oooh chills... I used to use Sqiddy on the balloon animal fetish site I was a member of way back when my stick was thicker..

did we perhaps cross paths in a previous life, destined to meet again in a more "suitable" forum ?


“I had wanted to keep it as my memento,” said Leigh, who has been nominated for an Oscar for her performance.
“But then Kirk decimated it during filming

talk about ditzy Hollywood hubris...

 

Last edited by a moderator: Jul 4, 2018

Yeah, we have a lot of tradition so most of us we call Spanish guitar to all acoustic guitars.
Anyway, I was always more a fan of electric guitars, and while they sound good don't care about the history.
But I can understand the "tragedy" for the museum staff.
That would probably change if I played real guitars.

 

a Spaniard.. by a Spaniard ?

​

when I'm 84 ( maybe )​

 

Tarantino bought Jennifer Jason a Martin guitar afterwards from the late 1800's as a gift after filming. She actually learned how to play the guitar using that very guitar, taking lessons to enable the realism that the director so relishes in his style of film making. Leigh's voice to me is uuncannily similar to the creative force behind one of my favorite albums of all time, Fiver's "Audible Songs From Rockwood" "which is a series of eleven fictional field recordings, gathered from case files of patients at the Rockwood Asylum for the Criminally Insane between 1854-1881. The rigour of Schmidt’s writing process is shown through the work: Over the course of 2 years, Schmidt pored over the asylum's primary documents - patient files, architectural diagrams, superintendents' diaries - spinning her findings into historical fiction and, from there, into song".

Awesome stuff to me. She plays a Martin 000-15M, a sibling of the dreadnought which I play, so keeps within the Martin vibe of the thread.

 

Last edited by a moderator: Jul 4, 2018

lol. Asides from the joke, the Spanish Guitar is a branch of the "general" acoustic guitars. They're all symmetric unlike the Taylor's.

I would rather prefer to look like this guy when I'm old:

Very nice to read that ))

I didn't want to show off but I play 'em both:



Ok, it doesn't count

 

Last edited: Jul 3, 2018

depends on who is playing it and how .. I have heard some guys make very articulated guitar parts from a keyboard..
it will never be exactly the same.. but it can get fairly close !

what say you @superliquidsunshine

 

Prolly not, @Herr Durr. Prolly not! :D

Anyway, unwarranted, bizarre conspiracy theory time! They (Tarantino) DIDN'T actually destroy the real gee-tar. They destroyed the replica. But why? Well, for lots of reasons. Firstly, to get a good reaction shot from the actress. Secondly, cos the insurance would cover any (faked) damage. Thirdly, so Quentin could present said gee-tar to JJL afterwards, after scuffing it up a bit & restringing for zero bucks. Forthly, so it would make a good story. Fifthly errr.. the museum dude was prolly a jerk to his kids or something? I dunno. Honestly, he'd prolly do it for the first reason alone! Oh yeah, sixthly it would make Kurt Russell look bad. Or whatev. I think Snake Pliskken is innocent!

But proof? Errr. It did look exactly like balsa wood to me, when it smashed. Almost polystyrene! That's proof enough. Those ol gee-tars are hella unsmashable. I'd imagine. What say you, my liquidy friend?

 

umm.that part would be wrong, reportedly

and Kurt Russell was unknowing...the buck stops with Tarantino

I won't waste any time going for the other wild speculations.. believe what you like...everyone has their own reality
and are often most beholden to the ones they create from literally nothing..

all of this is from the opening post link, if anyone has the intellectual curiosity to follow it

as a priceless museum piece, the venality of the starlet who thought she'd keep it as a
"souvenir" is pretty telling about the gross self absorption of the Hollywood elite

 

Hmmm, let's see... The destroyed guitar (assuming that, contrary to @Slutty's conspiracy theory, it actually was the real guitar) wasn't actually worth as much as what most people think. They don't fetch much, relatively speaking, way under 10 grand, and it was insured only for the purchase price which most provably is in line with my thoughts. The big money points at those instruments made in the 1930's, the combination and high point of astisianship and tone woods used. These guitars are being sold upwards to sometimes $80,000. Every guitar, even same model and year don't sound the same and there are amazing examples that far surpass the sum total of their parts. The mostest espensivest of the Martins have been owned by celebrities like the abovementioned Eric Clapton, etc, and all go for way too much to rich dentists and folks wuth disposable income, not working musicians that would put them to good use instead of being bought as an investment. Here is an example of one similar to the one in the movie...asking price, $2400! buy it and make your own movie called "Un-Broken" or "The Loving Eight".



And about keyboard players playing guitar parts, I have heard great electric guitar parts played on keys that I wouldn't have known were not an electric guitar, but it is another thing to fake an acoustic guitar because of the resonance of the body and subtle and ever different sounding noises made while playing a wooden and metal guitar. But in general, I think that it is sometimes easier for a keyboard player to shred on a guitar than to try to fake it, like this...

 

that was insane..

so then you think the museum curator , speaking about the "priceless" nature
of this instrument.. was simply "acting" ?

https://www.digitaltrends.com/movies/smashed-guitar-from-hateful-eight-was-priceless/

and just a snippet from a UG thread...

 

Last edited by a moderator: Jul 4, 2018

That is some decedent shit right there, like pitting slaves against each other to the death or glorifying a murderous counter-culture...wait, these are all in his focus in his storytelling!! This is Quentin's way of making an energetic cameo appearance outside his role as narrator, accentuating the idea of people walking through their lives not knowing the reality of their own reality, of art imitating life imitating art, of a kind of unconsciouse woken state. But most of all if it is truly true...sick shit.

 

1. Did you really need to use the real thing in the 1st place?
2. Did Tarantino or the property manager know it was the real thing being smashed?
3. Assuming the conspiracy theory is true and he did know, is it worth destroying it to get a genuine reaction from the actors/actresses?
4. Is Martin to blame as well?

My opinion:

1. Probably not. I watched the film a few times and don't remember any extreme close up on the guitar. Even if it there was one, I'm sure they could have used one of the six replicas that were made.

2. Hard to say. On one hand, Tarantino is known for his obsession with getting realistic reactions from the people he's directing, the actress knew about the guitar's history and the goal of that scene was to capture her character's gut reaction. On the other hand, accidents on set/stage happen all the time (trust me, I've done sound design for theatre and have a few experiences to share).

3. Depends. Being a guitar, its value is subjective. For you, it's a symbol (represents way more than its commercial value) and therefore you get emotional over it. For a lot of people, it's a piece of wood cut into a specific shape, strings, etc. Neither of these views is morally superior to the other, in my modest opinion. Another thing to note is... To him (Tarantino), getting a real, gut reaction from the people he's directing means everything in the world and it's worth anything, within the limits of reason (i.e. human life, dignity, etc). So, his passion for recording real emotions with a camera is equal to... your passion for recording real emotions with a guitar. It means to him the same as recording a beautiful song with a guitar means to you.

4. Yeah, probably even more than the people involved in the production of the film. Like I said, there was no need to have the real thing in the 1st place and even if there was a need, there should be a Martin representative on the set making sure it's taken care of. After all, according to the Martin museum curator's words, it is 'priceless'.

Of course, being a cynical son of a bitch, I don't buy it. Realistically, everything in this world has a price. Had it not been destroyed, can already imagine the label below the 'priceless guitar' whose price 'accidentally' went up by a substancial amount after being used as a prop in a major Hollywood film. Not just any film... A Tarantino film, known for its almost cult like following. Can you imagine a rich fan (or any rich person, knowing it has a decent investment value) seeing something like this : Model X, Year YYYY, Description, Trivia: original prop in Tarantino's western "The Hateful Eight". Their mouth would be drooling. The Martin museum is perfectly aware of this, let's not be naive.

Assuming the conspiracy theory is true and he (Tarantino) really knew that it was the real thing being destroyed, perfectly aware of what it meant for the actress and the reaction it would bring on her, it's some sort of poetic way of saying: 'My art is worth more than any guitar and if destroying one makes my art better, so be it.'. Now, before the more emotional pull up their gun and start shooting me for saying this, like one of the hateful, I'm not saying I agree with this poetic statement. I'm saying it's something one, especially the passionate kind, might feel about their art.

I know, this take on the matter isn't going to make me any friends, especially within the guitar aficionados community but if that's what it takes to put some perspective on the whole thing, so be it.

 

Last edited: Jul 4, 2018

great ..he can feel as passionate about his "art" as he wants to.. pretty sure Weinstein
(one of T's great buddies and business partners)
felt pretty passionate about forcing female actresses to watch him wack off into potted plants...
so this is ok to do on the pathway to creating authentic "art" ? apparently not

being a great artist never meant being a complete sicko douchebag, not to me at least,
but yeah a sick selfishness and self absorption might come along with it...
tho I couldn't really respect the art so much after knowing it came from someone so soulless
that they felt that "destroying the good " was the apex of artistic expression

perfectly fine to consider it a business move, hey museums need money to keep operating,
shitting on a business partner for the luls? again douchebag move

and it would have worked just fine using the "stunt" guitar, virtually no one would have known
the difference..and even he could have deceived the actress that the stunt guitar was
the actual museum piece with a good enough replica..like she would have known the difference
after the great "artist" director told her it was the real deal for the scene... ? to get the reaction he wanted..
he's a good enough liar and fake to accomplish something like that


Just hope no one ever loans him any cultural heirlooms again for his bloody verismilitude,
and I saw something where he was going to do a remake of The Wizard of Oz..
and requested Dorothy's ruby slippers from the Smithsonian.. with the idea of having the
cowardly lion piss all over them when they encountered the witch !

 

Last edited by a moderator: Jul 4, 2018

@pine .. I agree with everything you said in your post, but one thing confounds Tarantino's perfect wish to inject the alchemy of his desire for an honest reaction at the moment of destruction...JJ Leigh's total jump out of character as she swung her attention in the moment after that the guitar was shattered from Kurt Russel...she turned her head away from the action and directly at Tarantino and signaled horror with her eyes. It was obvious that there was a terrible mistake made.

 

I wonder if Pete Townsend regrets wrecking some of those sweet old Rickenbackers he had in the 60's
something tells me he probably winces over some of them...

 

Last edited by a moderator: Jul 4, 2018