ibanezrocks
HardtailPisser
Re: Where Gibson went wrong
The melody maker is allowed to be ugly because its vintage correct :bigthumb:
The melody maker is allowed to be ugly because its vintage correct :bigthumb:
Where Gibson went wrong
- Thread starter Uk Ant
- Start date
some_dude
Raging BB Gunologist
Re: Where Gibson went wrong
You don't spend years building up a reputation like Gibson, Fender, or PRS do so that you can charge cost.
And it doesn't matter if there's only $300 worth of material in a guitar if you still have to pay the guy who cuts it, the guy who glues it, the guy who sands it, the guy who sprays it, the guy who assembles it, the guy who binds it, the guy who puts it in the box, the guy who ships it, the guy who pays them, the crony who actually fills out the cheques, the guy who pays the heat, airconditioning, electricity, fixes the machinery, maintains the tools, orders the stock, pays the taxman, pays medical benefits, manages the workforce, and the guy who cleans the sh*tters.
Or, you could go hire a bunch of Asians to work for $4 a day and fire anyone who complains.
You don't spend years building up a reputation like Gibson, Fender, or PRS do so that you can charge cost.
And it doesn't matter if there's only $300 worth of material in a guitar if you still have to pay the guy who cuts it, the guy who glues it, the guy who sands it, the guy who sprays it, the guy who assembles it, the guy who binds it, the guy who puts it in the box, the guy who ships it, the guy who pays them, the crony who actually fills out the cheques, the guy who pays the heat, airconditioning, electricity, fixes the machinery, maintains the tools, orders the stock, pays the taxman, pays medical benefits, manages the workforce, and the guy who cleans the sh*tters.
Or, you could go hire a bunch of Asians to work for $4 a day and fire anyone who complains.
Philcguitars
New member
Re: Where Gibson went wrong
Just DON'T Get me started again!
Just DON'T Get me started again!
Uk Ant
New member
Re: Where Gibson went wrong
Don't even get me started on Fender, at least Gibson presently make guitars I'd actually buy (if I had the cash).
There is only one fender that actually fits the bill of things I want in a strat, and I can only find that in black with gold hardware.
Hmm, might start a Fender rant tomorrow, then Ibanez the day after...
Don't even get me started on Fender, at least Gibson presently make guitars I'd actually buy (if I had the cash).
There is only one fender that actually fits the bill of things I want in a strat, and I can only find that in black with gold hardware.
Hmm, might start a Fender rant tomorrow, then Ibanez the day after...
Moonsorrow
New member
Re: Where Gibson went wrong
There is no fake neck pup in the Melody Maker. It just says Melody Maker on the pickguard at the bottom of the neck,it isn`t there to pretend to be a neck pup. Also,there are Melody Maker models that do have two pups.
There is no fake neck pup in the Melody Maker. It just says Melody Maker on the pickguard at the bottom of the neck,it isn`t there to pretend to be a neck pup. Also,there are Melody Maker models that do have two pups.
KeeperOS
New member
Re: Where Gibson went wrong
There isn't a single Gibson guitar I would ever buy, even if I had the money and didn't have anything to do with 'em.
Oh, and for the record, chances are I wouldn't buy a Fender either even if I had the money unless I found one I REALLY liked and didn't mind the fact that I'd probably swap out everything not made out of wood...
There.
/end_of_thread
Seriously guys, nowadays there are a gazillion manufacturers that build everything to cover pretty much any niche there's ever been and if for some strange reason you can't find EXACTLY what you're looking for there still are a cr@pload of builders that will make you your one-off dream guitar for a pretty decent price so why concern yourselves.
Really now...
There isn't a single Gibson guitar I would ever buy, even if I had the money and didn't have anything to do with 'em.
Oh, and for the record, chances are I wouldn't buy a Fender either even if I had the money unless I found one I REALLY liked and didn't mind the fact that I'd probably swap out everything not made out of wood...
There.
/end_of_thread
Seriously guys, nowadays there are a gazillion manufacturers that build everything to cover pretty much any niche there's ever been and if for some strange reason you can't find EXACTLY what you're looking for there still are a cr@pload of builders that will make you your one-off dream guitar for a pretty decent price so why concern yourselves.
Really now...
blueman335
Mojo's Minions
Re: Where Gibson went wrong
It's just that 99.5% of players who make any kind of effort to take care of their guitars, never have a problem with destroyed necks. You can't let that half a percent dictate your guitar choice. There's a lot of guys, usually young and somewhat irresponsible, that leave guitars laying on the floor, or leaning precariously against something, and they account for almost all of that half percent of the mishaps & damage. Most players learn to put their guitars safely away when they're done playing. When you do that, damage is extremely rare. I can't imagine anyone cracking or breaking a neck, but then I play mostly with middle-aged guys, and they take care of their gear. It's like CD's: put them in the case when you're done, & scratches and cracks are highly unlikely; leave them loose, laying on the floor, and yeah, there will be problems. If you're accident prone, or too lazy to take care of your guitar(s), then bolt-ons should be considered. I personally can't stand them, and the odds are so remote of me breaking a neck in two, that there is no reason to get one.
One thing Gibson's consistently done right is to use set necks. This kind of went off track. Back to the topic.
It's just that 99.5% of players who make any kind of effort to take care of their guitars, never have a problem with destroyed necks. You can't let that half a percent dictate your guitar choice. There's a lot of guys, usually young and somewhat irresponsible, that leave guitars laying on the floor, or leaning precariously against something, and they account for almost all of that half percent of the mishaps & damage. Most players learn to put their guitars safely away when they're done playing. When you do that, damage is extremely rare. I can't imagine anyone cracking or breaking a neck, but then I play mostly with middle-aged guys, and they take care of their gear. It's like CD's: put them in the case when you're done, & scratches and cracks are highly unlikely; leave them loose, laying on the floor, and yeah, there will be problems. If you're accident prone, or too lazy to take care of your guitar(s), then bolt-ons should be considered. I personally can't stand them, and the odds are so remote of me breaking a neck in two, that there is no reason to get one.
One thing Gibson's consistently done right is to use set necks. This kind of went off track. Back to the topic.
blueman335
Mojo's Minions
Re: Where Gibson went wrong
1) No one's charging "cost" for guitars, big companies or little. All have healthy mark ups. Some are more healthy than others.
2) Gibsons are assembly line guitars, and labor-time per man is short, and they make tens of thousands of guitars every year, and have been making electrics for over 60 years. This is down to a science and they churn them out like widgets. There are hand-made guitars that sell for less, and those luthiers produce far fewer guitars and still make a nice profit. Don't make excuses for greedy companies. They're playing Jedi mind tricks on you. If they can't make a healthy profit at half their current prices, they're hopelessly inefficient, and need a serious reorganization. I'm an accountant; don't let these corporations feed you this BS, and then parrot it yourself. They're greedy, period.
1) No one's charging "cost" for guitars, big companies or little. All have healthy mark ups. Some are more healthy than others.
2) Gibsons are assembly line guitars, and labor-time per man is short, and they make tens of thousands of guitars every year, and have been making electrics for over 60 years. This is down to a science and they churn them out like widgets. There are hand-made guitars that sell for less, and those luthiers produce far fewer guitars and still make a nice profit. Don't make excuses for greedy companies. They're playing Jedi mind tricks on you. If they can't make a healthy profit at half their current prices, they're hopelessly inefficient, and need a serious reorganization. I'm an accountant; don't let these corporations feed you this BS, and then parrot it yourself. They're greedy, period.
Last edited:
some_dude
Raging BB Gunologist
Re: Where Gibson went wrong
They're not playing Jedi mind tricks, and I don't parrot their company line. My Dad ran businesses. They're in it to make money. Where you and I differ is that I don't hold it against them.
Besides, if you're an accountant then you know that you can't compare the expense sheet of a small self employed Luther selling direct to the customer to that of a large brand-name manufacturer, not to forget all the middle men between the factory and the purchaser that each want their own piece of the pie and the corporation's responsibility to generate profit for it's investors.
They're not playing Jedi mind tricks, and I don't parrot their company line. My Dad ran businesses. They're in it to make money. Where you and I differ is that I don't hold it against them.
Besides, if you're an accountant then you know that you can't compare the expense sheet of a small self employed Luther selling direct to the customer to that of a large brand-name manufacturer, not to forget all the middle men between the factory and the purchaser that each want their own piece of the pie and the corporation's responsibility to generate profit for it's investors.
Last edited:
blueman335
Mojo's Minions
Re: Where Gibson went wrong
Everyone's in it for a profit, but a big company buys in huge quantities & gets very low bulk pricing on their raw materials. It just doesn't cost that much make a guitar, especially on an assembly-line. Every step in the process is analyzed & quantified, and efficient as possible. I've been a Controller for 30 years, I know how cost & profits work. Now if a manufacturer wants to mark-up their product way beyond what their costs are, fine, but they automatically exclude 95% of their potential customers. That nitch worked when the economy was booming, it doesn't work now, especially for a non-essential consumer item like musical instruments. People aren't buying cars, and they need those. As with the housing market, prices got out of control, pumped up by record demand. Those days are officially over and Gibson will learn have to learn some humility. They have to win back the average working man if they are to survive. We the consumer, have subsidized rampant corporate greed and waste for decades; we can't afford to carry those bloated companies now; we're losing our jobs & houses. GM is on the verge of collapse, you think that Gibson isn't bleeding financially and in serious trouble too? The ridiculously high prices aren't cool any more.
Everyone's in it for a profit, but a big company buys in huge quantities & gets very low bulk pricing on their raw materials. It just doesn't cost that much make a guitar, especially on an assembly-line. Every step in the process is analyzed & quantified, and efficient as possible. I've been a Controller for 30 years, I know how cost & profits work. Now if a manufacturer wants to mark-up their product way beyond what their costs are, fine, but they automatically exclude 95% of their potential customers. That nitch worked when the economy was booming, it doesn't work now, especially for a non-essential consumer item like musical instruments. People aren't buying cars, and they need those. As with the housing market, prices got out of control, pumped up by record demand. Those days are officially over and Gibson will learn have to learn some humility. They have to win back the average working man if they are to survive. We the consumer, have subsidized rampant corporate greed and waste for decades; we can't afford to carry those bloated companies now; we're losing our jobs & houses. GM is on the verge of collapse, you think that Gibson isn't bleeding financially and in serious trouble too? The ridiculously high prices aren't cool any more.
Gunny47
New member
Re: Where Gibson went wrong
Gibson had the same problem that they had for years... They have the classic designs - LP, 335, SG etc. They can do SO MUCH with these designs, but they choose to keep them pretty much "vintage" like keeping them with dual humbuckers, 3 way switches, no push/pulls etc etc. And then, when they try to "innovate" they make some totally off the wall metal bullshiz guitar that nobody but collectors are going to buy. They need to find a middle ground, introduce more practical but newer designs. Come out with more P90 neck/hum bridge guitars, stuff like that to make the instruments more versatile.... This has definitely been said before by guys like blueman335, but it couldn't be more true.
Gibson had the same problem that they had for years... They have the classic designs - LP, 335, SG etc. They can do SO MUCH with these designs, but they choose to keep them pretty much "vintage" like keeping them with dual humbuckers, 3 way switches, no push/pulls etc etc. And then, when they try to "innovate" they make some totally off the wall metal bullshiz guitar that nobody but collectors are going to buy. They need to find a middle ground, introduce more practical but newer designs. Come out with more P90 neck/hum bridge guitars, stuff like that to make the instruments more versatile.... This has definitely been said before by guys like blueman335, but it couldn't be more true.
KeeperOS
New member
Re: Where Gibson went wrong
Gibson didn't R&D that, they just bought the rights to use it from the guy that did...
Gibson didn't R&D that, they just bought the rights to use it from the guy that did...
theboatcandream
dreamonologist
Re: Where Gibson went wrong
SG, V, and Explorer are really the same formula IMO... dual humbuckers, mahogany neck on a mahogany body, 24.75" scale and similar neck dimensions. Exceptions being the 61 reissue which has a different neck heal.
SG, V, and Explorer are really the same formula IMO... dual humbuckers, mahogany neck on a mahogany body, 24.75" scale and similar neck dimensions. Exceptions being the 61 reissue which has a different neck heal.
blueman335
Mojo's Minions
Re: Where Gibson went wrong
+1. It isn't that hard to come up with innovations that guitarists will like...just listen to what they like & what they want. We're full of suggestions. Filter out the whacked-out ones, and put the good ideas into development. The reverse V was an example of a whacked-out idea that was a total waste of time & resources. I remember Epiphone had a limited run of a guitar that had a body like a travel trailer. Another had red flames on the body & dice for knobs. Who comes up with this nonsense that no one will buy, and who approves it for production? Fire all of them! Geez, we could come up with a lot better ideas than that for free! These are diversions from making models we really want, and this stupidity runs up their overhead & makes their prices higher. We the consumer, end up subsidizing this goofball stuff.
Get creative with new PU's (like Duncan & DMz have), and use different PU combinations in more models. Why aren't twin P-90 versions of SG's, LP's, & 335's a lot more common? And HB/P-90 guitars? I've sent at least 10 suggestions to Epiphone Customer Service, so far three have been implemented (and they were just common sense):
1) Since they were making the gold 295, why not make an ES175 in a sunburst finish.
2) Give us a P-90 LP Std in black. Same issues with gold, (just too extreme for some players).
3) An arctic white SG Custom with a maestro (the cream yellow one is ugly).
Maybe some of my other suggestions will see the light of day, if enough other people speak up. If they'd listen to their potential buyers, they'd sell more guitars.
+1. It isn't that hard to come up with innovations that guitarists will like...just listen to what they like & what they want. We're full of suggestions. Filter out the whacked-out ones, and put the good ideas into development. The reverse V was an example of a whacked-out idea that was a total waste of time & resources. I remember Epiphone had a limited run of a guitar that had a body like a travel trailer. Another had red flames on the body & dice for knobs. Who comes up with this nonsense that no one will buy, and who approves it for production? Fire all of them! Geez, we could come up with a lot better ideas than that for free! These are diversions from making models we really want, and this stupidity runs up their overhead & makes their prices higher. We the consumer, end up subsidizing this goofball stuff.
Get creative with new PU's (like Duncan & DMz have), and use different PU combinations in more models. Why aren't twin P-90 versions of SG's, LP's, & 335's a lot more common? And HB/P-90 guitars? I've sent at least 10 suggestions to Epiphone Customer Service, so far three have been implemented (and they were just common sense):
1) Since they were making the gold 295, why not make an ES175 in a sunburst finish.
2) Give us a P-90 LP Std in black. Same issues with gold, (just too extreme for some players).
3) An arctic white SG Custom with a maestro (the cream yellow one is ugly).
Maybe some of my other suggestions will see the light of day, if enough other people speak up. If they'd listen to their potential buyers, they'd sell more guitars.
some_dude
Raging BB Gunologist
Re: Where Gibson went wrong
Pump up prices in order to slow demand (though not desire) and thus lower production numbers (thus costs).
If Gibson prices themselves out of existence it'll be their own fault, however I don't think they're at that stage yet.
If you want an affordable guitar you can buy Epiphone (starting at $129 for an LP Junior Special and working their way up to $800 for a ZW Signature or Prophesy LP), or a Gibson Melody Maker relatively cheap. If you want a stripped down 'working man's Gibson' you can spring $800 for a Les Paul Jr, $900 for an SG, $1000 for a Vintage Mahogany Les Paul or $1200 for a Studio model Les Paul.... all of which are priced and marketed as either student models or "working man's" models. Got a bit more cash, drop $1800 on an ES339, $2000 on a Les Paul Standard/Traditional. Bit more, get a nicer standard (~$2500), or a vintage style re-issue(~$2000-~$3500). Bit more, get a Custom Shop (up to around $6000 for non special edition/signature stuff).
In short, Gibson's got themselves covered at pretty much every price point.
Further, I'm pulling these prices off MF, so if you're local dealer is feeling the pinch he may price lower or you may be able to talk him down a bit.
Anyway, I suspect Gibson will maintain or increase prices on Gibson products in order to maintain premium status of their brand-name, and will continue to market Epiphone as the affordable brand you buy while still working your way towards a Gibson.
Pump up prices in order to slow demand (though not desire) and thus lower production numbers (thus costs).
If Gibson prices themselves out of existence it'll be their own fault, however I don't think they're at that stage yet.
If you want an affordable guitar you can buy Epiphone (starting at $129 for an LP Junior Special and working their way up to $800 for a ZW Signature or Prophesy LP), or a Gibson Melody Maker relatively cheap. If you want a stripped down 'working man's Gibson' you can spring $800 for a Les Paul Jr, $900 for an SG, $1000 for a Vintage Mahogany Les Paul or $1200 for a Studio model Les Paul.... all of which are priced and marketed as either student models or "working man's" models. Got a bit more cash, drop $1800 on an ES339, $2000 on a Les Paul Standard/Traditional. Bit more, get a nicer standard (~$2500), or a vintage style re-issue(~$2000-~$3500). Bit more, get a Custom Shop (up to around $6000 for non special edition/signature stuff).
In short, Gibson's got themselves covered at pretty much every price point.
Further, I'm pulling these prices off MF, so if you're local dealer is feeling the pinch he may price lower or you may be able to talk him down a bit.
Anyway, I suspect Gibson will maintain or increase prices on Gibson products in order to maintain premium status of their brand-name, and will continue to market Epiphone as the affordable brand you buy while still working your way towards a Gibson.
Last edited:
