Harmony Central Email 5/20/11

[Lee Flier]

 

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?

 

 

Yeah, this.

[guitapick]

 

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.

 

Interesting idea. Maybe a maker could designate either a separate luthier who they respect or have a separate operation in-house. The end product would be clearly designated with a different name than the originally intended one, but it would be common knowledge that its an offshoot of the original maker.

[ggm1960]

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.

 

The necks that arrive at the Memphis plant already have the Gibson logo in the headstock. They're made in some other plant and are nearly finished. I'm sure most defective guitars are identified before they ever make it to paint.

 

 

[Anderton]

 

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?

 

 

Well, they can range from REALLY unfinished - just a sawed piece of wood, there aren't even screw holes or necessarily a slot to bolt on a neck - to something that's gone down the assembly line, but a problem wasn't noticed until QC. And while the example of Paul rejecting a decent-sized blemish is pretty picky, a lot of these do have serious flaws that may not show up in weeks or months, but in years. So then companies would have to sort the "well, these are okay, I guess, but they look like crap" from the "this looks like the wood is going to crack the first time it lives for more than six months in a place where the humidity averages 25%. Or maybe it won't." It's just not that simple.

 

I guess they could give the rejects away to GIT or something on a "use at your own risk" basis, but then there's packing and shipping, and approaching the schools, and the schools have to store the stuff somewhere, and...you get the idea. All of these asepcts cost money, which consumers of legit guitars would have to cover.

 

BTW I don't know what the stats are for reject guitars, but I think it's a fairly small percentage. It's not like 50% of guitars are ending up in the dumper. So - correct me if I'm wrong - a think a lot of companies would be expending a fair amount of effort on something that's relatively minor in the grand scheme of things.

[Jeff da Weasel]

I guess they could give the rejects away to GIT or something on a "use at your own risk" basis...

 

GIT (Musicians Institute) is owned by Mr. Hisatake Shibuya, who also owns ESP Guitars and Schecter. I doubt the reject Gibsons would be welcome there.

 

But back to the point: manufacturing companies get taxed at varying rates for "finished inventory" versus parts and components and partially assembled builds. If there was a better economic incentive for companies to do something with these flawed instruments, they would. Destroying them literally makes more business sense under current laws than trying to sell or even give them away. If you folks want to change the business tax laws in this regard, by all means, please do so.

[Hard Truth]

 

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.

 

 

I agree, trees were sacrificed to make that guitar, not to mention other resources, and it was destroyed for a "flaw" that was imperceptible. That seems more like an ego move than a sound business decision.

[UstadKhanAli]

Okay, well, I was just trying to think of some sort of use for these rejects. Stick 'em up on eBay and have someone else pop for the shipping or I don't know what. But anyway, I was just thinking it'd be cool. Hopefully a few of 'em are keeping someone warm on cold winter nights or something then.

[guitapick]

I agree, trees were sacrificed to make that guitar, not to mention other resources, and it was destroyed for a "flaw" that was imperceptible. That seems more like an ego move than a sound business decision.

Yeah, but in Craig's case, he gave the guitar as a gift. Didn't trash it. And I doubt that they put the wood into plastic bags and send it to the landfill at different plants/shops. Nice thing about wood is that its got so many uses. Very recyclable.

[Anderton]

Yeah, but in Craig's case, he gave the guitar as a gift.

 

Actually, it wasn't a gift, I paid for it and Paul paid for my consulting. I'm pretty sure it's not the first time a guitar company ran into a guitar that they didn't think was suitable for customers paying full pop, but okay for, well, someone like me.

 

And I definitely don't think it was an ego move. Paul is a perfectionist, and this was back in the early days of the company where every single guitar HAD to be perfect if he was going to make his mark. And selling it to me was a sound business decision for both of us, although I definitely got the better end of the deal...what I billed for the consulting was a whole lot less than what the guitar was worth, even with cosmetically-flawed wood.

 

BTW Paul also chooses wood based on the acoustic properties. I've seen him "ping" a guitar body with his finger to check out the inherent tone. If the tone's not there, he's not going to accept it, either. After all, that's why people buy his guitars.

 

Just to put things in perspective...I do a lot of writing. I throw away a huge number of words because they're not good enough - that's the editing process. Fortunately, words aren't made of trees, so it's not wasteful of anything other than the electricity it took to keep the word processor going while I wrote them.

 

Jeff also makes a really valid point about taxes and laws, which meshes with what I'm saying about putting the burden of "giving away" guitars on paying customers. There are a lot of whacked things about how the law relates to guitars - in fact, just wait until you see the "Dear Musician" in the issue of the HC Confidential newsletter that comes out this week...it'll fry your brains.

[guitapick]

Actually, it wasn't a gift, I paid for it and Paul paid for my consulting.

Oops. Sorry. Misquote...

[Lee Flier]

 

Just to put things in perspective...I do a lot of writing. I throw away a huge number of words because they're not good enough - that's the editing process.

 

 

Of course, same here... however, that isn't comparable because...

 

 

Fortunately, words aren't made of trees, so it's not wasteful of anything other than the electricity it took to keep the word processor going while I wrote them.

 

 

Exactly. Not everything can be "edited" as easily as words.

 

I'm not trying to say that people shouldn't have whatever rigorous quality standards they want to have, only that wastefulness of resources is a huge problem we have. And the thing is, the quality of wood used to make guitars is already down from where it was 50 years ago because we're using too many trees at too great a rate. At this rate your grandchildren won't be able to buy a guitar at all that is made of high quality wood, unless they're insanely rich.

 

If nothing else, "waste" wood can be resold to other types of businesses that use smaller pieces of hardwood, as opposed to letting it go to waste entirely.

 

 

Jeff also makes a really valid point about taxes and laws, which meshes with what I'm saying about putting the burden of "giving away" guitars on paying customers.

 

 

Well of course there's always an excuse to shove the problem back under the rug. I think that if people are motivated to find a way around this, they can and will. I've seen it happen with other types of companies.

 

Can you at least admit that it's a problem, that it's something of which we could all be more aware and perhaps help to change? It's not as if anybody's trying to vilify the guitar companies for doing what they do now, but I would think it'd behoove anybody who uses natural resources to think in the longer term about where their supply comes from and how secure it is for the future.

[Anderton]

 

However, that isn't comparable because...not everything can be "edited" as easily as words.

 

 

That was my point: Some editing processes have tangible blowback, some don't. Back in the days of typewriters and whiteout, quite a few trees (or at least branches) gave their lives for my mistakes, but they don't any more. Who knows? Maybe in the near future there will be computer analysis of wood that identifies serious flaws and can predict which woods will be okay and which won't. Maybe there already are...

 

 

I'm not trying to say that people shouldn't have whatever rigorous quality standards they want to have, only that wastefulness of resources is a huge problem we have.

 

 

As I said..."Yes, we do live in an incredibly wasteful society."

 

 

And the thing is, the quality of wood used to make guitars is already down from where it was 50 years ago because we're using too many trees at too great a rate. At this rate your grandchildren won't be able to buy a guitar at all that is made of high quality wood, unless they're insanely rich.

 

 

At Frankfurt a couple years back, a company (can't remember the name, sorry, but it was some small German company IIRC) using recycled and "less than premium" woods won an award for best-sounding guitar because they'd figured out some cool mojo to improve the tonal quality of the wood. And, the Peavey Composite Acoustics guitars sound excellent. Companies are aware of this issue, and the forward-thinking ones are working on it.

 

 

If nothing else, "waste" wood can be resold to other types of businesses that use smaller pieces of hardwood, as opposed to letting it go to waste entirely.

 

 

I don't know what happens to the scrap wood. For all I know, maybe it's resold, or turned into particle board or something.

 

 

Well of course there's always an excuse to shove the problem back under the rug.

 

 

If you consider having your business shut and down and being subjected to massive fines "shoving the problem back under the rug," go for it. I don't think it's an "excuse" to say "I'd rather not be bankrupted by the government, thank you." Read the guest editorial in the next HC Confidential, written by Brian Majeski, if you want to understand just how screwed up the laws are regarding woods and guitars...and how "good intentions" can have the exact opposite effect. Lee, if you've played outside of Georgia - and I know you have - you've probably broken the law multiple times without even knowing it.

 

 

I think that if people are motivated to find a way around this, they can and will. I've seen it happen with other types of companies.

 

 

See above re Peavey and others. But if you're referring to a way to get around the taxation/inventory/wood laws, I can guarantee that guitar companies are not paying lobbyists $3,000,000+ a year, like the RIAA does, to influence legislation. We have the best government money can buy, and the music industry isn't exactly the military-industrial complex, or even the RIAA, in terms of influence peddling to get laws changed. Not that it's an impossible task, but just understand the magnitude of trying move an entrenched, corrupt-to-one-degree-or-another body of lawmakers on what they likely see as a minor issue at best.

 

 

Can you at least admit that it's a problem, that it's something of which we could all be more aware and perhaps help to change? It's not as if anybody's trying to vilify the guitar companies for doing what they do now, but I would think it'd behoove anybody who uses natural resources to think in the longer term about where their supply comes from and how secure it is for the future.

 

 

Of course it's a problem, otherwise I wouldn't have said "We live in an incredibly wasteful society" and wouldn't have expressed gratitude that the process of editing words isn't as wasteful as the process of editing guitars. But how big a problem is it? I don't know. Until we have some facts and figures, we know it's a problem, but we have no idea of the magnitude of the problem. It could be 0.0005% of the wood is rejected, it could be 35%. I don't know.

 

You have to pick your battles. If it's only 0.0005%, then maybe it's more important to look at the chemicals that are used in the manufacturing process, and whether they're polluting groundwater or causing birth defects. Trees grow, and when managed properly, are a renewable resource. Are the guitar companies buying wood the real problem, or companies like Maxxam clear-cutting to pay off their junk bonds the real problem? I think the best place to fix a problem is at the source.

[Lee Flier]

 

I don't know what happens to the scrap wood. For all I know, maybe it's resold, or turned into particle board or something.

 

 

Particle board would be a crappy re-use of quality hardwood. But it would be nice to find out what happens to the scrap wood.

 

 

If you consider having your business shut and down and being subjected to massive fines "shoving the problem back under the rug," go for it. I don't think it's an "excuse" to say "I'd rather not be bankrupted by the government, thank you."

 

 

Wow. I wasn't at all suggesting that people break the law. All I'm suggesting is that there's a lot of ground between breaking the law and just saying "Oh well, it's impossible for companies to do anything due to this law, and you just don't understand."

 

See above re Peavey and others. But if you're referring to a way to get around the taxation/inventory/wood laws, I can guarantee that guitar companies are not paying lobbyists $3,000,000+ a year, like the RIAA does, to influence legislation. We have the best government money can buy, and the music industry isn't exactly the military-industrial complex, or even the RIAA, in terms of influence peddling to get laws changed. Not that it's an impossible task, but just understand the magnitude of trying move an entrenched, corrupt-to-one-degree-or-another body of lawmakers on what they likely see as a minor issue at best.

 

 

Having been an activist type for most of my life, I do understand it. I know exactly how frustrating it is, but I also do not consider that an excuse for giving up.

 

 

Of course it's a problem, otherwise I wouldn't have said "We live in an incredibly wasteful society" and wouldn't have expressed gratitude that the process of editing words isn't as wasteful as the process of editing guitars. But how big a problem is it? I don't know. Until we have some facts and figures, we know it's a problem, but we have no idea of the magnitude of the problem. It could be 0.0005% of the wood is rejected, it could be 35%. I don't know. You have to pick your battles. If it's only 0.0005%, then maybe it's more important to look at the chemicals that are used in the manufacturing process, and whether they're polluting groundwater or causing birth defects.

 

 

I agree with this basically, but my feeling is that it takes everybody taking a little bit of responsibility, to make a difference. Whatever business you're in, there's probably something you could do better and more responsibly without bankrupting your business. This doesn't at all mean I expect anybody (myself included) to be pure as the driven snow in terms of ethics and environmental responsibility. It just means the more awareness there is, and the more willingness to think these things through instead of just saying "it's impossible because of [fill in the blank]," the better.

 

 

Trees grow, and when managed properly, are a renewable resource.

 

 

Yes, but the types of woods used to make guitars, for the most part, take a very long time to renew. And of course, most forests are NOT managed properly.

 

 

Are the guitar companies buying wood the real problem, or companies like Maxxam clear-cutting to pay off their junk bonds the real problem? I think the best place to fix a problem is at the source.

 

 

Again, I agree so far as it goes... but every little bit helps, and my point is, it's always easy for any one person or company to say "nothing I do would make any difference because I'm not the source of the problem." That doesn't make it true.

[MikeRivers]

 

Particle board would be a crappy re-use of quality hardwood. But it would be nice to find out what happens to the scrap wood.

 

 

There are some ways that at least some of it can be recycled musically. Fender discovered that they could make drum stools from the speaker cutouts that their amplifier cabinet shop creates. And a friend of mine started making mandolins when he had pieces of maple that were too short to make unblemished banjo necks. He was able to use the wood for mandolin tops.

 

 

Yes, but the types of woods used to make guitars, for the most part, take a very long time to renew. And of course, most forests are NOT managed properly.

 

 

I think you can get Brazilian rosewood again, but the reason why acoustic guitar makers switched to East Indian rosewood was that the Brazilian wood became an endangered species.

[Jeff da Weasel]

Wait until all of you get the latest news regarding the Lacey Act, which I believe Craig may be writing about soon.

 

All guitars as you know them might be soon going away. And whatever you do, don't take your guitar that has woods like ebony across state lines, or be prepared to face a federal indictment.

[guitapick]

 

Wait until all of you get the latest news regarding the Lacey Act, which I believe Craig may be writing about soon. All guitars as you know them might be soon going away. And whatever you do, don't take your guitar that has woods like ebony across state lines, or be prepared to face a federal indictment.

 

Well...that sure got my curiosity up...

 

Never heard about the Lacey Act. Here's a link to a discussion on acousticguitar.com:

 

http://www.acousticguitar.com/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=030321

 

It's from about a year ago. The guy, Carruth, is a luthier. Really fine one, from what I've heard. He made it sound as though the builders were most affected. Not that that's so great...but it's of note. Here's an excerpt:

 

"....One thing I saw recently suggested that anything that was obtained before the act was extended (this May)was 'grandfathered', although you might have to fill out some paperwork stating the provenance of the object and the materials it was made of. Personal instruments are also most likely exempt: the intent of the act is to stop commerce in illegal goods, so just carrying your guitar, say, to Canada, and back, should not trigger any problems. Again, you may need to fill out some paperwork on it, but we all love to do that anyway, right?..."

 

Thanks for the heads up on this, Jeff. It could affect me and a lot of my buddies, too.

[Jeff da Weasel]

 

Thanks for the heads up on this, Jeff. It could affect me and a lot of my buddies, too.

 

 

The new HC Newsletter just went out with Brian Majeski's editorial reprint, addressing this very issue.

 

The gist of it (for those who don't get the newsletter) is indeed about the recent revisions to the Lacey Act. Even as an individual, any of us could be charged with a violation simply by taking a guitar with endangered woods across state lines. Got a Martin D-28 with Brazilian rosewood back/sides? You are a criminal. Got a Madagascar ebony fretboard on your Les Paul? Better not sell it, ever, or face jail time.

 

I'm an environmentalist, but the way they're enforcing the law is completely over-the-top versus the spirit in which the original law was written in 1900. As Brian states...

 

But the risk remains that instruments could be confiscated, and business people could be hit with fines of up to $10,000 per instrument for "knowingly possessing" a noncompliant instrument. In effect, the amendment makes those in the music industry like drug dealers, always looking over their shoulders to avoid the long reach of the law.

 

Not cool.

[UstadKhanAli]

 

Well...that sure got my curiosity up... Never heard about the Lacey Act. Here's a link to a discussion on acousticguitar.com: http://www.acousticguitar.com/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=030321

 

 

Besides the discussion at hand here, the other thing I came away with from this link is that I should not tour with my grand piano.

[guitapick]

 

Besides the discussion at hand here, the other thing I came away with from this link is that I should not tour with my grand piano.

 

Lol...thanks, I needed that...

[veracohr]

 

Wait until all of you get the latest news regarding the Lacey Act, which I believe Craig may be writing about soon.

 

 

I read that last night and thought it came across unnecessarily alarmist. Personally I'd want to read through the legislation myself before deciding whether or not it will actually have much of an impact on sales of existing instruments. I looked up that piano business that was mentioned; the email said the guy was convicted of importing pianos with ebony keys. The things I found said it was the ivory, and that the guy pleaded guilty. Maybe he intentionally tried to circumvent ivory importation laws just to avoid the trouble.

 

It's like something I read recently where someone said "according to [such and such] new laws it's now illegal to grow your own food in the US! We're all dependent on big-agriculture now!" I looked into the legislation mentioned and found that it was a gross misinterpretation of the legal summary. Reading the actual full text gave me the big picture, which was far less insidious, and done with fully beneficial intent.

[guitapick]

 

Besides the discussion at hand here, the other thing I came away with from this link is that I should not tour with my grand piano.

 

Actually...you might actually like to tour with your own grand piano...

[Jeff da Weasel]

 

I read that last night and thought it came across unnecessarily alarmist. Personally I'd want to read through the legislation myself before deciding whether or not it will actually have much of an impact on sales of existing instruments.

 

 

It's already having an actual impact. Were you not aware of the recent federal raid on Gibson?

[LRon Butterfly]

There are still ways to get Brazilian rosewood in legal fashion but you better have all of your ducks in a row.

[veracohr]

 

It's already having an actual impact. Were you not aware of the recent federal raid on Gibson?

 

 

I was aware of the headline but not the specifics. But isn't that a case of new materials brought in for new manufacturing? Not the same as buying/selling pre-existing instruments.

 

Anyway, it happens all the time where a legislation intended for one purpose gets blown out of proportion by people imagining the possible ways it could be abused.

[larryguitar]

While *most* instrument dealers won't be affected, the Lacey legislation places you at the mercy of the discretion, whim or just plain pissiness of enforcement agencies; NOT what Americans are supposed to tolerate.

 

If you want to see how weird government regulation can get, look up something called 922 compliance in regards to rifles; they've had lawyers on both sides, the BATFE and judges arguing with each other about what is, and isn't, legal for years now. Don't think the government won't do it just because it's wrong, stupid or unjust.