Rule #2

No advertising any other sites!

No advertising if the only thing you come on here to do is advertise. But if you've made 600 posts and you made a thread about this luthier business your starting up, that's not really being detrimental to the community. That's pretty much just making a decent thread in the gear forum. But if you do it without making posts about any other thing, I will have to assume you are using UG for you moneymaking schemes and don't actually give a crap about this community.

And absolutely No linking to ebay!
Hey UG. Used to have one of these back in the day and I never should have sold it. Does anyone out there know of any for sale anywhere? Really dying to get it back. Thanks in advance!
I sold mine before going overseas some years ago. I learned most of what I know on one of these and selling it was an awful decision. Anyone have one to sell or know of any around?

Incubus - Morning View is worthwhile. Not their best musically but a lot to learn from it.
Quote by smartalecG94
i use axe dry phoenix. covers any sweat smell almost completely and is the best smelling of all the axes


I save the dry for suit days. Usually just use the regular.
Part 2

These are the harms—alleged and perhaps exaggerated but, let’s assume,
real.What of the benefits? File sharing may impose costs on the
recording industry. What value does it produce in addition to these
One benefit is type C sharing—making available content that is
technically still under copyright but is no longer commercially available.
This is not a small category of content. There are millions of
tracks that are no longer commercially available.15 And while it’s conceivable
that some of this content is not available because the artist
producing the content doesn’t want it to be made available, the vast
majority of it is unavailable solely because the publisher or the distributor
has decided it no longer makes economic sense to the company to
make it available.
In real space—long before the Internet—the market had a simple
response to this problem: used book and record stores. There are thousands
of used book and used record stores in America today.16 These
stores buy content from owners, then sell the content they buy. And
under American copyright law, when they buy and sell this content,
even if the content is still under copyright, the copyright owner doesn’t get
a dime. Used book and record stores are commercial entities; their
owners make money from the content they sell; but as with cable companies
before statutory licensing, they don’t have to pay the copyright
owner for the content they sell.
Type C sharing, then, is very much like used book stores or used
record stores. It is different, of course, because the person making the
content available isn’t making money from making the content available.
It is also different, of course, because in real space, when I sell a
record, I don’t have it anymore, while in cyberspace, when someone
shares my 1949 recording of Bernstein’s “Two Love Songs,” I still have
it. That difference would matter economically if the owner of the 1949
copyright were selling the record in competition to my sharing. But
we’re talking about the class of content that is not currently commercially
available. The Internet is making it available, through cooperative
sharing, without competing with the market.
It may well be, all things considered, that it would be better if the
copyright owner got something from this trade. But just because it may
well be better, it doesn’t follow that it would be good to ban used book
stores. Or put differently, if you think that type C sharing should be
stopped, do you think that libraries and used book stores should be
shut as well?
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, file-sharing networks enable
type D sharing to occur—the sharing of content that copyright owners
want to have shared or for which there is no continuing copyright. This
sharing clearly benefits authors and society. Science fiction author
Cory Doctorow, for example, released his first novel, Down and Out in
the Magic Kingdom, both free on-line and in bookstores on the same
day. His (and his publisher’s) thinking was that the on-line distribution
would be a great advertisement for the “real” book. People would read
part on-line, and then decide whether they liked the book or not. If
they liked it, they would be more likely to buy it. Doctorow’s content is
type D content. If sharing networks enable his work to be spread, then
both he and society are better off. (Actually, much better off: It is a
great book!)
Likewise for work in the public domain: This sharing benefits society
with no legal harm to authors at all. If efforts to solve the problem
of type A sharing destroy the opportunity for type D sharing, then we
lose something important in order to protect type A content.
The point throughout is this:While the recording industry understandably
says, “This is how much we’ve lost,” we must also ask, “How
much has society gained from p2p sharing? What are the efficiencies?
What is the content that otherwise would be unavailable?”
For unlike the piracy I described in the first section of this chapter,
much of the “piracy” that file sharing enables is plainly legal and good.
And like the piracy I described in chapter 4,much of this piracy is motivated
by a new way of spreading content caused by changes in the
technology of distribution. Thus, consistent with the tradition that
gave us Hollywood, radio, the recording industry, and cable TV, the
question we should be asking about file sharing is how best to preserve
its benefits while minimizing (to the extent possible) the wrongful harm
it causes artists. The question is one of balance. The law should seek
that balance, and that balance will be found only with time.
“But isn’t the war just a war against illegal sharing? Isn’t the target
just what you call type A sharing?”
You would think. And we should hope. But so far, it is not. The effect
of the war purportedly on type A sharing alone has been felt far
beyond that one class of sharing. That much is obvious from the Napster
case itself.When Napster told the district court that it had developed
a technology to block the transfer of 99.4 percent of identified
infringing material, the district court told counsel for Napster 99.4
percent was not good enough. Napster had to push the infringements
“down to zero.”17

That begins on page 85 of the free Free Culture pdf.

Also, anyone who attempts to have a legitimate opinion about this should consider that property law evolved from the fundamental tenet that ownership of property doesn't mean the right to use it; it only means you can legally exclude others from doing so. (To spell it out for you: While downloading a cd might not "take" anything from anyone, it is usurping the owner's right to exclude you + whoever you might share it with from using it.)

Sorry for the long post but it's probably worth it for most of you.
Yeah, there are a ton of nonsensical answers here, so how about some real assistance?

The following is taken from the book Free Culture, by Lawrence Lessig. The book itself is free and can be read/downloaded in its entirety here. I recommend it for anyone who gives more than half a shit about copyright stuff. I've reproduced a helpful chunk below.

"File sharers share different kinds of content. We can divide these
different kinds into four types.
A. There are some who use sharing networks as substitutes for purchasing
content. Thus, when a new Madonna CD is released,
rather than buying the CD, these users simply take it.We might
quibble about whether everyone who takes it would actually
have bought it if sharing didn’t make it available for free. Most
probably wouldn’t have, but clearly there are some who would.
The latter are the target of category A: users who download instead
of purchasing.
B. There are some who use sharing networks to sample music before
purchasing it. Thus, a friend sends another friend an MP3 of an
artist he’s not heard of. The other friend then buys CDs by that
artist. This is a kind of targeted advertising, quite likely to succeed.
If the friend recommending the album gains nothing from
a bad recommendation, then one could expect that the recommendations
will actually be quite good. The net effect of this
sharing could increase the quantity of music purchased.
C. There are many who use sharing networks to get access to copyrighted
content that is no longer sold or that they would not
have purchased because the transaction costs off the Net are too
high. This use of sharing networks is among the most rewarding
for many. Songs that were part of your childhood but have
long vanished from the marketplace magically appear again on
the network. (One friend told me that when she discovered
Napster, she spent a solid weekend “recalling” old songs. She
was astonished at the range and mix of content that was available.)
For content not sold, this is still technically a violation of
copyright, though because the copyright owner is not selling the
content anymore, the economic harm is zero—the same harm
that occurs when I sell my collection of 1960s 45-rpm records to
a local collector.
D. Finally, there are many who use sharing networks to get access
to content that is not copyrighted or that the copyright owner
wants to give away.
How do these different types of sharing balance out?
Let’s start with some simple but important points. From the perspective
of the law, only type D sharing is clearly legal. From the
perspective of economics, only type A sharing is clearly harmful.9
Type B sharing is illegal but plainly beneficial. Type C sharing is illegal,
yet good for society (since more exposure to music is good) and
harmless to the artist (since the work is not otherwise available). So
how sharing matters on balance is a hard question to answer—and certainly
much more difficult than the current rhetoric around the issue
Whether on balance sharing is harmful depends importantly on
how harmful type A sharing is. Just as Edison complained about Hollywood,
composers complained about piano rolls, recording artists
complained about radio, and broadcasters complained about cable TV,
the music industry complains that type A sharing is a kind of “theft”
that is “devastating” the industry.
While the numbers do suggest that sharing is harmful, how harmful
is harder to reckon. It has long been the recording industry’s practice
to blame technology for any drop in sales. The history of cassette
recording is a good example. As a study by Cap Gemini Ernst &
Young put it, “Rather than exploiting this new, popular technology, the
labels fought it.”10 The labels claimed that every album taped was an
album unsold, and when record sales fell by 11.4 percent in 1981, the
industry claimed that its point was proved. Technology was the problem,
and banning or regulating technology was the answer.
Yet soon thereafter, and before Congress was given an opportunity
to enact regulation,MTV was launched, and the industry had a record
turnaround. “In the end,” Cap Gemini concludes, “the ‘crisis’ . . . was
not the fault of the tapers—who did not [stop after MTV came into
being]—but had to a large extent resulted from stagnation in musical
innovation at the major labels.”11
But just because the industry was wrong before does not mean it is
wrong today. To evaluate the real threat that p2p sharing presents to
the industry in particular, and society in general—or at least the society
that inherits the tradition that gave us the film industry, the record
industry, the radio industry, cable TV, and the VCR—the question is
not simply whether type A sharing is harmful. The question is also how
harmful type A sharing is, and how beneficial the other types of sharing
We start to answer this question by focusing on the net harm, from
the standpoint of the industry as a whole, that sharing networks cause.
The “net harm” to the industry as a whole is the amount by which type
A sharing exceeds type B. If the record companies sold more records
through sampling than they lost through substitution, then sharing
networks would actually benefit music companies on balance. They
would therefore have little static reason to resist them.
Could that be true? Could the industry as a whole be gaining because
of file sharing? Odd as that might sound, the data about CD
sales actually suggest it might be close.
In 2002, the RIAA reported that CD sales had fallen by 8.9 percent,
from 882 million to 803 million units; revenues fell 6.7 percent.12
This confirms a trend over the past few years. The RIAA blames Internet
piracy for the trend, though there are many other causes that
could account for this drop. SoundScan, for example, reports a more
than 20 percent drop in the number of CDs released since 1999. That
no doubt accounts for some of the decrease in sales. Rising prices could
account for at least some of the loss. “From 1999 to 2001, the average
price of a CD rose 7.2 percent, from $13.04 to $14.19.”13 Competition
from other forms of media could also account for some of the decline.
As Jane Black of BusinessWeek notes, “The soundtrack to the film High
Fidelity has a list price of $18.98. You could get the whole movie [on
DVD] for $19.99.”14
But let’s assume the RIAA is right, and all of the decline in CD
sales is because of Internet sharing. Here’s the rub: In the same period
that the RIAA estimates that 803 million CDs were sold, the RIAA
estimates that 2.1 billion CDs were downloaded for free. Thus, although
2.6 times the total number of CDs sold were downloaded for
free, sales revenue fell by just 6.7 percent.
There are too many different things happening at the same time to
explain these numbers definitively, but one conclusion is unavoidable:
The recording industry constantly asks, “What’s the difference between
downloading a song and stealing a CD?”—but their own numbers
reveal the difference. If I steal a CD, then there is one less CD to
sell. Every taking is a lost sale. But on the basis of the numbers the
RIAA provides, it is absolutely clear that the same is not true of
downloads. If every download were a lost sale—if every use of Kazaa
“rob[bed] the author of [his] profit”—then the industry would have
suffered a 100 percent drop in sales last year, not a 7 percent drop. If 2.6
times the number of CDs sold were downloaded for free, and yet sales
revenue dropped by just 6.7 percent, then there is a huge difference between
“downloading a song and stealing a CD.”

Part 1
No thread? Ha. These guys made waves a few years ago with a sick cover of Broken Wings (among other things) and they just released a new disc. Entire discography available for free streaming.

Synthy, soulful, driving guitar rock. Tons of 80s/pop appeal.
Quote by trashedlostfdup
what country did it say it was in on the head stock? (assuming its there)

i have no knowledge of this guitar beyond what i have read in the thread, but there were some nice American guitaris coming out in the 80's i have a MIA peavey horizon that is mint that i paid $80 for. awesome guitar. just saying if you can find the year or factory that will tell you more.

but i would trust the knowledge posted above me.

plywood is a no no.

i would go with pachip though. for $100 case and decent guitar sounds like a good deal to me.

So it comes with a case. I say go for it. That would prolly be a decent strat case eh
lol. squier apparently used their "Freedom of Expression (Since 1982)" to rip gibson/guild. lololol.
Quote by pachap
Look at it like this... What can $100 buy you in a guitar these days? A Squier Affinity or Bullet? An Epi LP 100? This is most likely better than those, and it has a case. If you got the cash to spend I'd go for it.

If this was local to me, I'd tell you to pass on it. Then I'd go buy it.

Probably at least a yamaha pacifica. There are better options out there, especially used, for $100 if this is as bad as it seems.
I feel like I just watched something on ABC Family...
I'm going to look on craigsist for you.


Because I'm sick and bored.
Quote by T00DEEPBLUE

You could buy 20 and daisy chain them together. That would be so sick.

Hm, I think you're using bad brands of strings.
You could try MicroXP.
The premise of every joke on BBT: Nerds only use systematic decision making processes, hotties only use heuristic decision making processes; (alleged) hilarity ensues.
98% chance it's you. If the strings are new, 99.9999999% chance it's you.

And the brand of your strings has FAR less to do with its qualities than the type of string (coated, silver, gauge, etc.) you have.
You should put a gecko in it. That will get rid of your problem.
Well, the S6 is what put seagull on the map. It is their flagship model, so to speak.

I have owned the 20th anniversary model, the S6, the entourage jumbo, and the 25th anniversary model (in order of value) and they've all been great guitars.

I know nothing about Lag but they seem to be popular around here.

Any chance you could play em first?
Quebec, eh? How do you feel about Godin? The Exit 22 lists for $500 on MF, but you should be able to get it for much less up there in the snowy tundra.

I've also heard very good things about the squier Classic Vibe models, and have been very happy with my vintage modified bass. Not the squier you're used to.

Going used will open up a bunch of other doors. There are a ton of Godin guitars on ebay right now that look like they'd work. If you hit craigslist, post some of the links up here just to make sure you arent looking at a lemon/scam.
So you're in the uk then, eh?

What do MIJ Jazzmasters/Jaguars go for over there? Telecasters are pretty standard.
1. You don't want to buy a starter pack. It is not the droid you are looking for.

If you answer some of those (to the best of your ability/preference) you'll get much better recommendations.
Porcupine tree - the sound of muzak & shallow
Incubus - Echo
Chiodos - Baby, you wouldn't..., the words best friend redefined, and probably some others

(unless you want to declare that "metal")

((if anyone is still paying attention to this thread))

You'd be better off with an attenuator, smaller amp, or a headphone amp thing depending on your situation. The dot doesnt project much more than a well-made solid body. I got one thinking that and have been disappointed in that respect.
Quote by Poglia
Did you stretch the strings when you put them on your guitar? It's very important.

Do this, the next one, and you could try putting some graphite into the nut slots. Pencil works fine.
Quote by mike_oxbig
online reviews are 90% shit. especially on low end stuff. very few people who know what a really good guitar feels and sounds like cares to write a review about an entry level guitar. That's why you'll see 3000$ martins/taylors/gibsons with a 9.2 rating and 300$ epiphones/ibanez/yamahas with an 8.9. The qualities are obviously miles further apart than that, but the people rating the expensive guitars have higher expectations than the people rating the low end guitars.

If you want an accurate review, find one on youtube, skip the part where the guy talks about the guitar and just listen to how it sounds when he plays it.



Agreed. If anyone is interested in learning WHY people value what they own more than anything else, check here. (Specifically the free-choice paradigm)

As for your two guitars, consider making a decision matrix, seen below.

Substitute the cars with guitar models, the attributes on top with guitar variables (sound, cost, body style, appearance, distance...) and the (.15, .45 etc) below the variables with your own weights, not to add up to more than 1. Should be able to figure out the rest.
Kaki King? She's got songs for all levels.

check Night After Sidewalk

for more advanced.
I have never, ever played a bad seagull. Could you give some examples of the models your 500-600 can afford?
No. Put that $600 towards a good amp.

Can find em for < $400. The 25th anniversary was on ebay for $500 not too long ago. Made in germany.
For those interested in japanese epiphones, I used to own one. While I was studying over there they releases a limited run of MIJ epiphones made in the same factory as MIJ fender. They're all lacquer-finished (as opposed to polyurethane) and if you scour ebay, you might find them for as little as $400 if the seller doesn't know what he has.

That was mine
Quote by Makko Mace
The dot studio is inferior technically to the normal dot, but I'd reccomend you look at the ibanez artcore series, I was sold on the dot until I discovered those.

Technically, yes. I used to own an Artcore AS73 in turquoise with a bigsby. Good guitar, but I prefer the satin finish (especially on the neck) on my dot studio to the gloss of Artcore. Both are solid (and by solid I mean semi-hollow) choices.

But the artcore will run you about $100 more than the dot studio last time I checked.

The gretsch junior jet is also in your price range.
Quote by Flux'D
Is that the Lite Ash model with Seymour Duncan pickups? You can get those used for around $300 all day long as they weren't a popular or well-built model

I doubt it. Those were made in Korea and looked great on paper (and in pictures). Were no fun to play though.
Or if you're cheap/lazy, just pencil your nut