Bob Taylor has got to be saying...

[Jaden]

Originally Posted by Rmz76

Being one of two partners who own Taylor Guitars, I'm certain Bob is very much ok with all these changes. Having studied Taylor guitars, read Bob's auto-biography and being a player who's never quite been charmed by their product, I've found the man behind the name fascinating. I believe there's a bit of a romanticized idea about how much Bob actually cares about the end product for a tactile, aesthetic and functional stand point in context of keeping with tradition. Bob's largest contribution to the industry is probably his innovative assembly processes and overall improved automation in acoustic guitar building. The consistency that technology has afforded Taylor has a resulted in a product line with certain showroom advantages and Bob and Kurt together have been trailblazers in terms of marketing. I think even "over the top" marketing tactics have long bee part of the brand and I think it's more about just trying to do the best they can to get customers attention than any deliberate manipulation. That is to say, I believe that Taylor stands behind and believes in all the changes they bring about. I don't think there is a gimmick to any of it in the eyes of Taylor.

Where I'm going with this, is that Taylor like any successful business is about making money and unlike Gibson and Martin, Taylor's value is in their innovation not their legacy/tradition. So all these things you are being critical of are all taking risk, making change, innovating. In some ways big in others small changes that help keep the overall Taylor catalog fresh.

I think if you're looking for a builder where the current product line pays some respect to tradition then Taylor is probably not your brand.

Interesting reading. Your previous discussions with regard to Taylor’s V bracing and it’s goal toward piano like & precise intonation, cleaning up of stray overtones, almost reinventing the acoustic guitar, is the best I’ve read anywhere too.

[birdsong]

This, apparently, is how the Ebony cutting boards are being done. It is to me completely sustainable. Indeed, a "cut above" the average producer. And even if it weren't quite to this effort, I see no problem with growing a plant to then harvest it later for a product.

For anyone interested in more details, I encourage you to read the ebony story. When Bob and others went over to investigate the source, they found about 90% being discarded b/c it wasn't pure black (which the locals had been told was needed for fretboards). The topic of pure black vs. "marbled" fretboards has been discussed here (about a year ago it seems). The cutting boards are said to be another way to use material that did not "make the cut" for a guitar (I can't stop myself with the bad puns today. I have to blame Brucebubs and some coriolis effect ).

From the Taylor website: https://blog.taylorguitars.com/bob-t...cutting-boards

"Stella Falone, named for two of the women at the heart of the Crelicam operation, produces beautiful, professional-quality ebony cutting boards featuring the same wood we use in the fretboards and bridges of our guitars. Each reversible board is visually distinct, with both sides displaying a variation of ebony’s gorgeous striping and wood grain. No additional wood is cut to produce these boards; instead, pieces are selected that don’t quite fit the specifications for other instrument components. This allows the mill to create more value with existing wood, which helps support the livelihood of the mill’s employees and their families."

John

[Jaden]

I like Bob and all, have seen the widely circulated video on his discussion on the harvest practices of ebony in Africa, but I’m continually amazed at the praise he has received as some kind of environmentalist. Seems to me that he has simply identified the high rate of waste and has made efforts to reduce waste to zero.

Coming from a once beautiful land of west coast Canada, whenever I walk my dog through the forest all I see in every direction in the undergrowth are massive stumps of cedar and fir, approaching 1,000 years old.

Environmentalism = Don’t cut it down AT ALL. Diversify the local economy away from logging altogether.

[jim1960]

Originally Posted by Rmz76

Being one of two partners who own Taylor Guitars, I'm certain Bob is very much ok with all these changes. Having studied Taylor guitars, read Bob's auto-biography and being a player who's never quite been charmed by their product, I've found the man behind the name fascinating. I believe there's a bit of a romanticized idea about how much Bob actually cares about the end product for a tactile, aesthetic and functional stand point in context of keeping with tradition. Bob's largest contribution to the industry is probably his innovative assembly processes and overall improved automation in acoustic guitar building. The consistency that technology has afforded Taylor has a resulted in a product line with certain showroom advantages and Bob and Kurt together have been trailblazers in terms of marketing. I think even "over the top" marketing tactics have long bee part of the brand and I think it's more about just trying to do the best they can to get customers attention than any deliberate manipulation. That is to say, I believe that Taylor stands behind and believes in all the changes they bring about. I don't think there is a gimmick to any of it in the eyes of Taylor.

Where I'm going with this, is that Taylor like any successful business is about making money and unlike Gibson and Martin, Taylor's value is in their innovation not their legacy/tradition. So all these things you are being critical of are all taking risk, making change, innovating. In some ways big in others small changes that help keep the overall Taylor catalog fresh.

I think if you're looking for a builder where the current product line pays some respect to tradition then Taylor is probably not your brand.

Where's the "like" button?

[BluesKing777]

I only have my 717e Builder’s Edition to go buy, but that guitar tells me : ‘Andy Powers is a genius’.
Playing my 717, I don’t feel a need to go play another Taylor so Bob is probably saying to Andy: ‘Keep up the amazingly sensational work, Andy, but can you please make the Grand Pacific guitars a little less better so we can sell the others?’

BluesKing777.

[Brucebubs]

Right about now Audie has got to be saying, "Maybe posting this thread wasn't such a great idea?"

[RP]

Originally Posted by Brucebubs

Right about now Audie has got to be saying, "Maybe posting this thread wasn't such a great idea?"

Thanks for my chortle of the evening.....

[Audie]

Originally Posted by Audie

What are y'all doing to my company!

All the drastic changes in guitar making across the product line. The warm response to "revoiced" instruments, leading into V Bracing, Grand Pacific, and now credible rumors of changes to the V Bracing and the Grand Pacific. Six bridge pin twelve strings. An across the line price increase. X bracing being available across the board after it's removal from most of the line. Reducing the PS series option to the radiused armrest as opposed to the former beveled. Yet the beveled is on the 900 series, but not the PS series. Now all of the GO's, GS's and all 12 strings (except the 62 series and 100 and 200 series) across the line have been removed from the website. Bob has got to be saying I have to come out the forest in Africa and say WTH are y'all doing to my company. Too much to soon. You are confusing the customers!!!!!

Check out the Taylor site.

I am not regretting this thread. I cannot fathom why some are so critical of my opinion. I never said Taylor was a legacy. I like the company, I like the brand and I am not the only one concerned about some of their decisions. It is my prerogative to feel that way and yours to feel the way you do. To many read into things. I think the response to this thread was to have an intellectual conversation about what they are doing. Not bashing me for asking what are they doing.

[Rev Roy]

Originally Posted by Audie

I am not regretting this thread. I cannot fathom why some are so critical of my opinion. I never said Taylor was a legacy. I like the company, I like the brand and I am not the only one concerned about some of their decisions. It is my prerogative to feel that way and yours to feel the way you do. To many read into things. I think the response to this thread was to have an intellectual conversation about what they are doing. Not bashing me for asking what are they doing.

Sorry...nuanced, intellectual conversations don’t work on social media. Nice try, though.

[Charmed Life Picks]

Last few posts said it all.

No regrets, Audie. Taylor is a company that came out of nowhere decades ago to redefine the worldwide acoustic guitar market. Although I'm a Martin and Eastman guy, Taylor gets huge props for all they've done.

They'll get it right. They almost always do.

On with the food fight.....

scott memmer

[MChild62]

In Episode 23 (April 29, 2019) of From the Factory, a podcast by two Taylor employees, Crystal Lawrence, Taylor's Engineering Project Manager explains (at about 19:35) that Taylor has a weekly "product development meeting" at which she participates. https://www.taylorguitars.com/from-the-factory-podcast

The weekly meeting is led by Marketing. Crystal says Andy, Bob, and Kurt all attend (although she says Bob attends when he's in town). Lots of ideas get floated, but nothing gets the green light unless it can actually be built.

Seems like a consensus-driven and robust process that keeps Bob involved with the creative direction of the company.

[Grand Orchestra]

Originally Posted by Audie

I am not regretting this thread. I cannot fathom why some are so critical of my opinion. I never said Taylor was a legacy. I like the company, I like the brand and I am not the only one concerned about some of their decisions. It is my prerogative to feel that way and yours to feel the way you do. To many read into things. I think the response to this thread was to have an intellectual conversation about what they are doing. Not bashing me for asking what are they doing.

I don't think anyone would have had any ptoblem if you didn't take it upon yourself to speak for Bob Taylor and infer that he would be unhappy with how Andy is shaping the company and simply stated your views as well... Your views.

[rabbuhl]

I played a Grand Pacific and thought it was great. I wish they made it with a cutaway.

[IndyHD28]

Audie, your thread is fine and you can express your opinion however you want, subject to forum rules. I happen to disagree with you based on EVERYTHING I’ve read, BT is thrilled with Andy. He desperately wanted to be free from day-to-day factory obligations to pursue his second love—reforestation.

Another example is the V-Class introduction. AP originally designed V bracing for the GP guitar which naturally is optimized for it. Instead, a management decision was made to go big and apply it to their largest, most popular line first. I have no doubt that both Bob and Kurt were intimately involved in driving this decision. Hard to imagine newbie AP designing it for one guitar then rolling the dice and installing it across the GA line. My speculation is that BT was so thrilled to find a workable bracing design that FINALLY freed his guitars from any vestige of Martin copycatism that he pushed the widespread use of the V. I can imagine the meeting with senior sales and marketing managers....”We are betting the future of the company and your jobs on this change—so go sell it.” Hence the all-hands-on-deck push last year.

That’s MY opinion based on decades of senior management with a manufacturer.

[Goodallboy]

Originally Posted by Grand Orchestra

I don't think anyone would have had any ptoblem if you didn't take it upon yourself to speak for Bob Taylor and infer that he would be unhappy with how Andy is shaping the company and simply stated your views as well... Your views.

Any objective read of his post would quickly indicate he wasn't claiming to actually speak for Bob T., c'mon. That's another stretch that goes way beyond what Audie was positing. He was posting an opinion about what "Bob has got to be thinking". Twisting it onto his attempt to read bob's mind or as you claim, "speak for him", is simply wrong. And not very nice, IMHO.