Why I Would Rather Gouge My Own Eyes Out Than Play An Ibanez

Hollowaxis · 2009-11-14T23:33:05+00:00

Hmmmm. After much consideration & many years of playing (Mostly Fenders), I've come a simple conclusion. I will never, by my own free will or choice, ch...

Why I Would Rather Gouge My Own Eyes Out Than Play An Ibanez

AlanRatcliffe

Cannon wrote: PS: Rickenbacker?....hahahaha!

What's wrong with Rickenbacker?

Cannon

Alan Ratcliffe wrote:
Cannon wrote: PS: Rickenbacker?....hahahaha!
What's wrong with Rickenbacker?

Just thought it funny that he mentioned the high end Ibanez models are ugly....then throws a big up to Rickenbacker.
Sorry Alan....really great guitars but not the prettiest.
8)

Cannon

As pretty as Frank Zappa! 8)

guidothepimmp

Oi!

Leave Zappa outta this >☹

AlanRatcliffe

Rics, like whiskey and Zappa, are an acquired taste. ?

ZarK

Looks have absolutely zero influence in providing great tone and feel anyway...

Jack-Flash-Jr

ZarK wrote: Looks have absolutely zero influence in providing great tone and feel anyway...

Hmmm.... I think playing a guitar that offends your aesthetic sensibility will have an effect for sure, and the converse as well.

ZarK

Jack Flash Jr wrote:
ZarK wrote: Looks have absolutely zero influence in providing great tone and feel anyway...
Hmmm.... I think playing a guitar that offends your aesthetic sensibility will have an effect for sure, and the converse as well.

True, but play it with your eyes closed or listen to the recording and the tone should surely speak for itself? If the looks truly offend you, you probably won't put in all the effort to create the tone in the first place, unless the music really comes first? (Easier said than done, I agree.) I'm at a point where both tone and feel have become more important than sheer aesthetics... (Wasn't always like that...)

singemonkey

Makes you wonder what Jimi Hendrix would have played in the '80s. He was not a conservative guy - rocking a V when the only other one playing one was Albert King, and making the out-of-style stratocaster his own.

I don't reckon he would have stuck to "classic" designs had he lived.

ZarK

singemonkey wrote: Makes you wonder what Jimi Hendrix would have played in the '80s. He was not a conservative guy - rocking a V when the only other one playing one was Albert King, and making the out-of-style stratocaster his own.

I don't reckon he would have stuck to "classic" designs had he lived.

+1

Imo he would have played a signature Ibanez without a doubt. ? Especially in the 80's when whammy use was at a high point... (Alongside Vai et. al. pushing the boundaries of tone, technique and style...)

DonovanB

I doubt Fender or Gibson would have let that happen. Although I did see an Ibanez ad with a picture of Hendrix burning his strat. Very clever.

chris77

ZarK wrote:
singemonkey wrote: Makes you wonder what Jimi Hendrix would have played in the '80s. He was not a conservative guy - rocking a V when the only other one playing one was Albert King, and making the out-of-style stratocaster his own.

I don't reckon he would have stuck to "classic" designs had he lived.
+1

Imo he would have played a signature Ibanez without a doubt. ? Especially in the 80's when whammy use was at a high point... (Alongside Vai et. al. pushing the boundaries of tone, technique and style...)

I don't know. He wasn't a slouch technically, but his playing is far more about feel than nimble fingered gymnastics. So I'm not too sure he wouldn't have stuck to what felt familiar to him. But then again if Gibson could've come up with a Jimi Strat, why not Ibanez. They sure as hell copied everything else back in the day! ? I do think he would have more than just enjoyed modern amps and effects though. ?
Aagh, but it's all speculation hey. Who knows what he would've done if he survived his addiction. Today we have McCartney churning out dross every few years, Santana doing covers and Blackmore yodeling to folks in a wizard costume. Just because someone was great then doesn't always mean they would still be great today. Pity we never got to find out though....

IceCreamMan

chris77 wrote:
ZarK wrote:
singemonkey wrote: Makes you wonder what Jimi Hendrix would have played in the '80s. He was not a conservative guy - rocking a V when the only other one playing one was Albert King, and making the out-of-style stratocaster his own.

I don't reckon he would have stuck to "classic" designs had he lived.
+1

Imo he would have played a signature Ibanez without a doubt. ? Especially in the 80's when whammy use was at a high point... (Alongside Vai et. al. pushing the boundaries of tone, technique and style...)
I don't know. He wasn't a slouch technically, but his playing is far more about feel than nimble fingered gymnastics. So I'm not too sure he wouldn't have stuck to what felt familiar to him. But then again if Gibson could've come up with a Jimi Strat, why not Ibanez. They sure as hell copied everything else back in the day! ? I do think he would have more than just enjoyed modern amps and effects though. ?
Aagh, but it's all speculation hey. Who knows what he would've done if he survived his addiction. Today we have McCartney churning out dross every few years, Santana doing covers and Blackmore yodeling to folks in a wizard costume. Just because someone was great then doesn't always mean they would still be great today. Pity we never got to find out though....

And there in lies the truth ...the greats of yeasteryear are just that, greats of yesteryear..... cept eddie ?

Jimi was excellent for the time and the place and the scene ... an i doubt he would of maintained that "greatness" across the ages ..if that makes sense ..i think he would of almost certainly carried on with the strat though , if his peers are anything to go by they tend to stick to what they know best

ZarK

Jimi played a variety of guitars... From the obvious Fender Strat to the Tele, Jazzmaster, Jaguar and Duosonic to the Gibson's flying V, Les Paul and SG to a Gretch Corvette... (Not even mentioning his earlier guitars...) Personally I think he would have gone with the most technically advanced and least limiting axes of the day. Would someone as ahead of he's time been playing a Strat or V in the '80's while everyone else was pushing their creativity and technique with Superstrats and Ibanez RG's? I seriously doubt that... Who knows: Maybe he would have pioneered the first superstrats and today they would have been made by Fender instead of the other brands that took the initiative? Not to mention his attraction to the flamboyant... I could easily envision him with a custom designed Ibanez RG in the 80's... Something along the lines of the Multi colour Swirl Jems and Universe's of the day... I can only imagine what he'd be able to do with more modern FX, guitars and gear... Personally I think guitar would have been on an even higher technical level today if he kept his focus and passion ...and stayed alive... Can you imagine what the famous guitarists that we know from that era would have been able to accomplish if he lay the foundation and pushed the limits for another 10 -15 years???

AlanRatcliffe

There is some debate, but it seems that Hendrix was beginning to lean in a more RnB and jazzy direction just before his death. So who knows where he might have gone? Could have been up there with the fusion artists of the '70s. Or he could have remained mired in psychedelia while the rest of the world moved on...

I often wonder if he would have had quite as much impact if he hadn't died when he did. I'm biased, so I'd like to think that he would.

Tokai-SA

chris77 wrote:
ZarK wrote:
singemonkey wrote: Makes you wonder what Jimi Hendrix would have played in the '80s. He was not a conservative guy - rocking a V when the only other one playing one was Albert King, and making the out-of-style stratocaster his own.

I don't reckon he would have stuck to "classic" designs had he lived.
+1

Imo he would have played a signature Ibanez without a doubt. ? Especially in the 80's when whammy use was at a high point... (Alongside Vai et. al. pushing the boundaries of tone, technique and style...)

Aagh, but it's all speculation hey. Who knows what he would've done if he survived his addiction.Just because someone was great then doesn't always mean they would still be great today. Pity we never got to find out though....

Are you serious? ?
I'm not sure, are you talking about Hendrix?

'Machine Gun' is still a masterpiece today, it's beyond anything any current guitarist can dream of composing.
It's like Mozart and Van Gogh all in one...it's an alien guitar language that even today we can't figure out.

IMO of course.

Part 1
=

Part 2
=

slyd

wish I had enough megabytes to watch those videos, . . :-\

They're pretty long. . .. .

Bob-Dubery

Tokai SA wrote:
chris77 wrote: Aagh, but it's all speculation hey. Who knows what he would've done if he survived his addiction.Just because someone was great then doesn't always mean they would still be great today. Pity we never got to find out though....
Are you serious? ?
I'm not sure, are you talking about Hendrix?

'Machine Gun' is still a masterpiece today, it's beyond anything any current guitarist can dream of composing.
It's like Mozart and Van Gogh all in one...it's an alien guitar language that even today we can't figure out.

IMO of course.

Some folks burn bright for a long time. Some burn out. Some fade away.

A person can make great music for a while and then carry on making music... only not great music. Paul McCartney did some fab stuff once upon a time, but I kind of wish he'd find another hobby now. Dylan made some great records in the 60s, but since then he's put out some stinkers too. For me Clapton is a pale shadow of his former self these days. The Jefferson Airplane ended up as a bland stadium rock band, and the Rolling Stones ended up as caricatures of their once mighty selves. You can be great for a while and then be mediocre later.

No matter what alternate fate we pick for Jimi, nothing can take away the records that he did make and release. And that would have been enough to secure his place in the pantheon of the greats.

ZarK

X-rated Bob wrote:
Tokai SA wrote:
chris77 wrote: Aagh, but it's all speculation hey. Who knows what he would've done if he survived his addiction.Just because someone was great then doesn't always mean they would still be great today. Pity we never got to find out though....
Are you serious? ?
I'm not sure, are you talking about Hendrix?

'Machine Gun' is still a masterpiece today, it's beyond anything any current guitarist can dream of composing.
It's like Mozart and Van Gogh all in one...it's an alien guitar language that even today we can't figure out.

IMO of course.
Some folks burn bright for a long time. Some burn out. Some fade away.

A person can make great music for a while and then carry on making music... only not great music. Paul McCartney did some fab stuff once upon a time, but I kind of wish he'd find another hobby now. Dylan made some great records in the 60s, but since then he's put out some stinkers too. For me Clapton is a pale shadow of his former self these days. The Jefferson Airplane ended up as a bland stadium rock band, and the Rolling Stones ended up as caricatures of their once mighty selves. You can be great for a while and then be mediocre later.

No matter what alternate fate we pick for Jimi, nothing can take away the records that he did make and release. And that would have been enough to secure his place in the pantheon of the greats.

+1 Couldn't agree with you more...

Tokai-SA

X-rated Bob wrote:
Tokai SA wrote:
chris77 wrote: Aagh, but it's all speculation hey. Who knows what he would've done if he survived his addiction.Just because someone was great then doesn't always mean they would still be great today. Pity we never got to find out though....
Are you serious? ?
I'm not sure, are you talking about Hendrix?

'Machine Gun' is still a masterpiece today, it's beyond anything any current guitarist can dream of composing.
It's like Mozart and Van Gogh all in one...it's an alien guitar language that even today we can't figure out.

IMO of course.
Some folks burn bright for a long time. Some burn out. Some fade away.

A person can make great music for a while and then carry on making music... only not great music. Paul McCartney did some fab stuff once upon a time, but I kind of wish he'd find another hobby now. Dylan made some great records in the 60s, but since then he's put out some stinkers too. For me Clapton is a pale shadow of his former self these days. The Jefferson Airplane ended up as a bland stadium rock band, and the Rolling Stones ended up as caricatures of their once mighty selves. You can be great for a while and then be mediocre later.

No matter what alternate fate we pick for Jimi, nothing can take away the records that he did make and release. And that would have been enough to secure his place in the pantheon of the greats.

True

Jeff Becks a unique example.
He was great back in Jimi's day, and today he's pretty much the best blues guitarist in the world.