Gibson - Just living in the past.

darthed1981

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?

It isn't guaranteed either.  But there are a lot of guitar based bands who are pretty popular.

The 1975 are pretty big.  Coldplay of course remain huge, as do Muse.

So arguably guitar hasn't really gone anywhere, just most of the Top 40 is R&B and Pop.  But then it was even during Britpop which was the last time guitar bands were regularly hitting number one in the UK.

There may never be another Britpop because the industry has changed so much, but as long as groups of people want a simple way to make music loudly together, very little beats the simplicity of electric guitars.

wesker123

At least they turned up at NAMM this year. It's a start.

darcym

isn't there room for both ?

look at Fender price points

a.) cheap intro to guitar series model
b.) solid value for money models
c.) higher price models
d.) custom shop models.

Look at their product line

they have all the classic models in the above markets (strat, tele, etc)
they have modern enhancements to the classic models (tele 6 point bridges, S1 switching, 2 point strat trems, locking tuners etc)
they have vintage correct models at the above price points 
they have vintage look and feel at most of the above price points
they have new models based on classic concepts that have been a real success (cabronita, pawn shops, etc)
they have a custom shop where anything goes 

Price points for everyone, showing pride in their vintage designs, fixing their vintage design flaws (HEAD STOCK GIBSON!!!), and driving new models forward without being insane.

meltedbuzzbox

impmann said:

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.

See Parker guitar. 
True revolution, massive flop.

Sadly money talks

chrisj1602

I think the new model range is what most people wanted. People do want traditional Gibson specs and people do buy into the historically accurate, just look at the Les Paul forums...

Most of their attempts at being modern have not been well received, but that is not their place in the market, that’s covered by plenty of other manufacturers.

ICBM

meltedbuzzbox said:

See Parker guitar. 

True revolution, massive flop.

Would the Fly have been more successful - and actually it wasn't a total flop, really - had it used exactly the same technology but been a more conventional - ie less needlessly ugly and uncomfortable, to most people - shape?

I really wanted to like it based on the technology and what it was meant to do, but I intensely dislike the reality of playing one. I didn't really like the sounds either, but I could probably have lived with that more than the (lack of) ergonomics.

meltedbuzzbox

Ken Parker is quoted as saying he was selling 5k guitars for 2k and it was totally unsustainable.
Hence the sale to whoever it was (edit - Washburn i think) an Ken's departure to go and make acoustics.

The Gen 2 pickups in the predefined Parker's are much better and you do get a variation in sound across the different wood types/models

Totally get the look thing, they tried to change that later on. 
I really like the ergonomics and the upper fret access is insane as the guitar has no heel at all.

Danielsguitars

As a guitar builder the thing I've found is the guitar buying public are bloody conservative so something different is always going to be a hard slog to sell, i think bass players seem more relaxed when it comes to specs

I came to the conclusion i make what will sell and not something i fancy trying

I've got something I'm definitely trying when i get time, it's resin injected pine, it's eco friendly and sustainable, even rain water is collected for the resin, density can be altered to mimic other woods apparently so we'll see

I have sample blanks now to try and i still think people will poo poo it over traditional woods
At some point good mahogany will become a problem imo and I'm getting fed up looking for it

I think there are far too many guitars being made each year now and wonder how long that can continue,  a better approach might be to scale production down to what we can sustain rather than stock piling for the sake of it

ICBM

meltedbuzzbox said:

I really like the ergonomics and the upper fret access is insane as the guitar has no heel at all.

I know, but the upper bout 'hook' makes it one of the most uncomfortable guitars I've ever played. I really think it would have been much more widely accepted if it had been a more normal shape, and not simply because guitarists are very conservative.

On the subject of Gibson's ever-more-truerest Historics, for me a reissue is fine if it looks like the original (ie is the same shape and has basically the same hardware!), and sounds and plays more or less like the original. I don't care about the minutiae of things like glues, plastic formulations and wiring insulation since they don't affect the look or the function to any appreciable extent in my opinion. So really, Gibson have been doing it right since about the mid 90s and there's really no need to change anything. (Other than stop making the 50s necks so ridiculously huge.)

stonevibe

ICBM said:

meltedbuzzbox said:

See Parker guitar. 

True revolution, massive flop.

Would the Fly have been more successful - and actually it wasn't a total flop, really - had it used exactly the same technology but been a more conventional - ie less needlessly ugly and uncomfortable, to most people - shape?

I really wanted to like it based on the technology and what it was meant to do, but I intensely dislike the reality of playing one. I didn't really like the sounds either, but I could probably have lived with that more than the (lack of) ergonomics.

I sold mine as the top horn stuck in your ribs when sitting and the electronics for the Piezo system were so bespoke, you I worried they would go and I'd never get it fixed easily. The main control knobs were too easy to knock out and turn off, super easy to turn that Volume off.

The tension springs in the trem weren't great and you needed different ones for each string gauge.

Then there was the bonded on frets, which have a tendency to come off.

Nice guitar, too many ways for it to go wrong.

Pickups were also a total pain, as were a specifically made version of DiMarzio on my GEN 1 model, though I did get new ones, but it took a search.

mbe

I agree Gibson are stuck in the past. They keep on producing variations on models that are over half a century old. They should look to the motor industry like they did in the 50s introducing bold concept designs. Gibson are like what Ford would be if they continued the production of Model Ts.

Why even Norlin tried to introduce new models, even though they were naff, like the Marauder and Sonex. 

hotpickups

impmann said:

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.

I feel a bit this way tbh. What makes over 50 year old technology worth persisting etc. Has it really improved ?

Teetonetal

The thing is, despite minor changes, a guitar today is basically the same as a 60's guitar. Change too much and it isnt a guitar any more. All instruments suffer from this problem, dont they?

mbe

Teetonetal said:

The thing is, despite minor changes, a guitar today is basically the same as a 60's guitar. Change too much and it isnt a guitar any more. All instruments suffer from this problem, dont they?

You could say the same for automobiles but, despite today's cars all looking me too, they do seem to benefit from designers who imbue them with a certain amount of pleasing style.

ICBM

Teetonetal said:

The thing is, despite minor changes, a guitar today is basically the same as a 60's guitar. Change too much and it isnt a guitar any more. All instruments suffer from this problem, dont they?

Yes, you'd think that by now violin makers would do something more interesting than just copying what some old buffer called Stradivari did three hundred years ago.

(And it's true that a few do. But that's not what at least 95% of the market wants.)

LastMantra

Look at the "peach deals" thread! People lap that shit up. 

mbe

ICBM said:

Teetonetal said:

The thing is, despite minor changes, a guitar today is basically the same as a 60's guitar. Change too much and it isnt a guitar any more. All instruments suffer from this problem, dont they?

Yes, you'd think that by now violin makers would do something more interesting than just copying what some old buffer called Stradivari did three hundred years ago.

(And it's true that a few do. But that's not what at least 95% of the market wants.

I don't think electric guitars need to preserve the same form factor like acoustic instruments do. We have far out designs like Teuffel and Gittler but what I would like to see is something more stylish and sculpted applied to the mainstream solid body guitars.  

soma1975

The biggest issue is they appear to only have a leary ‘figured burst’ model for their 335 unless you go for a dot or a custom/signature model. 

bodhi

My great fear is that if Gibson stops innovating, and sort out their QC issues, then pretty soon the Internet is going to be a lot less entertaining.

dindude

This NAMM is more of a re-boot, they say these new classics will remain the same without the usual model year nonsense, once they get these basics right they can layer new stiff over the top. But putting icing on the old confusing and “not quite right” range wouldn’t have been the right thing to do IMO. The approach of Gibson right now reminds me in some ways of the Fender management but out reboot of the early 80’s. I’m on board so far.....