Where Gibson went wrong

[Uk Ant]

There has been a fair amount of Gibson bashing recently, and I can see why.
Quality control aside (one of my bug bears with them) one of the big problems they’ve had down the years is new products.
Now they’ve got, at the core, a very strong product line. Lets face it Les Pauls, SG’s, Vee’s and explorers are iconic designs and they can just churn em out and people will buy them.
It all goes wrong when they try something different, and this is not just a recent thing. Back in the seventies there was the pancake bodies and mini humbuckers in LP’s, then the Marauder!
The eighties were less experimental, and their attempt at a superstrat, the U2, looked pretty good, just a little over the top.
These days they just can’t seem to put a foot right, inverse explorer, reversed Vee, that butt ugly SG/Vee Zakk Wyld abomination.
Even on the safe territory of the LP they don’t always get it right. The BFG has it’s appeal, I suppose, but it really is a poor marketing ploy to sell a part finish instrument, our rhythm guitarist tried one and felt a bit nervous that he was going to get splinters from the neck it was so rough.
Now I know the purists out there will hate the Acxess, with it’s floyd rose and reduced heel, and yes, some of the Robot related gizmo’s may well threaten the status quo, but hey ho.
I just wonder where they get some of their ideas from.
Well here’s a simple product idea from me.
I fancy a simple LP, bit lighter than usual, bit of contouring in the back, dot inlays, modern tuners and a Floyd Rose as an option.
Basically all the stuff that’s on the Axcess but in a studio, available in a wide range of colours, in fact just a range would be good. Surely they could make this for similar cost to a studio?

 

[RockStarNick]

Re: Where Gibson went wrong

It all goes wrong when they try something different...

Amen to that.

 

[JOLLY]

Re: Where Gibson went wrong

Tell them what you think.

http://www2.gibson.com/Gibson/Talk-2-Us.aspx

 

[ES350]

Re: Where Gibson went wrong

And Fender didn't? Solid state amps, the Lead II, Antigua finishes, PCB amps built like cheap DVD players, 10,000 useless variations on the Strat/Tele, reissues of 70's models that nobody wanted the first time around, 5K+ Custom Shop models of bolt on guitars?
Just sayin...

 

[blueman335]

Re: Where Gibson went wrong

Reverse V and all these weird designs from left field, and they still haven't seen the need to make a Super SG (HSS with P-90's and a 5-way stitch) that could have given the Super Strat serious competition 25 years ago! And that bizarre pairing of the bright 498T/dark 490R that so many players don't like. Players should not regularly be replacing PU's on a guitar they paid a couple grand for. For the inventors of HB's, they've been napping while Duncan & DiMarzio have run circles around them. Single-wire leads on their factory guitar PU's, and 4-wire in their aftermarket ones; great decision, that's saved them a fortune. Why not offer the Jimmy Page system on a wide variety of LP's? Why put hot ceramic PU's in a LP "Classic?" Why not more P-90 guitars, and HB/P-90's combos? Whos' getting paid to make these decisions? I'm fiercely loyal to the guitars designed in the McCarty years; too management decisions in the decades since then have been questionable.

There's been too much wasted effort in developing things that have no chance of catching on with the public, and at the same time, ignoring player's needs for reasonably-priced quality guitars for the working man. Carvin & Heritage manage to make very good instruments that sell for far less. Gibson got caught up in being yuppie status symbols, and forgot about the bulk of the guitar-buying public. Fender's been allowed to dominate the market because of it. How many guys are spending $4,000 on a guitar these days? Listen to your potential customers! Ignore them at your own risk!

 

[phil_104]

Re: Where Gibson went wrong

And Fender didn't? Solid state amps, the Lead II, Antigua finishes, PCB amps built like cheap DVD players, 10,000 useless variations on the Strat/Tele, reissues of 70's models that nobody wanted the first time around, 5K+ Custom Shop models of bolt on guitars?
Just sayin...

Would rather have 10 000 useless variations than 1 variation that happens to be upside down. Also, my bass player has a 70s reissue jazz bass, and loves it ; bound neck, block inlays, big headstock.

I think gibson went wrong when they tried to be 2 groundbreaking instead of taking it slow and making small variations of their instruments. Instead of reversing the V, try making a production one with new woods. Instead of making holes in your guitars, or making robot ones, start a new line of instruments with p-90s in em. I'm talking V's, explorers, les paul standards, sg standars, all with different pickups (p-90s, mini humbs, combinations).

For the record, I think a good example of this is the Les paul access. Might be blasphemy to some, but a Les Paul with a locking trem and a carved heel will appeal to some, and I can see it selling because it has the classic looks and other features of the classic design.

You don't need to come out with something that no one could of imagined to be a winner. You need to make something people have thought of, and said ''man, I would want that''.

 

[Uk Ant]

Re: Where Gibson went wrong

For the record, I think a good example of this is the Les paul access. Might be blasphemy to some, but a Les Paul with a locking trem and a carved heel will appeal to some, and I can see it selling because it has the classic looks and other features of the classic design.

I like the idea of the Axcess, but the vintage tuners and swanky maple top seem at odds with the Floyd.

You don't need to come out with something that no one could of imagined to be a winner. You need to make something people have thought of, and said ''man, I would want that''.

That's the ticket really.
It's not very often I see a Gibson that makes me drool without a maple top, I've got one of those, it says Tokai on the headstock. And if I do see something I can't help but think that what it really needs is a slightly slimmer neck, a little lss weight and better upper fret access.

 

[uOpt]

Re: Where Gibson went wrong

Reverse V and similar gizmos were limited runs, you can't count them.

But I agree, if Gibson wants to break some ground, a second attempt at what the SG tried to do is in order. That means a Les Paul that is slightly changed to be more "accessible":

• Lower horn with top contour in the bow like PRS does.
• On the back of where an upper horn would be, make a "trench" for the thumb in the back of the guitar so that you have something to brace against when you play in the upper registers.
• Some form of non-silly tremolo option.
• Locking tuners.
• Maybe move the pots and the switch around.
• I personally don't like belly contours but if people want it...

But:

• Do not move the fretboard out of the guitar. It only make the thing prove to be head-heavy and it throws off people's playing.
• Don't make the body thinner. If it's too heavy and you think swiss-cheesing isn't ruining the sound, go for it.

 

[Moonsorrow]

Re: Where Gibson went wrong

Who cares!

I like Gibson but if they make models i don`t like i simply don`t buy those. They have plenty of other awesome guitars to choose from.

 

[lex666]

Re: Where Gibson went wrong

Gibson has created a wonderful formula on 5 well known, highly venerable models, the LP, SG, V, Explorer and 335. IMO, these models encompass something special about them and should not be changed at all. Leave these classic designs alone. Sure, you can offer different colors, electronics pickups, cosmetics, trems, etc etc, but please don't chamber or 'weight relieve' them - that's not the way it supposed to be. Please don't take a classic design and do kid stuff like reverse or SG+V or holy V. thats just dums. There's not really a need to come up with new designs - Fender's been builing the same 2 designs for decades. Take your 5 designs and improve on them - don't change 'em! Think about what your players want or need. Its not that hard, we're all pretty easy to please.

When I buy a Guiness, I want it to taste like a Guiness. Don't change the flavor. I don't want a light beer. And certainly not a combination of 2 beers. I want what I wanted.

 

[phil_104]

Re: Where Gibson went wrong

Reverse V and similar gizmos were limited runs, you can't count them.

But I agree, if Gibson wants to break some ground, a second attempt at what the SG tried to do is in order. That means a Les Paul that is slightly changed to be more "accessible":

• Lower horn with top contour in the bow like PRS does.
• On the back of where an upper horn would be, make a "trench" for the thumb in the back of the guitar so that you have something to brace against when you play in the upper registers.
• Some form of non-silly tremolo option.
• Locking tuners.
• Maybe move the pots and the switch around.
• I personally don't like belly contours but if people want it...

But:

• Do not move the fretboard out of the guitar. It only make the thing prove to be head-heavy and it throws off people's playing.
• Don't make the body thinner. If it's too heavy and you think swiss-cheesing isn't ruining the sound, go for it.

So basically, make a PRS Singlecut model? The SC245 is exactly that.

 

[uOpt]

Re: Where Gibson went wrong

No, they can still screw up the fretwork

Seriously, it's not the same. Different bridges, do something more to the back of the heel. Nitro finish. Different electronics. A little more traditional than the PRS.

 

[drunkinminer]

Re: Where Gibson went wrong

I think one idea is they should try are bolt on necks. I know alot of people (me being one) steer clear of Gibson because if the neck breaks sometimes it cheaper to just swap necks then repair. Also they should improve the headstock (make stronger) because if a Gibson falls on it's headstock it's just as well to kiss it goodbye but a Fender on the other hand are built like tanks. that must be why I'm such a fender fan. you can abuse them and they still keep going.
Thats what I think they should at least try who knows it just might be the next big thing for gibson.

 

[DonP]

Re: Where Gibson went wrong

You know, the V and Explorer weren't a hit when they came out either, and now look.

Guitarist are hugely skeptical of change. I pretty much hate any Les Paul that doesn't follow 1950's dressing (nickel hardware, Kluson tuners, vintage plastic, knobs, no weight relief, etc). To me, BOTB is my bible.

I applude companies that at least try to innovate. Sure, 9 times out of 10 they get it wrong. But it's great when they get it right.

For example, I tried a new model of LP Tuesday at GC Nashville. This was a new prototype I was told and they didn't even have the truss rod cover for it. The used old "Classic" truss rod covers. I was told this was going to be called the "Traditional Pro".

Non-chambered body.
Gloss top
Satin back and neck (for those "nitro is sticky" whiners).
Locking tuners
57 Classic neck
BB3 Bridge
Push/pull volumes that split the coils (I think - might have been parallel).

The finish wasn't the greatest (I think Gibson peaked in 2002 for the Standard), but the tone was AWESOME. I couldn't get a bad tone out of it. Single coil mode wasn't too whimpey. Played it through a PODxt first, then a Bogner XTC, then a JVM 410, then a JCM 800, a 6505+, ...

If I didn't have 4 LP's already I'd be pretty tempted to take it home.

 

[phil_104]

Re: Where Gibson went wrong

I agree DonP, as what you just described is small practical changes to a proven formula.

 

[ImmortalSix]

Re: Where Gibson went wrong

I think the thing most folks are mad about is that their standard, basic model is almost 3,000 dollars.

Defenders will say "you can't make a quality guitar without incurring a great cost," but you can; just look at PRS's SE line.

But Hunter, that's in Asia!

Yeah, and they're still finished better than the Gibsons and oh, about 1/6th the price.

That's why folks are bashing --- they expect a guitar to be cheap and decent or expensive and awesome, and Gibson is making them expensive and decent


(whereas others are making guitars that are cheap and awesome

They expect that if it's going to cost that much, at least make it blow away the competition.

They just plain don't.

 

[uOpt]

Re: Where Gibson went wrong

Satin back and neck (for those "nitro is sticky" whiners).

I have many nitro guitars (including self-finishing), but the only ones with sticky neck were Gibsons.

 

[phil_104]

Re: Where Gibson went wrong

I have many nitro guitars (including self-finishing), but the only ones with sticky neck were Gibsons.

+1. I have a nitro finished neck, and it is smooth, very smooth.

 

[JohnnyGuitar]

Re: Where Gibson went wrong

It's mostly about the good yet not amazing quality that doesn't justify the price and the fact that their innovations are lame that driv away cosumers.

Plus, if they are trying to target the wealthy market - they do a lot o mistakes while they are at it...


Regardles, Fender are doing a worst job IMO -they might be the lamest of the bunch.
Don't have too many good things to say about big brands like Peavey and Marshall either...

 

[Petrovsk Mizinski]

Re: Where Gibson went wrong

Reverse V and all these weird designs from left field, and they still haven't seen the need to make a Super SG (HSS with P-90's and a 5-way stitch) that could have given the Super Strat serious competition 25 years ago! And that bizarre pairing of the bright 498T/dark 490R that so many players don't like. Players should not regularly be replacing PU's on a guitar they paid a couple grand for. For the inventors of HB's, they've been napping while Duncan & DiMarzio have run circles around them. Single-wire leads on their factory guitar PU's, and 4-wire in their aftermarket ones; great decision, that's saved them a fortune. Why not offer the Jimmy Page system on a wide variety of LP's? Why put hot ceramic PU's in a LP "Classic?" Why not more P-90 guitars, and HB/P-90's combos? Whos' getting paid to make these decisions? I'm fiercely loyal to the guitars designed in the McCarty years; too management decisions in the decades since then have been questionable.

There's been too much wasted effort in developing things that have no chance of catching on with the public, and at the same time, ignoring player's needs for reasonably-priced quality guitars for the working man. Carvin & Heritage manage to make very good instruments that sell for far less. Gibson got caught up in being yuppie status symbols, and forgot about the bulk of the guitar-buying public. Fender's been allowed to dominate the market because of it. How many guys are spending $4,000 on a guitar these days? Listen to your potential customers! Ignore them at your own risk!

Excellent points brought up here.
The price of Gibson guitars are pretty insane in Australia.
We're talking 5 grand minimum for a Les Paul Standard.
Peter Crossley,who has posted his custom guitars up for us to look at on this forum, could make me a guitar, with my choice of pickups/electronics/everything basically, for 2.5 grand.
I don't even get those choices on a 5 grand Gibson.
I could never justify spending 5 grand on a guitar when I get one with better playability, electronics, more expensive pickups, better quality woods etc, for half the price.
Some would argue "But it doesn't have the Gibson name on it", but that kinda stuff comes from the mouths of ignorant players.
People that know their stuff, will know it doesn't matter that it doesn't say Gibson on the headstock, because the name has so much stigma attached to it, a lot of guys would rather their headstock says anything but Gibson.