Are Harley Benton pointing the way to the real future of the guitar industry?

prowla

Roland said:

prowla said:

... Harley Bentons, as I said, I can't see me ever aspiring to one.

Which sounds as though they’ve got it right. They’re not trying to be an aspirational brand. Their target is low cost guitars, with reliable quality, covering most design bases. A bit like supermarket own brands.

Yep - and fair dues to them.

NelsonP

This is worth a watch


Compared to this


How different are the Chinese vs US guitars?

rossi

It seems guitars are a dying market ,slowly but surely  along with the people who breathed life into planks of wood .God knows there are enough out there and a new design frankly isn't needed or even wanted by many .Asia is the key  to the future but there will always be a fan base in the rest of the world just a lot smaller.

prowla

rossi said:

It seems guitars are a dying market ,slowly but surely  along with the people who breathed life into planks of wood .God knows there are enough out there and a new design frankly isn't needed or even wanted by many .Asia is the key  to the future but there will always be a fan base in the rest of the world just a lot smaller.

Are guitars a dying market?

rossi

prowla said:

rossi said:

It seems guitars are a dying market ,slowly but surely  along with the people who breathed life into planks of wood .God knows there are enough out there and a new design frankly isn't needed or even wanted by many .Asia is the key  to the future but there will always be a fan base in the rest of the world just a lot smaller.

Are guitars a dying market?

Maybe not a rapidly dying market but its slowly declining .I believe it was an article by Gruhn guitars saying all the kids want is hip hop etc  which dont need instruments .I think its fairly obvious  when  you stop and look around and indeed thats how each generation  keep changing .More  and more manufacturers trying to grab the same buyers.We are a bit like cavalry men clinging onto a dream of one last charge when tanks are coming down the street .There will always be a market for guitars as they are easy to learn at basic level and can accompany your voice and mix easily with others but the hey day of guitar bands is gone .groups will come up to form guitar bands .They may even hit the big time but there wont be  a chart full .

Three-ColourSunburst

NelsonP said:

This is worth a watch

Compared to this

How different are the Chinese vs US guitars?

Thanks, I enjoyed those.

From those videos it is clear that building guitars isn't rocket science. Also, given the obvious mass production, use of CNC machines and the lack of selectivity in the way the timber is used, there seems to be no reason why, as a guitar-shaped piece of wood, there should be any real difference between a Gibson, an Epiphone or a Harley Benton. The wood probably comes from the same forests as well.

That said, it is also clear that there are an awful lot of processes where the person doing the job has to care that it is done right. Given all the reports about how demoralised Gibson's workers are and the huge pressures placed upon them, with even Gibson's job advertisements making working there sound like forced labour, it perhaps not surprising that the job isn't always done right. The saddest thing is there there seems to be no reason why things have to be this way. If only Gibson's management could say, 'Take you time and do the job right' there seems to be no reason why they shouldn't be turning out perfect instruments. It might be a cultural stereotype, but I think many far-eastern workers actually have a lot more pride in their work and what their companies produce, not least because they have seen their living standards greatly increase in recent years, whilst that of many western workers is on the decline.

Given the basic woodworking isn't much different whatever the brand, the differences have to come down to the finish, hardware electrics and set up, and of these only the finish is an unchangeable part of the guitar. Some do seem to think that Gibson's 'nitro' finishes are what really distinguish their guitars, but from what I have read it is all just more snake oil.

(A pure 'nitro' finish would be unusable, cracking and flaking off in no time, so other resins, fillers and so on have always been added to make the finish more durable. 'Nitro' was used because it was available and cheap but even in the 1950's was seen as a flawed finish, with companies like DuPont developing acrylic finishes to replace them, and by the 50's Gibson were already using acrylics for all their custom coulours. Also, although it is often claimed that 'nitro' is better because it can be sprayed more thinly than 'poly' acrylics can be sprayed even more thinly. Even the claim that 'nitro' is somehow more 'authentic' is not wholly true as the 'nitro' used by companies like Gibson today is not the same stuff they used in the 50's due to environmental and worker health regulations. As a result Gibson's 'nitro' finishes are basically acrylic finishes with just enough nitrocellulose added to make the finish discolour, crack and age as their customers expect to see, and so they can call the finish 'nitro'. Similarly, companies like Fender have also used modern finishes for decades, but then spray a top coat containing nitrocellulose, again to get the aged look over time. Sounds crazy to me, just use acrylic and have done with it, from a feel and sound perspective it would be indistinguishable from acrylic with added 'nitrocellulose' and I would prefer a finish that didn't craze and fall off!)

So what else is left? Just the 'mojo' that comes from having the 'right' brand name on the headstock.

It all sort of reminds me of the car industry back in the 70's. People loved cars like Alfa Romeo's because of their 'soul', but they rotted, had crap electrics and broke down. People moaned but still bought the cars, with the manufactures developing the attitude "Why are you complaining, she is beautiful and her motor, Ah, bellissimo!  That is what you are paying for and the rest we thrown in for free!" Then the Japanese came along building cars that were much more reliable and in time the other manufacturers reluctantly upped their game. Then came the Koreans bringing near Japanese reliability at a cheaper price - the Harley Benton Fusion of cars perhaps. As cars they will all get you from A to B, but even today most people would see the 'soul', 'mojo' or whatever of an Italian sports car trumping any Japanese model, no matter how accomplished. It might all be in the head, but to many 'mojo' matters

Fretwired

Three-ColourSunburst said:

Gibson about to go bankrupt after years of turning out instruments that often have poorer QC than many 'Chibsons'. Fender also having financial problems. Both offering more and more instruments at prices that are ludicrous given the cost of the materials and manufacturing costs involved, and both relying on milking the power of nostalgia and the brand name rather than doing anything truly innovative.

The Gibson guitar making business is still highly profitable. The group as a whole is not. Whatever happens the guitar making business will survive. And whilst people moan about some seriously odd products Gibson still builds some decent guitars. I've owned three Les Paul Studios and still have two Les Paul Standards. After a pro setup they were all great guitars.

Good luck to Harley Benton ... no rock n' roll mojo though ...

crunchman

@Three-ColourSunburst ; I won't quote your whole post, and I am wary of this because of the other thread you were very vocal in, but you did leave out one important thing.  Based on what you have expressed in the past, I know you won't agree, but the wood does make a noticeable difference to tone.

Someone like Fender or Gibson will be a lot more choosy about what wood they use.  That doesn't mean you can't find a cheap guitar that will sound good, but there is a higher chance of it with a guitar where the wood has been selected more carefully.  There are still some Fender and Gibson guitars that are made from dead sounding wood, but the ratio of good to bad is likely to be a lot higher at the higher end of the market, where more care goes into getting good wood.

Three-ColourSunburst

Fretwired said:

Good luck to Harley Benton ... no rock n' roll mojo though ...

As I said, for many mojo matters. 

I guess that makes Harley Benton the guitar equivalent of a Hyundai in a world when people still lust after pretty Italian rot-boxes from the 1960's and 70's.

carlos

Two shower thoughts:
1 - A lot of guitar buying seems to be about emulating one's heroes. Idolise a guitar player, want to buy the axe to sound and look like him/her. My first guitar was a hollowbody because there was a picture of Billy Duffy and his White Falcon on the sleeve of a Cult CD. There's a constant pursuit of an image/sound that made us want to play in the first place. This tends to drive the industry towards nostalgia and re-issuing old gear over and over again.
2 - Cheapo guitars from 20 years ago were absolute crap compared to contemporary cheapo guitars. They became unplayable quickly, if they weren't to start with. This won't happen with current crop of cheapo guitars. One of those Harley Benton fusion models will probably still be very playable in 20 years if kept reasonably well. This means that the supply of playable instruments will be much higher than before. Unlike the majority of commercial goods, guitars have very long lifespans which make them not as profitable as they could be. Thank fuck for that.

Three-ColourSunburst

crunchman said:

@Three-ColourSunburst ; I won't quote your whole post, and I am wary of this because of the other thread you were very vocal in, but you did leave out one important thing.  Based on what you have expressed in the past, I know you won't agree, but the wood does make a noticeable difference to tone.

Someone like Fender or Gibson will be a lot more choosy about what wood they use.  That doesn't mean you can't find a cheap guitar that will sound good, but there is a higher chance of it with a guitar where the wood has been selected more carefully.  There are still some Fender and Gibson guitars that are made from dead sounding wood, but the ratio of good to bad is likely to be a lot higher at the higher end of the market, where more care goes into getting good wood.

You tinker, I won't be drawn into all that again!

Just one point, irrespective of the whole 'tone wood' thing, in no videos of Gibson's production line have I seen any evidence of wood been specially selected for its supposed tonal qualities. Big pallets of timber come in, are force dried, cut up into bits, and glued back together to make body blanks without so much as a sniff, a tap or the consultation a chicken's entrails. What bit of what is glued to what other bit of wood is just luck of the draw, and the natural variation form one piece to the next is likely to be as great for the wood delivered to Gibson as it is for any other manufacturer. Sure, Gibson might reject more wood because if has flaws when other would just use it and fill it, but the supposed tonal quality of the wood used does not seem to be considered at all.

There only video I have seen where there was evidence of any wood selection going on was in relation the Heritage factory, who seem to weigh the cut timbers, I suppose so they can mix heavy with light boards so they don't produce boat anchors.

crunchman

Three-ColourSunburst said:

crunchman said:

@Three-ColourSunburst ; I won't quote your whole post, and I am wary of this because of the other thread you were very vocal in, but you did leave out one important thing.  Based on what you have expressed in the past, I know you won't agree, but the wood does make a noticeable difference to tone.

Someone like Fender or Gibson will be a lot more choosy about what wood they use.  That doesn't mean you can't find a cheap guitar that will sound good, but there is a higher chance of it with a guitar where the wood has been selected more carefully.  There are still some Fender and Gibson guitars that are made from dead sounding wood, but the ratio of good to bad is likely to be a lot higher at the higher end of the market, where more care goes into getting good wood.

You tinker, I won't be drawn into all that again!

Just one point, irrespective of the whole 'tone wood' thing, in no videos of Gibson's production line have I seen any evidence of wood been specially selected for its supposed tonal qualities. Big pallets of timber come in, are force dried, cut up into bits, and glued back together to make body blanks without so much as a sniff, a tap or the consultation a chicken's entrails. What bit of what is glued to what other bit of wood is just luck of the draw, and the natural variation form one piece to the next is likely to be as great for the wood delivered to Gibson as it is for any other manufacturer. Sure, Gibson might reject more wood because if has flaws when other would just use it and fill it, but the supposed tonal quality of the wood used does not seem to be considered at all.

There only video I have seen where there was evidence of any wood selection going on was in relation the Heritage factory, who seem to weigh the cut timbers, I suppose so they can mix heavy with light boards so they don't produce boat anchors.

It's partly what is on the pallet in the first place.  With Gibson, it will be proper mahogany.  With the cheaper manufacturers it will be whatever wood is cheap.  That doesn't mean that it won't sound good.  My brother-in-law had a Squier Affinity Tele that sounded really good.  It wouldn't stay in tune though.  Might have been the cheap tuners or it might have been a poorly cut nut and was probably fixable.  None of the three Fender Teles I have owned had that problem though.

Three-ColourSunburst

crunchman said:

It's partly what is on the pallet in the first place.  With Gibson, it will be proper mahogany.  With the cheaper manufacturers it will be whatever wood is cheap. 

I would bet that when the spec says that a Harley Benton is built using mahogany, maple or whatever, then that is the species of wood used. Beyond that it is all just marketing - Gibsons are built on production lines with the person feeding the CNC machine just picking up the next bit of wood on the pallet, just like everyone else. Yes, there are custom builders who claim they consider the acoustic qualities of the wood used, 'tapping' and 'sniffing' each plank and only buying the planks that meet their own, mystical criteria, but I bet Gibson don't employ a single official wood sniffer, and I bet the amount of timber they reject for use is minimal.

NelsonP

This is also pretty interesting


Danish Pete barely disguises his feelings that there is no way that the Gibson justifies a price point 10 times that of the Epi...

Three-ColourSunburst

NelsonP said:

This is also pretty interesting

Danish Pete barely disguises his feelings that there is no way that the Gibson justifies a price point 10 times that of the Epi...

Also goes to show that an electric guitar can still sound good even if it made of plywood. (As the 335 and Dot are.)

carlos

That's not the point, though. People who have £5k to spend on a guitar, will find a £5k guitar to spend it on. They're not looking to spend £1k and get change back. It's a different type of consumer altogether. Let's call it the mojo tax.

crunchman

Three-ColourSunburst said:

NelsonP said:

This is also pretty interesting

Danish Pete barely disguises his feelings that there is no way that the Gibson justifies a price point 10 times that of the Epi...

Also goes to show that an electric guitar can still sound good even if it made of plywood. (As the 335 and Dot are.)

A 335 sounds good, but it doesn't sound the same as a Les Paul - even though it has the same scale length, and same pickups.  We are getting dangerously close to revisiting that other thread here.

p90fool

Three-ColourSunburst said:

I would bet that when the spec says that a Harley Benton is built using mahogany, maple or whatever, then that is the species of wood used. 

Really? Strip the finish off a Gibson and an Epiphone. The Gibson is undoubtedly mahogany, recognisable to anyone who is familiar with different woods. 

The last 'mahogany' Epi G400 I stripped was some weird, pale, chewy balsa-type substance which actually felt damp to the touch. It also smelled really weird. I stripped it because it sounded dead no matter what pickups I put in it. 

It was marketed as mahogany, but construction wise it was more like a Smartie than a guitar - a rock hard glassy shell with a soft, pulpy interior, related I suspect to basswood but even shittier. 

Or try a cheap Les Paul copy with the same pulp making up the bulk of it, 'capped' with a .5mm thick piece of flame maple veneer, or worse, a bloody photograph of some flame maple veneer. 

Now sometimes I actually want a guitar made from bits of recycled 1970s kitchen units (Danelectro) but don't for a minute believe that every £200 Les Paul shaped thing is made out of the same materials as a real one. 

NelsonP

Then there are comments like this one...
http://www.thefretboard.co.uk/discussion/comment/1045552/#Comment_1045552

Three-ColourSunburst

And this one, from somebody actually taking a look inside Harley Benton's cheaper version of a LP style guitar.

Let's look inside the pickup cavities. Starting with the neck pickup, where, aside from ugly but harmless glue residues and sawdust I simply vacuumed out, I was very pleased with what I saw:

That is indeed a plain massive maple cap right there, neatly routed along with the mahagony.

Notice also that the neck is truly mahogany as well, and its long tenon sits very snuggly and nicely deep into the cavity. That's pretty much as good as it can get. And the top is equally visible in the other cavity:

You can see the line between the body and the top because mahagony and  maple have clearly different textures.

Here the routing goes 11mm deep into the mahogany, the maple cap is 7.5mm thick and the flamed veneer is 0.75mm thin.

That, my friends, is a real, sturdy and significant maple cap, and the veneer on top not only looks very good, but it also has enough thickness not to be ruined by the slightest dent on the surface. Note also that the lacquer is very thin, which is rather rare in this price range (generally poor quality timber is compensated by loads of shiny stuff on top, which unfortunately is an additional tone killer). None of that here: real mahogany, real maple, fine veneer and thin lacquer. The price-quality ratio of this guitar is mind-boggling.

http://diy-guitar-workshop.blogspot.fr/2016/01/does-harley-benton-have-real-maple-top.html