Knock-Offs, Rip-Offs, and Just Plain UGLY!
Moderator: jingle_jangle
-
sloop_john_b
- Rick-a-holic
- Posts: 13843
- Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2005 6:00 am
I think I can understand what everyone is saying - and in my opinion, *all of you* have very valid reasons for feeling the way that you do.
When you get into areas of "good design and execution" -vs- "what was this person thinking", the lines can be very thin, with lots of spillover, and people tend to be very divided. I've toyed with the idea of having a custom finish job done on a guitar, with a decal underneath the finish, knowing full well that it probably would be completely disgusting to anyone who looks at it besides myself. At the same time, I don't think I would ever try to convince anyone that it was the concept of a design genius, because I am simply not a design genius. But, in my own opinion, I think the best designs are the simple ones - which mean they leave more room for interpretation, and leaves the viewer with the freedom of imagination. When something leaves no space for interpretation, that is bad design, at least to me.
When you get into areas of "good design and execution" -vs- "what was this person thinking", the lines can be very thin, with lots of spillover, and people tend to be very divided. I've toyed with the idea of having a custom finish job done on a guitar, with a decal underneath the finish, knowing full well that it probably would be completely disgusting to anyone who looks at it besides myself. At the same time, I don't think I would ever try to convince anyone that it was the concept of a design genius, because I am simply not a design genius. But, in my own opinion, I think the best designs are the simple ones - which mean they leave more room for interpretation, and leaves the viewer with the freedom of imagination. When something leaves no space for interpretation, that is bad design, at least to me.
Good and bad taste often have very 'individual specific' parameters.
I like the Red Baron Gretsch, appropriate or not, but I think largely due to the execution more than the subject material, which, though I also am interested in the historical subject, I'll grant is rather an unusual choice for a musical instrument finish.
I like the Red Baron Gretsch, appropriate or not, but I think largely due to the execution more than the subject material, which, though I also am interested in the historical subject, I'll grant is rather an unusual choice for a musical instrument finish.
Plus five minus five!
-
jingle_jangle
- RRF Moderator
- Posts: 22679
- Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 6:00 am
- Contact:
John A., there is always a market for one of anything, no matter how badly conceived or executed. That's one extreme. The other extreme is up to your imagination, but would probably be a situation in which everything we set our eyes on would have been carefully designed and so exquisitely executed to the point of being unaffordable.
In between lies the ongoing discussion. Though the easy thing to say would be, "where do we draw the line?", it goes deeper than that.
Having a market for something is a license with its own two options: to act with responsibility and respect towards one's customers, or to get lazy and tragically cynical, and go for the bucks. Unfortunately, in our money-focused "culture", the entire issue of making something well and charging a fair price for it, has been blurred, and the comment that "people are buying it" is not--at least to me--justification for making ****, whether it's poorly-conceived **** that capitalizes on the "need" for cheap goods, or **** that's mediocre in conception but badly made.
We (as a "culture") are awash in ****, from the goods that we consume and fill our garages (!) with, to the junk we watch under the guise of "news" and "entertainment".
There are flavors to filling a demand, and the sourest one is creating a demand for things of dubious value, by playing upon a potential consumer's insecurities and need for social superiority. Marketing departments have been doing this for so long, and in such an increasingly blatant manner (contrast the 1930's ad for Packard and it's subtle tag line: "Ask the man who owns one" with the pandering to the cult of celebrity of hero-worship in the marketing of the "Frankenstein" EVH guitar to wannabees). The Packard was built at a time when the typical business model was build well, sell at a fair price. The Frankenstein has little to offer it; in fact, if it wasn't a so-called "replica" of the one EVH built in his garage from bitsas, we'd see it in a junk shop or a dumpster and take it home for parts.
In other words, no intrinsic value. We have become a culture of waste in a world of want. And, in the Third World, everyone wants to be like us! A chilling thought.
Interestingly, when I sort backward in my memory to a point where work and its validity began to be trumped by things of no intrinsic value taking over the marketplace, it came fairly recently for me--in the late '70s, with (believe it or not) the licensing blitz for "Star Wars", which was highly successful. Suddenly we were dealing with "properties", and the act of tacking a famous name or face onto otherwise mediocre stuff, in order to generate consumption, went wild after that. Lucasfilm weren't the first to do this, but they were the first HUGE success, and of course everybody jumped onto the bandwagon. And I watched as my job as a creative designer of new toy concepts was quickly trumped and eclipsed by old stuff recycled with new licenses tacked onto it. I got onto the bandwagon, too: when my neato "Wrist Racers" debuted in '81, they were simply little wind-up cars. They earned me modest royalties that first year. The next year, the manufacturer to whom I licensed the concept, tacked on the then-hot "Dukes of Hazzard" license, and we all watched sales take off until eventually they produced more than ten times the first year's royalties that second year. The cool little concept was not enough; the TV show bumped it into the stratosphere. I suppose I should be sort of ashamed, but I'm happy because the basic concept and the creativity that spawned it went untouched and still was handsomely rewarded.
By my "vast filter", I suppose you mean my experiences or the multiple careers I've enjoyed (and sometimes not) in design and associated professions. I do teach design at university, and you can bet that my students are treated to these views. However, in the design community, my views are not odd or offbeat--they're commonly-held received knowledge. I'm merely airing them in a Forum that considers all things Rickenbacker, and ranges widely from that focus at times, too.
"Making something well and charging a fair price for it", BTW, is a paraphrase of Rickenbacker's philosophy and their business model. Something to celebrate.
Would I put a Lichtenstein on a guitar, John? If it was a good graphic (image or part of an image), and depending upon the subject matter and the guitar, you bet! This sort of graphic--high-key color in a cartoonish, flat color area treatment, is ideal for billboarding. Would I put a Lichtenstein on an acoustic? Nope. On a Gretsch? Nope. In each case, the guitar and the subject matter are incompatible. In a Rick, perfect, because both are icons of the same era and simply put, are a good "fit".
The "Red Baron" is a gorgeous execution and the image fits the canvas(size-wise), but leaves me thinking, "what the heck ties them together?" and for the life of me, I can't come up with an answer.
BTW, the answer is NOT, "because somebody is bound to buy it."
These days, news is "product", securities are "products", mortgages are "products", entertainment is a "product", and so are political candidates. This reflects the view that profits are God, and those guys on Wall Street and Mad Ave. are working overtime to figure out another way to put our money into their pockets.
Are we the better for all this cynicism? What do you think?
So, I suppose that my "wide filter" permits me to think about issues beyond, "that's cool. I'll get out my wallet". And if I'm boring anyone, they can always skip over this type of post and live their lives the way the want--it's their freedom, and their choice. And I'm not a design saint, either, because I only put my money where my mouth is maybe 70% of the time. But the time is fast running out when we can avoid considering these issues, because the simple issue of a graphic image on a guitar, or a cynically-marketed "reproduction" of a trashy legend, has very wide and deep cultural connotations.
And I suppose, reflecting on it, that's what gets me fired up.
In between lies the ongoing discussion. Though the easy thing to say would be, "where do we draw the line?", it goes deeper than that.
Having a market for something is a license with its own two options: to act with responsibility and respect towards one's customers, or to get lazy and tragically cynical, and go for the bucks. Unfortunately, in our money-focused "culture", the entire issue of making something well and charging a fair price for it, has been blurred, and the comment that "people are buying it" is not--at least to me--justification for making ****, whether it's poorly-conceived **** that capitalizes on the "need" for cheap goods, or **** that's mediocre in conception but badly made.
We (as a "culture") are awash in ****, from the goods that we consume and fill our garages (!) with, to the junk we watch under the guise of "news" and "entertainment".
There are flavors to filling a demand, and the sourest one is creating a demand for things of dubious value, by playing upon a potential consumer's insecurities and need for social superiority. Marketing departments have been doing this for so long, and in such an increasingly blatant manner (contrast the 1930's ad for Packard and it's subtle tag line: "Ask the man who owns one" with the pandering to the cult of celebrity of hero-worship in the marketing of the "Frankenstein" EVH guitar to wannabees). The Packard was built at a time when the typical business model was build well, sell at a fair price. The Frankenstein has little to offer it; in fact, if it wasn't a so-called "replica" of the one EVH built in his garage from bitsas, we'd see it in a junk shop or a dumpster and take it home for parts.
In other words, no intrinsic value. We have become a culture of waste in a world of want. And, in the Third World, everyone wants to be like us! A chilling thought.
Interestingly, when I sort backward in my memory to a point where work and its validity began to be trumped by things of no intrinsic value taking over the marketplace, it came fairly recently for me--in the late '70s, with (believe it or not) the licensing blitz for "Star Wars", which was highly successful. Suddenly we were dealing with "properties", and the act of tacking a famous name or face onto otherwise mediocre stuff, in order to generate consumption, went wild after that. Lucasfilm weren't the first to do this, but they were the first HUGE success, and of course everybody jumped onto the bandwagon. And I watched as my job as a creative designer of new toy concepts was quickly trumped and eclipsed by old stuff recycled with new licenses tacked onto it. I got onto the bandwagon, too: when my neato "Wrist Racers" debuted in '81, they were simply little wind-up cars. They earned me modest royalties that first year. The next year, the manufacturer to whom I licensed the concept, tacked on the then-hot "Dukes of Hazzard" license, and we all watched sales take off until eventually they produced more than ten times the first year's royalties that second year. The cool little concept was not enough; the TV show bumped it into the stratosphere. I suppose I should be sort of ashamed, but I'm happy because the basic concept and the creativity that spawned it went untouched and still was handsomely rewarded.
By my "vast filter", I suppose you mean my experiences or the multiple careers I've enjoyed (and sometimes not) in design and associated professions. I do teach design at university, and you can bet that my students are treated to these views. However, in the design community, my views are not odd or offbeat--they're commonly-held received knowledge. I'm merely airing them in a Forum that considers all things Rickenbacker, and ranges widely from that focus at times, too.
"Making something well and charging a fair price for it", BTW, is a paraphrase of Rickenbacker's philosophy and their business model. Something to celebrate.
Would I put a Lichtenstein on a guitar, John? If it was a good graphic (image or part of an image), and depending upon the subject matter and the guitar, you bet! This sort of graphic--high-key color in a cartoonish, flat color area treatment, is ideal for billboarding. Would I put a Lichtenstein on an acoustic? Nope. On a Gretsch? Nope. In each case, the guitar and the subject matter are incompatible. In a Rick, perfect, because both are icons of the same era and simply put, are a good "fit".
The "Red Baron" is a gorgeous execution and the image fits the canvas(size-wise), but leaves me thinking, "what the heck ties them together?" and for the life of me, I can't come up with an answer.
BTW, the answer is NOT, "because somebody is bound to buy it."
These days, news is "product", securities are "products", mortgages are "products", entertainment is a "product", and so are political candidates. This reflects the view that profits are God, and those guys on Wall Street and Mad Ave. are working overtime to figure out another way to put our money into their pockets.
Are we the better for all this cynicism? What do you think?
So, I suppose that my "wide filter" permits me to think about issues beyond, "that's cool. I'll get out my wallet". And if I'm boring anyone, they can always skip over this type of post and live their lives the way the want--it's their freedom, and their choice. And I'm not a design saint, either, because I only put my money where my mouth is maybe 70% of the time. But the time is fast running out when we can avoid considering these issues, because the simple issue of a graphic image on a guitar, or a cynically-marketed "reproduction" of a trashy legend, has very wide and deep cultural connotations.
And I suppose, reflecting on it, that's what gets me fired up.
“I say in speeches that a plausible mission of artists is to make people appreciate being alive at least a little bit. I am then asked if I know of any artists who pulled that off. I reply, 'The Beatles did.”
― Kurt Vonnegut
― Kurt Vonnegut
-
dale_fortune
- Intermediate Member
- Posts: 1241
- Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 6:00 am
TMI In the late 50's, early 60's the German Cross was a part of the surfing culture..We had them on our T-shirts, Cars and surfboards. It was a sign of rebellion that we embraced with innocence. I see the same thing with todays culture: skateboarding and the Custom H.D. type motorcycles..Oh Blah De Blah Da
-
jingle_jangle
- RRF Moderator
- Posts: 22679
- Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 6:00 am
- Contact:
Yeah, that cross was all over everything car/surfing in the early '60s. Sign of rebellion in its odd, small way. Even in Chicago. I had a "Rat Fink" Roth T-shirt with the RF wearing a black T-shirt with an iron cross on it...
I bought Dick Dale albums--a bit hard to find in Chi, but I'd read about him and his shows at the Rendezvous. Fast forward to 1982. I'd moved to S. Pasadena and had my '55 Chevy Nomad (Coral and Shadow Gray) on display at the Long Beach Custom Car Show, surrounded with sand, fake palm trees, and surfing albums, with my Coral '69 Jazzmaster in the back seat. Some guy jumped the ropes and grabbed one of the albums. I said, "Hey!". He turned around, whipped out a pen and signed it. It was Dick, signing one of his albums that I'd had since '64. We got a pic with him and me, he complaining as he held the JM that he "never played these damned things--a Strat is [my] weapon!", and an invite to see him at the Palomino the next week. Fast forward to 1995. My friend Jimmy ended up being the guy who did the artwork for Dick's "Tribal Thunder" album, and he re-introduced me to Dick that year. Dick's son was a baby. He had begun touring again. Fast forward to last year. George (bandmate) is a friend of Dick's through the Kenpo (martial arts) channel. Dick ended up doing a review of our latest CD.
I still have the picture and the album from '82, BTW.
1982 was 25 years ago. In 1982, 1964 was only 18 years before that. Hmmm.
What goes around, keeps coming back. Same thing with Philip K. Dick, with an almost identical timeline, but that's another blah blah blah...
What's TMI for some, is food for thought for others.
I bought Dick Dale albums--a bit hard to find in Chi, but I'd read about him and his shows at the Rendezvous. Fast forward to 1982. I'd moved to S. Pasadena and had my '55 Chevy Nomad (Coral and Shadow Gray) on display at the Long Beach Custom Car Show, surrounded with sand, fake palm trees, and surfing albums, with my Coral '69 Jazzmaster in the back seat. Some guy jumped the ropes and grabbed one of the albums. I said, "Hey!". He turned around, whipped out a pen and signed it. It was Dick, signing one of his albums that I'd had since '64. We got a pic with him and me, he complaining as he held the JM that he "never played these damned things--a Strat is [my] weapon!", and an invite to see him at the Palomino the next week. Fast forward to 1995. My friend Jimmy ended up being the guy who did the artwork for Dick's "Tribal Thunder" album, and he re-introduced me to Dick that year. Dick's son was a baby. He had begun touring again. Fast forward to last year. George (bandmate) is a friend of Dick's through the Kenpo (martial arts) channel. Dick ended up doing a review of our latest CD.
I still have the picture and the album from '82, BTW.
1982 was 25 years ago. In 1982, 1964 was only 18 years before that. Hmmm.
What goes around, keeps coming back. Same thing with Philip K. Dick, with an almost identical timeline, but that's another blah blah blah...
What's TMI for some, is food for thought for others.
“I say in speeches that a plausible mission of artists is to make people appreciate being alive at least a little bit. I am then asked if I know of any artists who pulled that off. I reply, 'The Beatles did.”
― Kurt Vonnegut
― Kurt Vonnegut
WOW - so Dick Dale was actually a fan of yours, and literally jumped the ropes past security to get to you 
At the risk of yet another mindless group-think appellation, - COOL!
PKD was without doubt one of my most favorite SF writers in the Sixties and Seventies.
He was indeed a Kindred spirit.... (I bet few of you get that pun.....)
At the risk of yet another mindless group-think appellation, - COOL! PKD was without doubt one of my most favorite SF writers in the Sixties and Seventies.
He was indeed a Kindred spirit.... (I bet few of you get that pun.....)
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, and sit in with the band whenever you can, to keep your chops up!
-
jingle_jangle
- RRF Moderator
- Posts: 22679
- Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 6:00 am
- Contact:
Har. I'm a fan of Dick's and as such, an anonymous face in the crowd.
George, on the other hand...
Don't get me started on PKD; his path and mine crossed more than a few times...my first band was named after a minor character in one of his novels.
George, on the other hand...
Don't get me started on PKD; his path and mine crossed more than a few times...my first band was named after a minor character in one of his novels.
“I say in speeches that a plausible mission of artists is to make people appreciate being alive at least a little bit. I am then asked if I know of any artists who pulled that off. I reply, 'The Beatles did.”
― Kurt Vonnegut
― Kurt Vonnegut
-
lyle_from_minneapolis
- Advanced Member
- Posts: 2530
- Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2006 7:13 pm
Wish I knew why I keep dreaming of electric sheep...
Here is where I hide my music:
http://www.soundclick.com/MarkKaufman
http://www.soundclick.com/MarkKaufman
-
jingle_jangle
- RRF Moderator
- Posts: 22679
- Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 6:00 am
- Contact:
-
lyle_from_minneapolis
- Advanced Member
- Posts: 2530
- Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2006 7:13 pm
Paul, thanks for the long thought-out response. I was indeed referring to your past and present endeavors and how it forms your views on products and design. I believe it has you sensitized to judging every product you come across in an absolute way. Most all people just look at a product and decide yes or no and act (purchase or not) accordingly.
I'm not endorsing crass consumerism, as such, but I do think a company has the right to make any product to the standards they want to meet and put it on the market. Whether the product is successful or said company goes out of business will be determined by the buying public.
As for it all starting around the Star Wars marketing, I think it goes way back farther than that. Beatle wigs. Traveling salesmen and their sometimes harmful elixers. We both could go on.
Do we really want a review board arbitrating what is to be marketed to all of us? Because as I read your reasons for your take on this, I felt that the idea of someone or a few judging what was worthy and what was not of value a very scarry proposition. I'm sure this was not what you intended, but then not all who would enjoy that power are as benevolent as you are.
Fender may very well have sold their souls to the Devil himself, but I really don't think they would be making these instruments unless there was someone laying down the greenbacks for them. Someone thinks they are neat. In the end, it is the same as buying your favorite artist's cd - you are getting something to get you closer to an idol.
I'm not endorsing crass consumerism, as such, but I do think a company has the right to make any product to the standards they want to meet and put it on the market. Whether the product is successful or said company goes out of business will be determined by the buying public.
As for it all starting around the Star Wars marketing, I think it goes way back farther than that. Beatle wigs. Traveling salesmen and their sometimes harmful elixers. We both could go on.
Do we really want a review board arbitrating what is to be marketed to all of us? Because as I read your reasons for your take on this, I felt that the idea of someone or a few judging what was worthy and what was not of value a very scarry proposition. I'm sure this was not what you intended, but then not all who would enjoy that power are as benevolent as you are.
Fender may very well have sold their souls to the Devil himself, but I really don't think they would be making these instruments unless there was someone laying down the greenbacks for them. Someone thinks they are neat. In the end, it is the same as buying your favorite artist's cd - you are getting something to get you closer to an idol.
-
jingle_jangle
- RRF Moderator
- Posts: 22679
- Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 6:00 am
- Contact:
John, read my post a bit more carefully...I did state that the whole swing toward licensing began for me with the Star Wars thing, and its ubiquitous nature was a glimpse into the future from 1978, but I also said that it had obviously been going on long before that.
"I do think a company has the right to make any product to the standards they want to meet and put it on the market. Whether the product is successful or said company goes out of business will be determined by the buying public."
But surely you'll acknowledge that companies program people in order to create a demand (in this case) by playing upon their own insecurities and wishes to be "cool" and accepted by their peers in various (and increasingly expensive) ways? Peer acceptance being a standard, has a way of cheapening or even negating the quest for excellence that is becoming more common in the Third World than here in the USA. Preferable to peer acceptance is peer admiration and emulation, but this requires clearly-defined examples who are also worthy of admiration and emulation, and our consumer culture, which regards entertainment and even sporting events as "product", has muddied the waters even as it has muddled our thinking on this, and offered up for our worship many heroes whose feet are not even clay. They're Play-Doh. And we're losing our sense of irony, too, which has previously given us some protection by allowing us to step back, observe, and be contrary.
"Do we really want a review board arbitrating what is to be marketed to all of us?"
We each have one of these. It's called a brain, and my exact point is that its critical faculties (our ability to think for ourselves) are being dulled by a virtual inundation of ****, in both product and concept. Human nature is to, whenever possible, have things done for us, instead of by us, and while this is necessary in a specialized, civilized society, it does not serve us well to have others do all our thinking for us, since it is proven that others cannot be trusted (in general) to do this with our own best interests in mind.
Why is this? Because ethical behavior is becoming optional, usually because the Almighty Buck rules, and money trumps (pun unintended--note lack of capitalization) all in some peoples' values.
It all comes back to the same, sad, weak, tired, "let them sell them as long as there are people to buy them". And I say, sure, go ahead. Let Fender create a demand for **** instead of amazingly serendipitous musical tools that make a profit for their manufacturer because they are excellent value, thereby benefiting Fender, its customers, and society and culture in general, because of the need to play and hear music being fulfilled and expanded exponentially.
But the **** has no real superiority because it costs more. And people who have given this thought, understand this. My gripes are that lazy observation and complacency have taken the place of insight and the thought processes necessary to gain it.
Someone commented after one of my lengthy posts in this topic section, "TMI". If he truly meant "Too Much Information", it was a made-to-order example of our current (and possibly permanent?) "soundbite" culture, permanently afflicted with cultural ADD, looking for enlightenment, five seconds at a time, with no time for discussion in depth leading through paths of thoughtful consideration, to a reasoned conclusion.
Even if that conclusion is "agree to disagree", like many journeys, it's what we expose and learn along the way that we'll remember, long after the "Kodak moment" is gone.
Or should that be, "Fender moment"? Because there's always the purchasing cycle, and more often than not it ends in some degree of "buyers' remorse", when the wallet is empty and the Object of Lust is seen finally to be less than the cash it took to purchase it.
BTW, we've also gotten real good at denial, because there's too much pain to admit that we've been duped, in many cases.
No question we like to be close to an idol. But I'll be damned if I'm going to pay extra in an exhorbitant way to do this, to a company that's overpricing their stuff to take advantage of my own idol-worship.
A C58 (or a V59 or a Miami or a 1996, or any 325, for that matter) gets me close to JL. Even at full retail, they represent the cost to produce plus reasonable markup. A "Frankenstein", on the other hand, represents to me sheer exploitation. There is simply NO WAY this product has a "reasonable markup". And I think it's foolish to spend the difference.
John, thanks for a lot of food for thought, very clearly expressed!
"I do think a company has the right to make any product to the standards they want to meet and put it on the market. Whether the product is successful or said company goes out of business will be determined by the buying public."
But surely you'll acknowledge that companies program people in order to create a demand (in this case) by playing upon their own insecurities and wishes to be "cool" and accepted by their peers in various (and increasingly expensive) ways? Peer acceptance being a standard, has a way of cheapening or even negating the quest for excellence that is becoming more common in the Third World than here in the USA. Preferable to peer acceptance is peer admiration and emulation, but this requires clearly-defined examples who are also worthy of admiration and emulation, and our consumer culture, which regards entertainment and even sporting events as "product", has muddied the waters even as it has muddled our thinking on this, and offered up for our worship many heroes whose feet are not even clay. They're Play-Doh. And we're losing our sense of irony, too, which has previously given us some protection by allowing us to step back, observe, and be contrary.
"Do we really want a review board arbitrating what is to be marketed to all of us?"
We each have one of these. It's called a brain, and my exact point is that its critical faculties (our ability to think for ourselves) are being dulled by a virtual inundation of ****, in both product and concept. Human nature is to, whenever possible, have things done for us, instead of by us, and while this is necessary in a specialized, civilized society, it does not serve us well to have others do all our thinking for us, since it is proven that others cannot be trusted (in general) to do this with our own best interests in mind.
Why is this? Because ethical behavior is becoming optional, usually because the Almighty Buck rules, and money trumps (pun unintended--note lack of capitalization) all in some peoples' values.
It all comes back to the same, sad, weak, tired, "let them sell them as long as there are people to buy them". And I say, sure, go ahead. Let Fender create a demand for **** instead of amazingly serendipitous musical tools that make a profit for their manufacturer because they are excellent value, thereby benefiting Fender, its customers, and society and culture in general, because of the need to play and hear music being fulfilled and expanded exponentially.
But the **** has no real superiority because it costs more. And people who have given this thought, understand this. My gripes are that lazy observation and complacency have taken the place of insight and the thought processes necessary to gain it.
Someone commented after one of my lengthy posts in this topic section, "TMI". If he truly meant "Too Much Information", it was a made-to-order example of our current (and possibly permanent?) "soundbite" culture, permanently afflicted with cultural ADD, looking for enlightenment, five seconds at a time, with no time for discussion in depth leading through paths of thoughtful consideration, to a reasoned conclusion.
Even if that conclusion is "agree to disagree", like many journeys, it's what we expose and learn along the way that we'll remember, long after the "Kodak moment" is gone.
Or should that be, "Fender moment"? Because there's always the purchasing cycle, and more often than not it ends in some degree of "buyers' remorse", when the wallet is empty and the Object of Lust is seen finally to be less than the cash it took to purchase it.
BTW, we've also gotten real good at denial, because there's too much pain to admit that we've been duped, in many cases.
No question we like to be close to an idol. But I'll be damned if I'm going to pay extra in an exhorbitant way to do this, to a company that's overpricing their stuff to take advantage of my own idol-worship.
A C58 (or a V59 or a Miami or a 1996, or any 325, for that matter) gets me close to JL. Even at full retail, they represent the cost to produce plus reasonable markup. A "Frankenstein", on the other hand, represents to me sheer exploitation. There is simply NO WAY this product has a "reasonable markup". And I think it's foolish to spend the difference.
John, thanks for a lot of food for thought, very clearly expressed!
“I say in speeches that a plausible mission of artists is to make people appreciate being alive at least a little bit. I am then asked if I know of any artists who pulled that off. I reply, 'The Beatles did.”
― Kurt Vonnegut
― Kurt Vonnegut
"But surely you'll acknowledge that companies program people in order to create a demand (in this case) by playing upon their own insecurities and wishes to be "cool" and accepted by their peers in various (and increasingly expensive) ways? Peer acceptance being a standard, has a way of cheapening or even negating the quest for excellence that is becoming more common in the Third World than here in the USA. Preferable to peer acceptance is peer admiration and emulation, but this requires clearly-defined examples who are also worthy of admiration and emulation, and our consumer culture, which regards entertainment and even sporting events as "product", has muddied the waters even as it has muddled our thinking on this, and offered up for our worship many heroes whose feet are not even clay. They're Play-Doh. And we're losing our sense of irony, too, which has previously given us some protection by allowing us to step back, observe, and be contrary."
As a society, probably; as an individual, I am fairly impervious to advertising and peer admiration. I only get what I want or need based on my desire to fulfill my personal fantasies. I am not that complex and live a pretty simple existence. Because of the Play-Doh idols, I don't have but a few. My children are three of them. Mr. Squire is the other.
"Human nature is to, whenever possible, have things done for us, instead of by us, and while this is necessary in a specialized, civilized society, it does not serve us well to have others do all our thinking for us, since it is proven that others cannot be trusted (in general) to do this with our own best interests in mind."
I cannot fully agree with that - in general, yes, but there are a lot of individuals (me and you for two) who do not like things done for us, but take it upon ourselves to do it - I like the feeling of accomplishment, I like it done how I really want it, and I'm too cheap to take a chance on someone else doing it to less than my liking.
As to my brain being the arbiter, exactly. I do not buy very much, and what I do get I buy the best I can afford after careful searching. We took a long time to find a dining set that met my standards of what I felt was "fit and finish" coupled with the look we wanted. Same for our couch - I bet we easily sat on 200 couches and sofas in our search.
"But the **** has no real superiority because it costs more." Obviously there are enough that this does not matter to, as Fender does sell the artist copy instruments (no great quality in the implementation) and for big bucks. P. T. Barnum had it right. And that was a century ago.
"No question we like to be close to an idol. But I'll be damned if I'm going to pay extra in an exhorbitant way to do this, to a company that's overpricing their stuff to take advantage of my own idol-worship. " Agreed!
With the late 50s and the 60s loss of innocence, so to speak, we opened the floodgates to just what we are talking about. I really feel sorry for the generations that came after mine. Children, teens ,and 20-somethings have been raised on tv as the nanny and are as you describe - "our current (and possibly permanent?) "soundbite" culture, permanently afflicted with cultural ADD, looking for enlightenment, five seconds at a time, with no time for discussion in depth leading through paths of thoughtful consideration, to a reasoned conclusion."
Which brings me to a point I'd like to throw out - I wish corn syrup, sugar and it's substitutes, and caffeine would be greatly reduced in all diets. I am lucky that I cannot do caffeine as it makes my heart skip and beat odd, but I believe these have the general society so wired that your observations are abetted and probably a result of all these stimulants.
I hope this isn't too disjointed a response - it is tough to read and have ideas to write and carry it all forward in a 2" x 5" little window and make it sound lucid! I thank you also for kicking my complacency. Though we may differ a bit on marketing ideas, we ain't that far apart on these thoughts.
[edit] I had to add about getting duped - everyone usually knows if I get duped because I'll rant about it for a couple days! Har!
As a society, probably; as an individual, I am fairly impervious to advertising and peer admiration. I only get what I want or need based on my desire to fulfill my personal fantasies. I am not that complex and live a pretty simple existence. Because of the Play-Doh idols, I don't have but a few. My children are three of them. Mr. Squire is the other.
"Human nature is to, whenever possible, have things done for us, instead of by us, and while this is necessary in a specialized, civilized society, it does not serve us well to have others do all our thinking for us, since it is proven that others cannot be trusted (in general) to do this with our own best interests in mind."
I cannot fully agree with that - in general, yes, but there are a lot of individuals (me and you for two) who do not like things done for us, but take it upon ourselves to do it - I like the feeling of accomplishment, I like it done how I really want it, and I'm too cheap to take a chance on someone else doing it to less than my liking.
As to my brain being the arbiter, exactly. I do not buy very much, and what I do get I buy the best I can afford after careful searching. We took a long time to find a dining set that met my standards of what I felt was "fit and finish" coupled with the look we wanted. Same for our couch - I bet we easily sat on 200 couches and sofas in our search.
"But the **** has no real superiority because it costs more." Obviously there are enough that this does not matter to, as Fender does sell the artist copy instruments (no great quality in the implementation) and for big bucks. P. T. Barnum had it right. And that was a century ago.
"No question we like to be close to an idol. But I'll be damned if I'm going to pay extra in an exhorbitant way to do this, to a company that's overpricing their stuff to take advantage of my own idol-worship. " Agreed!
With the late 50s and the 60s loss of innocence, so to speak, we opened the floodgates to just what we are talking about. I really feel sorry for the generations that came after mine. Children, teens ,and 20-somethings have been raised on tv as the nanny and are as you describe - "our current (and possibly permanent?) "soundbite" culture, permanently afflicted with cultural ADD, looking for enlightenment, five seconds at a time, with no time for discussion in depth leading through paths of thoughtful consideration, to a reasoned conclusion."
Which brings me to a point I'd like to throw out - I wish corn syrup, sugar and it's substitutes, and caffeine would be greatly reduced in all diets. I am lucky that I cannot do caffeine as it makes my heart skip and beat odd, but I believe these have the general society so wired that your observations are abetted and probably a result of all these stimulants.
I hope this isn't too disjointed a response - it is tough to read and have ideas to write and carry it all forward in a 2" x 5" little window and make it sound lucid!
I thank you also for kicking my complacency. Though we may differ a bit on marketing ideas, we ain't that far apart on these thoughts. [edit] I had to add about getting duped - everyone usually knows if I get duped because I'll rant about it for a couple days! Har!