View Single Post
  #121  
Old 07-24-2010, 05:55 AM
tbeltrans tbeltrans is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Twin Cities
Posts: 8,083
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaygits View Post
Hi all,

I barely know how to post on here, although I've been reading since it was the Taylor Forum (2002). I was the VP of Sales and Marketing at CA for a brief moment. Some of you can blame me for things, while others would likely thank me for the very same. One of those things was identifying, naming and building a sales/marketing plan around an amazing little guitar that Ellis Seal created called the Cargo. It is to Ellis's credit, by the way, that the Cargo exists today. It is, to my mind, one of his greatest achievements in guitar innovation and design. At one time, we (the CA Mgt team) joked about calling what became Cargo, "the Ellis."

I'll reserve most comments, as it's likely that I know a bit too much - not because I'm that smart, but rather because I was there for so much of what we are all talking about today. Also, what I can add regarding CF guitar construction would likely pale in comparison to guys like Rick Turner - a man I respect a great deal. People like Rick, Ervin S., and JR, and others on here, these guys are all my friends .... I don't need to add much.

But, because of the Ricks, Ervins, Richard Hoover and great builders like Bruce Sexauer, I decided to join the AGF after all these years. These guys are the real teachers and this student is always ready for them to appear.

I do want to say one thing regarding the passionate arguments presented here regarding innovations and possible new developments on CA Guitars including the Cargo. Everything said in the above thread is completely valid. I have opinions either way. The only thing I would add is that many of the choices made in guitar manufacturing are made with regard to costs, price poetry, the ability to ensure success for the retail channel, and ultimately for the consumer. The other factor that often goes unmentioned in these discussions is how much the goals of the company play into the decisions made in product development. Your decisions around design innovation are often driven and limited by your ability to get things sold at a fair, sensible and reasonable price, and to put it simply, by how big you really want to be or need to be given how well the company is funded. That's the back-end of these discussions that doesn't get represented enough. Thankfully, you have the Rick Turners of the world who understand these aspects as well (excuse the name dropping - it's just how I feel).

I am happy to see CA coming back .... I wish it happened a little sooner for the sake of the brand. I like the "CA" brand, by the way, as opposed to "Composite Acoustics." It didn't matter to me what the company called itself as a dba, but I felt strongly about not going to market under those 2 words. To me it sounded more like a styrofoam factory in the hood than an innovative guitar manufacturer.

Thanks for all of the spirited discussions. Please be gentle with me if you choose to reply ..... hahahah ....

Best,

Jay
Jay:

To me, "please be gentle" implies that one's natural response to you, CA, or the content of your post might be to do otherwise. In my case, I don't need to "be gentle" because my three RT Cargos are the best guitars I have ever owned, and I personally have really appreciated your company's innovation.

Years ago, I broke one of the bones in my right wrist. Apparently, it would have been better to have broken both because it would have healed differently. As a direct result of that accident, I do not have the rotational movement of my right hand, so I can't really get into the "correct" hand position for classical guitar, which is really also best for fingerstyle in general. The Cargo, because of its shape and size, allows me to get that hand position and therefore to be able to play better with it than I can with any other guitar. The very short scale is also perfect for me as I get older.

I would not engage in pointless discussion as to whether my Cargos are "better" than my 1996 Collings 0003 or my 1968 Guild Artist Award archtop. Instead, I would say that the Cargo is more suitable in very unique ways than either of those guitars for my unique physical needs. So, in reality, I could say the Cargo is more suitable. At the same time, the Cargo's unique design does not sacrifice tone for being as small as it is. To me, the Cargo stands apart from the other carbon fiber instruments of similar size in all of what I described here. It is truly innovative.

With regard to the spirited discussions in this thread, I have every respect for Larry Pattis (except that I am envious that he plays so much better than I do ). I understand his position on neck angle, even though I don't claim to have previously been cognizant of such issues. That is why, in my earlier post here, I said that I am very fortunate that the Cargo works so well for me. The lack of such adjustment, to me, would mean that the Cargo works well for some and not for others and that can't change. But for those it does work for, MAN DOES IT WORK WELL (as it is a life-saver for me with my wrist situation). There have been many times over the years that I have all but given up playing guitar and taken up keyboard in frustration over that wrist issue. I could practice and practice and not play as clean as such practice might otherwise yield - until the Cargo came along.

So, a big THANK YOU to CA Guitars for having created the Cargo. I sincerely hope that CA Guitars with Peavey's backing can continue to innovate and produce such unique instruments.

Being a software engineer, I have been involved in a number of companies that were acquired. Some of these acquisitions worked and some didn't, though all started with seemingly the best of intentions. If the acquiring company understands exactly what the company it is acquiring is all about, and works to preserve that company's reason for existing (as well as its market space) while improving in areas that the acquired company might need help with, then I could see the acquisition working. If instead, the acquiring company, as it begins to understand what it acquired, decides it is not really a good fit for the acquiring company's market interests after all (or the acquired company doesn't survive the transition during the operating phase of the acquisition), then the acquired company usually disappears and some key employees and technologies just get absorbed into the acquiring company. Let us hope that doesn't happen to CA Guitars.

Regards,

Tony
Reply With Quote