Old Lutherie tales - Guild custom shop vs. Taylor

[AcornHouse]

I recently picked up a batch of older American Lutherie back issues, and a couple of the articles provided an interesting (and slightly chilling) counterpoint of guitar making. In the first one, Tim Shaw was talking about the Guild custom shop facilities in Nashville and how they used a lot of low tech jigs and fixtures in their work. Very much a hands on shop, as you might expect.
Contrast that with an article about the Taylor factory, and how they are trying, more and more, to get everything computer/CNC controlled, so that everything turns out consistent and exactly the same.

Says a lot. I knew there was a reason I was attracted to Guilds. You can build in a factory setting without losing the soul of the instrument. Let's hope Cordoba shares this philosophy.

 

[davismanLV]

Chris, I don't believe in this theory. The variable in guitar building is WOOD.... for the most part. And I think you're equating "hand built" with "better". With the variables of wood, add in the variables of "hand made" and I think it's a LOT of variables. And what it makes is some great guitars, some okay guitars, and a few not so good guitars. I think Taylor is skillfully crafted, and meticulously built and engineered, and they make some great guitars, some okay guitars, and a few guitars that are not so good. The Guild custom shop made.... how many guitars? Do you know? Taylor makes a gazillion. You don't have to like Taylor guitars, but you gotta give them credit for building a LOT of popular and good sounding guitars. They don't have to be your taste, but that's okay. There's a snobbery here that I kinda want to address.

I don't equate hand-built with "SOUL". Soul is what you have at the end of the job.... and you don't know if you've got it until you get there.

You build some really EFFIN AMAZING guitars. Has every one sounded like you thought, or as you predicted?

Just wondering..... :encouragement:

 

[AcornHouse]

The thing that I didn't like about the Taylor way, was that they are (were?) trying to remove any variation or individuality from their product. (Whether they can do it or not, is irrelevant.) I like the different, the unique. And the discovery of something that I might not have even thought of, or designed. I've written music where, though I knew the shape and types of interactions amongst the voices, the parts were written individually, with only my subconscious guiding how their melodies would shape the harmonies.
I'm a lover of the happy accident. Of the material having its say, adding its contribution.

I understand that the two facilities had different goals, and different scopes, but even in the Guild facilities, since New York, there were human luthiers, guiding each instrument through. The tour of the Taylor facilities focused on all of the machinery, and the machine controlled operations, rather than a group of craftsmen and women.

One of the things I love the most about my '54 Fender Deluxe amp, (other than the wonderful sound), is that, inside the chassis, is a little strip of tape with the name Lupe on it. Even though it was a production facility, I know that Lupe Lopez hand assembled my amp, and it's going to be slightly different from any other Deluxe.

It was just an observation on two different production philosophies that popped up around the same time. (And I do believe any maker, of anything, does imbue part of themselves in whatever they make. CNC, not so much.)

 

[davismanLV]

CNC imbues consistency. Which is not a bad thing at all. Individuality is when you get people complaining that products are "hit and miss". I'm not sure I agree with you, but.... I get what you're saying.

 

[Christopher Cozad]

CNC's are impressive at so many things, e.g., rapid prototyping, accuracy and repeatability. When working with metals and plastics there is little (if any) argument for not having the robot build the product. But, unlike metal and plastic, no two segments of a once living tree are identical. Coaxing the individuality out of all the wooden components, respecting and promoting that individuality, while enforcing the synergies and dependencies that come together to make a world-class acoustic guitar is still the domain of master luthiers.

Allowing for (and celebrating) the magic and the wonder of such skill and artisanship does not, in and of itself, necessitate snobbery. Though there is waaay too much of that going around. I don't necessarily want to play every CNC precision built, identical-to-the-previous guitar. Nor does every handmade guitar that has never seen a power tool and is unique to a fault suddenly deserve my attention.

We have more than anecdotal evidence before us...the best that can be built using automated processes and synthetic products is for available for purchase. So is the best that can be made by hand. And then there are the hybrids, where CNC and master luthier both build the instrument. Examples from each camp can be demoed and tested and bought and sold today. The more of these instruments I play, the more I get a feel for the tension surrounding the issues of man versus machine, man and machine, man alone, machine alone, etc.

 

[AcornHouse]

I think the most depressing thing about the article is that the only hands-on part of the build, was glueing the computer cut rosette pieces in. Everything else, including the buffing out process, was done by machine (despite naming that last robot as "Buffy the Guitar Slayer.") Good for mass production, but I will always prefer an artisan built instrument.

[h=1]“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. — 'Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.' — Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood.” ~ Emerson[/h]

 

[Default]

Now THAT'S a quote!

 

[Christopher Cozad]

CNC imbues consistency. Which is not a bad thing at all. Individuality is when you get people complaining that products are "hit and miss"...

You make such a great point, Tom.

So called "factory built" guitars are really in the spotlight and there is a huge public expectation for consistency. When we waltz into a Guitar Center and there are 4 Martin or 3 Taylor or 2 Gibson guitars of the same model hanging side-by-side for us to A/B, the philosophical arguments are gone. Gibson, in particular, has taken some serious heat over the years for building identical model guitars that are a world apart from one another, tonally. Taylor has moved into the lead in the race for consistency, where one can fly into another state, another town, pick up a model identical to an instrument he owns, and not know the difference. It is almost uncanny how identical these instruments can be. I have heard many a player comment on this, and it is largely seen as a major benefit. I would suggest our beloved brand has, largely, a reputation for consistency - more so than Gibson - yet not on a par with Taylor.

That spotlight is not on instruments made in small - no - "tiny" shops with one man or woman doing it all, at least not in the same way. In fact, there is almost an opposing expectation that one will be able to find something totally unique from such a "boutique" luthier. That is not to say that these folks are unable to recreate astonishingly similar guitars (or, rather, guitars that sound astonishingly similar). They do it all the time, just not in the quantities that are seen from the high volume production shops. Small builders actually develop a reputation for their own sound (among other things) and are often sought out for just that purpose. A player, in search of a particular sound, commissions such a builder to make it happen. And it does, all the time.

I believe it is fair to say that Guild, as a small factory builder, was remarkably capable of consistently building guitars having an easily identifiable sound, a "Guild" sound. And that is a real tribute to the builders, wouldn't you agree?

 

[walrus]

What's wrong with a little consumer choice? I can get a CNC built guitar and know anyone else I meet with the same guitar will have EXACTLY the same guitar. Or, I can buy a "hand crafted" instrument and know that is in at least some way unique. I prefer the latter, but that is my choice.

I had a Bluesbird 90 AAA that I loved in every way except the neck was slightly too chunky for me. I love the idea that I can find the same model guitar with a neck that DOES fit me nicely - I don't have to feel I can never get that model guitar again. Is that "hit or miss"? Maybe.

Call me a geezer, but "hand crafted" still works for me, especially when it comes to something as personal as a guitar.

walrus

 

[davismanLV]

I absolutely agree, Christopher!! And if I came off as SNARKY towards Chris, I apologize. There's something to be said for each of the different methods of crafting. Comparing small, boutique or individual luthier built guitars to factory built isn't really fair, or maybe it is. It's the result that counts. I just get a bit tired of the Taylor bashing. Taylor builds some amazing guitars and I happen to own one. Glad that I do. Whether you like the "Taylor sound" or not, they're well crafted and exquisitely manufactured instruments. In their quest for consistency, and utilization of CNC machines to keep tolerances tight some have branded them as "heartless and soulless guitars" which I think is unfair.

This is where the individual and personal preference comes into play. Chris prefers the sound of Guild. You'll get no argument from me about their sound. It's amazing. Taylors are different. Not better OR worse. Different.

I remember going into GC one afternoon and seeing they had two, identical Martin D-41's. They'd both just come in, brand-spanking new. Serial numbers a couple of digits apart. I grabbed the one on the right and was BLOWN AWAY by the sound. If I'd had the money in my pocket, that guitar would be here right now. I put it up, and grabbed the one right next to it. It was shockingly different. Nowhere NEAR the full, rich sound from the other one. How does one account for that? Human error? Differences in different pieces of wood? How do you account for that?

I think people can conjecture till the end of time about that and we'll never really know for sure.

I just think you can make your point about the quality and tone of Guild guitars without painting Taylor with the "heartless and soulless" brush. That's what I'm saying. If the Taylor I own had sounded just like the other guitars I have, I wouldn't have bought it. I think it's okay to note the differences, and your personal preference without branding an entire brand of guitars as "soulless". That's all.

 

[davismanLV]

Okay, I've got my hands off my hips now...... :tongue:

 

[tommym]

....I just get a bit tired of the Taylor bashing. Taylor builds some amazing guitars and I happen to own one. Glad that I do....

I like my Taylor 555 12 strings too. I don't consider them to be any better or worse than any Guild 12 string that I have played. They are all different; something for everyone.

Tommy

 

[Christopher Cozad]

...the "heartless and soulless" brush...

(LOL. It is impressive how passionate we can get over this topic, isn't it?)

Defining soulless as "...lacking any humanizing qualities...", one can see how an entirely machine built item might be included in the list.

Defining soulless as "...lacking capacity for emotion...dead, cold, lifeless...", it may be a wee bit over the top to call all Taylors soulless. :wink-new:

I have a K24ce and a 918e. I like them both for different reasons. Plugged in, there is no doubt they turn heads. Just last evening I performed at a party with my K24ce through my Ultrasound amp. The audience loved it and I received loads of compliments on the sound.

But when I set my Greven Nick Lucas on my lap and the instrument start to almost quiver before I even touch the strings...whew!

Contrasting a meticulously handmade acoustic guitar with a perfectly exquisite machine produced one, I do understand the differences. And comparing the sound of a guitar with a pickup system to an unamplified instrument isn't actually fair. But therein lies the complexity of the topic. It isn't really supposed to be just about judging apples against apples. There are plenty of reasons for liking both my handmade and machine made guitars. I don't drive a handmade automobile, but I live in a custom-built home, and it contains both handmade and factory built furniture. I don't choose to eat so called "boxed food", instead preferring to create meals myself from the freshest of ingredients. I wear clothing made by machine, clothing made by craftsmen using machines, as well as clothing made entirely by hand. I have handmade guitars, mostly handmade guitars, machine made guitars, and hybrids...what can I say? I'm a mess. ;~}

 

[chazmo]

Yup, something for everyone. Spice of life, and all that.

Regarding automation, I think Taylor's genius has been employing it extensively in order to enable the company to focus its resources on acquiring and showcasing the natural beauty of wood. When you can press a button and have a thousand identical, finished guitar necks available, you can focus on other details. It's almost counter-intuitive, but that's what I have concluded. It's also a little schizo from their end, after all it was Taylor that built the Pallet guitar out of discarded oak and spruce in an attempt to show that the wood didn't matter... but I think the message there was simply that beauty (and consistency) mattered more than tone. They've made sooooo many absolutely exquisite-looking guitars, and the public has taken notice. Plus, Taylor recognized that most people wanted a guitar with good, embedded electronics. If you look back in Taylor's early history in the late '70s and early '80s, when they were essentially a small, struggling luthier shop, it becomes clear that later automation (CNC, in particular) is what enabled their breakout into an industry leader.

Focusing on sound now, as all Guildphiles do, I have to admit that I don't subscribe to anything magical about wood... soul or whatever. But I have no doubts that natural variations in wood will equate to some variation in sound. I don't know how much of that is audible, though I am fascinated by Tom's example of the two Martins that sounded radically different to him. Also, for a few years, Taylor had a brand ("R. Taylor") that was essentially some of their top guys hand-building bodies... I tried a few of these guitars, and I could not discern much tonal difference from the regular Taylor products. I don't know what that means.

All I can really say is that I am often fascinated by what luthiers actually do and how they push the limits of guitar-making. The experimentation with materials, construction techniques, and every other aspect is what really makes things interesting. Most of us will never have the courage to commission a guitar from one of these forward-looking folks, so we have to live vicariously through the folks who do and watch the technology and materials trickle down into wider production.

 

[chazmo]

Hey Chris, have you ever posted pics of your Greven?

 

[davismanLV]

Christopher..... you're not a mess! I consider you "open to the full experience and expressive of yourself through a wide range of products". On that note I'm gonna go jump in the pool to cool off from my bike ride (it's already 100 degrees at 10:30am) and think about what I just said and wonder what it means..... :encouragement:

 

[Christopher Cozad]

Hey Chris, have you ever posted pics of your Greven?

No, Charlie, I don't believe I have. In the spirit justifying my veer (LOL), here are some photos of a couple of my non-CNC made guitars. Supporting my interpretation of Chris's (AcornHouse) plea, I would prefer to see future Guilds built more by expert human hands than by machine, and encourage Cordoba in that pursuit.

I urge everyone to conduct "blind" listening tests using whatever guitars you have. These tests are downright fun and typically destroy preconceptions. Your objective is to "listen" to a guitar without "seeing" it. In fact, for the test to be useful, you don't want to know beforehand which guitar you are listening to. Face away from the guitars being tested and resist the urge to "look". Have someone strum and/or pick each guitar, one at a time, providing no other hint at which guitar is which. Make note, mental or written, of the defining audible characteristics, and then unveil the results. In "blind" listening tests these two guitars continue to walk away with top awards (though my Orpheum is consistently winning an honorable mention).

2005 Greven "Nick Lucas"

2013 Everett "Sofia Royale"

Worthy of note: Both luthiers (John Greven and Kent (Carlos) Everett, independent of one another, after listening to and playing my Taylor K24ce commented on how "well balanced" they perceived the guitar to be (meaning there is an evenness in both individual string volume and tone across registers). They both expressed surprise at their own honest assessments, which I found to be both educational and amusing. In the volume department, especially when compared with the Greven NL, the Taylor needs to be amplified to be heard. It is that quiet. By contrast, the Greven NL is the loudest guitar I own. People are constantly amazed at "all that sound coming from such a small guitar". The Everett Sofia is closer to the Greven NL in volume than the Taylor, yet having a completely different sound. The Everett Sofia is the most comfortable guitar I own, due primarily to the arm bevel.

 

[chazmo]

That is one SWEET veer, Chris. Well, two actually.

I love "The Greven"... Someone has been looking at old "The Gibsons" I take it!!! That is some old-timey greatness right there.

And the Everett is ultra-modern, with it's soundport and armrest. Awesome.

Thanks for sharing those, Chris!

 

[MLBob]

I'm a lover of the happy accident. Of the material having its say, adding its contribution.
(And I do believe any maker, of anything, does imbue part of themselves in whatever they make.....)

Bingo! Chris

Bob

 

[davismanLV]

Holy CRAP, Christopher!! Those are both just super amazing and beautiful guitars!! Like Charley, I love the classic and old-time look of the Greven, but the Everett, with it's exquisite woods and binding, sound port, and bevel is breathtaking!! Thanks for sharing those!! :encouragement: