Guitarist magazine reviews why bother.....

Whitecat

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.

Guitar magazine frequently if not almost always gives the width and the depth (the latter at the nut and often further down too, if not a shape description). 

I would think it would be quite difficult to depict an accurate shape on a fully-assembled guitar unless it was a bolt-on and they were willing to take the neck off, and even then it probably wouldn’t be science-grade accuracy. 

crunchman

chrisv said:

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! 

I really don't like TV yellow.  Not sure if they would be vintage correct, but I might buy a Cherry one at that price.  It would be even better in Pelham Blue.

Yamaha77

My argument was generally directed towards most reviews that I watch. I should have made that clearer. Digital calipers can measure thickness easily. Modelling clay and paper probably could capture profiles. 

Kalimna

Unfortunately, measurements and profiles captured will not translate perfectly into how it feels in the hand. Having built a few necks as a hobbyist, a few swipes with a rasp or 'shave can alter the 'feel' significantly and would absolutely not show up on a profile.

Yet again, there is nothing to replace picking the thing up physicaly and assessing how it feels. Reviews can give but a suggestion of what a neck may feel like, but only in the reviewers hands.

TINMAN82

Yamaha77 said:

My argument was generally directed towards most reviews that I watch. I should have made that clearer. Digital calipers can measure thickness easily. Modelling clay and paper probably could capture profiles. 

Or perhaps they could 3D print each neck profile  in fibreglass and add them as a supplement on the front cover?

Yamaha77

That's for subscriptions only I'm afraid 

Philly_Q

I think the 3D print of the neck profile is some way in the future, but I've always though Guitarist should include neck depth measurements.  TGM have managed it for 30 years.  I can't think why Guitarist don't do it, other than laziness.

Kalimna

Out of interest, where would you take depth measurements from? Top of fret to back of neck, top of fingerboard to back of neck or top of strings to back of neck? As each will give a different answer. Whereabouts do the other magasines take their measurements?

randella

Kalimna said:

Unfortunately, measurements and profiles captured will not translate perfectly into how it feels in the hand. Having built a few necks as a hobbyist, a few swipes with a rasp or 'shave can alter the 'feel' significantly and would absolutely not show up on a profile.

Yet again, there is nothing to replace picking the thing up physicaly and assessing how it feels. Reviews can give but a suggestion of what a neck may feel like, but only in the reviewers hands.

I don't know what the overarching intent behind the mags is - @chrisv has offered some interesting insight - but to me they're not really 'consumer' publications.  If you want a new washing machine or lawnmower or telly, it's easy to read Which? and decide using cold, analytical metrics.

Guitars aren't like that - you can't say a Strat is "better" than a Les Paul; the best you can really hope to do is to give a balanced judgement of whether the Strat or the Les Paul you have in your hands is a good guitar for the money.  Is it well made?  Does it sound good?  Does it play well?

The reviewers have years of experience between them and can offer an insight into these things.  As for things like neck dimensions, fine - I guess it's not days and days of work to get the calipers on the neck in a couple of places and print the measurements.  But are they really that meaningful? 

I dunno, I think musical instruments have to be touched and held and played before you know whether or not you want them.

JerkMoans

Perhaps it's like boxing scoring, where even when a large, aggressive fellow seems to have been battered to hell in a round, the score is mystifyingly still 10-9 to the even larger, more aggressive chap who's been administering a good pummelling.

xchrisv

Kalimna said:

Out of interest, where would you take depth measurements from? Top of fret to back of neck, top of fingerboard to back of neck or top of strings to back of neck? As each will give a different answer. Whereabouts do the other magasines take their measurements?

Top of fingerboard at the highest point of the camber to the deepest point of the back of the neck, with digital calipers

roberty

TINMAN82 said:

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.

The shoulder is where most of the difference in feel is imo/ime, even a small difference can change the feel a lot

57Deluxe

Loobs said:

I think there are a couple of things at play:

Generally these days guitar gear is of a pretty high standard, irrespective of price point. A 250 quid Squier is usually a really good guitar, especially compared to what was available for the same money 25 years ago! I remember plastic tuners on cheap Squiers when I was first learning.

If a company sends gear in for review, I assume it's really nicely set up and working absolutely perfectly. 

Guitarist has a lot of advertising in it. They probably don't want to piss off the companies who advertise in it too much! 

...exactly what Mick Taylor mailed me in an email exchange a few years back when he was the Ed. I suggested reviewing the 'everyman in the street gear' occasionally.

ToneCity only get a mention on TPS cos they are distributed by sponsor Andertons...

rossi

Even if its the same guitar the neck can vary .i have had two Baja necks .The first was superb but the second seemed hurried in comparison ,not so well shaped .