ajejebrazorf

"However, compared to Ibanez guitars, Fender guitars are clearly a whole different thing; it's pointless to argue about it": yes, in fact it's pointless to discuss it: they are usually heavier, uncomfortable, and more expensive :)

I played the Tele for a couple of years and it doesn’t seem that uncomfortable to me. Well, maybe you’ve gotten used to it or your forearm has toughened up, but that edge can be a bit annoying. And I really like the Telecaster aesthetically, you know. And then it’s pretty heavy.
Then, the fact that someone uses it to be faux-alternative because they might have awful sounds they could pull out even from a broomstick and wears it just because it looks cool can be true, but that happens with a lot of other guitars (even with Ibanezes...).
But yeah, I simply find stories like "it sounds better," "it has personality, not like the Ibanez," to be silly. It's an expensive piece of wood, and the wood itself doesn't matter much, and the personality, until proven otherwise, is brought by the player. I don't mean to say all guitars are the same in quality, but from my limited experience, saying that Fenders and Gibsons are cool and Ibanezes are crap is a narrative I'm quite familiar with, and I understand why it exists.

Anyway, it’s not like I’m saying that Fender and Gibson suck, they’re great guitars, despite the weight. But the Jaguar is super uncomfortable, and the Telecaster doesn’t shine with that edge that destroys your right arm. And just to stay on the topic of stuff that wants to be a symbol of alternative but is now pure fashion, even the Rickenbacker bass is a concentrate of discomfort.

(despite 650 euros not being a small amount). For me, the clean is the Telecaster, and I don't see any other cleans even remotely comparable. <<<<< The sound is determined by the number of windings on the pickup; if you take a Strat and put an humbucker on it (and there are), the sound changes. If you take the Strat and try it on a transistor amp, on a valvestate amp, or on a tube amp, the sound changes again. The Strat, the Jaguar, the Telecaster, the Les Paul ARE FASHION, they cost because everyone wants them, because they represent ROCK, but that they sound better is a huge lie. If you want to believe it, that's on you; however, I don’t understand the snobbishness of someone who looks down on a guy who buys a well-made Japanese guitar for 300 euros after having spent 2000 on his, which is worth the same, convinced that he is too cool and alternative.

"But also the quality of the materials, the finishing, the design": here too, the materials on an electric guitar matter relatively little: not by chance, for a luthier (considered very good) that I know, the original wooden Strat has issues that the Squier does not, and there are guitars made from vastly different materials and shapes. If you were talking about an acoustic or a classical guitar, I would agree with you; the quality of the woods, the shape, and the construction are fundamental in shaping the sound, but with electric guitars, damn, there are people who have had the aquarium guitar... that says something, and that something is that materials and shape matter very little. As for the design: I also really like both Fender (especially the Telecaster, but others too) and Gibson, but comparing them to the hundreds of different shapes of others doesn’t make much sense.

Then there's the story of the "clean sound": if it sounds clean for a Telecaster, for a Fender, for an Ibanez, then it's clean. The only thing that changes is whether you're using single coils or humbuckers (by the way, Ibanez often comes with both), the dirty sound you get from distortion, it definitely doesn't depend on the guitar.

Alessio, I didn't mean to call you a kid. But the fact remains that it's fashion. When you say "we want to mix the sound of a Telecaster with that of an anonymous Ibanez without special features and the crunch of a SG," I don't agree at all: aside from the fact that arguably my favorite guitarist plays a piece of junk, the sound of an electric guitar is largely determined by the pickups, the amplifier, and any effects you might use. Take the coolest, most expensive electric guitar and play it through a crappy amp, and let's see if someone with a one-hundred-fifty-euro guitar plugged into a nice amp can't produce a better sound. Come on, you can spin it however you want, but Fender and Gibson are fashion. Ibanez is the real proletarian guitar, comfortable, affordable, and for everyone. Want to talk about prices? Why don't you bring up the price of an original Strat or an original Les Paul?

Indeed, you make a comparison of brands, like a teenager might talk to you about Roberto Cavalli jeans. The article changes, but the essence is the same: fashion. Fender and Gibson (which I also like) are just a brand, and you pay an arm and a leg to own a product that's fifty years old. With an Ibanez, you spend little and take home a guitar that's often affordable, lightweight, and has various extra features. It gets a bad rap from real rockers because it's "stuff for proggers who do solos," but obviously, it's all nonsense; a guitar is just a piece of wood, and Malmsteen has a Stratocaster.

the most you can do with an ibanez is a bonfire <<<< and no, I don't agree with that, the ibanez is a great guitar. The real trend nowadays is maybe spending a fortune to get an uncomfortable jaguar or a gibson that screams rockstar.

Even Steve Vai! Come on, give me a break.