It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Subscribe to our Patreon, and get image uploads with no ads on the site!
Base theme by DesignModo & ported to Powered by Vanilla by Chris Ireland, modified by the "theFB" team.
Comments
Also add that the classic models are still massive influences to other boutique/custom builders -A Collings i35LC is a 335 - A Tom Anderson Classic is a Strat - A PRS 594 is a Les Paul etc
Recording, production, amps, effects, computers etc has allowed us to add variety to the guitars canvas - New musical genres have come along and certain players dial in to this to still play the same 12 notes on the same instrument - Not so sure most of us need any new technology
The bulk of the acoustic guitar market is a variation of a Martin D28 - Again a blank canvas for you to paint your own style upon as required - More than a strong case to say the Saxophone and violin have not changed and doesn't need to change, certainly for most of us - In each case the blank canvas will perform as required - In most cases, the biggest limitation as to what the instrument is capable of delivering is us, the player - And I don't mean that we should all be speed machines, coupled with a host of gymnastic trips, as personally I'd rather listen to JJ Cale than Satriani - But essentially the blank canvas does not need to change - At least IMO
Sure Fender have had their failures when they went too far for their audience, (Roland partnered modelling Strat, Personality cards, etc.), but they've avoided being seen as just an historic/lifestyle 'boomers still like to rock' brand.
Under Henry, Gibson just pushed too hard to appear to be innovators, and perhaps, in fairness, their audience is just more conservative too (perhaps always have been? Think of the Strat v. the Les Paul designs). The result was a line of Firebird Xs being crushed, the Tronical deal abruptly ending, and almost their entire line/image being about tradition, heritage and lifestyle, with the 'modern' range looking like an embarrassing secret.
Gibson got a good few things right though once they got to 57, the flatter radius is already there so no need to start flattening them out like Fender did. The SG was designed to allow better upper fret access and the ES 335 style guitars already had that too. What else has say, PRS refined going forward, other than making more consistent instruments. The 594SC has slightly better upper fret access and the fabled vintage scale but I'm pretty sure it just sounds like a good Les Paul? Even the bridge and stop tailpiece are the same, just different designs, personally I don't see a lot wrong with the original design and it looks great too. Obviously YMMV.
At the end of the day people go to Gibson/Fender mostly for the classics, and a smaller proportion of others want a single cut or Tele/Strat with some modern edges. Makes sense to focus your efforts where the return is highest for Gibson, and if others want to nibble at their smaller markets then let them do it.
The yard is nothing but a fence, the sun just hurts my eyes...
Great idea, I genuinely can’t see why anybody would knock a brand for selling their goods in a store, making it look good, allowing the customer to try the goods and also add other merchandise that people may want to buy.
I honestly think if anyone can have any negative feeling towards this, they need to give their head a wobble.
Irrelevant of if you like the brand or not, what they are doing here is great for the customer
The yard is nothing but a fence, the sun just hurts my eyes...
But somehow Gibson are less successful with 'new ideas' that become regular features within the range - It has often been discussed that if PRS had have worked for Gibson and presented them with a Custom 24 prototype a) would the Gibson board have accepted it and b) would the public accept it as a Gibson Custom 24 - Obviously we don't know
If I’m buying or demoing in a shop I take my HX Stomp
People fixate on the robot tuners like shorthand for every idea being bad, but they offered various things. I personally love the push/pull features of the pre-2019 Standards. The 2015 option of a pick guard that didn't need screws was great. The adjustable-height nut was interesting. They once added a belly carve to the back, exactly like people love on the Strat, but that was criticised. The asymmetrical neck and compound radius are both good ideas.
None of that stopped Gibson coming under fire for deviating from the 1950s designs — while they received simultaneous criticism for not deviating from the 1950s designs from another market segment.
I think this is a key point. As much as people seemingly want huge changes in guitar, there really isn't much to change. A car is still fundamentally the same design as it's always been (4 wheels, engine at the front (generally), wheel, stick, doors etc) and the changes have been to performance, infotainment, and safety.
Indeed. I sometimes wonder if pianists and violinists spend as much time as guitarists complaining about how their instruments haven't changed much.
I firmly feel that Gibson needs to do more with the Modern line. You're right, they pushed too hard under Henry but perhaps have over-corrected now. I suspect Henry's era would've been better if they hadn't done it all on the Standard, and didn't have a confusing line-up with Standard/Plus/Premium and then HP versions on top.
But my guess is Gibson's aware of what its primary market wants, hence the current focus on signature models and 50s/60s Standards. The Modern line is there, perhaps waiting in the wings for its shot.
That said, I don't know why they can't incorporate the improved neck heel into the Standard model, who's going to complain about that?
Very well said. A guitar forum complaining about a new retail guitar store, amazing.
I was there on the public launch day and ended up chatting with someone on their artist roster, looked no older than 21. If you look at the photos of the bands playing downstairs, they're young. The "pensioners" who opened it are not just old players, they are the trio of British icons who are guaranteed to get media exposure. Like it or not, that's savvy PR.
Clearly, there's a demographic buying the Greeny and now Zoso models at eye-watering prices. But Gibson is plenty active with artists like Lzzy Hale, herself a singer with an audience spanning adults to teens. I think it's drastically overstated that only old folks are interested in the brand.
I think they've been learning from Fender too. The Gibson app is high quality, for instance. And the move into media with GibsonTV and Publishing seems very good too.
I can see both sides to it. Keeping the Standard as a set-in-stone model makes sense, and it makes sense for a model to adapt and be the one that reflects the latest updates/innovations etc. After all, the people calling for a volute and headstock improvements would want it on the Standard, right?
And besides, the argument that a model is set in stone overlooks the fact that they were tweaked way back in the 50s anyway.
As such, a potential good idea, is often linked to a host of other 'poor factor's' that provoke a no no for many players/buyers
Valid point about changes in the 'golden era' - Can't remember how many changes Fender made to the Tele and the Strat in the 50's but it is quite considerable - Some more significant than others
But the one I always come back to is the neck heel. It doesn't personally bother me as my playing style doesn't require much access to the upper frets on the lower strings, but I can see why it's problematic to others. Gibson can keep literally everything about the guitar exactly the same, and put the carved heel to improve the access. Nobody else in the room would even know it's there, just the player. But it's a deviation from the design so it isn't allowed.