Query failed: connection to localhost:9312 failed (errno=111, msg=Connection refused).
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Subscribe to our Patreon, and get image uploads with no ads on the site!
Base theme by DesignModo & ported to Powered by Vanilla by Chris Ireland, modified by the "theFB" team.
Comments
But one of the problems is that guitarists are so conservative that manufacturers trying to use different, even very similar from a functional and appearance point of view, tends to provoke a backlash about ‘quality’ - Fender using Indian laurel instead of rosewood is a prime example. I have no idea if the laurel itself is sourced responsibly either.
At the end of the day most of us just need to buy fewer guitars - I’m not innocent either, although it’s a very long time since I bought a new guitar. (But buying second hand isn’t a complete get-out, since whoever sold it may be buying another new one.)
"Take these three items, some WD-40, a vise grip, and a roll of duct tape. Any man worth his salt can fix almost any problem with this stuff alone." - Walt Kowalski
"Just because I don't care, doesn't mean I don't understand." - Homer Simpson
The actual quantity of timber used for guitars is tiny. Utterly insignificant in the scheme of things.
It is the rarity of guitar timbers which is the root of the problem. As you say, guitarists ignorantly insist on having instruments made from just a handful of same-old, same-old traditional timbers, and as a result, those species are being wiped out.
In fact, it is not only possible to make a guitar from any of a huge range of alternative timbers, it very often results in a better instrument. I have two guitars (out of 8) made from the traditional tropical rainforest timbers and it is no coincidence that these two are the ones at the top of my disposal list. The mahogany one will certainly go sometime in the next year or so to make room for something nicer, and the rosewood one, lovely instrument though it is, might be the next one out the door (subject to negotiations with Mrs Tannin re the amount of space my guitars take up).
It is entirely possible and practicable to make fine instruments from sustainable (mostly plantation-grown) timbers. Doing so is no bad thing - far less damaging than many of the other things we do as consumers. A good quality guitar lasts for many, many years and safely stores the embedded carbon for that time. Meanwhile, the tree regrows and the cycle repeats. But only where the harvesting cycle is ethical and sustainable.
Looking back however, there was absolutely nothing wrong with it as a beginners instrument. Fender sell a shed load of them as well.
I admit I do also have an all-mahogany parlour guitar... but I don't think I'd buy a new one.
You're right that the quantities used in the guitar industry are tiny, but that's a bit like saying that because the USA and China dwarf the carbon emissions of the UK, it's fine for the British to drive the biggest SUVs they can find as it makes an insignificant difference overall. It is technically true, but it's missing the point.
"Take these three items, some WD-40, a vise grip, and a roll of duct tape. Any man worth his salt can fix almost any problem with this stuff alone." - Walt Kowalski
"Just because I don't care, doesn't mean I don't understand." - Homer Simpson
I don't really agree about the comparison with the "insignificant contribution" argument. Sustainably sourced timbers - which all forward-looking, responsible manufacturers either use already or are transitioning to - are indeed sustainable. We can go on using (e.g.) Blackwood at the current rate forever without ever endangering the species or running out of it. Doubling the rate would be no problem. Beyond a certain level (I don't know what that level is - 3x current usage? 5x? 10x?) it becomes overharvested and unsustainable.
In fact there is nothing wrong with using any species at a rate which is long-term sustainable. For some species, however, that long-term sustainable rate is far lower than market demand. We need to transition out of those species and where possible increase supply. Above all, we need to stop bloody wasting precious timbers on short-term low-value stupidities.
Ebony is a good example. Wasting it on cheap, low-value guitars which are destined to become landfill inside the decade is criminal. Thankfully, we have (mostly) now learned to stop wasting vast amounts of it by throwing away any bit that isn't completely inky black. And there are many other good fretboard timbers, some of them very much sustainable.
I was just noticing some cheap guitars that with a bit of tlc would be absolutely fine for beginners. It's a wonder what a few adjustments on a truss rod makes.
I'm all for it. I've bought a couple of really cheap guitars from charity shops that were unplayable as they were in the shop and managed to get them working, not great but do the job. I just gave them to people that had said they were planning to buy a new cheapy anyway.
I agree with IC, not just buying less guitars, but less stuff all together.
Just because it's really easy to buy things these days doesn't necessarily mean you should.
Compared to the standard when I first started playing (412 years ago...), it is vastly improved.
Man, even my mate has a cheap Cort, and it plays lovely.
But what do I know ? I'm hedging towards buying a really expensive acoustic, as I run blindly down the latest rabbit hole
The singer I used to work with has one which I used to play round at her flat and we wrote most of our songs on. I have yet to write anything on the parlour, nice though it is.
"Take these three items, some WD-40, a vise grip, and a roll of duct tape. Any man worth his salt can fix almost any problem with this stuff alone." - Walt Kowalski
"Just because I don't care, doesn't mean I don't understand." - Homer Simpson
PS @Wazmeister - Cort is not a terrible brand, far from it. Cort is one of the biggest guitar manufactures in the world and makes a huge number of instruments, most of them rebranded and sold by other, often better-known, names. Sure, they are not by any stretch of the imagination great, but they are not terrible either.
Surely really terrible is something like spending two and half grand on a guitar, then finding out that a £600 Yamaha or Furch actually sounds better?
punch and some pliers.
The string height was really bad, buzzing at the nut, the logo was simply a sticker on the headstock with a "K" on it.
But to me, as a 15yr old, it was the business. I learned on it and it wasn't until the winter of '65/'66 that I got something better from mum's mail-order catalogue.
If you really want to learn, "terrible" shouldn't stop you. It's just a stepping stone.
OK, not what the thread is about, just saying........ I'll get me coat.
I tried to record it about a year ago. Sounded like shite with a SM57. Tried a cheap stick on thing. Sounded worse. Was terrible when I bought an Artec soundhole pickup.
Sold it for £20 (what I paid for it) and bought a used Fender G60CE for £60. Records reasonably well and easier to play and sounds better than the Encore. Didn't see the point in forking out £200+ on something that doesn't get played often.
That song was supposed to make me a fortune
He who Dares Wins! lol
Bu perhaps I am the only one who could be this stupid.
But I have been reading on here from a few people that Tanglewood are rated as crap guitars,have I just been lucky?
It is certainly a keeper for me, I will never part with it.
My band - Crimson on Silver For sale - Blackstar HT-5S
Gear - Guitars, amps, effects and shizz. Edited for Phil_aka_Pip, who is allergic to big long lists.