Gibson Garage, London...

guitars4you

elstoof said:

That’s entire industry, you can’t exactly blame Gibson or Fender for making products that the paying customer wants. There’s no shortage other guitar brands if you want something else, the public clearly still want heritage Americana more than robot tuners

I was going to say something similar - There is a reason that Gibson and Fender are still so successful in the guitar industry - More brands today than ever before , so no shortage of other options for you to choose from - The build quality of guitars today, all price points, is better than ever before, so not hard to bail out of the 2 big brands if they don't float your boat 

Also add that the classic models are still massive influences to other boutique/custom builders -A Collings i35LC is a 335 - A Tom Anderson Classic is a Strat - A PRS 594 is a Les Paul etc 

pt22

elstoof said:

That’s entire industry, you can’t exactly blame Gibson or Fender for making products that the paying customer wants. There’s no shortage other guitar brands if you want something else, the public clearly still want heritage Americana more than robot tuners

Agreed I’m not blaming anyone here. Clearly it sells and they have a business to run. 

Although Fender has managed to integrate just as much modern sensibility into their line for those looking for more than a 50s Tele or 60s Strat. 

It’s not even robot tuners btw. How about a volute and adjusted head angle? Not exactly cutting-edge stuff. 

elstoof

They did both of those, still do fact. No one wants either on their 50s repro guitar though

pt22

elstoof said:

They did both of those, still do fact. No one wants either on their 50s repro guitar though

Yep, so maybe it’s a chicken-or-egg situation. If the clientele don’t want it, no reason to do it. Keep selling the image. The rest of us will look elsewhere for single-cut guitars. 

guitars4you

pt22 said:

elstoof said:

That’s entire industry, you can’t exactly blame Gibson or Fender for making products that the paying customer wants. There’s no shortage other guitar brands if you want something else, the public clearly still want heritage Americana more than robot tuners

Agreed I’m not blaming anyone here. Clearly it sells and they have a business to run. 

Although Fender has managed to integrate just as much modern sensibility into their line for those looking for more than a 50s Tele or 60s Strat. 

It’s not even robot tuners btw. How about a volute and adjusted head angle? Not exactly cutting-edge stuff. 

But do we need any new 'cutting edge' - In a way the guitar is a blank canvas - You can take this blank canvas and 'play your art' on it as you see fit - There are still only 12 notes to play - Buddy Holly, Hank Marvin, Jim Hendrix, Y Malmsteen, Dave Gilmour, Mark Knopfler and Jeff Beck all play(ed) the same guitar - As such the canvas has not changed - But how they portray their  choice of those 12 notes is vastly different - The guitar itself is capable of performing as required - The inspiration and ability to paint different art comes from the player, as they master their own craft 

Recording, production, amps, effects, computers etc has allowed us to add variety to the guitars canvas - New musical genres have come along and certain players dial in to this to still play the same 12 notes on the same instrument - Not so sure most of us need any new technology

The bulk of the acoustic guitar market is a variation of a Martin D28 - Again a blank canvas for you to paint your own style upon as required - More than a strong case to say the Saxophone and violin have not changed and doesn't need to change, certainly for most of us - In each case the blank canvas will perform as required - In most cases, the biggest limitation as to what the instrument is capable of delivering is us, the player - And I don't mean that we should all be speed machines, coupled with a host of gymnastic trips, as personally I'd rather listen to JJ Cale than Satriani - But essentially the blank canvas does not need to change - At least IMO

Bigsby

pt22 said:

elstoof said:

That’s entire industry, you can’t exactly blame Gibson or Fender for making products that the paying customer wants. There’s no shortage other guitar brands if you want something else, the public clearly still want heritage Americana more than robot tuners

Agreed I’m not blaming anyone here. Clearly it sells and they have a business to run. 

Although Fender has managed to integrate just as much modern sensibility into their line for those looking for more than a 50s Tele or 60s Strat. 

It’s not even robot tuners btw. How about a volute and adjusted head angle? Not exactly cutting-edge stuff. 

Fender just seem to have been much more successful at doing this, with their 'vintage-based' line of models, but also their mainstream line of guitars, Player, Performer, Pro II and Ultra all having non-vintage/modern features, whilst generally maintaining the classic style. By contrast, Gibson's 'modern' SG misses the classic styling in favour of fancy tops and finishes. The sweet spot just seems to be classic looking whilst having player-relevant enhancements; Fender have been hitting it, Gibson are still missing it.

Sure Fender have had their failures when they went too far for their audience, (Roland partnered modelling Strat, Personality cards, etc.), but they've avoided being seen as just an historic/lifestyle 'boomers still like to rock' brand.

Under Henry, Gibson just pushed too hard to appear to be innovators, and perhaps, in fairness, their audience is just more conservative too (perhaps always have been? Think of the Strat v. the Les Paul designs). The result was a line of Firebird Xs being crushed, the Tronical deal abruptly ending, and almost their entire line/image being about tradition, heritage and lifestyle, with the 'modern' range looking like an embarrassing secret. 

Boromedic

Plenty of ways to make a Les Paul modern, in fact Gibson make one, sells like shit so they're never going to focus their efforts there are they? 

Gibson got a good few things right though once they got to 57, the flatter radius is already there so no need to start flattening them out like Fender did. The SG was designed to allow better upper fret access and the ES 335 style guitars already had that too. What else has say, PRS refined going forward, other than making more consistent instruments. The 594SC has slightly better upper fret access and the fabled vintage scale but I'm pretty sure it just sounds like a good Les Paul? Even the bridge and stop tailpiece are the same, just different designs, personally I don't see a lot wrong with the original design and it looks great too. Obviously YMMV.

At the end of the day people go to Gibson/Fender mostly for the classics, and a smaller proportion of others want a single cut or Tele/Strat with some modern edges. Makes sense to focus your efforts where the return is highest for Gibson, and if others want to nibble at their smaller markets then let them do it. 

Rob1742

In these days of brands pulling away from actual stores, closures across the high street I think they need to be applauded.

Great idea, I genuinely can’t see why anybody would knock a brand for selling their goods in a store, making it look good, allowing the customer to try the goods and also add other merchandise that people may want to buy.

I honestly think if anyone can have any negative feeling towards this, they need to give their head a wobble.

Irrelevant of if you like the brand or not, what they are doing here is great for the customer 

Boromedic

Nerine said:

So much *laughing_ginger_kid.jpg* in this thread… 

Great innit 

guitars4you

pt22 said:

elstoof said:

That’s entire industry, you can’t exactly blame Gibson or Fender for making products that the paying customer wants. There’s no shortage other guitar brands if you want something else, the public clearly still want heritage Americana more than robot tuners

Agreed I’m not blaming anyone here. Clearly it sells and they have a business to run. 

Although Fender has managed to integrate just as much modern sensibility into their line for those looking for more than a 50s Tele or 60s Strat. 

It’s not even robot tuners btw. How about a volute and adjusted head angle? Not exactly cutting-edge stuff. 

I do agree that Fender have integrated modern format's into their range better than Gibson - But a) Did Fender instigate such ideas ? - No - California style workshops, session players needing/wanting more and boutique builders created this trend during the late 70's and early 80's - Bigger frets, 22 frets, flatter radius, 24 fret versions, humbucker options, more switching options, fulcrum trems, locking tuners etc etc b) even the Floyd Rose came into Fender via other guitar companies like Kramer 

But somehow Gibson are less successful with 'new ideas' that become regular features within the range - It has often been discussed that if PRS had have worked for Gibson and presented them with a Custom 24 prototype a) would the Gibson board have accepted it and b) would the public accept it as a Gibson Custom 24 - Obviously we don't know 

pt22

guitars4you said:

pt22 said:

elstoof said:

That’s entire industry, you can’t exactly blame Gibson or Fender for making products that the paying customer wants. There’s no shortage other guitar brands if you want something else, the public clearly still want heritage Americana more than robot tuners

Agreed I’m not blaming anyone here. Clearly it sells and they have a business to run. 

Although Fender has managed to integrate just as much modern sensibility into their line for those looking for more than a 50s Tele or 60s Strat. 

It’s not even robot tuners btw. How about a volute and adjusted head angle? Not exactly cutting-edge stuff. 

I do agree that Fender have integrated modern format's into their range better than Gibson - But a) Did Fender instigate such ideas ? - No - California style workshops, session players needing/wanting more and boutique builders created this trend during the late 70's and early 80's - Bigger frets, 22 frets, flatter radius, 24 fret versions, humbucker options, more switching options, fulcrum trems, locking tuners etc etc b) even the Floyd Rose came into Fender via other guitar companies like Kramer 

But somehow Gibson are less successful with 'new ideas' that become regular features within the range - It has often been discussed that if PRS had have worked for Gibson and presented them with a Custom 24 prototype a) would the Gibson board have accepted it and b) would the public accept it as a Gibson Custom 24 - Obviously we don't know 

Integration does not require invention. Where the ideas come from is not material. Fender is better at reaching wider audiences. They adapted over the years while not losing their heritage. It’s a masterclass. 

Gibson could certainly make a LP Modern work if they want to. They clearly don’t. Build a great guitar with modern appointments and get a young star to rep it. Done. The current LP Modern is a half-hearted attempt. They clearly seem afraid of backlash from their vintage clientele, and maybe for good reason. In the past they’ve integrated changes into their vintage heritage lines with public failure. That’s not my argument to go down that road again. Forge a new, equal path with the same investment and marketing and a different target market. Make it seem just as good as their vintage capabilities. 

The boomers may not buy it. millennials may, and gen on down should be the target. 

EDIT- btw if they don’t want to, fine. People will buy other guitars. But let’s then call a spade a spade. Their are a vintage company marketing an image to people yearning for yesteryear. I mean, back to this store. Look what artists they had open it! Heroes for sure, but all pensioners. 

crunchman

AlbertC said:

I say "felt" because it appeared the only option to hear was through headphones from a Mesa Boogie combo amp, which was very underwhelming experience for such expensive guitars. I found it impossible to get a real clean tone at any decent volume...i.e. one that could drown out the loud music playing over the store's sound system!

I don't like Mesa Boogie amps normally, let alone through headphones.

I wonder if you could take something like a Quad Cortex and use the headphones with that?

AlbertC

crunchman said:

AlbertC said:

I say "felt" because it appeared the only option to hear was through headphones from a Mesa Boogie combo amp, which was very underwhelming experience for such expensive guitars. I found it impossible to get a real clean tone at any decent volume...i.e. one that could drown out the loud music playing over the store's sound system!

I don't like Mesa Boogie amps normally, let alone through headphones.

I wonder if you could take something like a Quad Cortex and use the headphones with that?

I can’t see there’d be any problem with that. The staff there seem pretty accommodating.
 If I’m buying or demoing in a shop I take my HX Stomp

SixStringSage

pt22 said:

It’s not even robot tuners btw. How about a volute and adjusted head angle? Not exactly cutting-edge stuff. 

 This is why Gibson can't please everyone — they literally added a volute and the purists complained about it. If they change nothing/revert to how it was, people complain that they're living in the past. 

People fixate on the robot tuners like shorthand for every idea being bad, but they offered various things. I personally love the push/pull features of the pre-2019 Standards. The 2015 option of a pick guard that didn't need screws was great. The adjustable-height nut was interesting. They once added a belly carve to the back, exactly like people love on the Strat, but that was criticised. The asymmetrical neck and compound radius are both good ideas.

None of that stopped Gibson coming under fire for deviating from the 1950s designs — while they received simultaneous criticism for not deviating from the 1950s designs from another market segment.

guitars4you said:

Also add that the classic models are still massive influences to other boutique/custom builders -A Collings i35LC is a 335 - A Tom Anderson Classic is a Strat - A PRS 594 is a Les Paul etc 

I think this is a key point. As much as people seemingly want huge changes in guitar, there really isn't much to change. A car is still fundamentally the same design as it's always been (4 wheels, engine at the front (generally), wheel, stick, doors etc) and the changes have been to performance, infotainment, and safety. 

Where is there to truly go with guitars? There's comfort, weight, and configuration. Wacky body shapes exist but serve a niche, mostly alt market and that's understandable — be a bit weird to see Taylor Swift's session players with a Warlock, I guess.

Those early models basically cover what's needed, and those brands have the heritage and longevity factors to boot.

guitars4you said:

The bulk of the acoustic guitar market is a variation of a Martin D28 - Again a blank canvas for you to paint your own style upon as required - More than a strong case to say the Saxophone and violin have not changed and doesn't need to change, certainly for most of us - 

Indeed. I sometimes wonder if pianists and violinists spend as much time as guitarists complaining about how their instruments haven't changed much.

Bigsby said:

Under Henry, Gibson just pushed too hard to appear to be innovators, and perhaps, in fairness, their audience is just more conservative too (perhaps always have been? Think of the Strat v. the Les Paul designs). The result was a line of Firebird Xs being crushed, the Tronical deal abruptly ending, and almost their entire line/image being about tradition, heritage and lifestyle, with the 'modern' range looking like an embarrassing secret. 

I firmly feel that Gibson needs to do more with the Modern line. You're right, they pushed too hard under Henry but perhaps have over-corrected now. I suspect Henry's era would've been better if they hadn't done it all on the Standard, and didn't have a confusing line-up with Standard/Plus/Premium and then HP versions on top. 

But my guess is Gibson's aware of what its primary market wants, hence the current focus on signature models and 50s/60s Standards. The Modern line is there, perhaps waiting in the wings for its shot.

 That said, I don't know why they can't incorporate the improved neck heel into the Standard model, who's going to complain about that?

Rob1742 said:

In these days of brands pulling away from actual stores, closures across the high street I think they need to be applauded.

Great idea, I genuinely can’t see why anybody would knock a brand for selling their goods in a store, making it look good, allowing the customer to try the goods and also add other merchandise that people may want to buy.

I honestly think if anyone can have any negative feeling towards this, they need to give their head a wobble.

Irrelevant of if you like the brand or not, what they are doing here is great for the customer 

Very well said. A guitar forum complaining about a new retail guitar store, amazing.

pt22 said:

Integration does not require invention. Where the ideas come from is not material. Fender is better at reaching wider audiences. They adapted over the years while not losing their heritage. It’s a masterclass. 

Gibson could certainly make a LP Modern work if they want to. They clearly don’t. Build a great guitar with modern appointments and get a young star to rep it. Done. The current LP Modern is a half-hearted attempt. They clearly seem afraid of backlash from their vintage clientele, and maybe for good reason. In the past they’ve integrated changes into their vintage heritage lines with public failure. That’s not my argument to go down that road again. Forge a new, equal path with the same investment and marketing and a different target market. Make it seem just as good as their vintage capabilities. 

The boomers may not buy it. millennials may, and gen on down should be the target. 

EDIT- btw if they don’t want to, fine. People will buy other guitars. But let’s then call a spade a spade. Their are a vintage company marketing an image to people yearning for yesteryear. I mean, back to this store. Look what artists they had open it! Heroes for sure, but all pensioners. 

I was there on the public launch day and ended up chatting with someone on their artist roster, looked no older than 21. If you look at the photos of the bands playing downstairs, they're young. The "pensioners" who opened it are not just old players, they are the trio of British icons who are guaranteed to get media exposure. Like it or not, that's savvy PR. 

Clearly, there's a demographic buying the Greeny and now Zoso models at eye-watering prices. But Gibson is plenty active with artists like Lzzy Hale, herself a singer with an audience spanning adults to teens. I think it's drastically overstated that only old folks are interested in the brand.

I think they've been learning from Fender too. The Gibson app is high quality, for instance. And the move into media with GibsonTV and Publishing seems very good too.

guitars4you

pt22 said:

guitars4you said:

pt22 said:

elstoof said:

That’s entire industry, you can’t exactly blame Gibson or Fender for making products that the paying customer wants. There’s no shortage other guitar brands if you want something else, the public clearly still want heritage Americana more than robot tuners

Agreed I’m not blaming anyone here. Clearly it sells and they have a business to run. 

Although Fender has managed to integrate just as much modern sensibility into their line for those looking for more than a 50s Tele or 60s Strat. 

It’s not even robot tuners btw. How about a volute and adjusted head angle? Not exactly cutting-edge stuff. 

I do agree that Fender have integrated modern format's into their range better than Gibson - But a) Did Fender instigate such ideas ? - No - California style workshops, session players needing/wanting more and boutique builders created this trend during the late 70's and early 80's - Bigger frets, 22 frets, flatter radius, 24 fret versions, humbucker options, more switching options, fulcrum trems, locking tuners etc etc b) even the Floyd Rose came into Fender via other guitar companies like Kramer 

But somehow Gibson are less successful with 'new ideas' that become regular features within the range - It has often been discussed that if PRS had have worked for Gibson and presented them with a Custom 24 prototype a) would the Gibson board have accepted it and b) would the public accept it as a Gibson Custom 24 - Obviously we don't know 

Integration does not require invention. Where the ideas come from is not material. Fender is better at reaching wider audiences. They adapted over the years while not losing their heritage. It’s a masterclass. 

Gibson could certainly make a LP Modern work if they want to. They clearly don’t. Build a great guitar with modern appointments and get a young star to rep it. Done. The current LP Modern is a half-hearted attempt. They clearly seem afraid of backlash from their vintage clientele, and maybe for good reason. In the past they’ve integrated changes into their vintage heritage lines with public failure. That’s not my argument to go down that road again. Forge a new, equal path with the same investment and marketing and a different target market. Make it seem just as good as their vintage capabilities. 

The boomers may not buy it. millennials may, and gen on down should be the target. 

EDIT- btw if they don’t want to, fine. People will buy other guitars. But let’s then call a spade a spade. Their are a vintage company marketing an image to people yearning for yesteryear. I mean, back to this store. Look what artists they had open it! Heroes for sure, but all pensioners. 

I had an issue with Gibson a few years ago when they tried to make the LP Standard into a modern LP - No issue with trying to make a modern LP, but the Standard is a Standard - Vintage flavoured so IMO end off - Make an LP Modern and call it accordingly with appropriate updates - Fresh colours, probably option of EMG's and/or other pick-ups plus other changes as required - ESP make a good attempt with Gibson flavoured models 

SixStringSage

guitars4you said:

I had an issue with Gibson a few years ago when they tried to make the LP Standard into a modern LP - No issue with trying to make a modern LP, but the Standard is a Standard - Vintage flavoured so IMO end off - Make an LP Modern and call it accordingly with appropriate updates - Fresh colours, probably option of EMG's and/or other pick-ups plus other changes as required - ESP make a good attempt with Gibson flavoured models 

The counter-argument to this is Gibson introduced the Traditional to be the flag bearer of the original Standards, and Standard became the flagship model.

I can see both sides to it. Keeping the Standard as a set-in-stone model makes sense, and it makes sense for a model to adapt and be the one that reflects the latest updates/innovations etc. After all, the people calling for a volute and headstock improvements would want it on the Standard, right?

And besides, the argument that a model is set in stone overlooks the fact that they were tweaked way back in the 50s anyway. 

Offset

It does amuse me.  Whether it be the guitars themselves, pricing, shops, artists, finishes, corporate approach, CxOs or just about anything else - Gibson are easily the most divisive brand out there.  PRS invoke consensus by comparison.

guitars4you

SixStringSage said:

guitars4you said:

I had an issue with Gibson a few years ago when they tried to make the LP Standard into a modern LP - No issue with trying to make a modern LP, but the Standard is a Standard - Vintage flavoured so IMO end off - Make an LP Modern and call it accordingly with appropriate updates - Fresh colours, probably option of EMG's and/or other pick-ups plus other changes as required - ESP make a good attempt with Gibson flavoured models 

The counter-argument to this is Gibson introduced the Traditional to be the flag bearer of the original Standards, and Standard became the flagship model.

I can see both sides to it. Keeping the Standard as a set-in-stone model makes sense, and it makes sense for a model to adapt and be the one that reflects the latest updates/innovations etc. After all, the people calling for a volute and headstock improvements would want it on the Standard, right?

And besides, the argument that a model is set in stone overlooks the fact that they were tweaked way back in the 50s anyway. 

The issue with the volute is that it is/was associated with a decline in what is considered correct, good and  healthy about an LP - On its own the volute is fine - But it is considered to be part of the Norlin Era hence pancake body, 3 piece maple neck, 14 degree headstock etc - A bit like Fender and the 3 bolt neck and micro tilt - Nothing wrong with these 2 ideas if introduced without a general 'drop off' in build quality and again a decline in what a good Strat is all about  

As such, a potential good idea, is often linked to a host of other 'poor factor's' that provoke a no no for many players/buyers 

Valid point about changes in the 'golden era' - Can't remember how many changes Fender made to the Tele and the Strat in the 50's but it is quite considerable - Some more significant than others 

SixStringSage

guitars4you said:

SixStringSage said:

guitars4you said:

I had an issue with Gibson a few years ago when they tried to make the LP Standard into a modern LP - No issue with trying to make a modern LP, but the Standard is a Standard - Vintage flavoured so IMO end off - Make an LP Modern and call it accordingly with appropriate updates - Fresh colours, probably option of EMG's and/or other pick-ups plus other changes as required - ESP make a good attempt with Gibson flavoured models 

The counter-argument to this is Gibson introduced the Traditional to be the flag bearer of the original Standards, and Standard became the flagship model.

I can see both sides to it. Keeping the Standard as a set-in-stone model makes sense, and it makes sense for a model to adapt and be the one that reflects the latest updates/innovations etc. After all, the people calling for a volute and headstock improvements would want it on the Standard, right?

And besides, the argument that a model is set in stone overlooks the fact that they were tweaked way back in the 50s anyway. 

The issue with the volute is that it is/was associated with a decline in what is considered correct, good and  healthy about an LP - On its own the volute is fine - But it is considered to be part of the Norlin Era hence pancake body, 3 piece maple neck, 14 degree headstock etc - A bit like Fender and the 3 bolt neck and micro tilt - Nothing wrong with these 2 ideas if introduced without a general 'drop off' in build quality and again a decline in what a good Strat is all about  

As such, a potential good idea, is often linked to a host of other 'poor factor's' that provoke a no no for many players/buyers 

Valid point about changes in the 'golden era' - Can't remember how many changes Fender made to the Tele and the Strat in the 50's but it is quite considerable - Some more significant than others 

Would the market accept a change if that was the only change? Maybe it would. I certainly agree that when a good idea launches alongside a bad one, the baby gets thrown out with the bath water. The screw-free pick guard launched on the same guitars that had the different Les Paul signature and a hologram on the back, so there was no chance really.

But the one I always come back to is the neck heel. It doesn't personally bother me as my playing style doesn't require much access to the upper frets on the lower strings, but I can see why it's problematic to others. Gibson can keep literally everything about the guitar exactly the same, and put the carved heel to improve the access. Nobody else in the room would even know it's there, just the player. But it's a deviation from the design so it isn't allowed.

elstoof

Cutaway neck join, volute, Floyd rose; I expect these are flying off the shelves with the number of people saying Gibson need to do more