Jump to content


Please note: You can easily log in to MPN using your Facebook account!

As far as american guitar companies, who was here first?


webe123

Recommended Posts



  • Replies 23
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Martin is pretty old- 1833.

 

Wouldn't ya love to come across an original ? :wave:

 

Peace

"Treat your wife with honor, respect, and understanding as you live together so that you can pray effectively as husband and wife." 1 Peter 3:7

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by BiC:

Martin is pretty old- 1833.

 

Wouldn't ya love to come across an original ? :wave:

 

Peace

Yeah, I tought it would be either Gibson or Martin, but wasn't sure which one was around the longest! And YES I would LOVE to have one of the first Martins! WHO WOULDN'T??
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Martin is the oldest. Gibson started around the 1880's, IIRC. Epiphone started in the 30's, Fender in the late 40's. Ric started about turn of the century + a few years.

 

I think Washburn is a fairly old company too, dating from the 1800's, not sure what decade.

BlueStrat

a.k.a. "El Guapo" ;)

 

...Better fuzz through science...

 

http://geocities.com/teleman28056/index.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Washburn is a fairly old company too, dating from the 1800's, not sure what decade.

In the interest of pedantry:

 

Washburn had been out of business for over half a century before someone bought the name in the 70s or 80s and started using it on new production guitars. So Washburn today isn't really that old.

"You never can vouch for your own consciousness." - Norman Mailer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by BiC:

Martin is pretty old- 1833.

 

Wouldn't ya love to come across an original ? :wave:

 

Peace

This one is from the 1880s

http://www.mandoweb.com/43-0418.jpg

 

C.F. Martin Sr. started his apprenticeship in 1811 and began making guitars in Germany in the early 1820s. With the birth of his son, C.F. Martin, Jr, began the Martin Legacy. Martin moved to the US in 1833 and started making guitars in the back room of his shop.

 

Washburn started in 1883

 

Gibson in 1894

 

Epiphone in 1873

This Epiphone is from the late 1920s, early 1930s.

http://www.mandoweb.com/43-0517.jpg

 

Here\'s a great guitar history site.

 

Our Joint

 

"When you come slam bang up against trouble, it never looks half as bad if you face up to it." The Duke...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Gabriel E.:

Washburn had been out of business for over half a century before someone bought the name in the 70s or 80s and started using it on new production guitars. So Washburn today isn't really that old.
So what does that say about Gibson (which Orville sold to a bunch of investors not long after he started the company, and has since been owned by Norlin and others....) or Fender? (or Telefunken, or United Audio?) Still existing under the trademark.

 

I guess that we are talking about companies that still exist, because there were quite a few that made guitars in this country before Martin.

 

Just as an aside.... is it a business strength that your kids stay in the family business? Or are the kids just inheriting, and aren't capable of making their way in the real world? I'm not aiming this at Martin, just one of those questions that pops up on occasion. Think about it..... if you were handed a good paying job as soon as you were of working age, and you were trained by the best professionals for your entire life to do the job, and you had a clear path to advancement, you've got quite a leg up on the rest of the world. So inheritors are in a good position. But does the company always benefit from being run by the inheritors? Might it have been more successful with a professional anagement team? Or is this too philosophical and off-topic?

 

Bill

"I believe that entertainment can aspire to be art, and can become art, but if you set out to make art you're an idiot."

 

Steve Martin

 

Show business: we're all here because we're not all there.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An important distinction for Martin, is that the family has been involved in the Nazareth, PA company right along, and, most importantly, that Martin's designs over the years effectively define the modern flat-top steel-string acoustic guitar; and, though derivative of a Spanish instrument, created one of only a few genuinely American musical instruments. (Perhaps only the banjo is more Ameri-centric.)

 

ALL other guitars made in America, including electrics, pretty much have a lineage leading straight back to Martin guitars. (If everybody had been trying to amplify "classical" style, gut- or nylon-strung acoustics, would Les Paul and Leo Fender, among others, have been where-and-when they were to do what they did?)

 

All other flat-top acoustics are generally variations or deviations on the Martin theme. One might cite the early guitars of Orville Gibson as being more original, but the subsequent Gibson designs (as far as flat-tops go) that were more widely successful over time are not quite as unique and idiosyncratic as his hand-made acoustics were.

 

The decidedly different-breed Selmer/Maccafferri school in France evolved rather parallel to the American flat-top steel-string, but a little cross-pollenization may be there, as well.

Ask yourself- What Would Ren and Stimpy Do?

 

~ Caevan James-Michael Miller-O'Shite ~

_ ___ _ Leprechaun, Esquire _ ___ _

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Caevan O'Shite, who 8 the Pilgrims.:

An important distinction for Martin, is that the family has been involved in the Nazareth, PA ... that Martin's designs over the years effectively define the modern flat-top steel-string acoustic guitar; and, though derivative of a Spanish instrument, created one of only a few genuinely American musical instruments. (Perhaps only the banjo is more Ameri-centric.)

Back to the pedantic, Martin started in New York. (Not an issue, just a clarification)

 

as far as Martin "inventing" the flatop... well, okay. I believe that this style of guitar was well in production by many manufacturers at the time that Martin started producing guitars, but I'm too lazy to look it up. There is no doubt that Martin makes a good guitar, and their designs helped to popularize the instrument as we understand it today. Might we have felt the same way about other instruments, should those brands had managed to survive the years? Who knows. Washburn was certainly an example of a well-made instrument, and I know that there were others. Martin didn't have the only offering at the middle of the 19th century, just as Ford didn't make the only automobiles in the first quarter of the 20th century.

 

Bill

"I believe that entertainment can aspire to be art, and can become art, but if you set out to make art you're an idiot."

 

Steve Martin

 

Show business: we're all here because we're not all there.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, I know that C. F.Martin started out in NYC, and that there were other flat-tops around. But the changes that Martin introduced to their own lines over the years were hugely influential. And a good part of the reason that Martin is still with us, and that other brands have passed and become more obscure, is that the Martin designs were good, and sold well, making them popular amongst players. And emulated by many other makers.

 

As I said, Martin designs effectively define the modern flat-top steel-string. He/they didn't invent it, but did develop much of what has come to be the most common and recognized definition of the instrument. Not the first, but decidely the foremost, in perspective.

 

Personally, I prefer a good Gibson or Gibson-y type flat-top, they just work better for my style of playing. But there's no denying that they were influenced by Martin guitars, both as a starting-off place and a point to deviate from for their own voice and identity. Perhaps not the only influence, but one nonetheless.

 

Martin's influence on subsequent guitars is not too unlike the influence of Gibson's carved- and arch-top guitars on subsequent instruments of a similar stripe.

Ask yourself- What Would Ren and Stimpy Do?

 

~ Caevan James-Michael Miller-O'Shite ~

_ ___ _ Leprechaun, Esquire _ ___ _

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just as an aside.... is it a business strength that your kids stay in the family business? Or are the kids just inheriting, and aren't capable of making their way in the real world? I'm not aiming this at Martin, just one of those questions that pops up on occasion. Think about it..... if you were handed a good paying job as soon as you were of working age, and you were trained by the best professionals for your entire life to do the job, and you had a clear path to advancement, you've got quite a leg up on the rest of the world. So inheritors are in a good position. But does the company always benefit from being run by the inheritors? Might it have been more successful with a professional anagement team? Or is this too philosophical and off-topic?

 

Bill[/QB]

 

To tell you the truth I think "the proof is in the pudding"!! If Martin had of hired "outside" management, I do not beleive FOR A MINUTE that they could have done any better of a job than what the Martin family has done with the line! The reason I believe this?? Take a look at the Fender/CBS era and what a FLOP that was! That all happened because Leo's health was failing and CBS made him an offer. And what did they do with all of their high dollar ideas?? NOTHING! They were the worst thing that could have hapened to fender!

 

http://www.fender.com/resources/companyinfo/history.html read the history on the link I provided and as you can see, when a large corporation took over the company, it all started going downhill! Finally in 1985 THE EMPLOYEES bought the company back from CBS and now they are making decent guitars again! That is because somebody that knows what they are doing, and that is how to make a decent fender guitar, is in charge! The same I believe would have happened to the Martin Company if they had of been bought bought out by a large corporation or been under different management! Would Martin had fared better under different management? My answer would be a flat out NO!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Consider this.....If it is true that the CF Martin guitar company started in 1833......we state that our country officially BECAME a country in 1776! (I know that our country was around long before that, but that is when we celebrate our independance from england) THAT MEANS THAT THE MARTIN GUITAR COMPANY STARTED ONLY 57 YEARS AFTER OUR COUNTRY BECAME INDEPENDANT! wow! I didn't realize they had been around that long! Here is the breakdown of companies history from another forum.

 

"C.F. Martin Sr. started his apprenticeship in 1811 and began making guitars in Germany in the early 1820s. With the birth of his son, C.F. Martin, Jr, began the Martin Legacy. Martin moved to the US in 1833 and started making guitars in the back room of his shop.

 

Washburn started in 1883

 

Gibson in 1894

 

Epiphone in 1873"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by bpark@prorec.com:

So what does that say about Gibson (which Orville sold to a bunch of investors not long after he started the company, and has since been owned by Norlin and others...

 

Bill

The above statement is incorrect. Orville Gibson never owned Gibson guitars, the company. He was an independent luthier. The company was always owned by other investors, with Orville acting as a consultant during his relatively short tenure with the company. Still, Gibson guitars was significant in those early days because of Orville's contributions.

It's easiest to find me on Facebook. Neil Bergman

 

Soundclick

fntstcsnd

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Washburn is older than late 1800's. Lyon & Healy had been making parlor guiars in the ealry to mid 1800's, then started the Washburn brand in the mid 1800's. So it's origin is older than the name.

 

CF Martin has to be the oldest continous family run American made guitar.

overheard street personality on Venice Beach "Man, that Bullshit is Bulllshhittt...."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by dougsthang':

Washburn is older than late 1800's. Lyon & Healy had been making parlor guiars in the ealry to mid 1800's, then started the Washburn brand in the mid 1800's. So it's origin is older than the name.

 

CF Martin has to be the oldest continous family run American made guitar.

From the Washburn website history page.

"Since our birth in Chicago in 1883, the name Washburn has been branded into the world's finest stringed instruments."

I took it to be pretty much like Martin, where there was a guitar built by them earlier but not under the name.

 

Our Joint

 

"When you come slam bang up against trouble, it never looks half as bad if you face up to it." The Duke...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by dougsthang':

Washburn is older than late 1800's. Lyon & Healy had been making parlor guiars in the ealry to mid 1800's, then started the Washburn brand in the mid 1800's. So it's origin is older than the name.

 

CF Martin has to be the oldest continous family run American made guitar.

According to the link in a previous post, CF Martin is the oldest guitar maker, in the entire world, bar none. (Still existing, of course.

It's easiest to find me on Facebook. Neil Bergman

 

Soundclick

fntstcsnd

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[/QB]

 

Would Martin had fared better under different management? My answer would be a flat out NO![/QB]

 

Well, it's nice that you are enthusiastic about your answer. But one can name many companies... most probably.... that didn't hit their stride until after the family was removed from control. As I said, it was a general question, not involved with Martin or guitars in particular, just one of those "hmmmm...."'s.

 

And if one choses to use Fender as an example, then what about Gibson? Orville was gone early on... (really rather pointless for our discussion as to wether the company was just named after him, or he sold it quickly.... either way, he was gone...) and the success of Gibson was due to the people who were hired on, not due to the work of any family menmbers.

 

I find the inner workings of businesses to be interesting, so long as I don't have to participate. Watching is as close as I need to get.

 

Bill

"I believe that entertainment can aspire to be art, and can become art, but if you set out to make art you're an idiot."

 

Steve Martin

 

Show business: we're all here because we're not all there.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by webe123:

Just as an aside.... is it a business strength that your kids stay in the family business? Or are the kids just inheriting, and aren't capable of making their way in the real world? I'm not aiming this at Martin, just one of those questions that pops up on occasion. Think about it..... if you were handed a good paying job as soon as you were of working age, and you were trained by the best professionals for your entire life to do the job, and you had a clear path to advancement, you've got quite a leg up on the rest of the world. So inheritors are in a good position. But does the company always benefit from being run by the inheritors? Might it have been more successful with a professional anagement team? Or is this too philosophical and off-topic?

 

Bill

To tell you the truth I think "the proof is in the pudding"!! If Martin had of hired "outside" management, I do not beleive FOR A MINUTE that they could have done any better of a job than what the Martin family has done with the line! The reason I believe this?? Take a look at the Fender/CBS era and what a FLOP that was! That all happened because Leo's health was failing and CBS made him an offer. And what did they do with all of their high dollar ideas?? NOTHING! They were the worst thing that could have hapened to fender!

 

http://www.fender.com/resources/companyinfo/history.html read the history on the link I provided and as you can see, when a large corporation took over the company, it all started going downhill! Finally in 1985 THE EMPLOYEES bought the company back from CBS and now they are making decent guitars again! That is because somebody that knows what they are doing, and that is how to make a decent fender guitar, is in charge! The same I believe would have happened to the Martin Company if they had of been bought bought out by a large corporation or been under different management! Would Martin had fared better under different management? My answer would be a flat out NO![/QB]

 

Those same employees (at least the upper management) were their during the CBS days. Every company has an era were they aren't strong. Gibson still isn't making the guitars they used to make. Fender is making the guitar that they used to sue everybody not to make. They like Gibson have a few decent models along with a huge amount of redundancy.

overheard street personality on Venice Beach "Man, that Bullshit is Bulllshhittt...."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Washburn had been out of business for over half a century before someone bought the name in the 70s or 80s and started using it on new production guitars. So Washburn today isn't really that old.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

So what does that say about Gibson (which Orville sold to a bunch of investors not long after he started the company, and has since been owned by Norlin and others....) or Fender? (or Telefunken, or United Audio?) Still existing under the trademark.

I think that any company that has continuously been in business is game for consideration.

 

Martin has been in the same family since it began. Gibson and Fender have had a few different owners but have remained in business since their inception.

 

Washburn had gone out of business and existed solely as a trademark. Same with DeArmond.

"You never can vouch for your own consciousness." - Norman Mailer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by bpark@prorec.com:

...And if one choses to use Fender as an example, then what about Gibson? Orville was gone early on... (really rather pointless for our discussion as to wether the company was just named after him, or he sold it quickly.... either way, he was gone...) and the success of Gibson was due to the people who were hired on, not due to the work of any family menmbers...

 

Bill

Pointless for our discussion? Hardly! In essence, the family NEVER had any control of the direction of Gibson Guitars. The investors bought a name and a few patents, then built a company around them. Orville Gibson had no input whatsoever on the direction the company went. His involvement was strictly in design, from everything I've read and heard. How can you possibly compare that to Martin, where the family has controlled every aspect of the company for 170 years? Successfully, for the most part.

 

BTW, I don't buy (pun intended) that Leo Fender sold out due to failing health. As I mentioned, large conglomerates were constantly on the lookout, in the 1960's, for small companies showing great potential, that lacked capitol to rise to the next level.

 

Leo Fender would've sold out, regardless of his health, for the immense amount of money CBS offered him. Remeber, they didn't say, "Here's a ton of money for your company so we can destroy it's reputation and your name." Personally, I think Leo went for the big sale believing CBS would continue his craftsmanship and innovation on a grander scale. Well... half of that is true.. they did take Fender to a grander scale. ;)

 

40 years of hindsight makes one forget that most entrepeneurs in the 1940's, '50's and '60's were leaned on heavily by larger competitors or potential buyers. Leo didn't stand much chance of retaining his business in that climate. The pressure or the shear amount of money offered was bound to lead to a sale of Fender guitars in that era.

 

It's romantic to think that Fender would have been better off in Leo's hands, were it not for illness forcing him to sell. But that's all it is. A romantic notion.

 

He's hardly the last innovator to sell out and regret it later. Greg Mackie has several companies he's owned or been a primary investor in, only to watch the company go downhill when strictly financial investors gained control and began making R&D and manufacturing decisions. At least Mackie is still involved with the one company that bears his own name.

It's easiest to find me on Facebook. Neil Bergman

 

Soundclick

fntstcsnd

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A bit of Gibson info that backs Neil.

 

Excerpted from the Gibson site. An interesting read...

 

"For a complete history, you are better off getting a book that could double as a coffee table. But for those of us who don't believe in books as furniture, here's a quick, dirty, and not completely accurate timeline. 1894. The earliest known instrument, a 10-string that is part of the Gibson collection, is made by founder Orville Gibson in his home workshop in Kalamazoo, MI. Working alone, the former shoe store clerk applies a violin-style carved top to mandolin construction. Gibson invents two new mandolins: the F (scroll body) and A (teardrop body). He also makes something less commercial: an archtop guitar, his own invention, all of his instruments had a round or oval soundhole.

 

1902. The Gibson Mandolin-Guitar Mfg. Co., Ltd. is formed. Orville's mandolins were far superior to competing models, and the company is unable to meet rising demand. Five Kalamazoo businessmen buy the rights to his name and patent for $2,500, and hire Gibson as a consultant. Orville was not one of the principals of the Gibson company, but he did own some stock. Within six months, however, he was picking fights with the board of managers over who got to stand where in the company photos, and he sells his stock to a local saloon keeper. Orville continues to receive a royalty, and later a pension, until he dies in 1918.

 

1903-1918. Gibson dominates the mandolin orchestra world, in much the same manner that they would later dominate the guitar industry. Refinements such as a smaller size, rounded back and elevated pickguard, combined with aggressive marketing, make Gibson the leading mandolin maker. Gibson manages to cut retailers out of the way by enlisting music teachers as "teacher agents." With these teacher-agents forming mandolin orchestras, Gibson runs photos of ensembles in ads with the caption "Every One a Gibson-ite."

 

1921. Gibson employee Ted MclIugh, a woodworker who sang in a group with Orville Gibson (difficult, in that Gibson has been dead for over three years), invents the adjustable truss rod and the height-adjustable bridge. In all seriousness, modern guitar evolution just isn't possible without both inventions.

 

1922. The F-5 and L-5 are introduced, but being inanimate objects, conversation is limited. World War I kills the mandolin orchestra (like the calvary, the mandolin orchestra was too susceptible to machine-gun fire) and gives rise to the tenor banjo. In an effort to revive the mandolin (live, damn you, live!), Gibson acoustic engineer Lloyd Loar designs the ultimate mandolin: the F-5. New features include f-holes, a longer neck and hand-tuned top, tone bars and f-holes. As a companion member of the Style 5 family, Loar designs the L-5. While Loar's works are legendary in the long run, they are disastrous in the short. Gibson almost goes bankrupt, and Boar resigns late in 1924.

 

1929. The stock market crash hits America, bringing the start of the Great Depression. Gibson adapts by branching out into toy instruments, inexpensive acoustic guitars, and violins. (Yup: full circle in their first 35 years.)

 

1934. "Advanced" L-5 and Super 400 introduced. With bigger jazz bands ruling the day, Gibson solves the "more me in the monitor" problem for guitarists by advancing the size of the L-5 (and other archtops) from 16" to 17". To take the archtop guitar "over the top," Gibson introduces the 18"-wide Super 400, which is still regarded as the pinnacle of archtop design.

 

1935. The first Gibson electric (a metalbody Hawaiian) is introduced, with consulting help from Alvino Rey. Hawaii remains nonplussed.

 

In 1936, the first "Spanish" (standard) electric, the ES-150 appears.

 

1937. The J-200 makes its first appearance when singing cowboy movie star Ray Whitley orders a super-large flat top. Gibson put its into production in 1938 as the Super Jumbo, and asks Whitley if he wants fries with that. Under its more familiar name, the J-200, it is still the standard for country players.

 

1939. Gibson introduces the first cutaway models, the Super 400 Premier and I-5 Premier.

 

1941. Just before switching over to wartime products, Gibson introduces the J-45 and Southerner Jumbo (SJ). No word on whether the Gibson marketing department was entirely staffed by heavyset guys. The SJ becomes the workhorse flat top guitar for way too many acoustic players.

 

1944. Chicago Musical Instrument Co., one of the largest wholesale and distribution companies, purchases Gibson. In a desperate attempt to stop the sale, Hitler attacks the Allied forces in what becomes known as "The Battle of the Bulge."

 

1946-51. Gibson switches back to music production, and 4 years of pent-up demand cause the company's production and profits to explode. The company also perfects the P-90 pickup, leading the industry in the development of new electric archtops. The ES-5 (the first triple-pickup guitar) and ES175 roll out in 1949, and the L-5CES and Super 400CES follow in 1951.

 

1950. Ted McCarty, an engineer that didn't even know how to play a guitar, becomes the company's president. He makes up for this lack of first-hand knowledge by inventing the tune-o-matic bridge with individually adjustable saddle, still the standard bridge on Gibson electrics. McCarty lives to the ripe old age of 91, dying in April 2001, long enough to see the company rise beyond all expectations.

 

From here until 1966, Gibson's labor force expands tenfold and sales increase by 1,250%, with products like the Les Paul, Byrdland, ES-335, Flying V, Explorer, SG and Firebird electrics, the Hummingbird and Dove acoustics, as well as the Tune-o-matic, stop bar tailpiece, and the humbucking pickup. Gibson's growth during this period is extraordinary, but it also begs a sort of chicken-and-egg debate: did the company grow this much because of the overwhelming explosion of music, or did the company cause the surge that it eventually benefited from?

 

1952. First solidbody introduced. Gibson enlists the endorsement of one the biggest recording star of the early '50s to help sell The Les Paul Model. (Hint: it's not Jerry Lee Lewis.) Since 1952, Gibson has offered over 40 different Les Paul models, and Les Paul has sounded drop-dead incredible on all of 'em.

 

1957. The humbucking pickup, a double-coil design, is perfected by Gibson engineer Seth "Ed" Lover and installed on Gibson's top-line models. Gibson acquires Epiphone for 40 acres and a mule.

 

1958. A completely new line is introduced (err, that'd be Epiphone), expanding Gibson's dealer base. By 1970, this also gives Gibson a competitive import line, allowing the company to start selling guitars to lower price markets. Three new "modernistic" models (the Explorer, Flying V and Moderne) are introduced. Just like in 1924, the lines are long-term successes and short-term disasters. Today, they are among the most valuable models in the company's history. McCarty's other great idea of 1958, the ES-335, puts modern solidbody construction in a traditional hollowbody look. Along with blue spotlights, the semi-hollow design is one of the most successful concepts of the electric guitar era.

 

1965. Gibson hits record production, shipping over 100,000 Gibson and Epiphone instruments. Not surprisingly, increased production makes for increased errors.

 

1969. ECL, an Ecuadorian company with interests in concrete and beer manufacturing, takes over Gibson. ECL also becomes known as Norlin. 1974. The Nashville plant opens and production is split between Nashville and Kalamazoo. In 1984, the Kalamazoo plants is closed as well, and Gibson moves its headquarters to Nashville.

 

1978-82. Even though Norlin is falling fast, Gibson remains creative. Seeing a growing demand for vintage guitars, Gibson introduces the first real reissues: the F-SL in 1978, the Les Paul Heritage 80 in 1980, Heritage Korinas in 1982 and the Earl Scruggs Granada-style banjo in 1984. Innovative new designs are also met with the first B.B. King models in 1980, and the first Chet Atkins solid-acoustics in 1982.

 

1986. Henry Juszkiewicz and David Berryman buy Gibson from Norlin, literally saving the company.

 

1987. The Flatiron mandolin company of Bozeman, MT, is acquired, and a new plant is built there for acoustics in 1989. With renewed confidence in the Gibson brand, the company begins a growth period where it acquires Steinberger and Tobias basses, Oberheim keyboards, Mapex drums and O.M.I. (the Dobro company).

 

1993-94. Growing interest in the vintage market prompts a detailed replica of the '59 and '60 flametop Les Paul. And as Gibson celebrates its Centennial, a new model, the Nighthawk, wins an award for Most Innovative Guitar at the January NAMM show. (Usually, this goes to small companies that make really outlandish guitars.) Since then: Gibson diversifies with multiple divisions, each with its own unique identity. Combine this with the other brands that are owned by Gibson, and you wind up with a manufacturer that touches nearly every band on the planet."

 

Our Joint

 

"When you come slam bang up against trouble, it never looks half as bad if you face up to it." The Duke...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by fantasticsound:

How can you possibly compare that to Martin, where the family has controlled every aspect of the company for 170 years?

 

BTW, I don't buy (pun intended) that Leo Fender sold out due to failing health.

Because we are talking about business, not guitars, and we are talking about how well the kids might have done had they had to get into the real world instead of being handed a company, and how the company might have done, had it gone to a management team. It's fine to say that Martin could have done no better than they have, but that is not true. Martin could have done worlds better, and it is only in recent years, with modern construction techniques, that Martin has become a player. They were just a small company in the 1970s and 80s, and posed no threat to other manufacturers. The were considered the guitar that most people could not afford, and few stores carried them. Now it would probably be hard to find a music store that did not carry at least some levelof Martin guitar. They could not even prodeuce the numbers of instruments that it requires to have that status in the old building, less than ten years ago. (Maybe only six years ago...)

 

In fact, as I live in PA, I can tell you that there was a video, only a couple of years old, shot in the original plant. Many of the hand-tooling operations were stupid. Having six people hand carving necks with spokeshaves and checking them to metal templates makes no sense. There is no advantage to a hand carved neck. It's a time waster, and time is money. I've been to the old plant and I've been to the new factory. Updating to modern construction methods for the meaningless stuff, but maintaining the craftsmanship where it counts has enabled them to set realistic price points and grow the business. (The only thing that I didn't care for in the new plant.... in the old place they used to put on three coats of finish, and hand rub each coat. Now they use one coat, and an auto buffer to polish it out.

 

As an aside.... Peavey converted a baseball bat carving machine to make his guitar necks. Just an interesting tidbit. Now Martin has a machine that spits out necks, basically by the tubfull.)

 

So it is admirable that Martin has stayed in the family, but I don't know that it has always been to the advantage of the company. The Martins don't appear to be as business savy as, say, the DuPonts.

 

Yeah, I believe (with no backing knowlege...) that Leo sold the company for profit. He supposedly started G&L because he hated what they did to his instruments, though. It's kinda like the Beatles crying about not owning Northern Songs.... they SOLD the darned thing, so how can they complain? Nobody forced them to sell, they sold the cataslog because that the time pop music had no legs, nobody knew that pop music could stick around... it haddn't, after all... and they thought that they saw a tidy profit from what they assumede would be a non-performing asset. I can't feel too sorry for them.

 

Bill

"I believe that entertainment can aspire to be art, and can become art, but if you set out to make art you're an idiot."

 

Steve Martin

 

Show business: we're all here because we're not all there.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was going to quote the "kids taking over the business" thing, but I see that everyone has jumped all over it. Being an owner of a vintage

(IMHO) Martin, I can only say that owning such a fine musical instrument has brought me a sense of pride in American craftsmanship. Before everyone jumps all over the "fact" that C.F. Martin, Sr. was German, let me point out that America is known as, and defined as a "melting pot" of all nationalities and C.F. Martin, Sr. was and is part of that definition.

 

I agree that business wise, both paths (the kids, corporate buy out) can be successful. But we, as artists, must also define, maybe even ONLY define success as the continuation of the "line of heritage" and production of "fine musical instruments". Yes, the business must be successful to finacially continue, but if the end product is not useful to the professional and discriminate amateur, then they have failed the "art".

 

After that somewhat pretentious (sorry :bor: ) "on the soap box" oratory, I'd like to add one last fact. I am more than willing to admit that histories of companies like Fender prove the business path, albiet only with the quality being reinstated, a very improtant point; but it is also true that "old world" values and a family lineage within a company can result in a "top-o-the-line" product in any field. To support of this statement I offer Ruger. A family held and very successful company it its field, guns. They are commonly recognized as an important and innovative manfuacturer in the world marketplace.

 

Are any (including the business path) scenarios formulas for guaranteed success? Of course not, all the ingredients have to be there; knowlege of the product, knowing how to produce the product, acceptable profit and a product that there is a market for. The point, IMHO, is that, as musicians, we should be aware of the lineage of a company from the point of view that they will produce a quality instrument that produces a beautiful and expressive sound. All else is pointless.

 

Dave, the pontificator

Gotta' geetar... got the amp. There must be SOMEthing else I... "need".
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...