Talk:Mesa/Boogie: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:13, 8 February 2010

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Guitarists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Guitarists on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GuitaristsWikipedia:WikiProject GuitaristsTemplate:WikiProject Guitaristsguitarist articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by Guitar equipment task force.

Restructuring

I went through and edited up to section 2.7.2, fixing sentence structure and grammar, upgrading the tone of the writing, and removing strongly opinionated sections. If at all possible, I would appreciate if someone would rewrite the remainder of the article, and once it is entirely completed, remove the tags. Bargain Fanta (talk) 20:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gilmour used one?

As far as I know, David Gilmour uses either Hiwatt or Fender amps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.20.202.34 (talk) 17:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poor structure, very opinionated.

I noted that throughout reading this article there was a very lax tone to it and frequent use was made of authors' own personal opinions (going as far as using the pronoun 'I'). I suggest this article be redesigned and re-written from the ground up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.93.78 (talk) 18:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Written like an advertisement?

I'm no expert but it seems like the use of present tense where there should be past and the amount of largely irrelevant material makes this seem very "advertisy"160.39.18.104 02:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur this is definitely written like an advertisement. Mostly has very good and complete information, but could just use some general cleanup to take out the sales talk. For example, "The Road King is well known for its vast number of options. It has an unprecedented 4 channels, each with the option of two different speaker outputs, two effects loops and Progressive Linkage, which allows five different power tube configurations (2x6L6, 2xEL34, 2x6L6+2xEL34, 4x6L6, 4x6L6+2xEL34), which are signaled by different LED lights on the front of the amplifier." - this sounds like it could have (and perhaps did) come straight out of a catalog. There are many such examples throughout, like overuse of words like "features" and "unprecedented" and others.

I would not be surprised to learn that this article was submitted directly from the MESA marketing department, possibly even from Smith himself. Obviously it is an advertisement, there is no doubt. It contains all the typical Mesa hype and promotion of Randall Smith. With that said, to be perfectly fair, Mesa gear is known to be Professional grade and rugged, and is used by a lot of big name performers. However, there are an equal number of players who would not be caught dead playing such uber-gain amplifiers with four times as many knobs as really needed, and bells and whistles galore. Many are of the opinion that all the extra gobbeldy-gook actually detracts from the tone, and prefer simpler more traditional vintage inspired amplifiers from Mesa's competitors, which offer vastly superior clean tones compared to Mesa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59Tremolux (talk • contribs) 05:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your use of "uber-gain amplifiers" and phrases like "as really needed" "bells and whistles" is just as opinion-based as "unprecedented". That you would go further to state that other manufacturers offer amps with better clean tones further detracts from your credibility. While I think this article isn't written very well, the reasons you state aren't extremely valid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.132.119.25 (talk) 22:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that there is no mention of problems with MESA amps with the exception of RoadKings complexity, positioned again positive as versitility, goes to show that the article is advertizing material from MESA itself. It is disappointing to see MESA posing as individual contributer for advertizing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.124.57 (talk) 05:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - sounds like an advertisement - this article could be toned down for NPOV. "One of the most influential" ??? This article describes a product and musical instrument, that drew heavily on the re-engineering of previously designed products and instruments. A little less hyperbola would be appreciated Richardsidler (talk) 15:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So what's the reason for the tag...?

Other than matters of style and grammar, the article seems fine to me... without my having verified any of the information herein through other sources. Can someone either put forth a concrete point disputing the article, or erase the tag altogether? Feel free to address any questions to me through my talk page... --Daniel Villalobos 20:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poor Text

This article seems to borrow heavily from publicity materials of the firm's. Is it possible for someone to write a literate article? 198.96.134.61 06:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have red the article throughout. Although no native english speaker, I am overwhelmed with the comprehensive information. I think the language of the article reflects the language skills of the targeted audience (me). There is no need for "literate article" in my opinion. --BEG 18:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Metallica

Just a small point but wasn't the black album recorded with a Mark IIC+ (Metallica's usual studio amp) slaved into a Marshall 1959SLP?

No, Master of Puppets was recorded the above combination —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.35.135.133 (talk) 05:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strategy Series

Well, i have a Strategy 500 (and i remember there was a Strategy 400, too). These are not even mentioned in the article. Why? -Marcus —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.78.64.171 (talk) 13:38, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

Overly reverent....

This article was informative, but got REALLY annoying to read... my limited experience with Mesa amps has been great and what got me interested in reading this page was trying out a Mesa I thought was incredible sounding.... but seriously, could the author have backed off a bit on the reverence? Definitely not neutral. Seems like it was written by a Mesa marketing rep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.198.156.133 (talk) 04:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Split Into Sub Pages For Each Model

Someone seems to have dropped in a whole section cribbed from somewhere else (complete with copyright notice) on the Mark series. Perhaps someone who cares about this article can clean it up, and consider making subpages for each model or series? 76.10.153.220 (talk) 16:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New mesa model 2009

Please note the release of the new M9 carbine.210.215.75.3 (talk) 22:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{WikiProjectGuitarists|class=B|Guitarist-equipment-task-force=yes}}
+=== Restructuring ===
+I went through and edited up to section 2.7.2, fixing sentence structure and grammar, upgrading the tone of the writing, and removing strongly opinionated sections. If at all possible, I would appreciate if someone would rewrite the remainder of the article, and once it is entirely completed, remove the tags. [[User:Bargain Fanta|Bargain Fanta]] ([[User talk:Bargain Fanta|talk]]) 20:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 === Gilmour used one? ===