The Rest of Seymour Duncan
Shame on you, editors! And shame on Josef Woodard, who not only has been around Santa Barbara long enough to know better, he also knows several of the employees at Seymour Duncan.
His article is fraught with misinformation. Don’t you fact check?
What about the entire “picture” of who, what, when, where, how, and why of this story—or is it really just all about singing the accolades of someone (two people, actually) who rose to the level of success that they did on the backs of a lot of people who have never had the recognition that they deserve?
Woodard says in his article that he is “a faithful member of the Duncan congregation” and therefore cannot be objective and detached. No kidding! Upon reading this line, the editors should’ve called a screeching halt to his article and assigned it to someone who could remain objective.
At a story meeting on the subject of “Seymour Duncan,” editors could have 1) figured out whether an article on this groovy local guy would be good to include in the issue as a human interest piece, which Mr. Woodard as a groupie could have penned, 2) found out that Seymour Duncan the company is only 33 years old and was made successful more by other people than by Seymour, or 3) decided that while it’s cool to have a successful music-industry company in our little community, it would be good to do some good investigative journalism about it and write the reality of it.
So, Mr. Woodard and editors, although I doubt whether you will take the time to right the wrongs you committed with the “Ride the Seymour Duncan Special” article, I hope you will think twice about writing another piece about a company that made it to the top without by due recognition of the people and truths behind the success.