Tony MacAlpine Selling His Guitars on MySpace

[CaptainD00M]

Your correct matt, but i think both parties are equilly guilty.

And i realize what your trying to say about a painting, but there is a vast fundimental difference between something thats cultural value lies in its ability to be shown or in an exhabition (like a painting or sculpture) or a Guitar which of itself produces nothing of cultural value UNTILL someone has been involved.

And yes i will accept that i have a lot of bias in that i have MASSIVE beef with the collecter guitar market... not out of some petty jellosy more because of having a very utalitarian perspective on instruments they are just that, a utility. Sure i probably fall down in my logic on the fact that i like to have nice looking utilitys, but ultimatly if its function and thats its primary objective then thats got the job done...

Back to my point, i think that it was a half cocked statment, but the point im trying to make is that its not a better utility due to it being played by someone 'famous' 'talented' etc... if you want to turn a guitar into something it wasnt originally intended for then thats fine, really it is but then perhaps it should be referd to in some other recombant term such as Guiart not a Guitar, because ultimalty a guitar by named deffinition is an instrument and an instrument is something that is used by a person to create sound/art what have you. A peace of art by its virtue inriches culture by sitting on a wall, a guitar does this by having it sit on someone...

Also asuming that i say history is priceless and thusly should not have a monetary amount attached to it, as me saying its worthless isnt correct. Im arguing that if something IS priceless then thats how it should stay. History is something that happens and i think its folly of man to attempt to put a £/$'s amount to it, its like trying to draw the wind, sure you can do it but what purpose does it fulfill... usually ego stroking like 'oh my guitars worth THIS' because its the only one of its kind.

Finally and this is ultimatly the crux of an argument based on a subjective subject connected with asthetics (role on the 'so how can you justify paying for music when its just noises tacked together' argument which is along the same lines), all of this argument is based on the human need to ascribe value to it. Now im willing to say that were both wrong, or right depending on your stand point. I ascribe the utalitarian value to an item, you ascribe the somewhat less tangible 'its got history' value. Neither one of these values is a concreat thing, its a man made construct being attached to an external item.

You also contradict yourself within the first few lines of your post by telling me that im wrong for being riged and thinking i have it right while your first line says you think Ledzepp has it right... seeing as we have both stated these as oppinions then thats exactly how they should be take too, rather than plain fact as spoken by whatever authority you hold dear (id usually say 'the word of GOD' as a metaphore for higest authority but id had to get caught out on a tangental argument due to MORE semantics )

Anyway dude, i take your long as post rase it, sorry for posting another MASSIVE reply and postulate that we both have correct, or equilliy incorrect views and due to us being part of an online community need to build collective bridges and duck walk while playing paralyzing ignorance over them as it seems fitting. LOL

Nice dueling with you Matt.

[MTech]

I think a huge part of the issue here is every carvin is custom....but they're all built by a machine..so it's not like this is a one off handbuilt guitar but some great luthier, but rather it's another stamped out guitar but with a discontinued finish.

[troyguitar]

Originally Posted by badger71

Love you, T-Mac...otoh, here's one for $895:
7 string Carvin DC747 Sparkle Harlequin Prismatique - Guitar museum

That guitar has already been sold (I know because I wanted it! ). The seller is a member here, I think her name is Niki.

[guitarplayerone]

I didn't know Tmac's ego was approaching vai's

[WillingWell]

I could see it if this was Vai's guitar...

All due respect to TMac but this isn't anything special.

[Harry]

Hopefully people loaded with money buy the guitars and then sell them off for less than 2 grand for us people who are poor

[Bekanor]

Originally Posted by yingmin

Who's the guy on the far right?

Bud from "Married with Children".

[DslDwg]

While I agree it's pretty high priced - who cares - who is it hurting? Basic supply and demand right? If no one bites at $4000 then they are too high. If both sell or potentially go even higher during bidding on ebay then $4000 was too low.

I wouldn't spend the money - but if someone is a big fan and likes the idea of having a guitar that Tony played and is clearly traceable with pictures, signatures etc. and has the money then why not.

To me it makes a lot more sense then someone paying $10,000+ for a Fender Tele Andy Summers replica that Andy has probably never even seen let alone played on a major tour. Then how about $25,000 for the EVH replica. I agree EVH is a much bigger name than TMac is - but $25,000 that's really obscene.

Anyway my

[Stroked]

People save yourself the small amount of energy you are using to "debate" this......
There is a sucker born every second and will buy anything that has a story attached to it. Lets just all sit back and laugh if they sell for anything near or over a gand.

[Matt Gillis]

Originally Posted by CaptainD00M

Your correct matt, but i think both parties are equilly guilty.

And i realize what your trying to say about a painting, but there is a vast fundimental difference between something thats cultural value lies in its ability to be shown or in an exhabition (like a painting or sculpture) or a Guitar which of itself produces nothing of cultural value UNTILL someone has been involved.

And yes i will accept that i have a lot of bias in that i have MASSIVE beef with the collecter guitar market... not out of some petty jellosy more because of having a very utalitarian perspective on instruments they are just that, a utility. Sure i probably fall down in my logic on the fact that i like to have nice looking utilitys, but ultimatly if its function and thats its primary objective then thats got the job done...

Back to my point, i think that it was a half cocked statment, but the point im trying to make is that its not a better utility due to it being played by someone 'famous' 'talented' etc... if you want to turn a guitar into something it wasnt originally intended for then thats fine, really it is but then perhaps it should be referd to in some other recombant term such as Guiart not a Guitar, because ultimalty a guitar by named deffinition is an instrument and an instrument is something that is used by a person to create sound/art what have you. A peace of art by its virtue inriches culture by sitting on a wall, a guitar does this by having it sit on someone...

Also asuming that i say history is priceless and thusly should not have a monetary amount attached to it, as me saying its worthless isnt correct. Im arguing that if something IS priceless then thats how it should stay. History is something that happens and i think its folly of man to attempt to put a £/$'s amount to it, its like trying to draw the wind, sure you can do it but what purpose does it fulfill... usually ego stroking like 'oh my guitars worth THIS' because its the only one of its kind.

Finally and this is ultimatly the crux of an argument based on a subjective subject connected with asthetics (role on the 'so how can you justify paying for music when its just noises tacked together' argument which is along the same lines), all of this argument is based on the human need to ascribe value to it. Now im willing to say that were both wrong, or right depending on your stand point. I ascribe the utalitarian value to an item, you ascribe the somewhat less tangible 'its got history' value. Neither one of these values is a concreat thing, its a man made construct being attached to an external item.

You also contradict yourself within the first few lines of your post by telling me that im wrong for being riged and thinking i have it right while your first line says you think Ledzepp has it right... seeing as we have both stated these as oppinions then thats exactly how they should be take too, rather than plain fact as spoken by whatever authority you hold dear (id usually say 'the word of GOD' as a metaphore for higest authority but id had to get caught out on a tangental argument due to MORE semantics )

Anyway dude, i take your long as post rase it, sorry for posting another MASSIVE reply and postulate that we both have correct, or equilliy incorrect views and due to us being part of an online community need to build collective bridges and duck walk while playing paralyzing ignorance over them as it seems fitting. LOL

Nice dueling with you Matt.

I'm glad you cleared a lot of that up, because a lot of good points came out of it. I don't necessarily agree with all of them, but that is the nature of opinion, and is what makes discussions so awesome!

I do agree with your assessment of the difference between a painting (which was made by the famous person in question) versus a guitar (which was played/owned by the famous person in question). But when a person of importance has owned an item, it also augments it's value. Let's say, for example, that Hitler wore a single pair of boots through his whole reign of terror. The boots wouldn't be valuable or "priceless" because of who made them, but would be valuable because of who wore them, and the atrocities that were committed while they were on his feet. Furthermore (in a more relevant example), you have the Dupont Stradivarius Cello that was used by Mstislav Rostropovich. There are some dents on that cello that are said to have come from Napoleon straddling the cello with his boots while trying to play. If those dents were made by any "normal" person, it wouldn't matter or could perhaps even diminish the value of the cello. But because it was Napoleon, those dents have historical importance, and augment the value of the cello since it augments the history.

I also think you've hit it on the head with the "guiart" term, it rings quite true. But at the same time, I wouldn't condemn art as being something that sits on the wall. I know that's probably not what you meant, but still, you have all kinds of art, ranging from music, to more obscure forms. Sometimes items become "art" because they are old or were owned by someone important, and they are displayed like art, and often talked about as it they were art. Take a bowl from ancient Greece as an example. It's simply a bowl, but because it is a shard that has survived from a distant civilization, it becomes extremely valuble. To your utalitarian point of view (not that I mean to put words in your mouth), it's simply a bowl that should be used to eat out of, but to others, to do that would be horrific and disrespectful! I can't say if either side is wrong, but the differing views are there, and thus, the distinction needs to be made.

Also, I thought I made it somewhat clear in my first post (but I could be wrong), that priceless pieces of art, culture, history, etc. come tied with a pricetag inevitably. As I said before, if we lived in a different time, we would likely use more physical ways of getting what we want. But in today's age, we just use money to show how much we want items; look at money as a representation of sacrifice if you will. Yes, money has no value, but we try to outbid each other with money because we want an item for whatever reason. As I said before, value varies from person to person, and value truly doesn't exist in a tangible form anyway. You even said it yourself: "Neither one of these values is a concreat thing, its a man made construct being attached to an external item". It's that age old "value is in the eye of the beholder" arument. Simply put, value (especially when it's marked with a dollar sign) is something that is just a representation of how much importance we put in an item, and is incorporeal. Whether that importance is personal, historical, or universal, it doesn't matter, because the pricetag that comes along with it is just merely a reflection of someone's want for it some reason.

As far as one of your latter paragraphs go, I'm not sure I follow it, but it doesn't matter anyway. We have already established that this isn't a black or white/wrong or right issue. And as far as "duelling" goes, it's not a problem I enjoy conversing, and I gain an appreciation for views other than mine (most of the time at least). Whenever there is a civil discussion to be had, I jump on it. So thanks for conversing with me in an intelligble manner!

[thinkpad20]

the finish on that Carvin 7 string is puke-tastic...

[Jedi_Ekim]

Were money much less of an object, I'd buy both in a heartbeat.

[poopyalligator]

I dont know about you guys, but i think it kind of shows bad taste to sell one of your guitars off for more than you paid for it. Sure i understand that there is some history in the guitar and everything, but dont you think that is kind of screwing over your fans by charging 3 times what the guitar costs new. I think that he should do one of his lucky fans a solid and sell it them at a reasonable price. However that is just my 2 cents.

[MTech]

Originally Posted by poopyalligator

I dont know about you guys, but i think it kind of shows bad taste to sell one of your guitars off for more than you paid for it. Sure i understand that there is some history in the guitar and everything, but dont you think that is kind of screwing over your fans by charging 3 times what the guitar costs new. I think that he should do one of his lucky fans a solid and sell it them at a reasonable price. However that is just my 2 cents.

This is my standpoint... these guys get the guitars for free than charge you $4000 for it.....

[skinhead]

Overpriced, next!

[MaxOfMetal]

Originally Posted by poopyalligator

I dont know about you guys, but i think it kind of shows bad taste to sell one of your guitars off for more than you paid for it. Sure i understand that there is some history in the guitar and everything, but dont you think that is kind of screwing over your fans by charging 3 times what the guitar costs new. I think that he should do one of his lucky fans a solid and sell it them at a reasonable price. However that is just my 2 cents.

I think it's only in bad taste if someone sells a guitar and says they paid more for it. I'm pretty sure if you ask TMac he'll tell you exactly how much he did (or didn't) pay. Why should he sell them at a lower price? Yeah it would be cool if he was just giving them away, but come on, it's not like he's demanding that people buy his guitars, he's simply offering them. This isn't a guitar that some guy bought, let mellow over in it's case for 20 years and trying to sell it off as vintage or collectible. There are those out there who genuinely value the history of their property. Look at things such as signed sports memorabilia. A player gets a piece of a equipment for free, then sells it off for big bucks, you don't see people bashing Mickey Mantle or Joe DiMaggio. Say there was two JEMS for sale, one brand new strait from Fuji-Gen, and another one with scratches, dents, and just overall play wear, but belonged to Steve Vai and used on several world tours. If the new one was being sold for about $2K and the used one was being sold for $3.5K, wouldn't you at least consider buying the more expensive one?

I'm not saying he's right for selling his guitars for that much, just that it's not wrong. People tend to be very sentimental about such things.

[Shawn]

Wow, unreal. I never thought he'd let those go. I'm a huge fan and I love his Carvins. I wish I could get my hands on those.

[Mad Dog]

Hi all - Im new to this website as I just googled Tony Macalpine 7 string carvin.

I bought the 7 string carvin. I take all your arguments on here - Yes $4k is a lot of money but its worth what someone thinks its worth - Its just like buying a house.
Someone might think one house is worth $500k but someone else things its worth $450k - its all subjective and open to opinion.

Ive been a massive fan of Tony since 1986 and was gutted when I missed out on buying his Joker guitar when it came out around 10 years ago coz i arsed aroung on ebay bidding for it.
This time I paid the offer immediately. Im lucky enough to have a pretty decent job that pays well so fortunately money wasnt a huge issue - more of a case of having one of Tonys guitars which Id deen at The Astoria gig in london and being blown away by it and always wanting to get a 7 string.

Thats it really - to sum up .... yep $4k is a chunk of change but in my view it was worth it coz in my opinion its one hell of a guitar.

peace

P

[MTech]

^

[JJ Rodriguez]

Originally Posted by Stroked

People save yourself the small amount of energy you are using to "debate" this......
There is a sucker born every second and will buy anything that has a story attached to it. Lets just all sit back and laugh if they sell for anything near or over a gand.

+1

And he even showed up

[Mad Dog]

Happy to oblige.....Im happy and to me thats the main thing.

Enjoy

[JJ Rodriguez]

It's your cash and you can spend it how you like, and I'm sure the USD/GBP exchange helped a lot, so yeah, it's all in what you think. I just personally wouldn't have made that choice, especially with Blackmachine so handy.

[liamh]

Originally Posted by MTech

There!
We can clearly see Vai touching it.
I understand the logic behind the price now

[Panterica]

Originally Posted by 7 Strings of Hate

i think its more about the fact that these are a rock stars guitar and have been played in the presences of vai and other great musicians.

*makes hand gesture of masturbation*

like being played by T-Mac or being around Vai make the axe a better axe....
pfff
so stupid, like EVH signed pickups being sold for like 500 bucks or some shit.
completely retarded IMO

Originally Posted by JJ Rodriguez

I just personally wouldn't have made that choice, especially with Blackmachine so handy.

....ing aye!!!

[ledzep4eva]

Originally Posted by Panterica

so stupid, like EVH signed pickups being sold for like 500 bucks or some shit.
completely retarded IMO

No, you're wrong. In addition, you're uneccessarily rude and quite obnoxious.

It is NOTHING like buying 'signed pickups', and it is NOT 'completely retarded'.

It is more easily comparable to the pickup that EVH played the Van Halen album with, that was the mainstay of the 'brown sound' and was the subject of many a guitarist's tonal dream for decades.

Of COURSE the guitar's nothing short of spectacular history doesn't make it a better guitar. That's bloody obvious. No-one ever claimed it did.

I'm not going to re-iterate arguments that have been made coherently and eloquently earlier in the thread.

Originally Posted by Panterica

like being played by T-Mac or being around Vai make the axe a better axe....
pfff
so stupid

No-one has EVER argued this. EVERYONE agrees that they are no better guitars.

'So stupid' would be making ill-informed arguments such as this without reading any of the thread. If you HAVE read it, you must be very dense.