Most INNOVATIVE guitar maker in the last 100 years?

[EasyEd]

Hey All,

John I did read the thread title - most innovative in the last 100 years - so...

This is the Acoustic Guitar Forum - that fundamentally means we are talking acoustics not electrics. If we include electrics then a no brainer - Leo Fender. See my earlier posts in this thread.

Look at the original post - the argument is Martin ruled for the first 50 years then Bob Taylor destroyed Martin taking the crown for the next 50.

Uh NO. The math doesn't even work.

I have seen a number of threads on this forum where people try to diminish the importance of the headstock saying Martin & Co est 1833.

This to me this is the "real" thrust of this thread. Another attempt to diminish Martin.

Let me be clear - I rarely go with the most popular brand in anything. I golf yet my clubs are custom I picked the pieces - they do not say Taylormade, Nike or Titleist on them. I do photography yet my preferred camera brand is not Nikon or Canon but is Fuji. I play at guitar but yes I am a Martin sound fan - my first acoustic ever a GPCPA4 RW - why? The sound always the sound - my second acoustic? A Sigma - yes Martin copy but always the sound - the sound comes first. It was really odd for me to go with a leading brand (Martin) - maybe the leading brand - but Martin captured "the sound" just like Fender and actually Gretsch did for electrics.

Even as young as I am on this forum I tire of these arguments and am not afraid to speak my mind.

-Ed-

[Jasper64]

Originally Posted by EasyEd

Hey All,

John I did read the thread title - most innovative in the last 100 years - so...

This is the Acoustic Guitar Forum - that fundamentally means we are talking acoustics not electrics. If we include electrics then a no brainer - Leo Fender. See my earlier posts in this thread.

Look at the original post - the argument is Martin ruled for the first 50 years then Bob Taylor destroyed Martin taking the crown for the next 50.

Uh NO. The math doesn't even work.

I have seen a number of threads on this forum where people try to diminish the importance of the headstock saying Martin & Co est 1833.

This to me this is the "real" thrust of this thread. Another attempt to diminish Martin.

Let me be clear - I rarely go with the most popular brand in anything. I golf yet my clubs are custom I picked the pieces - they do not say Taylormade, Nike or Titleist on them. I do photography yet my preferred camera brand is not Nikon or Canon but is Fuji. I play at guitar but yes I am a Martin sound fan - my first acoustic ever a GPCPA4 RW - why? The sound always the sound - my second acoustic? A Sigma - yes Martin copy but always the sound - the sound comes first. It was really odd for me to go with a leading brand (Martin) - maybe the leading brand - but Martin captured "the sound" just like Fender and actually Gretsch did for electrics.

Even as young as I am on this forum I tire of these arguments and am not afraid to speak my mind.

-Ed-

Wrong on so many levels but thanks for playing.

[EasyEd]

Hey All,

...Wrong...

Enlighten me - I don't bite...

-Ed-

[fazool]

Originally Posted by EasyEd

...
This to me this is the "real" thrust of this thread. Another attempt to diminish Martin.
...

Not sure how you connected those dots

[Doubleneck]

I had Martin as my first mention given the 100 years. I really wonder how anyone can question what they did for the acoustic guitar in the early twentith century. What I find however after a wonderful point of innovation they stopped. We canonized the Dred and even the glue. Real innovation continued but many guitar players and buyers really resist innovation. That ok, but some very cool things have happened in the later half of the 20th century. Nothing wrong with appreciating both.

Anyone who says that his own level of guitar playing limited his ability to build even better sounding guitars cannot be said to be an innovator. Feel free to watch the Bob Taylor video intro to Andy. If anything Bob T/ for the last 8 years? has tried to backtrack to a warmer sound...not unlike newbies who request string choices for a "bright sounding" guitar." In one issue of Wood & Steel he came very close to using saying "more like Martins." BTW I am NOT a Martin apologist or current owner, but facing the facts, there is no denying the huge contribution to steel-string "guitar sound" made by Martin...and may I also say, Gibson. Them's the facts.

This is NOT BTW to take away from Bob T.'s contributions to guitar manufacturing or the quality of his guitars. But forgive me, I can think of no other guitar company where "guitar talk" is so much a part of its "sound" as Taylor Guitars.

For some, Bob Taylor's almost constant pastoral guidance is a great thing. To the extent that it has contributed to excellent customer service and better care of guitars? Fine. But for me, most of it is indeed pure hype...with the price tag for Wood & Steel passed on to the consumer. After years of playing, I trust my own hands and ears.

If Taylor were truly an innovator, 114 and 214 guitars would be offered with a spec 25" scale length...just for a start. Invariably, Taylor has had to rely on tried and true trad methods of "tonal improvement": choice of soundboard woods (cedar and all mahogany), forward shifted bracing...and last but not least, string gauge. BTW I consider taylors some of the most string gauge dependent guitars out there. The GS Mini? Stay with mediums...as well as their dreads. The New 800 Series? No suprise to me that a custom gauge is called for.

After 40 years, most Taylor guitars sound pretty thin at and above the 5th fret...and to my ears...yeah listen to quality demos (which avoid strumming)...even the New 800 Series.

[LouieAtienza]

Innovations in manufacturing in my opinion is different than innovations that actually 'better" the instrument.

I feel one of the allures of Martin guitars is the fact that, other than their use of CNC, they DIDN'T innovate their designs in that sense; they merely do well what they've done well for 170 years - make great Martins with the great Martin sound. Even they realize that people seek authentic reproductions of earlier instruments, and have a custom shop that hand-shapes parts now done with CNC. What I find great about Martin is not innovation, but tradition. Their X series was pretty innovative with the composite materials, but not exactly the "Martin" sound I expect.

I could say the same for Taylor. You don't hear anybody say they see the "vintage" Taylor sound? The voicing is considered "modern" and I like it as well. Bob Taylor applied many automated processes from other companies; which would be a natural progression for most larger companies but not necessarily innovation.

[Jasper64]

This has been so interesting and educational reading these comments. A lot of the builders I am familiar with but some of the names I had not heard of before and to read how each have contributed in their own unique way in the evolution of the guitar is so cool. My original thought was that two names seemed to really stand out more than others over the past 100 years when talking about their impact in the field of innovation in guitar building. After reading all the comments I am even more convinced that both Martin and Taylor have been major players in building guitars over the past 100 years. Martin in creating a timeless template (dreadnaught and the bracing) on which future guitars would follow. Taylor in producing consistently high quality guitars on a large scale by combining the tools of the past with Bob Taylor's own passion for creating new machinery that specifically makes Taylor...well Taylor . This was never about which guitar or builder is superior to the others because that is purely subjective. If you like the sound of your guitar.. then that is all that matters. Sometimes just being fortunate enough to not only know how to play guitar.... but be able to afford the type guitar we love should be enough....but it oftentimes is not. We have to prove to others that who we prefer is the best. Human nature I guess. So many exceptional guitars.......so little money!

[Gasworker]

I'm not sure how anyone can diminish the importance of Martin Gibson Taylor Guild ... But they don't have to be the answer to every question. If they do then people should stop asking or at the very least stop responding.

[JohnW63]

This to me this is the "real" thrust of this thread. Another attempt to diminish Martin.

Some people see Martin bashing in every thread not praising Martin.

Martin, from what I can tell is ALL about tradition. That in and of its self leaves them out of the innovation category of the last 100 years. They like how they build guitars, they like how they sound, they DON'T change much nor very often. That's fine. LOTS of players like them, but that doesn't mean they have done everything worth trying. For them, and a few posters, it seems innovation is what they did 170 years ago for bracing and 100 years ago for making a bigger guitar. If no one in the company was alive when they last innovated, they don't do it very often , do they. Other companies seem to try it a LOT more often. Can you Martin people NOT get all wound up about this and give other builders credit, when credit is due ?

[Rockguy475]

Originally Posted by JohnW63

Martin, from what I can tell is ALL about tradition. That in and of its self leaves them out of the innovation category of the last 100 years.

Wrong. The dreadnought which was produced by Martin was made less then 100 years ago. So was the new and improved X bracing. So they do belong as a contender in this thread.

[flaggerphil]

Originally Posted by EasyEd

This to me this is the "real" thrust of this thread. Another attempt to diminish Martin.

Seriously?

[JohnW63]

<sigh>

Saying they updated what they invented 170s years ago isn't innovation. It's simply a refinement. Neither is working out a larger, louder, guitar shape at the request of a customer, that became popular, built the same way they build all their guitars . If that were the case, Taylor has changed guitar shapes a LOT in the last 30 years, so they should get LOTS of votes. Heck, so would all the Ukelele builders with all the different sizes of ukes.

Do you Martin people hat the other guys so much, you can't let anyone be better at anything than Martin ?

[Rockguy475]

Originally Posted by JohnW63

<sigh>

Saying they updated what they invented 170s years ago isn't innovation. It's simply a refinement. Neither is working out a larger, louder, guitar shape at the request of a customer, that became popular, built the same way they build all their guitars . If that were the case, Taylor has changed guitar shapes a LOT in the last 30 years, so they should get LOTS of votes. Heck, so would all the Ukelele builders with all the different sizes of ukes.

Do you Martin people hat the other guys so much, you can't let anyone be better at anything than Martin ?

Innovation is the process of making changes to something established by introducing something better and, as a consequence, new. Taylor may have made a lot more designs but none of them have been as popular as the dreadnought. I'm not saying Martin is the only company that needs credit
For being innovative in the last 100 years but I think they still have been the most influential. (For the dreadnought and X bracing respectively)