Seems like a pretty versatile I want to say tool but it doesn’t fit. Why do you not like it?
Tool fits. I refer to my guitar as a tool. It is a tool that lets me move air and that makes sounds. Skill and quality of the tool let me make sounds that are pleasing.
It's just like a chisel in that it is a tool.
I don't like it because it is not accurate.
For example, it has a setting for a 1959 Gibson Les Paul. It sounds close to a 1959 Gibson Les Paul, but not exactly like a Gibson Les Paul. I know, because I have the GLPs from 1959. It only sounds similar.
In my case, I make faithful reproductions. I try to avoid 'sounds similar' and try for 'is exactly the same.'
For a good demonstration of it, look for a video with the JTV trying to mimic a Martin 00-18. It doesn't even really sound like an acoustic guitar, never mind sounding like a 00-18.
It also relies on an internal battery. I already have thousands of things that can go wrong onstage. Adding complexity and batteries to that is pretty silly.
If you go into it knowing it's not exactly the same, if your goal is to create or compose, if you're okay with similitude and not precision, it's a fine guitar - though I'd want a second battery pack. If your goals are the same as mine (and they absolutely don't need to be) then it's probably a better choice to just bite the bullet and start collecting guitars.
When I go on stage, I take a minimum of six guitars with me. I use each and every single one of them. If there's a problem, I have three spares that sit backstage. If there's a problem, then I rely on 'close enough.' However, the goal isn't close enough, the goal is faithful replication.
Backstage, the three spares are a GLP, Fender Strat, and a Martin D-28. Those are all I need to be 'close enough.' So, those are my spares and they live on the band's truck. I have yet to need any of them, but they are there for if I do.
I’m not remotely surprised at your strategy, I just don’t quite have a discerning enough ear to know all that yet. Time and experience should change that. Still one of these sounds like it would be fun to play.
Oh, yes. They are surely wonderfully useful for people with different goals than my own.
It even has a 'guitar mode' which when it is operating without any of the electronic effects - like if the battery dies, you can still play it just like you would play a regular guitar. It just doesn't have all the effects and features.
And, in it's plain old guitar mode, it does pretty well. It sounds just fine and has the regular features you'd want to have with an up-market guitar. There are a variety of models, some with bridge, middle, and neck pickups. They use a push-pull pot so that you can get a neat variety of pickup selections.
They are not bad guitars - they just don't suit my very specific requirements. I don't want a sound that is somewhat similar to a Les Paul, I want a Les Paul sound. If I couldn't afford the Les Paul sound, I'd get an Epiphone Les Paul, similar to the model you yourself own.
By the way, I'd love it if you recorded something for me. I'd like to hear how far you've progressed. I'd like to see you also gaining some confidence. In this case, the confidence might be something like, "Yeah, I know I'm still pretty bad at it - but i have learned to do this ____ and I'm pretty proud of that because I now understand how fucking hard it is to play a guitar."
I also have a favor, if you're interested.
Way back when, I told you that it was gonna be very difficult. You responded with things like, "I pick things up quickly. I will learn this and it will be easier for me than it is for most people." You were pretty confident and I said things like, "You'll see."
Anyhow, now that you see it is actually really fucking hard, is there any way you think I can convey that better? I'd like to know if you can think of a way for me to describe how difficult it really is - so that people are even more aware of it as they are making the choice to learn?
(post is archived)