Perception. Martin vs Taylor.

[NotveryGood]

Originally Posted by KevWind

IMO Yet another thinly disguised , lopsided, tedious Taylor "marketing" bash .... From, I am guessing 4 old,,, non Taylor owners. How am I doin' Am I in the ball park of non ownership guess ?

No Kev, not a " thinly disguised " bashing of anything. There was no agenda whatsoever. We have guitars of both brands between us and as we said both are excellent. Sorry you found it so tedious. At least it drew an interesting anecdote from you.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by NotveryGood

No Kev, not a " thinly disguised " bashing of anything. There was no agenda whatsoever. We have guitars of both brands between us and as we said both are excellent. Sorry you found it so tedious. At least it drew an interesting anecdote from you.

Yes Not , a thinly disguised bash . My ownership guess, and having a 50% chance being wrong, doesn't change that.

Taylor, on the other hand reminded us of those loud, brash TV adverts of the early sixties aimed at selling the great American public the latest all singing ,all dancing , Chrysler, Chevrolet or Kitchen appliance.

(we all agreed though that we have really had enough of the self congratulation and a smug looking Andy Powell re inventing the wheel!)

The words we use and how we use them are windows into our true thoughts and and feelings, whether we are aware of what those thoughts and feelings actually are or not... Perhaps you need to rethink your perceptions ?


And speaking of "re inventing the wheel" Tedious because Taylor marketing was hashed and rehashed ad nauseam here on AGF when they brought out V bracing

[mawmow]

I came to solid wood acoustic with a mid class Taylor. I also got a Martin D-35, then other Taylors.
I do receive the Taylor's "Wood & Steel" quarterly magazine and have a sigh and pinch my nose while I go through "Bob speaks" and other self advertising articles.
While Martin seems to me to keep in luthier's mood, Bob Taylor is more a businessman as shown by his implications in Ebony harvesting in Africa as well as Koa plantation in Hawaï and overmarketting small innovations as changing X bracing to V bracing with an outrageaous try at a huge increase in price listing.
Anyway, I do love my Taylors as much as my Martins !

[SpruceTop]

Originally Posted by Rev Roy

Or why not have both a Martin, a Taylor and a Gibson (see sig)? Just doing my part to keep the universe in balance.

Rev, You Nailed It! The Gibson J-45 Honetburst Koa Custom I bought back in 2007 was one of the best acoustics I've ever owned and I sold it to an AGF member several years ago. He's remarked on several occasions how much he was digging it! I should have kept it!

[Rev Roy]

Originally Posted by SpruceTop

Rev, You Nailed It! The Gibson J-45 Honetburst Koa Custom I bought back in 2007 was one of the best acoustics I've ever owned and I sold it to an AGF member several years ago. He's remarked on several occasions how much he was digging it! I should have kept it!

Whoa! What a SWEET J-45! Yep, shoulda kept it.

[DukeX]

Originally Posted by KevWind

Being a 70 year old guy, I'll posit my opinion.
The above being the most and possibly only salient point in the entire OP
IMO Yet another thinly disguised , lopsided, tedious Taylor "marketing" bash .... From, I am guessing 4 old,,, non Taylor owners. How am I doin' Am I in the ball park of non ownership guess ?...

Beat me to it, Kev.

[DukeX]

Originally Posted by KevWind

Yes Not , a thinly disguised bash . My ownership guess, and having a 50% chance being wrong, doesn't change that.








The words we use and how we use them are windows into our true thoughts and and feelings, whether we are aware of what those thoughts and feelings actually are or not... Perhaps you need to rethink your perceptions ?


And speaking of "re inventing the wheel" Tedious because Taylor marketing was hashed and rehashed ad nauseam here on AGF when they brought out V bracing

Right on, again.

[loco gringo]

Rich Corinthian Leather, anyone?

[AmericanEagle]

Originally Posted by SpruceTop

.... Why not have both a Martin and a Taylor guitar?

I do have both.

I prefer Taylors but really do like my Martin as well.

[rjsc5]

I own several of both brands, and must admit they both make turds!

I lean to slightly favoring Martin, but own more Taylors.

I was very disappointed to find some new Martins selling well over 3k that needed neck resets. Very sad.

YMMV

[Glob]

These threads are always quite interesting in a sense - to remind everyone that it takes everything to make a world.

Before I could afford any of these guitars, I always used to think that Taylor was the guitar you used to perform onstage when you were a pro (of course, it's a bias driven by the bands I was listening to), whilst Martin was the guitar for country / solo singers. I wasn't naive enough to think there was more to it than this - and that ultimately the difference was down to how much you paid for the guitar. The brand didn't matter. I couldn't imagine there would be any significant difference in sound.

Now I can afford more expensive gear, it does strike me still - time to time - and in a way that is deep and significant - almost teary, as if I was grateful to be allowed to play guitars like that - how much more better and easier to play these are. I have both. It doesn't matter. It's the same feeling. To be grateful to be allowed to play them, to get joy out of it.

Of course, I play better, I hear better, I find them being REALLY sounding differently, but still, doesn't matter. The marketing doesn't matter, the history don't matter.

So the OP's point: I don't see that perception issue. I think when it comes to music, corporate histories or 'style' are irrelevant. It does strike me (in a very positive way) how every builder large or small is still marveling about what they do. So passionate.

[varmonter]

First off both make fine guitars no doubt and they
Both occupy that demographic of musicians
who are looking to buy an upgrade but dont want
To spend 10k on a guitar. So not unlike
Fenders buisness model. Martin seems
To have a niche mkt on more traditional players
who prefer a more conservative approach to
playing and the visual appearance of the instrument. Taylor encroached on this a bit
with their grand Pacific I think.
I think Taylor's tend to play better
Out of the box. But i like the sound
Of Martin's for the most part. In a band
Situation given the constraints of a piezo
I'd go with a taylor cutaway. But in a quiet
Setting I'd prefer to mic a martin. All subjective if course.

[FingahPickah]

Originally Posted by SpruceTop

It's a Ford vs. Chevy kinda thingy .... Why not have both a Martin and a Taylor guitar?

I'm with you on this...
I appreciate all my guitars (including Martin, Taylor, Larrivee, USA Breedlove, vintage Guilds, Eastman) for what I like about them without comparing them to each other.

[Mark Stone]

Originally Posted by NotveryGood

Last night I had an interesting discussion with three guitar playing friends here in the U.K. ,and its hopefully worth sharing. None of this is fact, just perception and opinion. Nor is it about the products. Taylor and Martin both make fine instruments, some of us favour one or the other, some like both, some like neither. So with that said ,here is the drift of the conversation.

Martin is among the very best of traditional American success stories. They have the history ,and don't seem to have the need to try too hard.
The promotional videos generally seem calm and laid back. A gently smiling Chris Martin seems happy to share with us, hopes we might make a purchase but doesnt seem to mind if we dont.
Taylor, on the other hand reminded us of those loud, brash TV adverts of the early sixties aimed at selling the great American public the latest all singing ,all dancing , Chrysler, Chevrolet or Kitchen appliance. Lots of hype then, but Taylor had a lot of catching up to do and they have pretty much done so. (we all agreed though that we have really had enough of the self congratulation and a smug looking Andy Powell re inventing the wheel!) But a great success story too, just a different approach.
So there you have it. not factual or accurate, just the thoughts and perception of four older guys over the water ,whose opinions dont matter anyway!

Good post -- definitely got us talkin'!

The two companies are definitely different in approach and heritage. I think they represent different philosophies because they rose to prominence in different eras. Nevertheless, guitars are guitars. I played Gibson Acoustic for 40+ years, and loved the company and its heritage. I still love their history and heritage. So, when I switched to Taylor, it was a bit emotional - but for me Taylor guitars fit into my purpose and playing style better. Other people find Martins or Gibson acoustic instruments serve them better. No big deal. Guitars are guitars.

[brandall10]

Originally Posted by SpruceTop

It's a Ford vs. Chevy kinda thingy .... Why not have both a Martin and a Taylor guitar?

I feel like Martin vs. Gibson is a Ford vs. Chevy thing (similar w/ Fender vs. Gibson for electrics)... Taylor is more like the PRS of the guitar world - they're a more modern entrant that took a different path and carved their own way, but a way than many traditionalists feel lack soul to some degree.