|
Post by Davemc on Mar 29, 2015 9:31:24 GMT
Disagree.
A better instrument will make you want to play more. Going the cheapo route in case you quit risks becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy- fair enough if you can't afford anything better, but if you can, it doesn't make much sense to me. At least if you quit having got a killer guitar to learn on (assuming you could afford it easily), you know you gave it the best shot you could.
And then you can sell said guitar and get a fair bit back.
I wish I'd spent more on my first guitar- and I didn't start with a starter guitar either, an Ibanez RG470, though to be fair it's a great guitar apart from the trem and I just wish I'd known to go up to the 550 which was more or less the same thing except with an Edge trem.
Granted, I stuck with it, and granted, I kind of suspected I would since I already played instruments. Maybe the fact I could already play music is unfairly colouring my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by MDV on Mar 29, 2015 14:02:45 GMT
There's a middle ground somewhere.
I've always though that it was silly to call any cheap, crap guitar a 'beginners' guitar. A good guitarist can do battle with a poor instrument and get something listenable out of it. A beginner needs to have nothing in their way, ergonomically, functionally and preferably tonally as well.
That happens somewhere round 400-500 quid pretty reliably, and often under that, but many guitars round 100-150 are going to give plenty of obstacles to learning. Many people get over this and work towards 'earning' a better guitar (and a lot of guitar pricing is around an ascending reward system, with price points being shared between things like 'a bit of fun for a serious guitarist' and 'something dad will buy you for practicing') but a lot of people let shit instruments stop them progressing.
|
|
|
Post by Davemc on Mar 30, 2015 8:43:30 GMT
Oh yeah absolutely, I agree 100%. I'm struggling to update the stickies over on UG (long, tedious process, plus it feels like the blind leading the blind a lot of the time ) and I made that very point- that I'm not sure there's such a thing as a "beginner guitar". A lot of people say you need to be at a certain level of playing proficiency to appreciate a good instrument, and that's true... but as you rightly said, the exact opposite is also true, that a good player can compensate for a poorer instrument better than a bad player can, too. I'd get a guitar which was good enough to not hold me back if I were starting again, around about that kind of money (£400-£500). Though it does depend on how much money you actually have. Someone who's buying yachts, ferraris and private jets is probably not going to blink at a £2000 custom shop strat, even for a beginner. I was just making the point that if someone can easily afford it (i.e. they'd blow the money on something even sillier if they didn't get it), that there are worse things to spend your money on than a high-end guitar, even if you're just starting out.
|
|
|
Post by Tony on Apr 11, 2015 22:46:54 GMT
My point is why own a £2000 guitar if you don't know the first thing about it? Another example, some drooling moron on the Fender forum one time had bought a Jeff Beck Stratocaster "to learn on". Now I don't know about you but I learnt to play on a shitty acoustic with an action like a cheesegrater. Who spends that much money on a first guitar? WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE? I learnt on a nylon string acoustic from a charity shop that someone had string with steel strings. I didn't know any better for about a year. God that was painful.
|
|
|
Post by Frank on Apr 13, 2015 5:32:17 GMT
I learnt on a nylon string acoustic from a charity shop that someone had string with steel strings. I didn't know any better for about a year. Good that was painful. Kids these days don't know how lucky they are to be learning to play on reasonably playable instruments. In my day you had to start off on an acoustic with a cheesegrater action before advancing to a plywood Les paul copy.
|
|
|
Post by Davemc on Apr 13, 2015 13:20:49 GMT
Kids born 200 years before you had to do without antibiotics, anaesthetics and vaccinations. And modern medicine in general.
I always think people are on pretty thin ice when they claim kids these days don't know they're born, because the people born before them could normally say the same.
|
|
|
Post by Frank on Apr 13, 2015 14:45:11 GMT
I was born after vaccinations but I've had measles twice. So I'm allowed to pontificate.
|
|
|
Post by Davemc on Apr 14, 2015 12:55:09 GMT
LOL
|
|