K-ON!

[b0mb3r]

hey, i never said i didn't like the show. just that a mostly character-oriented show just didn't seem so appealing.

say the dude with the signature "KyoAni All-Stars, FTW, 'nuff said" lol. just wait and watch more

[shichinanatsu]

you mean hyakko? or k-on? if its the former i already finished it twice, and have since burned it to storage DVDs to free my HD. if its the latter, i CAN'T WAIT for ep2.

Spoiler! :

sure, the first time i watched hyakko i thought it was nice; comedy is a nice diversion after all. but when i thought about it and decided to watch it again, i found myself asking 'what's the story about?' in watching the first few eps you see ayumi attempting to break through her shell, meeting mostly wacky girls along the way. the first few chara-eps feature the four, then it progresses to the other girls in the class. and ONLY did it seem to bear some story-telling significance in ep12, the one featuring torako and family. of course, its all just imho; i could be missing parts of the plot since i haven't read the manga yet. the way i see it, main characters get their screen time, gather more characters who in turn get their own time in the process, and all this is supposed to look like story material.

kind of like gathering the 108 Stars of Destiny, and giving each of them a past, detailed present, and future.

[Assassin]

... Can anyone tell me how I might get interested into actually watching this?

Apart from "CAN HAS GUITAR."

[ShadowZeroHeart]

I recommend the manga more, it seems more hilarious, the first episode doesnt seem all that great yet, so maybe you would wanna wait a bit for more reviews?

P.S. i prefer the manga drawings, they are much cuter, in their expressions and all

[Dan]

I'll watch it when it gets subbed in widescreen.

[Kaisos Erranon]

Not too impressed with what I've seen of the manga... the show is way better.

KyoAni is adding a lot of content too, which is suprising, although they might be trying to do to this what Azumanga did to JC Staff.

[ShadowZeroHeart]

I prefer the cute expressions that they have in the manga, cute~ I hope they will make them look less realistic and throw in those comical expressions soon

[Darklor]

Isnt the base for the anime series a four panel comic strip like for Lucky Star? Dosent live those only for the gags? Hmm, for this I couldnt really imagine much of a story... but since I dont know it, I have nothing said... (btw. I did saw LS and it was surprisingly amusing even with those style... ) We will see how this series will work at the end.

[ShadowZeroHeart]

Well, lucky star seemed to either spurred my interest in 4panels, or that it created the market for it, there has been a lot more 4square recently for me to read, and some are way better than lucky star in my opinion. This one is not too shabby, well, if you want a more detailed opinion, try waiting till more episodes are out, 2 episodes can hardly tell anything about the whole series.

[ainsoph9]

The one thing that I will say about episode 2 is that it drove me nuts. If you are a guitarist who likes nice guitars and good equipment like myself, this episode is like a bullet to the head. To paraphrase, "Friends do not let friends buy Gibson guitars, Fender equipment, or Marshall amps." At least that what I would say that a good friend would do.

[b0mb3r]

The one thing that I will say about episode 2 is that it drove me nuts. If you are a guitarist who likes nice guitars and good equipment like myself, this episode is like a bullet to the head. To paraphrase, "Friends do not let friends buy Gibson guitars, Fender equipment, or Marshall amps." At least that what I would say that a good friend would do.

well if i am a noob i would really appreciate if some friends expert in music to help me

[Darklor]

The one thing that I will say about episode 2 is that it drove me nuts. If you are a guitarist who likes nice guitars and good equipment like myself, this episode is like a bullet to the head. To paraphrase, "Friends do not let friends buy Gibson guitars, Fender equipment, or Marshall amps." At least that what I would say that a good friend would do.

I had some similar thoughts. I am not a musican or so, but to buy a instrument because it is so cute/ kawai seems so wrong to me.

[Assassin]

... I admit defeat. The power of the Internet influenced me to watch it. Oh well, I guess I'll just go with the flow and start marathoning the current episodes aired from 1.

[ainsoph9]

For guitar equipment, I would argue that Gibson, Fender, and Marshall are mostly about image and advertising. When it comes down to how they sound, you are generally going to be paying more for what you get. The reason for this is because you are paying for these companies' images. Now, image does not translate into quality. A lot of large companies are finding this out the hard way with the present economy. Gibson, Fender, and Marshall are no exception to the concept of image not equaling quality. While I would argue that they had a good sound once...back in the 50s and 60s, I would say that is long lost. Now, if you are getting a guitar or amp for blues, jazz, country, or something that does not need an overly aggressive tone, these brands might be for you.

However, while the Fender Stratocaster, Fender Telecaster, and Gibson Les Paul are the most popular guitars in history, they have some faults that would normally discourage most shredders from playing them. One thing is that they are not well-noted for having thin necks. A thin neck is key to being able to play faster on electric guitar especially. Ibanez is well-known for the their Wizard necks, which are about as thin as the thickness of your finger or so. If you compare that to one of the Fender or Gibsons mentioned above, you see a major difference in thickness. Another thing is that the electronics in these guitars do not do well under heavily saturated conditions. This is one of my major complaints about Marshall amps as well. So, if you play anything hard like metal, you can forget these guitars and amps. They do not have the backbone to take the abuse. Another thing is that Fender and Gibson tend to have a problem with quality control. They tend to be inconsistent, despite all of their guitars being made on a factory line with machines.

Going on to Marshall amps, Marshall amps are great...if you want an automatic endorsement and still be able to sound like crap. Several problems exist with Marshall amps, outside of what they have in common with a vacuum. There are two kinds of amps in general: solid state and tubed (valve for you English folks). Solid state came out in the 70s and 80s as a potential solution to the power-sucking tubes, which also take up more space and were supposedly harder to design for. The problem with solid state is that while it does not use as much power, it forgets that it needs that power for a more stable and pleasing sound. The audio elite out there, aka audiophiles, will often complain that solid state is "odd-ordered, does not use enough current bandwidth, does not distort well, and tends to be grinding on the ear." To decode that, solid state, which most Marshall amps are, sounds like nails on a chalk board with barely enough force behind it to make it annoying but cannot take more lest your nails break. When this is compared with tube amps, you will generally get more saturation and even-ordered sound. Some tube amp companies include Framus, Engl, Laney, and Diesel. So, it really depends on what you want in your sound.

Frankly, I would recommend Ibanez or Schecter for electric guitars. For acoustic, I would recommend Ibanez, Alvarez, Michael Kelly, or Breedlove. (When shopping for an acoustic, look for a guitar that has high resonance without a dry sound and feels good, especially when played as it pertains to the necks. If it hurts to play it, do not buy it.) For amps, I would recommend any of the tube companies above, and if you have to have a solid state amp, I would recommend Mesa Boogie or maybe Line 6.

[b0mb3r]

For guitar equipment, I would argue that Gibson, Fender, and Marshall are mostly about image and advertising. When it comes down to how they sound, you are generally going to be paying more for what you get. The reason for this is because you are paying for these companies' images. Now, image does not translate into quality. A lot of large companies are finding this out the hard way with the present economy. Gibson, Fender, and Marshall are no exception to the concept of image not equaling quality. While I would argue that they had a good sound once...back in the 50s and 60s, I would say that is long lost. Now, if you are getting a guitar or amp for blues, jazz, country, or something that does not need an overly aggressive tone, these brands might be for you.

However, while the Fender Stratocaster, Fender Telecaster, and Gibson Les Paul are the most popular guitars in history, they have some faults that would normally discourage most shredders from playing them. One thing is that they are not well-noted for having thin necks. A thin neck is key to being able to play faster on electric guitar especially. Ibanez is well-known for the their Wizard necks, which are about as thin as the thickness of your finger or so. If you compare that to one of the Fender or Gibsons mentioned above, you see a major difference in thickness. Another thing is that the electronics in these guitars do not do well under heavily saturated conditions. This is one of my major complaints about Marshall amps as well. So, if you play anything hard like metal, you can forget these guitars and amps. They do not have the backbone to take the abuse. Another thing is that Fender and Gibson tend to have a problem with quality control. They tend to be inconsistent, despite all of their guitars being made on a factory line with machines.

Going on to Marshall amps, Marshall amps are great...if you want an automatic endorsement and still be able to sound like crap. Several problems exist with Marshall amps, outside of what they have in common with a vacuum. There are two kinds of amps in general: solid state and tubed (valve for you English folks). Solid state came out in the 70s and 80s as a potential solution to the power-sucking tubes, which also take up more space and were supposedly harder to design for. The problem with solid state is that while it does not use as much power, it forgets that it needs that power for a more stable and pleasing sound. The audio elite out there, aka audiophiles, will often complain that solid state is "odd-ordered, does not use enough current bandwidth, does not distort well, and tends to be grinding on the ear." To decode that, solid state, which most Marshall amps are, sounds like nails on a chalk board with barely enough force behind it to make it annoying but cannot take more lest your nails break. When this is compared with tube amps, you will generally get more saturation and even-ordered sound. Some tube amp companies include Framus, Engl, Laney, and Diesel. So, it really depends on what you want in your sound.

Frankly, I would recommend Ibanez or Schecter for electric guitars. For acoustic, I would recommend Ibanez, Alvarez, Michael Kelly, or Breedlove. (When shopping for an acoustic, look for a guitar that has high resonance without a dry sound and feels good, especially when played as it pertains to the necks. If it hurts to play it, do not buy it.) For amps, I would recommend any of the tube companies above, and if you have to have a solid state amp, I would recommend Mesa Boogie or maybe Line 6.

if we ever shop together on guitar i will call you