar (we've all done it I guess - picked up a Fly, strummed a chord and felt the whole instrument sing), the look, the tonal palette...

I guess my set up question is - and this is meant honestly and openly - why aren't there more major names playing them?

For some I guess they're held into artist endorsement deals. Others might be tied into a whole image (Slash with a banjo, anybody?). Others may love lunking 9 lb monsters around - and adrenalin on stage is a funny thing, perhaps artists LIKE having something that fights back.

I'm sure that all the above applies, but I think there's something else going on. Dare I ask? Is the Fly OVER-engineered?

I don't mean are the production tolerances set too high, or is the action and intonation too accurate. Rather I'm interested in the materials used - and the fretboard in particular.

Guitarists can be a pretty reactionary bunch. I figure any activity that is so reliant on extremely precise muscle memory is going to discourage things that simply FEEL odd.

Perhaps the next step forward might be a step back. Now that Parker is part of USM, surely a rosewood or ebony fingerboard, with frets that a tech can happily stare at and think "Yeah, I can change those" might help take the towards musicians who just like the darn FEEL of the kind of fretboard they've played on every day since they were so high.

And I'm not saying ditch the carbon fiber board. But what about a Mojo Traditional, with regular electronics and a familiar feeling board? Or a Mojo Traditional Blues - with all the above and a 24 3/4 scale length?

I'm probably stepping all over past threads that have been done to death, and I apologise if I am.

Anyway. Nice to be on the board.
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: sybersitizen on March 28, 2010, 05:49:39 PM
Hi there, and welcome. I'll try to keep my comments short since others here are far more experienced and more knowledgeable about such stuff. But IMO the Parker franchise (both while it was still under Ken and in its later Kenless incarnations) has been taking either subtle or not-so-subtle steps 'backwards' ever since the revolutionary Fly was introduced in '93. Many models have been brought on that drop innovations in favor of traditional materials, form and function - but none that take what was originally done further into the unknown and unfamiliar. In other words, Parker products have gradually become more like mainstream guitars as time has passed... which is probably inevitable for the long term survival of the brand.

'01 Fly Deluxe|'69 SG Standard
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: Patzag on March 28, 2010, 06:38:03 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Waggerman



I guess my set up question is - and this is meant honestly and openly - why aren't there more major names playing them?

Waggerman



Welcome.
I can answer that to a certain degree.  Just by relating a conversation I had with a major player who endorses Ibanez guitars. He looked at my Fly with open envy and said that the fly is by far his favorite guitar, but that he could
never get the endorsement privileges he gets from Ibanez with Parker. He tried. And believe me, he deserves the best.

So it all boils down to business?  Not really 100%. But enough that a very successful musician would rather play a slightly less suitable guitar than his favorite if enough money/freebies/percs are involved in the deal.  

Is that a correct strategy from USM?  I don't know. My aquaintance has a Fly. He does
not play it in public. His loss, I think Parker's too.

But I also know that each of these guitars costs quote a bit of money to make. Much less the overhead of a company like USM. It's a matter of numbers and promotional strategy.

I would not dream of backseat driving a company like that ( even though I do privately!) [;)]

Patrick
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: whitecityafg on March 29, 2010, 09:25:59 AM
If I can make comments about this.

Do you really think that a name to endorse "famous" guitar (Parker for example [:D]) is necessary?
Do you really think I bought (I'll buy) this one because Mr X... plays it?

Actually, these famous players have so many other guitars, they don't really care about endorsement, I guess, except for money.
I would say : it depends on the final goal of the company, quality or buiseness! Both would be the nicest way, of course.

OK, may be I'm going too far, but personally I got my Parker for the real exact sound I was looking for, and surely not because one "name" could play it.

That's only my point of vew, but answering Waggerman.
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: Patzag on March 29, 2010, 11:08:43 AM
quote:
Originally posted by whitecityafg

If I can make comments about this.

Do you really think that a name to endorse "famous" guitar (Parker for example [:D]) is necessary?
Do you really think I bought (I'll buy) this one because Mr X... plays it?

Actually, these famous players have so many other guitars, they don't really care about endorsement, I guess, except for money.
I would say : it depends on the final goal of the company, quality or buiseness! Both would be the nicest way, of course.

OK, may be I'm going too far, but personally I got my Parker for the real exact sound I was looking for, and surely not because one "name" could play it.

That's only my point of vew, but answering Waggerman.

Guitar : Parker P 42
Amp : Bugera 15 watts (all tubes)
Effects : Vox tonelab LE

Basses :
1) Fender Jazz Bass American deluxe active
2) Squier Precision Bass, special series
Amp : Behringer BHL 3000 - 300 watts



Yeah. I think that a truckload of guitar players bought this and that model because "Joe Guru" plays one. Absolutely. In fact, it's not a guess, it's a certainty.

That may not be true of Parker players on this forum because most of us are religious zealots on Parker.   We treat Fender players as unenlightened and revere Ken as the guitar prophet (OK, enough already [:)]).

But I know that a good number of my fans (yes, I have some) went and bought Parker guitars because they either saw me play them or tried one of my guitars. And I think that's cool.  But I'm not EVH or Pat Metheny. I suspect that of one of these cats played Parkers, a lot more clones or wannabe clones or just respectful guitarists who want THAT SOUND would buy Parkers.

Parker for me is both evolution and intelligent design. It makes the best of old construction methods, firmly rooted in woodworking and takes these over the top with modern materials.

But evolution is in the hands of the user. It is the use of the tool which gives it it's purpose. So the question is how do we take this instrument and evolve? Playing Parkers for 16 years and guitar for more than twice as long and I still don't have a full answer.


Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: Waggerman on March 29, 2010, 01:21:39 PM
Hi there

Thanks for the positive and thoughtful responses. I think, as I said, that we all love Parker guitars here. I'd love nothing better than to see David Gilmour or (insert name of favourite/most respected guitarist here) but I find it interesting that they aren't.

Maybe Parker cold consider tweaking the design to see if they can pick any more mainstream names and players (and thanks for not flaming me guys, I meant absolutely no disrespect to Parker's existing endorsers/players with what I wrote). I'm not sure that new models are the way forward - hell, I love the Fly in its various incarnations. I guess I just want to meet potential players (and buyers) part way, WITHOUT losing the inherent beauty of the instrument.

Cheers to all
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: TapGuru on April 11, 2010, 08:51:02 PM
I have a red parker fly and i was told its the custom edition, is there anyway to tell the difference from classic to custom ?
Title: Intelligent Design? Evolution?
Post by: Keith Grasse on October 19, 2011, 03:02:30 PM
The guitar is a man-made object but that doesn't mean it can't evolve. Many discussions about which guitar is great etc take a relativistic approach: a guitar is considered "great" if it can emulate other "great" guitars. I don't like this approach because it ignores originality in guitar design. The Parker is -- to me -- a different animal from a Fender or a Gibson. And viva la difference. Ken Parker created something unique and for that reason I don't get hung up trying to make comparisons. I just know I like it. I think the relativistic way of thinking is extremely common and most consumers tend to think this way. That's why people like Henry Ford and Steve Jobs were so successful. Henry Ford said: If I asked people what they wanted they would've said "A faster horse." This observation lead Jobs to say: "It's not the consumer's job to know what they want." At first it sounds counterintuitive but on reflection it makes sense. So yes the guitar will continue to change as long as there are people around. Occasionally tho it will change in a big way. Like the Parker.