Are all guitar reviews too positive?

[TJE"]

I don't know if this has come up before but from my admittedly limited experience it seems that on line reviews of guitars are almost universally positive. I have never come across a professional reviewer who has said this or that guitar is bad or not worth the money.

Is there no such thing as a bad guitar anymore?

[Dbone]

Gotta get paid

[Silly Moustache]

Hi I believe that there a considerably less poor budget instruments being made now, than when I was starting out in the mid/late '60s.

The point that we have to understand that guitar reviews whether done by reps of the brand, magazine or shop reviewers - is to promote the product regardless of quality to the target market.


This guy turned up in my YouTube suggestions recently :

View his ultra cool, hipster delivery pointing out the "special" advantages with his faux American terminology. We don't use "suck" as a negative adjective in the UK, but his lack of understanding

This really makes me laugh - so as you watch thing - remember the distinction between "classic/flamenco" guitars and "acoustic" guitars; that the dreadnought was the first ever acoustic guitar, and that tone is about duller or brighter.



Other hilarious examples :

[cyclistbrian]

Originally Posted by TJE"

I don't know if this has come up before but from my admittedly limited experience it seems that on line reviews of guitars are almost universally positive. I have never come across a professional reviewer who has said this or that guitar is bad or not worth the money.

Is there no such thing as a bad guitar anymore?

Lets be honest. Reviews are a marketing vehicle. There is no "consumer reports" for guitars.
That said, unless you're shopping the sub $100 dollar range on Amazon or Alibaba are you really going to find a "bad guitar"? Even the least expensive all laminate guitar from any of the more familiar brands will provide a well made servicable instrument. When you start getting into solid tops you see some refinements. Above that it really becomes subjective and a matter of preference.

Is somethig like a $150 all laminate Luna or Dean "junk"? Compared to a beginner guitar from fifty years ago it's night and day.

[Arthur Slowhand]

I read the 'reviews' of people on this forum, who have actually bought the guitar. That has to be done against the knowledge that, initially, nobody wants to admit they bought a lemon. Once such a thread has matured, you get a better idea - the OP might have sold the guitar by then.

[Jack Orion]

I present some video reviews for a site called www.acousticreview.co.uk (Mods: I hope it's ok to mention the site but take down the link if it's an issue).

We're not affiliated to any brands but we do receive money from advertisers.

My approach is to be fair and I prefer to review from a positive viewpoint - ie I'm looking for the good stuff rather than the bad stuff. I was explaining myself to the videographer the other say and I came to conclusion that I'd rather '**** with faint praise' than out and out criticise something!

I like to think I point out things that aren't good enough, such as finish flaws or glue spill, or mention if the factory setup could be better, but I wouldn't say something like 'this guitar sounds bad'.

I might say 'it lacks detail' or 'it doesn't have lots of sustain' or 'it's a bit bright for my liking' but, having worked in guitar retail for 12 years previously, I can recall hundreds of times where I thought a guitar was 'bad' and then a customer loved it and thought it was the best thing ever.

It's a tough line to walk - being honest but not just putting things down because I don't like them and keeping in mind that my opinion, although valid, is not the be all and end all of opinions on the matter.

[RalphH]

There are very few truly terrible guitars around these days. There are basically no bad electrics, and any acoustic worth actually reviewing (>£100) is also almost guaranteed to at least be pretty reasonable.

I think you have to get to the £50 price point before you can find something genuinely bad, but then it'll just get a shrug and a "what do you expect for £50 when a packet of decent strings is £15?"

Originally Posted by Silly Moustache

We don't use "suck" as a negative adjective in the UK

I do! You must just be old

Edit: Actually, now I come to think about it, I might have picked it up while I was living in New York...

[raysachs]

I used to write about cameras and lenses on a series of photography forums. I started off doing it just out of interest in a hobby, but the guy who ran the forums found that my reviews were driving a fair amount of traffic to the sites so he offered to cut me in on a percentage of the advertising on the forums if I’d keep doing it and make it exclusive to his sites. He also had a loaner deal with a big photo retailer and included me in that too, so I could essentially get almost any gear I wanted for a couple weeks to a month, shoot with it, write about it, return it. When I wrote about gear I’d gotten on loan from them, I’d include a link to their site for folks who were interested in buying...

There were no restrictions on what I could write - I wasn’t edited at all. I could write positive, negative, and any shade of grey in between. The idea was that just by talking about stuff, getting honest information out there, I was ultimately driving traffic to the forums and to the retailer. A negative review about a piece of gear didn’t help sales of that item, but overall they saw the whole thing as a positive. It may have helped people decide WHAT to buy, but if they were looking, I generally wasn’t talking anybody out of buying SOMETHING...

I almost never trashed a piece of gear, because there was very little that deserved trashing. I’d tend to write about what something was best for, what it was OK for, and what it wasn’t well suited for. I did a lot of street holography at the time and had some pretty strong feelings about the features that facilitated street work and those that didn’t. I was always honest and never felt pressured not to be.

It was lucrative nought basically pay for the hobby for a couple of years. Then I got tired of demo-ing and writing about gear and thinking about new gear all the time and just wanted to USE my favorite gear, so I stopped doing the writing, except back to a very infrequent, informal, and uncompensated manner.

I’d guess it’s not all that different with guitars. Nobody’s really making BAD guitars these days, but different ones with different strengths and weaknesses at different price points for different levels and types of players...

-Ray

[MChild62]

I’m not looking to buy a guitar right now (famous last words, especially here!) but I enjoy watching online video reviews and have also noted the mostly positive tone. But the ones that I watch (Anderton’s, Alamo, Music Villa) tend to do a good job of describing the guitar within its price-point, ie, “this guitar has laminated back and sides which you’d expect for a guitar under $500...”
So in a sense they do convey what the value proposition is and implicit negative comparison with guitars in other price points.
Also...these are all retailers (at least the ones I watch) and one would hope that if they had a truly negative view they wouldn’t be carrying the guitar.

[cdkrugjr]

Even non-affiliated reviews can skew positive.

I know a couple of sites that explicitly state they don’t review things that suck, but if you pay attention to the questions they Don’t answer, you’ll know what Does suck.

[The Bard Rocks]

Originally Posted by TJE"

I don't know if this has come up before but from my admittedly limited experience it seems that on line reviews of guitars are almost universally positive. I have never come across a professional reviewer who has said this or that guitar is bad or not worth the money.

Is there no such thing as a bad guitar anymore?

While we can understand professional reviewers being as positive as they can be - otherwise they would not be able to stay professional - a reader needs to read what was NOT said as well. They could say "well-defined" instead of "lacks sustain". The same process pretty much holds true whatever the product being reviewed.

Perhaps oddly, I see this carry over into the star ratings that are ubiquitous all over the 'net. How often does one see 1 star ratings? They pretty much stay in the 4s range. If something is below 4, I figure it is a dog (or maybe there are only a couple of reviews). I try to see what people have to say, figure out where they are coming from and how much that applies to me, then make my decision. How long have they used the product? Or was the review done in the euphoria of just having received something? If it broke right away, that's not the same as when they wore it out. I pay extra attention to the negative things they say.

[Nick84]

any store reviewing a guitar I take that review with a pinch of salt - they are there to sell their guitars.

[jonfields45]

I gave a neighbor's son a $200 MAP - 15% Yamaha acoustic.

It was a little brighter in tone than my preference, but it was loud and quite nice.

Nice looking solid spruce top with veneer sides and backs. No flaws to be found except for minor tool marks on the neck heel. The top radius might have been tightened compared to a Martin to reduce warranty problems or to achieve the bright tone.

I looked inside with a mirror, the veneer work was perfect (and matching the outsides), not a drop of glue to be seen, zero chip out between the bridge pin holes, and scalloped braces.

What was not to like??? Why waste time reviewing bad when great can be had for $170?

[musicman1951]

Originally Posted by TJE"

I don't know if this has come up before but from my admittedly limited experience it seems that on line reviews of guitars are almost universally positive. I have never come across a professional reviewer who has said this or that guitar is bad or not worth the money.

Is there no such thing as a bad guitar anymore?

You have to admit it's a pretty difficult line to walk. We all have different ears. I have tried guitars in stores when one strum was enough to tell me I would never purchase the guitar for any price.

But that guitar that sounded thin and totally without sustain and character was no doubt eventually purchased by someone who thought it was just what they were looking for.

Not worth the money is an even bigger can of worms. It's probably not possible to eliminate the size of your budget in that decision.

And to gum up the works further we have players with $500 guitars that they swear sound just as good or better than any $5,000 guitar they have ever played or heard.

Tightrope.

[Turp]

Most "commercial" reviews are overwhelmingly positive, as well as non-commercial buyer reviews. As a buyer who has reviewed guitars, I'm guilty, but I do attempt to bring out negatives.

That said, I agree most guitars built today, and those that merit reviewing, are subjectively good instruments. The caveat is that is very relative to context: Who is reviewing? Why are they reviewing it? Price range? Player perspective?

I do think with careful examination you can find some retailers and buyer who provide more critical reviews.