I bought an Affinity Squier about 5 years ago when I wanted to start learning Electric guitar. It has fantastic action and stays in tune through some harsh playing. But the electronics are tinker toys.
A few years later I picked up a Gibson SG. The action is a little harder and the “feel” of the guitar just never is comfortable with me but the tone is heaven.
I find that I play the $150 Squier more than the $800 SG.
In fact, I’m seriously thinking about replacing the guts with one of those pre-loaded pick-guard setups with some Seymour Duncans. So I’d be putting about $350 improvement on a $150 guitar. Sounds silly but I like the feel of that Squier so much I don’t mind. I just want it to sound better.
Oh, nothing at all wrong with that. I should have known that if I said “Affinitys are rubbish” someone would come along and mention one that isn’t. That’s true of any guitar, any brand: there will be some that are particularly good.
Compared to the “entry level” guitars of a few decades ago, even the lowest end of the guitar spectrum is surprisingly usable. It’s a gamble, though: with the bottom end I’d have to try before buying, while up a few notches in price/quality I’d feel more inclined to buy online as the quality is generally a bit more even.
It’s also worth mentioning that even high-priced “premium” guitar brands make the occasional dog, which is a lot less forgivable than a bad budget guitar.
Is that thing named after Billy Squier, (the guy who did that “sweep” song)?
And this brings up another dumb question (I call 'em “Quasi-Q’s”): Why are some guitar companies allowed to farg with Fender, et al styles? Shouldn’t there be a copyright in place?
I know that some Strats are made in Mexico (I own one - bought it w/o reading the small print).
And I know the orginals are expensive as hell, but can someone explain this?
The short answer is objects can’t be copyrighted. Works of art (books, plays, songs, yadayada) can be. Designs (e.g. The Nike swoosh™) and even words combinations (e.g. "You deserve a break today!"™ ), or even actual words in some context (e.g. “Nike” associated with shoes) can be trademarked , but trademark protection is limited in a bunch of ways. Designs can also be patented, which sounds pretty impressive, but design patents are difficult to defend.
Suffice it to say: Intellectual property law is chock full of gray areas that require lawyers and lawsuits and courts to define, sometimes on an ongoing basis. Protecting the shape of guitar or a headstock or whatever sometimes isn’t worth it except if violated blatantly, repeatedly and egregiously. Since there are no trademark or copyright or patent cops, each company must decide where they simply must respond when they think their IP has been violated, and that line is clear as mud.
I’m not an IP attorney, but my father is a retired one, so I’ve gotten some exposure to this. For more info, contact an IP attorney or violate an IP issue and wait for one to contact you.
ETA: also, Squier is made by Fender. So no issue there.
Why are original Fenders as expensive as hell? Baby Boomers.
Leo Fender wasn’t a genius, but he invented a lot of guitar-related things that worked really well. He sold his namesake company in 1965, and anything made by the original Fender company commands a huge premium because, basically, people believe that Leo Fender sprinkled magic fairy dust on every instrument that came out of his factory.
Fender do chase after people who copy their headstock design. For some reason, that appears to be intellectual property that they can and do protect. They probably don’t bother with the really small-fry copyists, but you’ll note that the more well-known companies who make Strat-a-likes do not copy the headstock shape exactly. Sometimes the difference is minor, but enough for anyone who’s remotely familiar with genuine Fenders. Similar story with Gibson knock-offs
There was only ever one actual lawsuit, and it was about headstock shape.
It was settled out of court, so no judgement was ever made, but in practical terms the outcome was “you can copy body shape all you like but copying headstock shape will get you into trouble”.
Argh. I hate how busy I am at work - I love participating in this type of discussion.
Fender did try to trademark or otherwise protect the Strat shape a few years ago and it fell through because they couldn’t demonstrate proprietary control over the past 50+ years - same way aspirin transitioned from brand to generic word.
Gibson tried to sue PRS about their SC 245 guitar which is basically PRS’ Les Paul and lost.
Of the modern Fenders, Made in Mexico’s (MIM’s) represent great values - as I have stated previously, 6 - 7 out of 10 you try are likely to be worth checking out. With the Squiers I have tried, it really varies based on country of production, etc., but you can still find good ones, but at a much lower ratio - but worth checking.
[QUOTE=Shakester]
Leo Fender wasn’t a genius, but he invented a lot of guitar-related things that worked really well. He sold his namesake company in 1965, and anything made by the original Fender company commands a huge premium because, basically, people believe that Leo Fender sprinkled magic fairy dust on every instrument that came out of his factory.
[/QUOTE]
Depends on how you define genius; I hear arguments that Steve Jobs invented very little; his genius was in the taking of what was out there and editing it into a clearly-defined product. In some ways, that is the next level of genius - making the innovative become practical. That is Leo Fender to me in the world of solidbody guitars and tube amps…
As for the relative value of vintage guitars - yeah, given the golden period we are in of guitar construction, I have found it hard to justify big $$ in vintage solidbodies; I love my homebrew parts-o-casters more than most vintage gear I play. But whatever works…
Thanks for all the discussion on this - a MIM Strat might be a really good route for me to take.
Any thoughts on the usefulness of headphone amps? So much of a guitar player’s sound comes from choice of amp that I am concerned that without the ability to turn up an amp to decent volume, I’m going to be limited. Ideally I’d like to be able to just jack in to something and plug it into headphones in order to play.
Ultimately I will want to try my hand at recording to my PC and editing/producing music, but thats a long way off. In my dream world, I see myself picking up a new instrument every couple of years to the point where I can record albums in a home studio; I don’t have much interest in playing live (I’m way too old to be joining a band!)
If a headphone amp keeps you playing, you should strongly consider one. You can sort out what type of standard amp you need as a separate issue. For what it is worth, I simply play my solidbodies unplugged all the time - did last night watching the Daily Show…works for me.
Some small amps actually have headphone jacks. You don’t want to try plugging headphones into sockets that aren’t designed for them, though; that can kill your headphones and possibly your amp too.
That’s a fair argument, I don’t want to minimise Leo Fender’s wonderful contribution to the world of music. I’m just saying that there’s a difference between being a great inventor and being magical pixie dust guy. Some people act like pre-CBS Fenders are holy relics of St Leo, which is why they’re so expensive. The market is dominated by collectors (rich baby boomers buying an iconic part of the late 50s/early 60s) rather than working musicians.
Any improvement to a vintage Fender, like refretting or replacing worn-out tuning keys - things that make a guitar a musical instrument rather than an expensive decoration - decrease the value. You can “ruin” an old guitar by making it playable. That’s just nuts, in my opinion.
Agreed. Personally, I think the great majority of things that are said about guitars by guitarists are complete nonsense. That’s why I don’t really do guitar forums any more. Critical thinking skills and the world of electric guitars don’t seem to mix very often.
I hear you on all fronts. By the same token, while it is too bad that working tools from the 50’s and 60’s are priced out of the working musician’s price range, what is left is great stuff - new MIM Fenders, Squiers. So it’s not like we’re getting left only crappy scraps.
I have a question – I’m trying to understand the current Gibson Les Paul lineup (standard, traditional, standard tradition pro plus top OMFG) and ran into something I don’t understand. Perusing GC’s web site I see that, for example, this guitar comes in seven finishes, some of which are labeled “with serial #”, and you can select what serial number you want on a secondary list, which is sorted by location (e.g. “Fall’s Church, VA”).
What the hell is that all about? Why are they spoofing serial numbers?
If you choose one of these “serial number” finishes, are you basically counterfeiting some historic guitar?
And if you do so, is there no “actual” serial number for that guitar?
And you don’t, do the other finishes have NO serial #?
I don’t know any of the specifics to answer your question, but there are some actual '58’s, etc, with famous serial numbers; I’m embarrassed to admit that I’m pretty sure Jeff Beck’s most-used 'burst was 9 8064 or thereabouts, and that Pagey’s #1 has no serial number after some work on the neck to reshape the contour of the back.
There is serial number douchebaggery, certainly. There is a very pricey book about 1st-gen Tele’s called the Blackguard Book. It was issued in a limited edition with serial numbers matching actual Tele records. It is a “thing” to match your book edition with your actual Tele :rolleyes:
My guess is that you can “apply for” a serial number, and if it isn’t already taken, they’ll put it on the guitar for you.
Of course it’s also possible that Gibson doesn’t give a hoot about doubling (or more) and will put any number you want on a guitar if you give them a bunch of money.
I received my Schecter Ultra VI a few days ago and I’m loving it. I am awaiting delivery of some heavier string sets, though, as the standard set are a little too light. Plus I don’t have a bass amp so I can’t, at this stage, crank it.
Continuing the spending spree, I was looking at bass-related stuff online and got to reading about the Ashbory bass. I’ve always been intrigued by the Ashbory but just assumed that they were expensive.
They’re not. I found a site selling them for US$227, and another US$50-ish shipping to Australia. US$280-ish? That’s approx $260 in Australian monies; I can afford that. I can afford that right now, without having to think about it. SOLD!
So I spent a few hours reading about them and their quirks, and I reckon I’ll get enough use out of it to make it worthwhile. Plus they’re tiny, so finding room for it isn’t a problem.
I now own three basses, though, which is a bit of a worrying trend.
Watch your weasel, man. It might start popping on you.
Oh, due to an incident where a friend thought he was Pete Townsend, Trouble, my Telemaster, is now, ah, slightly disfigured. I am pissed beyond belief.
How do you forget you’re not playing your own guitar? Still, I got a replacement. Xaviere’s discontinuing the model, so I had to take what they had left in stock. Behold, the Creamsicle!
Not the same as Trouble, ( http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v449/LaPucelle/Guitar/TelemasterIMG_0017.jpg ) but it’s got its own style.
