Gibson - Just living in the past.

Barnezy

I’ve been watching a few NAMM videos from this year. It struck me that while fender are bringing completely new products to the market like the Acoustasonic, all Gibson seem to talk about is how much more accurate their 59 LP Reissue is vs last year. Do Gibson really think that someone will get rid of their 2016 59RI because the new one uses a different wire insulator that is slightly more original? 

It it made me think about the effort, time and cost that must go into these “upgrades” every year that add little to no value. 

Why dont Gibson just make one RI model for each of the standout years and say that’s it. It will be the spec for as long as we can source the materials, and the focus their efforts to more innovative stuff instead. 

It just seems like they’ve run out of ideas and are just repeating the same failing business model. 

I can can just imagine the pre product launch meetings...
CEO “so guys what have you got for me this year?”
Product Development “well the same as last year, but this year the pickgaurd plastic is a slightly more accurate plastic. Not the same as those chemicals are now band from use, but slightly closer”
CEO “guys this is amazing stuff! I’ll call the bank now and tell them not to worry, as we’re going to have a monster year!”

Come on Gibson, start moving forward and stop with this Reissue accuracy BS, no one buys in to it! 

stickyfiddle

You know that there forums stuffed with guys who absolutely care about historic accuracy, right?

Add in the collector types - those guys aren’t selling one to buy the new one, they’re just buying *another*

Every time Gibson tries to innovate they get a load of forum shit as well. They can’t win

Grumpyrocker

Did you miss the Les Paul Modern?

Gibson is spinning off the LP into two main branches. So while the Standard is more "traditional" in its new 50s and 60s forms there is also a Modern model which will feature innovations. 

Barnezy

Yeah I get that. But Gibson claim this years model is the most accurate. Why not just stop there and put all that money and effort in to something else like improving quality control? 

Their innovations have been weak to date. That g-force thing was terrible and didn’t really solve any problems at all. 

Whilst Fender and PRS are taking the market share of new players, seems Gibson relying on their old collector types to buy more of the same stuff. No wonder they are on the brink. 

guitars4you

Some valid comments @Barnezy and maybe the answer is in 2 points

1) Gibson have been living under Chapter 11 for the last few months - The company was about to go under, for various reasons - So they need to re-group and get back to what made them famous, desirable and succesful in the first place - So far the talk looks good, the initial pics we saw look good - But we need to see them in the market place and check out the QC and playing performance

2) How big is the market for something that is new and is there anything genuinely new to create ? - Could be a long topic - Yes the Fender 'Acoustic Tele' is interesting - Not an entirely new concept, but I get the point - How well it will sell I don't know - I'm sure we'll see some on dealers walls soon - I'm sure some will sell - Yet I doubt it will flood the market as the 'great white hope' - Sometimes such new products never make enough profit to cover any development costs - Yet equally companies do need to drive forward and find new markets to grow the companies profits and its own future

Maybe I'm an old traditionalists, but for every happy owner of an R7, R8 and R9 there are many new ideas that struggled to even get a toe in the market, or create any lasting demand - Bond Guitar, Parker Fly - VG88 for starters - Aluminium necks - Floyd Rose Guitars - Most/all Guitar Synths and even the Variaxe is low key at best

impmann

Perhaps the OP is right. The dullards who get boners about all this will nit pick even if Gibson brought out a time machine built R-series. And yes, I’m well aware of the forums that are obsessed with all these details - and am well aware that they are places to be avoided at all costs.

But Mr Fiddle is equally right - each time Gibson (or Fender for that matter) deviate from absolute accuracy, this place lights up like a candle with messages of ‘horror’ that they dare do something that isn’t “right”. Dare to do something new and you get the “my eyes” replies...

Frankly, I’m bored of the ‘latest’ reissues - and honestly, I think most normal guitarists are too. I’d like to see some evolution at the very least - as I still don’t believe or accept that the ‘best’ guitars ever have already been built.

guitars4you

One thing I will add - Since the start of Elvis and Rock n Roll, popular music has evolved, changed, come and gone, sometimes many times over - Yet as an overview, the popular and best selling models are still the same guitars that you see and hear, on the vast amount of recordings and stages

I often say that Hank Marvin and the Edge both play a Strat and use an echo unit  - But it was the creative talent of Edge, as an artist, that found inspiration in a TC2290, to create a 'new voice' - The guitar was effectively the same

Barnezy

I do get it, it just struck me how every time I see Gibson talk about a guitar, it’s always the same line “this is as close as it’s ever been”. 

Whilst PRS are bringing out guitars to compete in the Strat market, Fender are bringing out stuff to compete in the Taylor and pedal market, Gibson are bringing out stuff to compete in their own market from the previous year. 

guitars4you

Barnezy said:

I do get it, it just struck me how every time I see Gibson talk about a guitar, it’s always the same line “this is as close as it’s ever been”. 

Whilst PRS are bringing out guitars to compete in the Strat market, Fender are bringing out stuff to compete in the Taylor and pedal market, Gibson are bringing out stuff to compete in their own market from the previous year. 

The last sentence is valid - I do believe there is a saturation issue in the market place and how many more 'best ever' replicas need to be assembled to sit in guitar stores awaiting a potential buyer - Yet Fender Custom Shop have been talking about this for over 20 years now - They thought the Relic market would only last a few years - I don't know the stats yet for 2018, but to date 2017 was their best year 

The biggest threat to most guitar builders now is the sheer abundance of used guitars on the market place today - Many have had very little use - No need for a warranty on a guitar as very little goes wrong - I'd almost say that if the major guitar companies did not build another guitar for 12 or 24 months, there would not be a shortage of good guitars to go around, for us to further enrich our GAS habbits - So yes that used R8 is a competitor to the new R8

Maybe I've been doing it for to long now, but when NAMM arrives, I no longer feel excited and look forward to what is going to sell and bring me in much needed income/profit - There is very little difference between NAMM 2019 and NAMM 2009 IMO with regards to genuine new arrivals - I watch just in case, but I find the whole 'youtube' news boring and a chore - I've seen it and heard it all before - Yes the odd fresh product comes to market but as far as new is concerned it is all 'STALE'  - All such 'youtube' news is from the press and high profile dealers, with video channels, that needs such 'news' to keep you watching - Yes there are a few items re-introduced that will sell, like the LP Junior etc, but the whole thing is 'STALE' - I bet if dealers, builders, manufactures etc did a genuine evaluation of expenditure v profit then NAMM would not exist

Snags

I'm probably a weirdo, but I don't particularly see the need to either innovate or go cork-sniffy about historical accuracy, marketing aside.

All I would personally want out of Gibson (or Fender for that matter with appropriate model substitutions) is to know that year on year I can go out and get a consistent LP, 335, Firebird, 339, SG.  Maybe mix up the finishes across years, maybe offer different levels of bling at different price points (Studio, Standard, Custom) and possibly a couple of pickup options. And I guess increasingly, maybe innovate with woods and construction etc. to take into account environmental factors. But otherwise, I'm a simple creature, I just want a Les Paul to be a Les Paul, or a 335 to be a 335.

If there's a genuine, rather than perceived, need to innovate in order to generate market interest, do it by introducing totally new guitars, not be farting about changing existing ones so that you have to get a PhD in the brand just to know what all the differences are year on year.

Fifty9

I think PRS have taken that space in the market.

If you were to truly evolve a les Paul/SG and come up with a new guitar then you’d have a mccarty. If you want painstaking precision and attention to detail when evolving the product line as part of the company’s dna well you have prs - as opposed to the ‘loose’ approach to things gibson seem to have.
We’ve also talked a bit about Far Eastern ‘gibsons’ well prs se have gotten there first. Interesting woods, new finishes, expanded colour options, tci pickups, A STRAT! Where do gibson evolve to?

TINMAN82

I think youre off track here. Gibson have to right the ship and they do that by regrouping around their heritage lines. That’s what most people want to spend their money on. But they’ve been smart about it and are making clear divisions between classic, contemporary and modern lines to appease people like yourself who want to see some features modernised (eg scalloped heel for upper fret access).

What your suggesting is partly what they were flamed for so badly under Henry.

A couple more things. The historic division is not their core mass production line and really targets a separate subset of well heeled clients who are looking for historic accuracy. That side of the brand has always sold well anyway. If a modern metal player has a spare £8000 to spend on a new guitar he’s probably not looking at an R9 so modernisation in the context of the historic reissue line is a moot point. If he needs a les Paul shaped Gibson the axcess is an option.

In terms of completely new guitar designs, Fender are probably worse off. They’re ship is afloat because of two designs, the strat and the tele. Most of their innovations revolve around relatively narrow scale tweaks to those two designs. Gibson arguably have a broader portfolio of desirable designs and shapes, including semi-hollow and acoustic lines, that still wipe the floor with Fenders catalogue to this day. The Gibson Les Paul and ES335 are probably the most beautiful looking electric guitars on the market. There really is no need to push innovation beyond what most of us clearly want.

Sassafras

I hardly expect Gibson to drop the Les Paul in favour of a Variax style guitar with 9 strings and fanned frets.

guitars4you

Snags said:

I'm probably a weirdo, but I don't particularly see the need to either innovate or go cork-sniffy about historical accuracy, marketing aside.

All I would personally want out of Gibson (or Fender for that matter with appropriate model substitutions) is to know that year on year I can go out and get a consistent LP, 335, Firebird, 339, SG.  Maybe mix up the finishes across years, maybe offer different levels of bling at different price points (Studio, Standard, Custom) and possibly a couple of pickup options. And I guess increasingly, maybe innovate with woods and construction etc. to take into account environmental factors. But otherwise, I'm a simple creature, I just want a Les Paul to be a Les Paul, or a 335 to be a 335.

If there's a genuine, rather than perceived, need to innovate in order to generate market interest, do it by introducing totally new guitars, not be farting about changing existing ones so that you have to get a PhD in the brand just to know what all the differences are year on year.

agree

You can still create interest with best selling models, like an LP Standard, by introducing a Limited Run in a fresh colour - Or indeed and 'aged/relic' Limited Edition with R9 wiring loom and/or pick-ups - Keep the limited runs small and interesting, but no need to re-invent the catalogue each year - Henry' s reign was to effectively create obsolescence on the dealers wall each year, so at least the dealers would have to place large orders, hoping to tempt you the customer - We know how that went  

Bigsby

Barnezy said:

I do get it, it just struck me how every time I see Gibson talk about a guitar, it’s always the same line “this is as close as it’s ever been”. 

Whilst PRS are bringing out guitars to compete in the Strat market, Fender are bringing out stuff to compete in the Taylor and pedal market, Gibson are bringing out stuff to compete in their own market from the previous year. 

A couple of points:
Firstly, this year, Gibson under it's new CEO had very little time to prepare for NAMM. What they have done with the USA line is drop the model year nonsense and create a core line of models based on their most popular years. This can remain without the need for major mods each year. They have also said that they intend to innovate - but realistically, they've not had time to sort that out this year, so the 'modern' models are little more than rebadged 'High Performance' models of previous years.

Second, innovating is not an easy task for Gibson (or Fender). They added titanium nuts/zero frets, wider necks, fret over binding, coil splitting, DIP switches, better access neck joints, and, yes, G-Force tuners in an effort to innovate  - and it didn't turn out too well. Now you might say 'well, that's not what guitarists want!!!' - so what do they want from Gibson? Well, judging by the majority of responses to their 2019 NAMM showing here & elsewhere, they want traditional models! So any innovation has to be handled carefully. I suspect Gibson will be doing some market research before rushing any 'innovations' onto the market - but they've said they will be coming.

Thirdly, with reference to your earlier comment: "Why not just stop there and put all that money and effort in to something else like improving quality control?" Interviews with JC suggest this is already in process: improved lighting, greater responsibility for approving your own work before passing a guitar down the line (so all QC isn't done at the end), and fighting a war with dust. 

Finally, PRS don't have quite the same history to work from that Gibson & Fender do, nor do they have extensive periods in their history where guitarists believe they lost the plot, so there's nothing for them to get back on track towards. When it comes to guitar innovations, Fender have also struggled to establish innovations again and again, even when their rivals have had successes with the same innovations. So it's partly down to the market these companies are selling into. If you want something different, the Fender & Gibson brands may not appeal to you very much in the first place, being percieved as old and traditional, whereas if you're a big fan of those brands, you're quite likely to love all the old stuff, and want something 'just like they used to be'.

terada

To be fair the whole guitar industry is living in the past.

tube amps/pedals/simple circuits from the 50s etc etc

meanwhile popular music is being made on computers

ICBM

Sassafras said:

I hardly expect Gibson to drop the Les Paul in favour of a Variax style guitar with 9 strings and fanned frets.

That’s actually not too far from what Henry was trying to do .

guitars4you

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  @Bigsby - I'm a paid up member of the PRS fan club - Yet I thought the offering at PRS NAMM this year was poor - Nothing really of interest whatsoever - Yes a few new colours on the Silver Sky and probably needed as well, as stories circulate that this is the only current success story within the USA range

Sassafras

terada said:

To be fair the whole guitar industry is living in the past.

tube amps/pedals/simple circuits from the 50s etc etc

meanwhile popular music is being made on computers

Guitar will be back. Everything comes in cycles.

terada

Sassafras said:

terada said:

To be fair the whole guitar industry is living in the past.

tube amps/pedals/simple circuits from the 50s etc etc

meanwhile popular music is being made on computers

Guitar will be back. Everything comes in cycles.

Hopefully. But in what form?

Sassafras

terada said:

Sassafras said:

terada said:

To be fair the whole guitar industry is living in the past.

tube amps/pedals/simple circuits from the 50s etc etc

meanwhile popular music is being made on computers

Guitar will be back. Everything comes in cycles.

Hopefully. But in what form?

I'll get back to you as soon as I've consulted my crystal ball.