Guitar Snobs

Altar said:
As for G&L, when fender sold out to cbs, he sold all his original designs. He, in that  moment, lost all rights to his original designs.

There you go, then G&L's designs are original.  But I don't know if he sold all the rights.  I think he was selling the brand and signing an expirable non compete clause.  Realistically, they were just as worried about competing with his amps.  And the G&L Legacy, tell me that's not a Strat.
 
Johnny said:
Altar said:
My point is that the guitar should not be cosmetically the same. An Ibanez art does not a les paul make. I have no problem with Music Man, There is nothing I have against making a similar sound. But all the fender copies, yamaha pacifica, etc.... I strongly dislike.

I hear what you're saying; however, I find that I can't just group all the "copies" into one bucket.  Suhr makes some very nice Strats (Warmoth bodies?).  Collings makes a beatiful 335.  Tom Anderson's Bulldog is also a gorgeous LP copy.  I love to have any of them.

But if they make such nice guitars, why not change the shape, paint, pickguard, etc... You could call a prs a gibson copy, but he not only improved on the les paul but made it his own.


Btw, I don't mean to start a ragefest here, just making a point. Hopefully this won't stop the discussion though, I am thoroughly enjoying it. :icon_biggrin:
 
Altar said:
But if they make such nice guitars, why not change the shape, paint, pickguard, etc... You could call a prs a gibson copy, but he not only improved on the les paul but made it his own.

You're probably assuming there's such a thing as a "perfect" guitar. There's not. One man's dream is another's nightmare. With guitars, very minor differences can make major changes in a player's happiness. So, one guy makes his neck .030" thinner/thicker, or .062" wider or narrower, a different radius on the fretboard, or uses a slightly hotter/colder pickup, a different bridge design - the list is long, and most of the differences would have to be exaggerated to be called "minor". Then you wanna talk about body design/contours? Phbbtr. Better be carrying. Talk to any serious guitar player, and they'll defend to the death their choice of what's proper. Suhr's take on the Strat is quite nice by any objective measurement, but subjectively? Try telling a Suhr owner his guitar is a "Fender copy". Them's fightin' words. Same with PRS vs. Gibson, or Fender vs. [all the manufacturers on Earth].
 
Everything matters. And, as having a guitar that is a total icepick is as adorable as having a total mushmelon, the total system is usually thought to sound "good" if it produces much midrange, painless highs, and at least initially clear lows. The frequencies we "like" have to do with the evolution of the human ear vis-a-vis survival strategies, but that's a big bucket. Tommy liked the way TIGERS sounded, but poor Tommy had no children...

For example, it's semi-reliably reported that the "Beano" tone was not just a decent 1959 Les Paul and an early Marshall, but a treble booster too. Because Eric Clapton had ears, and the engineer used the right mike, and the mixer EQ'd it well, it sounded "good." And Jimmy Page used a trashed-out Tele through some pretty weird amps for the first few Zepp albums, and even in bits and pieces thereafter ("Stairway" solo) but he had been working in studios for several years at the time and he made some choices about mikes and microphone placement and EQ that are admired to this day.

And if you were in high school in America at any time in the past 50 years, you know it was a differently-but-still-imperative survival strategy to learn to like the sounds that everyone else told you were great - that's largely what high school does, besides teaching you that getting up at some godawful hour to go do a bunch of dumb bullshit was about the best you could hope for the rest of your life. So even if you though blues songs were really stupid, Van Halen & AC/DC belonged in the KISS bin instead of the ZEPPELIN bin, you still learned to associated those sounds with your first girl, your first drunk, driving around acting ridiculous, and when you later referenced those sound against the sounds favored by listeners to Marilyn Manson & Captain & Tenille & Cannibal Corpse & Barry Manilow, you knew yours were inherently better because YOUR BRAIN HAD BIOLOGICALLY MUTATED. As had theirs.... For god's sakes, there are actually GROWN MEN who listen to MADONNA because MADONNA very craftily figured out that if she sang like a ten-year-old girl, ten-year-old girls would want to BE her. Craftily, because she realized that ten-year-old girls would soon enough BE fifteen-year-old girls and fifteen-year-old BOYS would soon enough learn that listening to dirty MADONNA songs while with a fifteen-year-old girl was a survival strategy unto itself. And now, they CAN'T stop listening to MADONNA - just as she intended all along.

Alas I drift. I can think of at least a dozen ways to tame an overtly keening tone, because I sort of have to, I do like my treble....the big fat high-grade Belden & Mogami cables that transmit a powered microphone signal with great fidelity can swallow your puny little passive pickup's sound, while a very low-impedance cable like the Lawrence or George L's can assist a Telecaster into a 180-watt Super Twin Reverb shatter teeth. Yay! ~ everything is compensatory. If you ever plugged your guitar straight into a real 1000 watt PA with ceramic tweeters and horns you'd soon learn why that flappy, gasping Celestion Classic 30 had been SAVING YOUR ASS all along, as true treble is a force to be reckoned with. Go look at a guitar speaker's output curve sometime.
 
Altar said:
Again, just stating my opinion. I don't like anything like a fender that's not a fender.

That's probably an unfortunate attitude to have, for your sake. There are many guitars out there that are direct copies of or are based on Fender designs that are dramatically superior instruments. To dismiss them categorically is to deprive yourself of some great experiences in playing comfort, reliability, appearance and sonic pleasure. Not to take anything away from Fender instruments - they are the standard by which all others are judged - but they are just production guitars/basses built as cheaply as they can get away with for the price they're asking. So, the bar isn't set very high.
 
Altar said:
Again, just stating my opinion. I don't like anything like a fender that's not a fender.

Wow - I feel bad for you buddy.  It's like saying you don't like redheads or something.  You're missing out on some great experiences.
 
Mayfly said:
Altar said:
Again, just stating my opinion. I don't like anything like a fender that's not a fender.

Wow - I feel bad for you buddy.  It's like saying you don't like redheads or something.  You're missing out on some great experiences.


Totally with you on the redheads.


christina-hendricks-cropped.jpg



And the non-Fenders.  I have owned perhaps 18 electric guitars and two basses, and most have performed really well - and only three were Fenders.  Two Gibsons in the lot, as well.
 
Like stated so many times by so many people on this forum alone, maple neck, single coil pickups, 25.5" scale, alder or ash body, doesn't matter who makes it, that's a Fender.
 
Mayfly said:
Altar said:
Again, just stating my opinion. I don't like anything like a fender that's not a fender.

Wow - I feel bad for you buddy.  It's like saying you don't like redheads or something.  You're missing out on some great experiences.

Nothing against redheads. But the blondes that dye their hair "Aubrey O'day red...." Whats with that? Be blonde, be suhr, be G&L, not fender.
 
Okay, momentary thread hijack.  This is a chick thing, so I feel I must explain.

As a blonde who dyes her hair various shades of red (I personally like the more natural colors, but sometimes I go brighter if I'm in the mood), I must clarify that the reason I do it, and the reason most blondes do some sort of dying is this: 90% of blondes do not stay blonde past their teen years.  I turned 16 and my hair changed from a pleasant strawberry blonde to this weird muted blonde-brunette-red color that was very unflattering and mousey. 

I tried dying it blonde, and it always looked fake unless I paid top $$$ to have it highlighted and whatnot, and they could not get my regular color right.  So I switched to red and never looked back, and most people think it is my natural color because I have the complexion for it.  This is the story with almost every female blonde friend I have.  Even the ones who decided to stay blonde have to dye their hair to keep it looking like blonde and not like a weird dirty dishwater yellow-brown.  My best friend is the only one I know who still has beautiful honey-colored hair... and she dyes it brown half the time, which makes me want to strangle her. 

Okay, off the soap box.  Continue with regularly scheduled programming.
 
Altar said:
Mayfly said:
Altar said:
Again, just stating my opinion. I don't like anything like a fender that's not a fender.

Wow - I feel bad for you buddy.  It's like saying you don't like redheads or something.  You're missing out on some great experiences.

Nothing against redheads. But the blondes that dye their hair "Aubrey O'day red...." Whats with that? Be blonde, be suhr, be G&L, not fender.

I can't believe I'm so quick to pull the age card, but dang, man.  Look at the "whys" behind why things are the way they are.  G&L, Music Man etc were instrumental in getting Fender to remove its head from its hind end.  Fender's offering were so effing poor that the *original* people tried to recreate more playable versions of what they'd previously created.  I own more Fenders and have built more guitars with Warmoth parts than you will probably ever play.  I've owned an actual Nocaster, 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, 2000s and beyond Strats and Teles.  The ones I've kept, I've kept for a reason, and the ones that have had their necks replaced were also for reasons.  Fender made some garbage as well as some gems, even in the "golden era" or whatever.

I'll also echo Mayfly here, and expound to say that you shouldn't be a fanboi of anything.  If Fender is/was so great, WHY is that, and WHAT made it that way.  Music isn't about brands and trends.  Those things follow music.  Some of us have taken that to an extreme and started mod'ing and building guitars and basses that are EXACTLY what we want.  I'll put my Bloodwood/Ebony necked bass against any bass on the planet.  The fact is, I don't own a single pure Fender bass anymore.  For a reason.  It's my reason, so get your own!

-Mark
 
I'll agree with that statement.  I think back to the early 90s when Fender started putting out really unique instruments like the Strat Plus and the now rare Strat Ultra.  And I remember how just a few years earlier, my MIK Squier Strat was brand new, and a total piece of junk (no, really...first gen Squier Strats from Korea in 1987 were absolutely awful).  Then moving forward in time... I have yet (though there is always a first time) to play one of the Mexican made models that I can quantify as a 'bad' guitar.

Without competition, brand name monopolizers tend to stagnate.
 
That's true. Time was, you didn't even bother to look at Squiers. They belonged in blister packs at K-Mart, with a limited time offer of a free pick. These days, it's tough to get a bad guitar from anybody. Thank the proliferation of automation. CNC machines are ubiquitous now, production speed finish chemistry has been perfected, and hardware out of China sells by the pound. I've seen $120 Korean fiddles that I'd have given my left nut for 30 years ago.
 
I've always wondered why Gibson has never considered the Fender model...by that I mean produce guitars with the actual Gibson label on them in another country.  The Epiphone line, while quality now (some of the late 80s models like the Emperor were total crap at the time) ...doesn't make complete sense to me for some reason.  Maybe Gibson won't do it because you couldn't convince someone to buy an American $5000 Les Paul Custom when you can get one that looks exactly like it, albeit made in Mexico/China?  Sadly, that Gibson headstock and logo is their only trump card to get you to buy their American production models.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCvgE6yzoAM

Personally, I've always kind of followed this guy's advice in this video on how to select a guitar -- though admittedly, I kind of knew how to do this before I heard it from him.  ;)

And...when you can't find what you want, you go Warmoth.  :rock-on:
 
When you can get $5K for a $500 guitar, why suffer the difficulty of remote operations to save a $150/instrument? You'll spend more than that keeping things moving along.

During my career, I've seen basically two reasons to offshore. One, to remain competitive so as to stay in business and two, to avoid stifling regulation. Until only recently, Gibson hasn't had either of those problems, or at least not to the degree that they'd take action on it.

As it is, they can afford to maintain the "Made in USA" label with plenty of money left over for yachts, coke and generous endorsement deals.
 
Just want to say that, in addition to all the music I'm allowed to listen to, I also like Madonna,and it has nothing to do with my teenage self wanting to get girls. At school if I'd told a girl I listened to Madonna she'd have laughed me across the room. To get girls you had to listen to Soundgarden, Nirvana and REM. I don't listen to any of them any more.

It's not nostalgia either; I just like pop music in addition to worthy guitar music. I like Katy Perry too.

Guitar snobbery bad; music snobbery OK?
 
You're drunk.

Anyway, to get girls you only have to do one of two things: get on stage (legitimately), or dance. In my experience, it's arguably easier to get on stage, even if it takes years of practice, although that's not entirely necessary. You just have to dare to suck, and get someone to let you.
 
Back
Top