Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Acoustic Just Jumped The Shark Again
- Thread starter SurferJoe46
- Start date
Well one thing I have a problem with is taking GC Acoustic as seriously as the old stuff. It isn't bad stuff, and it's priced decently, but it's definitely not what it was in 1971. Not exactly jumping the shark, but it's circling it
You guys are SO close.
There's the pre-GC badge-authenticity thing and working a very revered name to death fer sure - but that's not the reason I originally thought what I do.
I think they are 'Pulling A Squier', if you'll let me coin the term.
Now --- I like my Acoustic gear a lot and will defend it as I find it more than sufficient for the work and play I do.
It's their attitude trying to capitalize on the old name and the sell-outs who are pimping their stuff that turns me off.
It's not just the guitar lineup now - I just find it a massive cheap shot and trying to (re-) enter too many arenas for the sake of corporate survival.
...............and that's my opinion.
But tell me, James - don't you find it gets under your skin with the business model they have built?
As much as I like my gear - and I might be the champion iconoclast here - I don't like companies profiteering on an honored and revered name like the old Acoustic.
The fate of Bowser's autographed 8x10 glossy is in your hands.
I just bought an Acoustic 134 guitar amp from Ebay. Awesome. ACC IS NOT the same as Guitar Center's Acoustic. ACC manufactured in the USA, not overseas and the quality was obvious. Don't confuse the two.
- Apr 20, 2009
- 2,101
- 929
- Disclosures
- I'm the Squier of Fenderbirds
So, according to you, the first time Acoustic jumped the shark was when they began offering a budget line of bass amps.
And the second time is because they now offer a budget line of guitar amps.
Okay, I get it I think.
And the second time is because they now offer a budget line of guitar amps.
Okay, I get it I think.
Let me see if I get this: Acoustic branded amps were big in the '70s (and don't forget the "Black Widow" bass) and went bust. Somewhere along the line GC bought the rights to the name and applied it to a line made offshore, as we so politely call it.
I seem to remember something similar happening to Washburn guitars, Epiphone, and many other brands, which were a lot more successful in the US than Acoustic.
So what's the big deal? I'd think it would be important if they pretended to any product continuity (which Epiphone, at least, has demonstrated) to the "old" outfit, but that's not the case here. As Hartley Peavey once said, "in the music business, companies come and go, but brand names are forever."
It's marketing, not the end of the world.
I seem to remember something similar happening to Washburn guitars, Epiphone, and many other brands, which were a lot more successful in the US than Acoustic.
So what's the big deal? I'd think it would be important if they pretended to any product continuity (which Epiphone, at least, has demonstrated) to the "old" outfit, but that's not the case here. As Hartley Peavey once said, "in the music business, companies come and go, but brand names are forever."
It's marketing, not the end of the world.
People --- people --- people! We're not READING the sites ad, are we?
Here's the link and see fer yerselves::: :: Acoustic - the pro's tone since 1967 ::
"The pro's tone since 1967"
That smacks of heresy to me. And I LIKE my Acoustic cabs and amps.
Here's the link and see fer yerselves::: :: Acoustic - the pro's tone since 1967 ::
"The pro's tone since 1967"
That smacks of heresy to me. And I LIKE my Acoustic cabs and amps.
I agree here.
The company has changed hands numerous times, and what they put out bears NO resemblance to what they had back in the day asides from the name, and minor cosmetics.
Well --- there IS the pretty blue color though.
Like it or not - and I don't like the attempts to capitalize on a name like this - their gear is pretty good for what it's used for by me anyway.
Maybe I was being a smidge too esoteric for some people though.
When you sell the company name, you sell the good will with it. Why are people willing to buy companies like Acoustic? To get the name.
I think "jumping the shark" is the wrong term. That implies they went downhill due to a lack of ideas, not an outright sale to completely different people.
I'll buy that. I've got one of their 1x15 cabs... and while its not bad, i'm glad I only paid about 1/4th what they usually go for.
Good for unplugged/country with a 100w head and two conservative guitar players.
Ric5
Inactive
- Jan 29, 2008
- 29,772
- 30,452
- Disclosures
- I like 5, 8, 10, and 12 string basses
LOL! I got those comin' out of my ass!
So the business model...I'm not against kids who can't afford the good stuff being able to get gear that at least sounds good, and it does. It's not the best sounding stuff on the market but it's competent. But yeah, the products bear no resemblance to the old stuff and I consider it a little cheesy to use the name like that and make products that don't exactly honor the legacy.
OTOH, I'm not the one who bought Acoustic stuff so you should probably have this conversation in your own head
LOL! I got those comin' out of my ass!
So the business model...I'm not against kids who can't afford the good stuff being able to get gear that at least sounds good, and it does. It's not the best sounding stuff on the market but it's competent. But yeah, the products bear no resemblance to the old stuff and I consider it a little cheesy to use the name like that and make products that don't exactly honor the legacy.
OTOH, I'm not the one who bought Acoustic stuff so you should probably have this conversation in your own head
Ahhh! See! There's the rub. I actually like the idea of bass gear, but now that they've jumped into the guitar gear, I can see a big fat difference.
It doesn't matter that they used-to-was in the guitar amp business - and of that I'm not privy to having ever seen any of them in the past - but ---- well, just 'but', that's all.
Class distinction or envy? Perhaps not - but it makes sense that they'd try to cover their financial butts to keep the doors open.
So - with that in mind - I find renewed chagrin in the fact that they are so blatantly prostituting the name.
You MAY have kept Bowser from becoming a fire starter for when the weather gets colder and I need to light my fireplace.
I wasn't arguing - I made a post and vented my chagrin, that's all. Somebody called me a troll and it went downhill from there.
Well look, you have to admit it's really being nitpicky to care whether a bass amp company makes guitar amps or not. And to start a thread venting your "anger" about it is pointless. Companies are entitled to make whatever they want. Yamaha, for example, makes everything from pianos to motorcycles, and nobody ever thinks anything about it.
