Daisy Rock again--and a few other guitar models
I meant to post about this quite a while ago and never got around to it. It popped back up in my head when I was thinking about scenes for Kowalski 2, in which Jordy talks to various suspects, one of whom is a female fan of the old metal band. And after reading that illustrated magazine about the Big Four of thrash, up it comes again.
Third time's the charm, so here we go.
I posted a while back about Daisy Rock, the "Girl Guitar Company." Their mandate is to build guitars that will appeal to girls, and also be easy for girls and small women to play: they have a whole line of short-scale guitars for small beginners, their necks are slim to accommodate small hands, and the guitars are light to be easy to play.
They also have a number of novelty shapes: a butterfly, a star, a daisy (obviously.) Personally, none of these shapes appeals to me especially, but I confess to a fondness for the Heartbreaker model. (For some reason I think I would like it even better as a bass, if I played bass in a power-pop group or something like that.) We'll be returning to the novelty shapes in a minute.
The guitars also come in a variety of colours, but the one everyone knows about is the pink. In fact, most of their electrics are available in a vibrant, sparkling Atomic Pink that appeals even to me, and I am an old hag who longs for a hollowbody Gretsch Tennessean or something like that. (Not the hollowbody, retro-looking model, which pains me a little but then again that style would be all wrong in pink.)
Now, here is the thing: Daisy Rock is sometimes not taken very seriously as a guitar manufacturer, because hey, they make guitars "for girls" and how good can a guitar made for girls be?
But they also get accused of sexism for coming up with the shapes and colours they do. They actually publish some of these criticisms on their Web site and respond to them.
I have to admit, I am kind of delighted and also appalled at the naivete in some of the criticism. A standard argument made to and about Daisy Rock is: "'Girl Guitar Company'? What, do you assume other guitar manufacturers cater specifically to men?"
Honestly?
Yes.
I mean, not consciously, but look at who plays guitar, especially in rock bands. The absolute vast majority of them are dudes. Do I think the companies founded by men, employing mostly male designers, and selling guitars to a large majority of men, are gender-neutral in their designs? No. They may think they are, but I also think that if you could see the default player in their collective subconscious, it would be a guy.
This is not news, as is made clear by thousands of discussions of "the Other" in art and prose and movies. Dominant culture (or gender, or whatever) assumptions that "we are the norm, anything else is a deviation" is not news.
So yeah, I think that in effect all guitar companies are more or less designing guitars with men in mind. A lot of those guitars work very well for a lot of women, and that's great. I mean, Nancy Wilson is a Gibson player. Susannah Hoffs of the Bangles plays Rickenbackers--she says she's tried other guitars but she keeps being drawn back to those. And that's fine.
Personally, I don't have any trouble with my standard-sized dreadnaught--I'm about five-foot-five, with proportional sized hands and possibly slightly long arms for my height. I'm average-sized, but that means I'm taller than a lot of women, and I can think offhand of two friends at least whose hands are considerably smaller than mine. A while back a friend of mine was looking for a new guitar to replace the one she'd started lessons on, because the original guitar, a standard dreadnaught, was too big for her to play comfortably. She ended up with a jazzy Godin that was thinner and had a smaller profile. Fortunately, her hands were able to accommodate the neck on that particular guitar. If her hands had been small as well, she might have had a real problem.
I ask you: what would be the downside of a guitar company saying, "You know what? Small people like guitars too! Lets make some to sell to them!"
I can't see one.
Now, about the pink. Yes, Daisy Rock makes pink production guitars, and it's one of the few companies I can think of that does. (I think Squier makes, or made, a Stratocaster copy in pink as well.)
So?
You can get an electric guitar in almost any other colour--red, black and natural are probably the most common colours, but a quick look around the Internet will show you that it's quite easy to find blues and greens and purples, without having to get custom work done. So what's the problem with a pink guitar? Daisy Rock makes guitars in a bunch of other colours, too, including black, but presumably they keep including pink because some people like pink. Considering the availability of every other colour imaginable, why single out pink to pick on? Okay, maybe young girls are the people most likely to be willing to appear in public with a bright pink guitar. Why is that a problem? If it's a problem because something liked by young girls is automatically assumed to be less worthy, then that is a problem, but it's not a problem with Daisy Rock.
And about those novelty shapes--the butterfly and daisy and heart. Shouldn't girls want a guitar shaped like a guitar?
Obviously, a lot of them do, and Daisy Rock has classic guitar-shaped guitars for them.
But. Have you ever looked at B.C. Rich's Kerry King Series guitars? Practically any one of the ESP Signature Series guitars?
I mean, even Gibson, bless them, has the funky-shaped Explorer, and the self-explanatory Flying V, and "horned" SG. If you are interested in a guitar that's either strangely shaped or looks like it's going to throw itself off the rack and bite you, there are any number of production models to fit your needs.
So why, exactly, are we bitching about guitars that are strangely-shaped yet friendly?
What's that? Those "friendly" shapes don't appeal to "real" guitar players? But the aggressive ones do? Really?
I'm not in any way suggesting that Kerry King isn't a cool guy and a real guitar player, but why is it okay for a guitar to be weird-shaped if it looks like it wants to kill you, but not if it looks like it wants to flutter around the garden alighting on the flowers?
Sure, maybe the only people who would seriously wish to play a guitar shaped like a butterfly are little girls. How is that a problem? If it's only a problem because, you know, little girls, well, that's not Daisy Rock's problem.
I'm not saying girls should be told to be a certain way, or forced to play a pink guitar or a butterfly-shaped guitar. But they also shouldn't be denied a guitar in their favourite colour just because their brother wouldn't want one like it--that's sexist, too, isn't it? Isn't telling girls that what boys want is gender-neutral but what they want is "girly" and shameful--isn't that kind of fucked up? I get that some people think Daisy Rock ghettoizes girls, but is it really better to have them struggle with guitars that are too heavy, whose necks are unmanageable, until they either luck into one that fits them or give up altogether?
And once again--just look at the players associated with ESP's Signature Series guitars. What do they all have in common?
Right. Every last one of them is a man.
As are all the artists listed on the BC Rich artists' page.
You can find women if you look hard enough: Gretsch features a couple of women on their artists' page, Gibson has a "Joan Jett" model, and Fender's exhaustive list of artists of all levels also includes women. I had to dig pretty deep to find them, though, and I'm extremely Internet-savvy. If I was a fourteen-year-old girl I might conclude some of those companies don't really want me to play their guitars. I don't see the problem with some other company making it very clear that girls are welcome. Sure, they might end up buying a Metal Master Warlock later on--or a Tennessee Rose--but they won't if they never start. And if they feel unwanted, they might not push their way into the club.
And really, if anyone else wants to play a small or light or pink or heart-shaped guitar--shouldn't there be one available for them?
So: Daisy Rock. Filling a real niche for real guitar players.
Deal with it.
Third time's the charm, so here we go.
I posted a while back about Daisy Rock, the "Girl Guitar Company." Their mandate is to build guitars that will appeal to girls, and also be easy for girls and small women to play: they have a whole line of short-scale guitars for small beginners, their necks are slim to accommodate small hands, and the guitars are light to be easy to play.
They also have a number of novelty shapes: a butterfly, a star, a daisy (obviously.) Personally, none of these shapes appeals to me especially, but I confess to a fondness for the Heartbreaker model. (For some reason I think I would like it even better as a bass, if I played bass in a power-pop group or something like that.) We'll be returning to the novelty shapes in a minute.
The guitars also come in a variety of colours, but the one everyone knows about is the pink. In fact, most of their electrics are available in a vibrant, sparkling Atomic Pink that appeals even to me, and I am an old hag who longs for a hollowbody Gretsch Tennessean or something like that. (Not the hollowbody, retro-looking model, which pains me a little but then again that style would be all wrong in pink.)
Now, here is the thing: Daisy Rock is sometimes not taken very seriously as a guitar manufacturer, because hey, they make guitars "for girls" and how good can a guitar made for girls be?
But they also get accused of sexism for coming up with the shapes and colours they do. They actually publish some of these criticisms on their Web site and respond to them.
I have to admit, I am kind of delighted and also appalled at the naivete in some of the criticism. A standard argument made to and about Daisy Rock is: "'Girl Guitar Company'? What, do you assume other guitar manufacturers cater specifically to men?"
Honestly?
Yes.
I mean, not consciously, but look at who plays guitar, especially in rock bands. The absolute vast majority of them are dudes. Do I think the companies founded by men, employing mostly male designers, and selling guitars to a large majority of men, are gender-neutral in their designs? No. They may think they are, but I also think that if you could see the default player in their collective subconscious, it would be a guy.
This is not news, as is made clear by thousands of discussions of "the Other" in art and prose and movies. Dominant culture (or gender, or whatever) assumptions that "we are the norm, anything else is a deviation" is not news.
So yeah, I think that in effect all guitar companies are more or less designing guitars with men in mind. A lot of those guitars work very well for a lot of women, and that's great. I mean, Nancy Wilson is a Gibson player. Susannah Hoffs of the Bangles plays Rickenbackers--she says she's tried other guitars but she keeps being drawn back to those. And that's fine.
Personally, I don't have any trouble with my standard-sized dreadnaught--I'm about five-foot-five, with proportional sized hands and possibly slightly long arms for my height. I'm average-sized, but that means I'm taller than a lot of women, and I can think offhand of two friends at least whose hands are considerably smaller than mine. A while back a friend of mine was looking for a new guitar to replace the one she'd started lessons on, because the original guitar, a standard dreadnaught, was too big for her to play comfortably. She ended up with a jazzy Godin that was thinner and had a smaller profile. Fortunately, her hands were able to accommodate the neck on that particular guitar. If her hands had been small as well, she might have had a real problem.
I ask you: what would be the downside of a guitar company saying, "You know what? Small people like guitars too! Lets make some to sell to them!"
I can't see one.
Now, about the pink. Yes, Daisy Rock makes pink production guitars, and it's one of the few companies I can think of that does. (I think Squier makes, or made, a Stratocaster copy in pink as well.)
So?
You can get an electric guitar in almost any other colour--red, black and natural are probably the most common colours, but a quick look around the Internet will show you that it's quite easy to find blues and greens and purples, without having to get custom work done. So what's the problem with a pink guitar? Daisy Rock makes guitars in a bunch of other colours, too, including black, but presumably they keep including pink because some people like pink. Considering the availability of every other colour imaginable, why single out pink to pick on? Okay, maybe young girls are the people most likely to be willing to appear in public with a bright pink guitar. Why is that a problem? If it's a problem because something liked by young girls is automatically assumed to be less worthy, then that is a problem, but it's not a problem with Daisy Rock.
And about those novelty shapes--the butterfly and daisy and heart. Shouldn't girls want a guitar shaped like a guitar?
Obviously, a lot of them do, and Daisy Rock has classic guitar-shaped guitars for them.
But. Have you ever looked at B.C. Rich's Kerry King Series guitars? Practically any one of the ESP Signature Series guitars?
I mean, even Gibson, bless them, has the funky-shaped Explorer, and the self-explanatory Flying V, and "horned" SG. If you are interested in a guitar that's either strangely shaped or looks like it's going to throw itself off the rack and bite you, there are any number of production models to fit your needs.
So why, exactly, are we bitching about guitars that are strangely-shaped yet friendly?
What's that? Those "friendly" shapes don't appeal to "real" guitar players? But the aggressive ones do? Really?
I'm not in any way suggesting that Kerry King isn't a cool guy and a real guitar player, but why is it okay for a guitar to be weird-shaped if it looks like it wants to kill you, but not if it looks like it wants to flutter around the garden alighting on the flowers?
Sure, maybe the only people who would seriously wish to play a guitar shaped like a butterfly are little girls. How is that a problem? If it's only a problem because, you know, little girls, well, that's not Daisy Rock's problem.
I'm not saying girls should be told to be a certain way, or forced to play a pink guitar or a butterfly-shaped guitar. But they also shouldn't be denied a guitar in their favourite colour just because their brother wouldn't want one like it--that's sexist, too, isn't it? Isn't telling girls that what boys want is gender-neutral but what they want is "girly" and shameful--isn't that kind of fucked up? I get that some people think Daisy Rock ghettoizes girls, but is it really better to have them struggle with guitars that are too heavy, whose necks are unmanageable, until they either luck into one that fits them or give up altogether?
And once again--just look at the players associated with ESP's Signature Series guitars. What do they all have in common?
Right. Every last one of them is a man.
As are all the artists listed on the BC Rich artists' page.
You can find women if you look hard enough: Gretsch features a couple of women on their artists' page, Gibson has a "Joan Jett" model, and Fender's exhaustive list of artists of all levels also includes women. I had to dig pretty deep to find them, though, and I'm extremely Internet-savvy. If I was a fourteen-year-old girl I might conclude some of those companies don't really want me to play their guitars. I don't see the problem with some other company making it very clear that girls are welcome. Sure, they might end up buying a Metal Master Warlock later on--or a Tennessee Rose--but they won't if they never start. And if they feel unwanted, they might not push their way into the club.
And really, if anyone else wants to play a small or light or pink or heart-shaped guitar--shouldn't there be one available for them?
So: Daisy Rock. Filling a real niche for real guitar players.
Deal with it.