Quote:
Love the looks and the tone. A great balance of both. I also own a Martin D-35 and a Taylor 410 Mahogany. |
I'm 57 and have owned 2 Taylors and 2 Martins, I now own just 2 Martins. Taylors are nice though. Maybe we should just ask Taylor Martin !?!?!
|
I am 69 and 3/4, and my music is almost all American influenced although I( am a proud Brit.
I owe no allegiance t the US, but I have high regard for the designs by Martin and Gibson in the first third of the 20th century, so if it doesn't look like a Martin or a Gibson I'm not really interested. My first sight of Taylors was a Nanci Griffith concert and I heard a thin nasal trebly sound, then I sat in a small church hall and watched Dan Crary, and that confirmed to me that they didn't look right and didn't soud right. Personal opinion. |
Quote:
I have seen him often since that phase passed, and he's as good as ever. |
I'm 59 and more of a Taylor fan than a Martin fan. Having said that, I'd gladly buy a Martin if I was looking for a new guitar and it sounded good.
I've been playing for nearly six years now, after I'd been playing for about 18 months I decided to start looking at more upscale guitars than the Epiphone I was playing. This was an interesting and enjoyable sojourn of visiting every guitar shop within several hours drive and playing as many as possible. For me, I enjoyed almost all of the Taylors I played and very few of the Martins. One of the Martins sounded bad because the strings were quite old and dead, would have thought a guitar shop would have done better than that. Perhaps the 'brighter' sound of the Taylors was suited to me as I play fingerstyle without nails or picks, just the pads of my fingers. I think some of the debate about Martin verses Taylor is like the Ford verses Chevy debate. And don't really have much time for bashing of either brand. I do like the design of the Taylor neck a LOT more than the Martin neck. |
Interesting discussion... I'll add my $0.02!
My favorite acoustic guitar ever was a 1961 Martin D-18 that I played in a shop in Fredericksburg, VA in the early 1980s as a poor road musician. If I'd only had an extra $1,000 at the time... At the risk of over-generalization, I would submit that most stipulate Martins are boomy cannons with great bottom end, while Taylors are more "balanced" across the mid- and high-sonic spectrum. But severely lacking in bottom. Now, my opinion... FWIW. I always thought that Taylors in general lacked the bottom end I wanted in a guitar. Although, there were some high-end Taylors I played that were sonically amazing. Then, I found Breedlove. I don't know if it was the bridge truss, the graduated tops, the bracing, or what — but for years it bridged the gap between the Martin & Taylor sounds. Breedlove had the bottom of a Martin with the balanced mids and highs of a Taylor. And while I still love my Breedloves, I picked up five Martins (four used, one new) over the past couple of years. Three dreads and two jumbos, rosewood and spruce (except for the one maple/spruce jumbo), and all with Fishman Aura electronics. I love them all. And they all seem to have the balance I loved in my Breedloves. (I'm not mentioning my Guild jumbo maple 12-string...) I'm not sure there is an actual point to all this. Play what you love, but don't be afraid to step outside of your comfort zone. You might find something you really like! |
I have never really been interested in acquiring an example of either modern Martins nor Taylors. Why spend the money on production factory made guitars when for a little more, you can check out used examples of solo luthier or small shop made guitars? YMMV obviously...
|
Quote:
The way I see it the whole Martin vs Taylor debate is really dread vs grand auditorium and classic vs modern debate. In my opinion these two brands specialize and excel at different things. |
I'm a 53 year old Australian and traditional non-cutaway Martins are mostly my thing.
|
Quote:
I think the one obvious reason why would be the ratio of sheer numbers of "production" guitars vs boutique available to try or buy . Not to mention many people are not interested in buying "used" And then of course , the concept that there may be little to no real noticeable or actual difference in the sonics or quality of a top of the line "production" guitar and a boutique/luthier build, at any where near the same price point , or perhaps at any price point . And then last but not least logically , objectively, and realistically the only reliable way to tell or know the above , would be to play both at the same time and in the same room. Which more often than not is logistically impossible. Which are no reasons not to buy boutique, but certainly represent some reasons "why" most do not. And yes individual "milage" indeed varies :) |
Quote:
|
Quote:
And the bit about the outliers being the ones that simply have to buck the trend is a bit too cynical for my taste, sorry. When I first started playing guitar, back in the late 60s - I didn't have enough money to emulate the artists of the day and buy a Martin or a Gibson. I sold my one guitar off (an Aria) in the mid 70s and stopped playing altogether until much later in life. One day I abut 4 years ago I was going to a GC to buy banjo strings and I got a notion to check out "travel" guitars. I tried everything they had on the wall, and fell in love with a Taylor GS Mini. To be honest, having paid so little interest to the guitar scene over the decades, Taylor was a new name for me. I had no knowledge of any artist that played a Taylor... I just loved the way this guitar looked, sounded and most of all, how easily it played. I think that someone walking into a shop with few preconceived notions about what they want will find that the typical Taylor hanging on the wall plays much more easily that most other guitars and, since the Elixir strings are usually in good shape, they sound great too. Contrast that with Martins, that typically need a setup and likely have old strings on them, and the idea that you might see a trend towards Taylors being chosen by new players is no surprise to me. I'm not saying this is the case with every guitar purchase, and I agree that many are driven by "image". But what I disagree with is this notion that most Martin purchasers are above all that. They too are seeking an image as often as any other guitar purchaser might be - it's just a different image. |
Quote:
While I’m an advocate of buying used and have and will continue to go that route in the future, a part of me always wanted to allow my dollars to support a company that I love so they can keep making the guitars I love. The demand for acoustic guitars doesn’t appear to me to be going up, so to me there is something to be said for supporting great work so it may continue. |
Quote:
Quote:
My point is that there are several category of guitar buyers. But (in my unscientific opinion) the smallest category out there is those that buy according to what they hear. Most have other reasons driving their decision and later justify it by what they hear. Same way people go on an online dating site saying they are trying to find their perfect match, and then up spending all of their time looking at the pictures. When they find a picture they like, they start reading the profile hoping to find something they like there so they have something to talk about... For the record, I own neither a Martin nor a Taylor. The guitar I bought 36 years ago (A Guild D40C) I still play -- and I bought it for the dumbest reason imaginable. But it worked out OK for me, because I still love playing that Guild... |
Hold my beer, I got this.
Some people like some things. Other people like other things. Hope that helps... gimme my beer back. |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:32 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, The Acoustic Guitar Forum