Are Gibson gonna make anything new?

[ericsabbath]

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.

this
I have two killer Norlin les pauls (73 custom and 81 standard) and I've played several modern Gibsons that could kick my old guitars asses

the 2005 standard faded I tried a couple weeks ago was one of the best instruments I've ever played
the only Gibsons that didn't impress me at all were a couple les paul studios and a heavily beaten up 1990 SG standard '61 reissue

the overall construction is way more consistent than Norlin era and they've been using high quality true honduras mahogany in every cheap model I've tried

 

[pluto]

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.

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.

Sorry, but I don't agree with that statement at all-don't get me wrong, I've owned my share of Suhrs and Andersons-great guitars but they have made improvements on existing designs made by Fender and Gibson. To put it simply, the reason for their existence is because of Fender and Gibson.

 

[Tone Zone]

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.

BINGO!

 

[Tone Zone]

Sorry, but I don't agree with that statement at all-don't get me wrong, I've owned my share of Suhrs and Andersons-great guitars but they have made improvements on existing designs made by Fender and Gibson.

That's my point, those companies that you mentioned took to making the necessary improvements on playability and workmanship issues in general in order to make a better product. While companies like Gibson continue to sit back on their FAT LAZY ASS, while leaning on the long history of their NAME, to bring in the many dollars that they have seen up until now....while ignoring any potential improvements that they could be making to their instrument line.

 

[SFW]

That's my point, those companies that you mentioned took to making the necessary improvements on playability and workmanship issues in general in order to make a better product. While companies like Gibson continue to sit back on their FAT LAZY ASS, while leaning on the long history of their NAME, to bring in the many dollars that they have seen up until now....while ignoring any potential improvements that they could be making to their instrument line.

Gibson has attempted to make improved versions of their guitars. And do you know what happens every time they mess with the specs on the Les Paul? They get thousands of rabbid customers screaming that they are not delivering a "historically accurate" version of the guitar. The consumer masses, outside of the very small internet forum community, don't want Gibson to change anything about their classic guitars. So for them its a loose/loose decision. People bitch that they aren't getting modern, and people bitch that they aren't staying traditional enough. However, the traditional crowd has bigger check books. So they are the ones that the company attempts to please.

If you want a modern take on the Les Paul design, then look into offerings by ESP or Carvin.

If you want a guitar like the one Frampton, Moore, Sykes, Wylde, Richards, Walsh, Felder, Rossington, Clapton, Page and Slash played.... you get a Gibson.

 

[diagrammatiks]

lol. no one ever buys the new stuff.

I have a LP DC that I think is one of the better Gibson guitars I've played.

They used to make a DC 22 fret flamed top, plain top, DC 24 fret plain top, flame top.

No one bought them. They got discontinued really quick.

Norlin Gibson made some cool looking axes as well. The l6s actually looks pretty sweet. Like a LP from the future with string through.

https://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vi ... 602_263622

I don't think people actually want Gibson to make anything new. They just want Les Pauls, SGs, and 335s.

Plus, I don't think their mentality is right for rolling out new stuff. BMWs released a bunch of new models in the past few years but those are all new markets for them. Gotta consider brand cannibalism and perception when doing things like that. BMW did a good job, volkswagon not so much.

I'd be happy if they just released affordable versions of the cool stuff they got going on right now...
Johnny A Studio, Florentine studio please.

It seems that Gibson's pretty content reissuing guitars that they never made.

 

[billboogie]

Gibsons sound decent but play like a bag of turds.

What's funny to me is that some of the non-gibson guitars I'm being told play better I think played like shit I believe it really is a personal feel for each, and this thread is proving that

 

[jmgman69]

 

[the rossness]

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.

The reverse V gets too much hate. I played it once and it sounded nice and was pretty comfy to play sitting down. Its also lighter than you'd expect.

I too would like to see new designs from gibson as well as other companies, but most new designs are just ripoffs of another guitar. The only "new" guitar design I know of is the Gary Kramer Delta Wing. I had one and it was pretty neat.

I think the Buckethead sig LP was a step in the right direction as far as gibson having a traditional design and incorporating the red kill switches and the barritone scale length.

 

[ericsabbath]

Gibsons sound decent but play like a bag of turds.

What's funny to me is that some of the non-gibson guitars I'm being told play better I think played like shit I believe it really is a personal feel for each, and this thread is proving that

guitars don't play
guitar players do


and I'm a much better player with a nice les paul with high strings than with some lazy ass ibanez with those thin ironing board straight necks

 

[Jordon]

People seem to do nothing but bash Gibson. Yes, their prices are insane, but the same can be said for a lot of guitar companies. I still think they make the best sounding guitars for heavy music. A good Explorer or Les Paul just sounds HUGE. I love Gibson stuff.

Their prices aren't as outrageous as PRS. And I love PRS. Gibson too.

The prices are definitely comparable.

 

[billboogie]

guitars don't play
guitar players do

Yes you are right. It was the feel aspect I was refering to. BTW I like my strings a little high as well. I also wrap the strings around the tailpiece and that makes the strings feel a little loser IMO. I think an LP feels better with the strings a little off the board. My .02

 

[DEWD]

I really like Gibson guitars and I've owned a ton of LPs, Explorers and V's but they are not in the same league as PRS IMO. A PRS Singlecut plays so much better than a LP to me. Better finish, hardware, stays in tune and intonates properly for the same price or less. PRS is just a much more consistent guitar. When you drop $2.5-$3K on a PRS you know you are getting a killer guitar, not so with Gibson.

 

[rupe]

When you drop $2.5-$3K on a PRS you know you are getting a killer guitar, not so with Gibson.

I completely disagree with that...I have played too many "dead" high end PRS's to believe $$$="killer guitar". That said, I think PRS has better QC than Gibson and your chances of getting a great one are better, but both companies build killer guitars and duds.

 

[JonVengeance]

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.

This post really made me If you know how to set up a guitar to your liking/playing style you can get a Gibson to play as well as any other guitar out there. I personally like the feel of a Les Paul or SG MUCH more than any modern shred guitar and I play fairly modern, melodic death/thrash/power metal. I started out playing 80s and early 90s Ibanez RG 570s and 550, but sold those guitars and replaced them with Gibsons. Gibsons just feel so much better to me. The tune-o-matic bridge allows me to get much heavier palm mutes and the fatter neck is much more comfortable and less fatiguing than the Ibanez Wizard.

I still have a Parker nitefly that is nice and an Ibanez RGT3120, but they just can't compare to the tone and feel of my Les Paul Standard, Les Paul Custom, and SG Standard. Modern superstrats are fine for some, but they just can give you the tone you get from a Les Paul.

If you think a Gibson can't cut it for metal or modern playing just look at John Schaeffer and Alex Skolnick, arguably two of the best metal rhythm and lead players respectively, who both use Les Pauls.

 

[ericsabbath]

I'd take a gibson faded over a PRS mira any day

mccarties are hard to beat, though

 

[DEWD]

When you drop $2.5-$3K on a PRS you know you are getting a killer guitar, not so with Gibson.

I completely disagree with that...I have played too many "dead" high end PRS's to believe $$$="killer guitar". That said, I think PRS has better QC than Gibson and your chances of getting a great one are better, but both companies build killer guitars and duds.

Hmm....I've played or owned probably a dozen PRS and they have had better attention to detail and played better than most (not all) Gibsons I've owned/played. Of couse playability and tone are subjective but the attention to detail in the fretwork and finish on it are not. PRS trumps them everytime in those areas. I do really like Gibson LP's and will own more in the future but to me PRS just builds a better guitar at this time.

 

[Variable]

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

While I can understand Gibbo's sales tactic, I think the main (and absolutely warranted) critique of Gibson is that for the price-point, you should get a consistently built, stable guitar. I can spend less on the Suhr Pro Series and get consistently built, stable, and great sounding guitars that are more hand-built than Gibson. So why can't Gibson get their QC act together? I have no problem dropping $2200 on a Standard if it's going to play fantastic, sound fantastic, and not fall apart and have tuning issues. I shouldn't have to play twenty Lesters to do find that. I should be able to buy one online sight unseen and it should be excellent for $2k+. I know I would have no qualms with a G&L, Suhr, or Anderson sight-unseen.

 

[Variable]

When you drop $2.5-$3K on a PRS you know you are getting a killer guitar, not so with Gibson.

I completely disagree with that...I have played too many "dead" high end PRS's to believe $$$="killer guitar". That said, I think PRS has better QC than Gibson and your chances of getting a great one are better, but both companies build killer guitars and duds.

Hmm....I've played or owned probably a dozen PRS and they have had better attention to detail and played better than most (not all) Gibsons I've owned/played. Of couse playability and tone are subjective but the attention to detail in the fretwork and finish on it are not. PRS trumps them everytime in those areas. I do really like Gibson LP's and will own more in the future but to me PRS just builds a better guitar at this time.

Agreed. While I personally don't jive with PRS guitars, every one I've picked up has been immaculate and played exceptionally well.

Really, if you want a great Les Paul sound with actual consistency and fantastic attention to detail, you should be looking at Heritage.

 

[SFW]

I guess that's where I differ. If I'm gonna drop money on any guitar, I like to play it first. Granted, I have purchased a few off eBay without playing them, but I was very worried until they hit my hands.