Really concerned Guitarist is losing touch with reality

[Slartibartfarst42]

I often find what's billed as 'affordable' is a long way from being affordable to me and I'm on a decent salary so there can't be that many people who find it affordable. Surely 'affordable' is what the majority can afford but that certainly isn't the case here. I have a normal full-time job and I play gigs in a covers band in my spare time so I suppose I qualify as a 'serious amateur' but there's no way at all I'd fork out that kind of money.

1) I couldn't afford it.
2) Playing a few gigs a month in a pub doesn't justify such huge expense.
3) You simply don't need anything that powerful. I use a 60w amp but that's only because it happened to have the features I wanted. I could happily use a Peavey Classic 30 and still have loads of volume or even a 20w would probably do.

To spend around £2000 on an amp I'd have to be what I'd describe as a 'serious semi-pro'.

[richard]

From the Guitarist review:

'Our only real niggle concerns the control knobs, which have a small dimple position indicator that's hard to see in normal light.'

This annoys the hell out of me. So many companies claim to have developed their products with the working guitarist in mind and they do something like this. Just plain stupid and thoughtless and makes me wonder what else they've got wrong.

From the Vonhatski website:

'Can I put different types of valves in my pre amp to alter the tone or volume?

We recommend when replacing the pre amp valves they are replaced with the same type and model, if you use a different type or model this can and will cause damage to the amp. All work of this nature must be carried out by a qualified service engineer.'


So using different types of pre-amp valves WILL damage the amp ? Ridiculous, we all love trying different valves. What kind of design is it that means different pre-amp valves will damage the amp ? And a qualified service engineer to change the pre-amp valves ? What kind of cr@p is this ? Do you hire a qualified electrician to change your light bulbs ? Despite their claims for unprecedented levels of support I get the impression that if you touch the amp in any way (don't even point) and it develops a problem they will say it's your fault.

Count me out.

[tekbow]

Hey, just want to say guys, it was not my intention to hate these guys out. If they're positioning themselves as a highend/boutique builder, thats cool, and people will probably pay, but i know where my £2k on an amp (hypothetical) will go and it won't be to them.

My only issue was how Guitarist described the price point of an amp who's review wasn't anything spectacular.

[dave_mc]

Haven't read the review, nor heard of the amp in question, so bear that in mind :lol:

But getting back to Guitarist magazine (and guitar magazines in general), my biggest gripe with their reviews is how lazy they are.  They don't go into sufficient detail, they tend to gloss over quality-control flaws (even though the particular item they've been sent for review was probably the "pick of the bunch") and they never give anything an overall negative review.

+1

Of course, the irony is that £2k may not be affordable to a someone who really is struggling to make it as a semi-pro to lower-end professional musician, but it may very well be affordable to an enthusiastic amateur with a day job.  But that's life.

Also +1

I suppose you could say that, if it's comparatively cheap (i.e. compared to other amps with similar features and made in a similar part of the world), then what they're saying is fair enough. But yeah £2k is pretty expensive in most people's books.

[Slartibartfarst42]

But getting back to Guitarist magazine (and guitar magazines in general), my biggest gripe with their reviews is how lazy they are.  They don't go into sufficient detail, they tend to gloss over quality-control flaws (even though the particular item they've been sent for review was probably the "pick of the bunch") and they never give anything an overall negative review.

Yes, I'd like to agree with this too. It seems to me that nothing ever gets a negative review regardless of how poor they can be and 'Guitarist Choice' awards seem to be handed out for almost anything. It's not an award I see as prestigious in any way and not an award I take the slightest notice of anymore. The trouble is they can't seriously criticise a product otherwise they'd lose the advertising revenue so as objective reviews they become utterly worthless. I have a look at some of the reviews but if a product interests me, I'll tend to ask other users online before I made any purchase. I'd certainly never buy anything based on a review in a magazine and it's not just Guitarist magazine that suffers from this issue.

[Ian Price]

Whilst I agree with pretty much all of the points raised I often wonder what the Guitarist team get sent to review and then choose not to include it in an issue. For instance if they were sent something really not of good standard would they talk to the manufacturer and effectively let them save face before a poor review gets included?

I'm not sure of the intricacies of journalism but imagine that the manufacturer pays for products to get reviewed and ultimately has some say in the wording in the review. Could be naive of me of course.

[Philly Q]

I'm not sure of the intricacies of journalism but imagine that the manufacturer pays for products to get reviewed and ultimately has some say in the wording in the review. Could be naive of me of course.

Interesting point.  I doubt they actually pay to be reviewed, surely then any question of an unbiased review would go out of the window?  On the other hand, I assume the manufacturers offer products for review, and nothing is ever being reviewed without the manufacturers' prior knowledge.

I also doubt the manufacturers have any editorial control, but I imagine there are some "discussions" before the review goes to print.  Especially if there is some problem or defect with the product, you'd probably want to give the manufacturer a chance to respond.  And in that case, maybe some of those issues never make it to the printed review. 

Having said that, I've read many reviews which do refer to a flaw and say something like "the manufacturer has assured us that the problem has now been sorted out and won't appear on the samples you'll see in the shops".

[Lew]

Whilst I agree with pretty much all of the points raised I often wonder what the Guitarist team get sent to review and then choose not to include it in an issue. For instance if they were sent something really not of good standard would they talk to the manufacturer and effectively let them save face before a poor review gets included?

I'm not sure of the intricacies of journalism but imagine that the manufacturer pays for products to get reviewed and ultimately has some say in the wording in the review. Could be naive of me of course.

I had a chat with one of the head honchos from SOS magazine a few years ago and brought that up. He said that if they get a defective or otherwise not up to par bit of kit they do make the supplier aware and offer it back for them to send another example in for review.

[Ian Price]

Interesting point.  I doubt they actually pay to be reviewed, surely then any question of an unbiased review would go out of the window?  On the other hand, I assume the manufacturers offer products for review, and nothing is ever being reviewed without the manufacturers' prior knowledge.

I also doubt the manufacturers have any editorial control, but I imagine there are some "discussions" before the review goes to print.

Agreed Philly - "pay" was a poor choice of word I think. I do wonder what Jonathan's view and experience is on this subject - I'm sure I remember some of his Feline models getting reviewed.

[tekbow]

While I've never seen any of felines guitars reviewed, I have seen them get good mention in, think it was, Guitar buyer or Guitar and Bass magazine. one of them has a monthly article on private collections every month. This was in last months or the month befores issue.

[Lew]

You're mostly correct, Philly. If there's a problem with the gear they offer it to be returned for another example as I said earlier. If the offer is declined (never is) then it goes to print with warts. The companies have no editorial control but there certainly is alot of polotics involved as the revenue from the advertisments is massive.

I've thought for a while about how cool it would be to do a Guitar magazine that was down to earth, filled with interviews and reviews of products that people were actually interested in and could call a spade a spade. But I guess advert revenue is the reason it's not done.

Guitarist is really out of touch, seems like it's being run by a member of TGP.

[tekbow]

Guitarist is really out of touch, seems like it's being run by a member of TGP.

 :lol:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dK4I-NmeXS4

[dave_mc]

:lol:

I've thought for a while about how cool it would be to do a Guitar magazine that was down to earth, filled with interviews and reviews of products that people were actually interested in and could call a spade a spade. But I guess advert revenue is the reason it's not done.

Yeah it's very hard (if not impossible) to compete playing fair if no-one else is...

[Andrew W]

I'm sure most of us have, by now, remapped Guitarist's reviews in our own minds:

*** = pretty rotten, they never give anything less than *** so that's as bad as something can be.
**** = OK, decent enough
***** = Ranges from "really quite decent" to "the greatest thing to tickle ears since Leo Fender said 'I wonder what would happen if I bolted these two planks together a walloped a pickup in one of them?'"

Trouble is, because Guitarist now effectively only have one three grading levels, none of them are very useful other than ***, which I take mean "probably avoid".

It's also true that the overall quality of gear has improved vastly over the twenty odd years I've been playing so perhaps there actually aren't many really shocking pieces of kit out there any more and perhaps that too has something to do with it as well as advertiser pressure?

[Philly Q]

It's also true that the overall quality of gear has improved vastly over the twenty odd years I've been playing so perhaps there actually aren't many really shocking pieces of kit out there any more and perhaps that too has something to do with it as well as advertiser pressure?

I think that's a fair point.  And if you go back another 10 years before that, some gear really was rubbish, which is pretty much never the case now.

Star ratings and marks out of ten in reviews are always problematic - do you make 5/10 the base line and go up or down from there (which seems a bit harsh, at least when you see it in print), or do you start from the idea that most things are (in some vague way) deserving of at least a 6 or 7 because they're basically pretty good, and only truly exceptional cases will get more or less?

I tend to ignore the stars and just think about what the text (and photos) tell me.