It ain't so bad...

Frankiestylee

It just struck me the other day that guitar players have it pretty easy when it comes to cash for instruments. 2 grand and you get yourself an awesome guitar, but I was hanging out with a concertina player who paid five grand for this lil black box of an instrument, and I don't want to think what the harp player paid for her weapon of choice.

I suppose the harmonica players have it the easiest, but, well... they're special.

Doctor J

They got the blues though.

8k2q1gfcz9s5d4

what about people who play the spoons!

jimi_t

Synth players have it the best I reckon, 2 grand would you buy you some serious gear - but analog gear, especially the older stuff, can be hard to service. Drummers are bad enough in terms of transporting gear, and the stuff is pretty damn expensive. I'd say violin players and flautists are pretty badly off as well - though a decent harp would run 80,000+

feylya

Let's not forget people who need grand pianos! Not the cheapest the last time I checked

Doctor J

Yeah, Elton John ain't made of money, you know!

Don1

What about the jews harp? :rolleyes:

Rigsby

While browsing in Waltons last week I was surprised at the price of the banjos they stocked - Euros 1500-2000. They were obviously top of the range but I did n't think banjos could be that expensive.

Doctor J

Rigsby wrote:

While browsing in Waltons last week I was surprised at the price

I think we all know that feeling

Quattroste

Yeah, even the harmonica players......

Patricide

Quattroste wrote:

Yeah, even the harmonica players......

Brilliant.

I think guitarists have it the easyst, then bass players then drummers (in a rock band situation)

Doctor J

Drummers don't have it easy by any stretch. Way too much loading/unloading, setting up/taking down and it's so hard to practice properly in an urban/suburban living environment. To buy a really good kit costs several thousands of euro. Drummers are very underappreciated for the amount of extra labour and grief involved that goes largely unnoticed by other musicians.

Frankiestylee

Doctor J wrote:

Drummers don't have it easy by any stretch. Way too much loading/unloading, setting up/taking down and it's so hard to practice properly in an urban/suburban living environment. To buy a really good kit costs several thousands of euro. Drummers are very underappreciated for the amount of extra labour and grief involved that goes largely unnoticed by other musicians.

Plus most of the time they don't get any writing credits so they're normally the broke ones after it all... unless they do voice overs

Hypnotoad

Don1 wrote:

What about the jews harp? :rolleyes:

That's some serious piece of gear.

8k2q1gfcz9s5d4

Hypnotoad wrote:

That's some serious piece of gear.

what about this harp http://harpirishpub.com/get_directions/harp_pint2.jpg

mr_fruitbowl

All bs...no instrument has it better than another Instrument. The only reason those things are so expensive is cause people want the best of everything....in that case a good guitar 30,000 (custom prs), good amp 4000-5000(including cab) maybe diezel, bogner....and then you have to buy rack equipment, pedals etc which could cost thousands.

Frankiestylee

I have a jew harp... mad lil yoke that gets boring after about a minute.

Ah, it's not really all BS. Try find a Harp for less then a grand etc. It's all about the supply really, loads of guitarists in the world means loads of guitars produced and they're not that expensive as a result.

You'd get a lovely PRS over in the states for 2grand and you'd have everyone oo-ing and awe-ing over it when you got home, it might not be the ultra exclusive custom made one, but no-ones going to argue that it's not a damn fine guitar!

mr_fruitbowl

^ true. Let's not forget the rare prs dragons!
http://cgi.ebay.com/Paul-Reed-Smith-2002-Dragon-Guitar-11-of-100-PRS_W0QQitemZ130129131695QQihZ003QQcategoryZ33045QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

some les pauls
http://cgi.ebay.com/1955-Gibson-Les-Paul-Goldtop-100-original-and-clean_W0QQitemZ120138173725QQihZ002QQcategoryZ2384QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
http://cgi.ebay.com/1968-GIBSON-LES-PAUL-Custom-w-factory-bigsby-1ofakind_W0QQitemZ150135889641QQihZ005QQcategoryZ47072QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
http://cgi.ebay.com/1959-GIBSON-LES-PAUL-KP-REPLICA-GUITAR-GUNGI-PATERSON_W0QQitemZ230147793316QQihZ013QQcategoryZ38086QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Doctor J

PRS Dragons and vintage Les Pauls aren't an example of anything other than some people having more money than sense. Does a PRS Dragon play or sound thirty grand better than a regular PRS? No, of course not. Guitars are often cherised for percieved desireability and pleasing aesthetics with no tonal or playable advantage. Anyone who spends 60 grand on a vintage Gibson is most likely a collector, not a player. Frankie's point is the cost of equivalent levels of quality, not in museum pieces.

Karl Hungus

mr_fruitbowl wrote:

good amp 4000-5000(including cab) maybe diezel, bogner....and then you have to buy rack equipment, pedals etc which could cost thousands.

I'm not even going to touch the rubbish about 'Good guitar' but what's this garbage about having to buy rack equipment and pedals? That's donkeys! Many players don't even use effects, so there is no prerequisit for rack equipment at all.

Fair enough, a Diezel head & cab could run up a good €4000 bill, but that's only if you actually like the whole Diezel sound. Depending on a person's preferances, they could get a amp that would be cheaper, and to their ears, better than a Diezel.

mr_fruitbowl

Still a 1968 les paul is much better than a 2001 les paul.

Does a PRS Dragon play or sound thirty grand better than a regular PRS? No, of course not.

Maybe it does.

Guitars are often cherised for percieved desireability and pleasing aesthetics with no tonal or playable advantage.

That's lies...alot of guitar's aesthetics have a huge inpact on the tonal quality of the guitar.

Doctor J

Do you really think a pretty piece of flamed maple sounds noticeably better than a regular slab of maple? Really?

Edit -> Besides, all this old=better mumbo jumbo is a load of ****e. Sure, there are fantastic vintage instruments but do you really believe that the ability to make instruments has deteriorated where the human race has advanced in every other aspect? Guitars have never been better, tbh. Sure, the big G may have lost the plot but there are astounding instruments out there being made by people with lifetimes of experience. Are you suggesting they get worse at making instruments as they get experienced? Did trees grow magically more musical in the first half of the last century? There is a huge attraction to old instruments, mojo for want of a better term, but to suggest there is a blanket rule that an old instrument will sound better is folly and nothing more. An old, battered guitar looks amazing, it's like it has a story to tell, it's played in and comfortable but on the other hand, modern instruments stay in tune better, their electronics are better, parts have been refined and redesigned to cure the problems in the designs of the originals. Just because something was made in the 60's doesn't automatically mean it's actually any good.

mr_fruitbowl

Who said anything about finishes...your talking about guitars that are aesthetically pleasing...a start body vs a les paul body. Both of which are aesthetically pleasing in their own way.

I didn't say old is better than new, i simply stated that a gibson 68 is better than a 2001.

Did trees grow magically more musical in the first half of the last century?

No but maybe some people adore the sound of brazilian wood.

Voodu Child

Doctor J wrote:

Edit -> Besides, all this old=better mumbo jumbo is a load of ****e.

Yeah. The old pixie dust used in the Gibson factories in '59 etc. Load of rubbish.

I'd take a straight out of the box Edwards over a '59 LP any day, if playabilty and sound was the only concern (obviously i'd take the '59 if I could flip it on ebay the next day )

But yeah, anyone who thinks a rusty old guitar with rusty original pickups, a warped neck, and half a dozen refrets, is better than a good new guitar, is wrong IMO.

Doctor J

mr_fruitbowl wrote:

Who said anything about finishes...your talking about guitars that are aesthetically pleasing...a start body vs a les paul body. Both of which are aesthetically pleasing in their own way.

Aesthetics would be features pleasing to the eye, eg. figured woods, fancy inlays, not completely different design philosophies. There are a lot more than just aesthetic differences between Strats and Les Pauls.

mr_fruitbowl wrote:

I didn't say old is better than new, i simply stated that a gibson 68 is better than a 2001.

Why is it better? Granted, Gibson QC is pretty hit and miss these days, but please explain why a guitar made 39 years ago is somehow just better than one made 6 years ago.

mr_fruitbowl wrote:

No but maybe some people adore the sound of brazilian wood.

What has that got to do with anything? Gibson, for example, used Brazilian rosewood in some Les Pauls up to a few years ago, 2003, I think. I would love to meet someone who could hear the difference between Brazilian and Indian rosewood in a blind test though

mr_fruitbowl

Aesthetics would be features pleasing to the eye

Yes and the shape of a guitar falls in there.

Why is it better? Granted, Gibson QC is pretty hit and miss these days, but please explain why a guitar made 39 years ago is somehow just better than one made 6 years ago.

Well i'm only going by what i've heard, reviews and people's opinions...not good enough to back up my point i know but still ask anyone and they'll tell you that a 68 is better than a 2001.

What has that got to do with anything?

You asked "did trees grow magically more musicalin the first half of the last century"

And i replied by stating that some guitars back then were made out of brazilian wood which some people seem to enjoy alot more then normal woods.

I would love to meet someone who could hear the difference between Brazilian and Indian rosewood in a blind test though

Everyones different, just because you can't tell the difference doesn't mean someone else can't.

Doctor J

Brazilian wood isn't normal?

mr_fruitbowl

The hippies were giving out, so alot of guitar companies have stopped making guitars with brazilian wood now....hence the new prs 513 made from rosewood.

Doctor J

As I said, Gibson were using Brazilian rosewood up until 2003 on some models. Why is that better? Does that make them as good as a 68?

mr_fruitbowl

As i've said i don't know i'm only going by my own personal reaction from what i've heard.

Obvisiously it doesn't if people still find the 68's better.

Doctor J

Karl Hungus wrote:

Fair enough, a Diezel head & cab could run up a good €4000 bill

Yeah, maybe if you got the cab for free

Karl Hungus

Doctor J wrote:

Yeah, maybe if you got the cab for free

From Thomann, a VH4 and 4x12 cab would run just slighty over 4 grand. Or if you'd rather a VH4 S or Herbert, a little more than that. Still less than 4 and a half grand. It'd be around 3 grand if you went for the Einstein head.

It wasn't me!

I've only ever seen a few guitars that the actual body wood was rosewood, and in others, it's used for the fretboards. Brazilian rosewood was used *for fretboards* until a few years ago. Cool. Now we have Indian rosewood, and as has been said, I have yet to meet anyone that could tell the difference blind. Not that there aren't oh-so-subtle colourings of tone, but could you tell blind? You're also arguing that you can't speak from your own experience, but a '68 Les Paul is very definitely better than an '01 Les Paul. Why? You can't prove it, as it's all down to hearsay on your part. Also, in what way is it fundamentally better? A guitar's appeal is personal, down to the player. Some players might like decent electronics, a straight neck, dry, modern wood, good, clean frets and other nifty little features, at the expense of what? 30-odd years of sitting around, probably not being played? Cheers, but I'll take all those modern conveniences, at the expense, perhaps, of the country my fretboard originated. And I play a '93 Les Paul, and don't intend selling it, because it's a stonking guitar, and everything is up to date in it and it sounds and plays well, and I don't bemoan the fact that it's not 35 years older either.