Anyone else want to see Jackson/Charvel evolve and go "mainstream"?

[neilli]

If I was in charge of Jackson I would design guitars that look alot like this bad ass guitar.

Surely that's basically just a bolt-on SLATQH, albeit with a Floyd?

[markD]

eh....i agree that jackson should intorduce SOMETHING new that isn't pointy or "extreme". copying models may not be the way to go, but the NASL is pretty cool. using the SLS as a pltform for new ideas is pretty cool. rounding off the edges of a soloist could be cool. utilizing the older "sears" headstock (like on the PS7) in reverse and standard for a more "traditional" model would be cool.

i love my jackson's and i don't play metal. but, aside from the PC-1 or the charvel's (which i don't care for) there really isn't anything "traditional" for me to grab and play live.

i guess the point is, jackson could stand to offer some NEW ideas/variations/etc that DON'T just have titties, skulls, and blood painted on guitars with moser/bc rich extra cut-outs, i.e., "extreme" models - that are wicked expensive anyway. those ugly-assed pablo guitars would fare better as imports so the kids could afford them....steal some business from bc rich and esp.

[markD]

I think part of battle that Jackson would have to fight is also down to market perception. There's a reason why Jackson discontinued the Sweetones i.e. they didn't sell.

Personally, I think offering a USA NASL would be worth a try, but I'd prefer to see them doing something like a regular production PC1 with no Sustainer and maybe (gasp) some more 'basic' options.

market perception IS a problem, but jackson created that themselves and another reason the sweetones didn't sell well because of that hard V neck shape too.

a basic option PC-1 based guitar would be VERY cool. just give it a different model name, like the "jackson traditional" and offer solid colors, rosewood boards, diff. pick up configs, pickguards, etc....

[Grandturk]

I think the LAST thing any guitar company should make is yet again another super-flamey PRS/Les Paul mahagony, rosewood, flame maple 10-top designer inlay blah blah blah.

I'm sick of these types of guitars - they're ridiculously overproduced in mass and small market. Jackson doing it just to put "Jackson" on the headstock, to me, is just wrong.

And please, please, please do not do a "road worn" series - I know those Music Zoo Mitro Aged Charvels are already out there. I can't wait until that phase backlashes and people all mope around saying - "I can't believe I used to buy beat-up looking guitars and pay a premium for them." I hope they feel the same way everyone else did about playing neon colored BC Rich's.

[shreddermon]

As some others mentioned above, Jackson and Charvel both have nicely defined "brand identities". You don't mess too much with a successful formula. And FMIC has been doing a lot to rebuild those existing brands. Especially Charvel, which was effectively dead.

And, yes, J/C has already tried to branch out into the PRS-like niche (Sweetones, SLATQH, SLS, NASLs, one-off Soloists, etc). It can be said the success there was marginal, at best. Some might even say the word "success" doesn't apply.

I do agree, however, that there is an opportunity for FMIC to do more there. And, as with anything else, it's all about product. The specs on the Sweetones were just plain weird. That's harsh to say, but they were. They were great, quality guitars, but odd body shapes, weird pickup arrangements, etc just killed them. They were a flop. The most successful "line" was the SLATQH Soloists. And even that was really just a limited edition, small batch version of the Soloist.

They need something new, but with traditional style and appointments. (If that makes any sense.) IMHO, if FMIC were to be serious about trying to make headway against PRS-style guitars, it would make most sense for them to create an altogether new brand for it. And it would be right up the J/C custom shop's crew alley for doing. That's what they would really need to give this a remote chance for success - a third brand. Otherwise, they're probably best suited to just play around on that market niche's edges with SLATQH-like small / limited edition batches.

Just MHO.

[shadowcat]

I'm quite happy with the Jackson brand identity as it is, and I certainly would not like to see them copy other brands. I love the idea of "If we build it, we designed it!". Makes me proud I'm not playing a Korean copy of another brands design.

Now, since Jackson does fill the rock/metal niche so nicely, they can definitely move forward with "new" ideas and still stay in that market segment.
One example: 7-strings!
And not only one single-humbucker sig model, but a whole line of it.
Almost every 7-string production model that ever existed has been a superstrat variation, but Jackson has the body shapes and the quality to really dig into that market segment IMO.
And I say that though I'm a 6-string player...

BTW I own an NASL and love it. It's a compact 24-fret shred guitar with an amazingly comfortable neck heel. I certainly don't feel like I'm owning a PRS style guitar with that one...

Ok, final note (you should know it had to be coming): I'd like to see Jackson make a 24-fret string-thru neck-thru King V with the normal headstock and sharkfin inlays.
They never did that before, so it's a completely new idea. :idea:

[pro-fusion]

I don't want to see Jackson become purely a nostalgia operation or stop evolving. But I think they would advance things better by working on improvements/derivations to the existing models rather than imitating the pimped-out PRS boutique aesthetic.

For example, the SL2H-MAH is a great idea, but its execution is somewhat half-assed. Why isn't there a TOM version of that, or a production archtop version (NOT a SLATQH, but a real archtop version)? How about an SL2H-MAH with a Wilkinson and the 3x3 headstock? Putting some Soloist body wings on the KV2T, so you'd have a 24.75" scale shredder guitar. These are things that would actually tempt me as a potential buyer. Guitars that have functional differences from existing Jacksons, but are still recognizably part of the brand.

[Brian]

I'd like to see more options and less restrictions on the ordering process of custom instruments. However, I don't see the need to make a more "traditional" type of instrument to appeal to a different demographic. Leave that to the other companies

Jackson wasn't founded on the idea of making "traditional" guitars. There's something to be said about a company that has been around for almost 30 years and hasn't completely lost its ideals in the process of chasing a buck.

It's kind of like PRS, they don't offer anything that would appeal to most people who play heavy/metal types of music. No black hardware, no ebony boards, no Floyds, no EMGs/Duncans etc. They could, but why bother when so many other companies already do?

ESP is very successful overseas (largely because they can offer popular guitar shapes to consumers there for much less than an original USA model) but its business model in the US is not a whole lot different than Schecter. They're all over the $500-$1000 dollar market with the LTD range. Both ESP and Schecters top of the line stuff doesn't sell to well in the States. I honestly believe that's because when you're talking about people who can afford guitars that cost $2500 and up most aren't interested in buying one of ESPs many derivatives of other brands popular guitars. Schecter either for that matter. They'll go buy a PRS, B.C. Rich, Jackson, Gibson, Fender etc because they can afford to have the real thing. This is probably why they aren't heavily marketed here in the USA.

I think in this industry in order to remain successful as a company you need to carve out your own niche. I realize you're not saying to change or alter that aspect of the company, just make something different. Unfortunately, something as simple as that does affect how the company is perceived. And for Jackson, I don't think it's for lack of trying either. They have offered some different and interesting models and most of them just weren't very well received.

[FloydRose4Prez]

I want them to revert to late '80s & early '90s, with today's best components.

[RR05xx]

The only reason that jackson is not mainstream is because they have no "mainstream" endorcees.

If esp got rid of the endorcements, how "mainstream" do you think that they would be.

Its all marketing. Jackson never wanted to spend the $$$ on it, even back in the day, and it lead to the stagnanting of the brand.

Some things dont change. I am convinced that fender does not care either. They will happily make there money selling truckloads of mexi strats to the masses for as long as that pans out. If, by some accident, 80s style guitars become mainstream again, then you will see jackson marketing with fender at the helm, but dont hold your breath cuz fender is not going to do anything to change the here and now. They remember the 80s and things were not good for them at that time. Why would they spend money to change anything.

[pro-fusion]

I don't think the endorsement issue is critical here. Jackson is a well-established brand at this point. Endorsees don't hurt, obviously, but it's questionable whether they add that much to the J/C bottom line. The ESP and Ibanez model is to hype the hell out of signature models that amount to nothing more than ugly variations on their existing models. There's nothing innovative about that. If your goal is to sell cheap shite guitars to 15-year-olds, maybe that's worthwhile. But professional quality guitars pretty much need to sell themselves, regardless of whether the "flavor of the month" gets paid to hold them in an advertisement.

The point of this thread is whether Jackson would have a realistic shot at competing with Gibson and PRS in the non-metal market. I don't see it happening. As others have said, Jackson has tried that route and failed. I believe J/C has a tremendous brand in the metal market and should expand on that by continually looking for ways to improve the guitars they already make.

[Inazone]

Owning a couple of Jackson's "failed" attempts to branch out, a USA AT1 and an import Stealth TH-2, I see lots of opportunities for them to try again with some of those designs. In the mid `90s, those ideas just didn't take off, but the marketplace is much different now. Mainstream appeal, however, is an elusive goal. I really like the SLS headstock, but it doesn't seem very popular among Jackson fans. Would newcomers to the brand like it enough to make it practical on more models? Have the SLSMG and DXMGT sold well enough to warrant that headstock appearing elsewhere? Is it still too pointy for the masses?

Discussions on binding and inlay material have been done to death, but the DK2M is a prime example of a change that seems to have caught on. How about an SLS with maple board and maple board? What about some transparent (natural or stained) finishes on mahogany and ash, minus the maple top? Bring back the Stealth or AT body style. Offer some different stock pickups, not just the same EMG or JB/Jazz combo.

[sully]

As some others mentioned above, Jackson and Charvel both have nicely defined "brand identities". You don't mess too much with a successful formula. And FMIC has been doing a lot to rebuild those existing brands. Especially Charvel, which was effectively dead.

And, yes, J/C has already tried to branch out into the PRS-like niche (Sweetones, SLATQH, SLS, NASLs, one-off Soloists, etc). It can be said the success there was marginal, at best. Some might even say the word "success" doesn't apply.

I do agree, however, that there is an opportunity for FMIC to do more there. And, as with anything else, it's all about product. The specs on the Sweetones were just plain weird. That's harsh to say, but they were. They were great, quality guitars, but odd body shapes, weird pickup arrangements, etc just killed them. They were a flop. The most successful "line" was the SLATQH Soloists. And even that was really just a limited edition, small batch version of the Soloist.

They need something new, but with traditional style and appointments. (If that makes any sense.) IMHO, if FMIC were to be serious about trying to make headway against PRS-style guitars, it would make most sense for them to create an altogether new brand for it. And it would be right up the J/C custom shop's crew alley for doing. That's what they would really need to give this a remote chance for success - a third brand. Otherwise, they're probably best suited to just play around on that market niche's edges with SLATQH-like small / limited edition batches.

Just MHO.

pat pretty much hit on what i was going to say; jackson now has a more stabilized image. they tried the mainstream/prs/boutique stuff and it was torn to SHREDS on this board.

one thing that i'd like to see is more of the old construction styles, along with binding OVER frets, like they used to be. they've done that from time to time, but then relic'ed it, which makes no sense whatsoever.

anywhoo, that's my thought.

sully

[AK47]

I agree that what they do best is Metal guitars and they should not change that.

I just want to see something new that is not pointy or has cut outs and a graphic.

I think when they tried to do the boutique stuff you guys mentioned and they were torn to shreds is because they did it on their "traditional" models.

I am not saying change the formula, all I want to see is one new model that is not airbrushed and has a ton of cut outs. When I say new model I mean as in new body that is somewhat ergonomic and possibly a new headstock.

Lets not discontinue the old stuff. That is my point. I do like how the Charvel brand has been evolving and would like to see them move into the bass market. As for Jackson I fee they have gotten stagnant.

[triplehold]

Time will tell, right now Jackson is right on course in a fickle market and a unstable economy.