Perception. Martin vs Taylor.

[Rev Roy]

Originally Posted by SpruceTop

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

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

[j3ffr0]

I think I would have agreed with those four chaps, if I was in the conversation. I might offer that perhaps Martin chooses to error on the side of not trying too hard where as Taylor chooses to error on the side of literally trying too hard.

I have a lot of respect for both brands.

[NotveryGood]

Originally Posted by RoyBoy

As Europeans, I'm curious as to where you feel Furch falls on that continuum? From what I see and hear on their website, they appear closer to the Taylor end of things, perhaps a little more reasonable financially? (we just don't see them stateside much). To the Taylor lover: did you compare Furch when you chose Taylor?

Our discussion wasn't about the merits of any instruments,we all know there are wonderful instruments to be had from many manufacturers. It was simply a discussion of what many see as the "big two" in terms of what appears to be very different marketing styles .

[NotveryGood]

Originally Posted by Silly Moustache

With Martins promo videos I have always disliked Diane Ponzio's presentation style and that she rarely gets the facts right.

I remember Diane Ponzio from an Acoustic weekend in Leicester some year ago. She seemed a bit brash loud and "in your face" on the Martin stand,(maybe just enthusiasm for the product ) .Her performance on the stage later didnt leave me wanting more though. I got the impression in her later videos that she had been promoting Martin for so long that she was just reciting things "by rote" which must be hard not to do after basically saying the same things about similar stuff over and over year after year?

[ataylor]

I have a Taylor and a Martin. The Taylor is an X-braced guitar in a dreadnought style. The Martin has a fast-playing, relatively slim neck profile and was built at a scale that kept the guitar from costing three times as much. I love both guitars and both owe something to the other for sounding and playing as good as they do.

Both companies’ successes have pushed the other to focus on their strengths while still embracing some of what makes the other company successful. For Martin, it has meant doubling down on its history and legacy, with the result being some of the best-sounding new guitars they’ve ever made in their Authentic and Standard lines, but making them with techniques and approaches to tooling literally borrowed from Taylor.

For Taylor, it has meant forging their own path as a company and claiming to be the acoustic guitar company that is comfortable doing things a little different, whether that’s a adjustable neck joint, a new bracing system that bucks a trend over a century old, or investing in more sustainable wood harvesting — yet their most recent guitar shape is more vintage-sounding and vintage-looking than anything they’ve made in decades.

When I was starting out on guitar 20 years ago, Taylor guitars seemed cool and well-designed and sounded clear and articulate. Martin guitars appeared boring, dated (and not in a timeless, vintage way), and typically sounded uninspiring and dead in places like Guitar Center. I’ve since found myself gravitating towards more traditional shapes and sounds — particularly Martin guitars when it comes to brands building on a large scale — and find I really don’t care for guitars with cutaways and/or visible electronics as nearly every Taylor seems to have these days.

Both companies have a claim to being traditional American success stories. Both companies have innovated and both have an enviable place in the guitar world. Both companies have been led by really likable guys who have built a wonderful legacy in the industry. Both companies have literally helped the other get to where they are today.

Both companies made guitars I’m happy and lucky to own. Both companies continue to make fine guitars and I’d be happy to have another with either name on the headstock. Better still would be one more of each.

[boneuphtoner]

I have both - I love both, but here are a few thoughts:

- Since Taylor is still a very young company compared to Martin, I understand why they were more aggressive in their marketing years ago. I mean 90+% of our heroes from the 1960s and before played a Martin - the testament of history speaks for itself and Taylor had to innovate, and they had to market the heck out it to compete

- I don't think anyone can argue that Taylor is now a very well established brand - in my view, that makes aggressive marketing less necessary than it may have been previously. I wasn't among those who were talking of conspiracy theories about V-bracing, etc. and I tend to side with Taylor that it improved many (but not all to the same extent) of the guitar's performance, but I have also played other recent examples from Martin that showed superior volume and sustain compared to Taylor. So considering where Taylor is right now, I think there can be too much of a good thing when it comes to marketing. The sustainability piece is another important facet, but you don't hear Martin talking time after time about their all-Mango guitar - there are many conversations with Chris Martin on YouTube talking about the proactive, (if different from Taylor), approach towards increased sustainability. But they are not marketing it anywhere near to the level that Taylor does.

- Lastly, I think Martin could learn a few things from Taylor when it comes to descriptions of their models. When I was beginner nearly 4 years ago, I had no idea what a 000 or OM were, let alone the differences, etc. (I had to go to this forum and YouTube for explanations) but Taylor's well laid out system with explanations everywhere were very helpful for this beginner. I know it isn't their core business, but I'm convinced Martin is losing beginning players to Taylor and other brands because of confusion with nomenclature. Yes, I know their models are iconic and maybe they feel if they have done so well for as long as they have, they shouldn't need to go down to that level. But from a newer level perspective, I think it is an opportunity missed.

In short, I think Taylor's aggressive marketing was necessary for them to establish themselves as a relative new comer, but now that they are established, it does come across as heavy handed from time-to-time. Martin, on the other hand, I don't think is doing enough to educate new buyers about their lineup.

My $.02

[gfspencer]

Originally Posted by EZYPIKINS

For me, growing up in the 60's. Everything I heard on the radio was either a Martin, a Gibson, or maybe a Guild. Those are the sounds of my childhood. The tones I always wanted out of my acoustics. The younger generation grew up hearing the Taylors, and I get it. But for my money. I'll stick with what I know works for me.

Same here. I bought a Taylor . . . and returned it. It was a beautiful, well made guitar but it didn't speak to me.

[pickinray]

Both companies make fine instruments. Although I favor Martins, I greatly respect Taylor guitars. In general, I think Martins appeal to those who like "traditional" guitar designs, while Taylors appeal to those who like "modern" designs. But I think both companies have an influence on one another. Martin has introduced some guitars that are more "Taylor-like" and Taylor has developed some that are more "Martin-like" in terms of tone and design. Competition between the two companies makes them both better.

[Herb Hunter]

Originally Posted by NotveryGood

...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!

I have met Andy Powers and I am confident that if you met him, you would find him, as I did, to be anything but smug so I’m quite surprised at your reaction to the Taylor videos you referenced.

I hardly think that a novel approach to bracing can rightly be characterized as reinventing the wheel.

Would you say that when Christopher Martin developed X-bracing as an alternative to existing bracing designs in the 1840s, he, in effect, reinvented the wheel?

[NotveryGood]

Originally Posted by Herb Hunter

I have met Andy Powers and I am confident that if you met him, you would find him, as I did, to be anything but smug so I’m quite surprised at your reaction to the Taylor videos you referenced.

I hardly think that a novel approach to bracing can rightly be characterized as reinventing the wheel.

Would you say that when Christopher Martin developed X-bracing as an alternative to existing bracing designs in the 1840s, he, in effect, reinvented the wheel?

I never said Andy Powers was smug, just that he looks it in the videos. One of the points we discussed in our little group was that Taylor do push their new bracing as if they have re invented the wheel. And they may well have done! There is no need to be defensive on their behalf, it wasnt an attack! (Christopher Martin might well have given the same impression had the video technology been available in the 1840s!) We were talking about our perception of the advertising, and as I said before its just a perception, an opinion. We felt their self congratulatory stuff does wear thin after a few issues of "Wood and Steel" though. You obviously disagree and enjoy their promotional campaign so thats fine too. Proof that it works!

[JGinNJ]

I think Taylor is overdoing it with the Andy Powers thing. His name or picture shows up on every page of their ad magazine.

[zmf]

Originally Posted by Slothead56

Taylor guitars have always felt “industrial” to me. Very well put together but lacking soul.

This comment accurately describes my feeling about Taylor guitars, coupled with their hyperbolic self-promotion. To offset the "industrial" side, they generate a few models in a large array of tonewood combinations, which I assume (unjustly, no doubt) are going to sound pretty much the same. There's a certain "grayness" to it all, mixing and matching tonewoods at different series levels, which in turn are distinguished often only by levels of bling, bevels, etc.

With Martin, I at least have a preconception that 18 and 28 series guitars are going to sound different.

Couple that with video of Powers shown pouring over a de Vinci-like sketch of V-bracing, its influence on "intonation", and how the vibrational flow created is like body surfing the breakwater at Huntington Beach......

Probably just that Martin's pursuit of its own vintage tone, while circular, doesn't alert my BS meter as much.

[Br1ck]

I'll admit to thinking the new Taylor bracing marketing being very over the top. First of all, the concept goes back to the thirties. Secondly the nomenclature designed to jump on the luxury car market branding bandwagon strikes me as pretentious. Thirdly, when it came out, I watched videos and read enough posts that it seemed to me as many disliked the new product as liked it. Then there was the attempt to change or confuse terminology.

All this has nothing really to do with anything but the marketing. The product is and has always been good. The glossy magazine they send out is a marketing tour de force. I don't particularly like Taylors and even I have drooled over that one. I basically don't like the necks.

They also have a robust endorsement program.

Martin doesn't come close, nor do they care to. They just try to make Taylor like guitar models, and Taylor tries to emulate Martins with some models. Now slopes are the rage. They all are living in a mature market and are trying to sell folks their fourth guitars. And you have to admire a concept that wants to make all their loyal customers go out and buy the new guitars. Brilliant really.

Martin wants to sell you on the concept you want a guitar just like your grandfather played. Pretty successful at it.

[Prof_Stack]

I've got one of each:
Taylor 214ce (Mexican made)
Martin D-18GE (2007)
Gibson L-50 (1939)

Each is a great sounding acoustic with their own voice. I don't consider one better than the others.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by NotveryGood

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!

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 ?

For example I could also pretend to be just "musing historically " and recount the anecdote of my finally some 20 +years ago being able to afford a nice acoustic. Of having haunted numerous guitar stores all over the US for several years and trying possibly 150 to 200 mostly Martins (as being a proto boomer I assumed Martin was "the sound" of my youth)... Imagine my continuing disappointment at not being able to find a D28 or 35 that offered anything sonically more than the Yamaha FG150 I already owned. Alas it seemed "the sound" was actually just lots of lack luster, mid range centric, diffusion .
But hey just my old guy perception and hopefully doesn't matter