Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
Why I feel private lutheirs are largely over rated.
Re: Why I feel private lutheirs are largely over rated.
On Apr 20, 9:50 pm, MartinGibsonTaylor <Jeremy.De...@gmail,com > wrote:
> And as my list of professional artist shows, regardless of if a good
> number of these pros own custom instruments or not (I'm sure many do),
> the point is those custom jobs aren't their main axe, I believed I
> listed some of (if not most) of the most important guitarist to have
> lived in the last several decades.
Their main axe is quite likely a custom job---even if it carries a big
company logo.
And anyway, maybe these musicians don't want to damage their valuable
one-of-a-kind instrument by gigging or touring with it?
> Have I worked with a lutheir to get a custom guitar made? Answer: No.
Mom's allowance won't stretch that far.
> My entire post explains the reason why.
Right, like the grapes being sour explain why the fox didn't want
them, not that he couldn't reach that high.
On Apr 20, 9:50 pm, MartinGibsonTaylor <Jeremy.De...@gmail,com > wrote:
> And as my list of professional artist shows, regardless of if a good
> number of these pros own custom instruments or not (I'm sure many do),
> the point is those custom jobs aren't their main axe, I believed I
> listed some of (if not most) of the most important guitarist to have
> lived in the last several decades.
Their main axe is quite likely a custom job---even if it carries a big
company logo.
And anyway, maybe these musicians don't want to damage their valuable
one-of-a-kind instrument by gigging or touring with it?
> Have I worked with a lutheir to get a custom guitar made? Answer: No.
Mom's allowance won't stretch that far.
> My entire post explains the reason why.
Right, like the grapes being sour explain why the fox didn't want
them, not that he couldn't reach that high.
Re: Why I feel private lutheirs are largely over rated.
On Apr 20, 8:08 pm, RMZ <Jeremy.De...@gmail,com > wrote:
> So the bottom line
> is this: If private luthier built guitars are so amazing, why aren't
> more professionals playing them?
Because a private luthier can't afford to ship a crate of ten guitars
(free of charge) when some famous guitar player rings his phone?
> This question becomes a two edged sword if you are trying to take a
> stand against my argument. Because if you say all these professional
> players are shallow and willing to take an endorsement's over playing
> a quality guitar then you just add fuel to the fire.
Those professionals don't get their name brand guitar from a retail
music store. They get it from the manufacturer directly, who knows who
will be playing it and makes a good instrument, which is not unlike a
custom build from a private luthier. On the other hand, the one that /
you/ get over the counter looks very similar to his, but is a POS.
It's a scam: build/maintain the brand strength with a small quantity
of custom work, and use it to sell mass-produced crap.
> Design rises above construction quality. With time and care and a bit
> of love a craftsmen can build a quality instrument, but design is
> different. To innovate on design takes a deep understanding of why
> modern techniques work and a brilliant idea of how to improve on it.
> How many lutheirs do you know who fall in this group?
Most of the innovation in electric guitars has been in some of the
hardware, electronics, and the use of new materials in the body. Even
so, little has changed in fifty years.
On Apr 20, 8:08 pm, RMZ <Jeremy.De...@gmail,com > wrote:
> So the bottom line
> is this: If private luthier built guitars are so amazing, why aren't
> more professionals playing them?
Because a private luthier can't afford to ship a crate of ten guitars
(free of charge) when some famous guitar player rings his phone?
> This question becomes a two edged sword if you are trying to take a
> stand against my argument. Because if you say all these professional
> players are shallow and willing to take an endorsement's over playing
> a quality guitar then you just add fuel to the fire.
Those professionals don't get their name brand guitar from a retail
music store. They get it from the manufacturer directly, who knows who
will be playing it and makes a good instrument, which is not unlike a
custom build from a private luthier. On the other hand, the one that /
you/ get over the counter looks very similar to his, but is a POS.
It's a scam: build/maintain the brand strength with a small quantity
of custom work, and use it to sell mass-produced crap.
> Design rises above construction quality. With time and care and a bit
> of love a craftsmen can build a quality instrument, but design is
> different. To innovate on design takes a deep understanding of why
> modern techniques work and a brilliant idea of how to improve on it.
> How many lutheirs do you know who fall in this group?
Most of the innovation in electric guitars has been in some of the
hardware, electronics, and the use of new materials in the body. Even
so, little has changed in fifty years.
Re: Why I feel private lutheirs are largely over rated.
RMZ <Jeremy.Deats@gmail,com > wrote:
> So this is where my topic begins, my problem isn't with the 1-5% of
> lutheir's that truely make a difference in the craft and take the
> instrument further in terms of a design, it's with the other 95% who
> may build an exceptional quality product, but never really innovate
> over what's been done before and seldom can match the design of
> Fender, Gibson, Martin etc...
This is your first mistake. Assuming that innovation is somehow more
important than exceptional skill and craftsmanship. Your second mistake
is assuming that the desire and ability to build ones luthiery into a
major company is somehow more important than exceptional skill and
crafstmanship.
> So what are the big name players playing?
That's *not* what the big names are playing. That is a partial list of
name brand companies that big name players are playing.
> To tell you the truth, I'm struggling to think of a single player who
> uses private lutheir built instruments.
Personally I'm struggling to see how you could have come up with that
list and somehow completely ignored the small bespoke luthiery
instruments owned by those players.
Let's see how far we get before your list starts to crumble.
Eric Clapton (Fender, Martin)
Actually that should be (Fender, Gibson, Martin,Hoya, Dobro,
Danelectro,epiphone, lowden, national, ovation, pensa suhr, ramirez,
stahl, taylor, zemaitis).
Oh, that's not good, I see custom made luthier names in there...
So, we've demolished your first example. Lets check out these 'Pensa'
guitars and see who else plays them. Hmmm, Mark Knopfler - curious he
wasn't in your list of guitarists. Lou Reed, Christian McBride, Wayne
Krantz, Chuck Loeb...
What about them Zemaitis guitars (<google>oooh, shiney!</google>),
Ronnie Wood, Jimi Hendrix (hey, isn't he in your list as 'Fender',
hmmm), Dave Gilmour, Bob Dylan, Keith Richards, Paul McCartney
(incidentally he plays a Wal bass as a regular touring instrument).
You've somehow missed Dave Matthews Veillette and Jerry Jones guitars -
from his website 'on the road' tour guitars.
What about them Veillette guitars (<google>Oooh! Pretty!</google>) -
who plays those. James Taylor, Eddie Van Halen, Billy Gibbons, Steve
Miller, Earl Slick, David Torn...
> Billy Gibbons is one guy I
> know who I think only plays custom instruments at this point... But in
> the above list you'll find some of greatest folk, country and rock
> guitarist, songwriters, entertainer to have lived. So the bottom line
> is this: If private luthier built guitars are so amazing, why aren't
> more professionals playing them?
The bottom line is, why have you chosen to ignore folks like, oh I
dunno, Pat Metheney, John McLaughlin... Look, it's exhausting.
You've set up a clearly false premise, with doctored data to attempt to
bolster a demonstrably false premise.
--- Derek
--
Derek Tearne - derek@url.co.nz
Many Hands - Trans Cultural Music from Aotearoa/New Zealand
http :// www .manyhands.co.nz/
RMZ <Jeremy.Deats@gmail,com > wrote:
> So this is where my topic begins, my problem isn't with the 1-5% of
> lutheir's that truely make a difference in the craft and take the
> instrument further in terms of a design, it's with the other 95% who
> may build an exceptional quality product, but never really innovate
> over what's been done before and seldom can match the design of
> Fender, Gibson, Martin etc...
This is your first mistake. Assuming that innovation is somehow more
important than exceptional skill and craftsmanship. Your second mistake
is assuming that the desire and ability to build ones luthiery into a
major company is somehow more important than exceptional skill and
crafstmanship.
> So what are the big name players playing?
That's *not* what the big names are playing. That is a partial list of
name brand companies that big name players are playing.
> To tell you the truth, I'm struggling to think of a single player who
> uses private lutheir built instruments.
Personally I'm struggling to see how you could have come up with that
list and somehow completely ignored the small bespoke luthiery
instruments owned by those players.
Let's see how far we get before your list starts to crumble.
Eric Clapton (Fender, Martin)
Actually that should be (Fender, Gibson, Martin,Hoya, Dobro,
Danelectro,epiphone, lowden, national, ovation, pensa suhr, ramirez,
stahl, taylor, zemaitis).
Oh, that's not good, I see custom made luthier names in there...
So, we've demolished your first example. Lets check out these 'Pensa'
guitars and see who else plays them. Hmmm, Mark Knopfler - curious he
wasn't in your list of guitarists. Lou Reed, Christian McBride, Wayne
Krantz, Chuck Loeb...
What about them Zemaitis guitars (<google>oooh, shiney!</google>),
Ronnie Wood, Jimi Hendrix (hey, isn't he in your list as 'Fender',
hmmm), Dave Gilmour, Bob Dylan, Keith Richards, Paul McCartney
(incidentally he plays a Wal bass as a regular touring instrument).
You've somehow missed Dave Matthews Veillette and Jerry Jones guitars -
from his website 'on the road' tour guitars.
What about them Veillette guitars (<google>Oooh! Pretty!</google>) -
who plays those. James Taylor, Eddie Van Halen, Billy Gibbons, Steve
Miller, Earl Slick, David Torn...
> Billy Gibbons is one guy I
> know who I think only plays custom instruments at this point... But in
> the above list you'll find some of greatest folk, country and rock
> guitarist, songwriters, entertainer to have lived. So the bottom line
> is this: If private luthier built guitars are so amazing, why aren't
> more professionals playing them?
The bottom line is, why have you chosen to ignore folks like, oh I
dunno, Pat Metheney, John McLaughlin... Look, it's exhausting.
You've set up a clearly false premise, with doctored data to attempt to
bolster a demonstrably false premise.
--- Derek
--
Derek Tearne - derek@url.co.nz
Many Hands - Trans Cultural Music from Aotearoa/New Zealand
http :// www .manyhands.co.nz/
Re: Why I feel private lutheirs are largely over rated.
RMZ wrote:
> So this is where my topic begins, my problem isn't with the 1-5% of
> lutheir's that truely make a difference in the craft and take the
> instrument further in terms of a design, it's with the other 95% who
> may build an exceptional quality product, but never really innovate
> over what's been done before and seldom can match the design of
> Fender, Gibson, Martin etc...
"Match the design?" Why would anyone want to "match" the often surprisingly
shoddy and inconsistent product that these companies so often ship these
days? When you can pick up a multi-thousand dollar customer-shop instrument
from Gibson that has visible flaws in fit and finish why would that be
something a custom maker would want to replicate? A custom maker doesn't
have to do anything new to be better than the big companies, he just has to
make something that isn't screwed up!
> So what are the big name players playing? Here's a short list: Eric
> Clapton (Fender, Martin), Willie Nelson (Martin), Johnny Cash
> (Martin), Merl Haggard (Martin), B.B. King (Gibson), John Lennon
[snip]
This list is meaningless, some of them play instruments they like, others
play what they're paid to play, others play whatever is put into their
hands. How do you know what Clapton or any of these guys plays in the
studio, or at home? If we see a photo of a famous player in a private
setting and several of the instruments in his rack are not made by the
company that sponsors him what logical conclusion can we come to other than
that he in fact plays other brands too? If we read that a particular star
player has purchased an instrument from a custom maker are we supposed to
think he did so merely to add to his collection, he has no intention of
using it? If a recording engineer confirms that a famous player did certain
songs with custom instruments should we just ignore him and think *really*
he played the brand he poses with in ad photos?
> To tell you the truth, I'm struggling to think of a single player who
> uses private lutheir built instruments.
I'm struggling to think why you believe you know what they play except
onstage when there are photographers present.
> Billy Gibbons is one guy I
> know who I think only plays custom instruments at this point...
What makes you think so? I've seen him on his last half dozen tours and
seen him play exactly one song with a custom-made instrument, we knew it was
custom-made because he announced that. He certainly uses *customized*
instruments onstage at times (like his hollowed-out LPs), but they start off
as factory versions; the overwhelming majority of the time his stage guitars
are models any of us can buy if we have the cash, especially now that he
wants to sell us one of them.
> But in
> the above list you'll find some of greatest folk, country and rock
> guitarist, songwriters, entertainer to have lived. So the bottom line
> is this: If private luthier built guitars are so amazing, why aren't
> more professionals playing them?
Perhaps the question you should be asking is why wouldn't they be playing
instruments they're paid to play on those occasions when the sponsoring mfg.
wants them to be seen playing them?
> This question becomes a two edged sword if you are trying to take a
> stand against my argument. Because if you say all these professional
> players are shallow and willing to take an endorsement's over playing
> a quality guitar then you just add fuel to the fire.
What? Who said they don't play quality guitars? If you were invited to the
Fender or Gibson plant to go through their stock and pick half a dozen
guitars do you really think you couldn't find any worth owning? Do you
think if you were a big enough star to have your own personal guitar tech he
couldn't tweak those instruments to be exactly the way you want them?
> If you take that
> stance, then you're essentially saying the quality of the guitar isn't
> that important to the pros and that they've been able to create their
> masterpieces and tour with crap, mass produced guitars, so you devalue
> the luthier on that argument.
What? Who said anything about crap? Nobody is suggesting that only custom
makers build good guitars, but it's silly to pretend that mass-produced
instruments are going to reach the same level of quality. You're really
making some logic-defying leaps here.
> If you agree with me and say Gibson, Martin, Fender, Takamine, Ibanez,
> etc... have produced exceptional quality instruments worthy of the
> pros (which is an absolute true statement, which is easy to prove by
> looking at what the artist listed above are playing) then the question
> becomes why wouldn't the pay to have a private lutheir build them a
> guitar to their taste.
Your argument is full of holes, that a famous player endorses a particular
brand doesn't mean he thinks it's the best guitar he can get, it means he
likes the checks that company writes with his name on them. If the guitars
were crap and his performing suffered as a result then he would probably
rethink his postion, but obviously Fender, Gibson etc. make sure that that
these guys at least get good instruments.
> The answer is the big name manufactures have already met the
> professional needs with exceptional product and anytime you buy a
> guitar from a private lutheir the risk are fairly high.
How so? If you consult with the maker before, during and after your
instrument is made what exactly is going to go wrong, especially when he
stands behind it and tweaks whatever you don't like? How many such
instruments have you purchased to come to this conclusion, and exactly what
flaws did you discover?
> With any
> product you have construction quality and you have the design itself,
> both are equally important and completely different. Companies like
> C.F. Martin, Gibson, Fender. Although most of them are not under the
> same ownership they once were, in many situations they are the only
> companies who can by law (thanks to patents) build their instruments
> the way they do, they own the design rights.
Which "patents" do you think these companies have? Are you perhaps
confusing patent protection with things like trademark and trade dress?
> So as an artist you can choose to buy a C.F. Martin, Fender, whatever
> and trust in their heritage and 50 or 150 years of guitar making
> knowledge
And ignore the evidence of your own eyes, ears and fingers when you're in a
guitar shop and pick up one disappointing brand-name instrument after
another.
> When we get into what is "high quality" the little nuances that we
> loose with mass produced guitars are a small price to pay for superior
> design and consistency, the list of artist above prove this.
Doesn't prove jack-shit, that you can't understand why these artists use
brand-name guitars that have been hand-picked and customized to their specs
and come with sponsorship attached only shows that you don't understand how
the business works. You're kicking up a lot of dust here, so far you don't
seem to have cut much wood.
RMZ wrote:
> So this is where my topic begins, my problem isn't with the 1-5% of
> lutheir's that truely make a difference in the craft and take the
> instrument further in terms of a design, it's with the other 95% who
> may build an exceptional quality product, but never really innovate
> over what's been done before and seldom can match the design of
> Fender, Gibson, Martin etc...
"Match the design?" Why would anyone want to "match" the often surprisingly
shoddy and inconsistent product that these companies so often ship these
days? When you can pick up a multi-thousand dollar customer-shop instrument
from Gibson that has visible flaws in fit and finish why would that be
something a custom maker would want to replicate? A custom maker doesn't
have to do anything new to be better than the big companies, he just has to
make something that isn't screwed up!
> So what are the big name players playing? Here's a short list: Eric
> Clapton (Fender, Martin), Willie Nelson (Martin), Johnny Cash
> (Martin), Merl Haggard (Martin), B.B. King (Gibson), John Lennon
[snip]
This list is meaningless, some of them play instruments they like, others
play what they're paid to play, others play whatever is put into their
hands. How do you know what Clapton or any of these guys plays in the
studio, or at home? If we see a photo of a famous player in a private
setting and several of the instruments in his rack are not made by the
company that sponsors him what logical conclusion can we come to other than
that he in fact plays other brands too? If we read that a particular star
player has purchased an instrument from a custom maker are we supposed to
think he did so merely to add to his collection, he has no intention of
using it? If a recording engineer confirms that a famous player did certain
songs with custom instruments should we just ignore him and think *really*
he played the brand he poses with in ad photos?
> To tell you the truth, I'm struggling to think of a single player who
> uses private lutheir built instruments.
I'm struggling to think why you believe you know what they play except
onstage when there are photographers present.
> Billy Gibbons is one guy I
> know who I think only plays custom instruments at this point...
What makes you think so? I've seen him on his last half dozen tours and
seen him play exactly one song with a custom-made instrument, we knew it was
custom-made because he announced that. He certainly uses *customized*
instruments onstage at times (like his hollowed-out LPs), but they start off
as factory versions; the overwhelming majority of the time his stage guitars
are models any of us can buy if we have the cash, especially now that he
wants to sell us one of them.
> But in
> the above list you'll find some of greatest folk, country and rock
> guitarist, songwriters, entertainer to have lived. So the bottom line
> is this: If private luthier built guitars are so amazing, why aren't
> more professionals playing them?
Perhaps the question you should be asking is why wouldn't they be playing
instruments they're paid to play on those occasions when the sponsoring mfg.
wants them to be seen playing them?
> This question becomes a two edged sword if you are trying to take a
> stand against my argument. Because if you say all these professional
> players are shallow and willing to take an endorsement's over playing
> a quality guitar then you just add fuel to the fire.
What? Who said they don't play quality guitars? If you were invited to the
Fender or Gibson plant to go through their stock and pick half a dozen
guitars do you really think you couldn't find any worth owning? Do you
think if you were a big enough star to have your own personal guitar tech he
couldn't tweak those instruments to be exactly the way you want them?
> If you take that
> stance, then you're essentially saying the quality of the guitar isn't
> that important to the pros and that they've been able to create their
> masterpieces and tour with crap, mass produced guitars, so you devalue
> the luthier on that argument.
What? Who said anything about crap? Nobody is suggesting that only custom
makers build good guitars, but it's silly to pretend that mass-produced
instruments are going to reach the same level of quality. You're really
making some logic-defying leaps here.
> If you agree with me and say Gibson, Martin, Fender, Takamine, Ibanez,
> etc... have produced exceptional quality instruments worthy of the
> pros (which is an absolute true statement, which is easy to prove by
> looking at what the artist listed above are playing) then the question
> becomes why wouldn't the pay to have a private lutheir build them a
> guitar to their taste.
Your argument is full of holes, that a famous player endorses a particular
brand doesn't mean he thinks it's the best guitar he can get, it means he
likes the checks that company writes with his name on them. If the guitars
were crap and his performing suffered as a result then he would probably
rethink his postion, but obviously Fender, Gibson etc. make sure that that
these guys at least get good instruments.
> The answer is the big name manufactures have already met the
> professional needs with exceptional product and anytime you buy a
> guitar from a private lutheir the risk are fairly high.
How so? If you consult with the maker before, during and after your
instrument is made what exactly is going to go wrong, especially when he
stands behind it and tweaks whatever you don't like? How many such
instruments have you purchased to come to this conclusion, and exactly what
flaws did you discover?
> With any
> product you have construction quality and you have the design itself,
> both are equally important and completely different. Companies like
> C.F. Martin, Gibson, Fender. Although most of them are not under the
> same ownership they once were, in many situations they are the only
> companies who can by law (thanks to patents) build their instruments
> the way they do, they own the design rights.
Which "patents" do you think these companies have? Are you perhaps
confusing patent protection with things like trademark and trade dress?
> So as an artist you can choose to buy a C.F. Martin, Fender, whatever
> and trust in their heritage and 50 or 150 years of guitar making
> knowledge
And ignore the evidence of your own eyes, ears and fingers when you're in a
guitar shop and pick up one disappointing brand-name instrument after
another.
> When we get into what is "high quality" the little nuances that we
> loose with mass produced guitars are a small price to pay for superior
> design and consistency, the list of artist above prove this.
Doesn't prove jack-shit, that you can't understand why these artists use
brand-name guitars that have been hand-picked and customized to their specs
and come with sponsorship attached only shows that you don't understand how
the business works. You're kicking up a lot of dust here, so far you don't
seem to have cut much wood.
Re: Why I feel private lutheirs are largely over rated.
>
> Doesn't prove jack-shit, that you can't understand why these artists use
> brand-name guitars that have been hand-picked and customized to their specs
> and come with sponsorship attached only shows that you don't understand how
> the business works. You're kicking up a lot of dust here, so far you don't
> seem to have cut much wood.
Thanks for the good counter post, you make some good arguments, along
with some I don't think are so strong... Regarding the guitars being
"hand picked and highly customized to their specs" is true in some
instances in others not. At the center of you counter to my argument
is that there's this cynical system where product endorsements have
complete control over what these artist play.
That's part true, but more bullshit than anything and it's easy to
prove. C.F. Martin was offering no artist endorsements whatsoever to
over half the folk I mentioned: Willie Nelson, Cash, Hank Williams,
nope. Check your history it was against their company policy if
something was happening under the table it would have surfaced by now.
What's more: Clapton didn't have Fender endorceing him, John and Paul
bought Epiphone's on their own accord, Paul has a very large
collection of guitars (many hand made) and he has said in recent
interviews that his 1965 Epiphone Casino is the favorite guitar to
play lead on. On his unplugged album Clapton played a sub $600, massed
produced nylon string Fender guitar on Tears in Heaven. If Clapton can
perform a masterpiece like that on a sub $600 massed produced
guitar... well you see where this is going don't you? How did the
private lutheir help Claton there? Why does he need a private
lutheired instrument.
Stevie Ray Vaughan had his 57' Start which of course was highly
customized, but why did he choose a strart to modify instead of just
going to private lutheir and having them build him a guitar? Well, he
would later do that too, but his 57' remained his #1 up until he died.
The list could just go on and I could keep proving this point that,
it's not all about the endorsement and if it's not about the
endourcement then we get back to why don't these artist use private
lutheirs for their primary instruments? Do they really have some
secret instrument that was hand made that they take into the studio
with them and then take their endourced product on stage? No, I don't
buy that for a second. Maybe a small percentage fall into this groups,
but the respected players at this point; Jimmy Page, Clapton,
McCartney, and the even the fast forwarding a bit, Slash, Eric
Johnson, Satriani. These guys are all at a point where they play
whatever they hell they want to. If they could have a better
instrument built by a private luthier, they damn sure would.
>
> Doesn't prove jack-shit, that you can't understand why these artists use
> brand-name guitars that have been hand-picked and customized to their specs
> and come with sponsorship attached only shows that you don't understand how
> the business works. You're kicking up a lot of dust here, so far you don't
> seem to have cut much wood.
Thanks for the good counter post, you make some good arguments, along
with some I don't think are so strong... Regarding the guitars being
"hand picked and highly customized to their specs" is true in some
instances in others not. At the center of you counter to my argument
is that there's this cynical system where product endorsements have
complete control over what these artist play.
That's part true, but more bullshit than anything and it's easy to
prove. C.F. Martin was offering no artist endorsements whatsoever to
over half the folk I mentioned: Willie Nelson, Cash, Hank Williams,
nope. Check your history it was against their company policy if
something was happening under the table it would have surfaced by now.
What's more: Clapton didn't have Fender endorceing him, John and Paul
bought Epiphone's on their own accord, Paul has a very large
collection of guitars (many hand made) and he has said in recent
interviews that his 1965 Epiphone Casino is the favorite guitar to
play lead on. On his unplugged album Clapton played a sub $600, massed
produced nylon string Fender guitar on Tears in Heaven. If Clapton can
perform a masterpiece like that on a sub $600 massed produced
guitar... well you see where this is going don't you? How did the
private lutheir help Claton there? Why does he need a private
lutheired instrument.
Stevie Ray Vaughan had his 57' Start which of course was highly
customized, but why did he choose a strart to modify instead of just
going to private lutheir and having them build him a guitar? Well, he
would later do that too, but his 57' remained his #1 up until he died.
The list could just go on and I could keep proving this point that,
it's not all about the endorsement and if it's not about the
endourcement then we get back to why don't these artist use private
lutheirs for their primary instruments? Do they really have some
secret instrument that was hand made that they take into the studio
with them and then take their endourced product on stage? No, I don't
buy that for a second. Maybe a small percentage fall into this groups,
but the respected players at this point; Jimmy Page, Clapton,
McCartney, and the even the fast forwarding a bit, Slash, Eric
Johnson, Satriani. These guys are all at a point where they play
whatever they hell they want to. If they could have a better
instrument built by a private luthier, they damn sure would.
Re: Why I feel private lutheirs are largely over rated.
MartinGibsonTaylor <Jeremy.Deats@gmail,com > wrote:
> John and Paul bought Epiphone's on their own accord, Paul
> has a very large
> collection of guitars (many hand made) and he has said in recent
> interviews that his 1965 Epiphone Casino is the favorite guitar to
> play lead on.
You're wrong here, which partly demonstrates a point that I and others
are trying to make.
Epiphone sent *three* Epiphone Casinos to the Beatles. One each for
John, Paul, and George. The Beatles didn't pay for them. They did not
select them. It was a promotion, similar to Fender sending both John
and Paul Strats.
Don't take my word for it; look it up.
Yes, some of these instruments that are associated with promotions are
high-quality instruments. In cases where these companies wanted to make
an impact, I'm sure they examined their inventory carefully and sent the
best-quality specimens that they could find.
More to the point, bands like these types of arrangements because they
then don't have to spend the time it takes to go instrument-shopping.
Besides, can you imagine the chaos if McCartney walked into an
instrument store in 1966?
MartinGibsonTaylor <Jeremy.Deats@gmail,com > wrote:
> John and Paul bought Epiphone's on their own accord, Paul
> has a very large
> collection of guitars (many hand made) and he has said in recent
> interviews that his 1965 Epiphone Casino is the favorite guitar to
> play lead on.
You're wrong here, which partly demonstrates a point that I and others
are trying to make.
Epiphone sent *three* Epiphone Casinos to the Beatles. One each for
John, Paul, and George. The Beatles didn't pay for them. They did not
select them. It was a promotion, similar to Fender sending both John
and Paul Strats.
Don't take my word for it; look it up.
Yes, some of these instruments that are associated with promotions are
high-quality instruments. In cases where these companies wanted to make
an impact, I'm sure they examined their inventory carefully and sent the
best-quality specimens that they could find.
More to the point, bands like these types of arrangements because they
then don't have to spend the time it takes to go instrument-shopping.
Besides, can you imagine the chaos if McCartney walked into an
instrument store in 1966?
Re: Why I feel private lutheirs are largely over rated.
On Apr 21, 12:31 am, "RichL" <rpleav...@yahoo,com > wrote:
> MartinGibsonTaylor <Jeremy.De...@gmail,com > wrote:
> > John and Paul bought Epiphone's on their own accord, Paul
> > has a very large
> > collection of guitars (many hand made) and he has said in recent
> > interviews that his 1965 Epiphone Casino is the favorite guitar to
> > play lead on.
>
> You're wrong here, which partly demonstrates a point that I and others
> are trying to make.
>
> Epiphone sent *three* Epiphone Casinos to the Beatles. One each for
> John, Paul, and George. The Beatles didn't pay for them. They did not
> select them. It was a promotion, similar to Fender sending both John
> and Paul Strats.
>
> Don't take my word for it; look it up.
That's fair... Perhaps I made a mistake in Ephiphone sending them all
guitars, but they had a choice to endource or not to. but look at now
some almost 40 years later... are many guitars (including private
lutheired guitars) with nothing on the table Paul McCarney stated his
Casino was his still favorite.
>
> Yes, some of these instruments that are associated with promotions are
> high-quality instruments. In cases where these companies wanted to make
> an impact, I'm sure they examined their inventory carefully and sent the
> best-quality specimens that they could find.
>
> More to the point, bands like these types of arrangements because they
> then don't have to spend the time it takes to go instrument-shopping.
> Besides, can you imagine the chaos if McCartney walked into an
> instrument store in 1966?
Madness and the same is true today... But, again... Even with his
large collection, he still prefers his Epi. Unless you're sudgesting
Epiphone contacted him before the interview and offered him some money
to state that. That's a little too Conspiracy Theory for my taste, but
people are free to believe what they will.
On Apr 21, 12:31 am, "RichL" <rpleav...@yahoo,com > wrote:
> MartinGibsonTaylor <Jeremy.De...@gmail,com > wrote:
> > John and Paul bought Epiphone's on their own accord, Paul
> > has a very large
> > collection of guitars (many hand made) and he has said in recent
> > interviews that his 1965 Epiphone Casino is the favorite guitar to
> > play lead on.
>
> You're wrong here, which partly demonstrates a point that I and others
> are trying to make.
>
> Epiphone sent *three* Epiphone Casinos to the Beatles. One each for
> John, Paul, and George. The Beatles didn't pay for them. They did not
> select them. It was a promotion, similar to Fender sending both John
> and Paul Strats.
>
> Don't take my word for it; look it up.
That's fair... Perhaps I made a mistake in Ephiphone sending them all
guitars, but they had a choice to endource or not to. but look at now
some almost 40 years later... are many guitars (including private
lutheired guitars) with nothing on the table Paul McCarney stated his
Casino was his still favorite.
>
> Yes, some of these instruments that are associated with promotions are
> high-quality instruments. In cases where these companies wanted to make
> an impact, I'm sure they examined their inventory carefully and sent the
> best-quality specimens that they could find.
>
> More to the point, bands like these types of arrangements because they
> then don't have to spend the time it takes to go instrument-shopping.
> Besides, can you imagine the chaos if McCartney walked into an
> instrument store in 1966?
Madness and the same is true today... But, again... Even with his
large collection, he still prefers his Epi. Unless you're sudgesting
Epiphone contacted him before the interview and offered him some money
to state that. That's a little too Conspiracy Theory for my taste, but
people are free to believe what they will.
Re: Why I feel private lutheirs are largely over rated.
MartinGibsonTaylor <Jeremy.Deats@gmail,com > wrote:
> On Apr 21, 12:31 am, "RichL" <rpleav...@yahoo,com > wrote:
>> MartinGibsonTaylor <Jeremy.De...@gmail,com > wrote:
>>> John and Paul bought Epiphone's on their own accord, Paul
>>> has a very large
>>> collection of guitars (many hand made) and he has said in recent
>>> interviews that his 1965 Epiphone Casino is the favorite guitar to
>>> play lead on.
>>
>> You're wrong here, which partly demonstrates a point that I and
>> others are trying to make.
>>
>> Epiphone sent *three* Epiphone Casinos to the Beatles. One each for
>> John, Paul, and George. The Beatles didn't pay for them. They did
>> not select them. It was a promotion, similar to Fender sending both
>> John and Paul Strats.
>>
>> Don't take my word for it; look it up.
>
> That's fair... Perhaps I made a mistake in Ephiphone sending them all
> guitars, but they had a choice to endource or not to. but look at now
> some almost 40 years later... are many guitars (including private
> lutheired guitars) with nothing on the table Paul McCarney stated his
> Casino was his still favorite.
>
>
>>
>> Yes, some of these instruments that are associated with promotions
>> are high-quality instruments. In cases where these companies wanted
>> to make an impact, I'm sure they examined their inventory carefully
>> and sent the best-quality specimens that they could find.
>>
>> More to the point, bands like these types of arrangements because
>> they then don't have to spend the time it takes to go
>> instrument-shopping. Besides, can you imagine the chaos if McCartney
>> walked into an instrument store in 1966?
>
> Madness and the same is true today... But, again... Even with his
> large collection, he still prefers his Epi. Unless you're sudgesting
> Epiphone contacted him before the interview and offered him some money
> to state that. That's a little too Conspiracy Theory for my taste, but
> people are free to believe what they will.
Man, you are really aggravating.
No conspiracy theory, more than a matter of convenience.
You're trying to disprove, once again, a straw man. No one with half a
brain will claim that a custom guitar is inherently superior to the
cream of the crop of what are basically custom guitars made by big
companies, which is what the big dogs use. People are making these
points over and over again, but you choose do disregard what conflicts
with your hypothesis.
You gave me a list of 5 points and asked me to comment on them. I did,
point by point. For the most part, you completely disregarded what I
said.
I mentioned that the luthier who made my guitar made two for George
Harrison, one of which he used on two recordings for the Beatles'
Anthology album. So what does that prove?
George took the time to work with the luthier to get something he
wanted. Paul didn't.
My conclusion: some famous guitarists own and use small-luthier-made
instruments. Some don't. End of story.
If you want to actually address the points I've been trying to make all
along, good, I'd be glad to elaborate.
MartinGibsonTaylor <Jeremy.Deats@gmail,com > wrote:
> On Apr 21, 12:31 am, "RichL" <rpleav...@yahoo,com > wrote:
>> MartinGibsonTaylor <Jeremy.De...@gmail,com > wrote:
>>> John and Paul bought Epiphone's on their own accord, Paul
>>> has a very large
>>> collection of guitars (many hand made) and he has said in recent
>>> interviews that his 1965 Epiphone Casino is the favorite guitar to
>>> play lead on.
>>
>> You're wrong here, which partly demonstrates a point that I and
>> others are trying to make.
>>
>> Epiphone sent *three* Epiphone Casinos to the Beatles. One each for
>> John, Paul, and George. The Beatles didn't pay for them. They did
>> not select them. It was a promotion, similar to Fender sending both
>> John and Paul Strats.
>>
>> Don't take my word for it; look it up.
>
> That's fair... Perhaps I made a mistake in Ephiphone sending them all
> guitars, but they had a choice to endource or not to. but look at now
> some almost 40 years later... are many guitars (including private
> lutheired guitars) with nothing on the table Paul McCarney stated his
> Casino was his still favorite.
>
>
>>
>> Yes, some of these instruments that are associated with promotions
>> are high-quality instruments. In cases where these companies wanted
>> to make an impact, I'm sure they examined their inventory carefully
>> and sent the best-quality specimens that they could find.
>>
>> More to the point, bands like these types of arrangements because
>> they then don't have to spend the time it takes to go
>> instrument-shopping. Besides, can you imagine the chaos if McCartney
>> walked into an instrument store in 1966?
>
> Madness and the same is true today... But, again... Even with his
> large collection, he still prefers his Epi. Unless you're sudgesting
> Epiphone contacted him before the interview and offered him some money
> to state that. That's a little too Conspiracy Theory for my taste, but
> people are free to believe what they will.
Man, you are really aggravating.
No conspiracy theory, more than a matter of convenience.
You're trying to disprove, once again, a straw man. No one with half a
brain will claim that a custom guitar is inherently superior to the
cream of the crop of what are basically custom guitars made by big
companies, which is what the big dogs use. People are making these
points over and over again, but you choose do disregard what conflicts
with your hypothesis.
You gave me a list of 5 points and asked me to comment on them. I did,
point by point. For the most part, you completely disregarded what I
said.
I mentioned that the luthier who made my guitar made two for George
Harrison, one of which he used on two recordings for the Beatles'
Anthology album. So what does that prove?
George took the time to work with the luthier to get something he
wanted. Paul didn't.
My conclusion: some famous guitarists own and use small-luthier-made
instruments. Some don't. End of story.
If you want to actually address the points I've been trying to make all
along, good, I'd be glad to elaborate.
Re: Why I feel private lutheirs are largely over rated.
>
> No conspiracy theory, more than a matter of convenience.
>
> You're trying to disprove, once again, a straw man. No one with half a
> brain will claim that a custom guitar is inherently superior to the
> cream of the crop of what are basically custom guitars made by big
> companies,
No, because you have artist signature models in the equation, which I
would argue are of the same quality and design as the ones the artist
themselves play in many (if not most) cases and so their "custom jobs"
are actually available off the shelf.
But this is going in circles and I do respect other view points on
this.
>
> No conspiracy theory, more than a matter of convenience.
>
> You're trying to disprove, once again, a straw man. No one with half a
> brain will claim that a custom guitar is inherently superior to the
> cream of the crop of what are basically custom guitars made by big
> companies,
No, because you have artist signature models in the equation, which I
would argue are of the same quality and design as the ones the artist
themselves play in many (if not most) cases and so their "custom jobs"
are actually available off the shelf.
But this is going in circles and I do respect other view points on
this.
Re: Why I feel private lutheirs are largely over rated.
RichL wrote:
> Man, you are really aggravating.
Bizarre discussion, ain't it? This guy has an amazing ability to simply
ignore what everyone else posts and just repeat his points in a slightly
different form over and over while the Faulty Logic Alarm wails away. It's
like arguing religion with a true believer, kind of pointless....
RichL wrote:
> Man, you are really aggravating.
Bizarre discussion, ain't it? This guy has an amazing ability to simply
ignore what everyone else posts and just repeat his points in a slightly
different form over and over while the Faulty Logic Alarm wails away. It's
like arguing religion with a true believer, kind of pointless....
Re: Why I feel private lutheirs are largely over rated.
MartinGibsonTaylor wrote:
> Thanks for the good counter post, you make some good arguments, along
> with some I don't think are so strong... Regarding the guitars being
> "hand picked and highly customized to their specs" is true in some
> instances in others not.
Documentation? Can you back up that most big name stars who endorse a
particular brand don't get hand-selected instruments?
> At the center of you counter to my argument
> is that there's this cynical system where product endorsements have
> complete control over what these artist play.
Quote me saying any such thing. I didn't say the sponsoring companies have
complete control over what the artists play, I said the artists play what
they're paid to play where it counts, onstage and in advertisements.
> That's part true, but more bullshit than anything and it's easy to
> prove. C.F. Martin was offering no artist endorsements whatsoever to
> over half the folk I mentioned: Willie Nelson, Cash, Hank Williams,
> nope. Check your history it was against their company policy if
> something was happening under the table it would have surfaced by now.
Did I not post that some of these artists play what they like, some play
what they're paid to play, others play whatever comes to hand? Did I say
that Nelson, Cash and Williams had endorsement deals? No? Then why bring
them up?
> What's more: Clapton didn't have Fender endorceing him,
How many years has Fender been making an EC signature model? Do you suppose
he doesn't get paid for that?
>John and Paul
> bought Epiphone's on their own accord,
At a time when endorsements were rare and even the selection of instruments
available in Britain was limited. How many custom makers of electric
guitars even existed in Britain at the time?
> On his unplugged album Clapton played a sub $600, massed
> produced nylon string Fender guitar on Tears in Heaven. If Clapton can
> perform a masterpiece like that on a sub $600 massed produced
> guitar... well you see where this is going don't you?
No, I don't. Time and time again we've had proof that when Clapton picks up
any kind of guitar he still sounds like Clapton, ditto with Pete Townshend
or Carlos Santana. So what? What does that have to do with all three of
them having commercial relationships with the companies that make the
guitars they use onstage? Of course they like what they play, if Fender
wanted to give me a dozen guitars built to my specs and a few custom-shop
amps to go with them I'd be quite pleased, there's nothing wrong with a nice
Fender which is why I own several of them. But that does not translate to
regular off-the-shelf Fenders all being so astonishingly good that there is
no reason for custom luthiers to exist anymore, if that were true why would
Fender have a custom shop?
> How did the
> private lutheir help Claton there? Why does he need a private
> lutheired instrument.
I don't know, why don't you ask him and all the other famous players why
they keep buying such instruments if they never intend to play them?
> Stevie Ray Vaughan had his 57' Start which of course was highly
> customized, but why did he choose a strart to modify instead of just
> going to private lutheir and having them build him a guitar? Well, he
> would later do that too, but his 57' remained his #1 up until he died.
Gee, tough question, why would a guy fascinated with Jimi Hendrix decide to
buy a Strat, hmmmm, gonna have to think about that one.
> The list could just go on and I could keep proving this point that,
> it's not all about the endorsement and if it's not about the
> endourcement then we get back to why don't these artist use private
> lutheirs for their primary instruments?
You haven't proven a thing, all you've demonstrated is that certain
well-known players who have endorsement deal with guitar companies make a
point of playing certain instruments onstage. You can't demonstrate that
they don't own other brands, or that they don't play other brands, only that
when the lights go up they're holding the brand they get paid to play. And
that doesn't mean they don't really like those brands, what's not to like
about a Strat? But this odd homing-torpedo insistence that because they
don't play guitars made by custom luthiers onstage and instead chose to get
paid to play mass-market brands must therefore mean that custom guitars
aren't worth the money is nothing short of bizarre.
MartinGibsonTaylor wrote:
> Thanks for the good counter post, you make some good arguments, along
> with some I don't think are so strong... Regarding the guitars being
> "hand picked and highly customized to their specs" is true in some
> instances in others not.
Documentation? Can you back up that most big name stars who endorse a
particular brand don't get hand-selected instruments?
> At the center of you counter to my argument
> is that there's this cynical system where product endorsements have
> complete control over what these artist play.
Quote me saying any such thing. I didn't say the sponsoring companies have
complete control over what the artists play, I said the artists play what
they're paid to play where it counts, onstage and in advertisements.
> That's part true, but more bullshit than anything and it's easy to
> prove. C.F. Martin was offering no artist endorsements whatsoever to
> over half the folk I mentioned: Willie Nelson, Cash, Hank Williams,
> nope. Check your history it was against their company policy if
> something was happening under the table it would have surfaced by now.
Did I not post that some of these artists play what they like, some play
what they're paid to play, others play whatever comes to hand? Did I say
that Nelson, Cash and Williams had endorsement deals? No? Then why bring
them up?
> What's more: Clapton didn't have Fender endorceing him,
How many years has Fender been making an EC signature model? Do you suppose
he doesn't get paid for that?
>John and Paul
> bought Epiphone's on their own accord,
At a time when endorsements were rare and even the selection of instruments
available in Britain was limited. How many custom makers of electric
guitars even existed in Britain at the time?
> On his unplugged album Clapton played a sub $600, massed
> produced nylon string Fender guitar on Tears in Heaven. If Clapton can
> perform a masterpiece like that on a sub $600 massed produced
> guitar... well you see where this is going don't you?
No, I don't. Time and time again we've had proof that when Clapton picks up
any kind of guitar he still sounds like Clapton, ditto with Pete Townshend
or Carlos Santana. So what? What does that have to do with all three of
them having commercial relationships with the companies that make the
guitars they use onstage? Of course they like what they play, if Fender
wanted to give me a dozen guitars built to my specs and a few custom-shop
amps to go with them I'd be quite pleased, there's nothing wrong with a nice
Fender which is why I own several of them. But that does not translate to
regular off-the-shelf Fenders all being so astonishingly good that there is
no reason for custom luthiers to exist anymore, if that were true why would
Fender have a custom shop?
> How did the
> private lutheir help Claton there? Why does he need a private
> lutheired instrument.
I don't know, why don't you ask him and all the other famous players why
they keep buying such instruments if they never intend to play them?
> Stevie Ray Vaughan had his 57' Start which of course was highly
> customized, but why did he choose a strart to modify instead of just
> going to private lutheir and having them build him a guitar? Well, he
> would later do that too, but his 57' remained his #1 up until he died.
Gee, tough question, why would a guy fascinated with Jimi Hendrix decide to
buy a Strat, hmmmm, gonna have to think about that one.
> The list could just go on and I could keep proving this point that,
> it's not all about the endorsement and if it's not about the
> endourcement then we get back to why don't these artist use private
> lutheirs for their primary instruments?
You haven't proven a thing, all you've demonstrated is that certain
well-known players who have endorsement deal with guitar companies make a
point of playing certain instruments onstage. You can't demonstrate that
they don't own other brands, or that they don't play other brands, only that
when the lights go up they're holding the brand they get paid to play. And
that doesn't mean they don't really like those brands, what's not to like
about a Strat? But this odd homing-torpedo insistence that because they
don't play guitars made by custom luthiers onstage and instead chose to get
paid to play mass-market brands must therefore mean that custom guitars
aren't worth the money is nothing short of bizarre.
Re: Why I feel private lutheirs are largely over rated.
>
> You haven't proven a thing, all you've demonstrated is that certain
> well-known players who have endorsement deal with guitar companies make a
> point of playing certain instruments onstage.
Well, I think the point there is pretty clear. What these big
companies build for these professional guitarist suits their needs
perfectly and has for decades now. You seem to not be arguing that.
Which perfectly supports the topic of this thread "Why I feel private
lutheirs are largely over rated".
For enough money, the custom shops of Fender, Martin, etc... could
build anyone just as high quality of an instrument as the pros play
on, some have their artist signature models which make it easy.
I guess you could say the private lutheir can do the same job the
custom shop does for less? But even if we play this cynical game where
we assume, say half of these guitarist are getting endorsement money
from Gibson, etc... obviously the best work of the private lutheirs
isn't good enough to make the best players turn down these endorsement
deals. This is where I guess we disagree, I just think that many of
these players, who have devoted their life to the instrument wouldn't
let the standards of what they play on slip for an endorsement
contract.
If they would do that, it just shows how little the instrument really
matters at all and we get back to my paint brush metaphor, but we're
going in circles so it's pointless.
> You can't demonstrate that
> they don't own other brands, or that they don't play other brands, only that
> when the lights go up they're holding the brand they get paid to play. And
> that doesn't mean they don't really like those brands, what's not to like
> about a Strat? But this odd homing-torpedo insistence that because they
> don't play guitars made by custom luthiers onstage and instead chose to get
> paid to play mass-market brands must therefore mean that custom guitars
> aren't worth the money is nothing short of bizarre.
I think it's a cynical stance and far fetched to assume that these
guys only play these brands on stage because of endorcement contracts
with the implication that they are play substandard instruments on
stage every night and then pulling out some magical custom built job
in the studio. That's just not the reality of what I've found to be
happening. Today more than ever we are have access to behind the
scenes footage of studio sessions and what you see there are the these
artist choosing the same instruments they take on stage and playing
with them in the studio and again... a good number of the people on my
list were playing with big name guitars (espeically the Martin's and
Fenders) before endorsement money was changing hands and these guys
could afford private lutheired instruments if they wanted.
You can say all these proves nothing. Maybe to you it doesn't, fair
enough. To me it proves quite a bit.
>
> You haven't proven a thing, all you've demonstrated is that certain
> well-known players who have endorsement deal with guitar companies make a
> point of playing certain instruments onstage.
Well, I think the point there is pretty clear. What these big
companies build for these professional guitarist suits their needs
perfectly and has for decades now. You seem to not be arguing that.
Which perfectly supports the topic of this thread "Why I feel private
lutheirs are largely over rated".
For enough money, the custom shops of Fender, Martin, etc... could
build anyone just as high quality of an instrument as the pros play
on, some have their artist signature models which make it easy.
I guess you could say the private lutheir can do the same job the
custom shop does for less? But even if we play this cynical game where
we assume, say half of these guitarist are getting endorsement money
from Gibson, etc... obviously the best work of the private lutheirs
isn't good enough to make the best players turn down these endorsement
deals. This is where I guess we disagree, I just think that many of
these players, who have devoted their life to the instrument wouldn't
let the standards of what they play on slip for an endorsement
contract.
If they would do that, it just shows how little the instrument really
matters at all and we get back to my paint brush metaphor, but we're
going in circles so it's pointless.
> You can't demonstrate that
> they don't own other brands, or that they don't play other brands, only that
> when the lights go up they're holding the brand they get paid to play. And
> that doesn't mean they don't really like those brands, what's not to like
> about a Strat? But this odd homing-torpedo insistence that because they
> don't play guitars made by custom luthiers onstage and instead chose to get
> paid to play mass-market brands must therefore mean that custom guitars
> aren't worth the money is nothing short of bizarre.
I think it's a cynical stance and far fetched to assume that these
guys only play these brands on stage because of endorcement contracts
with the implication that they are play substandard instruments on
stage every night and then pulling out some magical custom built job
in the studio. That's just not the reality of what I've found to be
happening. Today more than ever we are have access to behind the
scenes footage of studio sessions and what you see there are the these
artist choosing the same instruments they take on stage and playing
with them in the studio and again... a good number of the people on my
list were playing with big name guitars (espeically the Martin's and
Fenders) before endorsement money was changing hands and these guys
could afford private lutheired instruments if they wanted.
You can say all these proves nothing. Maybe to you it doesn't, fair
enough. To me it proves quite a bit.
Re: Why I feel private lutheirs are largely over rated.
MartinGibsonTaylor wrote:
> Well, I think the point there is pretty clear. What these big
> companies build for these professional guitarist suits their needs
> perfectly and has for decades now. You seem to not be arguing that.
> Which perfectly supports the topic of this thread "Why I feel private
> lutheirs are largely over rated".
That even you can't follow your leaps of logic speaks volumes. In one
paragraph you seem to admit these star players get de facto custom-made
instruments from their sponsors, in another paragraph you're back to them
playing "substandard" sponsored instruments onstage, which is it? Companies
like Fender are unlikely to just pull a few guitars off the line and send
them to someone like Clapton, they're going to make sure he gets good ones,
probably from the custom shop. Therefore Clapton ain't playing substandard
instruments onstage or anywhere else, and no doubt he really likes the Strat
anyway, but he's still getting paid to use that brand. So if a Fender
Custom Shop Strat does just what he wants it to do *and* they'll pay him to
use them, why would he insist on instead playing a custom guitar made by a
small-scale luthier who couldn't dream of matching the sort of deal Fender
can offer? The combination of custom shop quality and sponsorship makes
such a deal overwhelmingly attractive to a big-name player.
For some reason you've chosen to argue a point that seems to make little
sense to anyone else, and several people have offered you specific examples
of how it doesn't add up in the real world. Cool, believe whatever you
please, we're just running laps at this point so I've said my bit, adios.
MartinGibsonTaylor wrote:
> Well, I think the point there is pretty clear. What these big
> companies build for these professional guitarist suits their needs
> perfectly and has for decades now. You seem to not be arguing that.
> Which perfectly supports the topic of this thread "Why I feel private
> lutheirs are largely over rated".
That even you can't follow your leaps of logic speaks volumes. In one
paragraph you seem to admit these star players get de facto custom-made
instruments from their sponsors, in another paragraph you're back to them
playing "substandard" sponsored instruments onstage, which is it? Companies
like Fender are unlikely to just pull a few guitars off the line and send
them to someone like Clapton, they're going to make sure he gets good ones,
probably from the custom shop. Therefore Clapton ain't playing substandard
instruments onstage or anywhere else, and no doubt he really likes the Strat
anyway, but he's still getting paid to use that brand. So if a Fender
Custom Shop Strat does just what he wants it to do *and* they'll pay him to
use them, why would he insist on instead playing a custom guitar made by a
small-scale luthier who couldn't dream of matching the sort of deal Fender
can offer? The combination of custom shop quality and sponsorship makes
such a deal overwhelmingly attractive to a big-name player.
For some reason you've chosen to argue a point that seems to make little
sense to anyone else, and several people have offered you specific examples
of how it doesn't add up in the real world. Cool, believe whatever you
please, we're just running laps at this point so I've said my bit, adios.
Re: Why I feel private lutheirs are largely over rated.
On Apr 21, 12:59 pm, "DGDevin" <dgde...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> MartinGibsonTaylor wrote:
> > Well, I think the point there is pretty clear. What these big
> > companies build for these professional guitarist suits their needs
> > perfectly and has for decades now. You seem to not be arguing that.
> > Which perfectly supports the topic of this thread "Why I feel private
> > lutheirs are largely over rated".
>
> That even you can't follow your leaps of logic speaks volumes. In one
> paragraph you seem to admit these star players get de facto custom-made
> instruments from their sponsors, in another paragraph you're back to them
> playing "substandard" sponsored instruments onstage, which is it? Companies
> like Fender are unlikely to just pull a few guitars off the line and send
> them to someone like Clapton, they're going to make sure he gets good ones,
> probably from the custom shop. Therefore Clapton ain't playing substandard
> instruments onstage or anywhere else, and no doubt he really likes the Strat
> anyway, but he's still getting paid to use that brand. So if a Fender
> Custom Shop Strat does just what he wants it to do *and* they'll pay him to
> use them, why would he insist on instead playing a custom guitar made by a
> small-scale luthier who couldn't dream of matching the sort of deal Fender
> can offer? The combination of custom shop quality and sponsorship makes
> such a deal overwhelmingly attractive to a big-name player.
Good argument, but it supports the topic in that professionals players
don't need private lutheirs. The problem with this is that as I said,
you can look at the artist who were not endorsed who played on Fender,
Martins, Ibanez etc... I know Satriani was playing on Ibanez before he
had his own line of instruments with them and he has praised their
design.
Again, it comes back to this belief that all professionals are all
playing some magical, high customized one of a kind guitar built by
these big name builders and that what the company puts on the shelf
and sells for $5000 at Guitar Center or whatever is a substandard
product. You need that argument, because it's the only thing to
counter my point. This DOES happen yes, but where we disagree is that
i think it's the rare exception and not the norm.
Look back at the list of players I listed, many of them aren't even
famous guitar players, they are known more for being great
songwriters: Willie Nelson, Bruce Springsteen, Van Morrison to name a
few from the list, this is where I think your argument and I would
cynicism (maybe that's too harsh, maybe you just see this is "how it
is", regardless) falls apart because these guys don't have
endorsements. Martin made a special edition N-20 Willie Nelson edition
a few years back, but Willie got his 1969 Martin N-20 long before that
and he's shared the story of it, there was no endorsement involved and
Willie could have had a custom guitar built at the time if he wanted
one.
On Apr 21, 12:59 pm, "DGDevin" <dgde...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> MartinGibsonTaylor wrote:
> > Well, I think the point there is pretty clear. What these big
> > companies build for these professional guitarist suits their needs
> > perfectly and has for decades now. You seem to not be arguing that.
> > Which perfectly supports the topic of this thread "Why I feel private
> > lutheirs are largely over rated".
>
> That even you can't follow your leaps of logic speaks volumes. In one
> paragraph you seem to admit these star players get de facto custom-made
> instruments from their sponsors, in another paragraph you're back to them
> playing "substandard" sponsored instruments onstage, which is it? Companies
> like Fender are unlikely to just pull a few guitars off the line and send
> them to someone like Clapton, they're going to make sure he gets good ones,
> probably from the custom shop. Therefore Clapton ain't playing substandard
> instruments onstage or anywhere else, and no doubt he really likes the Strat
> anyway, but he's still getting paid to use that brand. So if a Fender
> Custom Shop Strat does just what he wants it to do *and* they'll pay him to
> use them, why would he insist on instead playing a custom guitar made by a
> small-scale luthier who couldn't dream of matching the sort of deal Fender
> can offer? The combination of custom shop quality and sponsorship makes
> such a deal overwhelmingly attractive to a big-name player.
Good argument, but it supports the topic in that professionals players
don't need private lutheirs. The problem with this is that as I said,
you can look at the artist who were not endorsed who played on Fender,
Martins, Ibanez etc... I know Satriani was playing on Ibanez before he
had his own line of instruments with them and he has praised their
design.
Again, it comes back to this belief that all professionals are all
playing some magical, high customized one of a kind guitar built by
these big name builders and that what the company puts on the shelf
and sells for $5000 at Guitar Center or whatever is a substandard
product. You need that argument, because it's the only thing to
counter my point. This DOES happen yes, but where we disagree is that
i think it's the rare exception and not the norm.
Look back at the list of players I listed, many of them aren't even
famous guitar players, they are known more for being great
songwriters: Willie Nelson, Bruce Springsteen, Van Morrison to name a
few from the list, this is where I think your argument and I would
cynicism (maybe that's too harsh, maybe you just see this is "how it
is", regardless) falls apart because these guys don't have
endorsements. Martin made a special edition N-20 Willie Nelson edition
a few years back, but Willie got his 1969 Martin N-20 long before that
and he's shared the story of it, there was no endorsement involved and
Willie could have had a custom guitar built at the time if he wanted
one.
Re: Why I feel private lutheirs are largely over rated.
On Apr 20, 10:08 pm, RMZ <Jeremy.De...@gmail,com > wrote:
>
> When we get into what is "high quality" the little nuances that we
> loose with mass produced guitars are a small price to pay for superior
> design and consistency, the list of artist above prove this.
I pretty much agree. The major players have turned out some pretty
good stuff over the years, despite all the flack.
In fact, I think they still do for the most part, except that now
they seem grossly overpriced vs what you can often get for
your money these days.
The gap between cheap and high end has really shrunk over
the past few years.
I think Fender still churns out some pretty good stuff.
Same for Gibson, except that it seems quality control is
more of an issue for them vs Fender.
When I spend buckoo $$$$ for a Gibson Les Paul, I don't
want to see a single blemish.
Anywhere.
The quality control seems to be a tad higher over at Fender..
But that's just my impression from what I hear and see.
But a regular ole Gibson Les Paul still has one of my
favorite necks. I generally prefer a Gibson type neck vs
Fender for some reason. It just feels more comfortable
to me. Also, some of my favorite acoustics are old
Gibsons. Again, it's mainly because of the necks and
the way they feel. You can set the action down fairly
low, and they are easy to play, and sound good.
I think equal or sometimes better than the average Martin..
But, I'm talking about the old 40's,50's, 60's models in
particular.
They have a cool vibe just like the old Gibson electrics.
In the real world, what you play doesn't mean a thing
as long as it does what you want it to.
It's just a tool. Either it does the job, or it doesn't.
And the needs can vary to the player and what they
are doing..
If you buy a custom, it's almost always gonna cost
more $$$ per unit of playing quality, unless they give
you a special deal, brother n law type of thang..
And I'd want to see a proven track record before I plunked
down any big cash.
In the not so distant past, Fender and Gibson really were
better than most anyone.
But these days, I've seen chump brand companies turn
out some really good stuff for chump change.
And then you have your PRS, etc in the mix now.
They are almost mainstream to me these days,
so many use em..
Ibenez still churns some good ones.
It's not a 2-3 player show any more like it
was in the 50's, 60's, 70's.
So F and G better not slack if they want to remain
as the big boys in the game. Some of the smaller
guys could bite em in the differential.
They already are really..
On Apr 20, 10:08 pm, RMZ <Jeremy.De...@gmail,com > wrote:
>
> When we get into what is "high quality" the little nuances that we
> loose with mass produced guitars are a small price to pay for superior
> design and consistency, the list of artist above prove this.
I pretty much agree. The major players have turned out some pretty
good stuff over the years, despite all the flack.
In fact, I think they still do for the most part, except that now
they seem grossly overpriced vs what you can often get for
your money these days.
The gap between cheap and high end has really shrunk over
the past few years.
I think Fender still churns out some pretty good stuff.
Same for Gibson, except that it seems quality control is
more of an issue for them vs Fender.
When I spend buckoo $$$$ for a Gibson Les Paul, I don't
want to see a single blemish.
Anywhere.
The quality control seems to be a tad higher over at Fender..
But that's just my impression from what I hear and see.
But a regular ole Gibson Les Paul still has one of my
favorite necks. I generally prefer a Gibson type neck vs
Fender for some reason. It just feels more comfortable
to me. Also, some of my favorite acoustics are old
Gibsons. Again, it's mainly because of the necks and
the way they feel. You can set the action down fairly
low, and they are easy to play, and sound good.
I think equal or sometimes better than the average Martin..
But, I'm talking about the old 40's,50's, 60's models in
particular.
They have a cool vibe just like the old Gibson electrics.
In the real world, what you play doesn't mean a thing
as long as it does what you want it to.
It's just a tool. Either it does the job, or it doesn't.
And the needs can vary to the player and what they
are doing..
If you buy a custom, it's almost always gonna cost
more $$$ per unit of playing quality, unless they give
you a special deal, brother n law type of thang..
And I'd want to see a proven track record before I plunked
down any big cash.
In the not so distant past, Fender and Gibson really were
better than most anyone.
But these days, I've seen chump brand companies turn
out some really good stuff for chump change.
And then you have your PRS, etc in the mix now.
They are almost mainstream to me these days,
so many use em..
Ibenez still churns some good ones.
It's not a 2-3 player show any more like it
was in the 50's, 60's, 70's.
So F and G better not slack if they want to remain
as the big boys in the game. Some of the smaller
guys could bite em in the differential.
They already are really..
