Cheap guitars - the future?

[dave_mc]

yeah, i remember when the prs se's first appeared, the company clearly stated that we wouldn't ever see a korean prs with a maple top.  and yet, just a few years later, here they are!  and while they do look nice, and commercially had to happen to compete with epiphone and co., it is a shame that the "student guitar" vibe the original se's had has been lost.

that being said, i think they're bringing out a single pickup mahogany se, aren't they?  hopefully it'll be popular, although i think, as with the american satin series, they'll probably be overpriced.

yeah, i think so.

ah but if we wanted, say, a Feline, Gordon smith or Organic guitar with BKPs and a Marshall or a Matamp etc. it'd be a whole lot cheaper to us than it would over there too. It's all about where the stuff's made.

And also - i think that USA fender prices are quite reasonable at the moment.

true, but i still am pretty sure that we pay much more over the odds for mesa and PRS than americans pay for marshall etc. to be fair, the flip side is that we have an NHS etc.

i totally get the point about different guitars' characters affecting the way you play them. however, many years ago i played an Ibanez Jem and was astounded!  the guitar was, as you say, invisible.  the point is that there is absolutely no barrier to your technique, and you're unlikely to get that from a cheap guitar.

the "characterful" guitars and the "invisible" guitars will obviously appeal to different kinds of players, and rarely doth the twain meet!

I agree, it depends a lot on what you're playing. i like characterful guitars, and ones that are no barrier to any technique.

also, +1 on rob's post.

[Pierre]

Playability is, for me, a non issue. Any decent tech and 70 pounds later your guitar should be able to play perfectly great. Then it depends on the strings, cutaway, neck shape etc... for different experiences. But a Squier setup by Tom Anderson would probably play like a Tom Anderson.


It's all about the timber for me. Hardware can be replaced, playability adjusted.

[rahnooo]

away from the experienced and discerning musician and towards the gay emo kid who wouldn't know quality if it slapped him in the face..

So just because you play a certain genre of music means that you aren't a "discerning musician" or able to tell a quality instrument from a piece of junk? Really? Really?

I suggest you start to think about some of these comments before you put finger to keyboard.

...back on topic:

I must say I'm all in favour of the proliferation of good quality cheaper guitars that we are now accustomed to, it's democratised music making a great deal, and that can only be a good thing. A wider base to the skills pyramid (ie more people taking part) means that there is the greater potential for a higer number of really stellar bands and musicians to emerge.

And as Twinfan pointed out, there is now a clear upgrade path for budding guitarists who want better instruments as they progress. My 'lecy guitar is an Epi Les Paul, which I bought after having played guitar for not very long. I played loads of different instruments in my price bracket, then settled on the one which played the best. 7 years on and after a set up, BKP's and replaced electronics, it still plays really well.

I was fortunate in that having played music from an early age (violin and tuba) I had a decent idea of what constituted a good instrument, but nonetheless, inexperienced guitarists (for whom the guitar may well be their first instrument) can now pick up a decent instrument for not a huge outlay. Which can only mean that more are encouraged to do so. The as they progress, hardware upgrades etc can help prolonge the life of their instrument, and eventually new guitars of a more middling price range.

I'd never claim that my humble Epi plays as well as a Feline, and there will always be the market for quality handbuilt instruments (and God nows that come qualification I'll be handing over a substantial portion of my paycheque to Mr J Law), but there is room in the market place for Epi's and Felines. It's all horses for courses :)

Btw Twinfan, nice thread. Thought provoking :)

*Rahnooo*

[TwilightOdyssey]

Playability is, for me, a non issue.

?!

Any decent tech and 70 pounds later your guitar should be able to play perfectly great. Then it depends on the strings, cutaway, neck shape etc... for different experiences. But a Squier setup by Tom Anderson would probably play like a Tom Anderson.


It's all about the timber for me. Hardware can be replaced, playability adjusted.

I totally disagree with this thinking!!

I also suspect someone is deliberately hitting hot buttons here ...  8)

[Twinfan]

I think you're in a different ball park to some of us TO.  I agree that playability can be alterered - nuts lowered/raised, action height adjusted etc.  I'd also prefer a guitar with a particular character rather than the "blank canvas" that you favour.

Horses for courses.

To continue with the theme of my thread I am now, more than ever, of the belief that the high end guitars in a manufacturer's range exists only to sell lower end versions of the same thing.  For example, if PRS only produced the SE range would the buying public be as interested as it is and sales be as good?  Probably not.  The consumer sees the bling £2400 Custom 24 and says "Wow I love it but can't afford it" then tries out an SE and says "Very nice, and £2000 cheaper!  The expensive one isn't/can't be £2000 better I'll take this SE".  

The sale is then complete and PRS make money...

[TwilightOdyssey]

Horses for courses.

Amen.

To continue with the theme of my thread I am now, more than ever, of the belief that the high end guitars in a manufacturer's range exists only to sell lower end versions of the same thing.

I semi agree with this; it is nice to see what each company produces as their top of the line, bespoke models. Eventually that will trickle down into their lower lines. I don't think they exist SOLELY to sell the cheaper guitars, but it certainly incites the lust factor and brand loyalty.

[Davey]

I want my guitars to have character. I have no interest at all in a guitar thats "invisible", to me, that sounds like my idea of the cheapest of the cheap instrument. Something that has no spark of life about it.

the term invisible, has to be defined here.

i seriously doubt ben thought of some lifeless guitar, that is just there for the sole purpose of making sound..

no, IMO, he had a guitar in mind, that speaks YOU. your own. the extension of your ability/fingers/imagination. a guitar that doesnt fight you, because the neck could be a touch beefier, or cos the profile of the neck is too shallow, wood dead.. etc etc.
it has to be alive with character, but not a bluesy character or shredder per se, but YOUR character.. so it will make you feel awesome playing it, that it feels right and that you want to play it.
in other words, the right guitar for yourself.

as for me.. i never paid more than 400€ for any piece of gear i own. sure, the guitars, cos they have BKPs in them are worth more than that, but i never paid more than 400€ when i was buying anything.

[Pierre]

Playability is, for me, a non issue.

?!

Any decent tech and 70 pounds later your guitar should be able to play perfectly great. Then it depends on the strings, cutaway, neck shape etc... for different experiences. But a Squier setup by Tom Anderson would probably play like a Tom Anderson.


It's all about the timber for me. Hardware can be replaced, playability adjusted.

I totally disagree with this thinking!!

I also suspect someone is deliberately hitting hot buttons here ...  8)

It's fairly logical though. Think of it this way... a decent car frame, with a shite engine. Add a great engine... you'll still have a decent car, but with a lot more power.

Buy a standard Squier. Bring it to your luthier of choice for new nut, fretwork (with whichever frets you want, let's assume the standard ones are fine) and full setup...and then why would this guitar not play as well as others?
A lot of it does come to personal preferences. String height, fingerboard radius etc... but all things being constant, there is NO reasons a 12'' Squier/X/Y with med fret etc... should not play as well as a Tom Anderson with the same neck specs.

However you'll most likely get way better hardware and, most important for me, timber with the Anderson.

A bad sounding guitar may sound OK with great pickups, but a great guitar will sound great with great pickups.

I.e put BKPs in a bad Squier, it'll sound better than stock, but the guitar won't compliment the pickups much.

Or a Squier pup in a Tom Anderson and the pup won't compliment the guitar much.

Accoustic voicing does it for me. Which is also why I find it a shame that most guitars come with 009s. It's not thick enough to really bring them to life in my experience. Also, hardware does sometimes hinder at string vibration and therefore body resonance. So it IS hard to tell, I won't deny that.

[Simon D]

For example, if PRS only produced the SE range would the buying public be as interested as it is and sales be as good?  Probably not.  The consumer sees the bling £2400 Custom 24 and says "Wow I love it but can't afford it" then tries out an SE and says "Very nice, and £2000 cheaper!  The expensive one isn't/can't be £2000 better I'll take this SE".  

The sale is then complete and PRS make money...

Without wishing to make myself look shallow Twinfan, the scenario you describe here is exactly what happened with me when I bought my SE Sinlgecut. I loved the look of the US Singlecuts, but couldn't afford one.  Then PRS brought out the SE, and I now have a whale blue one on my wall.

Personally I'm all in favour of guitars like the SE line, as they put decent quality instruments within the reach of people like me - serious guitarists who are also seriously poor and crippled by university (and/or other) debts. I'm fine with it, and I don't think it has as much effect on the brand as some people claim.

I'm not sure the high-end lines exist purely to induce purchases at the lower end of the market, but I am convinced this certainly happens all the time, even if it wasn't the original intention.

[Twinfan]

You don't sound shallow Simon - it's exactly what I did with my Epi SG.  However, I've now bought the equivalent Gibson.

I wasn't exactly clear when I said that the high-end lines exist purely to induce purchases at the lower end of the market.  I think, as you say, that's what is happening in the real world but it wasn't designed that way by the manufacturers.

[Kilby]

I wasn't exactly clear when I said that the high-end lines exist purely to induce purchases at the lower end of the market.  I think, as you say, that's what is happening in the real world but it wasn't designed that way by the manufacturers.

Investors insist on maximum return

You may start a company with the sole task of producing the best guitars (of their type) on earth. However once you have venture capitalists, bankers and their ilk, the companys sole role becomes that of maximum financial return. This was discussed regarding endorsements a couple of months ago.

If you don't do as you are told you are got rid of and you don't even own your own name ! The only builder of any real size that has kept it's independance and not producing budget models are Rickenbacker. Have a look at the calls on the Ric site to see the number of requests every week for a cheaper model, and the response.

A cr@p guitar with a good setup is just a cr@p guitar with a good setup, add decent hardware and it's still a cr@p guitar. Pick up a high end guitar and you will see the difference.

However for learning to play, having a guitar to leave in the office or girlfriends house or a backup guitar there are very good inexpensive options.

But you will prefer picking up the really good one if you have the option

Rob...

A high end guitar (one which has been built as it should have) is a joy to play. It's not just wood or hardware

[Philly Q]

Playability is, for me, a non issue. Any decent tech and 70 pounds later your guitar should be able to play perfectly great. Then it depends on the strings, cutaway, neck shape etc... for different experiences. But a Squier setup by Tom Anderson would probably play like a Tom Anderson.

Depends how you define "playability" - the best setup in the world isn't going to compensate for an uncomfortable neck shape or an unbalanced/heavy body.  Those are the things that matter most to me.  If the neck doesn't feel right I'm never going to get on with the guitar.

I've never played an Anderson, but if they feel no better than a well-set-up Squier I'll be very disappointed.  :?

[indysmith]

if you think about it - producing guitars that people will buy and which will make profit is a lot harder than producing the very best guitars in the world. unforunately i think a lot of companies set out with the former in mind rather than the latter.

[TwilightOdyssey]

if you think about it - producing guitars that people will buy and which will make profit is a lot harder than producing the very best guitars in the world.

I think that marketing this type of product is very difficult, as the waters are already muddied by established makers.

Producing the actual guitars is easy: find a factory already making the guitars and just have em slap your logo on the headstock.

[Pierre]

Playability is, for me, a non issue. Any decent tech and 70 pounds later your guitar should be able to play perfectly great. Then it depends on the strings, cutaway, neck shape etc... for different experiences. But a Squier setup by Tom Anderson would probably play like a Tom Anderson.

Depends how you define "playability" - the best setup in the world isn't going to compensate for an uncomfortable neck shape or an unbalanced/heavy body.  Those are the things that matter most to me.  If the neck doesn't feel right I'm never going to get on with the guitar.

I've never played an Anderson, but if they feel no better than a well-set-up Squier I'll be very disappointed.  :?

Exactly. It's hard to tell. But if Anderson made a Squier profile on a Strat, all things being equals, why wouldn't the Fender play as well as the Anderson?
Think of it this way...you have a nice Strat, you want to make it play great. Even if you got it really cheap, why couldn't a great tech make it play amazing?

The differences is also that with the Anderson/whatever brand, you get the right setup WHEN YOU BUY. As opposed to have it done. And of course, hardware, timber choice, methods of building, pickups, attention to details etc...

With a Squier you'd need some work done on it when you buy it.