But I love how my Gibsons sound. I currently own a bunch of them, including multiple Les Pauls (including a Custom Shop), a Firebird, and an SG. To clarify, these are Nashville made Gibsons.
I consider my Kalamazoo made Heritage Golden Eagle my most authentic "Gibson" guitar.
Making sweet love to a 2021 Gibson Les Paul 50s Standard with some 70s Neal Schon licks.
“There are only two means of refuge from the miseries of life: Music and Cats!” Albert Schweitzer
After listening to this video, I am not sure what is the main take away. I suppose he thinks signature models are not his thing. I am not a signature model guy either but some are so why not cater to them? Yes, they make small variations of the same guitar, color, materials, neck profile, etc. but that is what is done with products. Car manufacturers make the same model in different colors, trim packages, engines, and so on. Even canned veggies come in regular and low sodium.
The one thing he did not consider or mention was the inspiration factor. That is a very important factor in the music world. I remember getting my Goldtop and not being able to put it down. The only significant difference in it from others I had and played was the color. Inspiration can take one's playing to a new level. I remember discovering P90's. As far as them being over-priced, things are worth what one can get for them. There are people out there that will spend more for the exact same thing because psychologically it makes them think it is better. The opposite is true too, some want the equivalent generic brand even if they are wealthy,. That is why there are Epiphones, Squiers, SE's, Mexican Martins, etc. Exploiting either side of that equation is capitalism at it's finest.
I am a Gibson man. I like other brands but if I could only have one it would be a Gibson.
"Will follow through with a transaction when the terms are agreed upon" almightybunghole
I think I agree with the guy, but it's the type of message we might each receive a bit differently, personally. Here is how I relate to it. I really love a lot of guitars for whatever it is each brings to the process of making music. But there is no "one guitar" for me, because what I want from the instrument is sufficiently different from one piece of music to the next. ie- don't bring a high gain setup to a surf project unless that's the idea of the project. So yes, I love matching a guitar up to a project for its unique offerings. Sometimes, based on the project, a Gibson is the right choice. Other times, a Fender or Agile or Eastwood or Italia or... you get it. The needs of the project make that choice a level playing field. They can render a $200 guitar better than a $7000 guitar in that context. So I have a lot of guitars that do things in different ways, and that suits me better than having one or a couple very expensive guitars. Sure, I've gone to try out some high end models. Some I really liked, but not enough to spend custom shop money on. I just need a tool to help reproduce the music in my head so others can hear it as I do.
Given all that, I am just me. I am not everyone. And if someone is chasing a very specific instrument experience to repeat across their entire catalog, I don't fault them for it. So for my own purposes, I agree with the guy, but for everyone who falls into that camp, that's fine too. I just don't listen when they try to tell me I need an R9 or a specific signature guitar.
I dont see rock n roll as "scammable" by Gibson.
Gibson should market as best they can to sell good guitars for good profit. If Gibson folded in the 40's, other companies' guitars or altogether other instruments would have filled the Rock n Roll needs. Sax, Piano.. maybe accordion, ...lead cowbell.
Rock n Roll was a culture shift of many fronts. Other tools would have accommodated the need to boogie, blend., and create new.
We're lucky to have all the choices that fit our differing finances. I got 2 great Gibsons for 2 weeks worth of work. Seems like a good deal to me. And I have a crappy Gibson I'll sell for a loss.
"The man that hath no music in himself, nor is not moved with concord of sweet sounds, is fit for treasons, stratagems, and spoils. The motions of his spirit are dull as night, and his affections dark as Erebus. Let no such man be trusted."
Back in the day, Gibson discovered that when they raised prices, sales went up. This was because the higher price raised its perceived value to buyers.
So why not charge what the market will bear? If people are willing to pay, I am sure Gibson is willing to let them.
"I'm not a sore loser. It's just that I prefer to win, and when I don't, I get furious." - Ron Swanson
Rollin Hand wrote: ↑Mon Dec 11, 2023 3:35 pm
So why not charge what the market will bear? If people are willing to pay, I am sure Gibson is willing to let them.
Because they have all but completely lost the under 40 market, and nearly the under 55 market as well. They have traded the future of the brand for short term profits.
You can put a pair of humbuckers in just about anything and sound a lot like a Les Paul. There is no magic to the shape and certainly not the headstock. And that assumes sounding like a LP is the goal, which it isn't for most younger musicians. These days with all the information at your fingertips, new/young players are able to get the tones they want with less guess work and less copying of brands they see on stage and they can do it for less money. Fender has been doing a pretty good job of keeping products in various price ranges. Gibson, not so much.
