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

[Larz]

I do like some of the custom shop tele styles I've seen, but they were somewhat metalized. And a mainstream model isn't really practical for Jackson given that its one of Fender's flagship models.

[pro-fusion]

The primary reason the SweeTones and other "not-a-Soloist/RR/Kelly/Warrior/KV" failed is because of the narrow-minded asshats who cried foul because it wasn't a Soloist/RR/Kelly/Warrior/KV - it wasn't "FUCKING METAL!" so yeah it was torn to shreds, just like the Charvel Model A and Journeyman were simply because they weren't 22 fret v-tremmed single-hummed EVH copies made in Glendora.

I think you've got it backwards here, Newc. The point of the SweeTones and the '90s Charvels (one of which I just scored on eBay--an SD-II) wasn't to appeal to existing Jackson customers, but to go after people who would never otherwise pick up a Jackson. In other words, it was irrelevant what us J/C fanboys thought, since we weren't the target market. Both the SweeTones and '90s Charvels were aimed at the existing boutique market--not really Gibson and PRS, but the folks that would otherwise buy a Tom Anderson or fancy studio/session-guy stuff like a McInturff or Brian Moore.

Why did that fail? I don't pretend to know definitively, but I'm guessing that the existing J/C brand identity was simply too much "baggage" to overcome for folks who are buying a lot of snob appeal in addition to a guitar. These weren't guitars you could go down to the average music store, try out and be blown away by. You had to order them specifically and for a lot of money. A guy interested in a boutique guitar in the '90s probably wouldn't have given anything in a "Vintage Guitar" ad under the Jackson or Charvel names much of a look. You must remember how much of a stigma the J/C names had in the Decade of Grunge.

The most salient question is whether anything in the boutique marketplace has changed since then. I think the increasing collectability of vintage J/Cs suggests that it has. Does this mean that a "boutique" non-metal J/C would sell well? I'm not sure about that, but I do think that a Jackson with some of the hard edges rounded off might appeal more to the snob buyer than it would have 10 years ago. The point is not to make something completely outside the J/C realm, ala the Jazz'R, but to make (and properly market) models more akin to the SLATQH and '90s USA Charvels to appeal to those boutique types who might otherwise order a Suhr. There's probably some room for down-market versions of this, too--but this is basically the Mark Morton guitar, and I don't know how successful that's been.

[ulijdavid]

So you never ever want to see Jackson try something new. You never want to see a new model from them ever?

What Newc and I are saying is of course dont change the classics just try a new model.

To tell you the truth, what is available right now is what I want and own. If Jackson comes out with new styles I would surely check them out. But, I don't think they should come out with minor variations of already available designs. I would never buy an Ibanez or ESP - in my opinion they are second rate mutated rip offs of existing designs. Granted, Jackson designs are variations also, but I have never been disappointed with the quality or playability of a Jackson. I have said it before and I will say it again...Jackson is the only guitar I would purchase sight unseen.

To offer more variations and become more mainstream is like Dominoes trying to break into Subways sandwich market, or McDonalds offering the breakfast burrito, or Pizza Hut and the new attempt at lasagna. All of these items may taste pretty good. But really, are you going to go to Pizza Hut for lasagna???

I guess my point is I have seen alot of companies ruined trying to chase a larger market share by deviating from their core business. I think a business has to be very careful trying to become a "jack of all trades" and "master of none".

[hippietim]

Look at how many people buy a ESP Eclipse or Viper when they can get a Les Paul or SG for the same price or less. ESP is making tons of cash on those models. ESP is known as a Metal guitar but they still sell the non metal models.

How many of the people buying those ESPs instead of a Gibson are non-Metal guys? .00001%

And they're buying them because they can get an ESP Les Paul/SG with EMGs and/or a Floyd for far less money than a Gibson. And most guys buy the LTD for way less money.

[Flatpicker]

Not really to the OP.
FMIC brought Jackson in to compete against Ibanez and ESP, not PRS and Gibson. In that light, they are marketing the product in a pretty good way.
You have to remember that unlike Ibanez, that needs a varied product line, FMIC has a varied product line and Jackson/Charvel is a part of that.

It's like GM's brands and how they focus on a certain niche each and try not to directly compete against each other.

Actually, I'm surprised that the non-metal Jackson models have not shown up under another Fender brand name. The Jazz'r and Surfmaster should.

[Tetsuo]

How many of the people buying those ESPs instead of a Gibson are non-Metal guys? .00001%

And they're buying them because they can get an ESP Les Paul/SG with EMGs and/or a Floyd for far less money than a Gibson. And most guys buy the LTD for way less money.

Bingo and when guys like Girson and Fender want to play in the metal zone how well do they do? Explorers and Vee's are classic no doubt but I am talking about the Heavy Metal strat... looks like it is back but it is now a Jackson. FMIC understands that. What about the Floyds on explorers? Well who would do that when they can get a kelly? Sure there are a few people that would but realistically that is a small market share.

To AK47 and NEWC's point though expanding the line wouldn't be bad with one new model and to slowly build the heritage of that model and add to it. This would take time and a good endorsee but would be a good idea but lets say it is an SLSMG or something like that is it "good" enough to compete with Fender or Gibson or PRS? Hell honestly it took PRS a while to really get the foothold it has today. Not a bad idea to branch out but why would they do it when FMIC doesn't need them to do it.

[Tetsuo]

The real point is that I don't go to the best sushi place in town to get a burger not saying their burger isn't good but I go to them for sushi. So if I want a Les Paul I would get a Gibson but if I want the best guitar on the market I would get a Jackson . I actually had one of the limited run soloists in Chlorine with the EMG's and the raw neck. The problem for me it was too pretty for a jackson I just could never get comfortable with it. I have PRS's and I am ok with them being pretty but I want my Jacksons gritty and mean. I think I stand with the majority on that and Jackson likely isn't willing to put the work in to reinvent themselves when it all seems to be going well. JEsus Charvel has made a huge comeback!

[roodyrocker]

What's this Ferrari bullshit all over the place? How many people here own a Ferrari? If it's more than 3 I'll be amazed. Actually if it's more than 1 I'll call bullshit.

This has fuck-all to do with a sports-car that costs a quarter-million dollars and only has one speed. This is about a musical instrument manufacturer that's being limited to one very small and - in case you haven't been paying attention, particularly to your own personal financial situations - nearly-broke market.

There are very few executive-types who are also Metalheads who are also Jackson players compared to the number of executive-types who play other styles of music and buy other brands, so attempting to compare Jackson to Ferrari is...well, dumber than dumb.

"Do one thing, and do it well" is fine and dandy, but if you can do more than one thing well, don't you think your profits will dramatically increase? Is there a case-history of this not being a proven fact?

Newc, it doesn't matter who does or doesn't own a Ferrari or how expensive they are. The point was you don't have to appeal to everybody necessarily. You said yourself that Les Pauls started as Jazz guitars, Flying Vs as Blues guitars. Obviously they are used for much more than that now. Jacksons can be used the same way, if you wanted to play Jazz or Blues on your Warrior there is nothing stopping you from doing so. The diehard traditionalists aren't going to buy a Jackson just cause you changed the body and headstock either. Those people are buying Les Paul/Strat/Tele's pretty much.
I'm not opposed to introducing a new model here or there, but I'am against trying to be Gibson or PRS. We don't need to change who we are.

[roodyrocker]

I see what you are saying and I agree with you to an extent. What I see Jackson/Charvel there for is for ultra high quality and super high performance guitars. I'd love to be able to purchase a ultra high quality/performance Jackson for Jazz/Blues. Sure, you can say you can play Jazz/Blues on a Soloist but c'mon. I mean yeah they'll do Jazz/Blues alright but nowhere near as well as a PRS.

I don't necessarily think Jackson needs to go mainstream, but I wish they'd put out some models to accommodate other types of music other than metal.

I have to disagree here. Why can't a Soloist do Jazz/Blues as well as a PRS? :think: If Johnny Highland can pick up a PRS after playing a Tele (cause he got endorsed by PRS) and wail away at country on it, why can't you play Blues and Jazz on a Soloist? The only thing missing here is perception. Because Jackson doesn't have tons of endorsee's being seen with these guitars you just assume they can't be used for other types of music.

[Grandturk]

You said yourself that Les Pauls started as Jazz guitars, Flying Vs as Blues guitars. Obviously they are used for much more than that now.

Now let's be clear - in 1952, there really was no Rock and Roll so of course the Les Paul was not a Rock or metal guitar. And, in comparison to the Tele and the Strat, the Les Paul was also a product failure and was out of production for a decade. And let's face it, the Flying V was a complete failure in 1958, and it wasn't until a decade later when left handed guitarists started playing it (Jimi, Albert) - guess why - that it became popular and was reissued.

[Newc]

No, it's Player Perception. Yes, Jackson's "heritage" jumps up and bites them on the ass again by not offering Jackson-quality without the fins and points - even on a Soloist.


And Mikernaut, yes, that one-hum Floyded Tele still says Metal. I can't think of a professional non-Metal player who only uses the bridge pickup, or who uses a Floyd.


As I understand it, some of the first JazzRs made it out of the factory with no identifying marks on them but a MOP J on the head. No woodburned Jackson logo on the back.

I'd like to know how many of these actually made it out the door and how many are being used by performing musicians that don't know it's a Jackson.


Yes, with Ibenhad being the only guitar brand in the Hohner-Sonor-Sabian-Hoshino corporate structure, they do have to offer a diverse range, and yes, FMIC limits Jackson and all the other sub-brands to their respective niches.

This is the impassible hurdle.



As for the GM analogy - the Pontiac Fiero was originally going to go head-to-head with the Corvette, but the Corvette division cried and threatened to strike if they were not allowed to redesign the engine for the Fiero. GM relented, and the Fiero was a flop. Corvette didn't want a "low-cost/everyman Corvette alternative", even though they knew it would be a case of "Timex vs Rolex" - people would still flock to buy a Corvette because of the name on it. The Fiero was supposed to be for everyone who couldn't afford a Corvette.

[roodyrocker]

Now let's be clear - in 1952, there really was no Rock and Roll so of course the Les Paul was not a Rock or metal guitar. And, in comparison to the Tele and the Strat, the Les Paul was also a product failure and was out of production for a decade. And let's face it, the Flying V was a complete failure in 1958, and it wasn't until a decade later when left handed guitarists started playing it (Jimi, Albert) - guess why - that it became popular and was reissued.

The point is that you're not limited to what you can play on a paticular type of guitar. Tone wise you can do anything you want, the looks might be a different matter. Still, if I was playing in a Jazz group and my Rhoads is what sounded good to me and I'm comfortable with, thats what I'll play in the Jazz group

[Tetsuo]

the general point is what resources Jackson would be willing to allocate to rebrand itself and branch out and what patience they would have to do it. If they would spend money on marketing and endorsing someone outside the "metal" realm they could do it but really is FMIC going to go after that guy for Jackson or for Fender? I would assume Fender.

[Larz]

If Jackson could land Keith Richards that might get the ball rolling.

[Joelski]

I don't want everybody else on the face of the planet owning the same types of guitars as me. It's not a country western instrument, blues is pushing it for most of the models and I'm good with that. Besides, I believe Fender owns the lock on the mainstream stuff and I doubt they'd ever let Jackson/Charvel try to change their track.