Sh*t vs. Acceptable

[jpfamps]

If a kid and his dad walked into a halfway decent guitar shop (yes a shop rather than a mail order  or web shop), then the shop assistant is he was any good would talk the pair through what was on offer at what price.

They would try to upsell to the better quality package - that might only be £50 more but has a much better instrument in it.
They would point out the pros and cons of the better package  and it's up to dad which one gets bought

the reason that the shop will often have both the cheap and the pricier pack in is so if Dad says No to the higher price one , then the shop still gets a sale rather than sending him elsewhere.

If you ask me - no guitar on its own should cost less than £130 and it should be of Squier standard series (rather than Affinity series) quality to begin with. That means that a beginner will have a better guitar to play on which should encourage them a lot more, and there will be les probelms in the future.

The player should also be made to feel the value of what they have bought and cherish it and keep it safe.
Too often the cheaper price stops kids from respecting their guitars and they view it like any other "throwaway" commodity like cheap trainers or whatever.

Spot on. Good shops should add value.

Really guitar player shouldn't whinge about the cost/ quality of guitars.

Compared with most other instruments we get off very lightly.

[Mr. Air]

I don't know if the quality of guitars is the main reason for kids to stop playing guitar. I started out on a horrendous cheap given up home project of a guitar and played it almost a year before I bought a new one (a Ibanez RG320 which sucked too  :lol:)

I kept playing because I had fun with my friends. We had this 3 piece band and even though we all were very bad mucisians it was great fun. If I hadn't played with anyone I don't think I would have continued even if I've had a really great quality guitar.

My main point is, that I find it understandable if a kid gets a guitar, sits alone at home practicing, and finds out that it's actually not that easy to play Stairway to Heaven (or any other desireable song) and then quits playing after a half or a whole year. If that kid had someone to jam with I'll find it less likely that he/she would quit the guitar.

[dheim]

I don't know if the quality of guitars is the main reason for kids to stop playing guitar. I started out on a horrendous cheap given up home project of a guitar and played it almost a year before I bought a new one (a Ibanez RG320 which sucked too  :lol:)

I kept playing because I had fun with my friends. We had this 3 piece band and even though we all were very bad mucisians it was great fun. If I hadn't played with anyone I don't think I would have continued even if I've had a really great quality guitar.

My main point is, that I find it understandable if a kid gets a guitar, sits alone at home practicing, and finds out that it's actually not that easy to play Stairway to Heaven (or any other desireable song) and then quits playing after a half or a whole year. If that kid had someone to jam with I'll find it less likely that he/she would quit the guitar.

you're damn right... but i began playing with friends at least some month after i started to play at home. getting easy with the guitar is maybe the first thing... ok, i can't play properly my favourite songs but it's fun anyway!

[MDV]

Aaaaand on the other hand, my first guitar was a Hondo Deluxe 760. It was a horrible guitar. Still is. I wanted to play, though, so I learned to setup a guitar, I (badly, but one learns through such things) leveled the frets, shimmed the neck in to a not-stupid angle, recut the nut...all within a few weeks/couple of months of starting to play. Yes, I did a rubbish (or very unpolished) job, but I made my horrible barely playable guitar into a horrible playable guitar.

If you want to learn to play, you WILL pesevere (and learn to/teach yourself guitar techery in the process :lol:)

Next guitar, 8 months into playing, was a jackson DX1 (top end MIJ circa '98) that was my main guitar for the next 6 years and is still my number 2 (or 3 depending on my mood). What a $%&#ing difference it made! But I wouldnt have not played if I didnt get a good guitar.

[Mr. Air]

I wanted to play, though, so I learned to setup a guitar

The whole techincal thing might also be an angle for a youngster to start or keep playing guitar. If you dig electronic stuff it might be harder to put down the guitar. I can't say for sure as I just recently started to take interest in the technical aspect of guitars. I played guitar for aprox. 15 years thinking that what you buy is what you're stuck with and it can't be changed

Luckily I have now turned away from the dark side and taken my first minor padawan steps into the great knowledge of the guitar force

[FELINEGUITARS]

I wanted to play, though, so I learned to setup a guitar

So did I - and then I kept going ........ mending and making guitars

Still cant play very well , but I make a pretty good guitar :D

[Jonny]

I wanted to play, though, so I learned to setup a guitar

So did I - and then I kept going ........ mending and making guitars

Still cant play very well , but I make a pretty good guitar :D

That is an absolute lie Jonathan. You played amazingly on my seven string.

[dave_mc]

Plus, Fender or Gibson want you to upgrade to their more expensive models.  Why make an Epiphone LP that looks and feels like a '59 reissue?  That's no use to the marketing department is it??

The primary objective of guitar companies is not to make guitarists, its to sell guitars. It should all make sense viewed in this light.

exactly (to both quotes). Once companies get over a certain size, and especially if they get "the name" like fender or gibson, where they become an aspirational brand, they have an almost captive market. they then can almost forget about competing with the other companies, and start worrying about not competing with themselves- making sure that cheaper models don't cannibalise their more expensive models, that kind of thing.

EDIT: your dad is a pie-taster?

[MDV]

I got better at spending money on gear; what do I win?

[dave_mc]

^ a repossession of your house if you miss one repayment, because the banks have screwed themselves?

Oh, and while I agree that guitars are probably getting cheaper and better, I don't think that's any reason to let companies off the hook. Things generally do improve, that's the nature of research etc. I mean, look at a computer from the mid 80s and then look at one now. You wouldn't use the same logic to tell someone that he/she was getting a great deal on a computer now compared to what they cost 20 or 30 years ago, because all computers are much cheaper now.

EDIT: my first guitar was an ibanez rg470. Actually a good guitar (japanese), but spoiled by the trem. If i were doing it again, i'd have sucked it up and got the 550 or 570 with an edge. I guess that's the advantage of starting a bit late, i had a bit more spare money (student loan ftw!), and considering i played other instruments, I knew I'd stick with it, so i didn't have to cheap out to hedge my bets in case I gave up. though of course if i could have I'd have preferred to start earlier, even if it meant a worse guitar.

[MDV]

But guitar advancement is nothing like computer advancement.

The most advanced guitars possible have already been around for ages - the wood is there, the electronics are 70 years old.

[dave_mc]

i know it's not the exact same, but more advanced production techniques (CNC etc.), not to mention just increased consumerism and shifting more boxes, is bound to bring the prices down.

EDIT: my point wasn't that guitars are anything like computers, anyway. My point was that computers are another industry where prices have fallen while quality has risen in the past 30 years, and you wouldn't use the prices of 30 years ago to determine whether or not you're getting a good deal on a computer today. I'm saying it should be the exact same with guitars, just because a starter guitar was a piece of cr@p and expensive 30 years ago doesn't mean you should put up with it today if most manufacturers are putting out decent starter guitars for reasonable prices.

[MDV]

Yes, I understand your point, but I think its an inapropriate analogy because the technologies are so fundamentally different.

Reasonably steady demand means a reasonably secure market worth investing in, variations in taste mean room for experimentation and diversity and the ability to create and expand holes in the market, and improvments in manufacturing reduce production costs and increase consistency and turnover. Of these in the guitar world the latter is probably the biggest factor in cost reduction along with always being prepared to look for somewhere to put your factory where you can pay the fewest people the least money. That last one, more than anything I would say, is where the budget guitar has benefited the most.

[dave_mc]

of course, i'd agree. My point is that my point is only looking at the fact that the cost has reduced, which, if you ask me anyway, is an appropriate enough analogy- how or why the price has reduced, or the technology involved, is irrelevant. When you're trying to decide whether to buy anything do you look at the going rate and quality now, or the going rate and quality 30 years ago?

if you want, i can change my analogy from computers to TVs, or shoes, or whatever. the specific product isn't really important.

[MDV]

Well, the PC and microelctronics in general is an extreme illustration of that (wide enough demand drving down prices without overly hampering production quality), but the biggest obvious difference is obsolecance. Guitar gear doesnt do it, in electronics its inevitable - we all know as soon as a computer or phone is on the shelf its obsolete, and that also keeps demand high.

Cars might be better. People still like old cars, they dont go totally out of the window every 5 years because the next thing is better in every possible way.

Unless someones getting nostalgic for their old 386? :lol: