Gibson - Just living in the past.

Teetonetal

mbe 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?

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.

I'd argue that there are plenty of stunning guitars around from an aesthetic point of view. Non of which are innovative in the slightest. 

The car industry does have more scope to bring genuine innovation to the game. But even here, the basic principles of a car are fundamentally the same. They' been refined, but a car is still, a car.

bodhi

I want to see Gibson make what we saw in this thread.

I'd 100% buy one.

Phil_aka_Pip

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

... and it is largely irrelevant to the guitar playing or guitar listening communities. In fact it is relevant only to the digitally-addicted. Where I used to drink, there were people who "liked what they knew", didn't care whether the guitar player used a Strat or a Les Paul (and couldn't tell the difference anyway), weren't interested in "guitar wizardry" but they did want vocals they could sing along with. Pop music made on computers was irrelevant to them also.

Bigsby

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?

I've often though it comes down to this: Musicians want a new instrument to feel like the last one - otherwise they've got to relearn some aspects of playing it, all that 'muscle memory' has gone to waste. They also want it to sound like the last one (or arguable better), as that's 'their sound'. Given those factors, anything that looks too different is likely to turn them off, because it's likely to fail on one of those criteria. 

However, this didn't stop keyboard players from adopting a wide variety of radically different instruments over the years. Nor did it stop guitarist picking up electric solid bodies, which look and feel very different to their predecessors. I guess there are times when 'needs must' - guitarists needed louder instruments, and then ones they could comfortably play whilst at the front of the stage. And keyboard players needed something different to compete with all the bloody guitarists hogging the limelight.

57Deluxe

until we live in an era where all the best guitar-based music is totally new and we all want to acquire the sound and technique to look and sound like these new Gods, then I'll keep my existing reference points.

Haych

I've not read all the replies to this thread so forgive me if I'm repeating what's already been said.  However, for all their quality issues and faux pas in trying to innovate I do like Gibson and I hope they can find their niche again.

As a guitarist I have to ask myself what I would want Gibson to do, and the answer is pretty simple: an accurate representation of the historic guitars they're famous for.  That doesn't mean I necessarily want a historically accurate 59 reissue Les Paul, but rather a modern representation of that kind of heritage - or put more simply, build me a good quality Les Paul at a decent price - they used to be able to do it.

Therefore I don't really think I'd want their innovations to necessarily be at a product level.  Perhaps they'd be better at introducing innovations at a production level, though.

At a product level maybe there's space for a limited dabbling with alternative materials - composite necks, sustainably sourced woods for bodies etc, but finished so they look no different to a traditionally built guitar. 

Wasn't there a violin maker who made instruments from carbon fibre, and apparently they sounded great too?  We need a guitar maker to pioneer this kind of thing and execute it well, not like that Bond thing from the 80s, which was a good idea in its time but in hindsight not executed very well.

stickyfiddle

Piecing together the various nuggets from multiple youtube interviews, I think they're already doing a lot of the right stuff. 

Base range to be back-to-basics, i.e. the LP Standard should be a modern build of the classic guitar, with a modern version to include more contemporary improvements without going nuts).

No more model years, just consistently offering the main lines and occasionally doing small runs of specific other models.

Custom shop to focus on batshit historical accuracy. 

Quality to be improved across the board - I've seen interviews mentioning simple manufacturing things like empowering every worker to own the QC process as they pass every instrument to the next guy. They've mentioned improving the lighting on the floor so people can have a much better shot at doing their job well, and spotting flaws and errors quickly. It's all simple stuff but sounds like a proper investment in that direction. 

And no more Richlite on LP Customs (or any other shape Customs). I can well imagine they might use it on some cheaper models, but it shouldn't be in a guitar costing north of 3k if Epiphone can put it on something costing 500

p90fool

Bigsby said:

However, this didn't stop keyboard players from adopting a wide variety of radically different instruments over the years. 

They HAD to though, almost nobody can bring a piano or a Hammond organ to a gig so they're in the habit of compromising, which removed the obstacles to innovation. 

A lot of guitar players can't be arsed to bring real amps anymore, but they at least can if they want to, generally.

guitars4you

Haych said:

Wasn't there a violin maker who made instruments from carbon fibre, and apparently they sounded great too?  We need a guitar maker to pioneer this kind of thing and execute it well, not like that Bond thing from the 80s, which was a good idea in its time but in hindsight not executed very well.

I recall an acoustic guitar that had a 'carbon fibre' frame - If it wasn't carbon fibre it was a pre-fabricated core - Then the spruce top and mahogany/maple or rosewood body built around this frame - So it looked conventional on the outside and hi-tech inside

I can't recall which company came up with the idea - It was short lived - Think it was sometime in the 90's and somehow recall it was a Canadian Company - I brought a few and sold a few, but they never caught on, for what ever reason

maybe @ICBM can recall them

Bigsby

p90fool said:

Bigsby said:

However, this didn't stop keyboard players from adopting a wide variety of radically different instruments over the years. 

They HAD to though, almost nobody can bring a piano or a Hammond organ to a gig so they're in the habit of compromising, which removed the obstacles to innovation. 

A lot of guitar players can't be arsed to bring real amps anymore, but they at least can if they want to, generally.

Well, yes, and I agree - it's the same as my point about guitarists having to change to electrics. BUT, keyboard players didn't insist that their new instruments during the 70s, 80s, 90s and beyond sounded and looked just like their instruments in the 50s and 60s did. Quite the opposite - they've generally moved a long way from the sound of a piano. Overall, they've wanted their instruments to maintain the feel of previous instruments, but that's about it - so lots of change and innovation.

ICBM

guitars4you said:

I recall an acoustic guitar that had a 'carbon fibre' frame - If it wasn't carbon fibre it was a pre-fabricated core - Then the spruce top and mahogany/maple or rosewood body built around this frame - So it looked conventional on the outside and hi-tech inside

I can't recall which company came up with the idea - It was short lived - Think it was sometime in the 90's and somehow recall it was a Canadian Company - I brought a few and sold a few, but they never caught on, for what ever reason

maybe @ICBM can recall them

Garrison - the name at least, if not the whole company, is now owned by Gibson. Gibson actually used the factory to produce a budget acoustic range a few years ago, but I don't know if they still do.

The carbon-fibre frame idea was a good one in theory, but in practice the guitars were noticeably a little on the heavy side and unfortunately didn't sound quite as good as a standard-construction acoustic.

guitars4you

ICBM said:

guitars4you said:

I recall an acoustic guitar that had a 'carbon fibre' frame - If it wasn't carbon fibre it was a pre-fabricated core - Then the spruce top and mahogany/maple or rosewood body built around this frame - So it looked conventional on the outside and hi-tech inside

I can't recall which company came up with the idea - It was short lived - Think it was sometime in the 90's and somehow recall it was a Canadian Company - I brought a few and sold a few, but they never caught on, for what ever reason

maybe @ICBM can recall them

Garrison - the name at least, if not the whole company, is now owned by Gibson. Gibson actually used the factory to produce a budget acoustic range a few years ago, but I don't know if they still do.

The carbon-fibre frame idea was a good one in theory, but in practice the guitars were noticeably a little on the heavy side and unfortunately didn't sound quite as good as a standard-construction acoustic.

Just remembered it was Garrison - Thinking of Jim Garrison - Did not know about the Gibson connection - Thanks

mburekenge

I like that a guitar is a basic instrument. Pick it up and see what you can do with it

soma1975

Rainsong was carbon too wasn't it?

ICBM

soma1975 said:

Rainsong was carbon too wasn't it?

Yes, but the whole guitar.

Blueingreen

One thing I think symbolises the issues with Gibson (and Fender) is locking tuners.

They are a feature that now come as standard on most high-end and even many medium priced guitars other than Gibson and Fender.  Manufacturers like PRS, Tom Anderson, Suhr don't go to the trouble and cost of putting these without good reason: they know that guitarists see them as useful and adding value. 

And yet, when it comes to Fender and Gibson, the rules change.  Even expensive models don't usually include this simple improvement.  Why?  Because customers are happy for, or even want, their Fender/Gibson to be like traditional models, even where traditional means worse. This isn't confined to models intended to replicate old models:  even a relatively new model like the 339 has non-locking tuners.

Presumably the reason is that their market research shows that any additional costs of providing locking turners wouldn't be covered by extra revenue.  So even a simple, subtle improvement that is cost effective for other manufacturers appears not be be for Fender and Gibson.

So where's the motivation to innovate?

TINMAN82

Blueingreen said:

One thing I think symbolises the issues with Gibson (and Fender) is locking tuners.

They are a feature that now come as standard on most high-end and even many medium priced guitars other than Gibson and Fender.  Manufacturers like PRS, Tom Anderson, Suhr don't go to the trouble and cost of putting these without good reason: they know that guitarists see them as useful and adding value. 

And yet, when it comes to Fender and Gibson, the rules change.  Even expensive models don't usually include this simple improvement.  Why?  Because customers are happy for, or even want, their Fender/Gibson to be like traditional models, even where traditional means worse. This isn't confined to models intended to replicate old models:  even a relatively new model like the 339 has non-locking tuners.

Presumably the reason is that their market research shows that any additional costs of providing locking turners wouldn't be covered by extra revenue.  So even a simple, subtle improvement that is cost effective for other manufacturers appears not be be for Fender and Gibson.

So where's the motivation to innovate?

I had gotoh magnum locking tuners on a high end partscaster strat. Didn’t care for them tbh, prefer the vintage tuners on my AV52 tele. No problems with tuning on the tele either. 

stickyfiddle

Some of us genuinely aren’t fussed about locking tuners. They add weight so you can save 10 seconds per string when changing them. 

Blueingreen

stickyfiddle said:

Some of us genuinely aren’t fussed about locking tuners. They add weight so you can save 10 seconds per string when changing them. 

Yeah but my point isn't that their appeal is universal, it's that there is enough consensus that they are a good thing for most manufacturers to fit them as standard on high end guitars except for Gibson and Fender. 

Teetonetal

Blueingreen said:

One thing I think symbolises the issues with Gibson (and Fender) is locking tuners.

They are a feature that now come as standard on most high-end and even many medium priced guitars other than Gibson and Fender.  Manufacturers like PRS, Tom Anderson, Suhr don't go to the trouble and cost of putting these without good reason: they know that guitarists see them as useful and adding value. 

And yet, when it comes to Fender and Gibson, the rules change.  Even expensive models don't usually include this simple improvement.  Why?  Because customers are happy for, or even want, their Fender/Gibson to be like traditional models, even where traditional means worse. This isn't confined to models intended to replicate old models:  even a relatively new model like the 339 has non-locking tuners.

Presumably the reason is that their market research shows that any additional costs of providing locking turners wouldn't be covered by extra revenue.  So even a simple, subtle improvement that is cost effective for other manufacturers appears not be be for Fender and Gibson.

So where's the motivation to innovate?

The only guitar I have that doesn't stay in rock solid tuning? MY schecter Tempest, with yup, locking tuners.