Gibson - Just living in the past.

TINMAN82

Gibson are absolutely doing the right thing this year. The innovation naysayers arnt giving many ideas for what innovation they’d actually like to see. You looking for Bluetooth and USB inputs on your guitars? Robot tuners perhaps?.. if you’re visions are so practical and unique please start your company and see how far you get. I’m afraid Rob Chapman has already beaten you to the “copy all the best bits by public vote and call it your own idea” method.

It’s a stringed instrument at the end of the day. Just because the best designs were conceived in the 50s doesn’t make them any less relevant today. Cellos havnt changed in hundreds of years either and there’s far less variability between builders. It shows the real genius of the Leo Fenders et al. 

guitars4you

Teetonetal said:

The thing is, despite minor changes, a guitar today is basically the same as a 60's guitar. Change too much and it isnt a guitar any more. All instruments suffer from this problem, dont they?

I was think more about this after taking the dog for a long walk - And would agree - Change to much and it no longer becomes the instrument we started to learn to play

In many ways the guitar itself is a blank canvas for you to perform on - In many cases the limitations is the player and not the guitar - There are many instances were the same guitar provides a totally different output with regards to the music that is created upon it - As such how much artistic inspiration comes from the player and not the guitar

The intricate fluid jazz styles of Les Paul himself to say the slow blues approach of Paul Kossoff and Pete Green - effectively the same/similar 1950's LP for both
Grant Green and John Lennon - effectively a 330
Just look on a Strat the difference between how Nile Rodgers, Eric Johnson, Edge and SRV utilise the same instrument
The Gibson Trini Lopez guitar was never designed to be used in the way that Noel plays it
There are of course many other examples

Probably the biggest single difference between a vintage style guitar and a modern style guitar, that you can quickly identify with, is the Floyd Rose trem - From EVH on wards it has instantly allowed players to play in a different style, which was not possible on an 'old guitar' - Of course the trem alone requires you to adapt, or learn, a new technique, in order to master it and utilise it accordingly 

The Floyd Rose and PRS Guitars are two of the modern 'tools' that are now part of the establishment and no longer a 'boutique' one man business - PRS brought a new guitar to the market with the Custom 24, that had a blend of old school influences and modern appointments, yet look on FB alone to see how often they are crucified by so many - I've said before and I've heard it said elsewhere, that if PRS had worked for Gibson, presented them with CU24 as a new concept to take to the market it would probably have flopped, as it 100% does not reflect what Gibson are as a company

There are of course guitars that allow you to still play in the format that you are familiar with, but allow you to try out new styles or to obtain a new voice - Taylor T5 and the Gibson Chet Atkins Nylon strung model for starters, both with a similar slant to the new Fender Tele Acoustic - Both the T5 and Gibson CE have had some success, with an appropriate fan club, but not what you'll call mainstream

I know that no one guitar does it all, but a lot of limitation is down to us, the player

pintspiller

Gibson can't win.

Barnezy

Think I’ve been a little misunderstood. I agree that Gibson should have traditional models, I own an R8. But why continually bang on about why this years model is slightly better than last years. If you’re modelling an old guitar, surely you do it once and then just keep pumping it out? It’s meant to be a copy of a guitar that already exists. That says to me either they never made them as accurate as they can, so they’ve got something to talk about the next year or they are not very good at creating a copy of a guitar they made 60 years ago. 

I don’t work in guitar product design, so can’t say what these innovations could be, but come on, they could be a bit more interesting than the chemical compounds used for a pickgaurd. 

to be fair they had some terrible leadership in recent years so maybe things will get better as time goes on. 

Winny_Pooh

TBF they have done some nice variations on classic models but nothing seems to stick with the public.

Johnny A signature
CS 330L
ES 339
Midtown
Doublecut Les Paul (archtop 2xHB)
Nighthawk
BFG

Players still just seem to want traditional Les Pauls, a guitar that's literally a smaller scaled archtop acoustic with solid body and two pickups.

I'd personally take a Huber, PRS, Collings, Koll etc over an LP anytime but my tastes obviously don't represent the majority of the market.

ICBM

pintspiller said:

Gibson can't win.

I think they can.

If they make three ranges - a 'standard' range which is basically the traditional models but with some corners cut to keep the prices down, a 'Historic' range which is accurate reissues, and a 'modern' range which has the innovative things like Floyd Roses and robot tuners - *with current industry-leading build quality and at similar prices to their competitors for similar spec and quality* - then they'll do fine... especially if they *keep* doing it and don't constantly change the spec of every model every year so no-one has a clue what they are.

(And yes I'm aware that the Floyd Rose is itself more than thirty years old now .)

It isn't actually a million miles away from what they do, although the quality and the pricing is an issue, and they seemed to have - or at least did under Juszkiewicz - a problem with confusing what customers want with what Gibson want them to want. They're not the only company which does this, I made a similar comment about Marshall, who have now *finally* released some models that just about everyone has been telling them they need to make for about five years... and even then they've done something that no-one wanted with a couple of them.

Whitecat

Barnezy said:

Think I’ve been a little misunderstood. I agree that Gibson should have traditional models, I own an R8. But why continually bang on about why this years model is slightly better than last years. If you’re modelling an old guitar, surely you do it once and then just keep pumping it out? It’s meant to be a copy of a guitar that already exists. That says to me either they never made them as accurate as they can, so they’ve got something to talk about the next year or they are not very good at creating a copy of a guitar they made 60 years ago. 

I don’t work in guitar product design, so can’t say what these innovations could be, but come on, they could be a bit more interesting than the chemical compounds used for a pickgaurd. 

to be fair they had some terrible leadership in recent years so maybe things will get better as time goes on. 

I suspect it was 100% intentional on Henry J's part to "make it a little more historically accurate every year." Otherwise nobody would buy in to the "new model year" crap and people would be happy with the first one they bought. Not having repeat business is bad.

As far as innovations go, new trem designs are always welcome (Duesenberg) and roasted woods seem to be an interesting trend. Electronic gubbins are pretty much not needed - tweaking pickups and wiring circuits is cool, but as someone else said, bluetooth connectivity, in-built digital modelling, all that stuff... no thanks.

guitars4you

Barnezy said:

Think I’ve been a little misunderstood. I agree that Gibson should have traditional models, I own an R8. But why continually bang on about why this years model is slightly better than last years. If you’re modelling an old guitar, surely you do it once and then just keep pumping it out? It’s meant to be a copy of a guitar that already exists. That says to me either they never made them as accurate as they can, so they’ve got something to talk about the next year or they are not very good at creating a copy of a guitar they made 60 years ago. 

I don’t work in guitar product design, so can’t say what these innovations could be, but come on, they could be a bit more interesting than the chemical compounds used for a pickgaurd. 

to be fair they had some terrible leadership in recent years so maybe things will get better as time goes on. 

This is a regular topic of discussion - How accurate does a 'copy' have to be when we come down to the nth degree ? - There are FB members whose specialist 'Mastermind' subject is a 1959 LP who can probably add more than me 

Yet with regards to how it feels, plays and sounds, then I agree that does the latest 2019 upgrade to a scratchplate make it a better and indeed a more desirable guitar !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I've only ever played four original 59 LP's - More than many, less than others - I've never played one that makes me think 'wow this is the bees knees' - I'm talking here about how it feels and plays - Can I handle it and can I play it in the manner that I want to - The answer was NO  - Yet I've played many replicas (with all the wrong vintage features) and I know I can handle the guitar - I own a Tom Murphy R7 Gold Top - Maybe not as easy to play as my favourite PRS, but IMO easier to handle than the original 59's I've played

mbe

Good luck to Gibson to cut corners. Might as well buy Epiphone.

Hattigol

Which innovations from Fender would you say deserve to be called a success?

Not asking facetiously. Just not sure that when one of the big companies known for their historical achievements puts out something radical, it is likely to be well received. 

ICBM

Hattigol said:

Which innovations from Fender would you say deserve to be called a success?

Not asking facetiously. Just not sure that when one of the big companies known for their historical achievements puts out something radical, it is likely to be well received. 

I would say the noiseless pickups, some of the switching options, dual-action truss rods, and graphite reinforcement in the bass necks, have all been largely well-received. (I know some people don't like some of them, especially the noiseless pickups.)

And of course there is one really, really big one that's been such a runaway success that it's changed the entire guitar industry...


Wait for it...





Relics.

Yes, I'm aware that there is something quite ironic about that! 

NelsonP

Gibson are damned if they do, damned if they don't with this.

It's clear robotuners, firebird x's etc were a step too far in terms of innovation for the sake of it. It's a smart move to put out the basic range that they just have in response to this, to signal that the new regime 'gets it'.

That's the easy bit. Next step is to up the game on QC and PR around it, to quieten the concerns over that. All whilst keeping the prices sensible. 

What comes after that is harder. They can probably have a very nice business churning out the new 2019 range. Most of us can find a guitar in that range that we'd love to own, funds allowing. Even if that means that Gibson are resting on their laurels and /or living in the past.

I recently bought a 2019 dc jr. I love it. It's everything I thought it would be and more. QC was good. Some people don't like them because the pickguard is not 'historically correct' and they don't think it's right to have a pickup mounted on the pickguard (even though that's what lots of other manufacturers do). I honestly couldn't care less about all of that. I like the look of it, it plays and sounds great and has been well put together.

Question is how do they move forward? Should they expand the range to cover all price tiers? Maybe some US made Epi's at the £700-1000 price point, or some Mexican made Gibsons (if Fender can do it...). Dunno, it's a hard one isn't it?

TINMAN82

ICBM said:

pintspiller said:

Gibson can't win.

I think they can.

If they make three ranges - a 'standard' range which is basically the traditional models but with some corners cut to keep the prices down, a 'Historic' range which is accurate reissues, and a 'modern' range which has the innovative things like Floyd Roses and robot tuners - *with current industry-leading build quality and at similar prices to their competitors for similar spec and quality* - then they'll do fine... especially if they *keep* doing it and don't constantly change the spec of every model every year so no-one has a clue what they are.

(And yes I'm aware that the Floyd Rose is itself more than thirty years old now .)

It isn't actually a million miles away from what they do, although the quality and the pricing is an issue, and they seemed to have - or at least did under Juszkiewicz - a problem with confusing what customers want with what Gibson want them to want. They're not the only company which does this, I made a similar comment about Marshall, who have now *finally* released some models that just about everyone has been telling them they need to make for about five years... and even then they've done something that no-one wanted with a couple of them.

What do you think Marshall have done that no one wanted out of interest?

ICBM

TINMAN82 said:

What do you think Marshall have done that no one wanted out of interest?

Put 10" speakers in the two non-Jubilee combos, and to a lesser extent 12" V-Types in the cabinets.

This 20W Plexi doesn't sound great with a Greenback, can you fit it with a 10" V-Type? ...said no-one ever.

antonyiv

Gibson already lost the innovation battle twice:

- 1st time Hamer won
- 2nd time PRS won

TINMAN82

ICBM said:

TINMAN82 said:

What do you think Marshall have done that no one wanted out of interest?

Put 10" speakers in the two non-Jubilee combos, and to a lesser extent 12" V-Types in the cabinets.

This 20W Plexi doesn't sound great with a Greenback, can you fit it with a 10" V-Type? ...said no-one ever.

True. I have the mini jubilee combo with 12” greenback and it’s awesome.

antonyiv

Winny_Pooh said:

TBF they have done some nice variations on classic models but nothing seems to stick with the public.

Johnny A signature
CS 330L
ES 339
Midtown
Doublecut Les Paul (archtop 2xHB)
Nighthawk
BFG

Players still just seem to want traditional Les Pauls, a guitar that's literally a smaller scaled archtop acoustic with solid body and two pickups.

I'd personally take a Huber, PRS, Collings, Koll etc over an LP anytime but my tastes obviously don't represent the majority of the market.

Es339 and Johnny A signitilure are great models. Somehow the marketing efforts failed and they never really got the attention they deserve. 

I had a Midtown - basically an Es339 with flat top and Richlite fretboard. The model was inconsistent - two major changes in the two years the model ran. Again, there was no marketing support. Gibson abondoned it quickly. It seems they are in a rush and if a new model doesn’t sell to what some guy projected in a PowerPoint presentation, they kill it.

earwighoney

The recent ES-275 from the videos seems magnificent. 

DB1

I do like the ES-275 and had one recently. For some reason I didn't particularly bond with that one, but I do fancy an ES-275 with P90's.

Teetonetal

guitars4you said:

Teetonetal said:

The thing is, despite minor changes, a guitar today is basically the same as a 60's guitar. Change too much and it isnt a guitar any more. All instruments suffer from this problem, dont they?

I was think more about this after taking the dog for a long walk - And would agree - Change to much and it no longer becomes the instrument we started to learn to play

In many ways the guitar itself is a blank canvas for you to perform on - In many cases the limitations is the player and not the guitar - There are many instances were the same guitar provides a totally different output with regards to the music that is created upon it - As such how much artistic inspiration comes from the player and not the guitar

The intricate fluid jazz styles of Les Paul himself to say the slow blues approach of Paul Kossoff and Pete Green - effectively the same/similar 1950's LP for both
Grant Green and John Lennon - effectively a 330
Just look on a Strat the difference between how Nile Rodgers, Eric Johnson, Edge and SRV utilise the same instrument
The Gibson Trini Lopez guitar was never designed to be used in the way that Noel plays it
There are of course many other examples

Probably the biggest single difference between a vintage style guitar and a modern style guitar, that you can quickly identify with, is the Floyd Rose trem - From EVH on wards it has instantly allowed players to play in a different style, which was not possible on an 'old guitar' - Of course the trem alone requires you to adapt, or learn, a new technique, in order to master it and utilise it accordingly 

The Floyd Rose and PRS Guitars are two of the modern 'tools' that are now part of the establishment and no longer a 'boutique' one man business - PRS brought a new guitar to the market with the Custom 24, that had a blend of old school influences and modern appointments, yet look on FB alone to see how often they are crucified by so many - I've said before and I've heard it said elsewhere, that if PRS had worked for Gibson, presented them with CU24 as a new concept to take to the market it would probably have flopped, as it 100% does not reflect what Gibson are as a company

There are of course guitars that allow you to still play in the format that you are familiar with, but allow you to try out new styles or to obtain a new voice - Taylor T5 and the Gibson Chet Atkins Nylon strung model for starters, both with a similar slant to the new Fender Tele Acoustic - Both the T5 and Gibson CE have had some success, with an appropriate fan club, but not what you'll call mainstream

I know that no one guitar does it all, but a lot of limitation is down to us, the player

I'd say that 90% imitation is down to the player. 

Look at the range of music covered by the the "big" 3 of the strat, tele and LP. Almost all pop / rock music from the 50's on could have easily been recorded using 1 of those 3.

What do people actually want guitar manufactures to do? Where is the much requested innovation in any brand?, which designs out side of those 3 have really sparked new life into the guitar. None. Subtle evolutions, differences in HW, pickups, body shapes, do we really care? All instruments eventually fall into the hole of requiring a certain range of criteria, to carry on function as the instrument that they are.

The guitar is just a away of sounding notes. It's what you do with the note that counts.

For me, all the fun and innovation lies mainly in the pedal world. That's the area where the guitar can stop being traditional and expand the creative possibilities, give the player new sounds etc. But even there, the majority endlessly recreate the past again and again. How much genuine innovation in pedals was launched at NAMM vs rehashes of familiar circuits or sounds.