^ that's more like it. :)
holy cr@p... i guess this is poetic justice for some of my longer posts :lol:
(a) Nah, not begrudging it dave - not quite what I meant at all, didn't mean no logic or joined up reasoning there, it was just a kind of rueful "wish I could have had..." :D
(b) But(!) I do firmly believe that the quality of an instrument, unless it's completely unplayable, is not what makes you play when you start. The erk that gives up because it "ain't as good as a proper one" isn't gonna be commited enough to learn it anyway - the thing's already better than he/she realises.
I play guitar cos I wanted to play guitar, not because of the instrument that got chucked at me. I knew it wasn't remotely as good as the one that wasn't (I got my Dad's cast off - and his better one was pretty sh1t as well when I finally got my hands on it :lol:). But once I'd learnt a couple of chords, I had to play. I knew it was hard to play because I'd tried other people's, but I also knew it could be played because I'd seen someone play it.
I suspect that nearly everyone on here plays because they had to, no matter what their early kit was.
(c) If you look at it from the average parent's point of view (we'd all be slightly different), it's just another expensive toy that their kid wants. They're aware that, because it's a musical instrument, it might actually go somewhere, but they're still expecting it to get cast off like all the other stuff has been before.
I've gone through this several times now with nephews and nieces. I've got a nephew who appears to be playing because Uncle Andrew does. Nearly two years back his parents were looking at an Argos deal and then realised the sister's husband might have something wise to say. They were worried he (he's 14 now) might chuck it after a bit, and so didn't want to go for anything expensive. I told them where to look and some names to check out, I also told them they really ought to take him to a shop and tell him the budget and then have me check out the ones he chose... but they went for a package, I believe, because it was easier.
He's got some guitar I wouldn't touch with a barge pole - some sort of cheap Yamaha, it's HSS, I really do not like it (I'd never tell him though!). However, it does the job, I can play it, tune it, set up the trem, wotever. Last year I taught him to restring it (he did three of the strings). We got him a tuner - one day he'll think of using it regularly :lol: I've not seen or heard his amp, but he says it does distorted sounds.
I've let him play his git through my stuff, and he seemed a bit bemused by the options on offer - he's not ready for it. He's seen me play his and make it sound like Ritchie Blackmore (about the only musical reference we have in common). He plays what he wants to play, he can't keep time to save his life, but he's still playing after nearly two years, he's happy, and he's slowly getting better. The other week they were here, and I let him play some of mine - he can see/feel what better guitars might be now (he makes them sound just like his!), and so whatever differences there are that he can feel, he's not blaming his playing or lack of skill for it.
(d) The packages advertised above will do the same job. It might be possible to get the same bits of kit for £30-£40 cheaper, mebbe even more, I dunno. But the ease of getting the whole thing that "looks about right and it's what we're prepared to spend" might make it worth it.
(e) The reason I brought up the US Fender guy (someone at work, who I tried to warn what might happen - but he reasoned that the kid was more likely to play if he had a decent guitar), was a "comparison of possible wasted money" idea: Someone bought one of these packages and it was about £200 or whatever, someone bought a guitar over three, four times the price (and I guess an amp as well). Both were parents who were worried the kid might not commit to it... both were parents who half-heartedly looked into the rights/wrongs of the purchase. The kid with the cheap "not very good" one is still playing, the other Dad has got strat gathering dust somewhere (he wants to learn but "hasn't got round to it" either :lol:).
(f) On the actual price of these packages and should they be cheaper (because we know how to get them cheaper maybe) - of course not!! A thing is worth what someone will pay for it. No-one's getting ripped off, if they buy one of these from Next, they're paying the price they're prepared to pay to get the goods they want.
It's all cool 8)
:lol:
EDIT: Sh1t! didn't realise it was that long!!! Spot the bloke who was waiting for his missus to come home :lol:
(a) ah, no worries, sorry for inferring that incorrectly. :oops:
(b) i agree.
(c) yeah, i know. I guess I'm different, I've played music as long as i can remember, and always enjoyed it. I don't normally give stuff up, either.
(d) yeah, that's my point. for the same amount of money you can get quite a bit better. I realise that if you don't know anything about guitars, getting a pack makes it a lot easier, but the problem is that the companies know that the people buying packs don't really know that much, so they can get away with charging more.
(e) that's anecdotal evidence, though. I'm sure plenty of kids with good guitars quit. So will plenty with cr@p guitars. It's probably small consolation, but that fender will still have resale value, much more than the starter pack (though you'll probably still incur more of a loss, granted).
(f) i disagree with that logic. If they don't play guitar they're not really qualified to determine what it's worth or what it's not; as i said, they might not even know of the alternatives. And as I said, I don't agree with ripping off or taking advantage of people who don't know about a particular subject or product.
(i tried to keep this as short as possible while still replying to all your main points)
I don't really see the problem with the prices? £200 isnt much for a guitar really and that Yamaha isn't terrible. Think its the one my brother had when he tried to play guitar and it really wasn't too bad for the money.
but you can get a 112v and microcube for roughly the same price? heck, you can get that very guitar on its own for about £100. is the rest of the stuff in the pack worth £130?
(a) Dave - I dont get it
If this store is just selling the item for the normal RRP it's not ripping people off.
i dont believe in over-inflated prices but this is not a case of that from what I see (I do think it is odd for Next or Marks and Sencers or whoever to sell guitars however)
(b) Like a shop selling a BKP for £90 - that is not ripping people off.
That is normal commerce and hopefully one where you get good customer service and back up if you need it.
(c) Being forced to sell all your goods at next to zero margin is suicide.
If you dont make a profit on what you sell you wil be out of business really quick, and staff will be on the dole and customers lose a shop that maybe they liked
(a) i disagree with that logic. just because something is at the RRP doesn't mean it's not overpriced. it's overinflated compared to what you could get similar quality stuff from a guitar shop for. If a small, independent guitar shop can sell for less, what's next's excuse? "our massive buying power means we can't compete"? :D
(b) that's fair enough, though. That's the going rate, it's quality kit, and it's not taking advantage of people who don't know better. Not to mention, if the RRP of BKP were, say, £200, but every single guitar shop was selling them for £100, and Next then decided to start selling them at £200, I'd complain about that too.
(c) i never suggested that shops should sell at a loss.
