Feeling kinda bad for Suhr...

[Randy]

No the question is actually where do you people come from. If you are ok with supporting and enabling forced labor, atrocious working conditions, genocide, forced sterilization, kidnapping diplomacy, international bullying, Covid cover-ups, then you go ahead and buy that cheap garbage, and support that lovely regime. Now if you are talking about Chinese people, they are great, no issue there.

Off topic but I'm glad that Suhr didn't lower himself

Drifting a little far into P&CE and also the tone is a little too much for the conversation being had. Everyone can afford to take a breath here.

 

[Hired Goon]

Do you... Not know the history of the EU, Canada and the USA?

And it's repeating itself with your financial contribution

 

[Hired Goon]

HE LITERALLY DID

Slow clap, pat yourself on the back

 

[diagrammatiks]

Slow clap, pat yourself on the back

you realize that Suhr tried to do Chinese production 10 years ago.

so what you want me to clap myself on the back because you're the worst kind of ignorant fedora tipping shitlib? fine. I'll begrudgingly do that.

 

[Matt08642]

I would unironically love to support a brand with 100% ethically sourced materials, but that's also a fantasy as long as anything is made of wood or metal or contains any electronics and I consider destroying the planet and deforestation (probably done by low wage workers in 3rd world countries) unethical.

Even brands that don't use wood might be shitting pollution in to the air producing alternative materials, who knows anymore.

Basically:

Baby steps: buy used gear where they don't need to destroy forests and stuff to make it.

 

[Hired Goon]

you realize that Suhr tried to do Chinese production 10 years ago.

so what you want me to clap myself on the back because you're the worst kind of ignorant fedora tipping shitlib? fine. I'll begrudgingly do that.

You know what you go ahead and enjoy your Epiphone. Ethical sourcing apparently not your thing huh. Any other names you want to throw at me?

 

[mbardu]

I would unironically love to support a brand with 100% ethically sourced materials, but that's also a fantasy as long as anything is made of wood or metal or contains any electronics and I consider destroying the planet and deforestation (probably done by low wage workers in 3rd world countries) unethical.

Even brands that don't use wood might be shitting pollution in to the air producing alternative materials, who knows anymore.

Basically:

Baby steps: buy used gear where they don't need to destroy forests and stuff to make it.

Baby steps indeed...
Unfortunately, in the "small" world of guitar, buying a guitar second hand often just shifts other buyers (not you) to buy new (since there are now less options on the used market) and vice versa.

There's no miracle solution, especially because guitarists are the worst offenders in terms of GAS...but at least, and despite the efforts of brands like LTD/Solar/etc with the non-stop new flavor-of-the-week guitars, at least guitars are fairly durable and rarely gets thrown away(vs clothes, electronic gadgets, colletibles etc). So a little bit less of a wasteful waste.

 

[JSanta]

Baby steps indeed...
Unfortunately, in the "small" world of guitar, buying a guitar second hand often just shifts other buyers (not you) to buy new (since there are now less options on the used market) and vice versa.

There's no miracle solution, especially because guitarists are the worst offenders in terms of GAS...but at least, and despite the efforts of brands like LTD/Solar/etc with the non-stop new flavor-of-the-week guitars, at least guitars are fairly durable and rarely gets thrown away(vs clothes, electronic gadgets, colletibles etc). So a little bit less of a wasteful waste.

Instrument manufacturing is a only a tiny portion of all of the lumber used in the world. Grabbed this from the Acoustic Guitar forum:

Anyway, this 2007 NY Times article mentions this:

"Mr. Paul [the forest campaign coordinator for Greenpeace] said that the amount of Sitka spruce used by guitar manufacturers is a tiny fraction of the total shipped. As few as 150 logs are enough to supply the whole industry each year. Nearly 80 percent of the spruce cut in Alaska is shipped to Asia, primarily Japan, for home building."

Another article:

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/12/guitar-makers-hit-hard-by-new-regulations-on-prized-rosewood.html

"Most of that wood was headed to China, where rosewood imports jumped 2,000 percent from 2005 to 2014, according to the conservation group Forest Trends . Much of the material went into the making of reproduction hongmu furniture from the Ming and Qing dynasties, a style popular with affluent Chinese.

“These countries didn’t want to wait until their tree species are on the verge of extinction before acting to control the trade. They saw what happened in Asia. There is almost nothing left,” said Susanne Breitkopf, forest campaign policy manager of the nonprofit Environmental Investigation Agency ."

In the bigger scheme of things, guitar makers are not really a player in the destruction of the forests. A manufacturer like Taylor Guitars, for instance, has taken an outsized role in protecting a species like Ebony, so that it is accessible to builders for generations.

 

[CanserDYI]

I'm sure John Suhr has no problem selling guitars.

 

[mbardu]

Instrument manufacturing is a only a tiny portion of all of the lumber used in the world. Grabbed this from the Acoustic Guitar forum:

Anyway, this 2007 NY Times article mentions this:

"Mr. Paul [the forest campaign coordinator for Greenpeace] said that the amount of Sitka spruce used by guitar manufacturers is a tiny fraction of the total shipped. As few as 150 logs are enough to supply the whole industry each year. Nearly 80 percent of the spruce cut in Alaska is shipped to Asia, primarily Japan, for home building."

Another article:

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/12/guitar-makers-hit-hard-by-new-regulations-on-prized-rosewood.html

"Most of that wood was headed to China, where rosewood imports jumped 2,000 percent from 2005 to 2014, according to the conservation group Forest Trends . Much of the material went into the making of reproduction hongmu furniture from the Ming and Qing dynasties, a style popular with affluent Chinese.

“These countries didn’t want to wait until their tree species are on the verge of extinction before acting to control the trade. They saw what happened in Asia. There is almost nothing left,” said Susanne Breitkopf, forest campaign policy manager of the nonprofit Environmental Investigation Agency ."

In the bigger scheme of things, guitar makers are not really a player in the destruction of the forests. A manufacturer like Taylor Guitars, for instance, has taken an outsized role in protecting a species like Ebony, so that it is accessible to builders for generations.

Oh for sure, raw lumber volume going into luthiery is tiny. There's still a lot of other waste elsewhere at pretty much every step of getting us our guitars though. From design to delivery - from the machines and factories to the electronics and components, to shipping and marketing etc.

No different than a lot of products, for sure; including things that today you cannot really live without lest you become a mountain hermit. And again, guitar is probably far far from the worst offender here with the relatively small market and at least inherent durability. It doesn't prevent me from sleeping at night, but it's clearly not 0 impact either.

 

[nickgray]

Instrument manufacturing is a only a tiny portion of all of the lumber used in the world

Having worked for a little while in a large commercial kitchen ages ago, I honestly don't think that a lot of people comprehend how large things can get waste wise and inefficiency wise. The sheer amount of food that gets thrown out is staggering. And yet I still get upset when I peel an extra layer of an onion just to get it prepped faster when I cook. It's a psychological problem where you yourself, if you care enough, try to at least somewhat limit waste (and etc.), but in reality your contribution is a fraction of a fraction of a grain of sand on a beach. I also worked in a convenience store for a while, and holy crap, because it was a chain, the manager just did not give a single shit about any kind of efficiency with regards to best before dates. They would just consistently order shit that never got sold, the employees never ever bothered placing the wares according to the best before date, and the end result of it was a monstrous (relative to the store itself) amount of food that literally got wasted because of pure idiocy.

But as far as waste and bad products - my money is on cheap and shitty disposable stuff. Cheap electronics, cheap tools, cheap appliances, cheap everything - shit works for a little while, and then gets thrown out. But then the whole world works like that - short term trumps long term. Until shit gets regulated we'll keep seeing resources go down the drain.

 

[budda]

Still laughing about this.

 

[Hired Goon]

Well there is some hope. In the UK they're are working on legislation to require manufacturers to support their products for a much longer period of time. They will need to have parts on hand for possibly 5-10 years. Would be nice if your big screen TV which had crapped out at 14 months (just outside of the 12 month warranty) that you didn't have to take it to the landfill.

 

[jl-austin]

I find it extremely odd that environment concerns are even a topic here, most guitarist are so narrow minded that they think everything should be made like a 50's Les Paul, and any other wood combination is junk.

Personally I welcomed CITES, I was so tired of seeing EVERYTHING being made out of the same materials.

As far as Ibanez is concerned, they have followed the trends in guitars over the past 40 years as well as anyone. The guitars they've introduced recently are no different, they are following trends. The interesting thing is, unlike the grunge and metal era's, there is a wider variety of guitars available (supposedly, good luck actually finding one) than there ever has been.

 

[michael_bolton]

Oh for sure, raw lumber volume going into luthiery is tiny...

even outside of guitar manufacturing - these days in the US overall contribution of logging industry to the deforestation process is negligible and in some (most?) cases is net 0 because guess what - forests grow back given the chance (which is what's been happening in the US for a while now). There is an argument that can be made that after the regrowth the bio/eco-system is not 100% comparable to what it was before but that's a whole another can of worms.

I live in the area where logging and Christmas tree farm industries are pretty big - from what I'm seeing personally there's no net deforestation in the long term that can be attributed to these. stats that I've seen confirm that too.

 

[Hired Goon]

My apologies to all for taking the thread in an uncomfortable direction.

 

[Supernaut]

I find it extremely odd that environment concerns are even a topic here, most guitarist are so narrow minded that they think everything should be made like a 50's Les Paul, and any other wood combination is junk.

Personally I welcomed CITES, I was so tired of seeing EVERYTHING being made out of the same materials.

As far as Ibanez is concerned, they have followed the trends in guitars over the past 40 years as well as anyone. The guitars they've introduced recently are no different, they are following trends. The interesting thing is, unlike the grunge and metal era's, there is a wider variety of guitars available (supposedly, good luck actually finding one) than there ever has been.

Yep, and Ibanez is using a lot of locally sourced (Indo) woods for its instruments right now.

To be honest, Ibanez follow trends like any company but it does tend to bring new ideas to the table every now and again, plus bring them to mass market too. As far as I'm concerned the AZ is different enough to a Suhr to not be a blatant rip-off. It's at least a slightly different shape from a Fender Strat on the CNC machine even if it lifted the steel frets and baked maple.

 

[eaeolian]

Just the fact everyone instantly thinks "Suhr" when any company makes a pickguard-less super Strat with a two point trem is enough to cement how "not bothered" they are with endorsement drama.

Seriously. It's very clear the Ibbys and Charvels are "budget lining" the style of those instruments.

 

[Heart Of The Sunrise]

People don't buy Suhr (or any of the boutiques) because so and so plays them, they buy them because they're exceptional guitars.

Still laughing about this.

I never said once that Suhr is losing business or would lose business because some people stopped playing their guitars or because other brands made copies. The only thing I "felt bad" about was that people used to "rep" Suhrs a lot more and it probably feels good to see so many pros all collectively using your guitars. Again, saying that I "felt bad" was stupid wording and not reflective of my feelings, but I can't go back and change the title of the thread after all. So laugh away at my supposed "misery" for a prestigious and successful company, I guess I should have thought more carefully.

Also props to the dunce who managed to shift the thread into a discussion about the ethics of buying a Chinese-made instrument. Made it a much more interesting read overall.

 

[bigbusterstar]

I only feel sorta sorry that they lost Guthrie Govan. They lost some real big dick energy that day...

As for the "dunce", who cares. I'm pretty sure he only pops in to comment when he wants to get on a soap box ranting about some nonsense. Even derailed another thread hard enough to get it locked. Eh.