History of seven-string solidbodies

[BigBaldIan]

Oh dear it appears the good Maestro has been struck from the records of wikipedia for good.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maestro_Alex_Gregory

 

[Explorer]

Wow.

Well, that will make it harder for him to make claims, won't it? The documentation for the examples on Wikipedia will make it harder for the Douchebag Maestro Alex Gregory to make claims based purely on his own writings, whether his alternate history of the seven-string guitar, or his claim of having invented the Pentasystem.

I might take some time at some point to add to the history of full fifths and of the electric mandolin. There's enough evidence there to nail down how full fifths has been used on five-course instruments for quite a while.

And, even though I'm not a fan of Robert Fripp and his broken fifths tuning, I have to look to see what easily documentable facts there are of the tuning, of which the Pentasystem is a small part which was patented years after broken fifths tuning's initial appearance. I know that a lot of us were using variants of full fifths back in the '80s. It would be interesting to see what the Pentasystem patent actually claims, and if Pen 5 Guitars (which disappeared soon after buying the system from DMAG) wound up buying something which was basically worthless....

 

[BigBaldIan]

Getting back to the history of the solidbody 7 for a minute. Manning did you have any further luck with the Jen Alembic? In addition ShadyDavey did mention on page 1 of the thread, that Uli Jon Roth was using 7 string Sky guitars in the mid-eighties. You might want to try the UJR site to see what you can dig up. As Gregory's other claim was for the "rock and roll 7 string", if the Sky guitar was being used before 1987 it would be the final nail in the coffin. At this point though, it almost seems like overkill.

 

[Loomer]

I've noticed another thing;

In the main article for 7-string guitars, Five Finger Death Punch are mentioned as great proponents and users of them. I was under the impression that the band only use sixers?

As much as I despise the band and that pillock leadguitarist of theirs, surely this must go under "objective error"?

 

[Mindcrime1204]

they prolly tune to B standard or somethin with their 6s?

 

[Loomer]

they prolly tune to B standard or somethin with their 6s?

Maybe, according to what tabs I could find, they are in Drop B.
From Zoltan Bathory's wiki:

"Zoltan is known for his heavy string gauge of 13.-64. made by Dunlop."

Ha. Ha. Ha...

 

[Explorer]

,

I've noticed another thing;

In the main article for 7-string guitars, Five Finger Death Punch are mentioned as great proponents and users of them. I was under the impression that the band only use sixers?

There have been threads on SS.org discussing FFDP's use of sevens over the past few years, including at least one video.

 

[Loomer]

,

There have been threads on SS.org discussing FFDP's use of sevens over the past few years, including at least one video.

Ok, I must have missed those.

 

[Martin Stillion]

Well we had a new one turn up today at Wikipedia claiming to be "Martin Stillion, the executive producer" of one of Gregory's records.

That would be me.

Apart from not appearing to know what an "executive producer" even does (for reference, ExecProd's are responsible for getting the funding, but are not involved in the creative aspects)

I am the executive producer of 13 Jokes because I put up the money to have some copies made. I never professed to have been involved in the creative aspects of the album. I'm not sure what you think you have to gain by misrepresenting me here.

If anyone has questions for me I'll endeavor to answer them on this thread.

 

[Martin Stillion]

I think the crux of the matter rests on semantics, if we use the legal reasonable person test. Then a reasonable person reading the statement below would naturally infer, that Gregory single-handedly invented the entire family of solid-body 7-string electric guitars:

"The absolute truth remains that Maestro Alex Gregory is the true sole inventor of the 7 String Electric Guitar, or Rock N Roll 7 String Guitar"

The statement above makes no caveat of tuning differences, it is a blanket all encompassing statement. By discovery of prior builders (listed in this thread in detail) who have a variety of features listed, the above statement has been proven to be at best inaccurate and at worst fraudulent.

False. A reasonable person would have read Gregory's statement in its original context, as part of a 5-paragraph essay which acknowledges the prior existence of other 7-string guitar designs. The reasonable person would then have to conclude that, when taken in context, the statement cannot logically be considered "a blanket all encompassing statement."

This is not to say that the statement and the essay it came from are not problematic. The statement is hyperbolic, and is easily mistaken for a categorical statement even though it cannot logically be one; the essay mentions prior 7-string guitars but in a misleading, minimizing way.

A more accurate statement would be:

"The absolute truth remains that Maestro Alex Gregory is the true sole inventor of a 2 octave 7 String Electric Guitar, tuned E to A with fulcrum tremolo system and 3 single-coil pickups; a natural evolution of the classic Fender Stratocaster design."

Quite so. Also, a less generic product name than "7 String Electric Guitar" might have helped.

 

[BigBaldIan]

False. A reasonable person would have read Gregory's statement in its original context, as part of a 5-paragraph essay which acknowledges the prior existence of other 7-string guitar designs. The reasonable person would then have to conclude that, when taken in context, the statement cannot logically be considered "a blanket all encompassing statement."

Perhaps I should have clarified in that post, I apologise. My argument was based as a result of Gregory's use of said statement without its proper context, which has appeared on websites and forums (even in the contentious wikipedia article if memory serves). I'm sure you can agree that such an assertion, when viewed on its own merits without any clarification, would lead an observer to possibly make false assumptions.

Edit: I notice that on the emando site your blurb reads "a patent holder for a 7-string electric guitar design", which is a much more accurate statement.

 

[Martin Stillion]

I'm sure you can agree that such an assertion, when viewed on its own merits without any clarification, would lead an observer to possibly make false assumptions.

Yes, I can agree with that. Which is why it is misleading to refer to the assertion without referring to its context. Again, the assertion is still problematic, even in context. But to remove it from that context, so as to make it appear even more problematic and to invite those false inferences ... that is not something a neutral, objective observer would or should do.

Edit: I notice that on the emando site your blurb reads "a patent holder for a 7-string electric guitar design", which is a much more accurate statement.

Right. Following the Wikipedia controversy I tried to ensure that my own Web copy stuck strictly to facts.

 

[AwakenNoMore]

i like bacon

 

[BigBaldIan]

Yes, I can agree with that. Which is why it is misleading to refer to the assertion without referring to its context. Again, the assertion is still problematic, even in context. But to remove it from that context, so as to make it appear even more problematic and to invite those false inferences ... that is not something a neutral, objective observer would or should do.

It is Gregory himself I remind you, that chose to post that snippet across the web without the benefit of the context on his site. We (posters on this thread amongst others) have reacted to the snippet at face-value, as we have found it on those sites. We have made no false inferences as we have specialist knowledge on the topic. Now imagine if someone without that specialist knowledge were to read that statement, without knowing the full history.

If I were to post what I wrote on say Gregory's own forum, where I had the benefit of looking at his entire biography, then what you have mentioned is fair criticism. However Gregory himself, by posting that statement out of context on other sites/forums and others copying it whole cloth, have invited those false inferences and indeed the dissection of his claims as a result

tl:dr Gregory chose and used said statement out of context, the finger of blame should point to him for any false assumptions people may make. Certainly not to those exposing it for what it is.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Edit: All I can say Martin, is you must be one heck of a night-owl or early bird. According to my settings your first post was at 11:04, which must make it 03:04 in Seattle time!

I'd be grateful if you would take the time to clarify the following, or is it more hyperbole on Gregory's part?

1) Gregory states that he received formal training at the University of Milan. Investigations have shown that this University has never had a faculty of music, nor a school of music attached to any other faculty. Is there any evidence for his formal classical education?

2) In another review http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/alexgregory2# a writer states that he went to the Conservatory of Milan. However if this is the case, why is he not amongst the famous alumni (after all someone who was bestowed the title of Maestro by HM QE2 must be a notable figure)?

3) If he indeed went to the Conservatory and not the University, why is it that his official biography and press releases make no mention of this?

 

[Explorer]

Martin, BigBaldIan raises some big questions, but you seem to be focused on a few minor points. This thread is a testament to what seemed to be a relatively large campaign of self promotion, one which was ultimately ruled to be so without merit that Wikipedia salted the earth so that no such claims regarding Alex Gregory could again be promoted on their website.

I apologize if this next part isn't accurate, but you're coming across as wanting the rest of us to be held to some contextual standard... while skipping over the parts of this thread which provide that context. Alex Gregory was caught in several out and out baldface lies. It seems that his credibility has been destroyed on a number of claims.

With that context, to expect those who knew about the true history of the seven string guitar to now parse out which small bits of Alex Gregory's story which might actually true is a waste of effort, and misplaced in my opinion. We have no responsibility to Gregory to restore the rest of his name, because it was his choice to put out lies. He (or whoever posted Gregory's claims on Wikipedia, which I'll research when I have a moment) didn't expect to be caught out, but he/they were. And, as a consequence, the falsehoods were what affected his/their reputation.

Anyway, BigBaldIan put up some fairly pointed and reasonable questions, and you can see what the issues are in that context. I'm interested in your response to those questions.

I'll look into the history of the History article, and see who it was that got the boot on Wikipedia.

----

Incidentally, I wonder... do you have any problems with the ultimate outcome of the Wikipedia article revision? If so, have you opened a discussion with the Wikipedia staff? I'd be interested in a link to the discussion, if you have.

Cheers!

 

[Explorer]

Just had a moment to look it up. The user posted all of the DMAG's claims on Wikipedia was Lost Josephine Minor. Earlier in this thread, someone raised the reasonable suspicion that Lost Josephine Minor was an alias invented by DMAG to add claims of his noteworthiness to Wikipedia. No firm proof was forthcoming, but the close association between the online persona of LJM and the DMAG was verified through LJM being able to supply a letter from the Passport Office which stated that the DMAG had had the word "Maestro" added to his passport.

For whatever reason, that was supposed to indicate that the Passport Office had accepted his adding that word at his request, and therefore Alex Gregory had received a Royal Title from the Crown. *laugh* Pretty typical fare for this story, of course, and indicative of why there are more profitable ways of spending one's time than trying to winnow out the few grains of truth from the voluminous chaff of falsehood and self aggrandisement which were contributed by the DMAG and LJM.

----

I like this text from the Wikipedia user Lost Josephine Minor, upon all the facts being discovered and all unfactual assertions being removed:

...Wow, was I in for a shocker. It turns out that many of even established editors on Wikipedia are blatently inaccurate and uninterested in presenting truthful articles. I have spent many many hours pouring over wikipedia guidelines and etiquette pages trying to make sure that I am doing things properly. But, what I am finding is that many, if not most, of the highly experienced users of Wikipedia show very little regard for the guidelines themselves, particularly with regard to "BITECLUB" and "AGF" which I just read about.

*laugh*

I had asked if you had any objections to the Wikipedia article, and to post a link if so.

I just realized, though, that you're bringing a lot of these points to those who reacted to the situation... instead of the instigator of the situation. I would like to think that you were evenhanded about the matter, which raises my next question:

How did Alex Gregory react when you asked him the same kinds of questions about the other side of the matter?

I'd be more interested in reading that part first, as that was what caused this whole discussion and situation in the first place. Otherwise, it sounds like your concern is misplaced.

 

[Martin Stillion]

I have no further information about Alex's education. I did not write his biographies and am not responsible for what they say. I've spoken with Alex once or twice about the Wikipedia controversy, but I don't recall that the subject of his education came up.

I haven't read this whole thread; the history of the 7-string guitar is not a matter of strong personal interest to me. As long as I've known Alex, I've understood that his patent, and therefore his claim about being an inventor, applied to a specific design of a 7-string guitar and not to the entire category of instruments. I can't speak to the reasons other people don't understand this. It's never caused me a moment's concern or confusion.

I found this thread because it contains a few posts about me, with people speculating that I might be Alex in disguise, misrepresenting Wikipedia exchanges with me, etc. I thought it might be worthwhile to let you know I'm a real person.

The time of day when I choose to read and/or post on this board is nobody's concern but my own.

I did attempt to make a couple of edits to the Wikipedia page, but as far as I know it was Alex himself who posted it originally.

By the time the Wikipedia thing wrapped up, the editors were no longer even trying to distinguish babies from bathwater. Factual, verifiable information (Alex's mention in a Guitar World article, for example) was getting dismissed along with the more questionable claims. So no, I wouldn't say I was satisfied with the way the controversy was handled.

 

[Bigfan]

How does putting another string on a Stratocaster warrant a patent anyway?

 

[Explorer]

I haven't read this whole thread; the history of the 7-string guitar is not a matter of strong personal interest to me. As long as I've known Alex, I've understood that his patent, and therefore his claim about being an inventor, applied to a specific design of a 7-string guitar and not to the entire category of instruments. I can't speak to the reasons other people don't understand this. It's never caused me a moment's concern or confusion.

I found this thread because it contains a few posts about me, with people speculating that I might be Alex in disguise, misrepresenting Wikipedia exchanges with me, etc. I thought it might be worthwhile to let you know I'm a real person.

The time of day when I choose to read and/or post on this board is nobody's concern but my own.

I did attempt to make a couple of edits to the Wikipedia page, but as far as I know it was Alex himself who posted it originally.

By the time the Wikipedia thing wrapped up, the editors were no longer even trying to distinguish babies from bathwater. Factual, verifiable information (Alex's mention in a Guitar World article, for example) was getting dismissed along with the more questionable claims. So no, I wouldn't say I was satisfied with the way the controversy was handled.

You yourself acknowledged the lack of context in which Alex Gregory engaged. It's surprising you forgot about that already, but that's your explanation for the confusion, propagated by Alex Gregory himself.

The Guitar World article was dealt with in this thread. He was actually only in a footnote to the article, with said footnote entitled "Where Are They Now?," in an obvious nod to Spinal Tap.

Nit picking without knowing the facts, and insisting that others be held to a different standard than oneself, is an odd and interesting thing.

----

Anyway, thanks for clarifying the identity question. Being as Alex Gregory was already under reasonable suspicion of using a sock puppet on Wikipedia, any suspicion that you also were a sock puppet is more a reflection on Alex Gregory's character and integrity than on your own. I wouldn't take it too personally, and we'll not make that mistake again.

I'm also hopeful that you'll further differentiate yourself from Gregory and sock puppets by not repeating the actions of said individual(s). That behaviour is what creates/created the suspicion, which would seem reasonable given the rest of the context.

Cheers!

 

[Martin Stillion]

How does putting another string on a Stratocaster warrant a patent anyway?

I guess you'd have to ask the Patent Office.