Members eor Posted November 18, 2006 Members Posted November 18, 2006 eor is a mailman. from time to time, i deliver {censored} to people. on this particular day, i noticed a fairly large parcel amongst the day's crap. i didn't think too much about it until i noticed the horrifying print on the side of the box: estebanguitarmade in china(and inexplicably) tan what would you have done? love,eor it was going to a po box rental type place so eor figured he didn't know the guy anyway. i (shamefully) delivered the parcel, knowing it was the musical equivalent of giving someone tainted heroin.
Members Terry Allan Hall Posted November 18, 2006 Members Posted November 18, 2006 One of my students has an Esteban... While it's not a great guitar, it is (after setting the action a little lower and fixing the intonation of the "B") playable, the frets are correctly placed, and it beats having no guitar at all. Where's the love?
Members knockwood Posted November 18, 2006 Members Posted November 18, 2006 Not your fault, man. You helped make some poor unsuspecting sap happy for the few seconds it'll take to open the box. When s/he dices up a few fingers on the fretboard, no one'll blame the postal service.
Members AK47 Posted November 19, 2006 Members Posted November 19, 2006 Did you take a marker and write "LOL" in large letters on the box?
Members Cldplytkmn Posted November 19, 2006 Members Posted November 19, 2006 now... no fault to you for this incident... but in the future, if it was a face to face delivery, you should inform them that without even opening the box, they need to send it back and advise them on what to look at...
Members theManfromAlabam Posted November 19, 2006 Members Posted November 19, 2006 Well if you are a USPS postal employee, then consider yourself reported to Jack Potter and Patrick Donahoe! Meh you are only doing your job...you can't help it if people are dumb enought to buy a guitar because of a late night info commercial.
Members DeepEnd Posted November 19, 2006 Members Posted November 19, 2006 I know you didn't mean this as a serious discussion but I would've done my job. Period. I might've spoken to the recipient if I'd had the chance but that's it. As Terry Allan Hall pointed out, it's better than no guitar at all and the poor bloke's gotta learn on something. We can't all have a Breedlove or Collings as a first guitar. Some of us learn on less-than-stellar instruments. I did. Anything else would've fallen under the heading of "playing God" and thus would've been morally indefensible.
Members Queequeg Posted November 19, 2006 Members Posted November 19, 2006 Originally posted by DeepEnd Some of us learn on less-than-stellar instruments. I did. Anything else would've fallen under the heading of "playing God" and thus would've been morally indefensible. you say that like it's a bad thing. (?)
Members Cldplytkmn Posted November 19, 2006 Members Posted November 19, 2006 Originally posted by DeepEnd I know you didn't mean this as a serious discussion but I would've done my job. Period. I might've spoken to the recipient if I'd had the chance but that's it. As Terry Allan Hall pointed out, it's better than no guitar at all and the poor bloke's gotta learn on something. We can't all have a Breedlove or Collings as a first guitar. Some of us learn on less-than-stellar instruments. I did. Anything else would've fallen under the heading of "playing God" and thus would've been morally indefensible. no one is stupidly suggesting that a beginner who starts on a $200 guitar is any worse off than one who starts on a $2000 guitar. What we all know is that at that price ($200) there are better options for a beginner. suggesting that if someones first guitar happens to be really nice is "morally indefensible" is interesting... i'd love to hear your defense for that statement.
Members Queequeg Posted November 19, 2006 Members Posted November 19, 2006 boys, boys, boys... two points. first: as DeepEnd suggests, I don't think this ever was meant as a serious discussion. So twisting into one is bound to create a dust-up here. 2nd: I interpreted the phrase, "morally indefensible" as being tagged to perhaps choosing not to deliver the guitar to the intended recipient (which of course is true, were this a serious discussion); not to buying a good guitar to learn on. hey, can't we all just get along?
Members Cldplytkmn Posted November 19, 2006 Members Posted November 19, 2006 if that's what he meant, i hope he checks back to clarify... it makes more sense that way, but i'm not sure what he was getting at so i asked for an explaination
Members scottgd Posted November 19, 2006 Members Posted November 19, 2006 It warms my heart to know that the youth of today have the same opportunity to learn on crappy imports that we had in the '60's & '70's. It will make them strong and weed out the one that don't REALLY want to play.
Members Tony Burns Posted November 19, 2006 Members Posted November 19, 2006 Im just hoping that the box is strong enough to return that POS , when its new and future ex-owner returns it - Im kinda surprised ,Ive heard that when QVC was selling that charmer of a guitar they had one of the highest return's of anything they ever sold-- i think this new crop is coming from HSN , and their a little bit better than the other crop - But their still exspensive Firewood.
Members DeepEnd Posted November 19, 2006 Members Posted November 19, 2006 Originally posted by Queequeg . . . 2nd: I interpreted the phrase, "morally indefensible" as being tagged to perhaps choosing not to deliver the guitar to the intended recipient (which of course is true, were this a serious discussion); not to buying a good guitar to learn on. . . .Yes, exactly. That was my original point: "playing God" is morally indefensible. Sorry it wasn't more clear. It was kinda late when I posted my reply and I obviously wasn't thinking as clearly as I should've been.
Members Cldplytkmn Posted November 19, 2006 Members Posted November 19, 2006 Originally posted by DeepEnd Yes, exactly. That was my original point: "playing God" is morally indefensible. Sorry it wasn't more clear. It was kinda late when I posted my reply and I obviously wasn't thinking as clearly as I should've been. no worries mate... once queeq pointed out what you meant it made alot more sense...
Members eor Posted November 19, 2006 Author Members Posted November 19, 2006 as a quasi-owner of an esteban (my sister bought my dad one) i can tell you that it isn't good enough to learn on. unless they got better over time, eor doesn't know. but mine has horrible craftsmanship, and some notes can't be fretted. so eor speaks from experience. ditto the electrics you see at target and best buy. eor learned on an epi lp special ii that he bought with my own money and that was the only guitar i had for 9 years. i'd play out with it and everything and was still taking people out with more expensive stuff. "cheap" wasn't an issue for me at all, but you have to be able to play the damn things, and you can't play an esteban. since the experience could be so confounding/demoralizing, seeing as it doesn't do what any guitar should, it may actually be worse than having no guitar, assuming the student doesn't know any better. he might think its him, you know? maybe eor is being a little harsh, but maybe its because i know what $200 can get someone. love, eor i suppose next time i could write "owned" on the box. no offense taken.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.