All other electric guitars from Gibson and other manufacturers, are lacquered with modern synthetic lacquers, such as acrylic or polyurethane lacquers. Instruments that are lacquered with these artificial substances, look very good, have a durable finish, but sound just like crap.
When I read stuff like this I know I'm in Cloud Cuckoo Land. The electric guitar version of silver wire interconnects and directional Ethernet cable. What about those famous guitarists playing vintage guitars with the finish worn off? Or Joe Bonamassa playing last year's production poly saturated made in China Epiphone? They sound 'just like 'crap'? Ridiculous.
Of course, this is the guy who thinks a lack of 'mains noise' is going to make your amp sound sweeter at night, and advises you to run your amp off a car battery, using special lacquered spruce feet on the circuit board, in order to 'mellow' the sound. What a joke!
As others have said, total musicality is in the fingers that are playing. The instrument is secondary--as long as it is not really garbage to begin with. A half a million dollar '59 LP in my hands is going to sound... not very good. A two hundred dollar Firefly in the hands of Jimmy Page is going to sound like Led Zeppelin. And it would have been the same for David and Igor Oistrakh, on the violin.
Obviously acoustic instruments by construction are going to show more differences in sonic quality than something like an amplified solid body electric guitar.
Guitars have to work as guitars, just as other instruments do. When world-class performers play on a crappy instrument, they still sound great. But the question is: What are thy having to do to make that great sound? I've certainly heard high-end performers pronounce that instruments they were trying were "crap", or, more likely, "unplayable". They still sounded great on them.
As for me, I lack the skills necessary to overcome a poor instrument. That same skill limitation means that I won't sound world-class (to say the least) on a world-class instrument, but I will certainly sound
better.
The interaction between a musician and an instrument is, at least in part, mystical. Music does not work at a purely analytical level, and here the placebo effect counts, as do purely emotional responses. But that does not mean that performers should be swayed by every cross-breeze that comes their way. I do know musicians who replace their instruments every year or two in search of something better. Often, it's just a tool to stave off boredom, and there's nothing wrong with that. Even some top pros have struggled to find their own voice on the instruments available to them. But their listeners would never know it--musicians are often looking for something beyond what listeners experience. An instrument still has to work--for guitars, the frets have to be aligned, the neck has to have the correct shape, and all sorts of other characteristics I have no knowledge of. Tubas have to have valves that work quickly and reliably, tight tolerances, tuning slides that are accessible and that move smoothly, balance, physical fit to the player, and on and on. All that is in addition to the sound it makes. Just as a camera is more than its sensor image quality, a musical instrument is more than its sound.
I heard one top performer play a tuba, and after ten minutes put it down and said "the scale on this instrument is unusable". That means it is not in tune with itself. My intonation sense is pretty good (at least when listening to others), and I detected nothing amiss in his intonation. But the question from his perspective is: How much work does it take to make this thing play in tune?
Rick "even painters have their favorite brushes" Denney