Help me appreciate acoutsic guitars

Don't look past the higher end Yamaha's. I bought one a year or so back for a little over $500. I have always been fond of Yamaha's and was very happy to see some higher end models. The one I bought is the FG-750S. It has a Spruce top and Sycamore sides and back. Nice, loud clear tone and good looks to boot...
 
Zaphod B said:
The only difference that matters is how an acoustic with beautiful tone resonates against your body as you play it. When you become one with the damn thing and it just feels a part of you as you play it.

Cheap acoustics can't do that. They can get the job done, but you don't bond with them.

Maybe that sounds strange, but it's true, at least for me.
Click to expand...

I kinda have to disagree with you there. I have a Fender Gemini II acoustic that my parents bought for me back in 1984. It's a staple of all of my writing. I record with it, perform with it, and live on it. I play progresive metal, but everything is written on that guitar.

I played the $15,000 Martin. I found it to be flat in tone and very little life. I played a 1940's Gibson that sustained smoke and heat damage from a house fire and fell in love (too bad the owner woulnd't sell it). It's total worth was about $400.

It's not the price, the name, nor the style. It's the craftsmanship. An acousitc's tone changes over the years. The fretboard wears to your hand. The body absorbs whatever you keep in your enviroment. I have found more life in an old Alvarez or Ibanez than I have in far more expensive models. I think, and this is a big think here, that an acoustics tone over the years directly reflects not the amount of pride one has in the instrument but how much they actually play it. My Gemini has been played damn near everyday for 13 years. Does it sound like another Gemini of the same age? No. It sounds like MY Gemini.
 
Dunno, my Gemini playe din unamped circumstances many times. I've never killed it with a premap lol.

maybe I got lucky with my ole Gemini II and my old Ibanez Dreadnaught (older version).
 
for the most part, i DO think that better acoustic guitars record better tracks.

but that also requires that one have the room, mics, preamps, converters and guitar playing skills to actually do it justice. putting a $4500 martin D-42 in the hands of a 13 year old beginning neopunk in an untreated bedroom with an mbox and a couple nady mics won't come anywhere close to doing that Martin justice.

i totally agree with the "spiritual" feeling one gets when bonding with their guitar.

and let's not forget that a LARGE part of the expense goes into the craftsmanship (namely where it's made and by whom).

if you want a guitar that's made in indonesia or china, constructed from marginal quality woods and materials by extremely low paid women and children who have no business being "luthiers", have at that.

but if you want a guitar that's made by craftsmen (and women) who have been trained and are skilled in doing so, well, then you're going to pay for it. more so if it's constructed from top of the line wood.

personally, i think craftsmanship and the wood matter a LOT more in acoustic guitars than electrics.

i've got the requisite pawnshop yamaha plywood beater (i keep it strung in Nashville tuning and it's great at that) as well as a Martin D-15 that i absolutely love. I picked the D-15 over the D-28s and HV-28's that were in the shop b/c the D-15 had a more mellow, even, balanced tone that i knew would record very well. And it does.

YMMV

cheers,
wade
 
Having not read through this thread, I am certain it will be full of people that have spent big money on an acoustic guitar justifying their purchases and people that realize you can get a nice acoustic for a fraction of the cost, just not with the Taylor name.
 
alien said:
I kinda have to disagree with you there. I have a Fender Gemini II acoustic that my parents bought for me back in 1984. It's a staple of all of my writing. I record with it, perform with it, and live on it. I play progresive metal, but everything is written on that guitar.

I played the $15,000 Martin. I found it to be flat in tone and very little life. I played a 1940's Gibson that sustained smoke and heat damage from a house fire and fell in love (too bad the owner woulnd't sell it). It's total worth was about $400.

It's not the price, the name, nor the style. It's the craftsmanship. An acousitc's tone changes over the years. The fretboard wears to your hand. The body absorbs whatever you keep in your enviroment. I have found more life in an old Alvarez or Ibanez than I have in far more expensive models. I think, and this is a big think here, that an acoustics tone over the years directly reflects not the amount of pride one has in the instrument but how much they actually play it. My Gemini has been played damn near everyday for 13 years. Does it sound like another Gemini of the same age? No. It sounds like MY Gemini.
Click to expand...
We don't disagree at all. It's not about the price, it's about the tone. Most midrange-price guitars trade tone for volume. But price is no guarantee of anything.
 
They had some anniversary edition come out last year, wearing a ton of sparkly inlay work and a big price tag.
 
ez_willis said:
Having not read through this thread, I am certain it will be full of people that have spent big money on an acoustic guitar justifying their purchases and people that realize you can get a nice acoustic for a fraction of the cost, just not with the Taylor name.
Click to expand...


Thats me! Haha... But seriously, I do feel that there are some really nice guitars that are even less than $500. Someone earlier mentioned seagull. Those are THE nicest guitars less than $500 (for the standard S6). They're hand made, and the wood is between 500-1000 years old. Theres a story there that is pretty neat. They do sound really nice.

BUT, does it sound like my Breedlove or Bourgeois? Not to my ears or fingers. I can't say that I'm entirely impressed with Martin or Taylor. C. Fox guitars are some of the nicest I've ever played. I will certainly agree that one can get a really nice guitar under $1k, and maybe get some in that range that are BETTER than those above the $1k mark. But they're not the nicest you can get period.
 
Zaphod B said:
They had some anniversary edition come out last year, wearing a ton of sparkly inlay work and a big price tag.
Click to expand...
that was the D-100 and it was more like $150,000 (or was that $250,000?).

and yeah, given that it was more Mother of Toiletseat than wood, i'd expect it to sound pretty bad. to be honest, i don't think that's a very good comparison--it wasn't intended to be a great sounding guitar--it was intended to be a showpiece for the inlay department.


cheers,
wade
 
rory said:
Someone earlier mentioned seagull. Those are THE nicest guitars less than $500 (for the standard S6). They're hand made, and the wood is between 500-1000 years old. Theres a story there that is pretty neat. They do sound really nice.
Click to expand...
You don't seriously buy that sales pitch do you?? First they are not handmade and second the timber ain't 500 -1000 years old. Apart from that you have a case, for the money they are good value. Not having a dig but lets get real here.

This a really interesting thread and when I've finished laying up the finishing I'm doing I'll chip in with a makers perspective. I'll have a hour to kill before I power down the spray booth... :D
 
muttley600 said:
You don't seriously buy that sales pitch do you?? First they are not handmade and second the timber ain't 500 -1000 years old. Apart from that you have a case, for the money they are good value. Not having a dig but lets get real here.

This a really interesting thread and when I've finished laying up the finishing I'm doing I'll chip in with a makers perspective. I'll have a hour to kill before I power down the spray booth... :D
Click to expand...

I want a guitar made from 1000 year old wood.
 
muttley600 said:
You don't seriously buy that sales pitch do you?? First they are not handmade and second the timber ain't 500 -1000 years old. Apart from that you have a case, for the money they are good value. Not having a dig but lets get real here.
Click to expand...

The handmade claim has always interested me. Here's what they say on their official website (in the FAQ section). Basically, they admit they're not really handmade. Well, they might be. Well.... Basically, they dodge the issue:

"Our dictionary defines handmade simply as: “made by hand, not machinery”. If you accept that definition then it’s safe to say there is no such thing as a handmade guitar! In any case our recommendation would be to forget the whole “handmade” thing and focus on more relevant considerations such as: finish material, type of wood used (and whether it is genuine), and most importantly how does it feel and sound to you."

So, they claim their guitars are handmade, and even print it on the label, but then they instruct the buyer to "forget the whole 'handmade' thing." Strange.

Don't get me wrong, their guitars are great. And they possibly involve more actual hand assembly than some mainstream guitar manufacturers. But they're not handmade, in the sense that no mass-produced instrument can be both handmade and consistent.

Handmade refers, one would imagine, to custom instruments made by individual luthiers. Which is where Muttley steps in. The floor is yours, Muttley...
 
do necks that are duplicated by CNC machines count as handmade? b/c if not, you can wipe Taylor and Martin off that "handmade guitars" list too.

or does it count as long as the neck has been finished (final shaping, sanding, etc) by hand?

just curious to what this moving definition might be, nothing more. :D


cheers,
wade
 
mrface2112 said:
do necks that are duplicated by CNC machines count as handmade? b/c if not, you can wipe Taylor and Martin off that "handmade guitars" list too.

or does it count as long as the neck has been finished (final shaping, sanding, etc) by hand?

just curious to what this moving definition might be, nothing more. :D


cheers,
wade
Click to expand...


As far as I'm concerned, Martin and Taylor were never on the handmade list to begin with :D .

Damn fine guitars, though.
 
muttley600 said:
You don't seriously buy that sales pitch do you?? First they are not handmade and second the timber ain't 500 -1000 years old. Apart from that you have a case, for the money they are good value. Not having a dig but lets get real here.
Click to expand...

I agree. The reason I bought a Seagull in the first place was quality for the buck, and I knew I wasn't getting anything special to anyone but me...Their own website denies that their guitars are "handmade", a claim that is these days relegated mostly to the boutique and custom builders who aren't making guitars "for the rack"...But they are a nice tight build, and though I'd never heard any claims about the age of their stock, I love the cherrywood sides and back, not to mention how well the top seasoned for me.

The term "handmade" is an interesting discussion in itself, being as at some points the machine-made guitars must be handled and worked...At the same time, one can argue that using a lathe, a drill, a planer, et al, should disqualify a "handmade" description...At what level of machine involvement is the term no longer valid?

Eric
 
mrface2112 said:
do necks that are duplicated by CNC machines count as handmade? b/c if not, you can wipe Taylor and Martin off that "handmade guitars" list too.

or does it count as long as the neck has been finished (final shaping, sanding, etc) by hand?

just curious to what this moving definition might be, nothing more. :D


cheers,
wade
Click to expand...
As far as Martin and Taylor and "insert brand name here" are concerned they are often hand assembled and often hand setup. What most would consider handmade according to their blurb doesn't exist even in their custom shops. I do a lot of machine work on my guitars and although I would claim that I build by hand because I have my hands on the tools in question I readily admit I use machine tools. I can build entirely with hand tools but don't. The real distinction I prefer rather than "hand made" is "uniquely made" or bespoke. Defining hand made is next to impossible because of the problem of defining the terms. Its effectively meaningless.
 
32-20-Blues said:
As far as I'm concerned, Martin and Taylor were never on the handmade list to begin with :D .

Damn fine guitars, though.
Click to expand...
Strangely both founders of both those companies built entirely by hand. They are where they are today because they now build on THAT tradition.
 
muttley600 said:
Strangely both founders of both those companies built entirely by hand. They are where they are today because they now build on THAT tradition.
Click to expand...

Cool. But hey, my acoustic at the moment cost less than 30 pounds sterling, so that's all a little too high end for me:

http://www.thomann.de/index.html?partner_id=97926&page=gb/harley_benton_hbcg45.htm

Actually, I'm surprised they can sell these things for the money. Perfect intonation, and reasonable action. Sounds like a guitar twice the price :D.

(It's okay, though, I have a good classical and a good electric).
 
32-20-Blues said:
Cool. But hey, my acoustic at the moment cost less than 30 pounds sterling, so that's all a little too high end for me:

http://www.thomann.de/index.html?partner_id=97926&page=gb/harley_benton_hbcg45.htm

Actually, I'm surprised they can sell these things for the money. Perfect intonation, and reasonable action. Sounds like a guitar twice the price :D.

(It's okay, though, I have a good classical and a good electric).
Click to expand...
You where ripped mate. Unless you bagged the bundle with the carry case. Now that is a bargain. :D

I'm off to wash down my spray guns. Then home for feet up and a day off tomorrow. This thread is great so I'll post my thoughts when I'm home with a beer in my hand. Later guys :cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top