What is a "pro level" guitar anyway?

PonchoGreg

Totally agree with the above but just to play devil's advocate... Couldn't "pro level" also be understood as the finest guitar possible in its given style? I don't think anyone in a professional classical music orchestra would bat an eyelid at instruments costing 10s of thousands of pounds, but would not countenance someone turning up with a cheap violin although it could be used to play exactly the same score. They are professionals and therefore aim for the best possible sound, playability, etc.

Couldn't that apply to studio players too (perhaps more than lead guitarist in Rock Band X)?

p90fool

Well, notable people have made multi platinum albums using a 59 Les Paul and a trashy Danelectro, so the answer is, whatever works for you. 

MrBump

Winny_Pooh said:

IMO why £300 is not pro level 
- finishes are used for curing speed and ease, and are not usually thin and hard.
- Hardware is not as robust as Gotoh etc. Trems are unstable & tuneomatics are rarely and made of softer steel where it matters.
- tuners are not likely to be as stable or fine ratio'd 
- pickups are serviceable but often do not suit the guitar they are in. Wrong magnet, wind choices.
- pots and switches will be far quicker to fail.
- wood is not selected for weight. Tone aside, comfort matters.

Most of these problems go away from £1500 up, although the big 2 still put shit pickups in.

Hm... I don't see that.

My Charvel ST (from back in the day) was around 300/400 quid, and it was easily giggable, sounded great, was reliable etc.  Similarly, my Yam SG200 - while not the sexiest guitar around - sounded amazing stock, and was utterly reliable.

I had a £1500 PRS that I couldn't get a tone I liked out of...

Danielsguitars

most pro players don't really care as long as it works and sounds good 

OilCityPickups

PonchoGreg said:

Totally agree with the above but just to play devil's advocate... Couldn't "pro level" also be understood as the finest guitar possible in its given style? I don't think anyone in a professional classical music orchestra would bat an eyelid at instruments costing 10s of thousands of pounds, but would not countenance someone turning up with a cheap violin although it could be used to play exactly the same score. They are professionals and therefore aim for the best possible sound, playability, etc.

Couldn't that apply to studio players too (perhaps more than lead guitarist in Rock Band X)?

Orchestral players play acoustic instruments where quality of construction plays much more of a role in sound ... unless we are talking acoustic guitars here ... we are talking about planks with strings, and knocking out Sex Is On Fire in a pub full of pissed up thirty somethings will make you money ... and can just as easily be accomplished on anything that will hold tune and has pickups :-)

timmypix

I'd say "Pro level" implies a certain level of reliability, as @Winny_Pooh said. The guitar might play fine but if the hardware's not up to scratch then it's just going to cause more problems. I agree there's a certain level of marketing bollocks, but it comes from a need for gigging musicians to have an instrument they can rely on.

Inaccurate/unstable tuners, crappy nut material, crappy bridge material, crappy electrics are all going to wrong sooner than higher quality components.

thegummy

ICBM said:

thegummy said:

There could be the aspect of perception too - e.g. a producer or singer might have the idea that Squier is a cheapo kids brand so be prejudice if a guitarist shows up with one.

You could always try showing that photo to them but as with most "bosses" they're unlikely to take kindly to arguing back and if it's an audition, might not even have told you the reason they hired someone else.

Funkfingers

OilCityPickups said:

give a halfway reasonable guitar player a Squier Strat, Tele, Epiphone LP, Harley Benton etc etc and they can gig and get paid for it.

Case in point, the late Alan Murphy. Squier Stratocaster, two modified Fender Super Champs. First call session musician.

FelineGuitars

I think you have summed it up 

Plays in tune

Sounds good

Will stand up to nightly playing 

I have worked on many Squiers and cheapo partscasters etc that after a little set-up work have been great playing guitars and would fit the bill. It's often cheap flimsy hardware is often your enemy and pots ,switches , tuners and bridges that are not up to the task will either fail or be no fun to use.

Whether you get there by DIY tweaking or go to a tech sometimes it's a few sensible upgrades  and that TLC that makes it all work .

poopot

thegummy said:

ICBM said:

thegummy said:

There could be the aspect of perception too - e.g. a producer or singer might have the idea that Squier is a cheapo kids brand so be prejudice if a guitarist shows up with one.

You could always try showing that photo to them but as with most "bosses" they're unlikely to take kindly to arguing back and if it's an audition, might not even have told you the reason they hired someone else.

Oh please!... most singers/producers couldn’t tell the difference between a guitar and a tennis bat!...

If you can play, no one cares what you are playing!...

Bellycaster

Any Guitar with:

Good set up/playability
Decent Pick ups that don't feed back at just over bedroom level (See Marlin Sidewinders)
Good tuning stability
Expensive Strap attached

TheBigDipper

PonchoGreg said:

Totally agree with the above but just to play devil's advocate... Couldn't "pro level" also be understood as the finest guitar possible in its given style? I don't think anyone in a professional classical music orchestra would bat an eyelid at instruments costing 10s of thousands of pounds, but would not countenance someone turning up with a cheap violin although it could be used to play exactly the same score. They are professionals and therefore aim for the best possible sound, playability, etc.

Couldn't that apply to studio players too (perhaps more than lead guitarist in Rock Band X)?

Regarding orchestra stringed instruments. My classical cellist neighbour, who owns a cello made in Italy in 1790, says the expensive instruments generally sound better, but any well-made instrument will play well. Her cello certainly sounds fantastic and fills a room beautifully. I haven't asked her what she would think if someone turns up with a cheapy. I suspect she'd only care how it sounded, not how it looked or if it was easier to play. Especially if she didn't have to play it! 

In a guitar context, I'd suspect "pro level" is merely a marketing term designed to convince non-pro players to part with more dosh. 

Francis Dunnery did a UK tour a few years ago where he played a budget Cort electric for the entire set. He seemed to cope. :-) 

bassbora

ICBM said:

thegummy said:

There could be the aspect of perception too - e.g. a producer or singer might have the idea that Squier is a cheapo kids brand so be prejudice if a guitarist shows up with one.

Jeff Healey is another one that used Squiers 

OilCityPickups

I have much more sympathy with calling amps 'Pro' level ... as you can totally bork up the sound of a good guitar, good pickups ... and even to some extent a fabulous player with a sub par amp!

I'd happily gig with a Affinity Strat through my old JTM45 head and 4x12s ... would not mic up some dire bedroom 'Cornflake box' and expect to sound anything but a muppet.

p90fool

poopot said:

Oh please!... most singers/producers couldn’t tell the difference between a guitar and a tennis bat!...

If you can play, no one cares what you are playing!...

That's absolutely the opposite of my experience, producers are as nerdy as engineers these days.

DrJazzTap

I think the term is marketing bullshit. Like the God awful "plays like butter".
Pro level is sometimes used when people are trying to upsell something ie "this is a serious professional piece of gear"
A Mexican tele or strat could easily be used by a professional musician, but depending on what you use it for is what matters. 

NelsonP

FelineGuitars said:

I think you have summed it up 

Plays in tune

Sounds good

Will stand up to nightly playing 

I have worked on many Squiers and cheapo partscasters etc that after a little set-up work have been great playing guitars and would fit the bill. It's often cheap flimsy hardware is often your enemy and pots ,switches , tuners and bridges that are not up to the task will either fail or be no fun to use.

Whether you get there by DIY tweaking or go to a tech sometimes it's a few sensible upgrades  and that TLC that makes it all work .

I'd agree entirely. Here's are some pros using Squiers and Epiphones......

OilCityPickups

I used to earn my living from photography as well as music ... and in that sphere too 'pro level' gots used to upsell brands ...

It was happening even in the 50s and 60s that's why the press photographer Bert Hardy went out and took one of the best selling and most iconic images of the era with a cheap box camera to prove a point see here

Kittyfrisk

OilCityPickups said:

I used to earn my living from photography as well as music ... and in that sphere too 'pro level' gots used to upsell brands ...

It was happening even in the 50s and 60s that's why the press photographer Bert Hardy went out and took one of the best selling and most iconic images of the era with a cheap box camera to prove a point see here

Too right. I once had the great pleasure of meeting Jimmy Forsyth in the Side Gallery Newcastle in the 1980's.
He was a one eyed, self taught photographer that detailed life in Newcastle using a Coronet 127 box camera & later on a second hand Rolleiflex.
 Unique, brilliant & largely unrecognised until much later in his life.
Worth a search & look at his work IMHO.
Nothing to do with the kit, everything to do with the person behind the camera.

thegummy

Why are people posting examples of pros using Squiers?

Any singers or producers who have a prejudice against them aren't going to be reading a guitar forum...