Members guitapick Posted May 21, 2011 Members Share Posted May 21, 2011 Nice one, Craig. "Yeah, but I noticed it". Perfect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Coaster Posted May 21, 2011 Members Share Posted May 21, 2011 ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Anderton Posted May 21, 2011 Members Share Posted May 21, 2011 Nice one, Craig."Yeah, but I noticed it".Perfect. Yeah, I thought that was very cool. Tells you something about his guitars, doesn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members guitapick Posted May 21, 2011 Author Members Share Posted May 21, 2011 It's an email I get from HC. An editorial sort of thing from Craig that I really enjoy. Here's the one I'm referring to: Dear Musician, Does quality matter? That might seem like a stupid question: Of course quality matters. Does anyone ever buy tickets for a concert and say, "Can you give me seats where the sound is really bad, please?" Or have you ever heard someone at a music store ask, "Yeah, the guitar is okay, but do you have one with a scratchy volume control?" Yet at least when it comes to recording, sometimes it seems quality doesn't matter. DVD-A and SACD, which at least in theory offered an improvement over the standard CD, never caught on. To add insult to injury, the CD's replacement looks to be data-compressed audio, listened to not over hi-fi speakers, but tiny little earbuds . . . or in a noisy car environment. And to accommodate these substandard listening environments, mastering engineers squash the living daylights out of any remaining dynamics, while shrugging their shoulders and saying, "Hey, it's what the label/artist/producer/consumer wants" . . . which is probably true. If the listeners aren't concerned about quality, why should we worry about that last decibel of noise floor? Who will care if we take five minutes instead of 30 setting up a mic for the best sound? Why not just do one take on the vocals, then fix it with pitch correction? So what if the guitar strings are a year old? In today's competitive environment, we need all the help we can get: If no one else cares, why should we? Well, I can think of several reasons. The most practical is that with a compromised playback medium, the quality going in is more important than ever because for a given amount of degradation, material that starts out at a higher level of quality will end up at a higher level of quality. Also, digital data lasts a long time, and if there's one thing I've learned over the course of my career it's that older material has a strange way of resurfacing from the archives. Maybe in a few years tastes will change, a new data compression standard will emerge that's outstanding, music will be reissued, and you'll be able to hear all the care you put into a recording. But perhaps the most important reason to be concerned about quality is your own satisfaction. Many years ago I did some MIDI consulting for Paul Reed Smith while his company was still fairly young, and in return he offered to sell me a guitar very inexpensively as a backup guitar to take on the road. I said the guitar was worth far more than the time I put in, but he said it was a cosmetic reject and he was just going to cut it in half anyway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members guitapick Posted May 21, 2011 Author Members Share Posted May 21, 2011 Yeah, I thought that was very cool. Tells you something about his guitars, doesn't it? Great guitars. So nice to know that he's like that. Bet you're loving that guitar. Sweat the small stuff...it pays off in the end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Anderton Posted May 21, 2011 Members Share Posted May 21, 2011 Great guitars. So nice to know that he's like that. Bet you're loving that guitar. I do, but not quite as much as the other PRS I have...his first signature series guitar (no kidding). There's quite a story behind that one, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Anderton Posted May 21, 2011 Members Share Posted May 21, 2011 BTW...for the poor underprivileged souls who have had to suffer through life without the Harmony Central Confidential newsletter, here's the link to sign up: http://www.harmonycentral.com/community/newsletter Your email is NOT shared with third parties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members guitapick Posted May 22, 2011 Author Members Share Posted May 22, 2011 I do, but not quite as much as the other PRS I have...his first signature series guitar (no kidding). There's quite a story behind that one, too.I'm into stories, if you're interested in telling 'em... Years ago, I took some jazz lessons from this guy who had a very early PRS issue. Beautiful blue guitar that could play any style. He had it rigged to get those 2 and 4 position sounds like a Strat, as well (which it did extremely well). He'd hook it up to my Mark IIB when he'd come over...man, what a great guitar. Then he accepted an endorsement opportunity from Gibson. I have to say that the guitars they hooked him up with were definitely a cut above...but he was bummed about having to keep the PRS in the house. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members raagam Posted May 22, 2011 Members Share Posted May 22, 2011 That was a great article! I have to point out a minor problem: the email was sent to me without a "Subject:" line (usually it says "Harmony Central Confidential #101" or something like that, but was blank for this one). OK, will remove my editor's cap now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members UstadKhanAli Posted May 22, 2011 Members Share Posted May 22, 2011 Same here, no subject line. I did like the letter, and posted it a few days ago in the "Sound Engineering - How Much Does It Matter?" thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ronan Murphy Posted May 22, 2011 Members Share Posted May 22, 2011 I remember being at the PRS shop back in the 80s (when I got my PRS) and they had a room full of all the non-perfect guitars that had been smashed and cut up. It was a little heart breaking but made me feel all the better about my new PRS that I had sold almost everything I owned to buy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMS Author MikeRivers Posted May 23, 2011 CMS Author Share Posted May 23, 2011 I remember being at the PRS shop back in the 80s (when I got my PRS) and they had a room full of all the non-perfect guitars that had been smashed and cut up. I wonder if destroying a guitar is stress relief for the workers, or if they feel sad to see what's probably a very usable instrument destroyed. I know there are some times when I feel like sawing a computer in half. Maybe it would make me feel better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members guitapick Posted May 23, 2011 Author Members Share Posted May 23, 2011 I wonder if destroying a guitar is stress relief for the workers, or if they feel sad to see what's probably a very usable instrument destroyed. I know there are some times when I feel like sawing a computer in half. Maybe it would make me feel better. I used to get pissed off at Hendrix and Townshend for destroying those beautiful axes. A friend of mine has been building guitars for a well known luthier for the last 4 years. He says the quality control is taken extremely seriously. Puts his all into everything he does there... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Lee Flier Posted May 23, 2011 Members Share Posted May 23, 2011 I remember being at the PRS shop back in the 80s (when I got my PRS) and they had a room full of all the non-perfect guitars that had been smashed and cut up. It was a little heart breaking but made me feel all the better about my new PRS that I had sold almost everything I owned to buy. That actually doesn't make me feel good about them at all. You would think they could clearly brand those guitars as "C" stock or something and at least give them to a charity, youth group, school, whatever, rather than just destroying them - I'd bet a lot of them are perfectly usable. I'm all for companies having high quality standards and everything, but somewhere that has to be balanced against the fact that we live in an insanely wasteful society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ggm1960 Posted May 23, 2011 Members Share Posted May 23, 2011 That actually doesn't make me feel good about them at all. You would think they could clearly brand those guitars as "C" stock or something and at least give them to a charity, youth group, school, whatever, rather than just destroying them - I'd bet a lot of them are perfectly usable.I'm all for companies having high quality standards and everything, but somewhere that has to be balanced against the fact that we live in an insanely wasteful society. They do the same thing at the Gibson plant in Memphis. They say on the tour there is just no way they'll risk anything that's not perfect leaving the Gibson factory. It's so that customers can rest assured that if it says Gibson on it, it has no flaws. There's someone out there that would quickly try to sell these sub par guitars as the real deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Anderton Posted May 23, 2011 Members Share Posted May 23, 2011 There's someone out there that would quickly try to sell these sub par guitars as the real deal. Exactly. A lot of those guitars would end up on eBay...the other thing is that at least at PRS, it was not finished guitars that were cut in half, but just the raw bodies. Sometimes during the fabrication process, problems are introduced as well...some crack or flaw in the wood is revealed that wasn't visible when it was just a plank of wood off the boat. Yes, we do live in an incredibly wasteful society but in this case, I think it's more about quality control. Companies don't want to have to throw away wood either, they'd rather have stuff that's all perfect. But I get the impression wood for guitars is kind of like ICs...you make a zillion of them, test them, then toss the ones that don't work Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members guitapick Posted May 23, 2011 Author Members Share Posted May 23, 2011 There's someone out there that would quickly try to sell these sub par guitars as the real deal.It's a shame...but that IS the case. The next thing you know, a great manufacturer's rep takes a major hit. Smaller op might go out of business. I agree that we're an extremely wasteful society, but I wouldn't want to draw the line here... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members UstadKhanAli Posted May 23, 2011 Members Share Posted May 23, 2011 Can't PRS or Gibson or other companies put a different label on it then and then give it to charity or sell it for half the price or something like this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jeff da Weasel Posted May 23, 2011 Members Share Posted May 23, 2011 There are also reasons involving taxation of stock on hand and inventory management. I know it seems stupid and wasteful, but I also know there are business reasons behind it that some of you folks aren't considering. This is common practice in many manufacturing industries beyond just musical instruments, I promise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Anderton Posted May 23, 2011 Members Share Posted May 23, 2011 Can't PRS or Gibson or other companies put a different label on it then and then give it to charity or sell it for half the price or something like this? But then they'd still have to finish making the guitar - put a finish on it, do the neck, pickups, wiring, etc. The faux bodies are destroyed at a very early stage in the manufacturing process. If the company had to spend as much time making guitars for free that they did for standard guitars, prices would go up for those buying the standard guitars. In today's market, I'm not sure customers would be willing to pay higher prices to subsidize charity guitars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members UstadKhanAli Posted May 23, 2011 Members Share Posted May 23, 2011 But then they'd still have to finish making the guitar - put a finish on it, do the neck, pickups, wiring, etc. The faux bodies are destroyed at a very early stage in the manufacturing process. If the company had to spend as much time making guitars for free that they did for standard guitars, prices would go up for those buying the standard guitars. In today's market, I'm not sure customers would be willing to pay higher prices to subsidize charity guitars. Oh, okay, they're not finished. Now I see that you wrote that above, but I didn't catch that. Oooops. What do they do with the unfinished guitars? They destroy them and then...? Do you think there's a market for people to purchase unfinished guitars so they could make a little money from it? Or that people would want unfinished guitars? Because, see, if they're unfinished, they won't have "PRS" or "Gibson" or whatever stamped on 'em, and people can't claim them as their own, right? Or am I still missing something here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Beck Posted May 23, 2011 Members Share Posted May 23, 2011 I know there are some times when I feel like sawing a computer in half. Maybe it would make me feel better. Take it out to the range and shoot it! That feels really good! Trust me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Beck Posted May 23, 2011 Members Share Posted May 23, 2011 Great article by the way Craig. I agree. Sometimes I feel like I'm writing and recording music for future generations when people start caring again. Besides my own satisfaction, posterity is another good reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Lee Flier Posted May 23, 2011 Members Share Posted May 23, 2011 There's someone out there that would quickly try to sell these sub par guitars as the real deal. That's exactly why I said they need to brand the guitars a different way so there's no mistaking it for the real deal. It could be done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Lee Flier Posted May 23, 2011 Members Share Posted May 23, 2011 There are also reasons involving taxation of stock on hand and inventory management. I know it seems stupid and wasteful, but I also know there are business reasons behind it that some of you folks aren't considering. This is common practice in many manufacturing industries beyond just musical instruments, I promise. Yes I know, and it pisses me off just as much in every other industry. I do understand the "business reasons" behind it, but they can all be gotten around and all it takes is somebody giving a crap enough to do their homework and figure out what needs to be done. I've seen companies decide to do this and do it successfully. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.