Guitar Snobs

[AutoBat]

Fun fact: Creedence Clearwater Revival tried to sue John Fogerty for sounding like CCR.  (spoiler alert: John Fogerty won)

 

[Jumble Jumble]

So it's not even the person who invented the designs that's important, it's what's corporate entity he worked for at the time? What a beautiful sentiment.

 

[ClassicMetalMatt]

So it's not even the person who invented the designs that's important, it's what's corporate entity he worked for at the time? What a beautiful sentiment.

+1 for amazing internet sacrasm. and logic. I like logic.

 

[tylereot]

All my solid body guitars will be Warmoths from here on in.  Except maybe the Fender Blacktop Jazzmaster, I have a weird thing for that guitar.    And even that you can have Warmoth build a better version of. 

Ha!  Wait'll you see what I'm getting in the mail this afternoon!

 

[Super Turbo Deluxe Custom]

Again, I dislike G&L because they used the designs fender sold and try to get around it by using a different headstock shape.

Would it interest you to know the headstock design on "real" Fenders was borrowed?

 

[Cagey]

So it's not even the person who invented the designs that's important, it's what's corporate entity he worked for at the time? What a beautiful sentiment.

Actually, that's true far more often than not. It's called "work for hire", and the employer owns the intellectual property the employee generates during his employ. Most of the time, it doesn't even require any kind of contract or agreement; it's implied (and enforceable). But, many employers now put it in writing so there's no confusion later on. I've worked for a number of firms where they not only make you sign such acknowledgment, they give you a dollar so there's legitimate "trade in kind". In other words, you sell all rights to everything you're going to come up with during the course of your employment for a buck. Some places even make you sign NDAs (Non-Disclosure Agreements) so you're prevented from using anything you might learn while there at anyplace you might work later on, including for yourself, even if you didn't come up with it. Those are getting harder to enforce, but it's still done.

 

[bagman67]

Again, I dislike G&L because they used the designs fender sold and try to get around it by using a different headstock shape.

Would it interest you to know the headstock design on "real" Fenders was borrowed?

COUGH*bigsby*COUGH

 

[Strat Avenger]

Has nothing to do with "snobbery". That music just plain sucks, and the people performing it are not musicians.

Hahaha, saying its not snobbery doesn't make it not snobbery. And your comment there is pure 100% concentrated snobbery. I mean, what were all those guys with guitars and drums behind KP if they weren't musicians? They're session guys with skills that would probably make you look like an angry child (if you weren't doing such a good job yourself).

What barometer do you use to decide if it "sucks"? It's a completely subjective thing. The barometer I use is, when I listen to it, does it cause in me a emotional reaction I enjoy? If yes, I like it, and it doesn't "suck". Your barometer seems to be based on whether or not they're doing everything how you think it should be done, and nothing to do with the experience of being a listener.

Unless of course you're asserting that if your experience as a listener to a particular piece of music isn't a positive one, then everyone else is objectively wrong if they get a positive experience out of it? No, can't be. That would be stupid.

It's not snobbery at all.

FACT: Britney Spears, Katie Perry, Madonna, Christina Aguilera, etc, ARE NOT musicians. They do not write songs, they do not play musical instruments, and the music they perform that was written and played by other people absolutely SUCKS compared to the plethora of good music out there. It's all just eye-candy, and people who are attracted to that kind of stuff are children, and simple-minded adults who's brains become overloaded when exposed to really good and creative music.

 

[Super Turbo Deluxe Custom]

What's funny too, when I see someone with a G&L, I automatically think they have discriminating tastes.  For all their similarities, mainly the ASAT and Legacy models, they are very different from Fenders.  Their 3 bolt neck and bullet truss rod are post Leo, CBS style appointments.  They don't have 6 hole trems.  The pickups are a way different design.  I'm also not aware of pickguards, bodies, or necks interchangeability with Fender.

 

[Dan025]

as far as I'm concerned fender lost what it was when they exchanged brass and steel for zinc and started using bar magnets and steel pole pieces in place of the alnico rod magnets and importing cheaper versions of it's guitars from asia and mexico.

more repeatable manufacturing aside should leo fender stop using his own designs after he sold the brand and they started making inferior products in atleast some respects?
should bill lawrence not produce his iconic blade pickups to the original specs because an old buisness partner has rights to his name and sells inferior imports?
as ar as i'm concerned G&L is as much fender as fender is. and the courts had already said that only the headstock shape was protected under trademark.

the fact is that the strat has good ergonomics and was already successful so why abandon it? why should the creator be forced to make cosmetic changes on his own design if the copycats were only given one area that was hands off? why shouldn't leo and george or anyone else for that matter offer what the strat and tele could have been to the public? should we all live with mediority as better engineering fails to take a place in th market due to brand or shape loyalty as the large successful companies only do the minimum to survive and the competitors only use designs that have less appeal to the consumers? why shouldn't a company, especially one that employs the creator of something offer familiar and superior alternatives to whats available? rather than thinking cometitiors should use different designs maybe the brand should make competitive instruments.

trademarks and brand identity is a touchy subject. and i agree designs should be protected to some extent but it's too often abused. the idea that G&L shouldn't use fender designs because they aren't part of they corperation that uses the fender name is something i have trouble with.

 

[Super Turbo Deluxe Custom]

What most people think of as a humbucking pickup, isn't that a Gibson shape.  Do guitars with that humbucker construction lack originality?

 

[Strat Avenger]

I've owned my share of classics, and even did a couple restorations. Loved the things, but they were the scariest cars I've ever driven. I've since gotten it out of my system. I'm not as convinced of my immortality as I was when I was younger. So, it's not that I'm not a car guy, it's just that I like brakes that stop me and suspensions that keep me upright and going in the direction I intend, engines that start and run no matter the weather, double digit mileage, on and on.

Stating that you're "not a car-guy" is just my way of giving you some $#!t.

Just to clarify, I have no interest in original or original restorations of classic cars. I like what Jay Leno does to many of his classics. The engine, transmission, suspension, and steering, and braking upgrades put those cars in the same league as modern cars. Aside from not having air-bags, they are about as safe as a car can be.

Of course Jay has several exotic classic cars of which modification would destroy the resale value.

In actuality, it sucks being a car-guy, 'cuz that's a lot less money I have to spend on guitars. I wish I had only ONE interest instead of two, but I cannot help it -- I'm hooked.

 

[Cagey]

FACT: Britney Spears, Katie Perry, Madonna, Christina Aguilera, etc, ARE NOT musicians. They do not write songs, they do not play musical instruments, and the music they perform that was written and played by other people absolutely SUCKS compared to the plethora of good music out there. It's all just eye-candy, and people who are attracted to that kind of stuff are children, and simple-minded adults who's brains become overloaded when exposed to really good and creative music.

You're right in that those people aren't musicians, per se. But, they are entertainers. You don't have to be a musician to be an entertainer. Look at Robert DeNiro. Not that I'd put him in with the aforementioned group, either, but you know what I'm saying. To accuse them of not being musicians is like accusing Joe Satriani of not being a marine biologist. It's a non-existent argument.

 

[bagman67]

Has nothing to do with "snobbery". That music just plain sucks, and the people performing it are not musicians.

Hahaha, saying its not snobbery doesn't make it not snobbery. And your comment there is pure 100% concentrated snobbery. I mean, what were all those guys with guitars and drums behind KP if they weren't musicians? They're session guys with skills that would probably make you look like an angry child (if you weren't doing such a good job yourself).

What barometer do you use to decide if it "sucks"? It's a completely subjective thing. The barometer I use is, when I listen to it, does it cause in me a emotional reaction I enjoy? If yes, I like it, and it doesn't "suck". Your barometer seems to be based on whether or not they're doing everything how you think it should be done, and nothing to do with the experience of being a listener.

Unless of course you're asserting that if your experience as a listener to a particular piece of music isn't a positive one, then everyone else is objectively wrong if they get a positive experience out of it? No, can't be. That would be stupid.

It's not snobbery at all.

FACT: Britney Spears, Katie Perry, Madonna, Christina Aguilera, etc, ARE NOT musicians. They do not write songs, they do not play musical instruments, and the music they perform that was written and played by other people absolutely SUCKS compared to the plethora of good music out there. It's all just eye-candy, and people who are attracted to that kind of stuff are children, and simple-minded adults who's brains become overloaded when exposed to really good and creative music.

God help me, I'm wading in.


Looks like a few things are in play here, on the "musician" front.  Street Avenger has a definition that works for him, and a lot of the stuff he's on about doesn't fall in that definition - and the fact that my definition is quite different from Street Avenger's will do nothing to bring us together on the discussion built atop our differing definitions.  So, okay.  Madonna sucks.  Madonna's a musical genius.  Whatev's.


And as to the guitar thing - well, cripes, it's a non-Fender board populated by a lotta folks who found Fender wanting, or at least sought valid alternatives to the Big F.  Leading with an expression of Fender enthusiasm will raise eyebrows.  If it's surprising that folks got all het up, well, ya might consider a little self-examination.


Now I'll shut up, and probably ignore the thread for the duration.


Bagman

 

[Super Turbo Deluxe Custom]

Katie and Madonna are songwriters, and do play instruments.  Maybe not well or on stage.  If I play an instrument well, but don't write songs, am I a musician?

 

[Strat Avenger]

Katie and Madonna are songwriters, and do play instruments.  Maybe not well or on stage.  If I play an instrument well, but don't write songs, am I a musician?

Writing lyrics does not make someone a song-writer or musician. I guarantee neither of them have ever written the music to any of their songs, and no, neither of them play a musical instrument ('sorry, the skin-flute doesn't count as a musical instrument) well enough to be professional musicians or even amateur musicians. Like I said, they are eye-candy. It's all about tits & ass & makeup & hairspray. Cagey is correct that they are entertainers, but they are entertainers in the Music Business, which to me is a joke.

Most of the people on this forum are musicians, and I would bet that most of the music they like is not played on the radio.

 

[bagman67]

Katie and Madonna are songwriters, and do play instruments.  Maybe not well or on stage.  If I play an instrument well, but don't write songs, am I a musician?

Writing lyrics does not make someone a song-writer or musician. I guarantee neither of them have ever written the music to any of their songs, and no, neither of them play a musical instrument ('sorry, the skin-flute doesn't count as a musical instrument) well enough to be professional musicians or even amateur musicians. Like I said, they are eye-candy. It's all about tits & ass & makeup & hairspray. Cagey is correct that they are entertainers, but they are entertainers in the Music Business, which to me is a joke.

Most of the people on this forum are musicians, and I would bet that most of the music they like is not played on the radio.

Just to screw with you:

 

[Super Turbo Deluxe Custom]

Ahmet Ertegün wrote songs without an instrument.  Mozart wrote charts for instruments he didn't play.  Not arguing Katie or Madonna are Mozart, but like Bagman said, we have different definitions of songwriting.  I've added my style to songs I haven't written, and the 2 whores, I don't think either of us knows their full contribution to their own "art." Even Clapton had no use for Tom Dowd types because he was the music.  He learned too that creative types need help.

 

[Jumble Jumble]

and simple-minded adults who's brains become overloaded when exposed to really good and creative music.

How do you explain the fact that I like music you think is good AND music you think sucks then?

Katie and Madonna are songwriters, and do play instruments.  Maybe not well or on stage.  If I play an instrument well, but don't write songs, am I a musician?

Writing lyrics does not make someone a song-writer or musician. I guarantee neither of them have ever written the music to any of their songs, and no, neither of them play a musical instrument

Well, that's completely wrong as Katy (note spelling) Perry had a record deal based entirely on Christian songs she wrote and played on acoustic guitar well before she was famous (she was called Katy Hudson back then). Honestly, the fact that you hate somebody's musical output does not make you an expert on their entire life history. I've stood in front of her and watched her play guitar for Christ's sake. Surely if you hate it all so much you must realise that your avoidance of ever hearing anything about it is unlikely to give you a full insight?

(sorry, the skin-flute doesn't count as a musical instrument)

aaaand now we're just into disgusting misogyny. Way to lose the argument.


---

In the end who cares. You are the sort of person who proclaims your opinion is "right" (at one point literally using the word "FACT" to introduce your opinion), which is at best frightfully naive, and at worst outright offensive. I am happy knowing that I don't have to justify anything to you and your prejudices.

 

[Dan025]

as it turns out lady gaga is a talented pianist and many pop idols do have a musical talent, but i don't know if that should make everyone a fan of the material they record and sell to the public. some people like pop, some don't. musician vs entertainer.. really who cares. i thought this thread was about guitars...