Are Gibson gonna make anything new?

[glassjaw7]

They do have the digital system in some of their guitars. Kind of cool actually. You can route each string through a different amp/preamp or use it for cool tones while recording.

But I think before they continue down this path, they should learn to make a Les Paul that stays intonated and in tune, and doesn't slip a whole-step out when you bend the G or B strings. I had to replace the tuners and nut on mine to prevent this from happening. For what they charge, their guitars should play every bit as good as a PRS, Suhr or Anderson IMO.

 

[billboogie]

Gibson caters to a different crowd and no longer cares about musicians.

I sorta feel that way when the Gibson's I can afford sound and play like crap. I bought mine new in 79 and back then when you bought a Gibson you bought it for the quality instrument it was always known to be. Not even close to that now. I'm sad for this.

 

[pluto]

The same can be said for Fender-what new design have they added to their guitars? The same can also be said for a lot of companies-Charvel and Jackson (now owned by Fender) still make the same superstrat designs which are of course variations of Fender anyway, and a lot of boutique companies just make variations of Les Pauls, Strats and Teles. I don't mind the Gibson bashing because they deserve it, but when you get down to it, not a lot new has been made in a longggggg time in the guitar industry.

 

[TTripp]

Their new stuff gets shit on regularly, so there ya go.

 

[pluto]

Gibson caters to a different crowd and no longer cares about musicians.

I sorta feel that way when the Gibson's I can afford sound and play like crap. I bought mine new in 79 and back then when you bought a Gibson you bought it for the quality instrument it was always known to be. Not even close to that now. I'm sad for this.

Late 70's Gibsons have a somewhat poor reputation just like CBS owned Fender from the same period as Norlin really brought Gibson's quality control down during that time period. I've played more than a few 70s LPs and notwithstanding their pancake bodies, they are really hit and miss. On the other hand, I've yet to play a crappy historic (a few mediocre ones though).

 

[billboogie]

I've played more than a few 70s LPs and notwithstanding their pancake bodies, they are really hit and miss.

+1 Here on that! Still looking for another that's on par with the one I have. I will never get rid of it.

 

[Ventura]

Pending on the model and the vintage, I'm a HUGE fan of Lesters... Period. They sound incredible and in my hands, they're the ax of choice. Considering I've tried playing a lot of other guitars and even own several others, I'd pay top dollar time and time again to get a Lester that plays to my liking - and I have done this, many a time.

I don't consider price a problem - if it makes me a better player and if it sounds the way I want it to sound? Priceless.

Just sayin'...
V.

 

[kannibul]

That has to be the "Breaking the Law Video Police Tribute Model"

I showed that to my bass player who said, you know, that is KIND of cool...in a different kind of way.

And I said yeah...in a different, lawn-dart kind of way.

 

[Tone Zone]

But I think before they continue down this path, they should learn to make a Les Paul that stays intonated and in tune, and doesn't slip a whole-step out when you bend the G or B strings. I had to replace the tuners and nut on mine to prevent this from happening. For what they charge, their guitars should play every bit as good as a PRS, Suhr or Anderson IMO.

Hit the nail right on the head!

 

[SFW]

To the OP: Show me these "new" designs. I mean really, 99% of all guitar companies build knock-offs of Les Pauls, Strats and Teles. I suppose that there are some "new" designs in the catering to the 15 year-old "non more black" metal industry.

Let's see... Les Paul, SG, ES-335, L5, Explorer, Firebird and the original "V." I think Gibson has all the bases covered. Even when they do come out with someting new, like the Dusk Tiger, people bash them for not sticking to the classics. So WTF?

As far as pricing is concerned, the current management at Gibson are not concerned for blue collar players. They view the Gibson brand as a status symbol- like owning Rolls Royce or a house in the Hamptons. Henry Juszkiewicz, CEO of Gibson USA, has stated this on many occasions. While I don't aggree with this sales tactic, it is working for them. Once they started raising the prices on their instruments sales went up. That's fact. On the other hand, a Les Paul Standard can be had for $2,189.00. (I just got that price from the MF website.) A PRS Standard for about $2100.00. So in the grand sceme of things I don't think they're too far out of touch with their prices. Hell, a Stanard Traditional can be had for under $2k. Compaired with the Suhrs and Andersons, Gibson seems like a good deal price-wise.

Just my $0.02

 

[blackba]

What I think is interesting, is I see a lot of Gibson bashing and some stuff understandably so, but I also see a good number of people who like Gibson's current stuff pretty well, mainly the heritage series.

What is also interesting is I see nothing about Heritage guitars. http://www.heritageguitar.com/indexc.html

 

[sinfish]

Gibsons sound decent but play like a bag of turds. Sorry no offense if you like playing with turds. I had a les paul (gas) After playing it for a while I realized it was over-hyped and I bought into it. Sold it and bought an Ibanez RGT220A. I love playing that guitar. I also own a big apple strat and it sounds good but again feels like crap. It is much better than the les paul but it is for rock session work only. How about some innovation in guitar building like what Parker has done. (I don't own one) Introduce new materials, create a neck that plays the same all the way through the fret board, etc.

 

[Vrad]

In truth, I haven't really played a bad Les Paul recently. They've all played and sounded terrific. But the price is simply too prohibitive and it seems like all the they do is add strap-locks or something and up-charge another $800...

 

[Tone Zone]

As far as pricing is concerned, the current management at Gibson are not concerned for blue collar players. They view the Gibson brand as a status symbol- like owning Rolls Royce or a house in the Hamptons.

I find that laughable. If people want "status symbols", they'll stick with high-end brands that actually showcase excellent craftsmanship and quality-control....as in PRS, Suhr, Tom Anderson, etc...NOT Gibson. That actually is a mistake on their part. Gibson has always been known as a working man's guitar and should remain that way. Because, they have no business being paired in the same aforementioned class.

 

[jmgman69]

No other guitar sounds like a killer Les Paul....nothing! IMHO

 

[Tone Zone]

If I were going think of Gibson as a car company, they'd definitely be a Cadillac. Back in the day, if you owned one, you were flying first class. Nowadays, anyone looking for that same type of class, you'll find them driving a Benz, BMW, or a Lexus. (etc).....but, for a distant second....a Cadillac. That's Gibson in a nutshell.

 

[ericsabbath]

they should launch a non-chambered faded les paul studio with maple top and 60's neck
I've never played an unexpensive Gibson model that wasn't AWESOME, specially from the faded and gothic series


why would I want a new model that looks like an ESP or something?
fuck that

 

[Ventura]

Keith Richards said it in a recent interview perfectly...

"Leo and Les got it right the first time back in the 50's man...ever since then, it's just been imitation".

V.

 

[SFW]

I find that laughable. If people want "status symbols", they'll stick with high-end brands that actually showcase excellent craftsmanship and quality-control....as in PRS, Suhr, Tom Anderson, etc...NOT Gibson. That actually is a mistake on their part. Gibson has always been known as a working man's guitar and should remain that way. Because, they have no business being paired in the same aforementioned class.

Let me stop you there. Here's a simple test. Ask any regular Joe non musician on the street what a Paul Reed Smith is, and they probably won't have a clue. Now, ask that same person what a Les Paul is, and he/she will tell you that a Les Paul is a very nice guitar. The Gibson Les Paul is an iconic part of our culture.

By no means am I a Gibson fanboi. I have owned three Les Paul in my life, and all of them were purchased used. I do think that Gibson is building great guitars these days. I haven't picked up a Standard that didn't flat out play- and sound great doing it. However, I simply cannot afford one at this time. (Kids won't put themselves through college.) If I had the money, I would buy one in a heart beat.

Everyone screams that "they don't build 'em like they used to." But the sad truth is they were hit an miss back in the day as well. Les Pauls and Marshalls have always been "play a bunch until you find the one that speaks to you" instruments.

If you choose not to own a Gibson or a Fender for whatever personal belief that you have, that's fine. As others hae stated above, I feel that there is no greater sound than a Les Paul slamming an A5 chord to the front end of a Marshall. That is the sound of Rock n Roll.

 

[sinfish]

Keith Richards said it in a recent interview perfectly...

"Leo and Les got it right the first time back in the 50's man...ever since then, it's just been imitation".

V.

That is crap! One is a anchor the other is an oar. IMHO the problem is that they are still building these guitars like it is 1950s. Would you buy a car built to 1950 standards today? (And if you say solid and reliable I will puke) Hell no! Some are nice to look at and yeah and the old foggies can reminice of days when you had the world by the balls. The truth is that if companies like Suhr, Anderson, and Parker, existed in the 50s gibson and Fender would not exist today. In the 50s musicians did not have the choices we do now. They played what the had available to them. Unfortunately they were stuck with Gibson, Fender, Gretch, and few other knock offs.