So why the hate towards Gibson?

[MakeAJazzNoiseHere]

When you go into GC, you are looking at the guitars that people DON'T WANT. Unless you are lucky and time it when they get in a new shipment no one has picked through yet. I will say it's very rare that I see something that gives me the slightest bit of gas. I'm very happy with the ones I have. It takes a very special axe to top what I've got.

Interesting point about them being picked over... :think:

I wish for $1900 Gibson would band-saw the duds because, if the pieces of shit I saw were exceptions to the norm, they are not doing Gibson's good name any good, that is for sure.

[ejpii]

I guess I should cherish my PRE Lacey Act Les Paul Robot, SG, Custom, and ES 137 if it ever leaves the Gibson factory.


EJ

[pro-fusion]

I wish for $1900 Gibson would band-saw the duds because, if the pieces of shit I saw were exceptions to the norm, they are not doing Gibson's good name any good, that is for sure.

For $1,900, there shouldn't be any duds. Period.

Some guitars are going to be naturally more resonant than others and have more "mojo," but bad fretwork, poorly applied finish and sloppy electronics work are simply inexcusable in any guitar costing that much.

People talk crap about Norlin-era Gibsons, but those guitars from the '70s had far better quality control than most of the newer Gibsons I've played. And those were everyday production instruments, not fancy custom-shop creations.

[Zerberus]

They are shackled to their legacy by customers who block their attempts to innovate. So, the only way for them to increase profits is to shave costs and squeeeeeeeeze out what they can. That, and Guitar Hero. They all deserve each other!

This is a very important aspect to consider.. when gibson does something truly new like the Robot guitar or the Dark Fire, guitarists start loading up with hollow points and going on a turkey shoot. The stuff gets torn apart, deconstructed, analyzed, and denounced before it even hits the market. Whether luthiers worldwide applaud the design as "finally bringing the guitar into the 21st century" is wholly irrelevant to these people, teh only thing that matters is whether they fall in love with it at first sight, and if they don´t it´s crap....

Then people rag on them about how they never innovate, completely disregarding the innovations in the product they just slammed against the wall, and even more importantly touting Fender and PRS as mega innovators when PRS hasn´t contributed significantly outside of the design itself which is also old as hell by now, and Fender makes what, 4000 versions of the same 2 guitars?

It´s gotten to the point where I generally tend to completely avoid any thread with Gibson in the title because it´s like bait for the haters apparently...

[Grandturk]

Then people rag on them about how they never innovate, completely disregarding the innovations in the product they just slammed against the wall, and even more importantly touting Fender and PRS as mega innovators when PRS hasn´t contributed significantly outside of the design itself which is also old as hell by now, and Fender makes what, 4000 versions of the same 2 guitars?

I said something earlier about Gibson not being able to introduce a new design to save their lives. I wasn't even talking about the "innovations" they've introduced, like the USB guitar or the Robot. I just meant like the Blueshawk, the M1 (that was the superstrat, wasn't it?), the marauder, the S-1, 2, 3, etc. It just seems like the new models they come out with just fall flat.

[DonP]

It just seems like the new models they come out with just fall flat.

You would think so, but somehow someone likes them. Take the BFG for example (sorry Tim). I really doubt I will every be interested in that, yet, they have a following.

I will say Gibson seems to come out with more wild and whacky ideas than any other vendor. Fender? LOL! Lets come out with a new shade of blue. Jackson? Charvel? Haven't seen anything truely different for a while. I repeat: TRUELY DIFFERENT.

That brings up how good of a hit rate do you need in order to be a success? 1 hit in 5 flops? 1 in 10? 1 in 25?

Look at how many past flops turned into later successes? Who in 1960 knew that Les Pauls would be a smash hit 9 years later?

[MakeAJazzNoiseHere]

Yeah, and what about the Explorer? MASSIVE failure on release... Pretty popular with the metal crowd today, and the vintage rockers, too.

Fender has tried a few different things; the Showmaster(?) or whatever is a set-neck Strat with a stop tail on it, the quilted and flamed Strats they have out now, but still, is that TRULY DIFFERENT? Not really. And the set-neck strat was discontinued, probably no one bought them.

Plus when I bought my black SL1 I told my wife I'd wanted that guitar for close to 20 years... It's virtually the same guitar they were making in the late 80's/early 90's they sell today.

And, yeah, I've said it before, and I'll say it again, I wish I'd been in the position to/had the vision of the future to buy a bunch of those cheap Les Pauls back in the early/mid-80's. I'd be a millionaire if I'd bought enough of them.

[k65h]

I love my '07 Explorer Pro.






Got her brand new for $900.
She's flawless.

But, I can't understand for the life of me why the carved maple top on a LP
makes it 3x as much.

So, when it comes to LPs I'll stick with the Japan copies like Edwards, Tokia, or Bacchus.

[ejpii]

That Explorer is sweet.



EJ

[RR666]

For $1,900, there shouldn't be any duds. Period.

Some guitars are going to be naturally more resonant than others and have more "mojo," but bad fretwork, poorly applied finish and sloppy electronics work are simply inexcusable in any guitar costing that much.

My thoughts exactly.

[Newc]

I see nothing wrong with the design of the LP, SG, Explorer, or V, specifically regarding to how old those designs are. They're classic. Should they scrap the designs simply because they're older than you?

[k65h]

That Explorer is sweet.



EJ

Thanks, EJ.

She plays sweet too.

[k65h]

Many people hate Gibson's attempts at coming up with something new. The Flying V and Explorer were flops when they came out in 1957. So I guess Gibson should not try to create anything new.

I don't think anyone is saying Gibson should not try new things.
They're just saying if you're going to do it, do it right.
They often come very close.
But, fall just short.
Examples:

Kahler Explorer:

NO LOCKING NUT!
Because of the way the "banana" headstock is designed and the strings fan out, you need a locking nut. Locking tuners are not going to be efficient enough on this design. The headstock is not a straight string pull design. Which is very important when one wishes to use locking tuners instead of a locking nut.
So, it receives a fail.

7 string Explorer:

Looks great!
But!
Very pricey compared to it's 6 string brother.
24.75 scale length. May be fine for standard B tuning. 25.5" preferred.
Tuning to A or lower 26.5" or 27" preferred.
So, I see it not sticking around long.

EYE guitar:

Actually not a bad looking guitar except for one thing.
PICKGUARD!
Looks like a pair of bell bottom pants!
Neck Heel: No one's going to give up the heel-less easy access of their Jacksons, Carvins,ESPs, or Ibbys for this.
Set-Thru neck design has been around for a long time now. Gibson should be doing it!

The Sharkfin:

It looks un completed.
Especially the top fin. Sort of sloppily curves around there.
Yes, their going after the Star shape market like the ESP Gus G., IBBY Ziphos, or Jackson Warrior.
It just doesn't have the sleek, streamlined look of the others.

IMHO, these were all geared toward the hard rock and metal scenes.
Who did Gibson get their info from that this is what we were looking for?
Who did the research?
Who were the people they surveyed those questions?

I love my Explorer Pro (pictured earlier in this thread).
But, I'm in the minority.
A majority of the people said it was missing 1 thing.
Full sized body.
I'm a short guy, so it works great for me.
But, it probably would have been a better success and not have been discontinued
if it had the full body.

Again, Gibby comes very close!
But, always fall just short when it comes to the metal genre.

[DonP]

EYE guitar:

Actually not a bad looking guitar except for one thing.
PICKGUARD!
Looks like a pair of bell bottom pants!
Neck Heel: No one's going to give up the heel-less easy access of their Jacksons, Carvins,ESPs, or Ibbys for this.
Set-Thru neck design has been around for a long time now. Gibson should be doing it!

I don't know why I'm attracted to that. But IMO the headstock is the problem. Needs a pointy or a hockey stick.

[k65h]

I don't know why I'm attracted to that. But IMO the headstock is the problem. Needs a pointy or a hockey stick.

The hockey stick or banana (what ever one wishes to call it) would be awesome on there.
No pickguard and a rear route, it would look killer.