Are You A Dumb Mother F**ker?

[Philly Q]

To be absolutely fair, and ignoring his general demeanour, his initial comments about rosewood versus maple fingerboards are thought-provoking, even if his demonstration doesn't prove much.

But then when he starts going on about inlays supposedly affecting tone.... I've never heard anyone claim that.  Those "dumb mother$%&#ers" don't exist.

And as for his comments about cleaning rosewood fretboards with water.... take a look at an untreated wooden fence or garden gate, see what rain water does to it over time.  Of course oiling wood is going to give some protection against moisture!  By that stage it seems like he's trying to be controversial just for the sake of it.

[Ian Price]

The problem is that by the time he made those initial comments I'd already decided I didn't like his style of presentation at all. When that happens I normally switch off and roll my eyes.  :roll:

[Dmoney]

The problem is that by the time he made those initial comments I'd already decided I didn't like his style of presentation at all. When that happens I normally switch off and roll my eyes.  :roll:

+1

On the few I have watched, most notably a review of a Gibson Victory MVX, he's proven that he doesn't know as much as he makes out even if he does raise some points worth thinking about sometimes.

[Lezard]

But then when he starts going on about inlays supposedly affecting tone.... I've never heard anyone claim that.  Those "dumb mother$%&#ers" don't exist.

I thought he was trying to make the point that if people are saying that the wood the fingerboard is made of has an effect on tone then by that same logic the inlays should also have an effect.

[Philly Q]

Yeah, you may be right.  I thought he was saying that he'd actually heard people making that claim.

I'm not going to watch it again to find out. 

[AndyR]

Oops - I seem to be in the minority :lol:.

I didn't scroll down to read any comments while I was watching because I was enjoying it so much.

Although he did have some interesting points, some of which I might disagree with, some of which I might agree with, and some (most) of which I don't give two figs about... the reason I found it so funny is that I felt he's taking the piss out of everyone, including himself, who takes this stuff so seriously and personally and who  argues about it until the cows come home.

I loved the irreverence of the whole thing, just made me laugh and wonder what he was gonna come out with next... I was half expecting him to use the one that I wheel out every now and then when a tone conversation about stuff that can't really be proved one way or t'other seems to have got a bit "intense" : "don't forget the strap - that has a big effect on the tone..." (obviously there would have been a few extra "motherf*ckers" in his version :lol:)

Thoroughly entertaining. Thanks for posting it :D

[Philly Q]

Oops - I seem to be in the minority :lol:.

Now you know what it's like for me when people post clips by the beloved Phil X!

[AndyR]

Oops - I seem to be in the minority :lol:.

Now you know what it's like for me when people post clips by the beloved Phil X!

:lol:

For me, they both have the same "spirit of irreverence" that makes me laugh.

They both know that the secret (to everything) is "do wot you do... some folks'll like it, some won't". Whether they realise that what they do is actually affirming the "loud-mouthed american" image/cliche that I might have in my mind, whether they even care... who knows?! (And it doesn't really matter anyway - "do wot you do...")

[Philly Q]

I think the difference (Phil Q defends Phil X shocker :o) is that Phil X has none of that "$%&# you" or "I know better than you" attitude.  He is basically (.....pause.....) a nice chap (.....there, I said it).  Just very, very, annoying.

Whereas this Scott Grove bloke is setting out to be obnoxious.  Maybe it's tongue in cheek but I think deep down he means it anyway.

So it's nice irritating guy vs. obnoxious irritating guy.  Phil X FTW.  Amazingly.

[JJretroTONEGOD]

I think the difference (Phil Q defends Phil X shocker :o) is that Phil X has none of that "$%&# you" or "I know better than you" attitude.  He is basically (.....pause.....) a nice chap (.....there, I said it).  Just very, very, annoying.

Whereas this Scott Grove bloke is setting out to be obnoxious.  Maybe it's tongue in cheek but I think deep down he means it anyway.

So it's nice irritating guy vs. obnoxious irritating guy.  Phil X FTW.  Amazingly.

you aren't on your own about Phil X, he is exceptionally annoying!!! and for me just needs to calm down 99% of the time, I've also wondered if he's a cocaine addict

[AndyR]

So it's nice irritating guy vs. obnoxious irritating guy.  Phil X FTW.  Amazingly.

You heard it here first folks!! :lol:

[dvorak]

Since Phil X came up I must say that I didn't like the guy at first either. Then I saw some clinics on youtube where he was really down to earth and a nice guy. Cool guy with a big love for the art of playing guitar.

Example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mh6xBiGwMs

[Ian Price]

I think it's quite well known in these parts that I'm a Phil X fan - seeing him live made me like him even more. He comes across as a really nice guy and spent quite a bit of time at the end of the gig chatting with the 'punters' (I hate that word) about guitars in general. Also made a lot of time to sign things for people (no, he didn't sign any of my body parts).

So, whilst I can see why others find him annoying I agree with Philly that he comes across as completely genuine - unlike this Scott Grove bloke. I reckon that with both of them that what you see is what you get.

[MDV]

he is and always will be retarded. End of.