Taylor Guitars: Why the bashing?
Barfine
incredible resource. One thing I don't understand, however, is the
constant bashing of Taylor guitars. I've owned 3 Martin Guitars, a
Guild and a Taylor in my playing life. The only lemon was the Guild,
but that's another story. Each guitar has been a wonderful addition to
my musical life, each one for a different reason. My most recent
guitar purchase was the Taylor. I tried many Taylors, and other brands,
in many guitar shops over the course of 1 year before deciding on the
Taylor. I am incredibly impressed with my Taylor. It is a fine
instrument. I am also very impressed with the customer service I have
recieved from Taylor. I wish I could say the same for Martin over the
years.
Last year I toured the Martin factory. At the end of the tour I
gathered in the guitar room with the players in our group swapping
various Martin models, licks and stories. I had not yet purchsed my
Taylor, but in the discussion among our group, Taylor owners
outnumbered Martin owners.
Now, as I read through the various discussions here on this board, it
seems that the most popular sport is bashing Taylor guitars and the
Taylor company. It really seems childish to me. There are many
excellent instruments and companies to choose from in selecting an
acoustic guitar and prices are better than they ever have been.
Taylor's entry into the market and becoming the first acoustic guitar
company in years to offer solid wood acoustics for under $1000 has
benefited every guitarist by upping the level of competition among the
acoustic guitar manufacturers. I really doubt that Martin would have
come out with $600 laminated guitars and cheaper solid wood mahogony
guitars if Taylor hadn't been so successful with their cheaper models.
I understand that some people are unhappy with Taylor's advertising
policies. However, it seems rather childish to bash one brand of
guitar because you don't like their advertising. I've read others who
don't like Taylor's new neck. Ok, I can buy that. It might turn out
to be a piece of crap, or we might see it as state of the art 10 years
from now. Time will tell.
The point of my ramble is constructive criticism is understandable but
bashing for sport is not. I have criticisms of the Martin company
after owning 3 of them. I have criticisms of Guild after making my
lemon. However each company continues to do many things well and some
fewer things not so well. Taylor is the same. They have made an
incredible impact on the acoustic guitar industry in their 25 years of
existence. I hope they continue to flourish and make excellent
instruments. However, if they don't I will be there with my
constructive criticism.
Criticism is fine, leave the bashing and name calling to children.
Ok, I've said my piece. Flame away!
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
OASYSCO
>I discovered this board about a week ago and have found it to be an
>incredible resource. One thing I don't understand, however, is the
>constant bashing of Taylor guitars.
>
>Now, as I read through the various discussions here on this board, it
>seems that the most popular sport is bashing Taylor guitars and the
>Taylor company. It really seems childish to me.
>
>I understand that some people are unhappy with Taylor's advertising
>policies. However, it seems rather childish to bash one brand of
>guitar because you don't like their advertising. I've read others who
>don't like Taylor's new neck. Ok, I can buy that. It might turn out
>to be a piece of crap, or we might see it as state of the art 10 years
>from now. Time will tell.
>
>Criticism is fine, leave the bashing and name calling to children.
>
>Ok, I've said my piece. Flame away!
I'll take first crack...
First, Bob Taylor is main problem! I mean, how many folks can you trust that
have only 3 letters in their first name? "Bob", "bob", "BOB" - see it all
sounds the same no matter how you spell it (forwards or backwards) - fishy,
isn't it?
Second, he named the guitars after himself. How blantantly narcistic...
narcisstic... narccisstic... see, I can't even spell it, it's so bad!
Third, he had the gall to hog an entire video talking about what?!? Guitar
necks. Not just anybody's mind you, but Taylor guitar necks.
Fourth, Taylor guitars come with documentation on proper storage to avoid wood
warpage. Just who do they think they are? Why do they warn you about wood
warpage? Because they love you?!? No! Because... well, just because! See?
Fifth, Bob Taylor makes all solid wood guitars. Just who does he think he is?
Even Martin, Larivee and the rest have laminates? Oh, no!!! Taylor has to have
solid wood guitars...
Now, do you see why all of us reasonable folks here despise Taylor guitars? I'm
sure that you will be selling yours shortly. Ha-ha, just be aware that Taylor
is dropping the price on their entry-level guitars and raising the price on the
higher-end... ummm, I mean they are going for a 7% across-the-board price
hike... ummm, you know, I'll bet Taylor plants this conflicting information
just to see us squirm. And while we're at it, whose to say that "Bob Taylor" is
not an extraterrestrial?
I've always maintained... ramble, ramble, ramble...
Greg "Hate them Taylors and proud of it"
P.S. In case anyone is wondering, I am kidding as I am the proud owner of a
Taylor 412CE that sounds better with each passing month. And, yes, I know that
I tick some folks off with how I deliver my message.
hed...@my-deja.com
Barfine <jcarpN...@kreative.net.invalid> wrote:
>. . . I am incredibly impressed with my Taylor. It is a fine
> instrument. I am also very impressed with the customer service I have
> recieved from Taylor. I wish I could say the same for Martin over the
> years.
> excellent instruments and companies to choose from in selecting an
> acoustic guitar and prices are better than they ever have been.
> Taylor's entry into the market and becoming the first acoustic guitar
> company in years to offer solid wood acoustics for under $1000 has
> benefited every guitarist by upping the level of competition among the
> acoustic guitar manufacturers. I really doubt that Martin would have
> come out with $600 laminated guitars and cheaper solid wood mahogony
> guitars if Taylor hadn't been so successful with their cheaper models.
>
> policies. However, it seems rather childish to bash one brand of
> guitar because you don't like their advertising. I've read others who
> don't like Taylor's new neck. Ok, I can buy that. It might turn out
> to be a piece of crap, or we might see it as state of the art 10 years
> from now. Time will tell.
>
What you have written is well considered and articulately expressed and
right on the money. I wish that I could state the case as cogently.
I think Taylor's policy with respect to advertising sucks, but I still
think they make fine guitars (I own two of them).
Harold
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Barfine
Chris Stern
Chris
Barfine wrote:
>
> I discovered this board about a week ago and have found it to be an
> incredible resource. One thing I don't understand, however, is the
> constant bashing of Taylor guitars. I've owned 3 Martin Guitars, a
> Guild and a Taylor in my playing life. The only lemon was the Guild,
> but that's another story. Each guitar has been a wonderful addition to
> my musical life, each one for a different reason. My most recent
> guitar purchase was the Taylor. I tried many Taylors, and other brands,
> in many guitar shops over the course of 1 year before deciding on the
> Taylor. I am incredibly impressed with my Taylor. It is a fine
> instrument. I am also very impressed with the customer service I have
> recieved from Taylor. I wish I could say the same for Martin over the
> years.
>
> Last year I toured the Martin factory. At the end of the tour I
> gathered in the guitar room with the players in our group swapping
> various Martin models, licks and stories. I had not yet purchsed my
> Taylor, but in the discussion among our group, Taylor owners
> outnumbered Martin owners.
>
> Now, as I read through the various discussions here on this board, it
> seems that the most popular sport is bashing Taylor guitars and the
> Taylor company. It really seems childish to me. There are many
> excellent instruments and companies to choose from in selecting an
> acoustic guitar and prices are better than they ever have been.
> Taylor's entry into the market and becoming the first acoustic guitar
> company in years to offer solid wood acoustics for under $1000 has
> benefited every guitarist by upping the level of competition among the
> acoustic guitar manufacturers. I really doubt that Martin would have
> come out with $600 laminated guitars and cheaper solid wood mahogony
> guitars if Taylor hadn't been so successful with their cheaper models.
>
> I understand that some people are unhappy with Taylor's advertising
> policies. However, it seems rather childish to bash one brand of
> guitar because you don't like their advertising. I've read others who
> don't like Taylor's new neck. Ok, I can buy that. It might turn out
> to be a piece of crap, or we might see it as state of the art 10 years
> from now. Time will tell.
>
> The point of my ramble is constructive criticism is understandable but
> bashing for sport is not. I have criticisms of the Martin company
> after owning 3 of them. I have criticisms of Guild after making my
> lemon. However each company continues to do many things well and some
> fewer things not so well. Taylor is the same. They have made an
> incredible impact on the acoustic guitar industry in their 25 years of
> existence. I hope they continue to flourish and make excellent
> instruments. However, if they don't I will be there with my
> constructive criticism.
>
> Criticism is fine, leave the bashing and name calling to children.
>
> Ok, I've said my piece. Flame away!
>
Charlie Jones
tends to go from brand to brand. I think the company before Taylor was
Ovation.
Charlie (yup, you guessed it I own a Taylor) Jones
Howard Page
fresh can of coffee. It is the sensation of inhaling only the aromatic
fragrance of the finest woods,and the auditory satisfaction of the clean
rich tone.
OASYSCO <oas...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991112141847...@ng-fi1.aol.com...
> >...snipped but only to save a little bandwidth to use up with my reply...
>
> >incredible resource. One thing I don't understand, however, is the
> >constant bashing of Taylor guitars.
> >
> >seems that the most popular sport is bashing Taylor guitars and the
> >Taylor company. It really seems childish to me.
> >
> >policies. However, it seems rather childish to bash one brand of
> >guitar because you don't like their advertising. I've read others who
> >don't like Taylor's new neck. Ok, I can buy that. It might turn out
> >to be a piece of crap, or we might see it as state of the art 10 years
> >from now. Time will tell.
> >
> >
> >Ok, I've said my piece. Flame away!
>
Robert McArthur
> Criticism is fine, leave the bashing and name calling to children.
I haven't been reading these Taylor threads so don't know about specific
bashing, but I would like to say that I have found Taylor to be
consistently mediocre in tone. Overly bright without the complexity a
higher end guitar should have. They are just plain boring. Not all,
but enough for me to feel genralization is in in order. all imho of
course.
Robert
Fishpicker
>
> Love your sarcasm!
>
> * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
> The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Taylor for the same reason they dispise Bill Gates, Jealousy! Both these
individuals have developed superior products and have used excellent
marketing techniques to build their business. You can bet your Elixers
that C.F. Martin is every bit the capitalist that these two are. Find a
need and fill it is the key to success. In the words of John Prine
"Thats what makes the world go round" :)
Gregor Martin
misc...@my-deja.com
just like Pierre Debs.
Michael
swma...@my-deja.com
like to complain. They just haven't figured out that
most of us aren't interested in hearing their
complaining.
fran...@my-deja.com
Charlie Jones <cjo...@Mcs.Net> wrote:
> Bravo! I could not have stated it better myself. The brand X bashing
> tends to go from brand to brand. I think the company before Taylor
was
> Ovation.
>
> Charlie (yup, you guessed it I own a Taylor) Jones
Geez, I must have bad taste. I own 2 Taylors and 2 Ovations. :)
Francis
>
> On Fri, 12 Nov 1999, Barfine wrote:
>
> > I discovered this board about a week ago and have found it to be an
> > incredible resource. One thing I don't understand, however, is the
> > constant bashing of Taylor guitars. I've owned 3 Martin Guitars, a
> > Guild and a Taylor in my playing life. The only lemon was the
Guild,
> > but that's another story. Each guitar has been a wonderful
addition to
> > my musical life, each one for a different reason. My most recent
> > guitar purchase was the Taylor. I tried many Taylors, and other
brands,
> > in many guitar shops over the course of 1 year before deciding on
the
> > Taylor. I am incredibly impressed with my Taylor. It is a fine
> > instrument. I am also very impressed with the customer service I
have
> > recieved from Taylor. I wish I could say the same for Martin over
the
> > years.
> >
> > Last year I toured the Martin factory. At the end of the tour I
> > gathered in the guitar room with the players in our group swapping
> > various Martin models, licks and stories. I had not yet purchsed my
> > Taylor, but in the discussion among our group, Taylor owners
> > outnumbered Martin owners.
> >
> > Now, as I read through the various discussions here on this board,
it
> > seems that the most popular sport is bashing Taylor guitars and the
> > Taylor company. It really seems childish to me. There are many
> > excellent instruments and companies to choose from in selecting an
> > acoustic guitar and prices are better than they ever have been.
> > Taylor's entry into the market and becoming the first acoustic
guitar
> > company in years to offer solid wood acoustics for under $1000 has
> > benefited every guitarist by upping the level of competition among
the
> > acoustic guitar manufacturers. I really doubt that Martin would
have
> > come out with $600 laminated guitars and cheaper solid wood mahogony
> > guitars if Taylor hadn't been so successful with their cheaper
models.
> >
> > I understand that some people are unhappy with Taylor's advertising
> > policies. However, it seems rather childish to bash one brand of
> > guitar because you don't like their advertising. I've read others
who
> > don't like Taylor's new neck. Ok, I can buy that. It might turn
out
> > to be a piece of crap, or we might see it as state of the art 10
years
> > from now. Time will tell.
> >
> > The point of my ramble is constructive criticism is understandable
but
> > bashing for sport is not. I have criticisms of the Martin company
> > after owning 3 of them. I have criticisms of Guild after making my
> > lemon. However each company continues to do many things well and
some
> > fewer things not so well. Taylor is the same. They have made an
> > incredible impact on the acoustic guitar industry in their 25 years
of
> > existence. I hope they continue to flourish and make excellent
> > instruments. However, if they don't I will be there with my
> > constructive criticism.
> >
> > Criticism is fine, leave the bashing and name calling to children.
> >
> > Ok, I've said my piece. Flame away!
> >
> >
> > * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion
Network *
> > The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet -
Free!
> >
> >
> >
>
>
fran...@my-deja.com
oas...@aol.com (OASYSCO) wrote:
> >...snipped but only to save a little bandwidth to use up with my
reply...
>
> >incredible resource. One thing I don't understand, however, is the
> >constant bashing of Taylor guitars.
> >
> >seems that the most popular sport is bashing Taylor guitars and the
> >Taylor company. It really seems childish to me.
> >
> >policies. However, it seems rather childish to bash one brand of
> >guitar because you don't like their advertising. I've read others
who
> >don't like Taylor's new neck. Ok, I can buy that. It might turn out
> >to be a piece of crap, or we might see it as state of the art 10
years
> >from now. Time will tell.
> >
> >
> >Ok, I've said my piece. Flame away!
>
ROTFLMAO...I wanted to get a Backpacker until I played the Baby-T. I
guess I have to wait a few more years to get a Martin to compliment my
410E.
Francis
ladyu...@my-deja.com
Then add to that that alot of guitars out there try to sound like
Martins.....even more boring still. Sound differences notwithstanding,
dollar for dollar, I felt that there was just more bang for the buck in
the Taylor. At least on the lower end models....which is all I could
afford....like alot of people. Solid wood in the Taylor against
laminate in a comparably priced Martin...as well as neck binding on
even the lowliest Taylor. But, in my own defense, you won't catch me
bashing Martins or any other manufacturer's guitar either.....viva la
difference!!!!
Lisa
In article <382CADC0...@yahoo.com>,
Robert McArthur <rt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > Criticism is fine, leave the bashing and name calling to children.
>
> I haven't been reading these Taylor threads so don't know about
specific
> bashing, but I would like to say that I have found Taylor to be
> consistently mediocre in tone. Overly bright without the complexity a
> higher end guitar should have. They are just plain boring. Not all,
> but enough for me to feel genralization is in in order. all imho of
> course.
> Robert
>
David Kilpatrick
were about as ordinary as my Martin but slightly quieter, about half the
volume of the Lowdens subjectively. However, electric players apparently
find the neck really comfortable, while I found all that I tried too
narrow, with the strings very tightly spaced at the bridge as well. I
understand they are making wider necks now. The same players who really
rated Taylors hated Lowdens because they find the guitar, and the neck,
too big to handle and very unfamiliar if you play electric. I would say
the main point about the Taylors I tried (small bodied, grand auditorium
size, and dreadnought) was freedom from any obvious vices with very
clean good looks. Sort of guitars in suits. DK
ladyu...@my-deja.com
and makes you happy, no doubt, when you play it. In my mind, that
makes for a great guitar.
People bond to guitars for personal reasons. Just because it doesn't
say on the headstock Martin or Taylor or Lowden or Larrivee or or
or.......doesn't mean it isn't a great guitar. I have a friend who
plays on what I refer to as my "beater" guitar....a 27 yr old Nagoya.
And he just makes that thing sing.....and he loves the hell out of
it...has tried to talk me into selling it to him on more than one
occasion.....to him, it's a great guitar. Me, I could just never
really get comfortable with it.
I love my guitar because it fits me.....I have a real joy when I play
it...even if I'm not very good:) I think it's a great guitar.....for
me.
I just don't see the point in bashing a company because you happen to
like another brand. To me, time wasted that could have been spent
playing.
Lisa
In article <382DEAA4...@maxwellplace.demon.co.uk>,
mcdonald
>
> Kinda the point I as trying to make. You found a guitar that suits you
> and makes you happy, no doubt, when you play it. In my mind, that
> makes for a great guitar.
> People bond to guitars for personal reasons. Just because it doesn't
> say on the headstock Martin or Taylor or Lowden or Larrivee or or
> or.......doesn't mean it isn't a great guitar. I have a friend who
> plays on what I refer to as my "beater" guitar....a 27 yr old Nagoya.
> And he just makes that thing sing.....and he loves the hell out of
> it...has tried to talk me into selling it to him on more than one
> occasion.....to him, it's a great guitar. Me, I could just never
> really get comfortable with it.
> I love my guitar because it fits me.....I have a real joy when I play
> it...even if I'm not very good:) I think it's a great guitar.....for
> me.
> I just don't see the point in bashing a company because you happen to
> like another brand. To me, time wasted that could have been spent
> playing.
Your last few posts have been far too reasonable and sensible. Try to
get with the program around here, will ya?
mcd
"name what names you"
JoeMc
voicing displeasure over their business practices.
I personally owned a Taylor for 5 months this year, and loved the instrument
itself. While I expressed displeasure re: the no-advertising policy, the
only reason I sold it was because I could not justify keeping it when I was
ecstatic with the addition of a Martin 000-15, costing over $800 LESS.
Does anyone recall someone here criticizing the Taylor product itself?
--
Joe
jomickathomedotcom
<ladyu...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:80lib8$m9k$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Kinda the point I as trying to make. You found a guitar that suits you
> and makes you happy, no doubt, when you play it. In my mind, that
> makes for a great guitar.
> People bond to guitars for personal reasons. Just because it doesn't
> say on the headstock Martin or Taylor or Lowden or Larrivee or or
> or.......doesn't mean it isn't a great guitar. I have a friend who
> plays on what I refer to as my "beater" guitar....a 27 yr old Nagoya.
> And he just makes that thing sing.....and he loves the hell out of
> it...has tried to talk me into selling it to him on more than one
> occasion.....to him, it's a great guitar. Me, I could just never
> really get comfortable with it.
> I love my guitar because it fits me.....I have a real joy when I play
> it...even if I'm not very good:) I think it's a great guitar.....for
> me.
> I just don't see the point in bashing a company because you happen to
> like another brand. To me, time wasted that could have been spent
> playing.
>
Hojo2x
>I haven't seen people here bashing Taylor guitars, as much as I've seen them
>voicing displeasure over their business practices.....
>Does anyone recall someone here criticizing the Taylor product itself?
Oh, yeah. With great regularity. You must have just missed those posts, Joe -
it's well-trodden ground on this newsgroup.
Unfortunately.
Wade Hampton Miller
JoeMc
Are Taylors "bashed" more vociferously or more frequently than other
brands?
--
Joe
jomickathomedotcom
JoeMc <jom...@nospamhome.com> wrote in message
news:N_LX3.26$Va....@news.rdc1.nj.home.com...
> I haven't seen people here bashing Taylor guitars, as much as I've seen
them
> voicing displeasure over their business practices.
>
> I personally owned a Taylor for 5 months this year, and loved the
instrument
> itself. While I expressed displeasure re: the no-advertising policy, the
> only reason I sold it was because I could not justify keeping it when I
was
> ecstatic with the addition of a Martin 000-15, costing over $800 LESS.
>
> Does anyone recall someone here criticizing the Taylor product itself?
>
redh...@my-deja.com
"JoeMc" <jom...@nospamhome.com> wrote:
> Let me rephrase...
>
> Are Taylors "bashed" more vociferously or more frequently than
other
> brands?
>
past two or three months. But with the exception of Martin, they are
possibly the most often mentioned brand, good or bad or indifferent
(though I don't recall too many indifferent comments). It does seem
like Taylors draw a higher ratio of negative responses than any other
solid wood lines except maybe Gibson. I'm not sure whether the negative
comments outweigh the positive, the brand just draws people out.
Red "haven't seen a negative comment yet about a Larrivee" in Berea
Dick Schneiders
>
>--
>Joe
Not very often, Joe, but it has happened. While I have played some Taylors
that had a thin and dull sound, for the most part I have liked what I have
heard and consider them to be decent guitars for the price. Certainly not
anywhere near the best guitar made, but very good for a mass produced guitar -
different but as good as Martin, Gibson, etc.
My only reason for bashing them has been the constantly changing advertising
stances that they have been taking. The last one hurt current Taylor owners
that might for some reason want to sell their used guitar through a Taylor
dealer. I am one of them and have been very critical of this position.
Because of this I will never again consider purchasing a Taylor guitar, even
though I do feel that they are a well made instrument that is worthy of
consideration.
Dick Schneiders
Dick Schneiders
>
> Are Taylors "bashed" more vociferously or more frequently than other
>brands?
>
>Joe
Not in my opinion. More than some and less than others. Certainly less than
Ovations and Gibsons and about as often as Martins. Less than Cort, Fender,
Yamaha, Alverez, Dean, etc. but more than Breedlove, Olson, Goodall, Ryan,
Collings, Santa Cruz, Framus, etc.
I know that I left out many, but you get the idea.
Dick Schneiders
scHusker
get big enough to evoke jealousy. Boy, do people hate it when someone
succeeds, especially if they have the nerve to succeed while being
different.
On Fri, 12 Nov 1999 17:32:10 -0600, Charlie Jones <cjo...@Mcs.Net>
wrote:
>Bravo! I could not have stated it better myself. The brand X bashing
>tends to go from brand to brand. I think the company before Taylor was
>Ovation.
>
>Charlie (yup, you guessed it I own a Taylor) Jones
>
>On Fri, 12 Nov 1999, Barfine wrote:
>
>> I discovered this board about a week ago and have found it to be an
>> incredible resource. One thing I don't understand, however, is the
>> constant bashing of Taylor guitars. I've owned 3 Martin Guitars, a
>> Guild and a Taylor in my playing life. The only lemon was the Guild,
>> but that's another story. Each guitar has been a wonderful addition to
>> my musical life, each one for a different reason. My most recent
>> guitar purchase was the Taylor. I tried many Taylors, and other brands,
>> in many guitar shops over the course of 1 year before deciding on the
>> Taylor. I am incredibly impressed with my Taylor. It is a fine
>> instrument. I am also very impressed with the customer service I have
>> recieved from Taylor. I wish I could say the same for Martin over the
>> years.
>>
>> Last year I toured the Martin factory. At the end of the tour I
>> gathered in the guitar room with the players in our group swapping
>> various Martin models, licks and stories. I had not yet purchsed my
>> Taylor, but in the discussion among our group, Taylor owners
>> outnumbered Martin owners.
>>
>> Now, as I read through the various discussions here on this board, it
>> seems that the most popular sport is bashing Taylor guitars and the
>> Taylor company. It really seems childish to me. There are many
>> excellent instruments and companies to choose from in selecting an
>> acoustic guitar and prices are better than they ever have been.
>> Taylor's entry into the market and becoming the first acoustic guitar
>> company in years to offer solid wood acoustics for under $1000 has
>> benefited every guitarist by upping the level of competition among the
>> acoustic guitar manufacturers. I really doubt that Martin would have
>> come out with $600 laminated guitars and cheaper solid wood mahogony
>> guitars if Taylor hadn't been so successful with their cheaper models.
>>
>> I understand that some people are unhappy with Taylor's advertising
>> policies. However, it seems rather childish to bash one brand of
>> guitar because you don't like their advertising. I've read others who
>> don't like Taylor's new neck. Ok, I can buy that. It might turn out
>> to be a piece of crap, or we might see it as state of the art 10 years
>> from now. Time will tell.
>>
>> The point of my ramble is constructive criticism is understandable but
>> bashing for sport is not. I have criticisms of the Martin company
>> after owning 3 of them. I have criticisms of Guild after making my
>> lemon. However each company continues to do many things well and some
>> fewer things not so well. Taylor is the same. They have made an
>> incredible impact on the acoustic guitar industry in their 25 years of
>> existence. I hope they continue to flourish and make excellent
>> instruments. However, if they don't I will be there with my
>> constructive criticism.
>>
>> Criticism is fine, leave the bashing and name calling to children.
>>
>> Ok, I've said my piece. Flame away!
>>
>>
Barfine
a short time. In that short time there have been innumerable negative
posts about Taylor. Some have been focused on their business
practices, but many have been focused on the quality of the instruments
themselves, and even a few directed at Taylor players. I have not seen
any other negative posts directed at any other brand of guitar. It
seems the current darling is Larivee, lovely instruments, but the ones
I tried didn't speak to me. Now maybe if we look at this board a year
from now, Taylor will be the darling and Larivee will be getting dumped
on.
My point is that with all of the good instruments out there, it seems
inappropriate to bash any one of them, unless they do things like make
crappy instruments, and/or cheat their cusomers by not upholding the
warranty.
Instead of childish bashing, I think we should be discussing the pros
and cons of the instruments out there. Taylor is very different from
Martin and Larivee, Lowden, etc are each different still. What do
people like or dislike about each one? Does one instrument speak to
one player, but not another?
In other words, I think we should raise the debate to a higher level.
Throwing stones is easy, sharing ideas takes a bit more thought.
> Are Taylors "bashed" more vociferously or more frequently than
> other
> brands?
> --
> Joe
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
Bob Dorgan
>
> In other words, I think we should raise the debate to a higher level.
> Throwing stones is easy, sharing ideas takes a bit more thought.
I'm one of those that is confused by this thread.
I read a great deal of bashing of Taylor's new advertising policies, but
I haven't read that many posts that are critical of the product.
If a poster declares that he doesn't like the Taylor signature sound, is
that bashing?
If a poster says he doesn't care for the thin necks on most Taylors is
that bashing?
I don't think declaring preferences is bashing.
I've very rarely seen a post declaring that Taylors were poorly
constructed, designed or of shoddy materials.
I concede I might have missed these posts that you refer to, but I have
read this group on a daily basis for a few years.
Bob Dorgan
Charles & Joan Park
Thanks Bob, great post.
cep
redh...@my-deja.com
Bob Dorgan wrote:
> I'm one of those that is confused by this thread.
> snipped some
> I concede I might have missed these posts that you refer to, but I
have
> read this group on a daily basis for a few years.
> Bob Dorgan
>
What you say is probably true, yet there seems to always be an active
thread that's a variant of some sort on Taylor bashing, so the
perception that this group bashes them must be there. Could it be the
accumulation of reasons that posters dislike some aspect of Taylor tend
to blend together into a perceived antipathy for everything about them?
Seems like there's at least
1) The Bob Taylor haters, who don't care for some aspect of his business
philosphy, ethics, aesthetics, etc.
2) The can't advertise used prices haters, for their several reasons.
3) THe CNC haters, some of whom seem to see Tayor as the Greater Satan
in this practice.
4) Those who just don't care for or prefer Taylor's tone, feel of the
neck, etc.
5) The very few who carry one or all of these lines into more general
attacks (I do remember one post basically saying people who play Taylors
just don't want to/can't push down hard on strings).
6)Those who think the new neck is the end of all that is good in the
world.
7) Etc.
There may also be a degree of defensiveness on the part of Taylor owners
that keeps these threads going, too.
I realize "hater" is too strong a word in the following but who do I
look like, Roget?
Red "but I ain't willin' to fight over this one" in Berea
redh...@my-deja.com
redh...@my-deja.com wrote:
>snip
> Seems like there's at least
>
I think I forgot to add:
8) The Taylor advertisement haters.
Red "ain't no bashin' in this group" in Berea
Charles & Joan Park
By the way wasn't Roget a dinosaur......yeah a thesaurus, that's
it.
Charles (Ducking again) Park
JoeMc
This is exactly my feeling as well. I recall folks indicating preferences,
but I honestly don't recall the adjectives used being any more distasteful
than with other guitars (except for the Framus).
It's easy to dislike a Deon Sanders or a Charles Barkley, but no one can
take away from the fact that they are good at what they do.
--
Joe
jomickathomedotcom
Bob Dorgan <d77...@epix.net> wrote in message news:383025...@epix.net...
> Barfine wrote:
>
> >
> > In other words, I think we should raise the debate to a higher level.
> > Throwing stones is easy, sharing ideas takes a bit more thought.
>
> I'm one of those that is confused by this thread.
> I read a great deal of bashing of Taylor's new advertising policies, but
> I haven't read that many posts that are critical of the product.
> If a poster declares that he doesn't like the Taylor signature sound, is
> that bashing?
> If a poster says he doesn't care for the thin necks on most Taylors is
> that bashing?
> I don't think declaring preferences is bashing.
> I've very rarely seen a post declaring that Taylors were poorly
> constructed, designed or of shoddy materials.
JoeMc
Been there, done that, bought the tee shirt.
--
Joe
jomickathomedotcom
Dick Schneiders <dicks...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991115062827...@ng-cg1.aol.com...
Bob Dorgan
>
> Red "but I ain't willin' to fight over this one" in Berea
Hillbilly chickenshit!
Good points Red, and we are actually saying the same thing.
Perception is the key word. If I say I don't like the feel of Taylor's
necks, a sensitive Taylor owner perceives that I am bashing Taylor.
Not true, but the perception is there.
Bob Dorgan
redh...@my-deja.com
the dinosaur freak tonight.
Red "getting dangerously off-thread again" in Berea
hed...@my-deja.com
Bob
I don't remember anybody ragging on anybody because somebody said "I
don't like the feel of
Taylors' necks." Lots of the Taylor criticism lately has been about
their advertising policy and I have participated in that 'cause I think
the policy is short sighted and sucks. If you want to find some pretty
ignorant criticism of Taylor guitars from the recent past, go to Deja
News and track down some posts by that icon of American musical pedegogy
Robert McArthur.
Harold
Barfine
bashing. I think it is the tone of some of the posts. In the short
time I've been viewing the board I've seen posts say things like "the
only people who play Taylor's are those too lazy to push down the
strings on a 'real neck'. I've seen someone post a link to a web site
that tried to humorously compare Taylor to Toilet. Some of the thread
in a recent search: Taylor Shoots Both Left Feet; Bob Taylor, Made of
Solid Wood;
By all means share what you like and don't like about any guitar. That
leads to great debate. I just have found the tone of some of the
Taylor posts to be super negative, which is what led me to start this
thread. If I am wrong, then why are there over 30 posts on this
thread. Obviously my original post struck a nerve.
Greg Thomas
own a Gibson I bought in 1977, a Martin D18 from the early 80s, and a
Taylor. All good guitars (okay, the Gibson is a little clunky), but all very
different guitars. The Gibson (small body) is pretty good for fingerstyle
blues, the Martinis my bluegrass guitar, and the Taylor for just about
everything else. Don't have a Larrivee (yet) but they are pretty fine
guitars. A lot of smaller companies are making fine instruments these days.
Froggy Bottom, Galliger (I think he's still around), a few others. I've been
playing acoustic for a little over 30 years, seen a lot come and go. Martins
were real good, then they were crap, then they were pretty good again.
Ginsons were pretty good, then they were crap, then they were okay again. If
you want to talk about BAD acoustic guitars (or bash them) why don't you
start with the Fender Palimino? Now there was a box worth trashin'.
Oh, one more thing. I don't really care about Taylor's advertising policy.
Don't think it hurts the sound of their guitars much.
Greg
Mark Horning
>In article <z5OX3.101$Va.1...@news.rdc1.nj.home.com>,
> "JoeMc" <jom...@nospamhome.com> wrote:
>> Let me rephrase...
>>
>other
>> brands?
>>
>past two or three months. But with the exception of Martin, they are
>possibly the most often mentioned brand, good or bad or indifferent
>(though I don't recall too many indifferent comments). It does seem
>like Taylors draw a higher ratio of negative responses than any other
>solid wood lines except maybe Gibson. I'm not sure whether the negative
>comments outweigh the positive, the brand just draws people out.
>
>Red "haven't seen a negative comment yet about a Larrivee" in Berea
>
sound, no bass, no volume to speak of. ;-)
On the other hand every other Larrivee I have ever played has been
wonderfull.
Mark E. Horning "You can not enslave a free man. The most
Physicist you can do is kill him."
Phoenix AZ --Robert A. Heinlein-- (Free Men)
SteveWLB40
>
>--
>Joe
Yes. One of our prominent members after being burned by a poor resale
experience, offered the comment: "Taylors suck!" The sad part, is he was
serious. Others then chimed in, how since the start of their new sales policy,
their product quality was going down hill. Just an example of how negative
hysteria can influence otherwise "seasoned" judgement. 8-(
Steve Barker
SteveWLB40
How's this: Their clear pickguards are ugly & their fingerboards are too
flat! Too bad they sound so good, or I would dislike them.
Steve Barker
SteveWLB40
>but I honestly don't recall the adjectives used being any more distasteful
>than with other guitars (except for the Framus).
Then you missed the posts declaring that Taylor guitars were a money
grubbing, get-rich-quick company, bent on cheating their customers by creating
innovations that appear to make the guitar better & more efficient, but
actually allow the company to use firewood scraps thereby making gigabytes of
profits for very little work as their "souless" CNC machines bent on the
destruction of mankind now do all the work! Those threads. Did you miss them?
Steve Barker
Bob Dorgan
Bob Dorgan
SteveWLB40
>though I do feel that they are a well made instrument that is worthy of
>consideration.
>
>Dick Schneiders
>
>
This is a far cry from the "Taylor Sucks" post a couple of weeks ago, isn't
it Dick?
Steve Barker
JoeMc
But neither those posts (nor yours, for that matter) have said a negative
thing about the GUITARS themselves.
Like I've stated before...their business practices are controversial and
draw fire, but I don't believe the PRODUCT has been 'bashed' any more than
other guitars here (IMO).
--
Joe
jomickathomedotcom
SteveWLB40 <steve...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991115224607...@ng-bj1.aol.com...
Dick Schneiders
>it Dick?
> Steve Barker
>
Not at all, you haven't been reading this stuff with a clear mind.
Dick (your vendetta is getting old) Schneiders
Dick Schneiders
>> Steve Barker
>Yes, but I certainly haven't missed your hysteria.
>Bob Dorgan
I haven't missed his "hysteria" either, Bobs, since most of it has been to bash
me for bashing Taylor's advertising policies.
Oh well, at least he calls me "prominent" - or was that protuberant?
Dick (I don't try to "stick out", believe me) Schneiders
Robert McArthur
> ignorant criticism of Taylor guitars from the recent past, go to Deja
> News and track down some posts by that icon of American musical pedegogy
> Robert McArthur.
All I can recall is occassionally expressing a fairly consistent dislike
or the Taylor tone. It's a statement of preference.
By your comment about guitar teaching you are referring to last month's
tempest in teacup over the discussion about my guitar student. I would
like to thank whoever suggested that she play at a dinner becasue I got
her to play a 45 minute set during a 300 person "dinner theatre" before
the theatre portion began. She alternated with a string quartet and felt
comfortable because she was not in the spotlight but instead playing
background music. She also got paid well, which helped her see the
obvious advantages of performing. Had I not posted this problem I would
not have found the solution. I thank those of you who took this in a
positive spirit for helping me
help my student. And I really think it is flattering that you would
think of me as an icon of pedagogy. It's really undeserved;
it's awfully nice of you to post this though.
Robert
hed...@my-deja.com
SteveWLB40
>>> Steve Barker
>
>
>>Yes, but I certainly haven't missed your hysteria.
>>Bob Dorgan
>
>I haven't missed his "hysteria" either, Bobs, since most of it has been to
>bash
>me for bashing Taylor's advertising policies.
>
Sorry guys, it's not my intent to be "hysterical" on this issue, or to bash
anyone for bashing Taylor guitars. And no, Dick, I didn't read the posts
"wrong", or read anything into them that wasn't there. I got the same
impression that the originator of this thread did, as well as many others, &
it's very misleading. Many considering a Taylor are reading on this group how
"Taylor guitars suck", & how the quality is "going down hill." We as a guitar
newsgroup should be promoting facts, not MaCarthy era paranoia. I have no
problem with people not liking certain guitars for certain reasons, but leave
it at that. There are things I don't like about Martin guitars, but I don't
come on in a fit of rage & tell everyone their whole line sucks! Just state it
as it is; their sales policy may suck, but the guitars themselves are fine.
Lets put this thread to rest once & for all.
Steve Barker
Tom
here over the last year because all of the bashing, and that's not just
taylor guitars either. it could be me, but i feel like the attitude of
this newsgroup has only degraded over the last few years. imho of course.
--thom
ps. yes, i have seen larrivee bashing here before. not as much, but there
have been threads about this and personally, i have not found many
larrivees that actually tickle my ears.
WalterH796
Taylor Guitars: Why the whining ?
I've been at reading this newsgroup group for more
than a year and have not seen any serious bashing
at all. Some people have been more critical than others but other than that
only an sporadic flare up.
Bashing is not the same as criticism. Usually people
have some very specific reasons for not liking a particular guitar or maker.
And I would rather hear
all the sides, bad or good, than have to read between the lines of some
politically correct response.
Robert McArthur
> Bashing is not the same as criticism. Usually people
> have some very specific reasons for not liking a particular guitar or maker.
> And I would rather hear
> all the sides, bad or good, than have to read between the lines of some
> politically correct response.
Amen-- When I was looking for a high end guitar I read a lot of posts
(years back) on pros and cons. Sometimes we get so swept away buy a
single aspect (like) volume that we forget about other things like for
example, complexity of tone --the ability to extract various voices. I'm
just using random examples here, but the point is that if someone says
brand X is not their cup of tea because____, it is potentially useful
information.
I play a Breedlove. Many posts over the years have panned Breedlove for
their lack of volume when playing with other guitars and I must admit
they are of lower volume and if that is something people need to be aware
of. To take offense or to call it "bashing" is to miss the point of a
forum such as this. I can't but wonder if it is Taylor owners who are
complaining of "bashing." If that is true then there is a valuable
lesson--WE are not our GUITARS no more than WE are our cars or our brand
of toothpaste.
Robert
Robert Abramowitz
> I can't but wonder if it is Taylor owners who are
> complaining of "bashing." If that is true then there is a valuable
> lesson--WE are not our GUITARS no more than WE are our cars or our brand
> of toothpaste.
YES!! Well said, Robert.
Which brings me to a pet peeve: people whose signature lines recite the
litany of gadgets that they own, as though this were describing THEM.
I'm not picking on anyone in particular, just venting my freefloating
hostility this morning.
Bob Abramowitz
1993 Honda lawnmower
1997 Frigidaire refrigerator
1998 Delta bathroom faucet
robohop
<abram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Robert McArthur wrote:
>> I can't but wonder if it is Taylor owners who are
>> complaining of "bashing." If that is true then there is a valuable
>> lesson--WE are not our GUITARS no more than WE are our cars or our brand
>> of toothpaste.
>
>YES!! Well said, Robert.
>
Reminds me of my sailboat shopping experience some years back ...
found a service which had contact info. for all the different models
on the market so you could call them and find out personally from an
owner how the boat performed, etc.
I soon discovered that current owners of a particular boat were the
worst people to get info from as they were almost universally biased
in favor of the product. In part, they were justifying the xxxx
thousands of dollars they spent on it.
If you could get the folks who had just gotten rid of a particular
model, you could get an amazingly balanced review.
regards,
rob anderson
Robert Abramowitz
> Reminds me of my sailboat shopping experience some years back ...
> found a service which had contact info. for all the different models
> on the market so you could call them and find out personally from an
> owner how the boat performed, etc.
>
> I soon discovered that current owners of a particular boat were the
> worst people to get info from as they were almost universally biased
> in favor of the product. In part, they were justifying the xxxx
> thousands of dollars they spent on it.
>
> If you could get the folks who had just gotten rid of a particular
> model, you could get an amazingly balanced review.
>
this area "cognitive dissonance". I remember reading that the group
most likely to read an advertisement lauding a particular high-cost
product were those who had just bought one. I'd bet that's still true.
Bob Abramowitz
hed...@my-deja.com
Robert Abramowitz <abram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Back in Neolithic times when I was in school, the psychologists called
> this area "cognitive dissonance". I remember reading that the group
> most likely to read an advertisement lauding a particular high-cost
> product were those who had just bought one. I'd bet that's still
true.
>
> Bob Abramowitz
>
>
Bob
I seem to remember "cognitive dissonance" as the ability for someone to
believe completely two mutually exclusive things. I hear this term
applied in political contexts from time to time often in a derisive
manner. Sometimes it is probably appropriately descriptive.
Harold
hed...@my-deja.com
Robert McArthur <rt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> > Bashing is not the same as criticism. Usually people
> > have some very specific reasons for not liking a particular guitar
or maker.
> > And I would rather hear
> > all the sides, bad or good, than have to read between the lines of
some
> > politically correct response.
>
> Amen-- When I was looking for a high end guitar I read a lot of posts
> (years back) on pros and cons. Sometimes we get so swept away buy a
> single aspect (like) volume that we forget about other things like for
> example, complexity of tone --the ability to extract various voices.
I'm
> just using random examples here, but the point is that if someone says
> brand X is not their cup of tea because____, it is potentially useful
> information.
>
> I play a Breedlove. Many posts over the years have panned Breedlove
for
> their lack of volume when playing with other guitars and I must admit
> they are of lower volume and if that is something people need to be
aware
> of. To take offense or to call it "bashing" is to miss the point of a
> complaining of "bashing." If that is true then there is a valuable
> lesson--WE are not our GUITARS no more than WE are our cars or our
brand
> of toothpaste.
>
Some participants in this forum seem to have a pretty short memory. I
will reprise something which is a pluperfect example of the Taylor
bashing that some claim does not occur on this forum along with the
response that I made at the time. This may have been edited a little
but the context has not changed and anyone who cares to can find the
original exchange on Deja.com.
>> Forum: rec.music.makers.guitar.acoustic
>> Thread: Mando Bros Dumps Taylor
>> Message 25 of 114
Subject:
Re: Mando Bros Dumps
Taylor
Date:
1999/10/02
Author:
hedberg
<hed...@my-dejanews.com>
Posting History
Member Profile
On Fri, 01 Oct 1999 15:21:08 GMT, Robert McArthur<rt...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>Taylor's IMHO are very overrated and I'm
glad Mando Bros. is no longer
>polluting their otherwise fine stock.
Of course, I will be seen as a
>crank by most, but I feel more like the
guy announcing that the emperor
>has no clothes: I really have never
understood what the big deal about
>Taylors is. Sure they have a fairly
fast neck and lots of volume and
>nice workmanship, but otherwise they are
in my opinion, BORING in sound
>quiality--they lack tonal complexity for
the most part and they have an
>irritating brightness (TUSQ saddle
partly to blame) that grows, to my
>ears, almost unbearble to listen to
after awhile. I hear a lot of
>Taylors played by excellent guitarists
but really dislike the tones
>spilling from the soundhole. What a
relief when a player pulls out a
>Martin, a Breedlove, a Collings , or
even a Guild. -- all guitars that
>know how to be mellow as well as brash.
>Robert McArthur
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
I have two Taylors (one maple and one
koa) as well as a couple Martins (00-18
and 000-28) and a rosewood Kinscherff High Noon.
I like the Taylors because of the way
they sound -- the complexity of tone
-- and not particularly the way they feel. The Martins feel
better than the Taylors mostly because
Martin doesn't insist on putting wide
fingerboards on their smaller guitars (not all of them,
anyway).
I don't understand how people can make
blanket statements about the
sounds ("Tone," as Pierre would say) of guitars made by large
manufacturers like Taylor, Maritn, and
Gibson with straight faces (actually,
I do understand). Taylor and Martin,
for two, make a
variety of guitars in a variety of styles
with a variety of materials and each type
will have a distinct sound and the individuals
comprising that type will vary as well.
Someone who makes such statements as
"Taylors are lacking in tonal complexity," either is
listening through earmuffs, aurally
challenged, or has some other issues
that need to be worked through--it is
simply not an accurate
statement of reality about Taylors in
general.
Personally, I don't care if someone
doesn't like my guitars or the
company that made my guitars (there
are those who don't like
Martins and say silly things about them
as well). I don't have much of
my personality or my self-image
tied up in my stuff. That, of
course, doesn't mean that I need to sit
back and read some fatuous crap
about Taylor guitars and withhold my comments.
I think that people should spend more
time listening to guitars, the way
they sound, and the way the are played
and less time worrying
about the name that appears on the
headstock. A little bit of
instrospection may go a long way, as
well.
Robert McArthur
Seems to me I said they were boring in tone, maybe becasue of the Tusq
saddle. Seems to me that's what I said in this thread to. The part
about Mando not polluting their store with them was hyperbole for effect-
-anyway, if you really did, I bet you can find lot's more stuff where I
strongly express either a positive or negative opinion.
Good luck with the search. Post all you want. I'm sure everyone in
rmmga is just waiting with bated breath to see the next installment
of McArthur's archives. Me, I'll go play some music.
Robert
robohop
OK, you unfortunately are dealing with a multi-degree psychologist
here ... (albiet a rusty one). Cognitive disonance referred to the
state of confsion or anxiety produced when data/information/sensory
input received was contradictory to current belief or perception of
reality. Thus creating "disonance".
Like someone who believes that all Taylors suck while sitting at a Leo
Kotke concert. That would create disonance.
regards,
rob anderson
On Fri, 19 Nov 1999 20:38:18 GMT, hed...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>I seem to remember "cognitive dissonance" as the ability for someone to
>believe completely two mutually exclusive things. I hear this term
>applied in political contexts from time to time often in a derisive
>manner. Sometimes it is probably appropriately descriptive.
>
>Harold
>
>
Robert McArthur
(reprinted below).
I think these reasons based on personal hearing experience
are justification for the post---made a month ago, I'll bet.
As someone said in this thread, the reasons for the negative take
on an instrument may be useful to some.
The comments below may be extreme but they also reflect my genuine and
complete
disdain for Tasylor guitars. Deal with it.
The rest of the world may like 'em. I have liked very few.
I'm not at all comfortable rehashing this crap, and haven't
quite arrived at a sure conclusion about
why posts about guitars suddenly become posts about people's characters.
I've heard it's a familiar phenomenon in other newsgroups as well. I
find this all
terribly curious--like Alice falling
down the rabbit hole.
Robert
shrimer
You didn't think that you were going to One-up me, did you??
*I* have a Rare Collectible 1997 Moen Kitchen faucet. "Rare" because it
has the red on the Left side, and the Blue on the right side.
I think it was a prototype for possible distribution in Britain.
Or maybe Aussie.
Wanna give me 25 bucks for it? (I could trade you for that Delta...)
Fred
hed...@my-deja.com
> Before you buy.
Robert
Go ahead and play some music if you like, but remember while you do that
what you wrote in the message I quoted is a hell of a lot more than
just saying that Taylors are "boring in tone." Actually, I think you
said they are BORING. You don't appear to be a stupid person so I have
to believe that you are making such a stupid statement for the purpose
of inciting readers. Then there was the self serving crack about the
emperors new clothes. Notice you didn't mention that.
I was listening earlier this evening to a Harvey Reid CD "Steel Drivin'
Man." There was a little sticker on the case saying that Acoustic
Guitar Magazine called this one of the ten best folk music CD's. Reid
is a brilliant guitarist who also sings with a clear and precise tenor
(that's where I would put his voice) that's so good it makes your skin
crawl. Reid recorded direct to DAT with two AT4051 mics (whatever they
are) and got some of the best recorded guitar sounds I have ever heard.
Guess what; Reid plays Taylor guitars, a rosewood dreadnought I
believe.
You may honestly believe that your Breedlove is a superior sounding
guitar to Reid's Taylor (or the vast majority of Taylor guitars) and it
very well may be. Lots of guitars that I probably would enjoy playing
more than a rosewood Taylor dreadnought; but to call the sound of these
guitars boring and to state that the tone lacks complexity is just
fatuous crap. Learn to live with it.
Back to my condescending and patronizing mode:
I don't believe you are sufficiently stupid to believe some of the
things you write so I have to conclude that you have some issues related
to Taylor guitars that have nothing to do with the way the sound. As I
said before, a little introspection probably is in order.
hed...@my-deja.com
rj...@ix.netcom.com (robohop) wrote:
>
> On Fri, 19 Nov 1999 20:38:18 GMT, hed...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >
> >I seem to remember "cognitive dissonance" as the ability for someone
to
> >believe completely two mutually exclusive things. I hear this term
> >applied in political contexts from time to time often in a derisive
> >manner. Sometimes it is probably appropriately descriptive.
> >
> >Harold
> >
>
> OK, you unfortunately are dealing with a multi-degree psychologist
> here ... (albiet a rusty one). Cognitive disonance referred to the
> state of confsion or anxiety produced when data/information/sensory
> input received was contradictory to current belief or perception of
> reality. Thus creating "disonance".
>
> Like someone who believes that all Taylors suck while sitting at a Leo
> Kotke concert. That would create disonance.
>
> regards,
>
> rob anderson
I don't think that it is unfortunate at all to have someone who actually
knows what he is talking about inject himself into a thread inhabited by
dilettantes. Thanks for the clarification. Pardon me as I deal with
the dissonance created in my mind by your cogent contradiction of what I
previously held as reality.
hed...@my-deja.com
Robert McArthur <rt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> This post you just cited has my reasons why I "bashed" Taylors
> (reprinted below).
> I think these reasons based on personal hearing experience
> are justification for the post---made a month ago, I'll bet.
> As someone said in this thread, the reasons for the negative take
> on an instrument may be useful to some.
> The comments below may be extreme but they also reflect my genuine and
> complete
> disdain for Tasylor guitars. Deal with it.
No problem dealing with your dislike of anything. No problem dealing
with your sophistry, either.
> The rest of the world may like 'em. I have liked very few.
> I'm not at all comfortable rehashing this crap, and haven't
> quite arrived at a sure conclusion about
> why posts about guitars suddenly become posts about people's
characters.
> I've heard it's a familiar phenomenon in other newsgroups as well. I
> find this all
> terribly curious--like Alice falling
> down the rabbit hole.
> Robert
>
What you write and the way you write it reveal a whole bunch about your
character. Same goes for me and I am quite comfortable with that. If
what you write reveals something about your character that dissatisfies
you, perhaps you should examine why you write the things you do in the
manner that you do. Curiouser and curiouser indeed.
Robert McArthur
I will try my best to respond to what you have said in a rational and
introspective
way. For the most part you haven't attacked me so much as you have
expressed strong
disagreement with me and for that reason this is not a name calling
flame war
and so perhaps we can bring this to a amicable conclusion.
This discussion is about one single post I made at least a month ago and
that has stuck in your craw ever since. Upon rereading it because you
went to the trouble of digging it up in the archives
I can see it as if written by someone else (mainly because I can't even
remember the mood I was in at the time). Here's my honest, and sober
response as best as I can sincerely give you:
Part I discusses why I dislike Taylors. Part 2 discusses why I couch
that dislike in such arrogant and offenively extreme terms.
Part one: Why I dislike Taylors. My dislike for Taylors is not really
absolute. If in fact I owned one I'd probably play it. In some they
are probably better than Breedloves, which I do play.
When I have gotten around friends for a jam or when I have heard them
played at concerts quite often I've noticed the sound is very very
bright. Sometimes a Collings will affect me this way too. The
brightness of several of my friends Taylors borders upon piercing. This
is how my ears are affected. When I have gone to stores and sampled
Taylors which over the years I have done quite a bit of, I have also
noted that *to my ears* I don't hear as many suble overtones as I'd
like. What I guess I am saying is that my ears
have certain expectations that these guitars don't fulfill. I am almost
certain that the TUSQ saddle has something to do with it. I once owned
a solid wood Wasburn made in the 70's. I loved that guitar
and decided to upgrade it by ordering a Tusq saddle. The result was all
of the complexity was drained
from the instrument and it had extremely brittle highs , crisp lows but
a dead middle. Every Taylor I pick up reminds me of the trauma of
having that wonderful guitar reduced to mediocrity because of a TUSQ
saddle. The Taylors I hear sound similar to my TUSQed Washburn. I
replaced the saddle with bone and was back in business.
Part two: Paraphrase: Outrangeous commentA>"Mando Bros should not
pollute their stores with Taylors";
Obnoxious comment B>"I feel like the guy saying the emperor has no
clothes in panning Taylors"
Outrageous comment A--I truly acknowledge the arrogant and inflamatory
tone of this. I guess at the moment at hand I must have felt this
strongly. It is in me to feel this strongly about guitars I do not
like.
However, I should have expected it would piss someone off. In
retrospect I wish I would not have said it
becasue I'm sure it nullified the more rational content about the TUSQ
saddles. However, in my own defense,
I was kindda kidding around. Hyperbole is a time honored way to get
people's attention or to make a point. I guess I overdid it in
retrospect, but at the time it felt good to say it; at least it looks
like I was having a good time when I reread the post.
Obnoxious comment B: I haven't been reading too much of rmmga the past
year and really thought I was the only one who had ever said as negative
thing about Taylors!!! That's it, Eureka!! (this is happening in real
time, so pardon the ejaculations of self-discovery). I went into the
post knowing I'd get flamed for bashing Taylors (I remember! I
remember!) no matter what I said and I also knew that I really truly
thought Taylors
were mediocre at best and totally overblown in popularity. I knew
someone would flame me and I really didn't give a damn. No I didnt
really give a damn because I, Robert McArthur and the 10 pounds of grey
matter
between my ears, think Taylors are not worth the money. If everyone else
loves em so be it but I have the inallienable right to proclaim from the
rooftops that my opinion of Taylors is that they are less than
stellar instruments. And since that fact alone is enough to rankled
some, I might as well flaunt it.
Whew! That felt good very therapeutic.
Now to conclude this missive. I hold no ill will against you at all
Harold. I fact I like you.
You are intelligent and outspoken. My comments may seem arrogant and
stupid but they are genuine.
To all of the Taylor players out there including Harvey Reid, Lawrence
Juber, et al, more power to you.
All I can do is give my 1 / 6,000,000,000 th of the world's opinions.
Thanks for the suggestion to explore my psyche, Harold. I owe you. The
last word is yours.
Robert McArthur
hedberg
[For any gentle reader who has stumbled innocently into this, I
apologize; this is likely to be long and you might want to bail at this
early opportunity. ]
Robert
First a couple comments:
On finding stuff in Deja News:
I went back and dredged up the exchanges we (and others) had about
Taylor guitars because several people in the current thread were stating
that criticism of Taylor guitars that appears in RMMGA is typically of
the same tenor as criticism of other guitars and gear. As is quite
obvious to almost everyone, I guess, I don't necessarily agree with that
and I wanted to make sure that everybody knew what was being referred
to. I made some pretty strong responses at the time -- nothing I added
in the last couple days was significantly different from what I said
previously. I make no special effort to keep track of your posts or
anybody else's posts, it just seemed that the current discussion was not
in accord with what had transpired not much more than a month
ago.
On Taylor guitars:
I have no particular affection for Taylor guitars or the Taylor Guitar
Company. Some of the best sounding non-vintage guitars I have heard
happen to be Taylors and there is some truly great music being made on
them (Harvey Reid et al). I have played and heard a lot of Taylors that
didn't really get me hot, but I can say the same thing about a lot of
Martins, Gibsons, Guilds, Collings. I am not a big fan of Taylor's
marketing style nor of their advertising policies. But then, I have
been no big fan of Martin's business practices over the years either
(I'm thinking of the strikes and their seemingly arrogant attitude
towards their workers and their customers--which I believe is all in the
past). I do think that Taylor's influence on the guitar market has been
profound and almost totally for the better.
On criticizing stuff:
People like different things from what I like and
I don't have a problem with that. I don't make a practice of starting
flame wars because people criticize something that I like. People
express lots of opinions in this group about a lot of different things
and generally those discussions occur without rancor -- even from me.
Finally, I think the tone of your last message is entirely appropriate
and I intend this response to be in kind. I will add a few comments as
I see fit, not in order to continue further vitriol, only to try and
clarify why I have written some of the things I have. I recognize that
the more bilious characteristics of my personality are sometimes best
concealed from the general public. Editing is not for the purpose of
changing context.
>On Sat, 20 Nov 1999 07:33:19 -0600, in rec.music.makers.guitar.acoustic Robert McArthur wrote:
>
>Harold-- I will try my best to respond to what you have said in a
>rational and introspective way. . . .Part I discusses why I dislike
>Taylors. Part 2 discusses why I couch that dislike in such arrogant and
>offenively extreme terms.
Part
>one: Why I dislike Taylors. My dislike for Taylors is not really
>absolute. If in fact I owned one I'd probably play it. In some they
>are probably better than Breedloves, which I do play. When I have
>gotten around friends for a jam or when I have heard them played at
>concerts quite often I've noticed the sound is very very bright.
>Sometimes a Collings will affect me this way too. The brightness of
>several of my friends Taylors borders upon piercing. This is how my ears
>are affected. When I have gone to stores and sampled Taylors which over
>the years I have done quite a bit of, I have also noted that *to my
>ears* I don't hear as many suble overtones as I'd like. What I guess I
>am saying is that my ears have certain expectations that these guitars
>don't fulfill. I am almost certain that the TUSQ saddle has something
>to do with it. I once owned a solid wood Wasburn made in the 70's. I
>loved that guitar and decided to upgrade it by ordering a Tusq saddle.
>The result was all of the complexity was drained from the instrument and
>it had extremely brittle highs , crisp lows but a dead middle. Every
>Taylor I pick up reminds me of the trauma of having that wonderful
>guitar reduced to mediocrity because of a TUSQ saddle. The Taylors I
>hear sound similar to my TUSQed Washburn. I replaced the saddle with
>bone and was back in business.
Now, I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with these statements of
opinion about Taylor guitars and Graphtech (I believe) saddles. I am
not certain what a Tusq saddle will do to the timbre of a guitar, but
lots of folks say it would affect the sound a lot.
Some people like what Tusq saddles do to guitars and some don't.
Probably I am one who likes them, but I haven't experimented to really
conclude. I like the sound of fresh 80/20 bronze strings and never
replaced phoshor strings with 80/20's and didn't perceive an improvement
so, if Tusq brightens up the guitar, I probably perceive that as an
improvement.
>
>Part two: Paraphrase: Outrangeous commentA>"Mando Bros should not
>pollute their stores with Taylors"; Obnoxious comment B>"I feel like the
>guy saying the emperor has no clothes in panning Taylors"
>
>Outrageous comment A--I truly acknowledge the arrogant and inflamatory
>tone of this. I guess at the moment at hand I must have felt this
>strongly. It is in me to feel this strongly about guitars I do not
>like. However, I should have expected it would piss someone off. In
>retrospect I wish I would not have said it becasue I'm sure it nullified
>the more rational content about the TUSQ saddles. However, in my own
>defense, I was kindda kidding around. Hyperbole is a time honored way
>to get people's attention or to make a point. I guess I overdid it in
>retrospect, but at the time it felt good to say it; at least it looks
>like I was having a good time when I reread the post.
Well, I guess that I missed the joke. I have a pretty highly refined
sense of irony and satire including an appreciation for the use of
hyperbole. Call me too literal minded -- I thought you were actually saying
that Taylor guitars are so bad that a reputable dealer would not carry
them.
> Obnoxious comment
>B: I haven't been reading too much of rmmga the past year and really
>thought I was the only one who had ever said as negative thing about
>Taylors!!! That's it, Eureka!! (this is happening in real time, so
>pardon the ejaculations of self-discovery). I went into the post
>knowing I'd get flamed for bashing Taylors (I remember! I remember!) no
>matter what I said and I also knew that I really truly thought Taylors
>were mediocre at best and totally overblown in popularity. I knew
>someone would flame me and I really didn't give a damn. No I didnt
>really give a damn because I, Robert McArthur and the 10 pounds of grey
>matter between my ears, think Taylors are not worth the money. If
>everyone else loves em so be it but I have the inallienable right to
>proclaim from the rooftops that my opinion of Taylors is that they are
>less than stellar instruments. And since that fact alone is enough to
>rankled some, I might as well flaunt it. Whew! That felt good very
>therapeutic. Now to conclude this missive. I hold no ill will against
>you at all Harold. I fact I like you. You are intelligent and
>outspoken. My comments may seem arrogant and stupid but they are
>genuine. To all of the Taylor players out there including Harvey Reid,
>Lawrence Juber, et al, more power to you. All I can do is give my 1 /
>6,000,000,000 th of the world's opinions.
The reference to the fable of the emperor's new clothes is a fantastic
metaphor when used appropriately. In less than a sentence the user can
convey volumes of information and meaning. In the use that you put it
to in very short order you are saying that the only reason people buy
and play Taylor guitars is because of the mystique associated with these
guitars. You are stating it is entirely a mob instinct reaction.
Further, by saying that you are like the little boy in the fable, you
are claiming that your ability to perceive reality is superior to that
of us mere mortals -- that you alone are unblinded by "Wood and Steel" (and
the rest of the Taylor propaganda machine.) The fable can also be used
to emphasize how people in positions of authority can be blinded by their
own successes -- there may be an application of that meaning with respect to
Bob Taylor himself, but I don't think that that is what you meant.
Anyway, you agree that the metaphor was inflammatory and you expected an
acerbic response--I gave one.
>
>Thanks for the suggestion to explore my psyche, Harold. I owe you. The
>>last word is yours. >Robert McArthur
I'm not sure whether this last statement was meant to be serious or not
-- I have proven many times that I am not a very good mind reader. In
any case I will conclude by making the observation that learning and
growth are pretty good things though sometimes it seems that small bits
of understanding come at a pretty steep price. Nothing comes for free
-- not to me, anyway. It seems that this exchange has devolved into
something in which no one feels the need to get in the last word. Damn,
think I'll have to go yell at the dog and kick the cat just for some
excitement.
Harold
JoeMc
--
Joe
jomickathomedotcom
hedberg <hed...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in message
news:3836d779...@news.hal-pc.org...
mcdonald
>
> How about those Giants?
Doesn't matter whether you're talking about New York/New Jersey Giants
or San Francisco Giants, they both suck.
(Just kidding)
mcd
"never arrive"