Yamaha Revstars three years on. Hit or miss?

mistercharlie

Bigsby said:

I've always tended to suspect the whole 'motorcycle' thing to be an after-the-event marketing/styling strategy. The Revstar shape could be linked back to Yamaha's 'super flighter' range, but with the bound body, styling features and dry switch (a.k.a. bass contour), this model seems much more inspired by Reverend's Sensei platform. Could it just be that Yamaha simply spotted a growing place in the market for 'non-classic' guitar shapes (i.e. not yet another strat/LP/Tele clone), and have simply copied Reverend, rather than finding something new.

This. Even the name - Revstar — is a rip off of “Reverend”. I like Yamaha in general, but a big company ripping off a small one isn’t cool. I’m happy to see these models fail.

Three-ColourSunburst

mistercharlie said:

Even the name - Revstar — is a rip off of “Reverend”. I like Yamaha in general, but a big company ripping off a small one isn’t cool. I’m happy to see these models fail.

Isn't it more of a symbiotic / what goes around comes around sort of thing? It appears that Reverend looked around for some less conventional guitars, ideally models that were no longer in production but still had a certain 'cool factor', and so began selling modified copies of the Yamaha Super Flighter, Ibanez Talman and so on. The companies that originally came up with these guitars then saw that these models were becoming fashionable again, and so reintroduced their own versions of these updated designs.

There are plenty of similar examples in the guitar industry. How about someone like Peter Baranet, who started building his 'historically accurate' 'Max' Les Paul copies years before Gibson introduced their 'Historic' range? It could well be argued that people like Baranet were instrumental in creating the market for instruments 'built like they used to be', then Gibson took advantage of the resultant demand by introducing their own 'Historic' line. Were they also 'ripping off small builders' like Baranet?

Compare and contrast.

http://www.angelfire.com/md2/wrgaphardt/Talmans.html

https://yamahasuperflighters.co.uk/

https://www.reverendguitars.com/guitars

To find the original designs that Reverend, Yamaha, Ibanez and so on have drawn their 'retro cool' design cues from one would have to go back even further and look at instruments such as Fender's Mustang and Jaguar and 60's 'pawn shop guitars'.

Bigsby

Three-ColourSunburst said:

Bigsby said:

I'd go further and say the problem is that's it's been articulated at all. If this design genuinely sprang from some idea about retro biker culture - we don't need to know it. FFS, we're guitarists - we just want cool guitars, no one cares about the inspiration. 

But by feeding it to us, Yamaha have sounded like a corporation, who have a marketing department that spot an emerging market, and send a brief to a design team, loaded with 'mood boards' covered in photos of bikes! The result is a corporate effort (for good or bad) - which is in marked contrast to a small brand like Reverend, who just dig guitars and come up with a design like the Sensei - which (perhaps) then appears on Yamaha's radar (and so on).

Ultimately, we just want cool guitars - the marketing BS can end up getting in the way... Just give us the end result

I would say that what you say illustrates my point very well. The RS design didn't 'sprang from some idea about retro biker culture', it sprang from a desire to convey the 'Japaneseness' and 'Yamahaness' of these guitars, and the way they put a modern spin on a very traditional concept of what an electric guitar should be. The 'cafe racer' thing is just a convenient symbol that ties these ideas together. Problem is, perhaps, that the symbolism is so strong that many people can't get beyond it to see what it represents at a deeper level.

Such marketing is nothing new in the guitar world. Just look at Fender with its iconic 'Stratocaster', the name and image intended to convey ideas of modernity in the space age. Following a similar theme Gibson came up with the design of the 'Moderne, 'Flying V' and 'Explorer'. 

You single out Reverend as an exception. (Whose Sensei would would seem to be strongly influenced by Yamaha's own 'Super Flighter' from the 80's, whilst their Charger / Flatroc / Double Agent looks like and 80's Ibanez Talman.) However, they are just as guilty of 'marketing BS'.  Just look at the names they choose - the 'Charger', the 'Jetstream' the 'Six Gun', the 'Revstar', sorry, 'Super rev', and then there is the 'Sensei', a word drawn from zen Buddhism suggesting that the player of one of these guitars is a 'master' or 'teacher'.  (I understand that the fashionable term for this sort of thing is 'cultural appropriation'. )

Whilst I agree with a lot of what you're saying, I think you're stretching a few points here. Firstly, I doubt Fender's marketing literature of the 50s claimed the Stratocaster was 'inspired by the new jet aircraft and spacecraft' (I could be wrong; I wasn't there) - they simply came up with a cool name for a guitar - which, IMO is much better than giving it a model number that sounds like you're ordering a computer part. This is all very different to all the 'biker culture inspired' marketing speak around the Revstar. The name 'Revstar' is actually quite cool (especially coming from a company that re-used the uninspiring 'SG' solid guitar abbreviation from a rival in the past). It's perhaps unfortunate that the 'Rev' bike association can also be taken as the common abbreviation of 'Reverend'!

Personally, I doubt the Sensei was inspired by the Super Flighter at all, which was never a well established model in its relatively brief life (why copy a short-lived model? Surely that's business suicide). Yes, both guitars have asymmetrical double cut aways - but it really ends there. AFAIK, the Sensei followed the Manta Ray, and certainly seems related to it, as on off-set solid body version.

The SF had a very different shape - more rounded like the SG body, whereas the Sensei has an offset body design with more open cut aways, deep contour, and a bound body.

The Revstar appears to have more in common with the Sensei than the SF (to which it just has that passing resemblance, thanks to the asymmetrical double cut). It has even more open cutaways, a bound body, 'retro' styling details, and most notably, the dry switch - in effect a bass cut rather than a coil split, and of course, every Reverend has a bass contour control. That doesn't mean it was a copy.

Again, choosing a good name for a product is NOT marketing BS!  Who would prefer their Telecaster was called an FSG5001R? FWIW, I'm not a big fan of Reverend's names, and I honestly can't think of a guitar manufacturer that has surpassed Fender in creating cool and original names for their models - and Fender managed it twice in a row, right from the start. 

ICBM

Bigsby said:

(why copy a short-lived model? Surely that's business suicide).

Er...

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2e/1975_Model_2459.JPG

Three-ColourSunburst

ICBM said:

Bigsby said:

(why copy a short-lived model? Surely that's business suicide).

Er...

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2e/1975_Model_2459.JPG

How about a nice Reverend 'Volcano' to go with that?

https://images.reverb.com/image/upload/s--maoJCCBW--/a_exif,c_limit,e_unsharp_mask:80,f_auto,fl_progressive,g_south,h_620,q_90,w_620/v1457367155/r1jre16x5zjbvpxnltrt.jpg

The Les Paul was also a failure for Gibson first time around, but as they say, fashions change.

Jalapeno

I like the look of Revstars, retro and understated.

Three-ColourSunburst

Bigsby said:

Whilst I agree with a lot of what you're saying, I think you're stretching a few points here. Firstly, I doubt Fender's marketing literature of the 50s claimed the Stratocaster was 'inspired by the new jet aircraft and spacecraft' (I could be wrong; I wasn't there) - they simply came up with a cool name for a guitar

Good point about the way the Stratocaster was marketed. I have often read that Don Randall, who named the Strat, was inspired by the obsession with space and aeronautics of that era, but as is often the case with these things, finding definitive evidence is rather harder. I does seem that 'strato' was something of a buzz word at that time, most obviously in relation to the Boeing 'Stratocruiser' airliner (there was also a Stratoliner and others).

Whilst it is true that the earliest Strat adverts didn't include any direct reference to aeronautics or space, I didn't claim that they did, saying that the name and image of the guitar "was intended to convey ideas of modernity in the space age". For example, they claimed that the Stratocaster 'electric Spanish guitar' was 'as modern as tomorrow', and in the original adverts underlined its modernity with one of those 'orbiting atoms' graphics.  It also seems that Fender did use 'Space' imagery when advertising its guitars, but not until years after the Strat was released. Here is one for the Mustang from, I think, the 60's.

https://i.pinimg.com/564x/00/ec/63/00ec63dd6901eb180a8db5e6927cbe14.jpg

Three-ColourSunburst

Bigsby said:

The Revstar appears to have more in common with the Sensei than the SF (to which it just has that passing resemblance, thanks to the asymmetrical double cut). It has even more open cutaways, a bound body, 'retro' styling details, and most notably, the dry switch - in effect a bass cut rather than a coil split, and of course, every Reverend has a bass contour control. That doesn't mean it was a copy.

I think that is fair comment, but the bottom line is that Reverend's designs are themselves just as derivative as anyone else's, from those that look like Flying Vs to those that look like the old Ibanez Talmans, so they can hardly get precious about others designing guitars that look similar to theirs.

Also, if two designers decide to build a guitar with an offset body shape and 'retro' styling cues it does seem likely that they will end up with similar looking guitars. The 'Dry switch' / 'bass contour control' thing does look to be something more than an example of parallel evolution though. However, is this really an issue, especially given that  most people seem to see nothing wrong with buying 'S types', 'T types',  'LP types', 'V types' and all the rest? 

guitars4you

Bigsby said:

Again, choosing a good name for a product is NOT marketing BS!  Who would prefer their Telecaster was called an FSG5001R? 

totally agree

Whitecat

Just got an email from Kennys... 420s are £299 on blowout... red or black... not sure how you can argue with that for a super simple well-made 2HB guitar...

Bigsby

Three-ColourSunburst said:

Whilst it is true that the earliest Strat adverts didn't include any direct reference to aeronautics or space, I didn't claim that they did, saying that the name and image of the guitar "was intended to convey ideas of modernity in the space age". For example, they claimed that the Stratocaster 'electric Spanish guitar' was 'as modern as tomorrow', and in the original adverts underlined its modernity with one of those 'orbiting atoms' graphics.  It also seems that Fender did use 'Space' imagery when advertising its guitars, but not until years after the Strat was released. Here is one for the Mustang from, I think, the 60's.

https://i.pinimg.com/564x/00/ec/63/00ec63dd6901eb180a8db5e6927cbe14.jpg

Sure, and my point was the world of difference between a good product name and a load of marketing BS... The Revstar has a half decent name, it didn't ned the BS.

As for the Fender ad - I seem to remember that, so I'm pretty certain it dates from the 70s - either way, it's not quite the same as saying the Mustang was inspired by 1930s space ship imagery and so on (which is what that drawing resembles to me - those are hardly Apollo rockets!).

Bigsby

Three-ColourSunburst said:

Bigsby said:

The Revstar appears to have more in common with the Sensei than the SF (to which it just has that passing resemblance, thanks to the asymmetrical double cut). It has even more open cutaways, a bound body, 'retro' styling details, and most notably, the dry switch - in effect a bass cut rather than a coil split, and of course, every Reverend has a bass contour control. That doesn't mean it was a copy.

I think that is fair comment, but the bottom line is that Reverend's designs are themselves just as derivative as anyone else's, from those that look like Flying Vs to those that look like the old Ibanez Talmans, so they can hardly get precious about others designing guitars that look similar to theirs.

Also, if two designers decide to build a guitar with an offset body shape and 'retro' styling cues it does seem likely that they will end up with similar looking guitars. The 'Dry switch' / 'bass contour control' thing does look to be something more than an example of parallel evolution though. However, is this really an issue, especially given that  most people seem to see nothing wrong with buying 'S types', 'T types',  'LP types', 'V types' and all the rest? 

When it comes to Reverends, it's worth noting that the guitars that are closest to copies are mostly signature models - I'm thinking of the Pete Anderson models in particular, and the Ron Asheton Volcano (though I'm not enough of a Reverend expert to know if that existed as a prior non-signature model). If anything, Reverend have been moving away from 'copy' shapes over the years. Now, obviously, unless you get outlandish - every new guitar design is going to resemble something that's gone before (and often, even if you do get outlandish!). But just compare and contrast the Reverend range with, say Chapman, and it's clear the Reverend has a style that's more obviously independent and 'in-house' than most of the non-major brands.

FWIW, to the best of my knowledge Reverend have NEVER 'got precious' about ANY other guitar being similar to one of their designs. If I'm wrong, please correct me, otherwise, please don't suggest they have.

As for it being an issue - well, no, not to me! Did I say it was?

I love Yamahas and have done since I bought my first in 1980. I love Reverends, and have done since I bought my first in 2017.

But I think the Revstar was a response to a corporation seeing an emerging market, and pushing a product into it, rather skilfully in terms of design, but rather unskilfully in terms of marketing. By contrast, I think the Sensei (and much of Reverends range) has been an attempt to forge ahead in creating original designs, and building a market for them. Whether that's reflected in shapes, styling details, railhammer pickups or bass contour controls, as a guitar player, I'm glad to see that.

 And it's that point of originality that I'm most thankful for - without it, I'm not even sure Yamaha would've been looking to create the Revstar.

Three-ColourSunburst

Bigsby said:

But I think the Revstar was a response to a corporation seeing an emerging market, and pushing a product into it, rather skilfully in terms of design, but rather unskilfully in terms of marketing. By contrast, I think the Sensei (and much of Reverends range) has been an attempt to forge ahead in creating original designs, and building a market for them. Whether that's reflected in shapes, styling details, railhammer pickups or bass contour controls, as a guitar player, I'm glad to see that.

It certainly seems that for many Reverend has a certain 'cool' factor that Yamaha doesn't, but I'm not sure that is entirely to do with marketing campaigns or styling details. I think for some the perception that Reverend is a relatively small, independent company that has its roots in the US gives it a degree of coolness that Yamaha doesn't simply because Yamaha is a big corporation. This immediately puts Yamaha at a disadvantage because people assume its guitars must be the product of a corporate mindset, designed by people who don't really care about guitars, only margins and sales volumes. The degree to which this is any less true for a company like Reverend is debatable - all companies exist to generate profits and exploit every trick in the marketing book, even when they pretend they are run by hippies. Some companies just make a better job of making people forget that they are being sold to!

P.s When I said that Reverend would have no grounds for being precious about others using design cues similar to those they have used I was speaking hypothetically, given that their designs are just as derivative as anyone else's. I may also have had an earlier comment in mind that said that Yamaha were a big corporation 'ripping' of Reverend and that they would be happy to see the Revstar range fail. As I said, I would have more sympathy with such a view if Reverend's models were truly innovative and they weren't clearly as market-share and profit-orientated as any other company. (As evidenced by them shutting down their US manufacturing facilities, moving them to Korea and then selling their Korean-made Sensei in Anderton's for £800 a go!) 

Bigsby

Three-ColourSunburst said:

(As evidenced by them shutting down their US manufacturing facilities, moving them to Korea and then selling their Korean-made Sensei in Anderton's for £800 a go!) 

You make it sound as though those things happened together, but the move to Korean production was 2006, and it was 10 years later that Andertons started stocking them, and the Sensei only became a £800 guitar after the post-Brexit vote slump in the £. Also, when it comes to prices, a Gibson SG, comparable in specs (and in my experience often less well put together) comes in at £1,500, so almost half that for just as much guitar isn't at all bad.

Of course Reverend are in the business of making money - they're clearly not a charity - but they are a small company, this isn't just 'perception', you can debate as much as you like about the differences this makes, but there are certain facts out there: Pretty much every Reverend leaves the USA with the initials of the same guy on it's headstock - it's no surprise their QC surpasses Gibson (again, in my experience). Joe Naylor designs all the range - no one even knows who actually designed the Gibson SG. If you post on the Reverend forum you may well get a response from Ken, their CEO, who is also a guitarist playing in several bands...

Three-ColourSunburst

Bigsby said:

 Pretty much every Reverend leaves the USA with the initials of the same guy on it's headstock - it's no surprise their QC surpasses Gibson (again, in my experience). Joe Naylor designs all the range - no one even knows who actually designed the Gibson SG. If you post on the Reverend forum you may well get a response from Ken, their CEO, who is also a guitarist playing in several bands...

I am sure that Reverend is a fine company, and a lot more customer-centered than the likes of Gibson, and I wasn't trying to run them down. If anything what you say reinforces the main point I was trying to make - that when it comes to guitar buying, many of the reasons that lead to someone buying one instrument rather than another have a lot more to do with factors other than the intrinsic qualities of the instrument itself.

Anyhow, the RS620 I ordered came this morning. Overall it looks much better in the flesh, and the top is more of a 'light violin' than the washed out yellow I have seen in some photographs, Build quality is fine, and after going over it with a magnifying glass the only flaw I have found is that it looks like the person who filed the 'shelf' for the nut cut a very small notch into the headstock binding right by the nut which was then sanded smooth. I have dropped the bridge slightly and it plays cleanly with an action of 1.6mm at the 12th fret on the low 'E', and 1.1 mm on the high 'E'. I am sure it would go lower (if this was really wanted) with a bit of work on the nut and a tweak of the truss rod, so the neck and fretwork seem to be good. Ergonomically it is great, upper fret access is very good but the neck is very different to that on my Talman, being a lot chunkier and a bit wider. Wasn't sure about the sound at first, but things improved a lot with a new set of strings. I don't know if it matters any, but it is fitted with those 'mini' pots.

oneinoneout

Thanks to user that mentioned the Kenny's deal as they now have one less on their hands... I'd been after a cheap ish twin HB guitar for a while and I've played Revstars before and like them. 

For 300 quid its a bargain and buying blind for that much is pretty low risk in my view. I don't expect the pick ups to be all that but fortunately for me I live a few roads away from Ash @ Oil City so I can always walk round there and get something better. 

Looking forward to Monday now!

carlos

If somebody started this thread with the intention of selling more Yamaha's, then they're a marketing genius.

Veganic

1. They look like they need more knobs. 
2. What kind of music do they look like they make?
3. Too much choice.
4. That bolt on trapezoid tailpiece looks, well it looks a bit like having a whammy bar but no whammy? Does it lend anything to the timbre?

John_A

Absolute hit IMO

Just picked up a lightly used  Revstar RS720B  and it's a great guitar, plays and sounds as good as it looks (which is very good)



 

thomasw88

I played the Japanese one a couple of years ago and really liked it. Was put off by the resale value as I didn't think it would hold it..

Bought an old Superflighter500 start of last year.  Pickups weren't original, so I changed them for some irongear blues engines which suit it really well.
  Absolutely love that guitar to bits.  They are massively underpriced to my mind for the quality of them.  I gig that more than my Tokai LC85 (les paul) and gibson standard les paul as its lighter and plays/sounds just as good.