Gibson Fooked

Boromedic

Jonathanthomas83 said:

They innovate the wrong things though @rocker, IMO. A fuzz pedal in the circuit, robot tuners, that’s just two things that are completely bonkers. 

Why not innovate and address the issues that people actually care about...neck and headstock stability, tuning stability/ problems for example. Fix those and we’re on a winner.

Look how PRS and Other great manufacturers are pushing the boundaries and genuinely maling their products better with improved hardware or finely tweaked features...not crazy new circuits with distortions that aren’t a user need or want.

The thing is and this isn't a dig, none of the "problems" you mention are actual problems. I've owned a Les Paul since 1999 and none of these things have needed fixing.

The internet has fed some of this garbage tbh, if I dropped a Strat from a stand and then repeated the same with a Les P which is more likely to break? Probably the LP, but then it's not meant to be dropped is it? It's like comparing fish to monkeys in their ability to climb trees.

It's not the most ergonomic at the dusty end compared to a Fender, but that hasn't stopped any number of nimble fingered geniuses from rocking the sharp end of the Gibson, even the elfin Randy Rhoads made it scream for gods sake!

Tuning issues? I've had the same issues with Strats and LP's till you lube yer nuts!

Should they look at making a model that might alter some of these things, absolutely, but are the things you mentioned problems? No, just part of the design I love personally, quirks if you like. One mans fun is anothers hell and all that.....

fandango

Boromedic said:

Jonathanthomas83 said:

They innovate the wrong things though @rocker, IMO. A fuzz pedal in the circuit, robot tuners, that’s just two things that are completely bonkers. 

Why not innovate and address the issues that people actually care about...neck and headstock stability, tuning stability/ problems for example. Fix those and we’re on a winner.

Look how PRS and Other great manufacturers are pushing the boundaries and genuinely maling their products better with improved hardware or finely tweaked features...not crazy new circuits with distortions that aren’t a user need or want.

The thing is and this isn't a dig, none of the "problems" you mention are actual problems. I've owned a Les Paul since 1999 and none of these things have needed fixing.

The internet has fed some of this garbage tbh, if I dropped a strat from a stand and then repeated the same with a Les P which is more likely to break? Probably the LP, but then it's not meant to be dropped is it? It's like comparing fish to monkeys in their ability to climb trees.

It's not the most ergonomic at the dusty end compared to a Fender, but that hasn't stopped any number of nimble fingered geniuses from rocking the sharp end of the Gibson, even the elfin Randy Rhoads made it scream for gods sake!

Tuning issues? I've had the same issues with Strats and LP's till you lube yer nuts!

Should they look at making a model that might alter some of these things, absolutely, but are the things you mentioned problems? No, just part of the design I love personally, quirks if you like. One mans fun is anothers hell and all that.....

Gibson has made some attempt to fixe these issues to which you allude - have you not seen the Apex headstock joint ... or the soloist neck joint?

Okay, okay, I know the Apex is on the more expensive guitars (such as the limited edition Modern Doublecut). But you never know, we might see this feature trickle down into the rest of the range over the next few years. Here's hoping.

As for the soloist neck, it's already on the HP versions in the main guitar range.

AlexC

If Gibson stopped trading tomorrow and never made anything ever again would it be such a great loss? There’s so many Gibson style guitars on the market that the ‘feel, look and sound’ would survive. And often at a more sensible price. 

Teetonetal

AlexC said:

If Gibson stopped trading tomorrow and never made anything ever again would it be such a great loss? There’s so many Gibson style guitars on the market that the ‘feel, look and sound’ would survive. And often at a more sensible price. 

In my opinion, no. These things are just product. I'm not a slave to music history, I just don't care. There are other great guitars out there and a lot of manufactures would benifit from Gibson's loss.

AlexC

Teetonetal said:

AlexC said:

If Gibson stopped trading tomorrow and never made anything ever again would it be such a great loss? There’s so many Gibson style guitars on the market that the ‘feel, look and sound’ would survive. And often at a more sensible price. 

In my opinion, no. These things are just product. I'm not a slave to music history, I just don't care. There are other great guitars out there and a lot of manufactures would benifit from Gibson's loss.

Completely agree.

Boromedic

fandango said:

Boromedic said:

Jonathanthomas83 said:

They innovate the wrong things though @rocker, IMO. A fuzz pedal in the circuit, robot tuners, that’s just two things that are completely bonkers. 

Why not innovate and address the issues that people actually care about...neck and headstock stability, tuning stability/ problems for example. Fix those and we’re on a winner.

Look how PRS and Other great manufacturers are pushing the boundaries and genuinely maling their products better with improved hardware or finely tweaked features...not crazy new circuits with distortions that aren’t a user need or want.

The thing is and this isn't a dig, none of the "problems" you mention are actual problems. I've owned a Les Paul since 1999 and none of these things have needed fixing.

The internet has fed some of this garbage tbh, if I dropped a strat from a stand and then repeated the same with a Les P which is more likely to break? Probably the LP, but then it's not meant to be dropped is it? It's like comparing fish to monkeys in their ability to climb trees.

It's not the most ergonomic at the dusty end compared to a Fender, but that hasn't stopped any number of nimble fingered geniuses from rocking the sharp end of the Gibson, even the elfin Randy Rhoads made it scream for gods sake!

Tuning issues? I've had the same issues with Strats and LP's till you lube yer nuts!

Should they look at making a model that might alter some of these things, absolutely, but are the things you mentioned problems? No, just part of the design I love personally, quirks if you like. One mans fun is anothers hell and all that.....

Gibson has made some attempt to fixe these issues to which you allude - have you not seen the Apex headstock joint ... or the soloist neck joint?

Okay, okay, I know the Apex is on the more expensive guitars (such as the limited edition Modern Doublecut). But you never know, we might see this feature trickle down into the rest of the range over the next few years. Here's hoping.

As for the soloist neck, it's already on the HP versions in the main guitar range.

I had seen the soloist neck join but not the apex neck, the yearly range is so convoluted I stopped looking to be honest!!

The HP range I actually find quite acceptable personally, fits with the idea of having a trad range for the sentimental gits like me and something more modern for others. If I was to buy another LP though I'd probably go for a HP or Axecess, maybe after a GT first though!

bacchanalian

AlexC said:

Teetonetal said:

AlexC said:

If Gibson stopped trading tomorrow and never made anything ever again would it be such a great loss? There’s so many Gibson style guitars on the market that the ‘feel, look and sound’ would survive. And often at a more sensible price. 

In my opinion, no. These things are just product. I'm not a slave to music history, I just don't care. There are other great guitars out there and a lot of manufactures would benifit from Gibson's loss.

Completely agree.

I don't really understand this attitude. You mention Gibson style guitars. There will never be anything other than Gibson and Fender as the two main references. I suspect that to some degree we are all slaves to music history.
What about starting a Kickstarter to buy the guitar division and then showing everybody how to do it.

viz

iseverynamegone said:

As much as we may like to think that this news supports the view that Gibson WC is poor and robot tuners are the devils work, it doesn’t ( noting both may be true regardless ) 

Yes their quality control has gone down the toilet for sure! Etc. 

Jonathanthomas83

Boromedic said:

Jonathanthomas83 said:

They innovate the wrong things though @rocker, IMO. A fuzz pedal in the circuit, robot tuners, that’s just two things that are completely bonkers. 

Why not innovate and address the issues that people actually care about...neck and headstock stability, tuning stability/ problems for example. Fix those and we’re on a winner.

Look how PRS and Other great manufacturers are pushing the boundaries and genuinely maling their products better with improved hardware or finely tweaked features...not crazy new circuits with distortions that aren’t a user need or want.

The thing is and this isn't a dig, none of the "problems" you mention are actual problems. I've owned a Les Paul since 1999 and none of these things have needed fixing.

...in your opinion. These are issues with my guitar, well the tuning stability is anyway, thankfully I’ve not dropped it on the headstock. New tuners are going some way toward solving that issue. But £2699 (new, I didn’t pay that) should buy you a guitar that shouldn’t need mods like that.

I will concede that I absolutely adore my 2017 Standard, it’s one of the nicest guitars I own. Plays beautifully. And yes, I bought it because it makes nice sounds. We all know millions of players use them and make them sound great, isn’t that obvious? My mrs has her faults, doesn’t mean I shouldn’t have married her. Same goes for guitars, that’s not my point at all.

My point was that they don’t need gimmics, they have it all, just small tweaks here and there would go a long way. Yes, they have the side lines (HP etc) that I’ve no problem with, but we can all agree that their approach and range has been a bit crazy in recent years, keep it simple, listen to your users and meet user needs.

AlexC

@bacchanalian I don't get your point about 'showing everyone how to do it'. I didnt write anything to suggest Gibson were terrible or that I can make guitars. I was saying that a name on a headstock is a brand. If people want an LP or a SG or an ES335 then there are plenty of other companies that make guitars in that style. Personally, I couldn't care less if my guitar is made by Joe Bloggs if it's a decent guitar.

peteri

Like many people it's hard to imagine a world without Gibson actively trading, and being available - I've got a few Gibsons which I love very much.

But none of those are new, the youngest being 1972. They're all wonderful instruments.

And one of the reasons I bought them (or more correctly justify them) was with that their price whilst higher than new, wasn't that much more - and the original had so much more mojo/the original wood/investment potential.

For me the modern Gibson range is too hard to understand, too many options and way too expensive. Strangely if I was buying new Fender, my instinct is Custom Shop. If I was looking at a new Gibson, my instinct is Feline.

As an example, I've got a Feline V - basically 58 Korina without Bonamassa bidding against me, it's simply a joy to play. Why can't I get that from Gibson?

The truth is Gibson as a company always seems to have been on the wrong side of history, and somehow held back by its heritage. And not just under Henry, I'm no expert but off the top of my head:

1. Originally turning down the idea of a solid body until Leo did one
2. 1952 Les Paul, Trapeze bridge stopped muting - which was a useful technique even then
3. 1960 stopping the Les Paul
4. The Flying V/Explorer (although there are some who think this was always meant to be a limited edition)
5. Late 60's re-issuing the wrong Les Paul, and persisting with it
6. Early 70's Deluxe - a fine instrument I quite fancy, but the market really wanted Standards

And if anyone ever watches Guitar of the Day from Normans Rare Guitars, whenever they talk about a Gibson - they can date it pretty well. Not because of the serial number system, which is just chaos - but because the spec changed so often, you have a narrow window.

And we talk about modern quality control - I have a 61/2 Special with 59 parts, all legit - because Gibson built a new guitar as a warranty repair and re-used the parts. Because the 59 DC Special neck used to snap/fall out because of poor design. So again nothing new.

So it seems to me that since the solid guitar, when Gibson has got it right - it's been through luck not judgement and it's never quite been on the ball.

Yet it's created some amazing instruments along the way.

Henry has made some howlers, but so did his predecessors too. I would love to see them brought out, trimmed down to Nashville and a lower cost location, cut the range right back and just have a few years of not changing everything each year. 

And at the same time, freeing some brands which had their own heritage and have been crushed - Dobro, Kramer, Steinberger, Valley Arts all have produced wonderful instruments in my lifetime, I certainly aspired to three of those in my teenage years - it's a real shame they have all but gone

Here's hoping!

RandallFlagg

Despite all of the doom merchant wannabe Sir John Harvey-Jones' on here I suspect Gibson will refinance and continue.

Henry has issued an optimistic statement but it may be he won't be leading the company but the brand will continue.

Teetonetal

bacchanalian said:

AlexC said:

Teetonetal said:

AlexC said:

If Gibson stopped trading tomorrow and never made anything ever again would it be such a great loss? There’s so many Gibson style guitars on the market that the ‘feel, look and sound’ would survive. And often at a more sensible price. 

In my opinion, no. These things are just product. I'm not a slave to music history, I just don't care. There are other great guitars out there and a lot of manufactures would benifit from Gibson's loss.

Completely agree.

I don't really understand this attitude. You mention Gibson style guitars. There will never be anything other than Gibson and Fender as the two main references. I suspect that to some degree we are all slaves to music history.
What about starting a Kickstarter to buy the guitar division and then showing everybody how to do it.

And I don't understand that attitude.

 There's no need to show everyone how to do it. there are loads of great builders out there.

What do I care if Gibson are around or not. Companies come and go. It's the way of the world. Life goes on and the history remains in place, whether the company exists or not.

57Deluxe

As much as today's Gibson isn't the Gibson of the heyday, I do  though resent top iconic brands being reborn out of China... MG springs to mind... Just NO!

https://www.autocar.co.uk/sites/autocar.co.uk/files/styles/gallery_slide/public/mg-ev-concept-1-14.jpg?itok=_tDMYNpq

SteveRobinson

I don't know about that, have you seen this one?

Pablocrackers

Well i think it would be a crying shame if Gibson went under and the brand wasnt bought out or something. Theres alot of history and heritage there which has helped sculp music as we know it today. 

bacchanalian

I agree Gibson will definitely continue, divested of all the dead weight. 
What I cannot understand is how anyone who is interested in guitar can say they don't care if Gibson were to go under. 
Let's do a Back to the Future kind of thought experiment. Try to imagine, that none of the music made on Gibson instruments existed. Would another company definitely have come up with that design?

Three-ColourSunburst

AlexC said:

If Gibson stopped trading tomorrow and never made anything ever again would it be such a great loss? There’s so many Gibson style guitars on the market that the ‘feel, look and sound’ would survive. And often at a more sensible price. 

It could even be argued that Juszkiewicz's company in reality does little more than make 'Gibson style' guitars itself, copying the designs of the long-defunct original Gibson company in Kalamazoo.

OK, Henry owns the right to use the 'Gibson' brand name and head stock design but so what?  Today's 'Gibson' is still a different company in a different location, using CNC machines to do what was once done by hand etc etc.  Given this disconnect with the original company (and given the Norlin era the current company actually is two steps away from the original) is the brand name really so important?

Personally, if I really wanted to buy a copy of a 1950's 'Les Paul' or whatever, I would look to whoever made the best quality instrument for the money, perhaps someone like Fujigen, or maybe even a Harley Benton.

AlexC

Oh for goodness sake - there’s a world of difference caring about whether a company ceases to exist or never existed in the first place. History is full of companies who were pioneers and made great stuff and then didn’t anymore - for whatever reason. Just bandying the word ‘heritage’ about as if it has inherent value is a dead end. Some people pay a huge amount of money for a t- shirt because it has a logo on it - because it is branded. And it may be a terrific t-shirt. But if that shirt company went under then - hey - I bet there are other t-shirts around.
Things change. Gibson will most likely continue to make the same stuff they’ve always made - whether they’re owned by some lovely Americans or the Japanese buy them out. Why do people romanticise a corporation?

Philly_Q

Three-ColourSunburst said:

Today's 'Gibson' is still a different company in a different location, using CNC machines to do what was once done by hand etc etc.  Given this disconnect with the original company (and given the Norlin era the current company actually is two steps away from the original) is the brand name really so important?

You could extend that argument to virtually any long-established company or brand.  They've all changed ownership, changed locations, modernised.  It doesn't make all brands meaningless.