Is Gibson Typecast?

[Pink Unicorn Horsey]

This thread grew out of the Gibson Shark Fin thread. Allow me to preempt any OP controversy by saying I am not bashing Gibson.

I wonder if Gibson has been typecast into half a dozen different designs to the point that any deviation from those designs, large or small, will create enough controversy to ultimately send it the way of the recycling bin. These iconic designs—Les Paul, SG, 335, Explorer, etc.—are so tightly associated with the Gibson brand that they are not merely flagships but the absolute embodiment of Gibson. It seems to me anything outside those designs is seen as a ridiculous bastardization, for better or for worse.

I believe the lion's share of Gibson customers are interested in classic styling, like a Mercedes or Rolex. Those who are interested in something different won't look to Gibson, because "Gibson" means "tradition," not "innovation." If Gibson wants to come across as groundbreaking again, they'll need to do it through some other brand name.

Thoughts?

- Keith

 

[Hagbard Celine]

Re: Is Gibson Typecast?

I think you have a point. And I think its their own fault.

My personal opinion is that most people who buy a Rolex or a Mercedes do so not because of the inherent quality of the product, which may indeed be high, but because they want to make a statement to themselves and others. Could the same be true about your average Gibson?

 

[DazH]

Re: Is Gibson Typecast?

they just need to actually product test some of this new stuff - make sure it's actually liable to sell & then try to sell it off at a reasonable price - not pile on the price tag, because it's new - it'l never become a popular model if noone can afford it.

 

[Guest]

Re: Is Gibson Typecast?

I think Gibson have a tough time because they got themselves in that spot.

They do a big deal out of odd shapes and robot guitars but only recently have they offered push pulls on standard models and yet there is little to no noise about something that is usually one of the first mods done on a guitar since JP.

Look at the Johnny A guitar. Little noise about that one and it was a classy and interesting design. Instead of investing on stupid designs they should have backed that one but they keep betting on the wrong horse.

Then you have the whole price thing. Look at the new Angus Young SG. Is that really a 6k guitar when they offer SG's for a sixth of the price? Kind of leaves them open for ridicule especially when you consider guitars like the plywood ones they are trying to sell. Sure they are trying to innovate but not in the classy way one would associate with them.

Yes, Gibson is sort of a Rolls Royce of guitars. I don't really follow cars but I imagine RR has a hard time of deviating from classy luxury designs but they still produce new models. Imagine what would happen if you saw an unfinished RR? Or one that you drove backwards? One that drove itself? One with a tiger finish (they are not a fast car company, anymore than Gibson is an 80s metal caterer)?

Now, imagine if RR didn't offer its clients what they wanted, stuff like electric windows (cool but simple and idiot proof electronics), leather seats (body contours), etc.

I think Gibson needs to thin the herd. Offer their standard models and leave that line as is with few price divisions essentially offering something for the rich and the poor but without cutting on the costs, rather on the features. Why not offer an LP jr with a different wood, cheaper than mahogany but still sounding good even if not gibsony? And call it by its name, not some stupid trade name.

After that think of new shapes. Not revamp existing ones. Just sit down, listen to what people want besides the standard models and think up of new models for this century. Add the ability to change as much as you can about the electronics. Think up of new pups or use stuff like the triple shot. Body contours like they did on the axcess.

Want my idea on what a new Gibson should be? Make up a new shape, anything, add a control plate like they are already doing on the Tiger so people can change that down the line. Have the body profile like the Fender Aerodyne where if you look at it from the bridge end towards the neck it looks like an oval, that way it will be confortable and they could add binding which is something you think about when you think Gibson. Get a new heel on that body, learn something from warmoth and usagc.

And add regular finishes. Weird colours and unfinished bodies scream they are trying to hard to be cool. That never works.

 

[richard parker]

Re: Is Gibson Typecast?

I think Fender are in exactly the same position maybe more so. Both companies produced some classic designs in their early days - LP, SG, 335, Strat, Tele. Gibson had little success with their more 'out there' designs when they were first introduced but today there is a lot of love for the Explorer, the Flying V and the Firebird. Fender on the other hand are still mainly producing variations on the Strat and Tele and not much else (the Jazzmaster and Jag are still pretty much niche products).

The problem is that there are only so many ways to make a guitar. Unless they're trying to appeal to the metal guys companies are (on the whole) stuck with producing slight variations to Gibson and Fender designs. PRS's for example never look quite right to me - they always look like they've had a slight wack with the ugly stick. Hamer produce some lovely looking guitars but I really don't like the look of their standard headstock.

Gibson and Fender just got the looks right in the first place.

Can any of us come up with a guitar shape that we would all agree is just as beautiful as the classic Fenders and Gibsons ? I doubt it because most companies fail on this score including Gibson and Fender themselves. The Sharkfin and the Zoot Suit are grotesque. Can't rememeber the last time fender tried anything radical.

 

[Pink Unicorn Horsey]

Re: Is Gibson Typecast?

I think Fender are in exactly the same position maybe more so.

I totally agree. In fact, I meant to make mention of Fender in my OP, but obviously forgot.

Indeed, there are other manufacturers who can appeal to audiences who want something other than the Gibson/Fender classics, but the irony is that when Gibson or Fender try to do something like that they're ridiculed. That's why I suggest they do it under a different brand name.

- Keith

 

[Uk Ant]

Re: Is Gibson Typecast?

I do think they do have a an image problem when it comes to introducing new ideas.
That is also coupled with when they come up with new ideas they, more often than not, don't do it very well.
If they made a bolt on junior made from bass wood with some form of trem for $600 no one would buy it even if it was the best made guitar in the world, played like a dream and sounded great because, in general, people buy a gibson electric to get a glued in neck and a fixed bridge.
I always thought that the U2 was a great looking axe, one of the few times I've seen Gibson bring out a guitar that deviated a long way from the norm and looked good. A ice combination of modern and traditional looks, yet it flopped as people who wanted a super strat would go to Ibanez and Jackson.

 

[super rad stuff]

Re: Is Gibson Typecast?

i think that when gibson tries to come out with something new and/or different, they try too hard. that new tigerstripe LP for ex., cool idea. love the flat top, wood, control layout, etc. they screwed it up by adding too much though, with the active pickups and chrome covers, making for a tacky look. with the sharkfin, they should have kept it in the standard explorer colors and not cut off the lower bout making it a f*cking block sticking out. these are all little things that they could easily fix, but there's soooo many of'em.

 

[Funkfingers]

Re: Is Gibson Typecast?

I wonder if Gibson has been typecast into half a dozen different designs

I think you have a point. And I think its their own fault.

In my opinion, the typecasting of Gibson - to name but one maker - is due to the fact that some guitar designs have proven themselves practical and of a distinctive sonic and visual identity whilst others have not.

Guitar manufacturers are, to some extent, victims of their own success, trapped into producing what we are willing to buy from them. The use to which we put these instruments also has some influence upon what sells.

I don't suppose that any of the 1950s equipment designers ever figured on customers plugging a solid body Jazz guitar (with the wrong strings on) into a bass amplifier and intentionally running it into overdrive.

Having established a market niche, manufacturers can either stick with what they know or innovate. Inevitably, any innovation will meet with some resistance. This is just human nature. Sometimes, when the manufacturers are just trying change for change's sake, they deserve the rejection.

 

[kevin134]

Re: Is Gibson Typecast?

Some of the goofier desings as I mentioned in the other post should be a epiphone first then if they go off the shelf then try limited runs as a gibson. One problem I have seen though is lately a few of these desings belong to others.. the shark fin as someone posted a pic looks extremely similar to another companies gutar.. the epi zack xv looks like a bc rich guitar I think it was.. that means no original thought put into it... That one red guitar gibson had last year, I forget what it was ccalled, but sorta had a mosrite or some 60's guitar shape to it.. well the red just looked plain ugly, shoulda had a few colors available....

 

[kherman]

Re: Is Gibson Typecast?

I think Fender are in exactly the same position maybe more so.

Can't rememeber the last time fender tried anything radical.

Fender was at least smart enough to know to leave their designs alone and buy other companies to make the more Superstrat or radical designs.
I.E. Charvel/Jackson to name one.

You want a strat ,you buy Fender.
You want a superstrat with Floyd, you buy Charvel.
You want a V style, X style, Z style, you buy Jackson.

Fender's smart enough to leave them alone and do their thing, though.


Gibson on the other hand has the same ability with Kramer.
But, still refuse to bring them back up to their glory day level of quality.
Instead, still choosing to do to Kramer what they did Epiphone.

 

[Funkfingers]

Re: Is Gibson Typecast?

^
In my opinion, some of this boils down to wishing to give credit where it is due.

If you write a hit song, you are going to expect to get royalties. If you had devised the Stratocaster, you would reasonably expect to gain financially for those efforts.

It would nice to believe that one set of creative people is showing some respect to another set of creative people.

 

[blueman335]

Re: Is Gibson Typecast?

I think you have a point. And I think its their own fault.

My personal opinion is that most people who buy a Rolex or a Mercedes do so not because of the inherent quality of the product, which may indeed be high, but because they want to make a statement to themselves and others. Could the same be true about your average Gibson?

+1. But having so many successful designs keeps them from being too typecast. They have many solid, semi, and hollowbodies that are popular. Fender's got it far worse, almost all of their sales are for 2 similar designs (the last of which debuted in 1954). In either case, this is self-inflicted. Some of their introductions of new designs were poorly thought out attempts, like Fender's semihollows in 'wildwood', and Gibson's early 1970's SG's and the recent Reverse V. Pretty obvious by the time they left the drawing board that those were going to flop. And then Gibson didn't introduce a very viable design, the missing link, the Super SG (HSS and HSH with P-90's, a 5-way and a Floyd). Missed opportunities and resources wasted on questionable designs.

No matter what guitars we play, we're making a statement about something. In my case, it's that in live situations, upgraded mid-priced imports usually sound as good or better than most high-end guitars. If you're a little bit handy, you can significantly improve the sound of many guitars. Yes, I'm telling the world I'm cheap (and proud of it).

 

[Funkfingers]

Re: Is Gibson Typecast?

+1

It is not Gibson's fault if customers choose to perceive of them in a particular way.

It does become a problem, however, when that perception restricts attempts at deversification.

The worldwide electric guitar market is dominated by a small number of well-established designs. Most of these designs were arrived at by building prototypes and having musicians try them out on stage and in the recording studio. Products such as the Gibson Reverse Vee look like they originated in a computer-aided design software program with no field testing prior to launch.

Every one of us has met musicians who seek to label themselves as "a Gibson player" or "a Fender player" as if their guitar of choice is symbolic of a particular music style. If a manufacturer introduces a radical new departure in design and this shifts the popular notion of what that brand supposedly represents, the label loses its value. Tough!

 

[Uk Ant]

Re: Is Gibson Typecast?

Fender was at least smart enough to know to leave their designs alone.

I'm not sure that's exactly true, some of the innovations and changes they made during the seventies really were rubbish and they ended up with a much poorer quality instrument than they had in the first place, and they're attempts in the eighties to get on the hard rock/heavy metal wagon went from lacklustre (HM strat) to just plain rubbish (Katana) and it was only after that they went back to making decent strats again. These days they do seem to have the bases covered much better than they did, mainly through the acquisition of companies like Jackson/Charvel, but also by making their own branded product better, although I have big reservations about MIM Fenders as I've yet to play one that didn't feel like a hunk of junk.

It is true that Gibson do fail to utilise their subsidiaries as well.
Kramer were once the best selling guitar company in the world, partly due to selling guitars in a huge price range and also due to offering guitars that players at the time wanted in those prices.
If the Gibson sharkfin thing had been released as a MIK Kramer with a Floyd at a reasonable price we wouldn't have batted an eyelid, but they put Gibson on the headstock and charge a fortune.
Likewise the Dusk Tiger and the Zoot could have been top end Epi's, but they went all out Gibson and we moaned.

 

[kherman]

Re: Is Gibson Typecast?

I'm not sure that's exactly true, some of the innovations and changes they made during the seventies really were rubbish and they ended up with a much poorer quality instrument than they had in the first place, and they're attempts in the eighties to get on the hard rock/heavy metal wagon went from lacklustre (HM strat) to just plain rubbish (Katana) and it was only after that they went back to making decent strats again. These days they do seem to have the bases covered much better than they did, mainly through the acquisition of companies like Jackson/Charvel, but also by making their own branded product better, although I have big reservations about MIM Fenders as I've yet to play one that didn't feel like a hunk of junk.

It is true that Gibson do fail to utilise their subsidiaries as well.
Kramer were once the best selling guitar company in the world, partly due to selling guitars in a huge price range and also due to offering guitars that players at the time wanted in those prices.
If the Gibson sharkfin thing had been released as a MIK Kramer with a Floyd at a reasonable price we wouldn't have batted an eyelid, but they put Gibson on the headstock and charge a fortune.
Likewise the Dusk Tiger and the Zoot could have been top end Epi's, but they went all out Gibson and we moaned.

Yes, my reference was to the current Fender Corp.
Not the CBS era.
And I actually liked the HM Strat.
Unfortunately, it was a day late and a dollar short, for the Winds of Change were happening.
Superstrats and Rack rigs were going out. Vintage was in.
Solos were out, and singing about how miserable life is, because you're a rich little white kid, was in. :friday:
(But, that's a whole other topic).

Point being Fender has learned.
Gibson, is to smug to learn.

 

[Empty Pockets]

Re: Is Gibson Typecast?

You guys have a lot of interesting innovative ideas here that i would never, ever buy.

I don't want a $3,000 guitar that's designed to have changeable electronics. In fact i don't want MOST of the so-called innovations in electric guitar we've had since the 60's...it's just superfluous to me.

They make what they've made and it's been making them money. They try new ideas and they either succeed and stick around or fail and go away. It's just like any other business, it comes down to money.

Gibson knows their bread and butter is in the SG's and Les Pauls with tune-o-matic bridges and humbuckers that they've been makin for half a century. They'd be more than happy to build your idea...if you're gonna BUY it...but going out of your way to "innovate" and try to fix something that ain't broke is a good way to lose money.

Seriously, Les Paul got his design right the first time. Gibson's the first company that bought the design and produced it, and that same design is still one of the most popular and iconic instruments in the world. Can't improve perfection...just ask their competition...

 

[RavenMadd]

Re: Is Gibson Typecast?

I've been playing guitar since 77 ....work on 48th street in nyc ...seen thrends come and go in guitars and to me its still all in the users head and mind............its all subjective .........if you have to buy the Angus ...god bless you ....but if you can't hey thats the breaks move

 

[kherman]

Re: Is Gibson Typecast?

They make what they've made and it's been making them money. They try new ideas and they either succeed and stick around or fail and go away. It's just like any other business, it comes down to money.

...

But, there's no way their research and marketing team are doing their job right.
Come on, with a little work they would know the Reverse V was not a good idea.
Putting out a Kahler equipped Explorer without out a locking nut would fail.
Plywood SG? have we not learned from our Pancake days?
Holey Explorer? Design team was using medicinal smoke that day.
24 3/4 scale 7 string? A little research would have shown 25.5 minimal, 26.5 -27 preferred.
All maple Les Paul? What's the point?

Even my beloved Explorer Pro is a fail (twice. '03-'05, return '07).
I love it.
I'm in the minority though. And I accept that.
With a little research,they would have known to make it full body.
It would have been a top sell.

They've come close so many times.
But, always fall just short.
Why does that keep happening?

Why , every year since the start of the RI's in the 90's, we keep seeing
"Oh, this is even closer to the real '59 than last years RI" .
What? 15 years or so, and they still can't get the RI right?

 

[JOLLY]

Re: Is Gibson Typecast?

Gibson? Who's he?