In theory. But it takes a lot more work to remove the cover, unwire the pickups that are in there, remove them, install the other pickups (and probably volume potentiometers and tone capacitors to match them), wire them up, and replace the cover than it does to just grab another guitar. It could get tiresome after a while.
Well, here’s where I start running into my limitations as a bass guitar tonehound, so I’m going to talk about this issue as it applies to the regular guitar.
Generally speaking, single coils will likely get you a brighter, more trebly tone. If that’s what you’re after, that’s what they’ll give you. Humbuckers usually don’t cut through as well, but they’re fatter and more powerful. If you want to drive a distorted amplifier, humbuckers are usually the better choice. Also bear in mind that you don’t always want to cut through. 90% of the time or greater, you’re playing supporting parts and you’re not necessarily trying to stick out.
It’s also an issue of the style of music you’re playing. A lot of country and blues guys go for single coil pickups because they’re after that clean, twangy sound. Rock guys tend to go for humbuckers because of their power and their friendliness to distortion. Jazz guys tend to go for humbuckers because they can get a darker, rounder sound. So you have to think about your requirements in that regard.
These are not universal. Jimi Hendrix and David Gilmour stuck almost entirely to single coil pickups. A lot of blues and country guys use humbucker-equipped Gibson guitars. Joe Perry is an oddball–he used to wear two guitars, one on his back, and he’d switch between them depending on whether he was playing rhythm or solos. This was before there were a lot of guitars on the market that had the combination of features he was going for.
I’m sure there is plenty of equipment and gizmos that can alter the sound to various degrees to make the difference negligible as well, not even considering different types of strings.
This of course would ruin the purpose of picking one over the other, but again, I’m just talking.
Instantly grabbed my attention, not sure how, but her whole face just…works. If you know what I mean. I can’t really point out one feature I enjoy more then the others.
(Welp. “Good” to know that British or at least English teenagers and young adults can be as dumb as American ones.)
Hmmm…I really don’t remember ever hearing about a radioactive pedophile. That or a woman becoming (more) toxic as she was dying.
Like what? Shopping for clothes? Getting their nails and/or hair done? Shopping for shoes? Tanning? Shopping for jewelry?
I don’t know. Even as vaguely defined as “hobby” is, women are generally are socially conditioned to not even bother with the most sedentary hobbies nowadays. As sexist as it might be to say, a lot of women don’t even do the “old-timey” “girly” things of gardening or cooking or even reading. Only watching TV and reading trashy gossip magazines can only go so far, unless you count (e-)stalking your favorite celebrity or celebrities as a hobby, especially if you somehow need to be someone else to find enjoyment out of doing either of those things.
(This reminds me that I need to look up the definition of stalking.)
Ultimately, I don’t think it’s so much a lack of hobbies, since as I was semi-sarcastically asking above, even if you count those things as a “hobbies”, it’s not things that most men would enjoy doing with “their” women. I really think it’s more that a lot of women don’t seem to want to do anything by themselves and then they expect the other person/guy to usually do all the entertainment. I could understand feeling like someone’s else hobbies is eating in their time with you, but I personally feel like a hobby should be something you can actually enjoy doing by yourself (read: without anyone you actually “know”) at least half of the time.
Again, a lot of this seems to come just from social condition between women being taught to be passive in almost every aspect still, even after feminism (and suffrage), and they’re being a limit to how “manly” women can be even if though it’s a hell of a lot more acceptable for a woman to be like a guy than vice-versa. I mean, take high school for instance. If a girl wants to do take up sports-related hobbies, then generally the only things available to them are being the glorified dolls that are cheerleaders (and hoping to be railed by footballs players) or playing the sexist, inferior baseball that is “softball” before the word “dyke” starts flying around if they show interest in any other sport; I’m counting women’s basketball in the “dyke” category given how many people I see and hear make cracks about the WNBA. (Maybe they could can get away with gymnastics or swimming if the school has that, but my high school didn’t, so I wouldn’t know.)
Hurray for gender equality and men & women being able to get along so harmoniously.
@The Damned
And again you would be wrong…there are plenty of things broads do solo. And if not solo, with their girlfriends. Youre basing shit off pop culture stereotypes and your limited interactions with broads…so yea…
Edit: Srk is fucking up and im not writing this shit over again.
It always cracks me up when I see people (and sadly, this is mostly women) list under their likes on some kind of social profile, “hanging out with my friends.” Is there anything you could say less necessary and more uninformative than that? That’s implicit in the word “friends,” dumbass. What other things do you enjoy? Circulating blood?
There certainly are, though in my experience it’s best to go with the simplest solution. Unless you’re Billy Gibbons and you can afford the technology and manpower to have an entire laboratory of digital equipment at every gig.
It’s funny that you mentioned different types of strings, given that in all my tinkering and experimentation I’ve found that strings have a comparatively negligible effect on guitar tone. Blues guys will say that the thicker, the better*, but I find this has more to do with the way it causes the musicians to alter their playing technique than anything fundamental to the strings themselves.
*We’re already all making the jokes in our heads, so nobody even bother.
Meh. I don’t even really like eating, but I can see how it could be a “hobby”…so long as it’s connected to that same person cooking (various things) and enjoying cooking.
Hence why I asked you what you’re talking since just saying “you would be wrong” still doesn’t tell me shit.
It’s not like I said all women are incapable of doing things by themselves, it just seems that a lot of them are. And what the hell counts as “limited interactions with broads”? Just because I’m not fucking them or trying to? You know you can interact and observe women, in real life, outside of that, right?
Your attempt at being condescending doesn’t do anything for me yet again, but it’s noted.
I never said anything about fucking them but yea…usually you have to interact with them and get to know them and their habits before you put your cock in them…so yea I do know there’s more to interaction besides sex.
Also there’s really no point in listing shit BC I’d just be essentially listing things from my personal experience. My point is that they have hobbies just that guys don’t think of em that way. By the same hand you realize most broads say the same things about guys right?
