Taylors vs Martins

[gibson59neck]

Sound off with your opinions of Martin acoustics vs. Taylors. I have played many Martins. I try them whenever I get the chance, because I want to see if all that mystique and glory is ever going to be true, and I am let down every time. New ones, old ones, they are all the same to me so far. Hard to play and a flat, dead tone that sounds like you're playing in a small box. Every Taylor I've ever played blows away every Martin I've played without acception.

Whatcha think????

[Sloan]

I have never played an acoustic guitar that blew my mind. There was a 194-something Martin at Chamber's Guitars in Nashville that I played once and while it was cool to play such an old guitar, the sound and playability were nothing to write home about.

I'm mainly an electric player, but my main acoustic is a Yamaha CPX-15. It's the one acoustic that I have played that really caught me off guard with it's ease of playability and sound. So I starved a few weeks and bought it.

I don't think you can really compare 2 acoustic guitar companies like that, when even the same model from the same company can sound different...

But from my experience, I've never really liked Many martin's I've tried, and the few Taylors I tried were okay...

I've actually had better luck with guitars in the $300-$600 price range to be honest.

Although I don't spend a lot of time trying out guitars out of my price range, I get scared just holding a guitar that's worth more than my car.

[Outlaws]

Originally Posted by gibson59neck

Sound off with your opinions of Martin acoustics vs. Taylors. I have played many Martins. I try them whenever I get the chance, because I want to see if all that mystique and glory is ever going to be true, and I am let down every time. New ones, old ones, they are all the same to me so far. Hard to play and a flat, dead tone that sounds like you're playing in a small box. Every Taylor I've ever played blows away every Martin I've played without acception.

Whatcha think????

Martin -VS- Taylor is like Gibson -VS- Fender. Its apples and oranges. You can't compare a Les Paul to a Strat because they make two completely different sounds.

You know why you think Martin sounds "dead" and "hard to play"? because you like the electric guitar action of the Taylor and the bright sound they produce. Martin is just a whole different ball game. If you played with your fingers and not a pick, you just might not like Taylor all the sudden.

[TelePaul]

Both excellent. I've a Martin, my mate just bought a beautiful Taylor. Both great.

[surfmaster]

i can't stand the sound of a taylor. the martins have such a deeper, richer sound . i never liked the modern taylor-ish acoustic strummy sound anyways. i'm a lover of thick strings and downstrokes. also, the style of the martin is so much more classic than the taylors, which i love. i cant speak for the electronics as i cant stand the sound of piezo either.

but thats just me.

so yeah there really is no way to draw a connection between the two brands, i agree.

[muttley600]

Originally Posted by gibson59neck

Sound off with your opinions of Martin acoustics vs. Taylors. I have played many Martins. I try them whenever I get the chance, because I want to see if all that mystique and glory is ever going to be true, and I am let down every time. New ones, old ones, they are all the same to me so far. Hard to play and a flat, dead tone that sounds like you're playing in a small box. Every Taylor I've ever played blows away every Martin I've played without acception.

Whatcha think????

I'll secound the "apples vs oranges" thing. If you really want to know how good a guitar sounds you need to sit in front of it not with it on your lap. Maybe get someone to play them for you if you want to make a real judgement. There are some fantastic sounding and playing Martins and Taylors and some duff ones as well!!

[Track Rat]

I own a '73 D-41, and a '56 000-18. Wonderfull guitars. More tone than slick action but VERY playable. I also own a Taylor GA-XXV (only 500 were made). Wonderfull guitar. It plays like butta and has a voice all its own. Which one is better? Both of course. Guitars are like crayons. I hate to color with just one.

[Light]

First of all, they are completely different guitars, and trying to compare them is stupid. Second, if you've never played a good Martin, then you've not played many Martins, and you've never played a good old one. The single best sounding big guitar I've ever played was a 1934 D28 (the first year they ever made a fourteen fret Dred). There was nothing dead about that guitar. Nothing.

As for the differences, Martins in general have a lot more variablity and character than Taylors, though I will admit their factory setups are not as good as Taylors and their trebles can be a bit out of balance. Taylors, on the other hand, tend to be extremely consistant from guitar to guitar, their factory setups are almost right (which is better than any other guitar company out there), but they lack in individuality and are extremely light on the low end. They are light and shimmery, which actually works great in a rock/pop (and modern country) band situation because they just sit real nice in the mix. Taylors are completely lost, however, in any Bluegrass situation, and will never stand up to a Martin in a solo situation.


And a great Gibson Acoustic will blow away any Taylor ever made, and probably 85-90% of all Martins, in most Non-bluegrass situations.


Light

"Cowards can never be moral."
M.K. Gandhi

[invisiblenemies]

Originally Posted by surfmaster

i can't stand the sound of a taylor. the martins have such a deeper, richer sound . i never liked the modern taylor-ish acoustic strummy sound anyways.

I agree.

I had a Martin D-15 that I really loved. Great mahogany piece with the greatest tone I have ever found. I played every Martin I could get my hands on & couldn't find one that matched the sound of the D-15. It was exactly what I wanted. Even compared to the higher end Martins, I loved that D-15. Great tone. The easiest guitar I've ever recorded as well. Split an AT-3035 between guitar and vocals & you'll see what I mean.

As far as Taylors are concerned, I hate them. They sound too shimmery & lame to me. They sound alive...but not in a pleasing way. I've never understood how such a young company could charge premium prices for their product anyways. I've always considered Taylors to be...well, tailored...for aging hippies with a lot of money. The ultimate sellout brand for the ultimate sellouts, i suppose.

[0018G]

Playability should not be a problem-any new guitar needs to be setup to your specs, anyway. Taylor does have those thin, hand-cramping necks if that adds to your enjoyment. I must say I have never played a Taylor guitar that followed me home-I'm always wondering where they hid the bottom end, cause I can't ever find it. They just don't have a pleasing tone to my ears. I play Martins almost exclusively, although I do have Gibsons(I used to play their banjo's), Guilds(great twelve strings), and a small builder dreadnaught. For me, there is nothing finer than a good D-28-good power, not bad to fingerpick, just a great all-around guitar. I can't say I share Light's warm feelings for Gibson, although I do have a '57 Country And Western that's not a bad guitar. I have played many, many guitars over the last 25 years, and nothing does it for me like Martin- and I'm not even a Bluegrasser.

[Yareek]

I also dislike Taylors for the reasons stated above. Thin and whimpy sound. Most new Martins don't sound that great, but the ones that are a few years old tend to be my favorite acoustics. Full bodied but with the attack of the strings.

My absolute favorite acoustics are rosewood back and sides...I've got a 9 year old Tacoma which is basically a D28 ripoff but with a rosewood fretboard. Sounds amazing. And I got it for $350 used, which is about 1/4 the new price.

[Light]

Originally Posted by 0018G

I can't say I share Light's warm feelings for Gibson, although I do have a '57 Country And Western that's not a bad guitar. I have played many, many guitars over the last 25 years, and nothing does it for me like Martin- and I'm not even a Bluegrasser.

I'm a bit biased because I've played too many 1930's Gibsons. I've got a friend with a 1930's Jumbo (more or less a J-45, but they didn't call it that yet) which is simply astonding. It is one of the few guitars which can truely give that 1934 D-28 a real run for it's money. And I LOVE those 1930's L-0s and L-1s. Ladder bracing is VERY different from an X-braced guitar, but they are totally cool in their own way. Those little latter braced guitars are my favorite acoustic guitars for playing lead lines. They have a real throaty voice which just sticks out in a mix, and they just sound so cool!

Then again, we've had a few 1934 (I don't know why we keep getting `34's, but they just keep coming in - not `35's, not `36's, but `34's) OOO-18's in recently which were pretty fucking cool too.



Light

"Cowards can never be moral."
M.K. Gandhi

[Richard Monroe]

Acoustic guitars are made out of wood by humans. I've played Martins that suck, Taylors that suck, and Gibsons that suck. I've also played all of the above that decidedly don't suck. The only new Martins I've played that were any good were top of the line $2500+ models. All of the new Gibsons I've played suck, but some of the older ones rock. For brand new off the rack, as Light says, the set up on the Taylors is usually pretty good. I've got a Taylor 710CE with the Fishman stereo blender that has plenty of bottom end, enough to wipe out mics and pres with boom if it's not managed well. I have played a bunch of Taylors that do lack bottom end, though, so I know what you guys are talking about.
I play a lot of strumming with light picks and a lot of fingerstyle, but not heavy flat picking, so I guess I'm not a bluegrass guy. Of course, I would love to own and play the kind of badass vintage guitars Light is talking about, but I needed a car instead. The high end Martins are very good guitars indeed, but I do get the urge to hug a tree every time I play one. In the end, my 710 does everything I need a dreadnought to do. but it's not Taylors vs. Martin vs. Huss and Dalton vs. Froggy Bottom etc., it's *that* guitar, *that* piece of wood. That particular Taylor blew everything else I could lay my hands on out of the water, but at the end of the day, the #2 choice was a Martin D-35 that came in ahead of a hell of a lot of Taylors, and many other brands as well. The Breedloves won bigtime in the bang-for-buck category, but after playing about 100 acoustics, I still came back to that one particular Taylor. My conclusion- it's not about the brand, it's about the particular guitar, and the job you need the tool to do.-Richie

[Codmate]

I've not played many high-end acoustics, but I've been really impressed with Tanglewood's medium-priced offerings recently and got one myself about two years ago.

[Milnoque]

Light,

Don't tell them about those old Gibsons. They might start buying them.

[Milnoque]

As far as I'm concerned if you can pick up 5 new (wooden) Martin guitars, play them and say they all suck, the problem is you. Same goes for almost all of the high end brands, most of the mid range, and some of the low-end.

I'm more surprised when I pick up a serious guitar and CAN'T find it's voice. It may not have a voice I was looking for but that doesn't make it suck.

I have large hands, Small necks don't work for me, That doesn't make them suck.

When you tell me that Taylors suck you are telling me nothing, except that you are incapable of giving me a useful opinion. (I'm not a fan of Taylors for my own playing)

If you're going to throw your opinion around fine, But say its too boomy or too tinny. Say the neck's too small or too big. Tell us why you prefer this or that.

"That Sucks" sucks.

[Big Kenny]

02 Taylor 615
71 Martin D28
98 Gibson Songbird Deluxe
01 Larrivee 12 string

I wouldn't sell any of 'em, they are all wonderful, they are all different. Sold many guitars on the way to these. Owned and sold a lot of Martins, they hold their value best. I think Taylors have excellent playability, that Martin sounds like a choir and the Gibby has the richest lows and mids. I think the crayon analogy works well here.

[Outlaws]

Originally Posted by Richard Monroe

Acoustic guitars are made out of wood by humans. I've played Martins that suck, Taylors that suck, and Gibsons that suck. I've also played all of the above that decidedly don't suck. The only new Martins I've played that were any good were top of the line $2500+ models. All of the new Gibsons I've played suck, but some of the older ones rock. For brand new off the rack, as Light says, the set up on the Taylors is usually pretty good. I've got a Taylor 710CE with the Fishman stereo blender that has plenty of bottom end, enough to wipe out mics and pres with boom if it's not managed well. I have played a bunch of Taylors that do lack bottom end, though, so I know what you guys are talking about.
I play a lot of strumming with light picks and a lot of fingerstyle, but not heavy flat picking, so I guess I'm not a bluegrass guy. Of course, I would love to own and play the kind of badass vintage guitars Light is talking about, but I needed a car instead. The high end Martins are very good guitars indeed, but I do get the urge to hug a tree every time I play one. In the end, my 710 does everything I need a dreadnought to do. but it's not Taylors vs. Martin vs. Huss and Dalton vs. Froggy Bottom etc., it's *that* guitar, *that* piece of wood. That particular Taylor blew everything else I could lay my hands on out of the water, but at the end of the day, the #2 choice was a Martin D-35 that came in ahead of a hell of a lot of Taylors, and many other brands as well. The Breedloves won bigtime in the bang-for-buck category, but after playing about 100 acoustics, I still came back to that one particular Taylor. My conclusion- it's not about the brand, it's about the particular guitar, and the job you need the tool to do.-Richie

I don't know about that. It might have enough boom to take out a mic, but I had a 710, and it is not even in the same room when it comes to the D41 and "boom".

[32-20-Blues]

Originally Posted by Light

First of all, they are completely different guitars, and trying to compare them is stupid.

Actually, he was contrasting them, not comparing them. Hence the phrase Martin vs. Taylor. Pointing out the differences between two makes of guitar isn't stupid. On the contrary, it furnishes everyone with a better understanding of what makes a specific model unique, and thus allows players to infer from these articulated differences an appropriate application of each guitar in question.

[Outlaws]

Originally Posted by 32-20-Blues

Actually, he was contrasting them, not comparing them. Hence the phrase Martin vs. Taylor. Pointing out the differences between two makes of guitar isn't stupid. On the contrary, it furnishes everyone with a better understanding of what makes a specific model unique, and thus allows players to infer from these articulated differences an appropriate application of each guitar in question.

Ok I get it, every Martin is "dead" sounding and "hard to play". Wow I feel so much more enlightened now. How I made it though life before I don't know. thanks for opening my eyes.

[TelePaul]

Originally Posted by Outlaws

Ok I get it. Every Martin is "dead" sounding and "hard to play". Wow I feel so much more enlightened now. How I made it though life before I don't know. thanks for opening my eyes.

Uh, when did he say that?? He just said contrasting is more effective than comparing if you're considering a purchase.

Nobodys putting down Martins... 32-20 was talking about getting a 000-15.

[Outlaws]

Originally Posted by TelePaul

Uh, when did he say that??

Did you read the original post? Let me quote it.....I will even high light the notable parts.

Sound off with your opinions of Martin acoustics vs. Taylors. I have played many Martins. I try them whenever I get the chance, because I want to see if all that mystique and glory is ever going to be true, and I am let down every time. New ones, old ones, they are all the same to me so far. Hard to play and a flat, dead tone that sounds like you're playing in a small box. Every Taylor I've ever played blows away every Martin I've played without acception.

[TelePaul]

Originally Posted by Outlaws

Did you read the original post? Let me quote it.....I will even high light the notable parts.

Yeah I read the original post.

Why were you qouting what 32-20 blues said?

[Outlaws]

Originally Posted by TelePaul

Yeah I read the original post.

Why were you qouting what 32-20 blues said?

He was saying the original poster was "contrasting" the two. Contrasting...comparing...IMO the original post was neither. It was bashing.