capmaster Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 ... No real advancement in technology or pure design. Well, that's business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballcorner Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 It is always odd to me that people mock back and forth about Gibson or Martin guitars. At times, both companies have excelled making beautiful instruments, and I would think people might be more likely to embrace and support both companies. It is all fine and well to laugh at special models Martin comes up with to try to generate interest in their tired brand, but Gibson has indeed produced similar models that are easy to trash. Have a look through some 1980s Gibson catalogues before you judge Martin inept. Guitars should always be evaluated by playing and hearing them. I am not sure there is a great value to making mock of a photo of two guitars. Doing so is the domain of collectors, not players. I would love to hear from someone who has actually played one of these guitars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olie Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 I'm sorry for laughing, but really, is this the only thing they can come up with? Acoustic guitar "innovation" at it's best….ranks right up there with the "Click and Clack" model http://www.premierguitar.com/articles/22356-martin-guitars-unveil-a-pair-of-dreadnought-models There's one born every minute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onewilyfool Posted April 23, 2015 Author Share Posted April 23, 2015 Ballcomer…..maybe sound is the only criteria for you when buying a guitar, but I think for myself, and for many, guitars really involve almost all the senses. If a guitar is beautiful to the eye, it is also attracting me, and I'm sorry, to my eye, these guitars are not beautiful…at most they are "gimmicky". Just an opinion, not "mocking", not "brand bashing"….lol…..I mean REALLY, guys lighten up. Also the senses of touch and feel are important, and even smell when you have a nice Rosewood, Honduran Mahogany, or Cedar guitar. So these two didn't float my boat, others like them, sounding good or not, I would just never even consider either one of these. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobouz Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 Personally, visual appeal is always a part of the equation when I'm considering an instrument. What percentage I can't exactly tell you, and it probably varies from one guitar to the next, but it has a significant impact. And like most everyone, I have my own likes & dislikes - one of the dislikes being square-shouldered dreads, whether they come from Martin, Gibson, Guild, or anyone else. I do have one Martin D, and that's more than enough. I've owned quite a few Martins over the years & respect the quality of their product, but with Martin being so square-shoulder-centric, it makes it easy for me to yawn at much of their production. Fortunately, there are many other fine options to choose from in the world of guitars! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelly campbell Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 I agree with the previous two posts, it has to be the total package in my opinion, I am not going to buy what I consider to be a "ugly" guitar because I like to tone nor would I buy a great looking guitar and have an average tone...all is considered for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blindboygrunt Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 I'm thinking that the guitars are made as a publicity vehicle and not what they think the next Neil young will be playing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelly campbell Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 Sure is...It is still a business for the makers..one of the reasons I am not big on Special editions or some of the "signature" models. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onewilyfool Posted April 24, 2015 Author Share Posted April 24, 2015 I'm thinking that the guitars are made as a publicity vehicle and not what they think the next Neil young will be playing. I think you nailed it BBG! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lefty55 Posted April 24, 2015 Share Posted April 24, 2015 Martin actually has that D-35 photo right on their websites' homepage. That top is pretty bad looking in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajay Posted April 25, 2015 Share Posted April 25, 2015 It looks like my Grateful Dead ALVAREZ. They should put Jerry Garcia up in the crow's nest playing his guitar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballcorner Posted April 30, 2015 Share Posted April 30, 2015 Ballcomer…..maybe sound is the only criteria for you when buying a guitar, but I think for myself, and for many, guitars really involve almost all the senses. If a guitar is beautiful to the eye, it is also attracting me, and I'm sorry, to my eye, these guitars are not beautiful…at most they are "gimmicky". Just an opinion, not "mocking", not "brand bashing"….lol…..I mean REALLY, guys lighten up. Also the senses of touch and feel are important, and even smell when you have a nice Rosewood, Honduran Mahogany, or Cedar guitar. So these two didn't float my boat, others like them, sounding good or not, I would just never even consider either one of these. The best guitar player I ever knew had a nylon string guitar that cost $189 - a Hondo. He performed on a Ramirez, but did all his recordings on the Hondo. I am always going to be in the camp of sound matters more than anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibson101 Posted May 2, 2015 Share Posted May 2, 2015 I love Gibson and Martin and I sure wouldn't mind owning either of those. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.