Yamaha Revstars three years on. Hit or miss?

Phil_aka_Pip

ICBM said:

The headstock was one of the few things I liked . Much more distinctively 'Yamaha' and Japanese-styled than the SG one which is too 'Gibson' and American.

That's what was good about it

monquixote

I've played a few and I really like them.

People think anything made by Yamaha is bland automatically, but I've only found that with Pacificas.

I would be looking at the second hand market as there must be some bargains to be had.

Phil_aka_Pip

@monquixote Hi Nick hope you're OK

ICBM

Phil_aka_Pip said:

That's what was good about it

No, that was a bad thing - the Japanese companies should stick at being Japanese and not trying to be American. All the most interesting designs and best-quality guitars of that era were not copies - some were completely original like the Aria SB and Ibanez Musician basses, some were 'evolved' American designs like the Yamaha SAs and Ibanez Artists, some were in the middle like the Yamaha SG - but it was really more original in construction terms than it looked.

Of course Tokai then went and blew it by making dead-on copies - and I can understand the reasoning, given that the American originals were going through arguably their worst-ever-quality era - but really it set guitar design back by twenty years and it's never really progressed that much since... at least in the main stream. It did give Fender and Gibson the huge kick up the pants they needed to improve, but it's time for the far-east companies to move on.

Three-ColourSunburst

LooseMoose said:

... the ones I tried, whilst perfectly good guitars, were just like the other Yamahas I’ve had access to - endlessly dependable, versatile, well-built but just not the sort of guitar you can’t resist picking up each time you pass.

Phil_aka_Pip said:

I agree, will not criticise build quality, but IMO you need an affinity with both the instrument and its users to create something with the mojo that makes players want it

I think this sums up well the rationale (or rather lack of it) for most guitar purchases. Rationally speaking, an electric guitar is a plank with electromagnetic pickups on it, with the sound being overwhelmingly determined by the player's technique, string and plectrum choice, the pickups and associated wiring, and the amp and pedals used. The instrument also has to be easily playable, stay in tune and so on, but beyond that, from a rational standpoint, nothing really matters, from the guitar's shape to the brand name. In this context a Revstar is a great guitar.

The problem with this picture is that human beings are not rational and are often more driven by emotion than logic. This opens the door to a whole raft of magical thinking ranging from a belief in astrology and feng shui to the belief that owing a guitar once played by a famous guitarist will allow some of that player's charisma and talent to be transferred to the new owner. Branding, vintage instruments, 'tone wood' and 'old wood', the shape of the guitar, its place of manufacture and so on are all variations on the belief in 'mojo' that permeates most everything to do with guitar playing, with more importance often being placed on them than the magnitude of any real-world effect really justifies. 

Thing is, if you believe in the mojo (i.e. magic) it can have a real psychological effect, largely because humans are so driven by emotion, and of course music itself should be all about the emotion. Consequently, for many having a 'real' Gibson Les Paul is something magical, the connotations of the brand name, shape and history of the model creating a 'connectedness' that they would not feel for another instrument. For some the brand might be primary, so they would be happy with a LP tribute, as long as it was US-built. For others just having an instrument that looks like a 'real' Les Paul would be enough, although this might lead to an obsession about such details as the shape of the headstock or the cutout.

Without that 'connectedness' a guitar is likely to be labelled as 'bland', 'soulless' or 'sterile', but ultimately this overwhelmingly is in head of the player and not intrinsic to the instrument itself.

No one is immune from this. For example, I almost pressed the button at the weekend on a very nice Japanese-built 'Les Paul' in a fetching 'darkburst' finish. For a while I ached for it, almost believed that I 'needed' it. But my wife wouldn't play ball and demanded that I explain just why I 'needed' it so much. This forced me to face the simple fact that I didn't need that particular guitar, I just wanted it because it was a darkburst Les Paul 'reminiscent of' what Paul Kossoff played with all the connotations and mojo that carried for me on the emotional level. It also just looked so pretty. In reality I would probably have still found it a pig to play, but even this might well have only added to the mojo, demanding that I adopt a macho pose and 'Man up and just play it'.

All this suggests that the only thing a Revstar really lacks is mojo - which rationally speaking means nothing at all. Then again the 620 is available in a sort of 'burst' finish 'reminiscent of' a classic Les Paul, and it is made of mahogany, and has a maple top, and nickel covers on twin humbuckers. Perhaps I could still channel the Kossoff mojo as I bang out the riff to "Mr Big' on a Revstar.

Three-ColourSunburst

Pretty, no? So classy and understated with that plain top. (For me those stripy maple tops are as brash as a blonde in a tight skirt and too much makeup.) 

https://www.guitarsrebellion.com/a_stock_gallery/FGN_Neo Classic NCLS-10R Heritage Dark Burst/images/image-2.jpg

Three-ColourSunburst

ICBM said:

Of course Tokai then went and blew it by making dead-on copies - and I can understand the reasoning, given that the American originals were going through arguably their worst-ever-quality era - but really it set guitar design back by twenty years and it's never really progressed that much since... at least in the main stream. It did give Fender and Gibson the huge kick up the pants they needed to improve, but it's time for the far-east companies to move on.

In an ideal world yes, but the guitar-buying public is just so conservative and traditional. Going by the huge number of 'LP types', "S types' and "T types' around the market for anything different (such as the Revstar perhaps) does seem to be rather limited!

The Japanese companies do offer plenty of quality alternatives to these traditional models, but people still seem to lust after "R' model Les Pauls (125 pages so far just on the recent R8 blowout) rather than S or SA model Ibanez and so on.  (And even the design of the new SA is obviously derivative - the market wouldn't have it any other way.)

rossyamaha

Phil_aka_Pip said:

You reckon @rossyamaha will read this? It might be constructive when yamaha are thinking of a title for their next range of guitars.

I'm following this with great interest. ;-)

monquixote

Phil_aka_Pip said:

@monquixote Hi Nick hope you're OK

Yeah I'm all good thanks mate. Not playing too much hence not on the site all that often.

Still lurk and read threads though..

Whitecat

You wouldn't think it but this thread is making me want to go shopping for Revstars...

carlos

Whitecat said:

You wouldn't think it but this thread is making me want to go shopping for Revstars...

There's one in the classifieds. I have no affiliation w/ the seller.

carlos

Three-ColourSunburst said:

Thing is, if you believe in the mojo (i.e. magic) it can have a real psychological effect, largely because humans are so driven by emotion, and of course music itself should be all about the emotion. Consequently, for many having a 'real' Gibson Les Paul is something magical, the connotations of the brand name, shape and history of the model creating a 'connectedness' that they would not feel for another instrument. For some the brand might be primary, so they would be happy with a LP tribute, as long as it was US-built. For others just having an instrument that looks like a 'real' Les Paul would be enough, although this might lead to an obsession about such details as the shape of the headstock or the cutout. 

Theres isn't a single guitar player I follow or followed in the past who plays or played a Les Paul. Ergo, that guitar has never appealed to me. Looks too heavy with poor upper fret access and gaudy with some of the silly tops. A relic of a bygone era that's been surpassed in every possible category by newer guitars.

ICBM

carlos said:

Theres isn't a single guitar player I follow or followed in the past who plays or played a Les Paul. Ergo, that guitar has never appealed to me. Looks too heavy with poor upper fret access and gaudy with some of the silly tops. A relic of a bygone era that's been surpassed in every possible category by newer guitars.

Except tone.

I'm not a big fan of the physical aspects of them either - it's the neck angle I don't like, rather than the upper-fret access or the weight, and I'm notorious for criticising the easily-broken headstocks - but the best-sounding electric guitar I've ever played is a 1956 Les Paul Custom, and the best live guitar sound I've ever heard is Neil Young. (Actually his goldtop. It sounded even better than 'Old Black'.)

carlos

Tone is very subjective

Three-ColourSunburst

carlos said:

Theres isn't a single guitar player I follow or followed in the past who plays or played a Les Paul. Ergo, that guitar has never appealed to me. Looks too heavy with poor upper fret access and gaudy with some of the silly tops. A relic of a bygone era that's been surpassed in every possible category by newer guitars.

Well worth a 'Wiz'!  A lot of my favourite players used a Les Paul but - thinking rationally for a moment - the 'mojo by association' this carries hardly outweighs the disadvantages of the design. (And there are plenty of others that could be added to your list.) I also want something to play, not hang on the wall, so I guess I will just have to free myself from this 'paralysis by analysis' and order that Revstar. 

ICBM

carlos said:

Tone is very subjective

It is, but I clearly happen to like the tone of a 50s Les Paul with a P90 in it! Unfortunately I don't seem to have the money to acquire one... which is OK since it means I now don't have to find the neck angle uncomfortable .

Creed_Clicks

They look really cool, but I've not had a chance to play one. I'm getting to prefer bolt on neck guitars in my old age though...

grungebob

I’ve not played any or seen any in the shops to be honest but I do like the look of that green one with P90’s. 
I really like the aesthetic of the guitars, I don’t need to see more glossy sunburnt ice tea tops. 

TTBZ

carlos said: 

Theres isn't a single guitar player I follow or followed in the past who plays or played a Les Paul. Ergo, that guitar has never appealed to me. Looks too heavy with poor upper fret access and gaudy with some of the silly tops. A relic of a bygone era that's been surpassed in every possible category by newer guitars.

I agree to some extent. I do love the looks of a good LP Custom and a lot of my favourite players use them, but I also know the reason I sold my last one was due to the weight and upper fret access. Still have major GAS for one but I keep going back to looking at the PRS SE245/Bernie Marsden which seems a great modern improvement to the design. It's not as "cool" but I'm also realistic enough to know I'll never look cool on stage even with a perfect vintage LP, and it should fix the problems I have with LPs plus in theory stay in tune better with the straight string pull etc! 

grappagreen

Three-ColourSunburst said:

LooseMoose said:

... the ones I tried, whilst perfectly good guitars, were just like the other Yamahas I’ve had access to - endlessly dependable, versatile, well-built but just not the sort of guitar you can’t resist picking up each time you pass.

Phil_aka_Pip said:

I agree, will not criticise build quality, but IMO you need an affinity with both the instrument and its users to create something with the mojo that makes players want it

I think this sums up well the rationale (or rather lack of it) for most guitar purchases. Rationally speaking, an electric guitar is a plank with electromagnetic pickups on it, with the sound being overwhelmingly determined by the player's technique, string and plectrum choice, the pickups and associated wiring, and the amp and pedals used. The instrument also has to be easily playable, stay in tune and so on, but beyond that, from a rational standpoint, nothing really matters, from the guitar's shape to the brand name. In this context a Revstar is a great guitar.

The problem with this picture is that human beings are not rational and are often more driven by emotion than logic. This opens the door to a whole raft of magical thinking ranging from a belief in astrology and feng shui to the belief that owing a guitar once played by a famous guitarist will allow some of that player's charisma and talent to be transferred to the new owner. Branding, vintage instruments, 'tone wood' and 'old wood', the shape of the guitar, its place of manufacture and so on are all variations on the belief in 'mojo' that permeates most everything to do with guitar playing, with more importance often being placed on them than the magnitude of any real-world effect really justifies. 

Thing is, if you believe in the mojo (i.e. magic) it can have a real psychological effect, largely because humans are so driven by emotion, and of course music itself should be all about the emotion. Consequently, for many having a 'real' Gibson Les Paul is something magical, the connotations of the brand name, shape and history of the model creating a 'connectedness' that they would not feel for another instrument. For some the brand might be primary, so they would be happy with a LP tribute, as long as it was US-built. For others just having an instrument that looks like a 'real' Les Paul would be enough, although this might lead to an obsession about such details as the shape of the headstock or the cutout.

Without that 'connectedness' a guitar is likely to be labelled as 'bland', 'soulless' or 'sterile', but ultimately this overwhelmingly is in head of the player and not intrinsic to the instrument itself.

No one is immune from this. For example, I almost pressed the button at the weekend on a very nice Japanese-built 'Les Paul' in a fetching 'darkburst' finish. For a while I ached for it, almost believed that I 'needed' it. But my wife wouldn't play ball and demanded that I explain just why I 'needed' it so much. This forced me to face the simple fact that I didn't need that particular guitar, I just wanted it because it was a darkburst Les Paul 'reminiscent of' what Paul Kossoff played with all the connotations and mojo that carried for me on the emotional level. It also just looked so pretty. In reality I would probably have still found it a pig to play, but even this might well have only added to the mojo, demanding that I adopt a macho pose and 'Man up and just play it'.

All this suggests that the only thing a Revstar really lacks is mojo - which rationally speaking means nothing at all. Then again the 620 is available in a sort of 'burst' finish 'reminiscent of' a classic Les Paul, and it is made of mahogany, and has a maple top, and nickel covers on twin humbuckers. Perhaps I could still channel the Kossoff mojo as I bang out the riff to "Mr Big' on a Revstar.

On the money with this post mate...

And even though I know and have thought about this a great deal over time I’m still not impervious to the very same emotional triggers that o know are completely irrational

Si