«

[Unknown Hero]

@TheVoid

Since you are planning to spend 200€, you can't buy anything better than Yamaha Pacifica 112 (in a shop). Second hand guitars can be better option, but you need to have an experienced friend that will tell you if the guitar is in good shape. So I will advise you to buy Yamaha. The guitar is good for begining, and later, if you want to play in band, you can buy a better one. k:

[mouse31e]

Originally posted by einherjar@Feb 22 2005, 11:01 PM
Why is there this fad with guitars?

I can't see why it's an issue.

The guitar is an accessible instrument. It is not difficult to reach a level where you can play music that you enjoy playing. Other instruments do not offer that. To play popular music on the piano for example takes a lot more work. That is one reason why the guitar is popular. The other, as you already said, is that guitar is a much used instrument in popular music and people want to play it because of that. Is that a bad thing? I would have thought anything that encourages people to get involved with music at any level is a good thing? Music is great and everyone should be able to give it a go. It's not Elitist!

Also, the guitar has been a craze since the 1950's if not before - not really a passing fad is it?

EDIT: As budget guitars go i agree that the Pacifica 112 is nice. Nothing special, but will certainly do the job. If you can get a secondhand one in good condition (five years old or more) it's probably slightly better as I believe Yamaha have started to use cheaper materials for them.

Originally posted by Mentor+Feb 22 2005, 06:46 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mentor @ Feb 22 2005, 06:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>By not responding to mine, you've pretty well prooved my point.

I can play about ten different instruments, give or take, and guitar and bass guitar are my favorites, save the lute and the didjeridoo. The piano, keyboard, synth, whatever is a decent enough instrument, but it's not the end-all.[/b]

Sorry, but I hold little in regard for people who try to win arguments by directly insulting people they are arguing with. You've completely lost any and all credibility in my eyes, no matter what you say.

Originally posted by mouse31e@
The guitar is an accessible instrument. It is not difficult to reach a level where you can play music that you enjoy playing.* Other instruments do not offer that. To play popular music on the piano for example takes a lot more work. That is one reason why the guitar is popular. The other, as you already said, is that guitar is a much used instrument in popular music and people want to play it because of that.

Well, I didn't say it was impossible. It's not an easy instrument to learn, but there are harder ones. Ever try the trombone? It's not easy.

Besides, I was speaking more about sex appeal and trendiness as reasons why the current generation has an interest with guitars (or at least the current American generation).

<!--QuoteBegin-mouse31e
Is that a bad thing? I would have thought anything that encourages people to get involved with music at any level is a good thing? Music is great and everyone should be able to give it a go. It's not Elitist![/quote]

Not like the trendies would take the time to actually learn it. I often see alterior motives for learning the guitar.

[ReamusLQ]

I play guitar every now and then. Just recently I picked it up to learn some French love songs for Valentines day. Am I extremely good at guitar? Absolutely not! Why did I first learn guitar? Because my girlfriend at the time thought guitar was hot, and my brother had one, so I figured "hey, why not try it!" So my brother showed me a few chords. So yes, I first learned guitar to impress a girl, but I figured "hey, it's just another motivation for learning another instrument!" I really enjoy playing guitar and bass. My brothers and I jam all of the time, either me doing rhythm guitar or laying down a smooth bass groove. Stating the guitar is nothing more than a plebian instrument is incredibly ignorant. A guy I go to church with has his Master's in Classical Guitar, and he makes his instrument sing. He can play the most beautiful songs on it, and things that make many Bach Inventions look like Twinkle Twinkle. Can I? No, but I know enough to play along to favorite songs, and to satisfy myself. Who cares what the "alterior motive" behind playing an instrument is. I wouldn't have started singing seriously, but I really wanted to beat this stuck up arrogant prick in a singing competition, so I started taking lessons, learned I really like it, and it is now probably going to become my profession. As long as someone is learning an instrument, even if they only learn G-C-D and they can only play Luey Luey, then that's fine. I go with what was said earlier as well. See, I love playing piano, and bassoon, and sax, etc. etc. But you can't take a piano with you to the beach or camping. You aren't likely to lug a twenty pound bassoon case with you and expose such a precious instrument to the freezing cold. But when I'm a counselor for this camp where little fifth graders go all week, I can always carry my 5 pound guitar on my back and they absolutely LOVE it when I play for them and show them how to play. The guitar is an amazing instrument. If you aren't partial to it, then fine, but I guarantee there are people that can play more difficult things on guitar, than you could ever play on piano.

[Mentor]

It makes things more flavorfull.

And I'm still right, since you still havn't tried to deny it.

[ReamusLQ]

another comment, you can teach an eightyear old how to play Mozart. You can teach a five yearold how to play twinkle twinkle on piano. They can't play guitar, it is a much more complex instrument

[Ferna182]

just an advice:

STAY AWAY FROM SQUIERS!
they are NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT fender......

Ibanez GRX ROCKS! they are great... but STAY AWAY FROM SQUIERS! i know what im saying

What can you play with a guitar? Rock, some jazz, blues, country, metal, and probably a few other contemporary genres. Ok, so the piano wasn't a great instrument to use as an example. How about clarinets? Clarinets are appealing in sound, easy to carry, and probably require less maintainence than a guitar. On top of that, skill in clarinets lends itself to saxophones, oboes, and English horns. The saxophone is a noble and versatile instrument all in itself, and can play a wide variety of musical styles, and serves well as a stand-alone instrument or in a band of any size.

Originally posted by Mentor+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mentor)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>It makes things more flavorfull.

And I'm still right, since you still havn't tried to deny it.[/b]

No it doesn't, it just makes you look like a jerk. Proving people wrong in a fair argument without relying on insults and harsh words is an art form; it shows maturity and determination, and you develop a style of your own as you practice. People generally don't like people who are skilled at the art of the debate, but they do command a great deal of respect, even if no one shows it outright.

However, because I feel generous and I finished my homework hours ago, I will humor your request:

Originally posted by Mentor@
As it turns out, that's what the filter does to behind hole.

Anal canal. I like that better. Sounds better, actually. And you're an anal canal because you're being a complete and utter jerk to someone for no damn reason whatsoever, and insulting a cross-section of the musical genre, the guitarist, that was solely responsible for the musical revolution.

My emotions have been battered mercilessly by your onslaught. Lord help me, I am vanquished. Woe is I.

<!--QuoteBegin-Mentor
No, there probably is a reason. You're probably bitter and jaded over the fact that you were forced to learn piano by your parents when you either A) didn't want to learn any instrument, or B ) wanted to learn guitar, and after learning some about the piano latched onto it in an odd attempt to become superior to the "lower" forms of music, like guitar, and those that use and perform with them.[/quote]

Now, I called my parents and asked them if they were contacted by someone calling himself Mentor from Abandonia who interviewed them about my childhood. They told me no one had ever interviewed them, so I guess you must have interviewed the wrong parents, as I don't ever remember telling anyone about my music career except for one Abandonian, and she knows that it had nothing to do with the piano OR the guitar, and my music path was specifically laid out by me and no one else.

Originally posted by Mentor+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mentor)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Your generalization of people who play and try to learn guitar is just dumb,[/b]

Right, my generalization was dumb. Whatever that means.

mostly because you lump everyone who's ever learned or played guitar into a minor sub-section of the people that perform with guitars.

You haven't read all of my posts, have you? Learn to read everything before you jump to conclusions.

<!--QuoteBegin-Mentor
As for the "timelessness" of the piano, what's a guitar? An evolved lute. A lute is an evolved harp. And, in a manner of speaking, a piano is a de-evolved harp, since you're disconnected from the actual production of the sound by the keys and, in a real piano's case, the hammers.[/quote]

No, the piano is a direct descendant of the harpsichord, which is a descendant of the harp. Do you know the difference? The piano uses hammers on strings which produce the notes; the player can make the sounds louder or softer depending on how hard the keys are struck. The harpsichord's keys pluck the strings instead of striking them, however there is very little volume control as compared to the piano. The harp uses strings extended in midair which can make notes by strumming or plucking the strings. The lute and guitars are the same, except that they are attached against a frame with a hollowed out inner section that produces a different sound.

And as for "timelessness," how much of today's guitar heavy music will be remembered 500 years from now? It's all the same, with constant drum bashing and loud guitar riffs, and often containing lyrics that are just mindless angsty drivel.

Originally posted by Mentor
So Hendrix was a redneck/goth? McCartney was too, I suppose? What about Townshend? Jack Bruce?

Not in this day and age. Guitars are played by country and goth/EMO/nu-metal bands these days. If you had read the statement carefully, you would have found that I implied this about modern guitarists, not the older musicians.

[Mentor]

And by being a condescending silly person, you once again proove my point. Thank you, and thank you again.

That's the pithiest comeback you could come up with? I'm truly disappointed.