Quote:
Originally Posted by ChapinFan
My guess is the guitar we pick is based on many things, and if we were honest, only a fraction of it is sound and playability.
There is an old saying that we buy based on emotions, and then we use logic to justify it.
I have no way of proving this, but I'll bet only about ten percent of the people on this forum could actually pick their guitar out in a blind "taste test." Blindfold them, have the same guitarist play a couple of things on five different (but similar) guitars, and I'll bet the guitar owner could pick his out about 20% of the time.
Playability is different of course, but many times playability comes down to what you are used to. A guy I play with has a Taylor. It was his dream guitar. He had to save up to buy and and now he can't imagine anything better. You could offer him anything, and he'd keep that Taylor. He's never played a Guild. But he's sure the Taylor is better.
So to get back to the OP, I think the segment who chooses a guitar based on what their favorite artists are playing (and there are more of those than we would like to admit) will probably choose Taylor, because that does seem to be the way it is breaking these days.
Those who choose their guitar on tradition -- or the memory of someone they know who used to play -- they probably choose Martin.
And some will never choose Martin or Taylor, because they have to buy against trend.
That being said, it is always fun for me to watch Martin and Taylor guys argue about who's brand is better. Such a relief from listening to Republicans argue with Democrats, I'll tell you.
|
Pfft.. what you might have said was that those that choose Martins are emulating artists from "back in the day" before Taylors existed and just about every artist on stage playing an acoustic was either playing a Martin or a Gibson.
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.