Guitarist magazine reviews why bother.....

Sassafras

Not sure why anyone would want to read a review of an awful product unless it was for comedic value.

JAYJO

Loobs said:

 there is something nice about having a paper magazine in your hands. 

Agreed. I prefer a book or magazine to read just got to find a good one to subscribe to. Was thinking guitarist but it would seem guitar magazine (which I'm not renewing) is better so I'm not sure there is one. 

RonnieHotdogs

At least HIFI had Chris Frankland with HIFI Answers and the wonderful Flat Response for a while, taking the mick out of other mags, maunfacturers and journalists, also The Listener a US 90s magazine, often told the truth. 
The guitar industry needs a Chris Frankland type character on You Tube, but a little more open minded. 

Every new out of the box Squier I've played has been awful, much worse than equivalents like Vintage, Cort, Revelation etc.
Every time I've heard a Katana in person, I've walked away shaking my head thinking of wasps in bean tins. And I know I'm not the only one, these views aren't in print, every review on You Tube is also 8/10 minimum. 
Is there a rebel reviewer I've missed?  

Philly_Q

grappagreen said:

Fuengi said:

Don't give up on Guitarist yet, I hear that next month they have an interview with Bernie Marsden and a six page spread of new photos of Rory Gallagher's Strat from previously unseen angles. 

Don't start me off on another 'The Beast' / Bernie Marsdon / Guitarist magazine rant.. where's my blood pressure monitor when I need it..

Speaking of Bernie Marsden, here's a rare opportunity to get his autograph.  With a guitar thrown in.

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/113850268723?_trksid=p11021.c100851.m5053&_trkparms=aid%3D1110001%26algo%3DSPLICE.SIM%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D20170803121420%26meid%3D8e5888ebd1d64ffa82115a097c3e3bd8%26pid%3D100851%26rk%3D3%26rkt%3D4%26mehot%3Dnone%26b%3D1%26sd%3D254534547927%26itm%3D113850268723%26pmt%3D0%26noa%3D1%26pg%3D11021&ul_noapp=true

mbe

steer said:

Long gone are the days when people had to rely on paper magazines to decide whether gear is any good or not. Internet and youtube reviews have made magazine reviews pretty much obsolete. If you were interested in a pedal, why simply read about it and look at a photo, when you could actually hear it being used?

The magazine in hand is such a wonderfully tactile experience. The crispness of the paper,  the aroma of ink. The thrill as one turns the page to expose the next review full of good natured humour and masterfully erudite prose.

I must also laud the monumental artistry of the advertising, with it's consummately artful copywriting endorsed by the guitar gods and godesses from far and wide. 

Stare with egregious awe at the almost pornographic pictures of the highest level of the luthier's craft. 

Need I go on?

scrumhalf

mbe said:

The magazine in hand is such a wonderfully tactile experience. The crispness of the paper,  the aroma of ink. The thrill as one turns the page to expose the next review full of good natured humour and masterfully erudite prose.

I've never found that tablets are as good for reading on the bog as a paper magazine. Plus, if you run unexpectedly short of bog-roll you just can't wipe your tushy with an Ipad.

Philly_Q

scrumhalf said:

mbe said:

The magazine in hand is such a wonderfully tactile experience. The crispness of the paper,  the aroma of ink. The thrill as one turns the page to expose the next review full of good natured humour and masterfully erudite prose.

I've never found that tablets are as good for reading on the bog as a paper magazine. Plus, if you run unexpectedly short of bog-roll you just can't wipe your tushy with an Ipad.

A certain proportion of the UK population will never run short of bog-roll again after the last few days' events.

Keefy

Even if the kit reviewed scores uniformly high marks, it is still worth reading the reviews to see how said kit performed for the reviewer. A quick comparison with the manufacturer's published blurb will show up copy lazily that has been cut-and-pasted from the promo spiel. The point of doing this is to answer the questions: (1) Would this kit work for me, (2) Is it worth me trying it out, (3) What are the potential deal-breakers?

That said, I cancelled my Guitarist subscription 18 months ago after having bought every issue since it started, for the very reasons alluded to in this thread. I tried a few others and took out a subscription to Guitar, which I am finding much more enjoyable - good work @chrisv ; 

DeeTee

Sassafras said:

Not sure why anyone would want to read a review of an awful product unless it was for comedic value.

I get where you're coming from, but I do think there is value in explaining what bad looks like, so the reader has a frame of reference for the good.

HAL9000

scrumhalf said:

mbe said:

The magazine in hand is such a wonderfully tactile experience. The crispness of the paper,  the aroma of ink. The thrill as one turns the page to expose the next review full of good natured humour and masterfully erudite prose.

I've never found that tablets are as good for reading on the bog as a paper magazine. Plus, if you run unexpectedly short of bog-roll you just can't wipe your tushy with an Ipad.

Dear Sir,

As I pen my letter to for your ‘Readers Letters’ page I am sitting on the bog with your magazine in front of me.

Very soon it will be behind me.

Yours etc.

DB1

scrumhalf said:

mbe said:

The magazine in hand is such a wonderfully tactile experience. The crispness of the paper,  the aroma of ink. The thrill as one turns the page to expose the next review full of good natured humour and masterfully erudite prose.

I've never found that tablets are as good for reading on the bog as a paper magazine. Plus, if you run unexpectedly short of bog-roll you just can't wipe your tushy with an Ipad.

It's certainly something that you don't try more than once. *

* Writing on behalf of a friend.

Funkfingers

DB1 said:

scrumhalf said:

if you run unexpectedly short of bog-roll, you just can't wipe your tushy with an Ipad.

It's certainly something that you don't try more than once.

Erm, wasn’t that what the Andrex puppies and Dixel kittens were for?

MichaelWatts

MagicPigDetective said:

This months Guitar magazine gives a Gordon Smith Guitar 7/10! 

Normally there is nothing under 8. Must be a terrible guitar to get a 7 in a guitar mag.

https://guitar.com/review/electric-guitar/review-gordon-smith-gs-0-special/

Yes indeed, I wrote that review and stand by it. If you're looking for the sort of Airline/Silvertone weirdness that you can't find anywhere else (and you want it with a brass nut to boot) then that instrument should definitely be on your radar. 

When I first started writing for Guitar a couple of years ago I told Chris V that I would let him know if something was so awful I wouldn't review it. That hasn't happened yet. 

This wasn't a terrible guitar and I believe the score I gave it was fair for what it is, what it does and the intent behind it. 

ChuckManual

I like the pretty pictures.

MagicPigDetective

MichaelWatts said:

MagicPigDetective said:

This months Guitar magazine gives a Gordon Smith Guitar 7/10! 

Normally there is nothing under 8. Must be a terrible guitar to get a 7 in a guitar mag.

https://guitar.com/review/electric-guitar/review-gordon-smith-gs-0-special/

Yes indeed, I wrote that review and stand by it. If you're looking for the sort of Airline/Silvertone weirdness that you can't find anywhere else (and you want it with a brass nut to boot) then that instrument should definitely be on your radar. 

When I first started writing for Guitar a couple of years ago I told Chris V that I would let him know if something was so awful I wouldn't review it. That hasn't happened yet. 

This wasn't a terrible guitar and I believe the score I gave it was fair for what it is, what it does and the intent behind it. 

Hello Michael, you've got me there! I am a subscriber, it’s a good review and I wasn't serious about it being terrible of course, it looks pretty cool to me, an acquired taste for sure. I could do with more colourful guitars, mine are all different shades of brown and white.  

zepp76

chrisv said:

TINMAN82 said:

I still subscribe to Guitarist but agree issues are very “samey” and have been for years. Thinking of subscribing to Guitar magazine (edited by Chris Vinnicomb) instead. The guitar photography is of higher quality for a start. Look at the pornographic photos of the new Epiphone range in this months copy! That said, they all got 9/10!

Thanks for the kind words about the pictures, I’ll pass them on. I usually hate multi-product reviews in which everything gets the same score but in this instance, it’s hard to argue with how stonkingly good those guitars are for the money. I really don’t think there’s a better £349 electric guitar on the planet right now than that TV Special. 

@chrisv I subscribe to your magazine and always enjoy the reviews and interviews. I have to say I have been sorely tempted by that TV Special, it looks like a cracking guitar for the price. Can you just confirm please the actual shade of yellow? It’s always hard to tell from photos, is it really bright or slightly paler in colour? Thank you.

Kalimna

I still enjoy reading Guitarist, despite agreement with many of the criticisms mentioned in this thread.
A couple of potential solutions suggest themselves, one of which was tried successfully some years ago in a higher-end computer games mag, the other should alleviate the 'why does everything have a score of 7 or above?'

Firstly, why not do away with scores altogether? You would rely upon the text to generate your own 'score' as to how suitable a purchase it may be. The 'if you like this, then why not try.....' section if a review being very useful here.

The other suggestion would be to recalibrate scores so that 0 would be barely acceptable, but does the job, all the way to 10 being as good as it gets. This would assume that only stuff printed is worthy of a review. And it would avoid the simillar problem with wine scoring whereby the starting point is 50/100. Unfortunately, human psychology being whst it is, this msy not work that well.

Lastly, when a review of a guitar goes on about the beauty of the wood/luthiery, please please please include a couple of photos to show this rather than 8/10 being various angles of the top, 1 of the headstock and 1 of the bridge

Keep up the good work, and longer articles about UK builders of guitars, amps and pedals please. Oh, and how about an article on home built guitars that arent partscasters, but built from scratch?

Adam

xchrisv

zepp76 said:

chrisv said:

TINMAN82 said:

I still subscribe to Guitarist but agree issues are very “samey” and have been for years. Thinking of subscribing to Guitar magazine (edited by Chris Vinnicomb) instead. The guitar photography is of higher quality for a start. Look at the pornographic photos of the new Epiphone range in this months copy! That said, they all got 9/10!

Thanks for the kind words about the pictures, I’ll pass them on. I usually hate multi-product reviews in which everything gets the same score but in this instance, it’s hard to argue with how stonkingly good those guitars are for the money. I really don’t think there’s a better £349 electric guitar on the planet right now than that TV Special. 

@chrisv I subscribe to your magazine and always enjoy the reviews and interviews. I have to say I have been sorely tempted by that TV Special, it looks like a cracking guitar for the price. Can you just confirm please the actual shade of yellow? It’s always hard to tell from photos, is it really bright or slightly paler in colour? Thank you.

Firstly, thanks for the support and kind words. TV Yellow is a funny one, I agree – it’s definitely not as yellow in the flesh as it looks in the video we made, in which the lighting has given it a bit of an English mustard vibe. Huw’s description in the review (“The colour looks wonderful and with its grain-obscuring opaqueness and hint of olive green, the vibe is very much mid- rather than late-50s”) is accurate – it’s definitely got that slightly muted hue of the mid-50s. Hope that helps! 

Yamaha77

Gear reviews that constantly describe guitar neck profiles as a comfortable C annoys me. Just plain lazy generic description. Can't they take multiple measurements and portray neck shape like Warmoth does.

TINMAN82

Yamaha77 said:

Gear reviews that constantly describe guitar neck profiles as a comfortable C annoys me. Just plain lazy generic description. Can't they take multiple measurements and portray neck shape like Warmoth does.

That’s another plus with Guitar magazine who give 1st and 12th fret depth measurements as well as nut and string spacing in mm. With that info and a description (c, u etc) I’m not sure we can ask for much else. It’s up to the player to pick up and play the guitar of interest after that.