mista

I'm sorry, possessor, my preference may be subjective, but even if it cannot be scientifically proven, in my opinion, it remains undoubted that guitars like Fender and Gibson (I'm obviously referring to the serious models) reproduce the dynamics of performance with more sensitivity compared to an Ibanez. It's a characteristic of theirs that, depending on the taste of the guitarist, can be a virtue or a flaw. Indeed, Ibanez guitars are often chosen by guitarists seeking great sound clarity, while Gibsons and Fenders are preferred by rockers and bluesmen. And although it's not an objective fact, allow me to say, it's at least inter-subjective, considering that the majority of guitarists I know (along with the hundreds of great musicians who have chosen these great brands over the Japanese ones) agree on this point. Then, of course, it's a matter of taste, meaning that a guitarist like the Panzer, who loves Petrucci's ultra-clean sound, will prefer an Ibanez, while someone who loves Hendrix's gritty and dynamic sound will choose a Fender. I assure you that the only truly colossal mistake is to claim that the guitar does not have a decisive impact on the sound as you're suggesting! Try to reproduce the sound of Malmsteen, Hendrix, Clapton, Toni Iommi, Angus Young with an Ibanez, and let's see what comes out (or likewise, try to reproduce Petrucci's sound with an SG)...

Owner, it's a pleasure to discuss with you, but let's not split hairs over individual words; my opinion is that the sound of a guitar is primarily determined by the guitar itself, and that Fenders and Gibsons are absolutely superior to Ibanez. Let's leave paradoxes aside. Honestly, it is entirely impossible for me to find you a technical article that states, "we have scientifically established that the sound of a Fender is more dynamic than that of an Ibanez." Because as I said, by dynamics I mean the response to all components (rational and irrational, quantifiable and unquantifiable) of sound. And the fact that technology has not managed to match instruments built 50 years ago shows how little science has to do with guitars—and with music in general. Anyway, to be honest, I only need my ear. But come on, if you were presented with a '66 Les Paul and even the most beautiful Ibanez with a Soldano and an equalizer, would you really choose the latter? I mean, beyond economic value? Would you really say, "No, in the end, the Ibanez sounds better"?

Anyway, I don’t want to come across as presumptuous, excuse me, but the opinion that “the sound is created by the amp and the multi-effect” is generally held by those who don't have much experience. However, this doesn't explain the hundreds of great guitarists who would give a rib to have a pre-CBS Fender. Anyway, my point isn’t about the big brands (which certainly includes Ibanez), given that I play a Manne, which is a handcrafted bass made in Veneto... it’s undeniable that Fender and Gibson, especially in their heyday, produced instruments of exceptional quality that no crappy guitar plugged into a nice multi-effect could ever match. Ok, I’m done.

There are possessors, don’t worry, I assure you that I managed to resist your arguments without fainting. Meanwhile, sorry if I’ve been a bit disrespectful. Let’s go step by step: for you, "flat" doesn’t mean a piece of junk? Alright, your problem, but because in slang “flat sound” means a sound devoid of nuance and dynamics, like what can be produced by a low-quality guitar. Speaking of dynamics: dynamics aren’t just a matter of decibels, my young friend, but of a whole series of sound components, from attack to presence to note intensity, all things derived from the guitarist's touch that only a good guitar can capture and reproduce. It’s well-known that Ibanez guitars have a less "dynamic" sound compared to Fender and Gibson, and that's also one of the reasons they are easier to play. To manage a dynamic and faithful sound (with all the possible inaccuracies that come with it), you need a certain right-hand technique. Let me quote you for a moment, “So I play a crappy guitar with a good amp and a good equalizer, and you with an inferior amp, and let’s see who has more ‘richness of sound’. My dear possessor, I will have the best sound, because you can plug all the junk you want into your entry-level Sakura, but the sound will never compete with that of a real guitar. Of course, the sound of a guitar is a very subjective thing, but to judge it consciously, a lot of experience is necessary, I assure you…

Dear owner, if you truly own Fender and Ibanez and you don’t hear the difference in terms of dynamics (which simply means how the sound responds to the guitarist's touch) and sound richness, you don't know much about guitars. However, my statements are very "lapidary," the result of my personal taste and thrown out there just to spark discussion! That said, I don't mean to imply that Ibanez are rubbish. I myself have a custom-made Ibanez Soundgear 6-string bass (the one used by Kalikunen, the former bassist of Strato), and I must say it’s very versatile and fast, but I would never dream of comparing it to a Precision or a Jazz Bass in terms of sound richness!!

I still have a couple of Jacksons (one of mine and one of my brother's) and a fantastic Gibson Flying V from '88 in natural color, how cool is that! Even though I keep the last one more for collection purposes because, as I mentioned, I'm a bassist and I just dabble with the guitar.

Eh eh Marco!! You really know your guitars, I could tell from your comments that you couldn't be an Ibanezzaro! Stop it with the Ibanez guys, they sound flat, they lack dynamics, you see that even Petrucci has ditched them! Instead, get yourself an ESP if you really like that sharp sound, or a Jackson, those are serious guitars! In short, Ibanez is good for starting out, but don't waste your hard-earned money on those guitars! That's my advice.

The album marks the decline of cooooosa? Come on, the Maiden were in their full majestic phase here!! And for me, true decline won't be discussed until "No Prayer for the Dying."

In the simplicity of your review, one can read the reason for the global and unstoppable success of Kiss, which is also the reason why the band has always enjoyed little interest from the intellectual critics (a small litmus test can be found in the few reviews available on Debaser). It's only rock'n'roll, and it doesn't want to be anything else, music made to entertain and have fun, which, however, kicks ass because it is written by people with undeniable musical talent. As well as entrepreneurial talent;-)

This tracklist is amazing!! Really well done...what do you say? Oh, it was the review...holy shit!!