Why don't more people play Parkers?

[Mesa\Kramer]

They don't looks cools, dats why.................

 

[Me]

The maxxfly and dragonfly sound much better than the old ones.

Those DF824s definitely look nice. If I was in the market for a new top if the range one that might be what I'd go for. Has the DF824 got the reinforced carbon neck/fingerboard? When you say better than the old ones, do you mean old dragonflies or niteflies, or other older Parkers. I loved the way the old flies played, but then only got serious about buying one when the mojos came out in 2004 (all mahogany with Seymour Duncans). I'm probably gonna put some BKPs in it soon though.

 

[Stealthtastic]

Yes it has all the traditional features. By older I mean the ultra thin ken parker era ones. In my experience (owned two pre refined flys), the new ones sound better. They are thicker but still lightweight.

 

[The Traveller]

I borrowed one from a friend a long time a go. I had to give it back because I was falling in love with it. They are just so damn ugly. I could never be caught playing one. But damn they play and sound nice. Probably one of the best playing guitars I have ever played, effortless.

 

[Shawn Lutz]

I can only speak for myself.

I don't play Parkers because they are butt ugly to me....don't care how good people claim them to be they are ugly and why spend money if the visual element doesn't equal the audible.

 

[Me]

I would be interested if I could figure out what model is what. They have so many models!
What is the "standard?" The "custom?" The "studio?" The "epiphone "

If I could figure out which model is supposed to be which, I might have considered one.

Rough vague Model history (I'm no historian!
First there was the fly. No low spec model existed. You could then have the deluxe (can't remember the wood), or the classic (mahogany). Or there were the more special versions (select/artist) made of other woods. They were basically all the same except the wood used and all came with dimarzios. The pickups had an odd mounting method because it was so thin. All 24 frets. There were also done other odd ones aimed at acoustic players such as the Spanish Fly/Nylon Fly without mag pickups.

Then the nitefly came out at the end of the 90s, which was a bolt on more "normal" looking thing, usually with HSS and a pickguard etc. they look more strat like I guess. The bolt on neck still has the glass epoxy fingerboard and exoskeleton, but being bolt on you don't get the amazing neck joint due to strength, and the body is less sculpted and is thicker. These are 22 frets and have regular pickup mounting due to the thicker bodies. Some other versions came with them such as the southern nitefly which was a telecaster-style bolt on Parker.

Then they "refined" the original fly models around the early 2000s. This was a mixture of making genuine improvements, and also making them more production friendly. Apparently it was easy to make very very expensive trash if there was a mistake with the old ones. The truss rod design was made more normal. They also added the Mojo range which were all mahogany and had Seymour Duncan pickups. These still have slightly odd pickup mountings but the cavities in the mojo are slightly bigger so it's easier to retrofit/mod other pickups to fit.

Sometime around this time the P series came out (p-44, p-36, p-38 etc). This is the cheaper import range. You didn't get the reinforced neck/silky fingerboard, just wood. They were kinda like cheaper versions of the nitefly.

Then some point I can't remember they made the dragonfly. This was made to look less "odd" for all the people on forums who thought they were fugly . I think they got threatened with legal stuff over the name though and it was changed to maxxfly. The model names are still all DF something though from DragonFly! These have come with top of the range models (I think the higher numbers?) with the optional through neck with carbon glass fingerboards, or more regular wooden necks. They all have "normal" pickup mounting too.

The radial neck joint bolt ons are the bolt on equivalent and the nitefly was discontinued. The p-series were also discontinued, but the PDF series came which were like the cheaper P series of the DF.

At some point the nitefly has returned again, but none of them have the pickguards any more and all the pickups are direct mounted.

So basically:
Fly/fly mojo/fly artist/fly select: the fly with wood/pickup variations with magic neck.
Maxxfly/dragonfly DF series: more normal with optional magic neck.
Radial neck maxxfly/dragonfly: bolt on version
Nitefly: bolt on magic neck, old ones have pickguards mounted pickups, newer ones don't have a pick guard.
PDF series: cheaper non US maxxfly/dragonfly
P series: cheaper non US older nitefly style.

 

[Me]

Yes it has all the traditional features. By older I mean the ultra thin ken parker era ones. In my experience (owned two pre refined flys), the new ones sound better. They are thicker but still lightweight.

Yeah, that's why I loved playing them but didn't actually GAS for one til the Mojo came. Far fatter and meatier beast.

Regarding the other comments and them being ugly, I like the look of many and love how my flies look, but even I find some pretty distasteful, and some bits like the original headstock are definitely more in the "interesting" rather than "officially beautiful" camp! That's why I posted the one at the top though as I find it hard to believe people find that DF ugly with its smoother lines and more normal headstock? Or do they still and I just think it looks more normal than mine!

 

[paulyc]

I'd play one of these before I'd play a Jackson, ESP or Charvel onstage.
At least I could hang my head high without being completely overwhelmed with embarrassment.

That's a 15 year old girls opinion...I wouldn't be caught dead playing a Fender (which is funny now that Fender owns Charvel...but I digress) !

 

[Me]

I love traditional looking instruments, and love everything from the road worn strat/tele/LP to the black pointy metal axe (although not with too garish a paint job!), explorers, or a BC Rich Mockinbird. But equally I don't want to follow everyone else's musical direction, so if I think my instrument is beautiful, yet still looks a bit different, unusual and turns heads then I'm game with that. Kinda goes aurally!

The only instrument I "wouldn't want to be seen playing" is maybe a steinberger, but even then, if it was the right band the interesting look could be cool, but I'd feel like a right twat playing something like Pearl jam on it!

 

[Kapo_Polenton]

Personally, for me it comes down to looks. They look ridiculous. If nerds were to play and design a guitar, this would be it. Next in line are those silly no headstock guitars that are square.

 

[Me]

Everyone probably thought strats looked ridiculous when they came out tbh. All flat like a plank of wood? Doesn't look woody? Funny headstock? Big funny pickguard? Those square headstockless ones are steinbergers as mentioned above they're a bit too far for me.

 

[Shawn Lutz]

we get it, you like em, not everyone likes em and that's OK. I don't care if anyone likes my shit or not as long I do

 

[Me]

I was only curious. Some people on here seem to blow some serious money on guitars so figured the "too expensive" argument wasn't really true for a number of people. Basically the big answer seems to be they aren't popular as everyone thinks they're ugly, including the pretty normal ones(?), no matter how well they play. And the original ones from years ago didn't sound as good. I didn't realise the new ones would still be so visually off-putting that's all!?!?

Each to their own. I don't care how many people play them except i'd kinda rather be more unique tbh. I just like companies who make stuff I like to do well, and if they're not I wonder what's going wrong. Small sales = harder to find them for sale + there's no UK distributor either. I'm not trying to make people like them!

 

[bobbtoz]

I'd play one of these before I'd play a Jackson, ESP or Charvel onstage.
At least I could hang my head high without being completely overwhelmed with embarrassment.

That's a 15 year old girls opinion...I wouldn't be caught dead playing a Fender (which is funny now that Fender owns Charvel...but I digress) !

LOL!

 

[blackba]

I find them ugly. Also, the only person I know who had one, while he loved it, he is far from a tone master and he had terrible tone with one.

I would like to try one if I see one around. My friend no longer owns his.

 

[MississippiMetal]

Had an early fixed bridge Fly Deluxe in that cool blue color. I agree that it played like buttah. The upper horn dug into my chest, though. Hated that the most. Sounded decent enough, a little boring. Super-light weight was awesome. Not sure if I think they're ugly or cool.

Was funny bringing one to an open blues jam though. Oh, the upturned noses!

I brought my 777 to a blues jam once, I was looked at like an alien.

They have no room to turn up their noses. They're all dorky Middle Aged white guys who try to hard and think blues is as much about an image as pop music. They use words like "mojo" and refer to other players as "cats", and none of them get it. They're just copping licks off albums.

 

[FourT6and2]

I'd be fine with one. But I'd have to play one first and nobody carries them in stores.

If I did get one, it would have to be a custom job:

It would have the Dragonfly/Maxxfly body style:

But with a Mahogany body like this (but with a matte finish

And it would have just two humbuckers, direct mounted.
No MIDI or Piezo garbage. Just volume/tone/switch
Composite fingerboard
Neck-thru or whatever it is they do (just no bolt on).
24 frets
And the composite back like this:

 

[Badronald]

I'd play one of these before I'd play a Jackson, ESP or Charvel onstage.
At least I could hang my head high without being completely overwhelmed with embarrassment.

That's a 15 year old girls opinion...I wouldn't be caught dead playing a Fender (which is funny now that Fender owns Charvel...but I digress) !

Ha! It took a day to get a response for that comment. Well done.

 

[Me]

FourT6and2, I like your style.

I don't have money for any new Parkers, but if I did I'd be thinking along the same lines, except you may as well throw the graphtech hexaphonic preamp/midi out in there at the same time if it's gonna have the graphtech ghost saddles there as standard. I never use my piezo, but midi is definitely a win in my book since the piezos are there anyway!

 

[FourT6and2]

FourT6and2, I like your style.

I don't have money for any new Parkers, but if I did I'd be thinking along the same lines, except you may as well throw the graphtech hexaphonic preamp/midi out in there at the same time if it's gonna have the graphtech ghost saddles there as standard. I never use my piezo, but midi is definitely a win in my book since the piezos are there anyway!

I'd just never use that stuff. And I'd rather there be more wood, and less holes cut out for electronics I'd never use. To me, simple is better.