Gibson Fooked

p90fool

Rocker said:

Why are so many here against the auto tuners that Gibson fit to some of its guitars?  If it does not make a guitar too heavy or (especially) neck heavy (Gibson achieved that with their SG), what is the problem?

Because in 2015 it wasn't an option, you had to have them. If they'd just been an option most players would've been mildly interested, but certainly not hostile. 

Teetonetal

strat1990 said:

NelsonP said:

This is a bit bleak

"That’s when sales figures revealed a serious sales drop over the past decade.  Specifically, guitar sales have dropped from approximately 1.5 million units annually to roughly 1 million — all in less than a decade. "

I've heard this a lot. I think a lot of it is to do with the crappy, over manufactured "music" people listen to now, which just doesn't inspire them to pick up and play. Thank God I was bought up on the greats.

So, if Gibson goes under, what happens to epiphone?

Do you not think some of that drop is because mid price guitars are so good now, plus more manufactures, plus higher gibson prices.

I wonder what the total number of guitars sold per year is.

Also guitar is still a dominant instrument. Just not doing solos. Even Justin Bieber's stuff is guitar heavy on occasion.

bacchanalian

A_T_W said: hi

strat1990 said:

NelsonP said:

This is a bit bleak

"That’s when sales figures revealed a serious sales drop over the past decade.  Specifically, guitar sales have dropped from approximately 1.5 million units annually to roughly 1 million — all in less than a decade. "

I've heard this a lot. I think a lot of it is to do with the crappy, over manufactured "music" people listen to now, which just doesn't inspire them to pick up and play. Thank God I was bought up on the greats.

So, if Gibson goes under, what happens to epiphone?

I think this sort of attitude is what puts people off of playing the guitar more than anything else to be honest.

If you are concerned about the role of the guitar in pop music you should listen to the No Guitar is Safe episode with Tim Price. Some of the players with, lady Gaga, Katy Perry, Taylor Swift and other popsters are truly epic. Not my favourite style but dazzling players.
Gibson will definitely be around. Hopefully, owned by someone who knows how to 'stick to the knitting'. For me, they need to be US based to maintain the rock and roll heritage.

ewal

SimonC said:

ewal said:

So if you were thinking of buying an over-priced 335, would it be a smart move to wait and see?

It would be a smarter move to buy a Collings i35LC instead.

I was meaning are we likely to see the price of Gibson's drop as a result of financial problems?

guitars4you

Teetonetal said:

strat1990 said:

NelsonP said:

This is a bit bleak

"That’s when sales figures revealed a serious sales drop over the past decade.  Specifically, guitar sales have dropped from approximately 1.5 million units annually to roughly 1 million — all in less than a decade. "

I've heard this a lot. I think a lot of it is to do with the crappy, over manufactured "music" people listen to now, which just doesn't inspire them to pick up and play. Thank God I was bought up on the greats.

So, if Gibson goes under, what happens to epiphone?

Do you not think some of that drop is because mid price guitars are so good now, plus more manufactures, plus higher gibson prices.

I wonder what the total number of guitars sold per year is.

Also guitar is still a dominant instrument. Just not doing solos. Even Justin Bieber's stuff is guitar heavy on occasion.

Guitars sold in a year - only figures we get are either via NAMM or the UK's MIA - but this  info is only supplied for new guitars through manufactures that supply their data - so will certainly exclude many non-branded/less known brands that you can find exclusive to a dealer who has marketed their own brand - ie Thomann, Gear4Music even Argos

It 100% excludes the used market - after all Gibson. Fender, PRS, Martin etc have no financial interest in such a market place

Rocker

Legionreturns said:

Rocker said:

Why are so many here against the auto tuners that Gibson fit to some of its guitars?  If it does not make a guitar too heavy or (especially) neck heavy (Gibson achieved that with their SG), what is the problem?

I've had 2 sets, they both malfunctioned and got stuck on one string. Utter nightmare to tune manually and cannot be relied on to auto tune. I wouldn't want to be reliant on that in a pinch. 

That is a valid reason for not liking auto tuners. Not a problem I had heard about other than 'everyone' giving out about them. Guitarists to a man are extremely conservative and are slow to adopt new ideas or thinking. It is hardly rocket science to fix the problem you described, press a button and play has to be a good thing.

carlos

darthed1981 said:

As I said it's a guitar eccentricity isn't it? Nobody sees US made as a sign of quality for anything else and the Chinese make much more complicated devices by the millions every year.

Always found this to be weird. I won't trust the Chinese to make me a device that uses technology from the middle of last century, but I know they can't be beat making far more complicated devices using 21st century tech. I expect this attitude will die out as people brought up on that paradigm stop playing or buying instruments.

crunchman

It's not actually the guitar side of the business that is the problem.  They borrowed lots on money to buy electronics companies, which aren't performing.

There was an article linked in the other thread that quoted a guy from Moody's saying that the core business was solid.

They just don't make enough on the guitars to service half a billion dollars of debt from the electronics side of things.  The 2015 debacle won't have helped either.

pmbomb

Rocker said:

Why are so many here against the auto tuners that Gibson fit to some of its guitars?  If it does not make a guitar too heavy or (especially) neck heavy (Gibson achieved that with their SG), what is the problem?

At a practical level it adds complexity to solve a problem I don't have.

But more importantly I think the ritual of tuning is part of the relationship with the instrument, and we all love it.

What was the first thing you ever learnt to do with a guitar, the first day you picked it up? Probably, tune it.

impmann

carlos said:

darthed1981 said:

As I said it's a guitar eccentricity isn't it? Nobody sees US made as a sign of quality for anything else and the Chinese make much more complicated devices by the millions every year.

Always found this to be weird. I won't trust the Chinese to make me a device that uses technology from the middle of last century, but I know they can't be beat making far more complicated devices using 21st century tech. I expect this attitude will die out as people brought up on that paradigm stop playing or buying instruments.

Arrrggggghhhhhh.... the use of the term paradigm. ;-)

In all seriousness, the Chinese (and other far eastern nations) have some incredible luthiers - most the equal of Western guys. There is a perception (casual racism?) that somehow this cannot be the case. I've seen some acoustic guitars made in Korea that were the equal of ANY US or British (or any other nationality) made instruments, using the finest woods, exquisite build and finished in nitro.
What must be pointed out is that it is THE WEST that dictates the quality that these factories work to. Think I'm joking or not correct... well, when you commission a guitar made by a contract manufacturer in the Far East every element of it is discussed right down to the paint finish QC (what is and what is not acceptable). Some of these guys can work to better standards than the West - and at greater volume but they cut processes or use lesser skilled workers on those processes to build to a price (this is part of the discussions).
Currently, it really doesn't suit the "big boys" for the Far Eastern factories to produce anything that good. When quality standards in the East exceed those of the West its not good for business (refer: original Japanese Fender by Squier guitars at launch). The current guitars made by Fender Mexico are equally as good as those made in the US factory - however, as we know the US plant sends them the lower quality woods and they have deleted certain processes (fingerboard rolling for example) to work to a price point and to a quality level. Its not because they don't have the facility to do it...

As for Gibson - they need to stop cheapening the brand. Turn it back into an aspirational brand and only build higher-end, pro guitars - leave the mid-priced stuff to the far east. Let Epiphone take over the mid priced stuff (up to £1200) - ie no more cheap Gibson USA instruments like the "studio" models. Then use their semi-dormant "Baldwin" brands to make cheap beginner range stuff. This is similar to the current model but WITHOUT the cross overs. Make each brand level a clear and distinct quality and price level.
If you really must try to be innovative, why not revive one of the other brands as a research and development/cutting edge outlet? Such as Kramer... then Gibson would not have the 'baggage' of having to make anything new "look and sound like a Gibson" and could actually push the envelope. I'm sure if Firebird X hadn't been such a dog's dinner of new and old styling - trying to keep Gibson customers happy -  mixed with a heritage brand name (Firebird), the tech on board could have been interesting. But keep it high end, keep it exclusive and if there is a lot of interest *THEN* look at introducing it into another range later.

Musicman20

Until 2017, I didn't actually own a Gibson, despite playing bass for 22+ years and guitar on and off.

They are unique, and I can totally see why people love a good SG or Les Paul.

My partner bought her first proper bass in years from Thomann a few years back. An SG faded bass. It's really nice!

I decided I wanted an SG and finally got a nice standard last year. Just over £900. You pay more than that for a Chapman and some of the recent PRS SE guitars are approaching that price.

I then noticed a few stores were getting the 2017 LP Tributes in at £600....£600! So I jumped on that offer.

Both are lovely. No, they are not perfect, but they are damn close.

The SG is particularly pretty.

I would definitely buy a LP Classic if they were around £1300 or less. £1800 seems far too high.

I do hope they find a way out and revamp a little.

ICBM

crunchman said:

It's not actually the guitar side of the business that is the problem.  They borrowed lots on money to buy electronics companies, which aren't performing.

There was an article linked in the other thread that quoted a guy from Moody's saying that the core business was solid.

They just don't make enough on the guitars to service half a billion dollars of debt from the electronics side of things.  The 2015 debacle won't have helped either.

This is the sad thing.

Mis-micro-management issues aside, the reason Gibson is in this hole is because Henry Juszkiewicz adopted the business-school dogma about "diversifying", and borrowed money to buy a lot of other companies which weren't in Gibson's core business and turned out not to be very profitable, hence making it impossible to service the debt he'd taken on in order to buy them.

To be fair, "Sir" Fred Goodwin bankrupted the UK's largest bank in a very similar way, forcing the government to nationalise it, significantly increasing the damage the 2007-8 crash did to the British economy, adding to the national debt and for which we are all still paying. Henry isn't quite that bad...

mburekenge

edit: not relevant LOL

andyoz

Is there a list of companies Gibson has bought...I only know of TEAC and Cakewalk.

Funny reading back on this. https://www.questia.com/newspaper/1P2-5348232/city-company-purchases-maker-of-gibson-guitars-xi-phoid

I need to read up on the history but I take it Gibson would on a downhill slope in the 80's Superstrat era until Slash appeared?

crunchman

andyoz said:

Is there a list of companies Gibson has bought...I only know of TEAC and Cakewalk.

Funny reading back on this. https://www.questia.com/newspaper/1P2-5348232/city-company-purchases-maker-of-gibson-guitars-xi-phoid

I need to read up on the history but I take it Gibson would on a downhill slope in the 80's Superstrat era until Slash appeared?

The bought Phillips audio division.  They also bought the maker of KRK monitors - not sure of the company name.

jpfamps

Rocker said:

Legionreturns said:

Rocker said:

Why are so many here against the auto tuners that Gibson fit to some of its guitars?  If it does not make a guitar too heavy or (especially) neck heavy (Gibson achieved that with their SG), what is the problem?

I've had 2 sets, they both malfunctioned and got stuck on one string. Utter nightmare to tune manually and cannot be relied on to auto tune. I wouldn't want to be reliant on that in a pinch. 

That is a valid reason for not liking auto tuners. Not a problem I had heard about other than 'everyone' giving out about them. Guitarists to a man are extremely conservative and are slow to adopt new ideas or thinking. It is hardly rocket science to fix the problem you described, press a button and play has to be a good thing.

It's, in my opinion, a monumentally stupid idea.

Notwithstanding the issues with tuners slipping, or breaking if you try to tune manually (not a great result that one), it's really an expensive solution looking for a problem.

Say you break a tuner at a gig (it happens), what's the likely hood or a repair tech having the correct tuner in stock? Also what happens 10 years down the line when the electronics fail?

Floor tuners are cheap, accurate, reliable and can be used on all your guitars.

Your effectively paying an extra £100 or so to help you tune one of your guitars!

Of course there are plenty of people out there who revel in taking a heterodox position; unfortunately one of them owns Gibson.

Modellista

impmann said:

carlos said:

darthed1981 said:

As I said it's a guitar eccentricity isn't it? Nobody sees US made as a sign of quality for anything else and the Chinese make much more complicated devices by the millions every year.

Always found this to be weird. I won't trust the Chinese to make me a device that uses technology from the middle of last century, but I know they can't be beat making far more complicated devices using 21st century tech. I expect this attitude will die out as people brought up on that paradigm stop playing or buying instruments.

Arrrggggghhhhhh.... the use of the term paradigm. ;-)

In all seriousness, the Chinese (and other far eastern nations) have some incredible luthiers - most the equal of Western guys. There is a perception (casual racism?) that somehow this cannot be the case. I've seen some acoustic guitars made in Korea that were the equal of ANY US or British (or any other nationality) made instruments, using the finest woods, exquisite build and finished in nitro.
What must be pointed out is that it is THE WEST that dictates the quality that these factories work to. Think I'm joking or not correct... well, when you commission a guitar made by a contract manufacturer in the Far East every element of it is discussed right down to the paint finish QC (what is and what is not acceptable). Some of these guys can work to better standards than the West - and at greater volume but they cut processes or use lesser skilled workers on those processes to build to a price (this is part of the discussions).
Currently, it really doesn't suit the "big boys" for the Far Eastern factories to produce anything that good. When quality standards in the East exceed those of the West its not good for business (refer: original Japanese Fender by Squier guitars at launch). The current guitars made by Fender Mexico are equally as good as those made in the US factory - however, as we know the US plant sends them the lower quality woods and they have deleted certain processes (fingerboard rolling for example) to work to a price point and to a quality level. Its not because they don't have the facility to do it...

As for Gibson - they need to stop cheapening the brand. Turn it back into an aspirational brand and only build higher-end, pro guitars - leave the mid-priced stuff to the far east. Let Epiphone take over the mid priced stuff (up to £1200) - ie no more cheap Gibson USA instruments like the "studio" models. Then use their semi-dormant "Baldwin" brands to make cheap beginner range stuff. This is similar to the current model but WITHOUT the cross overs. Make each brand level a clear and distinct quality and price level.
If you really must try to be innovative, why not revive one of the other brands as a research and development/cutting edge outlet? Such as Kramer... then Gibson would not have the 'baggage' of having to make anything new "look and sound like a Gibson" and could actually push the envelope. I'm sure if Firebird X hadn't been such a dog's dinner of new and old styling - trying to keep Gibson customers happy -  mixed with a heritage brand name (Firebird), the tech on board could have been interesting. But keep it high end, keep it exclusive and if there is a lot of interest *THEN* look at introducing it into another range later.

There's plenty of examples of things having been made in a certain area for a long time which people wouldn't accept being made elsewhere.  Nobody would want a Ferrari made in Indonesia (it wouldn't be perceived to have the requisite Italian flair).  Conversely, nobody would want a Honda NSX made in America (it wouldn't be perceived to have the requisite Japanese engineering excellence).  Plenty of products with a history behind them are inextricably linked to the place they are made.  In the case of food and drink it's in many cases illegal to call your identical cheese by the same name as another cheese if it isn't made in the actual place.  Same as appellation in the wine world.

Granted, foods do literally grow in a certain place, but the same thing applies to things like cars and guitars, where people want to associate themselves with hallowed historic brands.  If for some reason I want a Chevrolet, I don't want the also-ran badge-only versions made in Korea by Daewoo, I want a proper Camaro made in America.  It's not that people don't accept Chinese or far Eastern guitars, it's just that certain brands cannot be made in those places without being damaged.  There's no point in trying to make Gibsons in China because nobody will buy them.  I don't think anyone's saying that the Chinese can't make a decent guitar - Eastman are proof of that - but just that moving Gibson themselves to Chinese production is a waste of time.

EDIT: having said that the new NSX is actually being made in America so what do I know?  Maybe the Americans will buy anything as long as it's made in America.  I can't see many Japanese being too chuffed and buying a US-made NSX.

ICBM

modellista said:

There's plenty of examples of things having been made in a certain area for a long time which people wouldn't accept being made elsewhere.  Nobody would want a Ferrari made in Indonesia (it wouldn't be perceived to have the requisite Italian flair).  Conversely, nobody would want a Honda NSX made in America (it wouldn't be perceived to have the requisite Japanese engineering excellence).  Plenty of products with a history behind them are inextricably linked to the place they are made.  In the case of food and drink it's in many cases illegal to call your identical cheese by the same name as another cheese if it isn't made in the actual place.  Same as appellation in the wine world.

Granted, foods do literally grow in a certain place, but the same thing applies to things like cars and guitars, where people want to associate themselves with hallowed historic brands.  If for some reason I want a Chevrolet, I don't want the also-ran badge-only versions made in Korea by Daewoo, I want a proper Camaro made in America.  It's not that people don't accept Chinese or far Eastern guitars, it's just that certain brands cannot be made in those places without being damaged.  There's no point in trying to make Gibsons in China because nobody will buy them.  I don't think anyone's saying that the Chinese can't make a decent guitar - Eastman are proof of that - but just that moving Gibson themselves to Chinese production is a waste of time.

EDIT: having said that the new NSX is actually being made in America so what do I know?  Maybe the Americans will buy anything as long as it's made in America.  I can't see many Japanese being too chuffed and buying a US-made NSX.

I don't think that's true.

People buy Japanese, Korean, Chinese (they do make some, as well as Squiers) and Mexican Fenders despite their US brand heritage. OK, not the higher-end models, but then I wouldn't expect a future Chinese owner of Gibson to close the Custom Shop and the Montana acoustic plant. I could certainly see them 'converting' some of the Epiphone production to Gibson, increasing the profit margin in the process.

Most Celestion speakers being made in China and Jensens in Italy doesn't seem to have hurt them either.

clarkefan

China?  Keep going, nothing wrong with the build quality (including rolled fretboard edges and properly installed frets) of my Wolfgang from Indonesia.  

Nothing to stop these places doing a proper job any more.

The idea that US made guitars are inherently "better" is dead and buried.  Was certainly true 60 years ago, the world has moved on.

goldtop

modellista said:

  nobody would want a Honda NSX made in America (it wouldn't be perceived to have the requisite Japanese engineering excellence).

Acksherrly, nobody wanted the Japanese-made NSX in the first place. While it was a ground-breaking car, and its engineering superiority widely recognised, when Joe Punter had to get his wallet out he got cold feet and went and bought a Ferrari or Porsche. The NSX was a sales disaster. (which is one of the reasons I like it)