But the GO body?? Nothing "classic" about it to me; just a big guitar; and big lookin, not in a nice way to these eyes. So let's assume that its tone is big, bold, and all that other ad-copy stuff that really does bear itself out. Great ...hope folks dig it and buy a ton of em. I am guessing that I won't be one of them ...again, because of the shape.
I don't understand your reservations. On the one hand you are criticising the GO for looking too big, yet you seem to have no issue with the old Jumbo size, which, to my eyes, appears to be bigger than the GO.
Taylor are an American company. One thing many American companies recognise is that everything targeted at the consumer should always be bigger, whether it be Big Macs or SUVs or Walmart or whatever. They are simply milking the market, which as a for-profit organisation accountable to their shareholders, is what they should be doing. If you're looking for shops that produce guitars that are smaller in size and aren't as large and corporate driven as Taylor, I would suggest Huss & Dalton, Santa Cruz and Froggy Bottom, all who have fantastic smaller bodied guitars a step above Taylors, IMO. Richard Hoover stated in an interview (https://dl.dropbox.com/u/22365133/TGN_Demo2_embeded.pdf) that he once spoke to Bob Taylor about why he needed people instead of machines sanding bridges. Bob Taylor replied: "You focus on making the best guitars out there, I'll focus on making the most."
I am fully aware that some of my sentiments appear contradictory, like the one on body size that you reference. I tried to explain, inexpertly to be sure, that I love the jumbo for its size and the
voice its size brings to the table,
but also for its classic shape/aesthetics: it's the whole package that allures me. If the GO offfers that wonderful voice that I associate with the jumbo, albeit in an shape that I find wholly unappealing, then for me that fulfills only a
part of the goodness equation.
Now as for your 2nd pp, well that's a mixed bag ya got there. First off, until Taylor comes out with an IPO, it remains wholly a privately owned company that has zero fiduciary obligations to outsiders; shareholders simply don't exist in this discussion. They "do" out of what they --Bob and Kurt-- feel is best. Period. To raise the comparison with publicly-traded companies, IMHO, misses the point entirely. I "get" what you're trying to say, but I think you misapply principles which, here, simply do not exist. While the Taylor Co. clearly had sights to be an influential (read "big") guitar maker, there is simply no evidence, either in their products nor customer relations, that I have ever seen/experienced, that they subscribe to what many manufacturers have followed as "bigger is better." This simply is not how Taylor rolls. They got "big" by building a
better mousetrap, not by offering bigger ones.
Now as for "fantastic smaller bodied guitars a step above Taylors": well as you correctly state, that is indeed your opinion, to which you are entitled. And to some extent, I may agree as I have played some of these fine instruments. But again, apples-oranges. Let's forget about "tone" as a consideration for a moment since that is, of course, totally subjective. That said, the likes of SC, H&D, et.al. are all
small builders whose goal is to intentionally make
very few instruments
because they attend to details that will yield a finer instrument; likewise, and not surprisingly, they charge substantially more than most every production-line Taylor (clearly excluding Taylor's highest echelon and BTOs). So comparing so-called "boutique builds" that cost more than production-line Taylors that not only cost less but are readily available across the country to test drive is, at least in my mind, apples and oranges. OTOH, consider if you will the now-defunct R-Taylor brand: that
was aimed squarely at the "boutique" market. Guess what: RT's hyper attention to details in build, wood, buyer's personal wants, etc. all were
top notch ...and likewise, RT's prices were not Taylor-production guitar prices either.
That is one place where one can undeniably find Bob wanting to "build the best."
Not arguing with you at all, by a long shot. Just offering my perspective on things is all.
Like I said in numerous places, if folks find the GO very attractive, so be it; in large numbers, better still. I simply lament that Taylor's newest offering does not fulfill what I personally wanted to see in a classic jumbo.
Edward
