Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Bad Dog Cafe' started by Hexabuzz, Mar 7, 2018.
If PRS made a strat copy with a normal six-on-a-side headstock, they'd be even further criticized.
I’m an unashamed PRS convert too. I’m fortunate to have a a couple of 513’s and a Paul’s guitar. The minute I first spied the JM’s Strat-O-Like a couple of years ago now. I said if that ever becomes a thing I’m getting one........and now I actually am. Placed my order the minute I heard about it.
I’d recently thought about trying a BIG F style guitar from Suhr, Tom Anderson and even Tyler but they are all big ticket items and hard to get a hold of in Oz. But being both a PRS and JM fan, well this is a win, win IMO.
For the record I think the head stock that Paul / John have come up with for the PRS Silver Sky 635 is way nicer on the eye in comparison to the other three premium brand head stocks mentioned above. Of course that is just personal taste. I can understand someone not caring for regular PRS fare, they aren’t for everyone and are fairly pricey but I think that someone in the market for a S Type Guitar with the $$$ to go boutique would be silly not to audition one of these because of the headstock shape.
If the Silver Sky was less than, say, $400, would people have a problem with it? If they were merely just another budget copy, would that be okay?
I'm not sure why John Suhr, Tom Anderson, Ron Kirn, and Bill Nash get a pass, but Paul Reed Smith doesn't. They all make expensive Strat copies that look more like a Strat than the Silver Sky, but that seems to be okay with everyone. PRS makes a guitar that has some very obvious differences from a Strat and people complain that they made a Strat copy. That's just illogical.
I'm not talking about the people who just don't like the way it looks. I'm talking about those whose main complaint is that it's a Strat copy. Illogical.
True but those dudes don’t have John Mayer’s profile. JM regularly pull’s millions and millions and millions of views on YouTube (Free Fallin has had 65 million views) and that obviously has to translate into sales for guys like the enterprising Mr Paul Smith.
“Those other guys”, uh not so much. I mean there are other guitar player / vloggers that have done covers or lessons of their songs who have posted up vid’s that have received more views than those of the actual artists. Sad but true
....and JM already has a wanky complicated and virtually unobtainable regular double cut PRS signature model.
Price: Same as Fender AVRI, and less than Suhr.
Headstock: it's a PRS headstock, who cares, get over it.
The copy issue: Suhr, Kirn, Ibanez, Anderson, Levinson, Any of these sound familiar? Do you hate them too?
As I said on two different Strat Talk threads:
Fender or Gibson makes a guitar that is not "traditional" enough, and they catch hell for doing so. PRS makes a guitar that is for all intents and purposes very traditional, and they catch hell for doing so.
You just can't win.
It's a PRS, It's a JM signature model. Get over it.
I'm not particularly a fan of this model, but I do love my PRS.
You're getting a Strat with excellent locking tuners, and IMO, the PRS tremolo bridge is far superior to Fender's. So it's like buying a top notch US made Strat with a couple instant upgrades.
I wouldn't like it even if it wasn't associated with John Mayer, just for the looks, I'm sure it's a great guitar but vintage radius, peghead and bird inlays are negatives for me, plus the price.
I could get a couple really nice Strats for that much $. Or a different model PRS, maybe a Swamp Ash Special or something else.
Just as an update, I thought y'all might like to know that I have it on very good authority that the Silver Sky makes his other high-end Strat-type guitar "feel like a toy". I expect to see one in the flesh in a couple of weeks so will be interesting to verify. Not that I'm remotely interested in owning one though.
I will give you that, the PRS tremolo is very good.
Well, I will certainly say that the Strat is a design that was and STILL is light years ahead of it's time. I have owned a handful and will get another in the future. There is something about the "primitive, bare necessities" Telecaster design that has grown on me over the last few years. I now own and absolutely love my Butterscotch Elite Tele and probably will never trade it. I think the Tele design more ABSOLUTE rather than OBSOLETE though.
Hey Kelnet, I don't think that is even a close analogy. The 2 Ibanez guitars that were posted by Frodebro were MORE like Fender designs than the ESP Eclipse is like a Fender design?
Which is just a Mann-Made design.
Re: Ibanez Talman -
The Talman's offset body shape is clearly inspired by Fender Jazzmaster/Jaguar, but it's not the same or close to one. The current Talman models come with either Tele or Start type appointments, yes, but the original Talman series of the 1990s did not
I like the Talman's take on a headstock -- 3x3 but straight pull. Its cousin the Noodles sig model is nice -- 2xP90s and slightly different body.
Yes, it's a quirky and unusual headstock. 3-a-side but: direct string through (tick), doesn't need string trees
(tick), and asymmetric headstock shape and asymmetric alignment of tuning heads.
I wasn't sure about the headstock shape, but I was okay enough about it to for me to buy a Talman.
However, I tend to like and own quirky guitars so I dunno what that says.
I have this one below:
For me, it's the best design of a Tele type guitar I've ever encountered: Tele with an offset and contoured body. Yay!
I'm gonna change the knobs on it.
I'm looking at the specs and scratchin my head at the wiring: http://www.ibanez.com/products/u_eg...&cat_id=1&series_id=37&data_id=365&color=CL01
So, it's like you started with a Tele setup then added a middle pickup with its own volume. (Don't know if the tone control affects the middle pup, but I guess so.)
Suppose you want to go back and forth between the middle pup and a combination of the outer pups -- you going to have to do that via the two volumes, rolling one up and the other down. Sounds slow and messy -- what if you like the volume at 80% when it's not rolled down? You'll have to tweak it on the fly.
I know it's not rocket surgery, but is this the best way to wire them up?
I wrote pretty much the same thing in another thread: my beef with this guitar is that PRS is trashing their own legacy. In 1988 I bought a brand new PRS bolt on CE-22 in black for around $800. At the time I think it was one of the best
factory guitars you could buy for that money in terms of quality and craftsmanship. Over the ensuing 30 years PRS has managed to build itself up to be among the elite U.S. guitar makers. Why make a Strat copy when they could
just make a 3-pickup version of their own CE-22? I felt the same way when they started coming out with single-cuts that seemed to be driving in the LP lane. They should be proud of their signature products, IMO.
In addition, as others have said, I don't think the design holds together. It's not just an issue with what we're used to seeing. The pointy PRS headstock just does not match up with a curvy Strat body. When guitars are designed with a blank page,
typically the headstock is designed to aesthetically complement the body, with shared design elements.
Re: Talman -
The model version I have with the middle pickup is wired the same as what is often known as 'Nashville', 'Memphis' or 'Brent Mason' Tele style wiring. It has pros and cons.
It has a normal Tele 3-way switch. The middle pickup has its own volume blend control.
At zero, the middle pickup is not engaged and the guitar operates like a normal Tele. At full, it enables a Strat's in between 2 and 4 positions. BUT, you can also get gradations of combined positions 2 and 4, as it is a blend control - a Strat can't do that.
So it can do combinations that neither a standard wired Strat or Tele can do!
And, it can do everything that both a standard wired Strat and Tele can do.
No push-pull or S1 switch, or toggle switch, necessary.
A Strat could be wired in the same way.
If one likes the simplicity of a 3-way switch and neck and bridge pickups only, it's a very good system: it operates like that and you get a bonus.
However, if one is primarily a Strat player and used to standard 5-way switch, and you use the middle pickup a lot, then you probably wouldn't like it.
I regard it as Tele with a clever and unusual bonus, rather than a Strat with funky switching.
Wiring and switching preferences is a very personal matter.
It's unusual to find this particular wiring on a mass produced affordable guitar as its stock wiring.
My Talman cost me only £20 more than the two pickup version - so guess which one I bought?
The middle pickup can be attached or non attached to the global tone control.
I present for your consideration, the PRS EG series guitars from a zillion years ago. So much for trashing a legacy...
I agree that this isn't the first time they've trashed their own potential legacy. Just more egregious because they claimed it took over 2 years to come up with
ground-breaking technology. If I were running the company I would focus on what I consider to be the core niche-- original PRS designs, especially the ones that
have become popular. Maybe they are still doing this, and they figure they can make a small profit on all these other models as well. After all, Fender does the same thing-
focuses on its original models (Strat, Tele, P Bass, Jazz Bass, JM, JG, Mustang, Duosonic, etc. in roughly that order) while dabbling with a bunch of other models and FSRs. Maybe
with JIT manufacturing and distribution it is possible to make a nice little profit on these limited runs, so why not? OK, I guess I'll just try to ignore this latest creation and let
PRS continue to make money on whatever it is able to sell.....
We rag on Gibson for its current woes but I guess I have to give them credit for mostly sticking to their classic designs and thereby honoring their own legacy. Of course
they also do come out with new models and usually they don't sell to many of them. But they seem to do a lot less of that.