Originally Posted by
Eric
Not offense...just confusion. I think some other people followed up after my initial reply with possibly stronger, different sentiments than I had.
My whole thing is that people routinely write off stuff like Agiles because they cost less. I can totally understand that idea in theory, as well as almost all of what you're saying. But in practice, I don't get it.
Since buying the Agile ($380 new), I've owned a Godin Redline ($500 new), Godin LG Signature ($1000 new), and Highway 1 Tele ($700 new). I've also played an Ibanez AS-73 ($400) and Epiphone LP ($400) a little bit, and I've owned the cheapies too: an Xaviere XV-900 and an SX (both of which were crappy and had bad hardware).
Being perfectly honest here, none of the guitars I listed is better than the Agile. I haven't been playing electric guitar for decades, so as I mentioned previously, maybe I just don't know how to judge guitars yet, but I don't get why people say Agiles aren't good. Nobody wants to love that Godin LG the way I do. Same goes for every other guitar listed -- the more expensive it was, the more I wanted to have it as my #1. And they aren't bad guitars, but I keep going back to the Agile.
In a way, this drives me nuts, because I want an excuse to go buy a more expensive guitar. But it also forces me to be honest with myself in saying that there's not much reason to do so if I can't tell the difference between a cheap guitar and an expensive one.
Now, when people tell me the LG is a much better guitar than the Agile, I have two options: 1) assume I'm just missing something that's plain as day to "real" guitarists, or 2) assume that they're blinded by the names on the headstocks and have lost objectivity.
So because I can't empirically tell why the other guitars are so much better, I have a little bit of trouble believing people when they tell me so. Does that make sense? I know this goes against conventional wisdom, but it's just been my experience.
Reply With Quote