software

I'm wondering what folks thoughts is on this. Should names like Telecaster and Stratocaster be used generically? Or should they be used only to refer to those specific instruments?

For example, when someone asks about a pup recommendation, and I say something like: quot;I have a C5 in my Tele.quot; (Refering to a Peavey Generation.) Is that misleading?

If you have a guitar thats styled like a Tele, do you call it a Tele? Only in one context or another?

I'd love to hear your thoughts on this.

Artie

i refer to my tokai as a 'tele clone' ... i think that quot;tele-stylequot; is best to describe a non-fender, telecaster-style guitar ... so, quot;i fell in love with a Suhr tele-style this summerquot; ... 'tele copy' works too ...

i reserve quot;telequot; or quot;stratquot; for actual fender guitars ...

not sure it really matters much .. i think this is just a habit i got into

cheers
t4d

Hmmm, I'm kind of divided on that, maybe something along the lines of quot;Peavey Telequot;, best of both worlds?, so people know it's not a Tele but it looks like one?...


Originally Posted by tone4daysi reserve quot;telequot; or quot;stratquot; for actual fender guitars...

1. I always say quot;Tele-copyquot;, quot;Strat-copyquot;, quot;Les Paul-copyquot;...

However, I will say quot;Jackson/Hamer/ESP Flying Vquot; and I refer to all liscensed Floyd Roses as quot;Floydsquot; and all Bigsby-style trems as quot;Bigsbys.quot;

If it's a Gamp;L, Squier, Suhr, Grosh, or something like that, I would call it a Strat. Warmoths are called Warmoths. Any other copy is called a copy.

It's always seemed to me that Gibson gets far more leeway than Fender when it comes to the realness of copies. Many people seem much more ready to accept a Fake Strat as a legitimate Strat option than, say, a Fake ES335 or Fake SG or Fake Les Paul...

It's always quot;If you really want a Les Paul, you have to buy a Les Paulquot; but quot;If you want a Strat, here's a list of choices from 15 manufacturers...quot;


Originally Posted by St_GenesiusIt's always seemed to me that Gibson gets far more leeway than Fender when it comes to the realness of copies. Many people seem much more ready to accept a Fake Strat as a legitimate Strat option than, say, a Fake ES335 or Fake SG or Fake Les Paul...

It's always quot;If you really want a Les Paul, you have to buy a Les Paulquot; but quot;If you want a Strat, here's a list of choices from 15 manufacturers...quot;isn't that funny!

I wonder if it has to do with the companies' own marketing. Fender goes out of its way to make their less expensive lines LOOK much like the more expensive ones; they use the quot;Fenderquot; name on a WIDE price range of instruments, made in no fewer than four different countries and offer the Squier lines up as legitimate low-cost alternatives.Gibson, however, has always kept some distance between the Epiphone line and its USA guitars.Plus, Fender has had so many wood and pickup and hardware configs for their main insturments over the years that what does and does not constitute a quot;REALquot; Tele or Strat is kinda muddled...Gibson on the other hand has been markedly conservative in the modifications to their root designs over the years.

I agree with most everything said here, but the main focus of my question is relative to pup recommendations. (However, all the comments are welcome and interesting.)

If someone asks, quot;Whats a good Tele bridge pickup?quot;

and I reply, quot;I like the C5 in mine.quot;

Have I misled them?

That's not misleading unless your Peavey is made out of a wood completely opposite to theirs in respects to tone.

If that C-5 is capable of producing a sound similar to what the person asking the question is looking for, and your quot;Telequot; is roughly similar to theirs...I don't think it's misleading at all.