Used Things (edit+3 ebay links)

Sun May 03, 2009 7:06 pm

Here's a left over shot from the Baylor show. The promoter said there were 3000 there when Eisley took the stage. Who shot this pic? Ali?

EISLEY ON BBC RADIO RECORDING - Used interview: Free

Click it for the mp3. Use headphones. Quality is decent.

EXPLANATION for above link: I keep getting requests for this acoustic Eisley cover of "In the Aeroplane Over the Sea" from SXSW '07 for BBC radio in London. I listened to the entire interview again... it's really great; the girls also performed Golly Sandra. I figured this qualified for used things Disclaimer: one of the guitars is a bit out of tune... but I let it go on the grounds that 'Neutral Milk' would have been proud.

We'll probably have the girls sign the guitars and toss in a T-shirt, old school stickers... something... offer a gift certificate to your local roller skating ring on home schooler night... (oh yikes) I dunno. It's the thought that counts. Don't feel pressure. Don't spend money you were saving for college. Your parents will be pissed. Seriously... the guitars will sell. I'm just trying to Be Kind... that's all.

Used Words: no broken records for sale
Eisley starts working on finishing the 3 songs that are 90% complete this week. We'll use these songs to launch a crusade at WB. They're already freaking out over what they've heard and are convinced that we're at the right place with the right team (RoseWood). They're also saying these are the best songs Eisley has turned in. I mean, what do they know... they're people just like us... we'll let you be the judge of that this Fall. Hopefully the week after this, we'll start grabbing footage; feed you guys interesting clips along the way. The band is more excited than they've ever been at the outset of recording. It's inspiring to be around them.

"All Gear Must Go" Sale
Well, I'm lying... just a few choice relics; that's all. Here's the deal... or - here's why: we played that Baylor show a few weeks ago and noticed for the first time that we had about 20 guitars. The problem is not that we have too many guitars... it's the fact that we need other gear that costs $... so we figured - why not unload some of the xtra guitars and invest in other much-needed components for guitar world... like amps, pedals and silvery whirly-gigga's with flashing, twirling bozilla flickers. We need those. We are going to revitalize guitar world. When Eisley comes back out, they'll have Flying V's strapped on, Weston and Garron will have Kroeger cuts, and Stacy will wear a wife beater and have a 6 pack of Bud' on her Rhodes. Get ready. Alt-Eisley is raising the rock bar to a new level.

RELATIONAL COMMERCE
I'm referencing these sales here in Eisleyverse because I don't want someone coming on here later and blogging, "thanks a lot for telling us you were selling your guitars Chauntelle." btw - Sherri has one for sale too. If we just sold them on ebay and didn't tell you guys, you might feel like we deprived you of bidding. Honestly, I'd be happier if one of you had one of these guitars instead of some random Finger 11 bro' who's never heard of Eisley. Adam, a fan in NY bought one of the guitars Chauntelle had for a while last year.

Todd will put these guitars up on ebay. I am just letting you know. I'll also return to this post and post better technical data about each guitar. He's providing that. I suppose I'll put links up when he gets them up.


Taken by Jamie - antrider. Luke - pzykotic put the Apple sticker on it.

Yamaha Weddington Classic
This is the first one. You might recognize it. She's had it since 2001 or 02... MossEisley years... pre-signing. She's played it live forever. This guitar was a gift from Dave O. from the band Flying Machines. He gave the guitar to Chauntelle around 2000. Only early MossEisley fans will remember that Dave was the key inspiration/producer/engineer for Eisley's infamous ep that led to them breaking in Dallas > eventually getting signed by WB (there were others, yes... but Dave is the point of contact for this guitar. Also noteworthy... Dave's encouragement and help fueled that ep. I remember him saying, "we have to do this... we must record your band... I don't know how, but your music is too important"). Chauntelle used this Les Paulish guitar on various recordings but the only one I could find tonight was a shot from Malibu (recording):



I should look for more; there are a jillion live shots in the archives but search engine is no help. Anyway, here are some shots of the guitar for sale:

STARTING PRICE IS $400
ebay link: http://tinyurl.com/chaunWeddClassic

WEDDINGTON SPECS:

Available 1989 to 1992
Japan
Colors: Cherry Burst
Pick Ups: 2 Dimarzio Humbuckers.
Body: Flamed Maple Top, Honduras Mahogany.
Neck: 3 piece Mahogany.
Fingerboard: Indian Rosewood.
Number of Frets: 22.
Scale Length: 24 ¾ inches.
Options: Set Neck
Split Box Inlays
Single-Ply Neck/Body Binding
Dunlop 6130 Frets
Contoured Heel
Carved Rock Maple Top
Tune-O-Matic Style Bridge
Stopbar Tailpiece
Chrome Hardware
Cream Pickup Surronds
Amber Knobs
Two Volume Controls
Two Tone Controls
Five Position Blade Pickup Selector Switch














Gretsch G6129T Champagne Sparkle, duo-Jet
ERROR. wups.
Apologies. Chauntelle has decided not to sell the Gretsch. We researched this morning learned it's value is more around the $2,000 +. She's decided she loves it too much... plus, since it's pre-Fender, it's only going to go up in value. We're going to work on the electronics, set pick-ups hotter, do some things and put it back out there on the front line (stage). Apologies for being a dufus wish-wash. bd


Fender Telecaster
Sherri's Fender

STARTING PRICE: $400
ebay link http://tinyurl.com/sherrFend69reissue

FENDER SPECS:
Fender '69 reissue Telecaster 60
Semi-hollow ash body
maple neck U-shaped neck
25.5“ scale length,
maple fretboard
21 frets,
a pair of vintage-styled alnico magnet single-coil pickups
master volume & tone control
3-way pickup switching
f-hole
chrome hardware,
pearloid pickguard,
vintage F-style tuners.












Stacy or her gear is not for sale but I thought she looked sorta pricey in this shot for what it's worth.

I will return to this entry and update. I predict we'll get fewer comments on this post than any in Trolleywood history and... that's... OK.


Miscellaneous Eisley feet.

posted by: boyd | Add Comment | Permalink

38 Comments

« prev | goto page

1234

 | next »

Unregistered

sorry. posted twice

posted Mon May 04, 2009 3:37 pm

TheAntrider

I took care of it.

posted Mon May 04, 2009 4:26 pm

Tomorrow Never Knows

WHOA BOYD!!! did I read you right when you said, "trading in at guitar center" (????) now I like guitar center just as much as the next guy, but seriously, you could get way waaayyyyy more off ebay, PLUS you'd know the guitars we're being kept in the Amazingly Awesome Eisley Community!

posted Mon May 04, 2009 4:42 pm

Unregistered

Ok, so i know you aren't selling the Gretsch anymore, but here's two pictures with it from rmlaurence. (The second one is much closer
from November 2003
from December 31 2004

posted Mon May 04, 2009 6:13 pm

grain thrower

Anyone who has the Combinations bonus DVD can watch Chauntelle playing the Yamaha during "Like the Actors." For anyone that didn't buy the DVD version - YOU FOOL!! I still have a picture of it online from a show exactly one year ago, not the best shot of the guitar but expertly captures the swoon the owner gets from playing it. (Results may vary.)

OK, so since this is allegedly going to be a slow day at the post-office, I'll drag up something from the last Trolly stop that I wanted to get round to, but somehow circumferences always expand when I'm not on the bound. To rehash your hash:

Quote:

"Maybe all of this raises the question: is the purpose of live music merely to offer fans a perfectly accurate imprint of recorded music? Which came first the cart or the horse? Wasn't there a time when man had no recording devices? Live music was here first. vocal, tribal, choral,
symphonic, on and on. I think tolerance levels (for human error) shift with every genre. Some fans love to keep it real... and some have love the posturing of fame, perfection, aren't concerned with manufactured art, etc. Seems that the more indier & folksier fans are, the more tolerant of flaws they are. Some even admire the subtle imperfections in art. The inversion of that value often happens with everything mainstream. I'm just talking off the top of my head here... over-analyzing... but there seems to be an expectation that production levels should rise above human levels in that camp. Isn't it true that big production actually has the ability to eclipse the vulnerability of man's contribution? Thus - the invention of lip syncing."

And now we have the next evil progression, the influx of auto-tune. What value is being a Liz Fraser now that a Paris Hilton can artificially hit and hold the same notes with the aid of a few twists of the knob? I agree that perfection is apparently what "the people" want. Our entire society seemingly revolves around achieving it: whiter, straighter teeth, smoother skin, bluer eyes, thinner bodies, bigger muscles, and win win win at all costs. That's what sells cosmetics, Bowflex, and anti-depressants. Even politicians, of all people, are expected to be flawless so they fudge about their policies and cover up their past, yet people are still shocked time and again when the emperor has no clothes and shows his true skin. The art is not as important as the image of art. What would Bob Dylan or Paul Westerberg say if some producer told them they weren't hitting the notes right? I feel quite sure that Eisley goes about it the old-fashioned way: practice and retakes. As it should be. Heck, I could sound like the next Hendrix if I sped up the tape and edited out all the mistakes. How would that be any different for a musician than processing a voice through auto-tune? Would that make me a great guitarist in the public eye? Anyway, anybody that doesn't appreciate the risk and potential randomness inherent in a live show doesn't get what it's all about. Sadly, you're also probably right about tolerance of flaws='indie fan.' And I for one forgive us for that.

Sorry about the unedited rant, I try to avoid letting them loose at night. Don't be so insightful next time! (As a P.S. I sent you a followup PM, just mentioning in case the next time you visit your inbox happens to be September and by then you wonder, "What the eff is this guy talking about??")

posted Mon May 04, 2009 6:43 pm

boyd

Grain Thrower. It's no rant. Whatever it is, it's quite welcome. I get tired of being the only ranter in the house. If no one rants... the community goes flat line. Thanks for saying what matters to you. This happens to matter to me too.

I agree with you on all the above. Sitting here wondering how it can translate in Eisley's next project. It's difficult when you're in the studio, you just naturally tune guitars - just like you do when you're on stage. And vocalists have the perfect environment to sing in... they can even hear themselves in headphone monitors. With Eisley, studio vocals tends to be spot on pitch. I guess if there was a missed note, we could leave it, but typically, the girls want to recut until they get it right. That's their thing; no way they're gonna listen to, "oh... that was great... so off pitch... let's leave it."

Right now, I'm listening to Say Anything's self-titled album. It's raw and gnarly and feels imperfect. But if i really analyze it, nothing is actually imperfect. Things are in tune, rhythms are articulated with precision. Still... it feels under-produced. I'm sure we could find tons of examples to make any case we might decide to argue. The thing is... i am on your side and yet, when in the studio, you tend to do your best... things turn out tight.

Some of this could be the dry factor. 'Verbs could be eliminated and it would sound all non-slicker... but - I don't think the goal is to make music dry... or flat... like you're recording in the desert w/ 0% humidity and no mountains for 100 miles. Too wet can get sticky and weird too. Arcade Fire's last record was recorded in a big cathedral... it sure sounds like it. That's an artistic preference. To me, it was muddy... unclear. I still love the record. The Shin's early stuff was super dry... even "Shoots Too Narrow".
What's the answer? How could the goal to be to lower the bar? I think the rub might be in the editing/engineering. Things that go bump in the night can be fixed so easily. I'm tired of perfection too but jeeze... how many raw, under-produced songs ever make it to radio (then, we could debate the relevance of radio. I do have opinions).

Thinking outloud: when I design something, I don't just let things go. If the style demands something rough, raw, imperfect... sure; but even then, it's controlled rawness... like the Say Anything record I described.

Sherri's wedding was perfect... but it wasn't formal; it was arty... we made tree's and wrapped them with lights... there were all kinds of Sherri things on tables... on the floor... hanging from the ceiling. it was creative... there were textures, colors, lights, mood, etc. but was it perfect? Most would compare to more formal weddings and say no. Did we strive for perfection within the parameters? yes.

When concrete workers lay slabs, they don't leave it sloppy and lumpy. Sure, it's commercial work. If it was art, maybe they could leave sticks and leaves and make the slab look all cool. How much of Eisley's product/offering/art should be pure art and how much is commercial?

We're all taught to do our best so how do we under-produce in an imperfect world instinctively motivated to produce excellent things? I am on both sides of this so... I'm going to agree with your answer.

posted Tue May 05, 2009 10:50 am

Lost Account 14063

Omg Stacy is always pricey =D =D =D

posted Tue May 05, 2009 4:34 pm

Unregistered

Something like 60% art and 40% commercial. Too smooth isnt as exciting, i think, and so leave some lumps in. Some commercially refined lumps please. :)

posted Thu May 07, 2009 10:17 am

grain thrower

Well when I rant at night, fatigue erodes my inhibitions, but it also clutters my critical thinking, so that's the trade-off. Even though after careful consideration you've alighted on the same side, I'm gonna make like a mirage and waver slightly. I think you understood that my beef is with performers that get run through the studio like a rock polisher (in both connotations). Which is not to say that I'm against studio trickery and invention. Far from it, of course the most famous example would be The Beatles who decided that what they were doing in the studio was far more interesting than getting out on a stage to be barely heard above the screams of 40,000 people. Who can argue with that decision? Same goes for XTC and even ELO, who were accused of lip-synching some of their stuff in the '70s to replicate the full neon sound they achieved on their records. The question of integrity arises when those who sound perfect try to fool the public (and sometimes themselves) that they are perfect. Ashlee Simpson, anyone? I thought not. As Billy Corgan said, "When you play a wrong note during a concert, whoosh, it's gone in a second. When you play a wrong note on an album, it's there forever." I completely understand that and have nothing against any artist who wants to create the best musical experience they can. My irk arises with those artists who take shortcuts and choose the easy way out. Like those who copy and paste a chorus that sounds exactly the same everywhere in the song. Yes, that might be easier for Joe Radio to sing along to, but it's artificial, robotic.

Lo-Fi/scars-and-all recording approach is not a universal answer. I think lo-fi serves certain purposes tremendously, like creating the honest, forthright, pull-no-punches 'Exile in Guyville.' On the other hand I would give the Nobel Prize to anyone who could go back in time to re-record 'New Day Rising' and 'Flip Your Wig' so that they didn't sound like the Du were playing at the bottom of an oversized oil barrel. And I'm completely with you about The Shins, although 'Chutes Too Narrow' ('Shoots Too Narrow' sounds like the Indian name given to a gunslinger with tunnel vision) is positively juicy compared to the Raisanette-like 'Oh Inverted World.' Some people think Eisley should return to a lo-fi method. I think their development into a bigger, richer sound has reaped great rewards and their songs often benefit from the addition of bells & whistles. Figuratively and literally. I guess that comes down to a matter of taste. While Eisley has made concessions on the last couple records as you have revealed in previous missives, somehow they found a way to adorn those compromises with garlands and gilding which radiate with a consistent glow that 90% of us would be none the wiser about without insider's secrets. I expect they'll encounter some trials with this album, and I further expect them to make lemonade.

Know what the single best Simpsons' line is? At this point I shall heed Comic Store Guy: "Now make like my pants and split."

posted Thu May 07, 2009 10:08 pm

boyd

brilliant - grain thrower. no...seriously - a great piece of work. I have much to do today but will come back to yak. Must collect thoughts.

posted Fri May 08, 2009 3:05 am