vinta9e
New member
Re: Strat HM's....who owns or likes them
Count me in the HM fanclub even though I disagree with pretty much every opinion posted in this thread. Well, except Raph's.
As per the usual routine, I'll pick a sentence or half and stir things up a bit.
So uh, tech schmeck it is. It's not the tools, it's the craftsmen who make guitars happen.
Please take note of the most desirable guitars not being high tech at all. It's 50s-60s Gibsons and Fenders and 2000s Blackmachines that attract the richest, most generous buyers; it's those guitars being called irreplaceable by their owners.
Secondly, for whatever it's worth, Fender's early 2000s Highway 1 Showmaster went pretty much unnoticed. Either because they were available in either dull grey or even duller black or more probably because the guitar buying herd of the day wasn't (and still isn't) quite eager to buy a high performance Fender.
Not that the bigwigs at FMIC would give a care about it, since the corporation owns Jackson/Charvel. It is clear how they can milk the shred crowd without lifting a finger.
It seems that adhering to stereotypes (Fenders are vintage, Jacksons are modern) is cheaper than working against them, therefore pigeonholing customers and products is in the corporation's best interest.
FMIC doesn't need to convince the world anymore that they can build a thoroughbred super strat.
That's how and why I'm sure there won't be an HM reissue until the originals are in high demand.
Moreover, in no way was Fender too late releasing the HMStrat in 1988, they were right on the dot. The guitar's defining features, namely the small, sharp edged "dinky" body had been the big trend since the year before; the shorter scale was cutting edge and just beginning to gain traction with the Kramer Nightswan, the Proaxe as well as the Jackson/Charvel Fusion which maintained a niche appeal until the mid 90s or so. Did you say Gibson? They themselves were busy selling the U2 and the WRC back then.
Furthermore, contrary to your suggestions, there isn't really one thing wrong, odd or inappropriate about the HM's design, not the scale length or the tiny basswood body, not the radical shaped one piece neck or the pickup layouts, not the choice of exuberant finishes or the blacked out headstock with its state-of-the-kitsch marker stroke script, not even the Kahler trem. The HM Strat is fine just the way it is.
I'm not talking about taste. I'm saying that thanks to its quirks, the HM retains a flavor of its very own.
At this point I am honored to reward your patience in ploughing through my sour post with a bunch of sweet if slightly stale pix.
Count me in the HM fanclub even though I disagree with pretty much every opinion posted in this thread. Well, except Raph's.
As per the usual routine, I'll pick a sentence or half and stir things up a bit.
Well, actually those new three-bolt Mexican made Jackson Dinkies are exactly what you're asking for. Modern to the full extent of its meaning: out-sourced, side-branded, high-tech, user-friendly, available, affordable, repeatable, machine washable, biodegradable yadda yadda yadda.
So uh, tech schmeck it is. It's not the tools, it's the craftsmen who make guitars happen.
Please take note of the most desirable guitars not being high tech at all. It's 50s-60s Gibsons and Fenders and 2000s Blackmachines that attract the richest, most generous buyers; it's those guitars being called irreplaceable by their owners.
Secondly, for whatever it's worth, Fender's early 2000s Highway 1 Showmaster went pretty much unnoticed. Either because they were available in either dull grey or even duller black or more probably because the guitar buying herd of the day wasn't (and still isn't) quite eager to buy a high performance Fender.
Not that the bigwigs at FMIC would give a care about it, since the corporation owns Jackson/Charvel. It is clear how they can milk the shred crowd without lifting a finger.
It seems that adhering to stereotypes (Fenders are vintage, Jacksons are modern) is cheaper than working against them, therefore pigeonholing customers and products is in the corporation's best interest.
FMIC doesn't need to convince the world anymore that they can build a thoroughbred super strat.
That's how and why I'm sure there won't be an HM reissue until the originals are in high demand.
Moreover, in no way was Fender too late releasing the HMStrat in 1988, they were right on the dot. The guitar's defining features, namely the small, sharp edged "dinky" body had been the big trend since the year before; the shorter scale was cutting edge and just beginning to gain traction with the Kramer Nightswan, the Proaxe as well as the Jackson/Charvel Fusion which maintained a niche appeal until the mid 90s or so. Did you say Gibson? They themselves were busy selling the U2 and the WRC back then.
Furthermore, contrary to your suggestions, there isn't really one thing wrong, odd or inappropriate about the HM's design, not the scale length or the tiny basswood body, not the radical shaped one piece neck or the pickup layouts, not the choice of exuberant finishes or the blacked out headstock with its state-of-the-kitsch marker stroke script, not even the Kahler trem. The HM Strat is fine just the way it is.
I'm not talking about taste. I'm saying that thanks to its quirks, the HM retains a flavor of its very own.
At this point I am honored to reward your patience in ploughing through my sour post with a bunch of sweet if slightly stale pix.
