Multipiece Bodies vs Multipiece Necks... Voodoo? or Haiku

Good Morning, it's Trashed!

Don't worry, no black magic or poetry here. Trashed is no poet.

When you spend a lot of money on a Gibson, a bookmatched maple top and a two piece of body is what you dream of. (Oh. Wait, nevermind Gibson kind of put themselves in the shitter, so lets say a LP-a-like). It has 'da tonez', right?

People tend to think that the lesser the number of pieces that a guitar is made of, the better. Fact or fiction, I indeed do not know... BUT I do know that I wouldn't buy a Gibson with a five piece body.

NOW, most companies are using multi-piece necks. Maple/Walnut/Maple/Walnut/Maple, or whatever-the-hell they feel like. Does a five piece neck have the same effect as a five piece body wood? HONESTLY, I do NOT know. There are indeed obvious benefits as the necks are more stable and less likely to warp, and that it looks pretty, and, yeah it looks pretty. NOW (yet again), if the bridge is attached to the five piece and is a neck through, does that change the game? No idea. NOT to rag on Gibson, BUT why have they yet to use a scarf joint (face palm). Does one more joint make the guitar so different that half the time you drop one the neck breaks? They have done quite a bit of stoopid shit (mini-tune being the most obvious) to make me never buy a newer one, but they can't fix the weakest point of the guitar being the headstock joint... Dumbasses. They have no issue chamber and weight relating, but can't change the neck joint? Bottom line is that "HOW MUCH DOES A WOOD JOINT MATTER"?

I don't really know, let me know if you do.

/Trashed out.