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

[shadowcat]

How many people here only own Jackson guitars? Not very many, I'd venture a guess.

Me. Eight Jacksons.

At least if I only count the electrics...

[pro-fusion]

I'm sure that these players of whom we speak have tried out a Jackson at some point - every musician has an innate desire to try a different guitar - but I'm also sure they passed on it because of the "Metal" styling.

I think things are actually getting better that way. Even just a few years ago, people would come back with some stupid comment about hair metal whenever I said that I play Jacksons. Which is funny because I'm a fusion player nowadays and wouldn't be caught dead playing old-style hair metal.

But now, I tend to get a lot more positive feedback when I mention my guitar of choice. There is still a slightly negative perception of pointy guitars within more tradition-bound musical genres, but I'm guessing that you'd have better odds of successfully bringing a Soloist to a country or modern jazz gig now than you would have even five years ago. A Rhoads or a Kelly would still be more problematic, I'm sure. One problem with those gigs, as well as a lot of mainstream pop gigs, is that the guitarists are usually just session players with relatively little creative input, and the producers, singers and managers in charge of those gigs are very conservative when it comes to image. The guitarist doesn't get the opportunity to say "this is my axe of choice and I'm sticking with it."

Classic rockers are very stuck in nostalgia mode, so they're going to want the actual instruments that were around in the '60s and '70s. I'm thinking of bands like the Black Crowes or some of the more conservative Dead-oriented jam bands.

[Newc]

One problem with those gigs, as well as a lot of mainstream pop gigs, is that the guitarists are usually just session players with relatively little creative input, and the producers, singers and managers in charge of those gigs are very conservative when it comes to image. The guitarist doesn't get the opportunity to say "this is my axe of choice and I'm sticking with it."

Exactly the type of player and setting I had in mind.

Classic rockers are very stuck in nostalgia mode, so they're going to want the actual instruments that were around in the '60s and '70s. I'm thinking of bands like the Black Crowes or some of the more conservative Dead-oriented jam bands.

That's also the ones I had in mind. Granted they're mostly going to go for "what was used back then" - even going so far as to only play instruments from that time period, even if it's a Norlin-era Gibson.
Those guitars have a specific sound that IS the sound of Classic Rock.

However, there's lots of bands that combine the basic songwriting style of that era but with a more modern sound, and they can do it on a Morton and PC1 just as easily as with a Les Paul and Strat - IF they can get away from the "Metal" appearances (pink flametop, Floyd, and sustainer).

[_koppen]

Alright you old farts!!
It is really time for a change!!
Im NOT saying fuck the soul and let's pump out some new models!!
Im saying, let's extend the sould, cause in my thoughts the Jackson soul isn't old fucking metal axe's, it's about GREAT INSTRUMENT'S FOR GREAT PEOPLE!!!!!

And let me first start of with the import lines!!
What's Jackson's problem is that they really dont give a fuck about the imports. When they finnaly piump something out every year, they totally screw it up!

Yeah, FUCK THE IMPORT'S, WE DONT NEED ANY FUCKING EMO KIDS HERE OR TRIVIUM WANNABES you will say, ya sure, but hey!
What about the kids, the guy who keeps it for a hobby, or maybe the recently divorced guy, the one who just starts playing or all the other shitloads of people who cant afford a USA, we just gonna dont give a fuck about them either??

Let's take a GOOD example here:
This is an AGILE guitar.

It is made in Korea, it has mahagoany body and neck, a real thick maple top, ebony board real pearl block inlays thick binding all around EMG pup's an all the other goddies you will se.
Made in korea, sells for 500 $

Se the point?
Well, im really not saying that Jackson should leave Japan for Korea, but if you gonna keep Japan and the prices you have, LETS MAKE THE GUITARS WORTH IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This agile sureley proofs that the components is NOT to expensive to put on Jackson imports!! nono it's just that Jackson wants to sell US select instead!!

And how about a Phil Collen iport version??
I want a PC1,, but when im gonna be able to afford a USA, it sure aint gonna be a PC1!!

And how can you be so against new shapes????
It surley would kill Jackson's fanbase to put some amazing spec on this one in an import version, would it???


How can you loose some of your soul and integrity by trying to sell really great instrument's that fit's everyone??

But i know the import q has been raised before, but how many % of all the guitar that sells do you think is imports????
Just get on to the import market like esp schecter and ibanez, nowbody will stop loving you for that!!
And surley not for the guitar above either!!!

NEWC, i want a reply from you on this reply!!!

Sry for the spelling, it's late!

[VitaminG]

What's Jackson's problem is that they really dont give a fuck about the imports. When they finnaly piump something out every year, they totally screw it up!

the Dominion, the Demmelition, the KBRR, RR5, RR5R, all Pro level imports have real Seymour Duncans or EMGs now. Yea, they've really dropped the ball on the import lines. :think:

And how about a Phil Collen iport version??
I want a PC1,, but when im gonna be able to afford a USA, it sure aint gonna be a PC1!!

they've done it. The PC3. Guess they sold so well they dropped the line.

And how can you be so against new shapes????
It surley would kill Jackson's fanbase to put some amazing spec on this one in an import version, would it???

that thing looks like a Cort or Samick. I'm sure it's a great guitar, but it doesn't look "Jackson" to me, and holds very little appeal (to me) regardless of the brand. I don't like the style of bridge, it has that generic "hope this is just different enough that they can't sue us for it" offset double cutaway shape, and a goofy headstock. What about the specs on that make it "amazing"? If you're talking about the flame top & the Duncans, you can already get those in several of the existing import line.

Maybe you'd prefer that Jackson starts applying excessive bling to all their guitars, like Schecter has with all the abalone body binding and such? Then, instead of competing in the marketplace, Jackson looks like a pretender who is following their competitors' lead.

[roodyrocker]

The main thing is that Jackson simply doesn't have the list of well known endorsed artists PRS, Gibson, ESP, and Ibanez have. For example, PRS has Carlos Santana, Al Dimeola, Johnny Hiland, Joe Walsh, Mark Tremonti, etc... Very different styles of music ranging from latin rock to classic rock to country to more modern. They all look like a PRS and no one here is saying that doesn't look right, its too rounded, not pointy enough or whatever. Yet Jacksons you say are too pointy for Jazz or Blues. The way I see it is that with endorsement $ the guitar starts to look pretty good for whatever style music you want. Its all about $, PRS didn't have to re-invent a new model for each artist. They simply endorsed them and made it worth their time to play their guitars. If Jacksons was shelling out big bucks to well known Jazz players to use a Kelly it wouldn't be long before you accepted it as acceptable for Jazz use. I mean seriously, Hiland doing country shred on a PRS, does that look like a natural fit to you? Its the $$$!!!

[åron]

I mean seriously, Hiland doing country shred on a PRS, does that look like a natural fit to you? Its the $$$!!!

It seems like a good fit, not strange at all. Hiland should be playing something different than the rest of the Nashville crowd to reflect his style. It's got to be American made... and if ever a player needed a comfy ergonomic shape with a (ahem) belly cut, it's that guy!

As I've heard it, Paul Reed Smith has continued courting exceptional artists the way he always had, personally giving them amazing custom instruments. "Hi, I'm Paul Reed Smith. I made this guitar for you. If you like it, I can make you more and maybe we can talk about doing some business together." I reckon FMIC can afford to do that with their core Fender instruments to great effect, but can't rationalize doling out the Jackson brand since it doesn't have the universal cachet of Fender or PRS.

[RandomFan]

i think jackson should bring back some more traditional stuff-
such as the SLATQH,which looks so classy
Jazz'R would be nice

but the thing i would most want is new Roundhorns-fender isnt a big company that could stand up to gibson?
i think a 25.5 roundhorn would sell by the dozens.

[Newc]

Alright you old farts!!
It is really time for a change!!
Im NOT saying fuck the soul and let's pump out some new models!!
Im saying, let's extend the sould, cause in my thoughts the Jackson soul isn't old fucking metal axe's, it's about GREAT INSTRUMENT'S FOR GREAT PEOPLE!!!!!

I'm not following this "soul" issue. Jackson's "soul" is Metal Only? Really? Was Rhoads - the indisputable reason for their even being a Jackson guitar brand name - "Metal Only"? No. He was musically ambitious and diverse. Yes, he STARTED with Metal, but he had his eyes on EXPANDING BEYOND METAL. He could see Metal turning into the circus it eventually became (the midget on stage). I'm sure he would have felt honored that later players were learning so much from his work with Ozzy and how much he influenced an entire generation of people to shred like he did, but at the same time I'm also sure he would have felt they should all progress beyond copping his licks and style to develop their own style, and to bring in fresh new ideas rather than just arpeggios and sweeps and Classical scales.

So as exactly 1/2 of Jackson's "creator", why should Jackson stay in the rut when Rhoads himself was all about busting out of it?

And let me first start of with the import lines!!
What's Jackson's problem is that they really dont give a fuck about the imports. When they finnaly piump something out every year, they totally screw it up!

Yeah, FUCK THE IMPORT'S, WE DONT NEED ANY FUCKING EMO KIDS HERE OR TRIVIUM WANNABES you will say, ya sure, but hey!
What about the kids, the guy who keeps it for a hobby, or maybe the recently divorced guy, the one who just starts playing or all the other shitloads of people who cant afford a USA, we just gonna dont give a fuck about them either??

Let's take a GOOD example here:
This is an AGILE guitar.

It is made in Korea, it has mahagoany body and neck, a real thick maple top, ebony board real pearl block inlays thick binding all around EMG pup's an all the other goddies you will se.
Made in korea, sells for 500 $

Se the point?
Well, im really not saying that Jackson should leave Japan for Korea, but if you gonna keep Japan and the prices you have, LETS MAKE THE GUITARS WORTH IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This agile sureley proofs that the components is NOT to expensive to put on Jackson imports!! nono it's just that Jackson wants to sell US select instead!!

Built by a company that doesn't have to consider their USA-made line, because they have none.

Import-only companies can afford to use high-dollar components on their guitars if they don't have a USA base to take care of.
I had an Agile LP-style, and yes, it was a good guitar. The flametops and other cosmetic options are indeed stunning compared to Jackson's imports.

However, Jackson would slit their own throat by putting all that on imports.

And how about a Phil Collen iport version??
I want a PC1,, but when im gonna be able to afford a USA, it sure aint gonna be a PC1!!

And how can you be so against new shapes????
It surley would kill Jackson's fanbase to put some amazing spec on this one in an import version, would it???


How can you loose some of your soul and integrity by trying to sell really great instrument's that fit's everyone??

I sense the sarcasm here. It's great that you're a Metal kid, but whatever loss of soul and integrity you perceive is merely a misperception on your part. It's an illusion generated by your own mind. A mirage.

But i know the import q has been raised before, but how many % of all the guitar that sells do you think is imports????
Just get on to the import market like esp schecter and ibanez, nowbody will stop loving you for that!!
And surley not for the guitar above either!!!

NEWC, i want a reply from you on this reply!!!

Sry for the spelling, it's late!

Offhand, I'd say imports make up 30% of Jackson's overall sales, but I don't have access to those numbers, so I can't say for sure.

that thing looks like a Cort or Samick. I'm sure it's a great guitar, but it doesn't look "Jackson" to me, and holds very little appeal (to me) regardless of the brand.

That's exactly what we're saying that Jackson needs: guitars that you don't look at and say "Jackson" right away, because the current offerings (with the exception of the Morton) say "Jackson" to the general population from across the room.

You'd have to get closer to the Morton to see the logo, just as you would with an NASL or production Jazz'R.

Most people can spot a PRS simply by the body from across the room. They know the model in all crowds - Country, Metal, Rock. Do Jazz dudes use them?

You gotta wear the right shoes when you go to the shindig, because you want to look like you belong there as well as sound like it.

You've seen the commercial where the orchestra is doing a score for an action film like Gladiator, and there's one guy rocking out with some 80s techno/8-bit video game synth action? Obviously that guy was in the wrong place. A Rhoads simply doesn't fit visually in a Country or Jazz band (though I did see a pic of a guy using a hot pink with black bevels RR in a Country band - not a very famous one, I might add).
However, the Morton, NASL, or non-pink PC1 would.

I don't like the style of bridge, it has that generic "hope this is just different enough that they can't sue us for it" offset double cutaway shape, and a goofy headstock. What about the specs on that make it "amazing"? If you're talking about the flame top & the Duncans, you can already get those in several of the existing import line.

Nothing wrong with a classic tuneomatic, but the NASL - when it was available - also had a Schallered version. As in "Schaller-logoed Floyd", not the Jackson logoed JT590, but the actual Schaller-branded double-locking trem.

And actually that's one of the most comfortable models you could ever find. Well, that I could ever find, anyway

I don't think he's saying it has amazing specs - he's saying Jackson could add amazing specs similar to the over-pimped Korean models - abalone trim, 5A quilted photoflame, etc.

Not that it needs it IMO.


I really don't see the issue with adding models that do not "say/scream Metal". If they're not your cup o' tea, avoid them. Don't slam the company for making them, don't dissuade others from them. Let them be and see how they do. Encourage people to use them for the simple fact they're Jacksons just to get people away from Ibenhad and ESPee and Agile and PRS and Schecter. Support the brand name and original spirit of innovation and diversity rather than the stereotype.

You want your kid to act like a 5-year old when he's 30? Hell no, you encourage him to grow and broaden his horizons so he's not a narrow-minded asshat.

Why is it suddenly different for your favorite guitar company?

[roodyrocker]

It seems like a good fit, not strange at all. Hiland should be playing something different than the rest of the Nashville crowd to reflect his style. It's got to be American made... and if ever a player needed a comfy ergonomic shape with a (ahem) belly cut, it's that guy!

As I've heard it, Paul Reed Smith has continued courting exceptional artists the way he always had, personally giving them amazing custom instruments. "Hi, I'm Paul Reed Smith. I made this guitar for you. If you like it, I can make you more and maybe we can talk about doing some business together." I reckon FMIC can afford to do that with their core Fender instruments to great effect, but can't rationalize doling out the Jackson brand since it doesn't have the universal cachet of Fender or PRS.

Hiland is an awesome player but lets face it PRS is not what comes to mind when you think country. He played Teles prior to that. My Point being that by getting artists to play their guitars you now have no problem seeing a PRS in a Country band. They're doing the same thing with Al Dimeola in fusion, Santana in Latin Rock, Joe Walsh in classic rock, Tremonti in modern rock. After a while you think a PRS fits just about anything. Thats the whole point of using endorsed artists. Jackson on the other hand had tons of players back in the 80's and it worked then too, thats why we associate those pointies with that era. If they started doing it with other types of music you wouldn't think a Rhoads in a Jazz band looked so strange after seeing it enough times. Remember, we're talking perception and looks here not tone. Tone wise I see no reason why you couldn't do country with a Warrior or Jazz with a Rhoads.

[BenoA]

Make the thing affordable, yet high quality, keep the specs the same when you make a cheaper version of it, and just have 3 versions, USA, MIJ, and MIK, that would be three price points, 2000$, 900$, and 600$, all with the same look. Colours would also probably be good, but just somthing that anyone who wants a floyd guitar, would want instead of any other floyd stratshape guitar, its that simple.

Well said! Not a big fan of ESP but this what they do. You can get various Laiho V models from huge $$$ to the cheaper model. But they all have 24 frets and the same look. Even the cheap model has the sawtooth inlays.

I still wonder why Jackson did not make more maple board models? Or produce a cheaper RR24 model. Ok, the JS RR has 24 frets but why not RX10D with 24 frets? For me, I don't care about the cheap pickups or the cheap floyds. Anyway, I know people that buy 2000$ guitars and change the PUs, the tuners, the electronics or even the bridge.

And I'm not talking only for young kids or teenagers. I'm a father of 3, doesn't have mucho dollar to spent but have a passion for guitars and like to have various models. Not everybody has a lot money to spend on high end guitars.

For example, look at Godin guitars. They are not the usual brand that people speaks here, but I got 2 of them. I own two signature models, at 1000$ worth each. Seymour Duncan PUs. Made partly in Canada/US (can you call them imports in that case???). Good hardware and wood. Nice finish. Come stock with a nice gig bag. They don't have much endorsees but their offering has grown a lot in the past few years. They are even trying out on the metal market recently with EMG equiped guitars and Floyd with the choice of rosewood or maple board.

So back to the Jackson case, I think they must re-think about their 1000$ or less model line if they want to compete in this tuff time market...

Example: expand their MG serie to all body shape, maple board to other body shape, get a KV3 out, etc....

[AK47]

Well said! Not a big fan of ESP but this what they do. You can get various Laiho V models from huge $$$ to the cheaper model. But they all have 24 frets and the same look. Even the cheap model has the sawtooth inlays.

I still wonder why Jackson did not make more maple board models? Or produce a cheaper RR24 model. Ok, the JS RR has 24 frets but why not RX10D with 24 frets? For me, I don't care about the cheap pickups or the cheap floyds. Anyway, I know people that buy 2000$ guitars and change the PUs, the tuners, the electronics or even the bridge.

And I'm not talking only for young kids or teenagers. I'm a father of 3, doesn't have mucho dollar to spent but have a passion for guitars and like to have various models. Not everybody has a lot money to spend on high end guitars.

For example, look at Godin guitars. They are not the usual brand that people speaks here, but I got 2 of them. I own two signature models, at 1000$ worth each. Seymour Duncan PUs. Made partly in Canada/US (can you call them imports in that case???). Good hardware and wood. Nice finish. Come stock with a nice gig bag. They don't have much endorsees but their offering has grown a lot in the past few years. They are even trying out on the metal market recently with EMG equiped guitars and Floyd with the choice of rosewood or maple board.

So back to the Jackson case, I think they must re-think about their 1000$ or less model line if they want to compete in this tuff time market...

Example: expand their MG serie to all body shape, maple board to other body shape, get a KV3 out, etc....

Jackson knows their marketing when it comes to the import line. They have decided to keep the models based out of Japan and compare that to what a ESP Japan model costs and you are getting a great value. I am sure they are taking note of the maple board model sales and will release more if its cost justified.

The idea of the thread is we want to see something totally new coming from Jackson instead of the same old variations. I am talking new body styles and headstocks. Last time I started a similar thread it turned into 5 pages of I want a import with a real floyd and option x or y.

Jackson is in a unique situation now because it may not be in their best intrest to get more sales. I really beleive that Jackson could get in trouble with FMIC if their sales are too good. The bean counters look at overall yearly money spent in the industry and if Fenders sales are down and Jackson guitars are up that could cause problems.

Sound stupid? Well it is, you are dealing with Corporation thinking now and not the free market thinking. I have seen this in IT with large corporate companies buying smaller companies then dismantling them because the sales were too good and then absorbing the flagship product into some crap software package.

[_koppen]

[quote=Newc;1208408]I'm not following this "soul" issue. Jackson's "soul" is Metal Only? Really? Was Rhoads - the indisputable reason for their even being a Jackson guitar brand name - "Metal Only"? No. He was musically ambitious and diverse. Yes, he STARTED with Metal, but he had his eyes on EXPANDING BEYOND METAL. He could see Metal turning into the circus it eventually became (the midget on stage). I'm sure he would have felt honored that later players were learning so much from his work with Ozzy and how much he influenced an entire generation of people to shred like he did, but at the same time I'm also sure he would have felt they should all progress beyond copping his licks and style to develop their own style, and to bring in fresh new ideas rather than just arpeggios and sweeps and Classical scales.

So as exactly 1/2 of Jackson's "creator", why should Jackson stay in the rut when Rhoads himself was all about busting out of it?



Built by a company that doesn't have to consider their USA-made line, because they have none.

Import-only companies can afford to use high-dollar components on their guitars if they don't have a USA base to take care of.
I had an Agile LP-style, and yes, it was a good guitar. The flametops and other cosmetic options are indeed stunning compared to Jackson's imports.

However, Jackson would slit their own throat by putting all that on imports.



I sense the sarcasm here. It's great that you're a Metal kid, but whatever loss of soul and integrity you perceive is merely a misperception on your part. It's an illusion generated by your own mind. A mirage.

actually, i missed spelled it, i meant it "wouodn't" kill jackson's fanbase to put out that guitar.

im not saying that we should put out some usa components on the imports, just imagine some ebony, or white binding or a cheaper neck through soloist or kelly etc...

if yuou are gonna charge 1300 for an import axe, the feauters gotta be really amazing.

Someone said esp are charging the same for ther japan stuff, but all those have the expensive feauters like pearl inlays, ebony board flame tops and binding etc...

Let's take the KV5 for an example, would it kill the US sales if Jackson putted out a KV with mahagony/maple, neck through, ebony board, white binding, 24 frets, brand pup's and some kind of nice inlays?

[thez0r]

I don't think I could psychologically handle seeing all the feminine emo kids of today's generation laming-out on guitars with the Jackson/Charvel name.

It would be like giving rainman a ferrari to drive up and down the driveway.

[xlr8]

Couple of things:
1. Jackson is Metal. Always has been, and probably always will be. That is why Fender accuired them, 'cuase people think blues when they think Fender, and they wanted a piece of the metal action. They were not just interested in a good guitar that they could then market. They wanted a market that had a guitar.

As an example, I recently walked into a guitar sop that carries every major brand (and them some), a local shop where the employees actually know their stuff. I was looking at the PRS's when a sales person came up. We bullshitted for a while then she ask, "so, what do you play now?"

I told her I primarilly play Jacksons. Her (somewhat shocked, as I was dressed respectablly) responce? "Oh, you play Metal?"

Like it or not, that is the way it is.

2. The future of "non-metal Jacksons is Charvel. That is their best shot at developing, marketing and selling "mainstream" types of guitars. For whatever reason, Charvel does not have a stigma attached to it. The future is wide open. The general public responce to a Charvel is "oh, I have heard of those, I think they are good guitars...aren't they?"