# Guitar Aficionado magazine



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Saw another issue of this in Coles today. EWWWWWWWW! Maybe its me, but I just find it so distasteful. If you haven't seen it, it appears to be aimed at folks who are obscenely rich and feel like spending money on guitars. It's not even a collectors mag, really. It's a wealth-fetishist mag. Yuck.

Jimmy Page is on the cover, but the very first ad inside the cover is for that most plebian of vehicles: an Aston-Martin. Uh-huh. ALL those guys that woodshed and practice Brad Paisley or Randy Rhodes licks until they get 'em juuuust right drive those suckers. The ads for overpriced high-end crap continue throughout. It is hard to imagine that any of the intended readers would ever permit sweat to touch their treasured "guitar investments".

I like a nice colour pic like anyone else, but I'm happy to have my newsprint Vintage Guitar magazine.

http://www.guitaraficionado.com/


----------



## bagpipe (Sep 19, 2006)

mhammer said:


> Saw another issue of this in Coles today. EWWWWWWWW! Maybe its me, but I just find it so distasteful. If you haven't seen it, it appears to be aimed at folks who are obscenely rich and feel like spending money on guitars. It's not even a collectors mag, really. It's a wealth-fetishist mag. Yuck.
> 
> Jimmy Page is on the cover, but the very first ad inside the cover is for that most plebian of vehicles: an Aston-Martin. Uh-huh. ALL those guys that woodshed and practice Brad Paisley or Randy Rhodes licks until they get 'em juuuust right drive those suckers. The ads for overpriced high-end crap continue throughout. It is hard to imagine that any of the intended readers would ever permit sweat to touch their treasured "guitar investments".
> 
> ...



Hmmmmm ... synchronicity ? :

http://guitarscanada.com/Board/showthread.php?t=26396


----------



## jimihendrix (Jun 27, 2009)

yeah...i was leafing through it...the one with jimmy page on the front...i was hoping to find guitar transcriptions in it...no luck...had to put her back on the shelf...the mag had the feel of belonging in the waiting room of a high powered ceo in some skyscraper on wall street...very high brow...


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

Got the first issue, the one with a chef on the cover for crying out loud. Cigars and cigarettes, really, I don't even approve! Cars, travel, credit cards, lots of strategic booze product placement..._okay, where are the high end escort services?_ Lots of glossy ads and articles, even more filler and crap that doesn't even remotely interest me. 

I don't generally like the sort of people likely to buy this rag, Snot Aficionado Magazine, or Rich Bozo Snot Aficionado Magazine.

Peace, Mooh.


----------



## bobb (Jan 4, 2007)

This probably says it all.



> With Guitar Aficionado,
> 
> we've created a magazine that intersects all areas of your lifestyle, with the guitar as the common point. After all, the man who appreciates the sleek lines and sex appeal of a fine guitar looks for the same attributes in a luxury automobile. Similarly, the nuances of tone emanating from the living wood of a guitar are like the subtle notes of a fine wine, and the refined sensibilities required to recognize them are the same.
> 
> ...



http://www.guitaraficionado.com/publisher_letter.html


----------



## jimihendrix (Jun 27, 2009)

hmm...so i guess i won't be reading the next "spinal tap" interview in this mag...


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Nor will you be seeing pawnshop prizes, either.


----------



## jimihendrix (Jun 27, 2009)

and i guess that means no bikini models...like in the guitar world buyer's guide...???...


----------



## zontar (Oct 25, 2007)

I had the same impression as mhammer, not my thing at all.

It reminds me of other aficionado magazines--which I suppose is the point.


----------



## Intrepid (Oct 9, 2008)

It's definitely not geared for musicians but instead is aimed at enthusiasts. In otherwords, rich dabblers.


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

jimihendrix said:


> and i guess that means no bikini models...like in the guitar world buyer's guide...???...


Don't even get me started! :smile: Think those chicks even know what a chord is, or a note even?


----------



## ne1roc (Mar 4, 2006)

Ha ha.....I started a thread about this magazine yesterday too.
I posted it at another site as well and not surprisingly got pretty much the same reaction to its content.

I really don't understand the negative reaction to it. To be jealous of people with more money is bizarre to me. In between the high priced items advertised, are some really great guitar related articles. 

While I don't have the kind of money the magazine is catering towards, I do enjoy the benefits of working hard. Comments like Mooh's are pretty unnecessary. There is no need to be bitter at people who set the sites higher then your own.


----------



## jimihendrix (Jun 27, 2009)

Starbuck said:


> Don't even get me started! :smile: Think those chicks even know what a chord is, or a note even?


of course she knows how to play guitar...see...???...she's holding some sort of "F" chord...kkjuw

somehow...i don't think this guitar player would help sell mags...


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

One doesn't have to flip through many issues of Vintage Guitar to know there is a "rare air", "top of the heap", "if you have to ask you can't afford it" class of guitars. And quite frankly, I would have no quarrel with a magazine that focussed its attention on guitars worth $50k and up...if it respected them as guitars. Make it guitar porn of the highest order. Full glossy on every page. Foldouts. $15 an issue and nothing *but* unattainables that make you regret your dreary life, Squier Strat, and never-gonna-break-five-figures income.

However, the sense one gets from the magazine is that guitars are simply one *more* object of desire that the purchaser has accumulated. I mean, really. If you had another $100k to spend, and you loved guitars, would you buy an Aston-Martin...or more guitars? And if you had the money to have both, would you actually have the time to _play_ one, or would it be sitting in a glass case while you were text-messaging your broker in the middle of a colonoscopy while your three ex-wives' lawyers were on call display?


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

mhammer said:


> One doesn't have to flip through many issues of Vintage Guitar to know there is a "rare air", "top of the heap", "if you have to ask you can't afford it" class of guitars. And quite frankly, I would have no quarrel with a magazine that focussed its attention on guitars worth $50k and up...if it respected them as guitars. Make it guitar porn of the highest order. Full glossy on every page. Foldouts. $15 an issue and nothing *but* unattainables that make you regret your dreary life, Squier Strat, and never-gonna-break-five-figures income.
> 
> However, the sense one gets from the magazine is that guitars are simply one *more* object of desire that the purchaser has accumulated. I mean, really. If you had another $100k to spend, and you loved guitars, would you buy an Aston-Martin...or more guitars? And if you had the money to have both, would you actually have the time to _play_ one, or would it be sitting in a glass case while you were text-messaging your broker in the middle of a colonoscopy while your three ex-wives' lawyers were on call display?


I don't have the money to buy a guitar simply to put it on display under glass. But I don't begrudge people that do. Some people like to spend exorbitant amounts of money on beautiful baby grand piano's simply to display in their house. Thats their business. I'm not sure I understand the point of posting a thread simply to complain about a magazine that doesn't target you as a reader and that you have no interest in.


----------



## bobb (Jan 4, 2007)

Just remember that the market this magazine is targeting are the people that have made those older instruments unattainable for the rest of us.

As far as I am concerned, a guitar is not a toy to be put under glass as a trophy. It is a tool to be used to make music regardless of whether it is a 2009 Squier or a 1959 Les Paul.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Two opposing sales tactics there. I suppose the half nekkid girls are supposed to bring in the perverts and young male crowd? The other to bring in the "I have more money than talent" crowd. 

Both seem to sell well. 

Is there one out there that targets the average bloke?


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

GuitarsCanada said:


> Is there one out there that targets the average bloke?


Vintage Guitar, Guitar Player, Acoustic Guitar...are my idea of average bloke oriented. I also like the Fretboard Journal, which despite the often unobtainable nature of some of the stuff, still presents it all in a more historical and enthusiast manner. Guitarist, from the UK, is okay too.

Peace, Mooh.


----------



## Rugburn (Jan 14, 2009)

guitarman2 said:


> I don't have the money to buy a guitar simply to put it on display under glass. But I don't begrudge people that do. Some people like to spend exorbitant amounts of money on beautiful baby grand piano's simply to display in their house. Thats their business. I'm not sure I understand the point of posting a thread simply to complain about a magazine that doesn't target you as a reader and that you have no interest in.


The thought that this magazine will convince more wealthy dilettants to gobble up more choice vintage gear saddens me. There's plenty of these types around, and they've already made their impact felt on the vintage market. I'm not talking about the obvious stuff (i.e. late 50's Les Pauls). Before the economic meltdown, prices for BF Fenders peaked at levels *never* seen before. I saw an Ebay auction for a '65 PR listing at $2,800!! This is about double what they normally sell for. This pricing wasn't driven by musicians clamouring for dwindling stock, but rather monied "aficionados".


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

bobb said:


> Just remember that the market this magazine is targeting are the people that have made those older instruments unattainable for the rest of us.


Basterds



bobb said:


> As far as I am concerned, a guitar is not a toy to be put under glass as a trophy. It is a tool to be used to make music regardless of whether it is a 2009 Squier or a 1959 Les Paul.


Its still a persons right to buy what they want for whatever reason they want.


----------



## LowWatt (Jun 27, 2007)

GuitarsCanada said:


> Two opposing sales tactics there. I suppose the half nekkid girls are supposed to bring in the perverts and young male crowd? The other to bring in the "I have more money than talent" crowd.
> 
> Both seem to sell well.
> 
> Is there one out there that targets the average bloke?





Mooh said:


> Vintage Guitar, Guitar Player, Acoustic Guitar...are my idea of average bloke oriented. I also like the Fretboard Journal, which despite the often unobtainable nature of some of the stuff, still presents it all in a more historical and enthusiast manner. Guitarist, from the UK, is okay too.
> 
> Peace, Mooh.


I'm liking Premier Guitar and some of the Uk mags for the middle ground of guitar magazines that I can gain something from without feeling like a DB.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

guitarman2 said:


> Basterds
> Its still a persons right to buy what they want for whatever reason they want.


Yes and no. It's not anybody's "right" to buy the Mona Lisa and use it for a dart board. Some things are everyone's heritage. And while I might dispute that guitars made in copious amounts are so endangered as to become a "heritage" item that demands preservation and public display, there will be some things that need to remain in pristine shape, and some things that need to be cared for, but used as nature intended so that their true value as cultural objects is understood and appreciated.

While I have never understood the very notion of luxury or conspicuous consumption, I don't begrudge anyone a little pleasure with their money...as long as they come by it honestly. No, my grumble was that folks who choose to live that way were cutting into my turf. It's a bit like the way one might wince if you spotted someone from your religion wearing a huge diamond-encrusted religious symbol around their neck like Flavor Flav. You're response would likely be "Hey dude, that's what I *believe* in. Don't turn it into a cartoon, man!"


----------



## ne1roc (Mar 4, 2006)

What I get from this thread is that the people who buy this magazine are obviously typecast as snobby, talentless, self indulgent asses who have cast oppression over all who don't have the same goals/dreams/desires.


----------



## traynor_garnet (Feb 22, 2006)

jimihendrix said:


> and i guess that means no bikini models...like in the guitar world buyer's guide...???...


This is exactly why I don't buy any guitar magazines. Why has every magazine turned into maxim? 

TG


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

traynor_garnet said:


> This is exactly why I don't buy any guitar magazines. Why has every magazine turned into maxim?
> 
> TG


I guess cause they think the average gear buyer is 18-35 male? Dunno, but I used to really like GW Acoustic, but I can't seem to find it anymore. Sometimes they would even do features on _female_ artists, like Kaki King & Lucinda Williams. :smile:


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Vintage Guitar magazine had a feature on "action film star" Steven Seagal. Seagal has a pretty decent collection of pieces, many of them historically important, including one of Albert King's Flying Vs. Many may make fun of how seriously he takes himself, and the rather limited range of his acting "skills" (Schwarzenegger is actually a much better actor), but it was a surprisingly nice feature about someone who may do something else for a living, but loves guitars and blues for what they are, not for what they're worth. I can't imagine that he, or Steve Howe, use all the guitars they have each and every week, but they take them all out eventually, and play them, and buy them so they can play them. What was also nice about the Seagal article was that it was jammed between other articles about other people who love guitars, blues, bluegrass, jazz, etc., and ads for guitars. So I don't have anything against rich folks who go around scooping up choice pieces if they're going to play them, and if it's clear that music, rather than mere ownership, is a priority. It's the bloody ads between the articles that irritate.

It's a bit like Rolling Stone. Once upon a time, back in the day when it was an all-newsprint mag, there were NO ads for the Gap, Abercrombie & Fitch, cars of any type, cellphone services of any type. Any ads were basically music-oriented, and largely to let you know that someone had a new album out in case you didn't know. It was about music and youth culture _as an end in itself_, not as a vehicle to make someone money so they could buy useless crap to impress. Nowadays I have to flip through 40 pages of exploitative advertising just to get to the table of contents.

So my objection is not about the target audience. Quite frankly, not many of them actually exist. Rather, its the image or brand the magazine wants to portray and appeal to, or at least what they've sold to their advertisors as whom they want to appeal to. It's the "you should be like this" message that I find so offensive. I'm just disappointed that what I thought was a safe little corner of the world has been encroached on by a culture I never want anything to do with.

I guess somewhere out there is probably a model railroad equivalent in the planning stages.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

mhammer said:


> Yes and no. It's not anybody's "right" to buy the Mona Lisa and use it for a dart board. Some things are everyone's heritage. And while I might dispute that guitars made in copious amounts are so endangered as to become a "heritage" item that demands preservation and public display, there will be some things that need to remain in pristine shape, and some things that need to be cared for, but used as nature intended so that their true value as cultural objects is understood and appreciated.
> 
> While I have never understood the very notion of luxury or conspicuous consumption, I don't begrudge anyone a little pleasure with their money...as long as they come by it honestly. No, my grumble was that folks who choose to live that way were cutting into my turf. It's a bit like the way one might wince if you spotted someone from your religion wearing a huge diamond-encrusted religious symbol around their neck like Flavor Flav. You're response would likely be "Hey dude, that's what I *believe* in. Don't turn it into a cartoon, man!"


I don't think any guitar in existence could be compared to the original Mona Lisa.
People who collect guitars simply for putting them under glass for their value is no different then a car collector. If I obtained an original Nocaster of the 60 or so that were made and it was in pristine conditions I would most likely put it under glass and be quite happy with gigging with my CS Nocaster replica. If I had the money to spare and I actually found one I'd definitely buy it. I guess that makes me a potential vintage gear snob.
As for now I can only afford to be a vintage clone gear snob.


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

Does anyone care that folks buy Ferrari's and never drive them and some folks have them displayed in their living rooms only to be taken out once per year for service? What's the difference? To each his own. If I had that kind of money I really don't know what I'd buy. I'd actually like a Million dollar bus (no kidding, I don't realy like to fly and I"d like to be able to take my dog on vacation with me)


----------



## zontar (Oct 25, 2007)

LowWatt said:


> I'm liking Premier Guitar and some of the Uk mags for the middle ground of guitar magazines that I can gain something from without feeling like a DB.


One thing I like about Premier Guitar is that they post the whole issue online for free, and even have online extras. Also if you see an ad that interests you and there's a website listed in the ad, it will have a link to that site, and same in the articles & columns--so you can check out the site right away--great time & space saver.

Plus they have some excellent gear articles and columns--which I enjoy.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

...no canadian subscriptions, sadly.

-dh


----------



## LowWatt (Jun 27, 2007)

david henman said:


> ...no canadian subscriptions, sadly.
> 
> -dh


World's Biggest carries it.


----------

