What Happened to Gibson Guitars?

[chilipeppermaniac]

How about they lower the FREAKIN' price of their guitars which I find way over the top. There are other companies out there that build better quality guitars for less the price...c'mon James Curly...gives us a break!


;>)/

Read many of the comments to the video, Black. Many have said this. Then again wages for skilled and unskilled workers keeps going up and up and up, so naturally prices of food, cars, guitars etc all goes up and up and up. It never ends.

 

[BlackSG91]

NO!!!

;>)/

 

[chilipeppermaniac]

YES

 

[syscokid]

Not sure if anyone posted this yet, but here is something I found.

This video and its conversation, points out that Gibson needs to rebuild from its inside first... or its foundation and backbone, which is Gibson's employees. The new CEO 'JC', seems to understand this and has spoken out and is implementing a better working environment for its workers...

 

[Session 5]

,The workers wages reflect very little money of the cash flow of Gibson. The problem is CORPORATE GREED! the changing of the guard won't change that , they have to please the shareholders. They have disgruntled workers , which in turn are pumping out some bad product its unfortunate , but until they address those issues, which will be difficult to say the least. Until they start concentrating getting back to basics, and the company head honchos quit wanting to fil their high end pockets with Profits, rather than cut the cost of their overpriced guitars, and have more sales and better working relationship with their employees who make them money. I am not against Gibson guitars, they have some nice guitars, but in todays market the younger people aren't looking to collect guitars, they are looking at affordable guitars with best bang for the buck, no matter who's name is on the headstock. They have a long road to pave , only time will tell, The competition is very tough and have made great strides ,and in some cases build a better product than them at a lower cost. I believe you will start seeing them build even more of their guitars off shore, keeping the costs down by paying for cheaper labour.

 

[gball]

I believe you will start seeing them build some Model guitars off shore, keeping the costs down by paying for cheaper labour.

They already do. They’re called Epiphones.

I don’t see Gibson ever putting their name on an import. It would dilute the brand too much. As an enthusiastic buyer of Gibson guitars I can say without hesistation that I would never buy another new Gibson if they sold out and started making some models offshore. It’d be brand suicide in my opinion.

 

[syscokid]

,The workers wages reflect very little money of the cash flow of Gibson. The problem is CORPORATE GREED! the changing of the guard won't change that , they have to please the shareholders. They have disgruntled workers , which in turn are pumping out some bad product its unfortunate , but until they address those issues, which will be difficult to say the least. Until they start concentrating getting back to basics, and the company head honchos quit wanting to fil their high end pockets with Profits, rather than cut the cost of their overpriced guitars, and have more sales and better working relationship with their employees who make them money. I am not against Gibson guitars, they have some nice guitars, but in todays market the younger people aren't looking to collect guitars, they are looking at affordable guitars with best bang for the buck, no matter who's name is on the headstock. They have a long road to pave , only time will tell, The competition is very tough and have made great strides ,and in some cases build a better product than them at a lower cost.

But that's what the new CEO is rectifying. Hence, my previous post.

And...

"I believe you will start seeing them build some Model guitars off shore, keeping the costs down by paying for cheaper labour."

Uhm, yeah, maybe when...

 

[eSGEe]

Gibson Brands transforms guitar-making into a diverse 'music lifestyle' firm

is this more of the same words form a different mouth at Gibson

remember the way this guy "saved" LEvis dont you all?

For the large majority of their jeans, Levi's are not made in the USA. More than 99% of their jeans are made in countries like China, Japan, Italy, and others. Levi's does have a single collection of “Made in the USA” 501 jeans, sourced from a small denim mill called White Oak in Greensboro, NC.Jul 4, 2018

 

[smitty_p]

...but in todays market the younger people aren't looking to collect guitars, they are looking at affordable guitars with best bang for the buck, no matter who's name is on the headstock.

Perhaps it’s somewhat regional, but that’s not what I’m seeing where I am. I have some millennial guitar playing friends and they are more interested in the traditional Fender and Gibson product than other makes.

They may buy other, cheaper brands initially, but they try to move into the traditional Fender and Gibson stuff, eventually. Indie music seems to have breathed life into those brands, coming out of the ostentatiousness of ‘80s and ‘90s - particularly the late ‘80s.

The other brands like Schecter, ESP, and others, may have specialized appeal to specific markets, like metal, but the younger folks I know aren’t really looking for that. Believe it or not, Telecasters seem to be particularly well-liked with the younger folks I know.

Some younger players actually like my Les Paul Custom quite a bit. Super Strats, like my Jackson, barely get a raised eyebrow. Only the metal heads and people my age who grew up in the ‘80s even pay attention to them. Even then, a lot of metal players opt for Schecter, these days. But, the younger players I know would probably much rather have my regular Strat vs. my Jackson.

 

[eSGEe]

boring brown Epiphone for a touring YOUNG popular musician????

 

[smitty_p]

boring brown Epiphone for a touring YOUNG popular musician????

I can actually understand some people preferring Epiphone because of the story behind it.

In a way, an Epiphone Les Paul makes better sense than a Gibson Les Paul because Les Paul actually liked Epiphone more than Gibson. He only chose Gibson because Epiphone rejected his log idea and Gibson was more open to the idea of the solid body.

 

[chilipeppermaniac]

Perhaps it’s somewhat regional, but that’s not what I’m seeing where I am. I have some millennial guitar playing friends and they are more interested in the traditional Fender and Gibson product than other makes.

They may buy other, cheaper brands initially, but they try to move into the traditional Fender and Gibson stuff, eventually. Indie music seems to have breathed life into those brands, coming out of the ostentatiousness of ‘80s and ‘90s - particularly the late ‘80s.

The other brands like Schecter, ESP, and others, may have specialized appeal to specific markets, like metal, but the younger folks I know aren’t really looking for that. Believe it or not, Telecasters seem to be particularly well-liked with the younger folks I know.

Some younger players actually like my Les Paul Custom quite a bit. Super Strats, like my Jackson, barely get a raised eyebrow. Only the metal heads and people my age who grew up in the ‘80s even pay attention to them. Even then, a lot of metal players opt for Schecter, these days. But, the younger players I know would probably much rather have my regular Strat vs. my Jackson.

I know I am not a millennial or younger, but I like ALL guitars. I think I would even buy a Canadian made Godin if I could get one CHEAP enough. The same goes for a LTD, ESP, Jackson, Guild, Martin, Fender, Squier, Gib, Dean, Schecters ...

I never really understand the big difference between a Strat and a Super Strat style guitar except maybe, pickup/electronic differences, fret radii and Floyds, but I don't see any of those items making me not want one but only wanting a real Fender Strat. For me it is just economics. I don't have enough money to buy all brands and models I would enjoy. As for Gibson's woes, I think it has been covered that there are many factors at play that we already have discussed.

 

[eSGEe]

I own both -- the "guitar of the man himself"


And an Epiphone Custom
not a current pic--

Ive owned MANy bolt and set neck Epiphones over the years ANd Jr.s and Gibsons and........ALL the other brands mentioned---

they all hold strings and send sound to the amplifier-- its what WE DO with them that makes them what they are--

NOT going to sit here and claim the EPi is as good as an iconic vintage Gibbo-- (its o.k. gball take a deep breath)

BUT it does do --what it does -- VERY WELL. and for small money--

I feel more mojo from the LPR -- for sure -- (even love the way that thing smells)
but in another 40 years-- the Epi might have as much or more mojo for some other guy sitting on Mars -- killing time before work -- strumming HIS VINTAGE -- beloved EPIPHONE LES PAUL--

 

[chilipeppermaniac]

Then I find guys like this who mention the early copies being better than the Gibson/EPI Chinese/Indonesian wherever ones.

 

[smitty_p]

I never really understand the big difference between a Strat and a Super Strat style guitar except maybe, pickup/electronic differences, fret radii and Floyds, but I don't see any of those items making me not want one but only wanting a real Fender Strat.

The way I see it, I think the whole superstrat genre, with its more aggressive styling, has an inescapable association with metal. The older brands, Jackson and Charvel, seem pretty tied to the hair-metal era. That’s just not where a lot of people are musically.

So, it seems the more traditional models of Fender, Gibson, and similar brands tend to be favored by those who don’t want the “guilt by association” and to be visually pigeon-holed into a stereotype.

Of course, this is just my take on things as I look around.

 

[chilipeppermaniac]

The way I see it, I think the whole superstrat genre, with its more aggressive styling, has an inescapable association with metal. The older brands, Jackson and Charvel, seem pretty tied to the hair-metal era. That’s just not where a lot of people are musically.

So, it seems the more traditional models of Fender, Gibson, and similar brands tend to be favored by those who don’t want the “guilt by association” and to be visually pigeon-holed into a stereotype.

Of course, this is just my take on things as I look around.

Smitty, this I can see. However, when it came to quality of instruments and the specs, how they play etc. we all likely agree those "non historically traditional" guitars are excellent instrument choices for those who worry more about getting well made guitars to sound the best on and not worry what others SEE and might make snide comments about.

I particularly tried to figure out what made one similar shaped guitar " fast fretboard" "good for metal" "good shredder", "good drop tuning" etc. and best I could come up with was, if the board had a pretty flat radius and could be thus having a dead straight neck and buzz free super low action, one could shred as fast as their fingers could go. Of course there are some with 7 strings, different switching etc etc.

Also, we all know the Stay in Tune benefits of Floyds and Floyd type trems,,,,,,,,, Then again, what's wrong with Hair Metal?

As a side note,,,,,,,,,,, There are Space Age looking guitars like the Destroyers, Parker Fly, V, etc etc. Oh and Headless ones too, Steinbergers etc. To me, they all have their place. I am glad for the variety of choices.

 

[smitty_p]

Smitty, this I can see. However, when it came to quality of instruments and the specs, how they play etc. we all likely agree those "non historically traditional" guitars are excellent instrument choices for those who worry more about getting well made guitars to sound the best on and not worry what others SEE and might make snide comments about.

Oh, I do agree. I’m more or less just making an observation and offering my surmisings. I’ll also add that my extensive mods to my Jackson were less intended to improve its performance as a metal guitar, but more to improve its versatility as a non-metal...even as a “clean” guitar. This is a styling for which that guitar, historically-speaking, has not been used. So, yes. I do agree that people can, and do, choose instruments for their capabilities, beyond the aesthetics.

I particularly tried to figure out what made one similar shaped guitar " fast fretboard" "good for metal" "good shredder", "good drop tuning" etc. and best I could come up with was, if the board had a pretty flat radius and could be thus having a dead straight neck and buzz free super low action, one could shred as fast as their fingers could go. Of course there are some with 7 strings, different switching etc etc.

Also, we all know the Stay in Tune benefits of Floyds and Floyd type trems,,,,,,,,, Then again, what's wrong with Hair Metal?

Nuthin’ wrong with hair metal! I post plenty of videos, myself. But, not everyone likes it or wants to be associated with it.

I pretty much agree with everything you said about what makes a good metal guitar. But, aesthetics play a role, too. And, even that changes, as well. Look up some videos of Motley Crue or Bon Jovi or any of a variety of bands from back in the day. They do the same songs, but today they dress differently and often are playing more conservatively-styled guitars.

Getting back to the Gibson thing, (because I think I sidetracked myself by getting into guitar styles!) I do know there are less expensive alternatives to Gibson, and even Fender. And those brands do well for themselves. I have at least one, myself (my Washburn). But, I don’t anticipate an exodus away from Gibson due to price, alone. Any exodus is more likely due to a perceived lack of correlation between the price and the quality control.

I rather think that if Gibson can improve its game in terms of quality control, people may see the price as, more or less, justifiable, especially if they maintain the made in USA status. This is not to say I wouldn’t like to see lower prices, too. I would. But, Gibson has a huge amount in the way of financial obligation, right now. I expect Gibson to try to maintain prices as much as they can and lure the customer base back by improved quality control.

 

[syscokid]

But, I don’t anticipate an exodus away from Gibson due to price, alone. Any exodus is more likely due to a perceived lack of correlation between the price and the quality control.

I rather think that if Gibson can improve its game in terms of quality control, people may see the price as, more or less, justifiable, especially if they maintain the made in USA status. This is not to say I wouldn’t like to see lower prices, too. I would. But, Gibson has a huge amount in the way of financial obligation, right now. I expect Gibson to try to maintain prices as much as they can and lure the customer base back by improved quality control.

Ditto...

 

[67plexi]

I have a buyer for my 2005 ES-335 he tried out a new one and said the quality was poor on the new Gibson.

 

[chilipeppermaniac]

Much of what Smitty, Sysco, 67 all said are some of the biggest reasons anyone might choose to buy fewer Gibsons, Chevy's, Michael Kors accessories, etc.
If the sellers make junk where they once made quality items, and yet keep raising prices and the quality slips, then it follows naturally that the consumer will look elsewhere. Conversely if quality it top notch and prices are competitive, then the quality to price ratio should sell itself.

Oh and I was 1/2 being tongue n cheek about the " hair metal" comment I made, Smitty.