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

bobliefeld

Bigsby said:

Three-ColourSunburst said:

Gibson...  Fender... ...and both relying on milking the power of nostalgia and the brand name rather than doing anything truly innovative.  

I think that last bit is a little unfair. Both brands seem to be caught in a very difficult place; their customers only want tradition, yet there's a limit to how many 'traditional' guitars anyone wants to buy. So they have to find endless subtle ways to reinvent the wheel each year, without getting too far from their history. I don't think they have a choice about this.

Some evidence of this for Fender: Look at the response to the Fender/Roland modelling Strat. It ended up being marketed by Roland instead of Fender, as Fender's consumers didn't seem to be interested in making such a radical departure from tradition. Or the 2014 American Deluxe Plus Strat with 'personality cards'. OK, if we put aside the awful name, the guitar offered the potential to rewire it's electrics in an instant by swapping out a card in the back. There was plenty of room to develop this, and integrate the idea with other models, but Fender quietly dropped it after about 18 months.

With Gibson, we probably don't have to look any further than the innovations of 2015! But Gibson do seem to want to be seen as innovators, and always have done, from the humbucker, through their relationship with Moog, right up to the present. Unfortunately, for a long time, their customers have only been interested in the same old traditional retro reissue of what they already have.

TBH, I feel a little sorry for them. Until I look at their prices... Of course, those prices represent the other side of the coin and the benefit they get from having such a strong brand.

It's different for brands that don't have a long history to live up to, or keep repeating. Reverend are a prime example, they can change a model, drop one, introduce a new one, and few of their customers get bent out of shape about it. Instead, they're open to checking out whatever is new.

those things are gimmicks; not innovations.

they're not doing anything that makes guitars sound or feel better.  it's all faffy nonsense.

HarrySeven

Funkfingers said:

HarrySeven said:
I haven't seen an Ibanez in years that I'd spend money on.

How much of this attitude is a feature of one's age?

Very possibly a lot of it.

However, I do *try* and be objective in such matters - although time spent perusing each range on the Ibanez site just leaves me underwhelmed - there is nothing on there which I'd countenance owning.

[Picky Aesthetic Nerd Mode: ON] Incidentally, I can't stand seeing the "CE" symbol and associated text on the rear of headstocks. [Picky Aesthetic Nerd Mode: OFF]

Bigsby

bobliefeld said:

Bigsby said:

Three-ColourSunburst said:

Gibson...  Fender... ...and both relying on milking the power of nostalgia and the brand name rather than doing anything truly innovative.  

I think that last bit is a little unfair. Both brands seem to be caught in a very difficult place; their customers only want tradition, yet there's a limit to how many 'traditional' guitars anyone wants to buy. So they have to find endless subtle ways to reinvent the wheel each year, without getting too far from their history. I don't think they have a choice about this.

Some evidence of this for Fender: Look at the response to the Fender/Roland modelling Strat. It ended up being marketed by Roland instead of Fender, as Fender's consumers didn't seem to be interested in making such a radical departure from tradition. Or the 2014 American Deluxe Plus Strat with 'personality cards'. OK, if we put aside the awful name, the guitar offered the potential to rewire it's electrics in an instant by swapping out a card in the back. There was plenty of room to develop this, and integrate the idea with other models, but Fender quietly dropped it after about 18 months.

With Gibson, we probably don't have to look any further than the innovations of 2015! But Gibson do seem to want to be seen as innovators, and always have done, from the humbucker, through their relationship with Moog, right up to the present. Unfortunately, for a long time, their customers have only been interested in the same old traditional retro reissue of what they already have.

TBH, I feel a little sorry for them. Until I look at their prices... Of course, those prices represent the other side of the coin and the benefit they get from having such a strong brand.

It's different for brands that don't have a long history to live up to, or keep repeating. Reverend are a prime example, they can change a model, drop one, introduce a new one, and few of their customers get bent out of shape about it. Instead, they're open to checking out whatever is new.

those things are gimmicks; not innovations.

they're not doing anything that makes guitars sound or feel better.  it's all faffy nonsense.

A modelling guitar is not an innovation? Well, of course you can call it a gimmick, that's just your perspective, but what on earth are Haley Benton doing that so innovative that you think a modelling guitar is not even an innovation by comparison?

As for sounding better, well, again being able to switch between radically different wiring options certainly offers the potential to sound 'better' in some contexts. As does active circuitry. As for feel better, well, some of the things Gibson did to the 'HP' models were about exactly that. But if you want to see a gimmick, you'll see a gimmick.

Again, these brands can't win, if they innovate they're told they should stick to tradition, or accused of 'faffy nonsense' - which is just another way of saying 'I want my guitars to be traditional'.
If they don't innovate, they're told they're relying on nostalgia... You're kinda proving my point here.

carlos

HB have a fan fret eight string guitar with through body  construction, double humbuckers, individual string bridges, Grover tuners and maple veneer top for less than £400. Madness. 

Three-ColourSunburst

Bigsby said:

Again, these brands can't win, if they innovate they're told they should stick to tradition, or accused of 'faffy nonsense' - which is just another way of saying 'I want my guitars to be traditional'. If they don't innovate, they're told they're relying on nostalgia... You're kinda proving my point here.

I do think that there is a middle way between tradition and robo-tuners - evolution and improvement. Just look at all the 'super strats' around from companies ranging from Suhr to Ibanez with their new AZ range, surely a company like Fender could offer something similar?

Same with Gibson, how about a truly modern, more ergonomic Les Paul style guitar (Edit, better to say 'single cut' style guitar) with all the traditional weaknesses of the original Les Paul addressed but without nonsense such as robo-tuners? OK the new HP models with a 'tummy cut' and so on are part of the way there, but they still seem to have the weak headstock, no straight-pull tuners and so on - there is just so much more that could be done. To my mind the addition of robo-tuners to a guitar that is in so many ways still very traditional just creates an instrument that is neither one thing or another.

Bigsby

Three-ColourSunburst said:

Bigsby said:

Again, these brands can't win, if they innovate they're told they should stick to tradition, or accused of 'faffy nonsense' - which is just another way of saying 'I want my guitars to be traditional'. If they don't innovate, they're told they're relying on nostalgia... You're kinda proving my point here.

I do think that there is a middle way between tradition and robo-tuners - evolution and improvement. Just look at all the 'super strats' around from companies ranging from Suhr to Ibanez with their new AZ range, surely a company like Fender could offer something similar?

To some extent, both Fender and Gibson have tried this in the past; remember the 1980s SG with a pointy 6-aside headstock, locking trem and H/S/S pickups? Well, not many people do! I actually owned a couple of Fender 'super strats' in the 80s. But generally, they weren't popular, and despite their rarity, they have no particular value all these years later.

I'd take a guess that the problem is that people who want a 'different' guitar, most often aren't very interested in the F/G brands, some might even be put off. Whereas people who are really into those brands, are into the tradition, and are put off by change, innovation, fads or gimmicks. Not everyone, for sure, but I suspect a significant number. Some Gibson owners even moan about PCBs, and rip the electrics out of new guitars to replace them with 'traditional' wiring). This is why Fender stopped promoting the modelling Strat, and it appeared in Rolands catalogue instead.

As for Gibson, unfortunately people have paid too much attention to the Tronical tuners - probably because they were the first major change 'forced' on them in 2014 (as opposed to being an option in 2013). In doing so, they've missed Gibson dropping the over-sized nibs that otherwise displace some usable fret. The fractionally wider 'soloist' neck that combines with the fret-over-binding to give some useful vibrato room. The improved neck access. The control over electronics offered by DIP switches, and so on... I agree that sorting out the potential tuning issues on the headstock design would be a great move, but it comes at a great cost in changing the traditional look - even Tronical went to great lengths not to do this, or even cause a new screw hole in the headstock!

GoldenEraGuitars

HarrySeven said:

modellista said:

I see your point, but surely the masters of the portfolio are Ibanez?  They have the benefit of a decent brand reputation behind them, have economies of scale, and a portfolio that stretches from a £149 Gio to the >£1k Japanese Prestige line.  Even in the same model, something like the Roadcore series (excellent guitars even at the cheapest end) starts at £200, but the same body shape can be had in solid rosewood or a Prestige model depending on wallet and fussiness.  Plus a decent roster of artists on board add kudos to the brand.  Easy to imagine Ibanez outlasting Gibson.  And I read somewhere that they don't even own their own factories.  Which would be a very sensible business move.

I wouldn't necessarily disagree with you re. the business angle, but (personally), I haven't seen an Ibanez in years that I'd spend money on. Generic, generic, generic.

Tbf, the les Paul and Strat shapes are as generic as the RG. The difference is the RG isn’t aimed at blues, jazz or country. Yet they seem to be doing just fine. 

prowla

I've never found Ibanez guitars vaguely interesting.

Cort are a brand who span the entire price range, but I find their offerings confusing.

I've tended to turn my nose up at Harley Benton and have only played one; it's unlikely I would ever buy one.

Fender have the Squier range to cover the lower price points, Squier being their budget brand positioned to combat the copies, because they couldn't (or gave up trying to) protect their intellectual property.

Rickenbacker are a company which knows its market and has no aspirations to over-extend itself; they choose the legal route to protect their IP.

I think the problem with the major brands (ie. Fender and Gibson) is that, as with other industries, they simply cannot compete with the economics of globalisation; I bought a 4k HDTV last week for £350 from Tesco, replacing an ageing plasma screen which cost £10k when new - people don't need to spend £000s to get something decent.

The effects of globalisation can be seen across all industries and have forced companies to adapt to stay in business, with those who are unable to finding themselves in difficulties.

As for Gibson, their issues seem to be simply bad management (a flawed business model, ill-considered acquisitions, poor quality control); I hope they survive as a brand in their own right.

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

underdog

I'd never be embarrassed to play a Harley Benton (or any other brand) why would you be ? I have a HB explorer bought for the challenge we done on here years back, turns out the guitar was so good I never done the modding challenge as there was no need to change anything.

fandango

underdog said:

I'd never be embarrassed to play a Harley Benton (or any other brand) why would you be ? I have a HB explorer bought for the challenge we done on here years back, turns out the guitar was so good I never done the modding challenge as there was no need to change anything.

To me, Harley Benton are what Claud Butler are/were to bicycles.

Wouldn't touch either with a bargepole.

carlos said:

HB have a fan fret eight string guitar with through body  construction, double humbuckers, individual string bridges, Grover tuners and maple veneer top for less than £400. Madness. 

Eight-strings guitars? I have enough trouble navigating a six-string guitar to know that 8-strings is a challenge too far. Madness indeed. If you want more strings there's always a Harp. Or a Chinese Guzheng with it's 16 strings and moveable bridges. But the Guzheng takes a lifetime to master, and I don't have a lifetime, what with all the other diversions available in life today's age.

Life's too short, and I just want to play/create music. To that end, is the best innovation to date the combination of consistency in production, overall quality control, reliability in design, and ready availability at reasonable affordability?

The (Fender) Stratocaster is a proven design that has needed very little tweaking over the years to keep it playable and is probably the best all-round guitar design, irrespective of pickup/string/wood choices.

Veering away from guitars for a moment ... and take bicycles, for instance. The main innovation over the last 50 years has been in materials*, but it's still a machine with two wheels, a saddles, pedals and handlebars that you sit on to get from A to B. It's a means to an end, that us humans have adapted to in order to get the best out of it. Change it's design significantly and it's no longer a bicycle - stick an engine on it and it became a motorcycle (which is what someone did back in 1868). That was innovation. Made that two wheeled thing go faster, with less physical effort.

*steel to aluminium to carbon fibre. Even so, Reynolds is still developing steel tubing for bicycles.

Like riding a bicycle, or other practical pursuits, the limitation to getting the best out of a guitar is the player. Effort in improve the player, will yield far greater results and reward than improving a guitar that can't really be improved upon. Innovation has to be genuine, and not just a re-arrangement of existing components or applying different aesthetics (which all manufacturers are involved in doing).

Returning to materials as possibly the main innovation, I suggest the Parker Fly and Ovation ranges with their man-made and carbon fibre bodies were/are at the forefront of taking us away from timber as the main guitar material. Yet, with all the hoo-ha over plastics in the British news over the last few weeks/months, is this innovation in materials a good thing?

The thing with innovation is that it gives us more choice. Ovation's carbon fibre acoustic range doesn't make every other acoustic redundant. Likewise Gibson's G-force doesn't consign traditional tuner heads to the bin. It's not always either/or.

I've probably taken this away from individual design development/features, but I like to look at things in perspective and to consider the bigger picture. Sorry If I've rambled.

HAL9000

prowla said:

Rickenbacker are a company which knows its market and has no aspirations to over-extend itself; they choose the legal route to protect their IP.

Indeed. They're a bit like Morgan cars - don't flood the market, and have a waiting list, as I understand it of four years, on certain models. Sounds more sustainable than other business models. 

bobliefeld

Bigsby said:

bobliefeld said:

Bigsby said:

Three-ColourSunburst said:

Gibson...  Fender... ...and both relying on milking the power of nostalgia and the brand name rather than doing anything truly innovative.  

I think that last bit is a little unfair. Both brands seem to be caught in a very difficult place; their customers only want tradition, yet there's a limit to how many 'traditional' guitars anyone wants to buy. So they have to find endless subtle ways to reinvent the wheel each year, without getting too far from their history. I don't think they have a choice about this.

Some evidence of this for Fender: Look at the response to the Fender/Roland modelling Strat. It ended up being marketed by Roland instead of Fender, as Fender's consumers didn't seem to be interested in making such a radical departure from tradition. Or the 2014 American Deluxe Plus Strat with 'personality cards'. OK, if we put aside the awful name, the guitar offered the potential to rewire it's electrics in an instant by swapping out a card in the back. There was plenty of room to develop this, and integrate the idea with other models, but Fender quietly dropped it after about 18 months.

With Gibson, we probably don't have to look any further than the innovations of 2015! But Gibson do seem to want to be seen as innovators, and always have done, from the humbucker, through their relationship with Moog, right up to the present. Unfortunately, for a long time, their customers have only been interested in the same old traditional retro reissue of what they already have.

TBH, I feel a little sorry for them. Until I look at their prices... Of course, those prices represent the other side of the coin and the benefit they get from having such a strong brand.

It's different for brands that don't have a long history to live up to, or keep repeating. Reverend are a prime example, they can change a model, drop one, introduce a new one, and few of their customers get bent out of shape about it. Instead, they're open to checking out whatever is new.

those things are gimmicks; not innovations.

they're not doing anything that makes guitars sound or feel better.  it's all faffy nonsense.

A modelling guitar is not an innovation? Well, of course you can call it a gimmick, that's just your perspective, but what on earth are Haley Benton doing that so innovative that you think a modelling guitar is not even an innovation by comparison?

As for sounding better, well, again being able to switch between radically different wiring options certainly offers the potential to sound 'better' in some contexts. As does active circuitry. As for feel better, well, some of the things Gibson did to the 'HP' models were about exactly that. But if you want to see a gimmick, you'll see a gimmick.

Again, these brands can't win, if they innovate they're told they should stick to tradition, or accused of 'faffy nonsense' - which is just another way of saying 'I want my guitars to be traditional'.
If they don't innovate, they're told they're relying on nostalgia... You're kinda proving my point here.

That stuff is all pointless.  How often do I need to re wire my guitars??  Why would I pay extra for that?  I don't need a modelling guitar, if I need something like that I'd buy the guitar I want + some external hardware.  I can tune my guitar myself..  None of this stuff does anything that I can't already do.  When something in guitars is truly innovative it does find a market.  


Fanned frets, evertune, floyd rose, sustainiac, the whole strandberg thing, alternative & sustainable materials.. etc.etc.  all found a market because they actually do something useful.  People like traditional les pauls but plenty of others mod them with kill switches, emgs and floyd roses.

crunchman

@fandango there have been significant innovations in bike design over the last 50 years.  Things like STI shifters and indexed gears make a huge difference.  Disc brakes are also a significant change.

Ignoring the frame material, riding a good modern steel framed bike is a very different experience from riding a 50 year old bike.

On the other hand, playing a modern Strat is almost identical to playing a 50 year old one.

Rocker

Coated strings like those from Elixir, are a big help to us players who don’t gig as we do not always require the sound of new strings. Elixir strings last longer and are good enough for most home use. 

fandango

crunchman said:

@fandango there have been significant innovations in bike design over the last 50 years.  Things like STI shifters and indexed gears make a huge difference.  Disc brakes are also a significant change.

Ignoring the frame material, riding a good modern steel framed bike is a very different experience from riding a 50 year old bike.

On the other hand, playing a modern Strat is almost identical to playing a 50 year old one.

Yes you are correct. I was simplifying the situation, but yes the development of bike stuff such as  gears, braking, changes around the head tube, and from a safety perspective, frame design and manufacturing, especially to strengthening gussets at tube joins, then dropper seat posts, titanium saddles, special wheels. It’s all there along with the whole suspension thing. 

I think a lot of bike innovation has been very evolutionary. However, some things like Shimano’s V-brake system could have tanked, but that was revolutionary.

Likewise with guitars, a lot of the development, and maybe Gibson are ahead of Fender here, with G-Force, plug-in solderless wiring looms, apex head joints, speed necks, appears genuinely innovative, when most other manufacturers are still stuck in the past.

Maybe the acoustic g. world has shown just as much, if not more innovation than the electric g., with the development of cross bracing, piezo & electronics, materials, etc. Taylor, for instance.

crunchman

@fandango the difference with bikes is that the innovation has gone mainstream.  I've got a £300 commuter bike from Halfords (unfortunately they are our cycle 2 work provider) with indexed gears and disc brakes.  The mainstream guitar market is still the traditional stuff - for the guitars at least.

What we plug them into has changed.  How many genuinely analogue delays do you see?  The majority are digital these days, and Helix/Kemper/AxeFX etc are making big inroads, but while that has changed the guitars themselves haven't changed much.

guitarfishbay

The problem is the useful innovations for guitar design (rather than just production efficiencies) either cost more money in production or change something that people may like about traditional instruments.  You can't really have your cake and eat it, or so it seems to me anyway.

Bigsby

bobliefeld said:

That stuff is all pointless.  How often do I need to re wire my guitars??  Why would I pay extra for that?  I don't need a modelling guitar, if I need something like that I'd buy the guitar I want + some external hardware.  I can tune my guitar myself..  None of this stuff does anything that I can't already do.  When something in guitars is truly innovative it does find a market.  


Fanned frets, evertune, floyd rose, sustainiac, the whole strandberg thing, alternative & sustainable materials.. etc.etc.  all found a market because they actually do something useful.  People like traditional les pauls but plenty of others mod them with kill switches, emgs and floyd roses.

You're missing the point. Just because YOU don't need or want something, doesn't mean it's not an innovation. How many guitarists buy parts to mod the wiring on their strats? How many buy loaded pickguards to do the same? Being able to take a single Strat into a studio and instantly rewire it to half a dozen options faster than you could swap guitar straps may not interest you - but that doesn't make it NOT an innovation. And BTW, that particular strat wasn't more expensive than it's traditional equivalent.

You don't want a modelling guitar? Fine. But lots of people DO. Just look at the Variax - that's selling well, but the point is, the Fender modelling strat didn't sell well, and promotion moved to their partner, Roland, before it was discontinued. 

This thread started out saying Fender & Gibson don't do "anything truly innovative." Well, they do, even if those innovations don't appeal to you. But their innovations rarely do well, (at least not since the 60s), because their audiences want tradition.

And all those innovations you list have one thing in common - when they've appeared on a Fender or Gibson, they haven't been that popular. Fender make a ton of different Strats, nearly all have trems, but few have Floyd Rose trems. Why? Because they don't sell as well as Strats with traditional trems. Sure, innovation tends to find a market (not always), it's just difficult for F/G to bring innovation to the market - though not for lack of trying.

suspiciousminds

Must admit i fancy one of the HB rosewood veneer body teles - they look great.

bobliefeld

If those things were good and useful then peopl would want them and they would buy those guitars. Simple as that.  There’s no hidden silent market of people desperate for personality cards...but in an Ibanez.