Did someone say "can of worms"? LOL
I'm not putting Taylor guitars down at all. They make great guitars hence their popularity. I probably shouldn't have said "over-priced" because you're getting exactly what you pay for.....exotic tone woods, electronics and innovation.....something that C. F. Martin probably hasn't kept up on in it's 170 plus years of making instruments.
It's always going to be a Coke/Pepsi....Beatles/Stones thing.
I'll shut up now.
Best way to buy a Taylor?
dburns99 wrote:
Certainly accept that we all have different taste.
Now I'll shut up. "Whew" say the masses.
I'll shut up soon. I venture to suggest that the company more likely to overcharge is the one that can claim such a long history. Martin is an iconic brand...and icons usually cost. Taylor is a pup by comparison and arguably relies more on quality than nearly 2 centuries of history.Did someone say "can of worms"? LOL
you're getting exactly what you pay for.....exotic tone woods, electronics and innovation.....something that C. F. Martin probably hasn't kept up on in it's 170 plus years of making instruments.
It's always going to be a Coke/Pepsi....Beatles/Stones thing.
I'll shut up now.
Certainly accept that we all have different taste.
Now I'll shut up. "Whew" say the masses.
- neverfoundthetime
- Posts: 48
- Joined: Sat Aug 01, 2009 2:14 pm
- Status: Offline
I always enjoy a good guitar wars thread, especially with so many Taylor and Martin fans around .
I'm just as impressed by a name as anyone and Taylors and Martins are great guitars but my dream guitar is going to sound right, play right, feel right, look right, impress me with the workmanship and with all the beautiful woods its made of and ... then I'm going to check what brand name is on the headstock. That's the way, ah ha, ah ha, I like it!
I'm just as impressed by a name as anyone and Taylors and Martins are great guitars but my dream guitar is going to sound right, play right, feel right, look right, impress me with the workmanship and with all the beautiful woods its made of and ... then I'm going to check what brand name is on the headstock. That's the way, ah ha, ah ha, I like it!
neverfoundthetime wrote:
Over-priced is relative. When I got my first Taylor, I had never heard of Taylor guitars other than Rick's comments on the forum here. I went to the biggest guitar shop in the country (Israel) and told the associate that I was looking for a good acoustic guitar up to $XXX (my actual budget was about 1.5 times that). He took me to the "nice" guitars room and started handing me guitars: Takamines, Gibsons, and Taylors (they don't carry any of the nicer Martins because they are imported by a rival chain). I quickly found that the wood combination I preferred was rosewood and spruce, and the guitar that caught my heart was a Taylor 814ce. But I didn't walk out with it--I went to the rival chain's main branch and auditioned a Martin with similar wood, shape, and appointments. It was a very nice guitar--I think it was a OMCPA1--but it cost about 20% more than the Taylor, and I preferred the tones, articulation, balance, and playability of the 814. I also tried a rosewood Larrivee but I preferred both the Martin and Taylor. So in my case, I think I got a lot more for my money with the Taylor than I would have with the Martin. And as soon as I signed the credit-slip, I didn't care any more about price. I don't pick up my 814 and think to my self "Hah! I would have had to spend another 20% to get the Martin! Anybody who got a Martin is a sucker!", I just enjoy playing it. I can also appreciate that another person might prefer the tone, articulation, balance, and playability of the Martin (or Cole Clark, or Maton, or Gibson, etc.)
That being said, the latest guitar I got was a rosewood and cedar Breedlove. I would love to have a chance to try out a Cole-Clark, Maton, Santa Cruz, or Lakewood, etc., but they just don't exist in my neck of the woods.
I think that people who have to put themselves on one side of a Coke/Pepsi, Beatles/Stones or Ibis/Intense dichotomy are missing out on a lot.
And always remember that no generalization is worth a d*mn (including this one).
Bowing out
Chris, I agree with what you say, and that is actually how I purchase my guitars. But then you go and ruin the good impression by putting that terrible tune into my headI always enjoy a good guitar wars thread, especially with so many Taylor and Martin fans around .
I'm just as impressed by a name as anyone and Taylors and Martins are great guitars but my dream guitar is going to sound right, play right, feel right, look right, impress me with the workmanship and with all the beautiful woods its made of and ... then I'm going to check what brand name is on the headstock. That's the way, ah ha, ah ha, I like it!
Over-priced is relative. When I got my first Taylor, I had never heard of Taylor guitars other than Rick's comments on the forum here. I went to the biggest guitar shop in the country (Israel) and told the associate that I was looking for a good acoustic guitar up to $XXX (my actual budget was about 1.5 times that). He took me to the "nice" guitars room and started handing me guitars: Takamines, Gibsons, and Taylors (they don't carry any of the nicer Martins because they are imported by a rival chain). I quickly found that the wood combination I preferred was rosewood and spruce, and the guitar that caught my heart was a Taylor 814ce. But I didn't walk out with it--I went to the rival chain's main branch and auditioned a Martin with similar wood, shape, and appointments. It was a very nice guitar--I think it was a OMCPA1--but it cost about 20% more than the Taylor, and I preferred the tones, articulation, balance, and playability of the 814. I also tried a rosewood Larrivee but I preferred both the Martin and Taylor. So in my case, I think I got a lot more for my money with the Taylor than I would have with the Martin. And as soon as I signed the credit-slip, I didn't care any more about price. I don't pick up my 814 and think to my self "Hah! I would have had to spend another 20% to get the Martin! Anybody who got a Martin is a sucker!", I just enjoy playing it. I can also appreciate that another person might prefer the tone, articulation, balance, and playability of the Martin (or Cole Clark, or Maton, or Gibson, etc.)
That being said, the latest guitar I got was a rosewood and cedar Breedlove. I would love to have a chance to try out a Cole-Clark, Maton, Santa Cruz, or Lakewood, etc., but they just don't exist in my neck of the woods.
I think that people who have to put themselves on one side of a Coke/Pepsi, Beatles/Stones or Ibis/Intense dichotomy are missing out on a lot.
And always remember that no generalization is worth a d*mn (including this one).
Bowing out
- neverfoundthetime
- Posts: 48
- Joined: Sat Aug 01, 2009 2:14 pm
- Status: Offline
I do apologise David! Reminds me of the Climber, Joe Simpson, who got stuck up an 7'000 Mtr Andean mountain, fell into a glacier, broke his leg, took 4 days to crawl out and across a lethal glacier field on his backside, no food, totally dehydrated, lost 1/3 of his body weight and when delirium set in he thought he was going to die to the tune of Bony M's Brown Girl in the Ring which played endlessly in his head (although he hated the song). Could it be worse?! Miraculously, He survived to tell the tale.Chris, I agree with what you say, and that is actually how I purchase my guitars. But then you go and ruin the good impression by putting that terrible tune into my head
I'm not sure if he bought a Taylor or a Martin... or if he had the sense to try out a BSG!
AcousticAl wrote:
Just watched this and the guy has a valid point guitars do twist and change wood is always different, even with Coles!! This model he plays does not sound that flash, its good but hey nothing special. I reiterate a point are people starstruck with hype, marketing, locally made even or what?dburns99 wrote:Catman wrote:But ARE they good? I think I've watched every one of this guys videos on Youtube, and he has several on Taylors alone. You have to take him with a pinch of salt but he does know his stuff. His Canadian hoser-esque verbage might make him seem kinda simple so don't judge all of us Canucks that way LOLChasplaya wrote:
That's because they are good. And I'm not American, perish the thought!
That being said, I will admit to the existence of good guitars that are not Taylors...
This could get interesting (ugly)...
"They're wooden guitars. They twist, they bend."
What's the guy saying? That an all-wood guitar is no good?!
Does he prefer a laminate?
Would also like to hear him properly play a guitar as opposed to strumming a few random chords.
Also watched his comparison to his 'Kay' (?) model later in the vid. His guitar sounded terrible compared to the Taylor.
-
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:10 pm
- Status: Offline
Chasplaya wrote:
Chas,
I know that wood changes over time. It's the way he put it-- like it's a negative to have an all-wood guitar.
AcousticAl wrote:Just watched this and the guy has a valid point guitars do twist and change wood is always different, even with Coles!! This model he plays does not sound that flash, its good but hey nothing special. I reiterate a point are people starstruck with hype, marketing, locally made even or what?dburns99 wrote:Catman wrote:
But ARE they good? I think I've watched every one of this guys videos on Youtube, and he has several on Taylors alone. You have to take him with a pinch of salt but he does know his stuff. His Canadian hoser-esque verbage might make him seem kinda simple so don't judge all of us Canucks that way LOL
This could get interesting (ugly)...
"They're wooden guitars. They twist, they bend."
What's the guy saying? That an all-wood guitar is no good?!
Does he prefer a laminate?
Would also like to hear him properly play a guitar as opposed to strumming a few random chords.
Also watched his comparison to his 'Kay' (?) model later in the vid. His guitar sounded terrible compared to the Taylor.
Chas,
I know that wood changes over time. It's the way he put it-- like it's a negative to have an all-wood guitar.
This is one of those threads that's turned into something really sad. Isn't it enough to accept that everyone hears differently and has different preferences, without trying to convince them that what they hear and prefer are wrong? It's just plain offensive to suggest that Taylor's or Martin's or Gibson's success is due to marketing and hype, and anyone who would say that doesn't know his ass from his elbow. What you're saying is that we're all sheep, that we don't have a clue what kind of tone we prefer and are so easily manipulated by any company that buys an advertisement in a magazine or pays a rock star to play its guitars. Ridiculous. Those companies succeed because they make great guitars. Period.
I couldn't care less if someone prefers Martin over Taylor, and I wouldn't waste my breath trying to convince someone why they should like one brand over the other, since tone is a very personal thing.
The irony of this thread is that if you spend any time at all in the Taylor forum, you almost never see the kind of brand bigotry I've seen in this thread, because most of the people in that forum are such devoted guitar players that they own multiple brands and can appreciate the virtues of each of them. It always seems to be the less-experienced and least-knowledgeable players who want to form an exclusive cult around their choice of brand.
I couldn't care less if someone prefers Martin over Taylor, and I wouldn't waste my breath trying to convince someone why they should like one brand over the other, since tone is a very personal thing.
The irony of this thread is that if you spend any time at all in the Taylor forum, you almost never see the kind of brand bigotry I've seen in this thread, because most of the people in that forum are such devoted guitar players that they own multiple brands and can appreciate the virtues of each of them. It always seems to be the less-experienced and least-knowledgeable players who want to form an exclusive cult around their choice of brand.