Jump to content

Please note: You can easily log in to MPN using your Facebook account!

Ed Roman - Guitar Player Lies?


Recommended Posts

I was reading up on Tradition guitars ( ;) ) when I stumbled upon Ed Roman's website. I think I'd heard his name somewhere before; anyways, I started reading his rants section since... I enjoy reading anything to do with guitars? Anyways, I ended up reading one of his rants against magazine reviews, in which he derided them as slanted in the advertiser's favor, which sounds believable. But then he went on to claim that a letter that praised GP's content was a fake. Here's the link:http://www.edromanguitars.com/rant/magazine.htm


I enjoy Guitar Player, yet I'm a bit miffed over them patting their own selves on the back...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 6
  • Created
  • Last Reply
eh, i can see it happening, but i think either way id stick with my own view on what i think about the magazine. But with the reviews, i dont read much anymore but when i get my musicians friend once in awhile (though i no longer order from them) i notice the reviews in that are always always always positive...which i know should not be...learned that when i bought the pxr4. when i was subscribed to guitar player though i always thought they were pretty fair, having cons along with the pros. A product probably has to have some type of appeal in the first place to be reviewed, and maybe thats a reason why the pros outlive the cons, if thats the case. i mean why would you review crap?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont' know about the letter thing, but with reviews you have to read them carefully-- at least twice if you really are considering something they are reviewing.


I'm pretty satisfied with my own ability to judge something guitar related, so I'll not read a review except as entertainment reading, but with microphones or something I'll read carefully. One review that stands out to me was on first read it sounded like the guy liked the mic. Upon further reading he only used it one sound source and a rather non-critical one at that. I wish I could remember the details better, but he never "dissed" the mic but always liked something else better, and when you stripped away the adjectives and rhetoric you could see nothing the mic did well in spite of the way it was written. That is probably the best review in that the mag could say it was a good review to the manufacture, a stooge might buy the mic based on the review but anyone that carefully read the review would see the mic didn't really measure up as used.


Read them more carefully, they might say "more" or "less" then they appear to be saying.

check out some comedy I've done:


My Unitarian Jihad Name: Brother Broadsword of Enlightened Compassion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

errr... well... yeah. It all sounds a bit sleazy, but in no way does it sound any different to the real world.


As far as GP patting its own back... Well, I find that whole bit rather puzzling. If I ran a magazine and wanted to pat my own back, I'd just "invent" me a bunch of readers and their names. Why would I bother using the names of my real staff members and risk the whole thing being outed?


I also notice that the guy complaining works for (ahem!) Guitar World. Funny that. And I wonder what shenanigans Guitar World gets up to.


I'm not sure the point about paying for a glowing review holds a lot of water either.


For example, GP had a volume pedal shootout a couple of months ago and gave the editor's pick to the George Dennis pedal. Now, I own a George Dennis wah wah and, if the volume pedal is of the same quality, then I can fully understand GPs choice. Furthermore, I don't think George Dennis is a big contributor to the GP coffers, somehow. So there you go, a good review for a rather obscure manufacturer. It's the exception that proofs the rule, I suppose.


A lot of the stuff in that page is probably true, but I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Note that GP does indeed do instrument reviews on lesser-known, small-volume, high-end guitars and other related gear, from makers who don't advertise on their pages; and favorable reviews, at that. A number of these have been tagged "Exotica", and have included some unconventional hand-made axes.


In general, I always take product reviews with a big grain of salt, anyways. Though I have noticed that more than once some GP reviews have seemed pretty concurrent with my own findings.

Ask yourself- What Would Ren and Stimpy Do?


~ Caevan James-Michael Miller-O'Shite ~

_ ___ _ Leprechaun, Esquire _ ___ _

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To my knowledge the review/advertiser issue has been blowing around in the magazine trade for a long time (decades). This isn't anything new.


You will see editorials in nearly every magazine about reviews and advertisers playing off of each other and _every_ magazine protests that they don't do that. It _does_ happen.


We just have to take reviews with a grain of salt. And always remember that ALL reviews are someone else's _opinion_. If there's hard data backing up their opinion that's great. But reviewers have been known to make up data, too.


I generally just look at reviews to see if they confirm my own impressions and to get information about the features of new equipment. I usually don't pay much attention to ratings of equipment unless it's bad.

Born on the Bayou


Link to comment
Share on other sites


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Create New...