Schecter’s negative Gibson headstock

[Inflames626]

It's rare to hear Metal on the middle position overall, TBH. I play metal, and I like how the middle position sounds, but it's rare that I ever get to use it. I like it clean 51% of the time more with the middle position than the neck position, but Metallica cleans are all neck always and rhytms... well... it's bridge position or death. And it's not like Kirk has played Metal for like 30+ years now, LOL.

I think it's Kirk's guitar as much as Peter Green's or Gary Moore's. Kirk commands as much sales if not more than either of the other two guys.

Rex_Rocker , good calling me out on the middle position phase thing. Wasn't even thinking about that. Just "bridge pickup will be out of phase and sound weak."

About Kirk, I'd say most people are going to associate him with his black ESP KH EMG Super Strats from the late 80s/early 90s (even his spider graphic/Floyded Les Paul variant which I used to see all the time on the Black Album tour but haven't seen in many years). I'd buy one if I could remove the graphics/inlays.

Since Load/Reload and the playing of standard tuned songs live in Eb he really seems to favor his Mummy guitar these days.

That said, seeing this is cool (Kirk playing Fleetwood Mac with Judas Priest on Peter Green's guitar). Kirk tributing Priest tributing Kirk tributing Fleetwood Mac tributing Peter Green.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsWmF32OGgo

If Gibson wants to reach out to players my age it is better they go Ritchie Faulkner's route. Not only do I like Ritchie as a person and think he's a great player, I love how his signature models combine classic style with modern features.

Ritchie and I are the same age. Guys like me were too young to thrash back in the day but too old to djent. We're a combination of 80s, 90s, and 00s.

If Gibson wants to reach players in our age demographic, Gibson needs to offer more for the prices they charge, especially since a lot of us are already technically inclined with Axe FX/Kemper units, impulse responses, and any of a number of other software tools that could easily compensate for a lack of "tone wood" at a much cheaper price than a brand new Gibson slab of mahogany. Epiphone does this to an extent, as does Kramer, but for some reason they won't put Gibson on anything modern-ish for fear of diluting the heritage of the brand name.

I get it. Gibson tops are beautiful works of art and that is where a lot of the cost is. But I like gloss black better, so I don't need all that complexity in the finish.

Further, for the type of music I play, I don't need warmth. I need tightness in the low end, scoop in the low mids (400hz-ish), a pronounced upper mid (2khz-ish) and brightness in the highs.

If I believe in any kind of "tone wood," (which I don't--wood is mostly a visual thing IMO and that's on guitars that are not painted a solid color--different woods accept different paints and finishes differently), I would choose a completely maple guitar over mahogany most likely.

Bright sounding wood, bright sounding guitar. Might even go for stainless steel strings if one wanted even brighter.

We're only going to get fewer sustainable trees. The market is flooded with used stuff. The number of buyers coming into the market that Gibson wants is small.

Their business model is unsustainable.

Then again, it isn't so much about buying a new Lexus, but a used one.

If only Gibson were a Lexus of guitars and not a dated Cadillac.

 

[Inflames626]

Plus, it's true, people may not know who Peter Green or Gary Moore are. But if you say, "That was the guitar used on early Fleetwood Mac albums," in part, I think that justifies the price.

I mean, how much is Chuck Berry's guitar from "Johnny B. Goode" worth? Or Scottie Moore's guitars he used on iconic Elvis recordings?

I don't know who Scottie Moore is, but if you tell me that's "the guitar Elvis (sort of) used," then I'm probably going to think the price is worth it.

 

[Inflames626]

Kirk hasn't played any new original metal that's classic in 30+ years. But every now and again new stuff shines. I'm thinking "All Nightmare Long," and "Spit Out the Bone." Plus, he plays metal classics about 50 gigs a year and needs the live gear to produce that sound. So I'd say he still plays metal, even if he's not allowed by Lars and Het to write very good metal. (Kirk's cinematic, Sergio Leone-esque "Portals" EP wasn't bad for what it was and shows potential for what Metallica could do if they were still inspired to push themselves hard creatively.)

 

[Top-L]

Gibson has really connected with the Blooze lawyers and retired boomer demographic. In the same way Joe Bonamassa has. I perceive that Fender has captured the "working man's" ethos. Unless we are talking about reliced telecasters and Springsteen fans, in which case they overlap with the Gibson demographic.

Maybe if I was ten years older or had more money than time, they would appeal to me.

I don't have any pictures of myself playing my neon superstrats; I probably look like a clown. If I cared about image, I would be all about Gibson.

 

[zionstrat]

Gibson builds nice guitars but they remind me of GM/Cadillac in the 1950s with their fanbase cult.

This is exactly right.. they have lost most of their traditional markets to competition due to lack of innovation, low quality and high prices. So the only thing left is to fall back on brand and go for the moon.

They had an excellent chance at bankruptcy to rejig based on smaller numbers of high quality guitars for specific user needs. The funding and reorg knowledge was available but they didn't go that route.

Hidden in the background is Epiphone.. they've got some good guitars at good prices and contribute a significant amount of cash to the barrel...

Hopefully Gibson ignores them.

 

[ErikH]

Hidden in the background is Epiphone.. they've got some good guitars at good prices and contribute a significant amount of cash to the barrel...

Hopefully Gibson ignores them.

I hope this is meant to be sarcastic because Epiphone is owned by Gibson.

I've never bought a Gibson new, always used. My last two I bought off individuals I know, not from the used section at a store. I wish I still had the SG Classic but my Les Paul will be with me forever.

 

[Inflames626]

Gibson has really connected with the Blooze lawyers and retired boomer demographic. In the same way Joe Bonamassa has. I perceive that Fender has captured the "working man's" ethos. Unless we are talking about reliced telecasters and Springsteen fans, in which case they overlap with the Gibson demographic.

Maybe if I was ten years older or had more money than time, they would appeal to me.

I don't have any pictures of myself playing my neon superstrats; I probably look like a clown. If I cared about image, I would be all about Gibson.

Joe innovates blues playing though, I think. I definitely respect him as a player. He's traditional blues with a spin on it to appeal to younger people.

That said, Brian Setzer, Robben Ford, and many others have been doing the modern blues thing for years. They deserve more recognition than from just guitarists.

I respect Fender mainly because their employees bought the company back from CBS. Not some corporation or venture capital hedge fund.

 

[Rex_Rocker]

Hidden in the background is Epiphone.. they've got some good guitars at good prices and contribute a significant amount of cash to the barrel...

Hopefully Gibson ignores them.

Epis nowadays I feel are severely overpriced just because they're the licensed Gibson copy, so I wouldn't praise them, TBH.

I bought two of the new 2022 Epiphone Les Pauls. One had a nasty QC issue that made me exchange it. Both of them had terrible fretwork out of the box. They're both really underspec'd with horrible rattly bridges with lousy plating. The Epi "Probuckers" aren't terrible, but they're certainly no EMG's, Seymour Duncans, DiMarzios, Gibson pickups. Even the LP shape is not really all that close if you compare it to Gibson itself or even some of the other "nicer" Gibson copies.

I don't mean to bad mouth them. I'm sure they make some great solid guitars. My 1959 which I kept (that I decided I'm selling, BTW) is alright. But for one third of price of my Epi 1959, I bought a Squier CV that feels as good if not better. I agree, the Squier is made of cheaper woods to source, and has the bolt-on construction. But still... 1/3 of the price gets you as much of a solid-feeling mod platform.

If I were looking for a Gibson-ish guitar on a tighter budget, I'd prefer LTD or Schecter. The problem with those is their higher-end stuff is starting to overlap with the mid-low priced stuff nowadays.

I remember the LTD 300 series used to be like what. 400-450 in the 2000's.

 

[GuitarDoc]

Gibson builds nice guitars but they remind me of GM/Cadillac in the 1950s with their fanbase cult. PRS might even be worse (I think Gibson needs to sue PRS more than anyone else).

Gibson's exorbitant prices for their guitars new only generate profit margins to pay legal fees for Gibson to sue their competitors, creating less competition and allowing Gibson to charge even higher prices.

I respect them as an historical company that crafted iconic body shapes for heavy metal music decades before the world was ready, mainly the Explorer.

When newer companies innovated the Explorer in the 1980s it was a good thing. They did this mainly by increasing the scale length to 25.5" and adding a Floyd Rose bridge. I do not see a problem here because, while the shape is similar to a Gibson, the guitar design is fundamentally different due to the scale length increase and floating bridge.

Further, I do not understand how so many people can continue to remain loyal to a company like Gibson that overextended itself, went bankrupt, got back on its feet when it didn't deserve to based on its business practices, and now is suing people as an additional revenue stream. It's like Gibson's customers are choosing to reward bad.

Moreover, I don't see any of these lawsuits slowing down nearly exact (visually) Gibson copies made in the People's Republic of China and sold on Ebay, Alibaba, DHGate, etc. A U.S. court can rule in Gibson's favor to stop production and the Chinese Communist Party can just say, "No," because their entire point is to weaken U.S. companies. Nothing will happen.

In that light, Gibson is only hurting other American companies by trying to destroy Dean, IMO. And I say that when I don't like Dean designs much at all.

I totally agree.

 

[GuitarDoc]

Epis nowadays I feel are severely overpriced just because they're the licensed Gibson copy, so I wouldn't praise them, TBH.

I bought two of the new 2022 Epiphone Les Pauls. One had a nasty QC issue that made me exchange it. Both of them had terrible fretwork out of the box. They're both really underspec'd with horrible rattly bridges with lousy plating. The Epi "Probuckers" aren't terrible, but they're certainly no EMG's, Seymour Duncans, DiMarzios, Gibson pickups. Even the LP shape is not really all that close if you compare it to Gibson itself or even some of the other "nicer" Gibson copies.

I don't mean to bad mouth them. I'm sure they make some great solid guitars. My 1959 which I kept (that I decided I'm selling, BTW) is alright. But for one third of price of my Epi 1959, I bought a Squier CV that feels as good if not better. I agree, the Squier is made of cheaper woods to source, and has the bolt-on construction. But still... 1/3 of the price gets you as much of a solid-feeling mod platform.

If I were looking for a Gibson-ish guitar on a tighter budget, I'd prefer LTD or Schecter. The problem with those is their higher-end stuff is starting to overlap with the mid-low priced stuff nowadays.

I remember the LTD 300 series used to be like what. 400-450 in the 2000's.

I think you just had a rare unfortunate experience with the Epis you bought.
I've had nearly a dozen Gibsons over the past 60 years and have had no complaints AT ALL about any of them before the 80's. The newer ones' QC sucks, however. I've also had a couple dozen Epis over the same time period and never had ANY QC issues. Yes, some of their parts aren't the greatest (especially their pups before they came out with their "Probuckers"). But their lower quality parts are how they can keep their prices low, and they can all be replaced with better quality if you want to. That's not a big deal.

 

[NegativeEase]

There have been several manufacturers do this, and I giggle everytime -especially when you consider Gibson stole that headstock design themselves

 

[Inflames626]

I think you just had a rare unfortunate experience with the Epis you bought.
I've had nearly a dozen Gibsons over the past 60 years and have had no complaints AT ALL about any of them before the 80's. The newer ones' QC sucks, however. I've also had a couple dozen Epis over the same time period and never had ANY QC issues. Yes, some of their parts aren't the greatest (especially their pups before they came out with their "Probuckers"). But their lower quality parts are how they can keep their prices low, and they can all be replaced with better quality if you want to. That's not a big deal.

Correct me if I'm wrong, GuitarDoc , but didn't most U.S. manufacturing, guitars included, start to fall off in terms of quality control between 1973-1975? (For reference, I was born in 1980.) Definitely by the late 70s and stagflation nearly everything in every industry seems bad.

If it's Fender or Gibson, the moment the date hits 1970 or a little after I start becoming a little skeptical of quality.

I say this because I remember a lot of people complaining about the price of the Adam Jones (of Tool) silverburst Les Paul artist model. Several said that the guitar was originally a 1970s silverburst and, relative to the 1950s-1960s LPs, 1970s quality was not as good and the silverburst finish was not as popular.

So, essentially Gibson was taking a less well-regarded model from its past and using a popular artist from the present to boost that model's popularity.

 

[JMP/HBE]

Such a deep thread for a schec-turd.

 

[Rex_Rocker]

I think you just had a rare unfortunate experience with the Epis you bought.
I've had nearly a dozen Gibsons over the past 60 years and have had no complaints AT ALL about any of them before the 80's. The newer ones' QC sucks, however. I've also had a couple dozen Epis over the same time period and never had ANY QC issues. Yes, some of their parts aren't the greatest (especially their pups before they came out with their "Probuckers"). But their lower quality parts are how they can keep their prices low, and they can all be replaced with better quality if you want to. That's not a big deal.

Perhaps. But if you've had only bad Epis and only good LTD's, which would you go for? The bad fretwork thing is a constant I keep reading on Epi reviews, and the bad QC thing I had to take mine back for was just bad fretwork taken to the extreme.

I know it's a taste thing, but the new headstock shape that everyone raves about being so much better looks horrible in the Standard-based models. On the Customs, it looks fine. But on the Standards, it just looks like a huge boat paddle, IMO.