It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Subscribe to our Patreon, and get image uploads with no ads on the site!
Base theme by DesignModo & ported to Powered by Vanilla by Chris Ireland, modified by the "theFB" team.
Comments
The next biggest segment might be serious bands but who are very much inspired by those bands and so it also makes sense they would play the same guitars.
I'd guess that someone who is now only interested in making new original music but wants to incorporate the sound of a guitar would either choose his own guitar or more likely to be influenced by Fender's marketing machine than care about copying a particular player from the past.
See, Danny Spitz was right all along.
Patented or trademarked? Patents only last 25 years, so I suspect trademarked. Just googled. Trademarked.
I can't find a UK trademark though. That may be my searching skills but there doesn't seem to be anything on the UK government trademark site to match the US one. Obviously Chapman want to export to the US, so are stuck not being able to use it.
They should never have been granted a trademark on that. If you google it, makers like Teisco were doing it before EBMM.
I watched a very interesting mini documentary on YouTube yesterday that first talks about how the idea we have that creative breakthroughs are made by individual geniuses is actually a myth and then goes on to talk about how intellectual property laws were initially introduced to benefit society but these days they're abused and hinder society.
I'd say stopping other guitar manufacturers from using a headstock design you started using decades ago and weren't even the first to come up with it would come under the latter.
I think the new Lowden electric is quite reminiscent of the Taylor solidbodies, at least to look at. More expensive though.
View my feedback at www.thefretboard.co.uk/discussion/comment/1201922
But considering brands I've never owned, I'd rather have a Gretsch, or a Guild, or a Mosrite or.....
Brands like Ibanez don't really either, but they come at it from a different perspective, it's all about speed and playability for them. Again, while PRS no doubt play very well they don't have the extreme playability that the pointy Ibanez type guitars do.
So without their own defining and distinct sound and without bringing much else other than high end woods, attention to detail and bling to the party they're a bit much-of-a-muchness.
Perhaps that's another reason why maybe big names prefer other brands. The design may be 50+ years old but it works and does what they need and sounds how they like it. If you already have all the mojo you want/need why change to something else that, apart from pretty woods, fancy inlays and big price tags, does nothing new?
There is no 'H' in Aych, you know that don't you? ~ Wife
Turns out there is an H in Haych! ~ Sporky
Bit of trading feedback here.
Again, not trying to put words in your mouth but is that due to growing up associating those guitars with chaps sporting quiffs or groovy pudding-bowl haircuts who were considered cool at the time?
If PRS had been around in the '50s and '60s there would be famous names from the past associated with them and they would be regarded as cooler than they are now. The PRS guitars themselves would probably be rather different, but that's a separate issue....
I just see them as bland blues dentist guitars, the guitar to me is a symbol of counter culture and they appear to be the total opposite of that.
PRS do have a sound, play a bunch of them and they've got a generally balanced if slightly midrange forward tone. It's more polite than a typical Les Paul but fatter than a Fender with humbuckers.
I put EMGs in my PRS anyway.