The world's worst acoustic?

[chuck]

Originally Posted by bobbyg67

i was in target the other day and walked past their "guitar" section. they had them all enshrined in this protective, hard, see through plastic like they were displaying a pre-war martin. i realize they do it to protect the merchandise, but i always pick one up if i can just to see what it is, but no longer. kind of ironic. i wonder if you asked,if a sales rep would take one out so you could try it. maybe they have an acoustic room in the back.

Yes, at first glance it might seem that they are trying to protect their instruments, but it's all a clever plan to keep you from playing one and therfore never making a purchase.

[Jsn]

Originally Posted by bobbyg67

i was in target the other day and walked past their "guitar" section. they had them all enshrined in this protective, hard, see through plastic like they were displaying a pre-war martin. i realize they do it to protect the merchandise, but i always pick one up if i can just to see what it is, but no longer. kind of ironic. i wonder if you asked,if a sales rep would take one out so you could try it. maybe they have an acoustic room in the back.

No, you see, it makes perfect sense that the guitars were hermetically sealed. Don't forget that manufacturers nowadays define "beginner" as "someone incapable of discerning quality." So the desire to actually play one of those guitars automatically disqualifies you as a potential purchaser.

The sad thing is that guitars are one of the few products that still exist in high-value entry-level form--inexpensive but eminently serviceable models, capable of making real music. The Taylor Big Baby comes to mind. And Blueridges. And Martin's 15 series (although those are inching upward). It's a great time for value, just not in the big-box department stores.

I tell potential beginners, "If you can't play it before you buy it, you won't want to play it after you buy it." Also, that there's absolutely no value in buying a "kit"--that's like buying a "driver's kit" instead of a car. Strings, tuners, etc: those are all choices, and making those choices is part of making music. You may not be an expert musician right now, but you CAN trust your own sense of what feels good and sounds good. The idea is that it's going to be in your arms, and in your ears, for many hours.

[3quartertime]

"The World's Worst Acoustic?"

Only half jokingly I say anything but my Taylor!!! lol

My daughters have been very interested in learning to play guitar recently. I owe this to the success of two sisters called AJ and Ally. They are a Disney channel type duo that many probably haven't heard of, but they play Taylors and my girls can identify. I have exactly 3 guitars so we can sit and attempt to play/practice, problem is that the other two sound so horrible compared to the Taylor! lol...

Hence my dilema. My oldest (12) is learning very quickly. Her sister (10) is coming along nicely too. I only get to see them two days a week and would love to send a guitar home with them. But the old laminate box extra I have sounds like " The World's Worst Acoustic" now that we have heard what a real guitar sounds like!!! LOL...

Sorry for the thread drift!!!

[Bern]

For actually playing music, it might be this one.

[ryanspeer]

Originally Posted by Guyute

I forgot. My nephew bought a "First Act" acoustic at Target for $[cheap]. That was undoubtedly the worst thing I've ever seen that could be classified as a "guitar".

Funny thing . . . I was looking through GuitarOne magazine and there's a big ol' glossy advertisement from them with an electric guitar lineup they have out now. The guitarist for Kelly Clarkson is endorsed by them and has the standard obligatory verbal plug for the company in the ad. I just can't help but think the guy is on stage somewhere playing the guitar, regretting it, but trying to remind himself continually that he's getting paid to use that specific guitar. I guess it beats a bloke like myself who has to purchase his own guitars . . .

Still though . . . It would seem like being a race car driver and being endorsed by Yugo or Hyundai back in the late '80's/early '90's.

[DM3MD]

something my mother bought me years back from Montgomery Ward

[reags]

I'm not too sure if you have this in America, but here we've got this 'Reject Shop' where everything is ridiculously priced.....sort of like a $2 shop except well, it can be more. Anyway, I found this thing there that looked like a 'guitar'....boy....horrid. I mean, this ain't even Target quality which in itself is bad enough.

[gteague]

Originally Posted by tlgvintage

What's worse is that it's all from the Gibson family of brands. They plaster crap like "Made to the same exacting standards as Gibson" and expect people to buy it. <del>

with gibson what it is today, i'm not sure if that would be much of an endorsement even if completely true.

(sorry anthony!)

/guy

[hguy4x]

worst acoustic ever? Taylor.
best acoustic ever? Esteban.

Come on guys! You know its true. hahaha.

[guitarstrmr]

gteague,

I'm sorry, but you must be living under a rock if you're unaware of the quality of acoustics being produced in Bozeman. IMHO, they're producing some of the finest quality acoustics on the market today. Since your signature says that you own a Martin, I'm sure you've visited the UMGF and have seen all the reports of the problems with Martins lately. I would never recommend that someone purchase a guitar from Target, but to suggest that they are representative all of Gibson acoustics is just irresponsible. I also own Martins, but I won't buy another one until they get the quality control issues corrected.

[Nelson]

Originally Posted by Bern

For actually playing music, it might be this one.

I can sense such smooth chocolate overtones with that guitar that you could almost taste it. Is that dark chocolaty Brazilian with "Red Vine" Spruce on top?

[gteague]

Originally Posted by guitarstrmr

gteague,

I'm sorry, but you must be living under a rock if you're unaware of the quality of acoustics being produced in Bozeman. IMHO, they're producing some of the finest quality acoustics on the market today. Since your signature says that you own a Martin, I'm sure you've visited the UMGF and have seen all the reports of the problems with Martins lately. I would never recommend that someone purchase a guitar from Target, but to suggest that they are representative all of Gibson acoustics is just irresponsible. I also own Martins, but I won't buy another one until they get the quality control issues corrected.

i was mainly just tweaking my friend anthony. the guitar i miss the most in my life was a '67 dove i once owned. i know absolutely nothing about any modern gibsons. i played a couple in a local guitar center, but one can hardly judge any guitar from their stock.

/guy

[guitarstrmr]

OK, sorry. You ought to check out the newer Gibsons. I think you'd like them a lot.

[cornwhiskey]

By far the worst guitars ive ever seen or played (minus the toy cowboy guitars found at most toy shops) was a slew of knocks offs I picked up while traveling in India. I came across several instrument shops that featured handmade "Givson", "Takamoto", "Martino", "Ibaness" and "Kaye" guitars -- no, im not kidding. These were esentially pieces of laminated plywood glued together, strung with wires, sold as "authentic" Gibson, Martin, etc. instruments... hearing the shop owner announce "Givson is the very best guitar -- Very best!" made me chukle...

Another was a no- name mandolin with about two dozen sound ports drilled into the instrument around the sides and no nut- simply a piece of wood with eratically spaced grooves... looked like some sort of torture device...

rg

[guitarstrmr]

Originally Posted by cornwhiskey

looked like some sort of torture device...

rg

I'm sure it was a torture device if you had to listen to it played!