Arguments like these are often used to defend unpopular technology choices, like (insert disliked programming language here). "A true master can use any tool!" And yet, I've never seen a professional guitar player use a cheap shitty guitar.
https://www.guitarplayer.com/gear/i-always-look-at-playing-g...
Manufacturing is so good these days that even the cheapest guitars are pretty good. Justin Sandercoe is a well known guitar teacher on YouTube and he did a series where he bought the cheapest Amazon guitar ($60 IIRC) and went through a full setup with it. He and the guitar tech. were both impressed with how good the instrument was.
"I’ve been playing the most difficult guitars to play all my life. But with all the changes I had to deal with—people I never played with before, two days of sessions in New York, two in L.A.—I didn’t have time to monkey around with antique guitars in that moment."
Plus if it's stolen you just buy another.
Which is pretty good evidence that generally professionals don't use cheap/shitty guitars. You don't usually become famous for doing the completely normal thing.
Not that White became famous because, or in any part due to, using inexpensive guitars.
And he was a particular prominent example, because he didn't just do it, he advertised doing it as part of his philosophy.
And he is not in any case the only example, tons of famous guitar players use cheap guitars, in stage and on records. They just casually use them, they don't make a point of it, unlike White.
The current nostalgia-driven market of guitars might distort our views of what constitutes a "cheap" guitar, and also what quality really means.
Lots of famous guitars had a "cheap" phase where nobody wanted them and they were left to rot on pawn shops before being rediscovered by some famous musician and becoming coveted again... that happened twice with the Les Paul (first with Clapton, then Slash), and then with the Jazzmaster/Jaguar/Mustang (thanks to hundreds of indie musicians).
Also, there were plenty of famous people playing student models: The Gibson Les Paul Junior/Special/DoubleCut played by Keith Richards, Johnny Thunders, Billie Joe Armstrong, Leslie West. Joan Jett played the even cheaper Melody Maker model. Also Danelectros made of kitchen countertops were played by Jimmy Page, Syd Barret.
Kurt Cobain had a Univox Hi Flyer era, and then a Mustang era. Always played cheap Japanese Stratocasters instead of the more expensive American ones.
Almost all of those guitars above were considered undesirable, antiquated and hard to play sometime in history. Especially in the 80s era of superstrats. Now they're expensive because they were played by rockstars.
This phenomenon still happens with almost every piece of gear. Josh Homme of QOTSA revealed in an AppleTV show that he'd play a cheap low-quality Peavey Amp an now this amp costs 10x what it did.
[1] https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/bruce-spri...
Besides, virtuoso guitarists also use cheap inexensive guitars all the time. Some examples, out of the top of my mind:
Prince, a big virtuoso, favorited his "Madcat", a Tele clone he bought for like $50 dollars.
Eddie Van Halen often used cheap Teisco guitars.
Mike Rutherford (the Genesis guitarist) used mucho-cheapo Squier Bullet guitars (Fender's cheapo line) for Generis 2020 live tours.
Marillion's Steve Rothery also uses a Squire as one of his main axes.
The Beatles were also known for using cheapo guitars like Epiphone Casinos.
Then it got broken so he had it restored and kept playing it.
Many touring or pub musicians play a plain old mass produced guitar, because if anything happens to it (for example, when flying) they can just pop into any music store in whatever city they are and get another for a reasonable price.
I think there’s the gap between the most overpriced gee-whiz prosumer device that they’ll try to sell somebody with more money than skill, and an actual professional device.
I also think there’s a space far below the actual professional device, the space of brands that the professional might not even think about—stuff that exists to trick people who just stopped by the store or who are shopping for their kids.
Which gap you have to worry about falling into depends on the type of device.
I think what's notable about Jaco is less that it was a Fender and more that (the story goes) he DIY'd his fretboard with a butter knife. So the point of comparison would be between someone today, who feels like they can only get a good fretless tone if they go out and buy a fretless Wal for $10k, versus buying your own Fender for less than a tenth of that modifying the fretboard yourself—just like Jaco did.
But it was still an off-the-shelf instrument that was mass-produced in order to be less expensive. I bet that virtually every instrument used in a professional orchestra at the time (except the tiny stuff) was more expensive than that bass.
There are known examples of masters forced to use bad instruments to create great music.
I believe this story has been on HN before
https://www.entrepreneur.com/leadership/when-keith-jarrett-p...
...and I strongly disagree with it. I think if you are serious about learning, you should get a reasonably good one from day 1 (if it doesn't hurt you financially, ofc).
Shitty tools can sometimes waste a hefty amount of your time. Anyone who ever paint watercolor on papers that are not for watercolor knows what I mean. All the time you could've spent on... guess what, practicing.
If you're at all serious about it, I'd go straight for one of the $1000+ flagship guitars. Go to a shop, figure out what you like, but absolutely don't waste your money on garbage.
I’d definitely not recommend going below $500 if possible. That’s price as new, btw. Used guitar is a great option.
There are brands like Harley Benton producing amazing €200 guitars.
I have one that I like as much as my two Custom Shop Gibsons... and it is vaaaaaastly superior to my Gibson SG Standard in terms of quality and playability.
Also the $1000 price point is a very awkward price point, IMO. Not that much of a quality jump compared to $400/$500 guitars, and proportionally not as good as more premium instruments starting at $1500 and up.
If you have the ability to tell the difference, you can get a quite good Squier by playing many Squiers in different shops and picking the best one you find. You can save a lot of money this way.
Instruments and art supplies are a good example of this: a $100,000 violin is a lot better for your playing than a $50 one, and a professional miniature painter I watch on YouTube likes brushes that are $50-100 each (over a 40 year career, that can easily mean 6 figure spend as those wear out).
IMO once you can hear/feel the quality difference (or worse, spend time rectifying it), you should switch. For some things, that can take weeks or months, while for others it can take years.
Usually the best idea is to start out with the entry level range of established brands. I'm not up to date on pianos, but for clarinets that's $500 minimum. Yes, it's more expensive, but if you have at least a basic commitment to learning it's going to pay off. The other option if you aren't sure is getting a loaned or rental instrument, but please don't buy cheapo instruments because that's just throwing money down the toilet.
If you're learning the piano don't get a keyboard. Just don't.
Regarding tech, it’s good to go with the industry standard, learn why it’s the standard, and go from there.
This is also glossing over the garbage and hand-me-down crap that many grow up with on their way to becoming experts.
[0] https://www.guitarworld.com/features/pro-guitar-players-who-...
Professional guitar players use "cheap shitty guitars" all the time. From the Beatles to the biggest stadium bands, not to mention people who make it a point of pride to do so, like Jack White.
Most tools are quite similar to this, professionals know what they are looking for and don't need to get the most expensive or advanced tool, except in cases where it is absolutely necessary for optimal performance. They know the key things to look for to get the best performance out of the tool and the other characteristics they choose according to their preference or customize as needed.
If you're interested, this is pretty fascinating - he shows experimentaly that the guitar itself has little to do with tone.
Other than that better made instruments could (no promises!) hold their tuning a little better, but you can cheaply buy locks or spend some money having that re-done.
More than this and I have a hard explaining what a "pro" guitar could do to help an amateur. You get the same tones out of it, pedals and amps have much more impact on sound anyway.
And seriously, unless you have musical training, you'll never hear the difference between epiphone and gibson, or squier and fender.
That seems to be pretty cheap. I agree he didn't do it to save money though.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2003/sep/02/snooker.clivee...