Timber used in the Moog guitar....

[Ghost]

Well gee whiz. What is THE BEST USE OF LIMITED NATURAL RESOURCES???

Man, we could argue that the Voyager, in fact all electronic music IS A WASTE OF PRECIOUS ENERGY.

But we don't now, do we???

You wanna know what the locals in the Amazon were making out of the 200+ year-old Brazilian Rosewood trees they downed so Mickey D could have cheap burgers????

CHARCOAL.

It was that kind of wastefulness that brought about CITES in the first place!!!!!

With all the crap going on in the world I can't believe anyone with the time and enlightenment to enjoy art and music has time to complain about something so trivial as the wood source for a $6500 guitar.

You wanna complain about something, write your Congressman. That oughta keep you busy.

1. Old growth forests represent incredibly precious habitats for hundreds of thousands of species of rare flora and fauna. This is not the same argument as energy use, please keep on the topic at hand.

THE BEST USE OF THESE RESOURCES IS TO TAKE ONLY WHAT YOU NEED, AND IF POSSIBLE LOOK FOR ALTERNATIVES SO YOU DON'T IMPACT THEM AT ALL.

2. So being an asshole is ok so long as someone else is a bigger asshole than you?

3. Buying timber from any country with a less than trustworthy government is a risky business. For one thing, many countries simply do not adhere to international guidelines, that's why you have to make the effort to find timber sourced from carefully managed operations.

Not sure what's so unreasonable in my question. Obviously your own happiness is most important to you, and if you consider the use of rare timber in guitars 'trivial' that's fine. But don't pretend that it's somehow a waste of time to question where the wood is coming from for these guitars.

You do not represent every person on earth anymore than i do, so don't act like yours is the only voice that counts.

[Hal_McGee]

The measure of all things, first and foremost, is the needs and wants of mankind. If it makes someone happy to own a guitar which contains these precious woods, then that is enough. By using these rare materials to make these beautiful instruments we do honor to the universe. These woods are hardly being used frivolously.

[Ghost]

The measure of all things, first and foremost, is the needs and wants of mankind. If it makes someone happy to own a guitar which contains these precious woods, then that is enough. By using these rare materials to make these beautiful instruments we do honor to the universe. These woods are hardly being used frivolously.

Well if you think that humans are the most important beings then nothing else matters anyway. I don't think like that and i never will. I have absolutely no idea what you mean by 'honor the universe'.

Rare woods do not make great music. Rare materials are used for vanity.

I just want to remind you here that i am not suggesting we stop making instruments, i am saying we should try to use sustainable alternatives to the endangered woods (of which there are many). That is all.

[Alien8]

Mankind's current path = that of a parasite

We control, abuse, and destroy.

Ghost is simply stating that if we were to "honor" the universe by choosing to use things from nature to accomplish our goal in a manner that allowed us to and nature to live we wouldn't have to bow down to groups like the golden dawn who decide that they want to eliminate useless human life by 80%, or the CFR to implant us each with a V-chip and bow down to what "they" say to do.

But then again if I didn't have these people, who would inspire me to write music using new technologies?

We do not live within the bounds of our own environment. It can only be changed on an individual basis. The only way to start anything is to think it, and that's about as small as you can get.

Quit wasting our oxygen c7sus.

[ColorForm2113]

its just a matter of conservation. if we can use what we have wisely we wont have to worry about prices of materials sky rocketing. Alien8 had it right, we are parasites, greedy little parasites (as a whole) that just consume consume consume and barely put anything back. and i personly would feel good knowing that the wood from my guitar came from an enviromentally safe harvester that replenished what was taken out.

[EricK]

Ghost,
Your raising of this issue is admirable. I fear this thread is beginning to turn into a flame war though.

Eric

[Sidewind]

Wow, someone has some big balls here to even attempt to assume how another person's views/beliefs are based on a short documentary. Especially a documentary about the history of a synthesizer, theremin, electronic music, and how a man was a key part of making that happen. Now I am not pretending to know anything different than anyone else, but just because Bob comes off as what I would classify as a naturist, does not mean that he supports any of the other beliefs that you seem to think that he does.

By some of the logic stated above, it is OK to use precious wood for energy, but not to make a guitar. Sounds pretty silly to me. Using the McDonald's example, do you know how much wood we are talking about here? Do you know how many guitars that would make? For us to adopt a thinking that the small market of guitars contributes anywhere near the same "use", "waste" or whatever you want to call it, in comparison to the hamburger industry clearing mass amounts of land for food is ridiculous. Even if every guitar made for the next 10 years were made from precious Brazillian Redwood, they would still have massive amounts of precious wood that would need to be burned, destroyed or put to some other use.

Some argue that we should only use what is necessary. OK. Who decides that? Should we ask the birds? How about the beetles? What about the cows? We can't ask a human because we would be biased as to how much is "necessary". To a bird, a few onces of water might be enough for them to survive. In fact, each of us would probably give different answers for what is "necessary". But then again, the birds and the beetles would probably care alot more about us clearing the land than the cows. But then I guess the cows would later be pissed because we would slaughter them for food.

Sillyness. It is up to man to decide what is used and for what purpose. And you know why? Because we are the only living thing on this planet that can make those decisions. No other living creature has the ability to think and reason as we do. All other animals base their actions off of instinct. A bird is not "sad" when it loses it's nest. It either migrates to a new location or dies. That is how nature works.

Then there is the extinction arguement. If we don't save everything, (whether man is even impacting a species or not) we are evil or something. Also ridiculous. Do you know that there are many species that go extinct every day (without any impact from man) that we never even know about because we have not even discovered them yet? What about all of the species that have inhabited this planet since it was created all the way up to the time of trhe first man? Surely, we had nothing to do with those. Or maybe you would argue that somehow we did?

All of this line of thinking is nothing more than sensless emotional guilt. This guilt leads to fear, uncertainty and doubt. This in turn re-fuels the emotional guilt and starts the cycle all over again.

Of course, each is entitled to their own opinion. Just don't expect us to want to listen, care or even feel any compassion to it. And yes, I do care about the earth and believe that we should not waste resources. But only because it is senseless to, not because I believe that there is a shortage. Everyone and everything is replacable with something else. Always has been and always will be. But making something like a guitar from precious wood is hardly wasteful, it is a matter of choice. The guitar will still be used just as much as one made from pine - some would argue that it would be used even more.


Michael.

<throws another piece of Ebony on the fire - it is OK, I am using it for fuel.>

[c7sus]

Well gee whiz. What is THE BEST USE OF LIMITED NATURAL RESOURCES???

Man, we could argue that the Voyager, in fact all electronic music IS A WASTE OF PRECIOUS ENERGY.

But we don't now, do we???

You wanna know what the locals in the Amazon were making out of the 200+ year-old Brazilian Rosewood trees they downed so Mickey D could have cheap burgers????

CHARCOAL.

It was that kind of wastefulness that brought about CITES in the first place!!!!!

With all the crap going on in the world I can't believe anyone with the time and enlightenment to enjoy art and music has time to complain about something so trivial as the wood source for a $6500 guitar.

You wanna complain about something, write your Congressman. That oughta keep you busy.

1. Old growth forests represent incredibly precious habitats for hundreds of thousands of species of rare flora and fauna. This is not the same argument as energy use, please keep on the topic at hand.

THE BEST USE OF THESE RESOURCES IS TO TAKE ONLY WHAT YOU NEED, AND IF POSSIBLE LOOK FOR ALTERNATIVES SO YOU DON'T IMPACT THEM AT ALL.

2. So being an asshole is ok so long as someone else is a bigger asshole than you?

3. Buying timber from any country with a less than trustworthy government is a risky business. For one thing, many countries simply do not adhere to international guidelines, that's why you have to make the effort to find timber sourced from carefully managed operations.

Not sure what's so unreasonable in my question. Obviously your own happiness is most important to you, and if you consider the use of rare timber in guitars 'trivial' that's fine. But don't pretend that it's somehow a waste of time to question where the wood is coming from for these guitars.

You do not represent every person on earth anymore than i do, so don't act like yours is the only voice that counts.

Fact is, those trees are gonna come down for developement-- one way or another. When they do, they can be made into lot's of useful things. Dimensional lumber is only one use. That a rainforest supports lot's of flora and fauna that we don't have a clue about how they may be useful to us is tragic and wasteful, no doubt. Terrence McKenna explained all this stuff more than 20 years ago.

Nevertheless, that lack of knowledge hasn't stopped a single Brazilian Rosewood or Honduran Mahogany tree from being felled and reduced to charcoal.

Energy and the environment go hand-in-hand EVERYWHERE on this planet. Your comments to the contrary defy logic on just about any level I can think of. You want cheap electricity, that means burning more coal or building nukes. You wanna live next door to a nuke or a coal-fired powerhouse??? Check out the Adirondack Mountains for the effects of acid rain. Check out the mountaintops being plowed down in West Virgina to feed those coal-fired powerhouses. How many trees are lost to that effort??? You don't seem worried about those environments--- is it because they're just pine and deciduous trees and not something exotic???

Sustained yield is a responsible alternative, but frankly it's a new way of thinking, even in the US. If sustained yield was truly THE number-one concern, we'd be using more hemp-based products. The yield per acre over lumber is phenomenal, and hemp is one of the most durable natural fibers known to man.

Besides all that, it's pretty lame for us here in the most wasteful society in the entire history of the world to be lecturing ANYBODY in the developing world how they should manage their natural resources.

The folks that live and work in these forests all over the world are much more concerned with their daily survival and where their next meal is coming from rather than thinking "Gee, should I really plow down this entire forest so Mickey D can sell 99-cent hamburgers until Doomsday."

See, we are so blessed in this country that most of us don't have even the slightest idea of how the rest of the world lives, and don't care.

And that way of thinking is really detrimental to all of us.

It's the same kind of thinking that brought us "Our troops will be met with chocolate and flowers".

I think we've all seen how that one turned out....

[c7sus]

Quit wasting our oxygen c7sus.

So what did you give up today for the good of humanity???

[Ghost]

Wow, someone has some big balls here to even attempt to assume how another person's views/beliefs are based on a short documentary. Especially a documentary about the history of a synthesizer, theremin, electronic music, and how a man was a key part of making that happen. Now I am not pretending to know anything different than anyone else, but just because Bob comes off as what I would classify as a naturist, does not mean that he supports any of the other beliefs that you seem to think that he does.

I specifically said that i don't know Bob's views personally on the subject and that the guys at Moog and people that knew him are the only ones who could.

By some of the logic stated above, it is OK to use precious wood for energy, but not to make a guitar. Sounds pretty silly to me. Using the McDonald's example, do you know how much wood we are talking about here? Do you know how many guitars that would make? For us to adopt a thinking that the small market of guitars contributes anywhere near the same "use", "waste" or whatever you want to call it, in comparison to the hamburger industry clearing mass amounts of land for food is ridiculous. Even if every guitar made for the next 10 years were made from precious Brazillian Redwood, they would still have massive amounts of precious wood that would need to be burned, destroyed or put to some other use.

Now you have completely lost me. I did not at any point suggest that using Rosewood for fuel was somehow a good idea. I said that the topic of ENERGY use (that c7sus brought up) is different to the use of rare timber from endangered habitats for guitars. If you go back and read his post you will see he is talking about electrical energy for powering synths etc.. His mention of the Rosewood charcoal comes afterwards.

Some argue that we should only use what is necessary. OK. Who decides that? Should we ask the birds? How about the beetles? What about the cows? We can't ask a human because we would be biased as to how much is "necessary". To a bird, a few onces of water might be enough for them to survive. In fact, each of us would probably give different answers for what is "necessary". But then again, the birds and the beetles would probably care alot more about us clearing the land than the cows. But then I guess the cows would later be pissed because we would slaughter them for food.

You are just being facetious for the sake of it. USE COMMON SENSE. If you keep removing a resource faster than it it can repair itself, it will eventually dissapear. It's not rocket science.

Sillyness. It is up to man to decide what is used and for what purpose. And you know why? Because we are the only living thing on this planet that can make those decisions. No other living creature has the ability to think and reason as we do. All other animals base their actions off of instinct. A bird is not "sad" when it loses it's nest. It either migrates to a new location or dies. That is how nature works.

So just take everything we want right? Thats how it works?

Then there is the extinction arguement. If we don't save everything, (whether man is even impacting a species or not) we are evil or something. Also ridiculous. Do you know that there are many species that go extinct every day (without any impact from man) that we never even know about because we have not even discovered them yet? What about all of the species that have inhabited this planet since it was created all the way up to the time of trhe first man? Surely, we had nothing to do with those. Or maybe you would argue that somehow we did?

Again you are waffling randomly. Of course species go extinct naturally, they always have and always will, but extinction by human action is not the same thing. People die of natural causes everyday, does that make murder acceptable? It's the matter of intent that is important. If you knowingly take away valuable habitat then you are actively encouraging species to die out, whats good about that exactly?

All of this line of thinking is nothing more than sensless emotional guilt. This guilt leads to fear, uncertainty and doubt. This in turn re-fuels the emotional guilt and starts the cycle all over again.

Of course, each is entitled to their own opinion. Just don't expect us to want to listen, care or even feel any compassion to it. And yes, I do care about the earth and believe that we should not waste resources. But only because it is senseless to, not because I believe that there is a shortage. Everyone and everything is replacable with something else. Always has been and always will be. But making something like a guitar from precious wood is hardly wasteful, it is a matter of choice. The guitar will still be used just as much as one made from pine - some would argue that it would be used even more.

It's not about emotional guilt, you only look at it that way because you see yourself as being entitled to whatever you want, regardless of the effects it might have. It's about preserving the amazing variety of life that this planet has nurtured over a vast period of time.

Earlier on you said that humans cannot decide what is important or not, and yet now you say that everything is replacable with something else. I guess you are blessed with some kind of some non-human authority to make that call.

Michael.

<throws another piece of Ebony on the fire - it is OK, I am using it for fuel.>

That would be funny if it actually made any sense in relation to what i have said in this thread.

[Ghost]

Fact is, those trees are gonna come down for developement-- one way or another. When they do, they can be made into lot's of useful things. Dimensional lumber is only one use. That a rainforest supports lot's of flora and fauna that we don't have a clue about how they may be useful to us is tragic and wasteful, no doubt. Terrence McKenna explained all this stuff more than 20 years ago.

Well here is where me and you will have to agree to disagree, you have a defeatist attitude that all is lost so we might as well make some nice stuff along the way. I don't think it's too late yet.

Nevertheless, that lack of knowledge hasn't stopped a single Brazilian Rosewood or Honduran Mahogany tree from being felled and reduced to charcoal.

Energy and the environment go hand-in-hand EVERYWHERE on this planet. Your comments to the contrary defy logic on just about any level I can think of. You want cheap electricity, that means burning more coal or building nukes. You wanna live next door to a nuke or a coal-fired powerhouse??? Check out the Adirondack Mountains for the effects of acid rain. Check out the mountaintops being plowed down in West Virgina to feed those coal-fired powerhouses. How many trees are lost to that effort??? You don't seem worried about those environments--- is it because they're just pine and deciduous trees and not something exotic???

I'm not asure i understand your point here, of course there are many problems and i am well aware of that, but you are suggesting that everything should be addressed at the same time? I am not saying that the destruction of Rosewood for charcoal it is acceptable in any way, quite the opposite, my point is that ANY use of endangered timber should be avoided when we have viable alternatives.

I am talking specifically about the Mahogany and Ebony used in these Moog guitars since we are on the Moog forum, discussing the Moog guitars. That does not mean i think that the wreckless use of any other trees or resources is ok.

Sustained yield is a responsible alternative, but frankly it's a new way of thinking, even in the US. If sustained yield was truly THE number-one concern, we'd be using more hemp-based products. The yield per acre over lumber is phenomenal, and hemp is one of the most durable natural fibers known to man.

Well i agree it's relatively new thinking here in UK also, and hopefully will be a bigger priority in the future.

Besides all that, it's pretty lame for us here in the most wasteful society in the entire history of the world to be lecturing ANYBODY in the developing world how they should manage their natural resources.

The folks that live and work in these forests all over the world are much more concerned with their daily survival and where their next meal is coming from rather than thinking "Gee, should I really plow down this entire forest so Mickey D can sell 99-cent hamburgers until Doomsday."

We are the ones that are fueling the industry though, whatever the final product is, that's the point. I do not blame poor people who are just trying to feed their families at all, but the timber trade is not a group of 'mom and pop' (i think thats the right expression) setups, it is HUGE business and the guys that actually do the work get paid poorly and work in crappy conditions. The only people that really profit from it are the shady guys at the top who get spectacularly rich. That's the problem when you buy from corrupt countries with poor human rights records and little regard for anything other than money.

See, we are so blessed in this country that most of us don't have even the slightest idea of how the rest of the world lives, and don't care.

And that way of thinking is really detrimental to all of us.

It's the same kind of thinking that brought us "Our troops will be met with chocolate and flowers".

I think we've all seen how that one turned out....

I fully agree with you, and this is my motivation to try and stop using resources that we do not understand or appreciate. It's exactly the same as people who happily buy meat all packed up and prepared in a supermarket, but who feel physically sick if they are presented with the reality of what goes on before that point. People like the end result, they just don't like to see all that messy stuff that got it there.

[Ghost]

Ghost,
Your raising of this issue is admirable. I fear this thread is beginning to turn into a flame war though.

Eric

I agree, i have tried to keep my arguments civil and also keep the conversation specifically to the sourcing of the wood for these guitars, but it seems that this is not possible.

I am not trying to attack Moog or crap on the new technology, as i said in my first post i think it's a great idea.

[c7sus]

That's the problem when you buy from corrupt countries with poor human rights records and little regard for anything other than money.

That sounds an awful lot like the US to me.

[Sidewind]

Hello Ghost ( I feel funny saying that, but I do not know your name.)-

I am not sure why you seem to think that my reply is directed specifically toward only your posts or yourself. My post is, in fact, merely my comments from everything that has been posted. Based on your line-by-line reply, you seem to think it is personal or something. I am sorry that you feel that way (I truly mean that sincerely).

I will try not get into the line-by-line tearing apart of people's posts in order to try to prove my point as it only leads to "bickering" so to speak. Where to begin... In summary, yes, I firmly believe that it is man who has to decide. I thought that I made that quite clear, but I think you may have missed that as there also was some sarcasm in my post during that point. Man must decide as there is no other being that can. However, I never said that man needs to decide to wipe out everything that exists or "hunt" it to extinction or to be foolish. I personally think that is also silly. None the less, it is man's decision - not mine. I never stated or implied that I would be the one who decides. One would be foolish to think that they alone can decide on anything of that magnitude. Those decisions are made by groups of people - and not always the right ones.

All of my statements were fact based, not emotional or personal. The fact is if man chooses to extinct a species or use all of a resource, another one will take it's place. Does that mean that everything will be the same as it was before? No. Does it mean that we could lose something that is potentially vital to us? Yes. But it does not change this fact. This is common sense. One also has to remember that change is inevitable and nothing will ever last forever.

We have to also remember that man is no where near as powerful as people seem to imply or think. We barely understand our own bodies much less something as complex as a whole planet. Especially, since we have only been around a fraction of the time that life has been on this planet. In addition, it has only been in modern times that would could even begin to try to understand topics like this. It wasn't too long ago that we thought the world was flat or that we thought that space travel was a dream. Our history is full of ignorance and there is no indication or guarantee that anything that we decide today may not also be the same when looked at in say 50 years from now. We simply do not know anything, really. Also, we could not destroy everything on this planet if we tried. We have the potential to make it really suck, but not destroy everything. Nature will always adapt and evolve. This is also fact.

However, I do not think that we should just blatantly destroy things because we can. Every decision is based on value. And that value is determined by man on each and every case. In the case of exotic woods, man as a whole has not chosen to place a high value in protecting these species. At least not yet.

For example, in the case that you stated - exotic woods. You feel very strongly about knowing the source so that you know that a precious habitat that you care about was not destroyed in the process. I, on the other hand, do not care. To you, that precious habitat holds a very high value and the decision to destroy that habitat is unacceptable. I, on the other hand chose to accept the possibility that the wood may be taken from old forests and I accept that loss of that wood (and all that goes with the process - including the possible loss of the precious habitat) because I do not believe that it amounts to much as a whole. I think it is acceptable to make a guitar or furniture from it. Part of my decision is based on the fact that man as a whole (internationally speaking) chose to either allow the woods to be harvested that way or chose not to punish those that harvest old forests. Who is right? Am I evil for the value that I placed on that decision? It depends entirely on who you are and what each situation means to you.

Suppose you opposed animal testing. Then, you discovered that you had a terminal disease and one of the ways to find a cure was to perform mass animal testing. Say this testing would, in turn, lead to mass killing of a certain breed of rat - maybe even bring it to the verge of extinction. Would you change your mind? Maybe, maybe not, but odds are, you would reverse your stance. That is just human nature. We all chose our own values and beliefs and many times it is based on our own needs and wants. What is allowed and disallowed on a mass scale is determined by the masses, not the individual. There are some who believe that murder is OK - even though the law prohibits it. But you are misunderstanding the definition of murder as determined by society (the masses). Destroying plant and animals is not murder. That is fact. How you define it is opinion.

You mentioned to another that maybe you and them need to agree to disagree. The same may be the case here. I try to follow that advice myself and try to apply that daily. That is the beauty that makes us humans - we are all 99% similar (made of the same stuff, so to speak) yet we are each unique when it comes to our minds, personalities, etc.

As I stated in my previous post - we are all free to our own opinions, just do not expect everyone to feel the same, listen or even care. It may sound harsh, but it is true. The reason for that statement was because in several posts (not all of them were yours) the poster stressed their opinion with bolding, underlining, etc. as if everyone must listen or understand their point. In addition, several times a call out was made basically demanding for Moog Music to answer where the wood was sourced from. My comments were simply to outline that people may choose to not to care. Moog may even choose not to respond. You as a consumer then need to decide if that matters to you. To me it does not matter if there is a response or what it may be.

Now that we have both learned from each other, let's get back to turning those knobs and making some great music!

Michael.

[Ghost]

You opened your post with a comment directed at me, then continued to say 'do you know?' etc.. throughout the post so it looked like you were speaking to me directly.

Of course at the end of the day it all boils down to what you define as a sensible decision. There are hundreds of woods on earth suitable for guitar making. Many of them are thankfully not endangered, and some are in fact very easy to farm for such purposes. Then there are some endangered trees which also represent habitat for many thousands of forms of life. Given that state of affairs, to acively seek out the endangered species seems at least by my logic to be a very poor decision.

Of course, for some the mere want of something (often because it is rare) is enough to make it a good decision.

Whatever floats your boat.

I never said that everyone has to agree with me, i started this thread to ask specifically how the wood is being sourced for these guitars (not anything else) because i am interested to know.

I fully agree that we do not understand all the effects we are having by removing ancient forest en mass, that is exactly why i think we should err on the side of caution. We do know for sure that it does have many negative aspects on other life. Once a species is gone, it's gone forever, and every time we remove a species with our own actions we make the world a less diverse place for our children.

Anyway you have made your position clear:

You feel very strongly about knowing the source so that you know that a precious habitat that you care about was not destroyed in the process. I, on the other hand, do not care.

We are obviously polar opposites in character, so i don't see any purpose in taking this further.