Is Gibson Typecast?

[Wattage]

Re: Is Gibson Typecast?

What I find odd is that Gibson owns the bulk of the quintessential electric guitars outside of the Strat and Tele yet they are expected to come up with new and breathtaking designs. Why? They own the best designs there are, tweaking them is great but really there is no need for some of the things the do and there is really no need for overthinking it.

The design of the violin works, the design of the LP works, etc. etc. Not saying that they couldn't come across some magic but isn't likely with the types of short thinking they use. Stick to the classics they are the bread and bones of the company. Put the money into better QC and more efficient and productive manufacturing.

 

[Funkfingers]

Re: Is Gibson Typecast?

there's no way their research and marketing team is doing its job right. Holey Explorer? Design team was using medicinal smoke that day.

They shoulda painted that holey Explorer yellow. Perfect for Mickey Mouse.

Why does that keep happening?

I get the feeling that meetings are convened at which they ask each other, "What have we not tried before?" without bothering ask WHY those ideas had not been tried.

One of my favourite conceptual design ideas is the Gibson "Map Of America" guitar. This looked brilliant on the cover of a catalogue. It probably looked equally brilliant on a trade show stand. On the other hand, can you imagine many sit-down, sight reading session guitarists choosing the MOA? Me, neither. It should have remained a one-off publicity item.

Sometimes, Gibson appears to produce guitars because they seem to feel that they ought to. (Here, I am thinking of designs such as The Moderne and the Lightning Bolt - a Vee with its top half joined on in reverse.) I have a theory about some of the original Gibson Modernistic guitar designs. Ted McCarty has stated that some of his patent applications were "spoilers" to confuse rival manufacturers. I suspect that some of the more outlandish drawings were never intended to go into production.

As far as I know, the first Moderne-shaped instruments to be built were by Ibanez during their 1970s "lawsuit" period. Any evidence to the contrary would be most welcome.

 

[dmandude123455]

Re: Is Gibson Typecast?

thats y gibson should instead of thorwing out new guitars under that name they sould try launching the new designs under epiphone or something and if its hit they'll make the gibson version....for like 3,000 dollars more though :/

 

[kherman]

Re: Is Gibson Typecast?

thats y gibson should instead of thorwing out new guitars under that name they sould try launching the new designs under epiphone or something and if its hit they'll make the gibson version....for like 3,000 dollars more though :/

They have with the Epi Prophecy, Negative, GT, and Goth series.

Again, I think they need to bring Kramer back to the level of Jackson USA.
Bring back the Pacer, American, Swan, Condor, Vanguard, and Voyager.
But, as a high quality USA or at least MIJ product.

 

[JohnnyGuitar]

Re: Is Gibson Typecast?

Gibson at least try to do something new - Fender just make small variations on existing models.

The Shark Fin itself might no be a success but you make mistakes when you try to innovate. I liked the way the "Jimi Hendrix fiasco" guitar looked, they have just chosen an outrages marketing plan for it. With the rear routing, set neck and Steinberger trem they could have passed it without the backlash.

With all of the above, I would also rather see them focusing on their main models - driving quality up and prices down - than see them venture into weird designs.

 

[kherman]

Re: Is Gibson Typecast?

Gibson at least try to do something new - Fender just make small variations on existing models.

.

Again, this is why Fender has been purchasing other companies.
Jackson/Charvel, EVH, Gretsch, Guild, De Armond.

No need for them to change the traditional designs or add new ones to Fender when they already own other companies that do that.

 

[RavenMadd]

Re: Is Gibson Typecast?

Gibson? Who's he?

he(Kirk) was a pretty good hitter for the 1988 LA Dodgers

 

[Kosh Naranek]

Re: Is Gibson Typecast?

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.

I think to some extent this is true. But it's not necessarily a bad thing to have your name brand associated with classic, or at least popular guitar designs.

It seems to me anything outside those designs is seen as a ridiculous bastardization, for better or for worse.

I don't think that's always the case. It seems that many of the ideas Gibson does come up with aside from their classic designs are ridiculous, but not because of the fact that they came up with a new and different design. It's because they truly are ridiculous.
I say that because every so often Gibson does come up with a design that is not one of their classic designs, and it is pretty cool. Some examples that come to mind:

Admittedly there aren't many. These are recent examples. I think the RD was a pretty cool design too. I can't think of any more at the moment.

Why they made most of these limited production runs, or introduced them as additions to their line and then shortly discontinued them, I don't know. Why these are discontinued, and abominations like the SG/V remain in their current product line, I can't imagine. I'd love to own any of the guitars in the pics above. Maybe moreso because they're not the same guitar/bass that all the other kids on the block play, but they're very cool.

Other examples would be the X-plorer Pro and the SG with three single coil pickups. Both are versions of their classic designs but cool in their own right.

And OTOH, Gibson is notorious for taking even their classic designs (no bashing here! I got mad love for the Les Paul!) and introducing desecrated versions:

...and we won't get into the Explorer and V models, cool designs, but with sections of their body cut out.

 

[TattooedCarrot]

Re: Is Gibson Typecast?

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

I think you hit it on the head. Similar to Harley Davidson's V-Rod; not a very popular model compared to the rest of the traditional line. They do make little tweaks and improvements on the still classic designs, but they cannot deviate too far or they will be outside the box they have built around themselves.

 

[Gearjoneser]

Re: Is Gibson Typecast?

I think one major aspect isn't what the company wants, but rather what all the iconic images of famous guitar players have dictated. One thing that separates timeless musicians from timely musicians are the instruments they choose to use.

You usually don't realize this till you're older and have stacks of old magazines and books sitting around. Look at them, and you'll see that most of the ones with a very timely image and instrument become almost joke-like a decade or two later. The ones who have a more timeless sound, image, and guitar seem to be taken more seriously in retrospect.

For instance, look at The Edge from U2. In a decade when most other bands were using timely 80's guitars and clothes, U2 held a more classic and universal appeal. Now, when you go back and look at old magazines, videos, and albums, you see that it's timeless enough to transcend through the decades looking respectable. On the flipside, look at the bands that pigeonholed themselves to a 3 yr. period like Living Color, Keel, or Warrant. Looking at their old pictures almost make you laugh in this day and age. Imagine if Yngwie didn't use a 70's strat, but a Jackson with Viking graphics. He already has enough problems being taken seriously 25 yrs later......he'd be an absolute joke now. Imagine Billy Duffy without a LP Custom and White Falcon, but rather a Gibson Corvus or Steinberger.

This is why Gibson and Fender have a much easier time sticking with tradition. And also consider that for every 10 models a company makes, only one will stick around - and it's usually because a player or popular band sold it to the masses. In Gibson's case, I think the one that will stick around is the new ES-339. It's their new classic. The others will fall off the map soon.

 

[blueman335]

Re: Is Gibson Typecast?

What I find odd is that Gibson owns the bulk of the quintessential electric guitars outside of the Strat and Tele yet they are expected to come up with new and breathtaking designs. Why?

Because they've done it in their past in a matter of 20 years, and surely it's not asking too much for them to come up with something else over the 40 years since then. They didn't peak as fast as Leo did, but If anybody has a legacy of innovative designs, it's Gibson. No other company comes close. I don't think that had to stop when Ted left. If you rely too much on your traditions, eventually the relevance of that fades into the background and other companies take your place. Happens all the time. Innovation made Gibson, and today they should set aside a certain amount of resources dedicated to creating a few viable new designs, not novelties which have no hope of standing the test of time. They need another Ted McCarty to lead the way.

 

[Funkfingers]

Re: Is Gibson Typecast?

In Gibson's case, I think the one that will stick around is the new ES-339. It's their new classic. The others will fall off the map soon.

+1

This is the model that might just make me own a Gibson again.

Members with access to old guitar magazines and catalogues might care to compare the 339 with the semi-acoustic version of the Ibanez Artist.

 

[richard parker]

Re: Is Gibson Typecast?

The 339 is only a slight variation on a tried and trusted design albeit a well considered variation. My favourite guitar is the SG. I can't imagine anything playing better than an SG on stage - light weight with unrestricted fret access. So, could Gibson make it sound better ? I don't think there's anywhere to go apart from better pickups which makes it interesting that the new Angus SG has PG's. Have Gibson finally admitted that they don't make pickups as well as SD ?

As all the classic Gibson and Fender designs have been around since the fifties/early sixties do you think that anyone is likely to come up with a new design any time now that will have the same classic status in 60 years time ? It ain't gonna happen.

 

[El CHupacabra]

Re: Is Gibson Typecast?

^ You mean the DImebag "tooth" isn't gonna be worth millions 50 years from now? ****! There goes my investment!

 

[DMR]

Re: Is Gibson Typecast?

I don't think people would have a problem giving Gibson credit for deviating from the classic designs if the new direction wasn't so laughably hideous in many cases. Seriously, those at Gibson that presented and signed off on the ideas for reverse V's, upside down Explorers, and putting ridiculous looking cutouts in their classic shapes should be fired. Like somebody else said.....don't mess with perfection. If, as a company, you're incapable of doing much of anything outside of mutilitating your bread and butter designs then don't do it at all. I don't think the flak directed at Gibson is based out of any kind of bias......only the reality that much of what they're doing these days looks like ass. I do like the robot guitars.

And if i'm going to drop $6,000 on a guitar...........I'm not giving it to Gibson so I can have Angus Young's name on my headstock and a some lightning bolt inlays. I'll give that money to somebody like Ken Lawrence who will personally build me a guitar with the shape and measurements of my choice from top to bottom, with the finest materials money can buy, with inlay designs of my choice, and the hardware features of my choice. I know i'll be getting a whole lot more for my money going that route then buying from Gibson in that scenario.

 

[JohnnyGuitar]

Re: Is Gibson Typecast?

Again, this is why Fender has been purchasing other companies.
Jackson/Charvel, EVH, Gretsch, Guild, De Armond.

No need for them to change the traditional designs or add new ones to Fender when they already own other companies that do that.

Can't agree. Fender doesn't let their brands go too far away from the original molds. I didn't see any attempt at something really original from any of the above, if anything Fender's strategy is to make the companies they purchase stick to what they know.

Gibson is much more adventures when it comes to its subsidiaries. Epiphone do things that no one in Squier will even dare to think of...

 

[Hagbard Celine]

Re: Is Gibson Typecast?

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).

Amen. $6000 Les Pauls, $2600 SGs, $2-4000 Teles and Strats all to get pretend vintage and artist copies - no one will ever convince me that its strictly about tone and playability. Marketing, baby, marketing.

Innovation from Gibson and Fender? About as likely as it was from American marketing department driven automobile companies. Innovations will come from smaller builders. Big companies are ill suited to them. Corporate Weasels aren't known for their fearless acceptance of new ideas.

But whoever green lighted the Zoot Suit SG and Holy Explorer really should have at least gotten empolyee of the month... at Fender.:friday::eyecrazy:

But now that I'm thinking about it I think Fender deserves credit for a major innovation in the business - good quality lower priced imported and domestic models with the Fender brand. Perfectly good playing and sounding instruments under a grand with a Fender decal - let's see Gibson do that. Wait, they did - Special Faded - and I bought one. It's my favorite guitar... now I'm back to the psychological reasons we really buy what we do...

 

[Zerberus]

Re: Is Gibson Typecast?

IMO Players have pigeonholed Gibson into a nice fuzzy "asshole in the corner" place of their mind where it´s absolutely ok to slam and slam without ever opening one´s eyes instead of lips and actually looking at the product.

In almost every post of the thread, Gibson is being accused of doiing things that are factually and verifiably flat out false. Just because people want to believe BS spread by poor, envious 10 year olds that can´t afford the real thing and therefore have to cry twice as hard to make themselves feel better.... Well, that alone just doesn`t make it true.

The two things that this thread showcases are primarily not Gibson´s fault.

1. How little most people really know about the way the guitar industry or even large companies in general operate. Especially in a niche industry such as guitar manufacture. Apparently there are quite a few people that think this is a billion dollar a week industry, which couldn´t be farther from the truth. That difference alone means a massive difference in teh way companies have to operate, due to their overhead costs, amount of employees, and most importantly niche luxury product... Essentially buying a guitar is the least important thing on Joe Average´s mind, because he can´t eat it or bang it.

So the first thing you guys could consider doing is coming back to Earth where 5% of the entire population at best is interested in buying guitars at all. Of those 5% maybe 5% are actually interested in a guitar that plays well and sounds good and isn`t just "a guitar". So we´re talking 5% of 5% of 6 billion people, so about 15million people worldwide. If that´s not a niche industry, I don´t know what is. And no, those aren´t 15 million "Gibson enthusiasts".. that´s 15 million practicing guitarists grand total, everything from Squier players that want to keep playing all the way up to steve vai, EVH, Joe Perry and all the other professionals who´s gear is worth more than Your neighborhood. So obviously the billion dollar budget for R+D that some just assume that everybody has just flat out isn´t there.

2. How unbelievably blind and opinionated those same people for the most part are. As soon as a guitar doesn´t have a finish one likes, it´s a POS. Empty_Pocket´s Geckoburst /Pukeburst Les Paul being a prime example. I don´t like the color, but it´s far from realistic to denounce an instrument as a POS for that reason regerdless of any other specs it may have. Quite a few people posted comments to theat extent, though... Or even in this thread, a Les Paul instantly becomes "desecrated" by having a rainbow colored finish that the Poster didn´t like.

Maybe one day guitarists will learn that we play with our hands, ears and heart, not with our eyes.

Further proof of the dissociation with reality is the fact that almost exclusively when speaking about Gibson (and interestingly enough this actually DOES appear limited to Gibson) quoting MSRP instead of street price (a 40% difference in favor of those wanting to make Gibson seem expensive), taking CS guitars and equating them to a Cookie-cutter POS (which is complete and total BS no matter how much you as a player want to believe your Squier /Agile /Sx is an instrument manufactured with superior materials and QC), and of course the assumption that Gibson does not have their own CS open to the public but rather "only for artists and they get them cheaper anyway"... Everybody can get a CS Gibson for a very similar street price to almost any other custom shop guitar, meaning starting at around 1,5k and moving upwards as features dictate. But of course you can´t get a LP custom with 12x abalone purfling all around, 1 piece AAAACurly maple top, one piece body, Custom wound Pickups, 13 color burst and graphics for 1,5k. Unfortunately, nothing less will please most detractors, so why even make the effort as the task is obviously impossible

IMO threads like this or rather the comments contained therein are one big ****ing Joke that give luthiers and guitar companies a reason to sit back, laugh their ass off ath today´s average idiot, and say "We´re doing everything exactly the way we should be, stay the course."

 

[ImmortalSix]

Re: Is Gibson Typecast?

Yes.

 

[JohnnyGuitar]

Re: Is Gibson Typecast?

Maybe one day guitarists will learn that we play with our hands, ears and heart, not with our eyes.

Or with the logos on the headstock... :cool2:


Come on Zerb, you went a little astray from the OP. People who jump to defend Gibson whenever the company's name is mentioned are just a reflection of those who jump to attack the company at every occasion.