Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Other Guitars, other instruments' started by Marn99, Feb 9, 2017.
So is Gibson dead yet?
Are they all great? Probably not. Are they all garbage - absolutely not. Are they expensive, without a doubt.
With that said I've had some exceptional guitars made by them. One of them is an absolute keeper for me too.
As always 9 times out of 10 the folks with the most sour grapes are the one who simply can't afford something, so to ease their bruised ego they bash it.
Regardless of my preference for fenders they are gorgeous looking guitars.
Where does that come from? Do you really believe this? Not to mention, USA made Gibson that play great can be had in the $600-800 range, putting them in the range of most guitarists willing to save and trade.
It looks like you're just trying to get a reaction here. I don't think that statement stands up to any scrutiny. People with a limited budget might be more critical, but that's because buying an instrument is more of a commitment for them, which forces them to think about what their priorities really are and to check out all the alternatives.
I would own a Gibson if I considered it enough of a priority, as I have at least that much cash tied up in my double bass and a couple of high-quality acoustics. But I feel like the law of diminishing returns kicks in early with electric guitars and I can't see enough of a tangible benefit to upgrade. I can see the point when you get to things which are built with a lot of hand work and individual attention, but for production-line stuff I'm not so sure.
And my ego is robust enough that I'll gig with off-brand stuff, unbranded partscasters and home built amps if the sound is right.
I suspect all of the big guitar manufacturers are struggling to adapt to the times.
Maybe I'm overlooking something, but electric guitars are pretty low technology endeavors to produce. Sure, CNC machines are pricey; but they are common now. Nowadays, it seems the brand has far more value than the product itself...the name of the game is protecting the brand at all costs.
I'd be curious to know what Gibson and Fender spend on marketing, quality control, and their trademark lawyers vs. product development.
I'm not saying they should spend more on development. It seems that everything has been done, and then reissued. Knowing where they invest their money would kinda layout their business model tho.
That said, there should be no glaring quality problems coming out of any of their factories. Their long term viability is dependent on protecting the brand. In my opinion, nothing hurts a brand more than poor quality. You simply can't let anything less than your best out of the door.
All that said, I'm not going to say the OPs pics are from a Gibson. There needs to be more proof. But, on the 'net, there is no fact checking. Gibson and Fender should have a bigger presence on forums like this. I don't think they can afford to let questions like this creep into the heads of their target customers!
I suppose after 11 pages, I've probably wasted my thoughts on a subject that is already beat to death.
In a photo of the article you posted, thru an "F" hole shot, I could see an inner body body sticker that says Gibson USA.
What development , LOL ?
No one is interested in development any way , - vintage is what its all about. And it shows ,- NOTHING that caught on has happened in the guitar world since the Floyd Rose tremolo or the five way switch !
Some will say that there are still a lot of guitars sold , thats true but there are fewer and fewer players , and they tend to get more and more guitars. I guess its even harder to sell new ideas , when the customer just want 30 slightly different variations of the same guitar , or a very few models.
I think Gibson have actually tried really hard compared to others to do new stuff , using a new nut design , auto tuning , wider fretboards etc a couple of years back on many models.
Kudos to them for offering something new , VERY stupid and naive to think that most people would prefer this on so many of the normal offered models.
Many people wouldnt buy these guitars , and they are still hanging around in stores .
You can have a very cheap model with the traditional name on it , some are good , some are bad , its just the same with Fender. They surely arent only using the trademarked shape or the name on anything else but highend stuff either.....You can still buy better guitars these days than a few decades ago , and for not much money
Much of what is shown as problems are just setup stuff. Perhaps they shouldnt come like that , but its a matter of having it done properly from the start
So there is. Does not change the fact that it is not the OPs guitar and it is purely anecdotal. But why should we muse on said fact ...
Gibson is dead, long live Gibson.
Criticizing current Gibson Co. QC is not to suggest that Gibson is dead, for what it's worth.
This is why the vintage craze, which shows no sign of abating, is bad for the guitar players. Nobody wants to improve anything because that would ruin the special tone "that I heard ___ get" or "I heard on the ___ record."
And don't even get me started on "the vibrations and resonance of ___ tonewood."
As an example, look at how much resistance you'll hear from many quarters if you suggest that Fender's traditional three-saddle Tele bridge could be improved. Tell some players that they could install a perfectly flat, cold-rolled steel bridge plate with brass saddles so you can actually intonate the guitar, and watch the look of fear in their eyes as they clutch their "thin-skin nitro"-finished Teles to their chests in horror, shrieking, "BUT...THE TONE!"
If you want of know about Gibson, look at some of the pix of Les Pauls here. Some of them look like plywood on top, pure crap. I looked all day in Salt Lake City for a Les Paul to buy and the only one that came close to what I wanted was $6800. $6800 for a freakin guitar? The iron stains in the wood, defects, the top wood was just terrible to look at but the $6800 LP was the best I had observed all day. Gibson just feels their 1950's guitar is just so cool you will buy it no matter what POS they put out.
Yes, I own a Les Paul, my ONE and ONLY Gibson I have ever owned and I looked years for one this pretty. One piece body, neck.
I have a $400 Schecter that will out play it any day.
The Schecter is on the left, the LP is second from right. A Standard with the pick guard removed (this one has very nice three dimensional wood).
My brother is a big Gibson fan, but he has never been on stage.
I was at an REO Speedwagon gig once. The lead player traded LP's after every song. The LP nut and string pull does not aid tuning. When gigging, I play the LP just about as much as the double neck. The Tele and Schecter do about 95% of the gigging duty. No, the Lyle HR-2 does not go to gigs.
Some of those are the same ones that claim Sovtek tubes sound great. Alleged mystique and wives tales are rampant.
Can't say I agree with you^^, but it's cool to see another SLC person on here (or close).
I've put three of my Gibson's through multiple tours and could consider them every bit the workhorse my teles are, and my main LP is unmatched by any other guitar I've played. Definitely to each their own, though.
I also use to have that FMT in the middle there; traded it to a guy for a US Standard Tele.
Hitler Reacts to Gibson Guitar 29% Price increase for 2015
I'm new to Gibsons. Do they have inherent tuning problems relative to Tele's? Or if set up right are they just as stable?
It's just the age old 3x3 angled headstock vs straight-pull. With a properly cut nut, lightly lubed, I have no problem keeping my Gibsons (and similar Gretsch, Collings, etc) in tune.
Leo definitely had a good idea there, we all know that. But... there's also something to the string pressure on the nut caused by the break angle. Ever get that sitar action on a Fender because there's no angle between nut and tuner post? There are workarounds for that, too, of course. Always trade offs.
THIS is what Gibson Les Paul wood should look like. No iron stains, no calcium lines, no "plywood' look alike.
Yes, I looked for years to find one this good.