Meanwhile, Fender has been knocking it out of the park with the mass produced Squier models. For 250-400 bucks, you can get a guitar worth using at gigs now. The game has changed so much, and Gibson needs to catch up. I mean Squier just released like 10 new guitars the other day! The Paranormal Series. That's more interesting and unique than anything Gibson has done in years. Maybe Gibson needs to try some single coil style guitars, too. Something new, more vibrant sounding. Maybe an offset even. Just something new... If they came out with 3-4 totally new guitar models that are unique and capture what people want these days, they'd be in such better shape.
@@Official_KC Really. I bought a Squier Affinity (apparently slightly better than the cheaper Bullet), and there wasn't a damn thing wrong with it. Stayed perfectly in tune (other than using the bar, but far more expensive guitars go out of tune using one), the neck was straight, perfect intonation out of the box. Only thing I would've changed on it was the electronics.
"Gibson is not a guitar company, it's a music lifestyle company" - that says it all. It's what you get when you hire some guy with an MBA who doesn't play guitar and who would manage a company like Gibson as if they were makers of auto parts or dog food.
studied people who enter the industry and forget the core reason they're there. They forget the art behind it because its all profit to them the company goes down.
@@bubbasouth69 A Plain Jane Sunburst or black finish regular Gibson Les Paul studio here in Canada is over $4000 to $6000+ depending on the model then you pay 13% sales tax?? Just ridiculous and that's why they're going to go under who in the hell can afford that kind of money?, your just paying for the name, not the quality which has somehow disappeared in the last 15+yrs. Back in 1985 I bought a brand new regular gibson Les Paul custom studio for $1500 kept it for a yr and I ended up trading it for an American standard Fender Strat what a big difference between Gibson and Fender, and to me It's Fender hands down for pricing and quality.
Crazy Canuck no argument there about the pricing. I once lived about a mile from the Gibson factory in Nashville and their wages were an insult. I currently have both a Gibson and an Epiphone Les Paul and the Epiphone plays every bit as good and only cost me $500 US dollars. I paid $800 for my Gibson which I bought online used from a Guitar Center in Florida. My Gibson is only a studio model but my Epiphone is the Traditional Pro model and has the coil splits and I can get lots more different tones out of it.
Of course, one other thing is now affordable Fender guitars are now coming out of Mexico. Wasn’t so many years ago you could buy an American standard Strat or Tele for $600 USD and that included a case. Those days are long gone.
They totally shot themselves in the foot. Trying to be the Apple of guitars. Producing Overpriced luxury blingy models that most average could never afford or even need. They should let go of the crap they’re trying outside of guitars, get rid of the owners who knew nothing nor cared about guitars, make like, 5 good models aimed at gigging musicians no more than $2000 tops.
According to some article I've read they are dumping their miserable electronics division and their worthless egotistical CEO. Now let's hope for the best.
"Trying to be the Apple of guitars. " - True techies abandoned Apple years ago and among true programmer types Apple is now hated more than Microsoft was 20 years ago. Gibson let their egos get out of control.
I'm a teenager, I play guitar, and I have a low income. I like Gibson, as do countless other teens in the same boat. Gibson makes all these fancy new guitar to appeal to us interest wise, but they don't appeal in the price. I don't have $4,500 just lying about. They overprice their stuff. And when that stuff doesn't end up selling, they make newer, weirder, and more expensive products. They're digging their own grave at this point.
You nailed it. I've been playing all my life and held your view as a teen. I'm older now and have the money to buy a $4,500 new gibson, but refuse to do so. They've priced themselves out of the market especially from young folks like yourself which should be their target market. Fender realises this and have adjusted course accordingly offering quality instruments at a wide range of price points that young folks could actually reach.
Well, Gibson thinks that the majority of buyers are collectors with endless pockets. When in actual fact the biggest market share is down to earth-practices all night-neighbours go crazy-play a band-guitarist. They don’t spend 4500 guitars. For most people that is a good amp, couple of pedals, and a couple of strats, teles and what not.
I work at Gibson. It's real simple. They used to make 125 quality guitars a day. NOW, they make 350 to 500 rushed guitars a day. There's no care. No time taken. Just hurry up and make as many as you can. It's sad. They've lost alot of money and quality. Layoffs have been happening all over because of it.
dunno' if you were employed at Memphis, TN facility, "TheGrantRomigExp" but i toured that plant a few years ago & though i did enjoy the experience very much, i left w/ a similar sort of gut "feeling" about what i'd just seen. this is to say, a lot of rushing about, hurry-scurry, willy-nilly like & since i know what those (hollow body/ archtops) retail for it did kinda' make me go, "damn, that's a helluva' premium to pay for a headstock logo, &c.". it's a shame; Gibson's an iconic, American brand & it saddens me to know that poor mgt. decisions & a few, well paid bad actors basically ran the co. into the proverbial dirt. tickety boo. but hey, as the saying goes... "That's Rock 'n Roll...", eh?
i again! i´m not american , therefore i would loke to make a question....what about heritage guitars....we don´t have them in europe, are they any good????
I think the problem is that there are so many smaller customer guitar companies that can hand build a guitar with everything you want, for less than the price of a stock 2018 Gibson.
Frus77sh this right here. I can get a Ltd knock off les Paul with what I want and still get no where near to paying for what Gibson asks for a standard.
Nah. There's companies like PRS that cost almost more than a Gibson, yet they're thriving. It's Gibson's reluctance to listen to their customers, the horrible quality control, and putting money in places where it shouldn't be. Just an overall tone-deafness.
Yeah they didn't listen, instead they built stupid shit that no one wanted like the Firebird X and robot guitar and said "Hey, look this is cool ain't it?"
The problem is that people always complain and gossip. "Gibsons are always the same" *Gibson innovate* -> "Mimimi it's not classic anymore, it's not what we expect from them". And the CEO also runs the company like shit to make things worse.
yes, and with proper quality control. Good fretwork, good neck anlges, no finish blemishes, etc. On the other hand companies like Fender and PRS particularly seem to still be able to build excellent production guitars in the USA. Gibson forgot about the player. They leaned on their brand name for too long and players notice when the quality slips. That's how Ibanez, ESP, Burny, greco etc popped up in the 70s and 80s.
@@Zilegil well acoustics are another thing. Let's say you ask someone to just draw the first thing that comes to mind when they think electric guitar, I think the strat and Les Paul would probably be the most prominent picture in their heads. They won't know them by name but those silhouettes are iconic, even if you don't know guitars. Popularity is kinda subjective anyway but I think if a person who knows nothing of guitars can still recognize those two shapes then obviously either of them being called "most popular" has some merit.
Okay so it’s one year later, June of 2019. For this wondering, Gibson did declare bankruptcy, fired its CEO, sold a few businesses, and totally restructured the brand. It has been a huge success. They’re seeing big growth, they’ve reconnected with what their consumers want, and after almost a decade of very low quality instruments at incredibly high prices, their guitars are now at quality levels greater than ever before, and priced similarly to what they were in 2012. Also, the guitar isn’t going anywhere. A higher percentage of the population plays guitar now than in 2000, and the guitar industry is worth more than ever, both in total value and percentage of product moved. New guitar sales are simply down because guitars are made of hard wood and don’t just break, so there no point in buying new when almost every guitar ever made is still in existence, and tens of millions are for sale used. Just thought I’d give some deeper insight.
The Beatles with Rickenbachers and Gretch and they did O.K. Lennon did pretty well with an Epiphone. More than the price tag, is how it fits you and helps you make music.
People entirely missed what was really going on with Gibson's bankruptcy. There was this whole kerfuffle about Gibson going under and being in deep trouble. Gibson's core guitar business was doing fine and is still doing fine. Gibson as a holding company was in trouble, not Gibson as a guitar manufacturer. Guitarists and musicians having these ridiculous myopic opinions on business was just annoying.
@@Ferretsnarf As someone who listens to a lot of pop and alternative radio, I'm ALSO hearing a lot of electric guitars being more prominent too. Who knows how long it'll last, but I'm enjoying it.
Jack Sprat I have nothing against epiphone, but if you really think today’s epiphone is the same as the epiphone they used back then, you’re very misinformed
This isn't true at all, they tried to rebrand and then came out with that awful "play authentic" marketing crap and showed once again that they haven't changed. They also are now SUING other guitar companies... Gibson isn't changed at all.
The Les Paul came out between the Tele and the Strat. I find it strange that Gibson didn’t come out with an answer to the Strat sooner. The SG was originally called the “new” Les Paul model but Les Paul had nothing to do with it at all and, in fact, he hated the new design. If not for Jimmy Page, Gibson may very well have gone down the toilet in the 60s. CBS almost brought the same fate to Fender.
This channel basically Googles shit and makes videos. Anyone that knows guitars will say the Strat is the most iconic and popular guitar. I mean search "electric guitar" on Google. Or ask some kid to draw an electric guitar. They damn sure aren't going to draw a Les Paul. It's almost always going to look like a Strat.
@@bubbasouth69 Hell, I'm surprised they STILL don't have an answer to it. They keep messing up so much. Fender has been absolutely dominating with pro musicians playing guitar the past decade or so. Hell, there's pros playing Squier guitars too. The 400 dollar ones. Gibson really needs to get some R&D and come up with 2-3 sort of Fender style guitars. Maybe with a different headstock and shape, but they need some offset or curved bodies that don't weigh 100 lbs. They need to get some single coils in there. They need some new guitars. I mean Squier just released a whole new LINE of guitars called the "Paranormal Series" a couple weeks back. They're more unique than anything Gibson has done in a long damn time. Gibson can't rely on the older retirees forever. They have to appeal to younger players. I seriously think they need to make some single coil sort of more Fender-esque guitars. Ever since The Strokes and bands like Arctic Monkeys came out in the early to mid 2000s, it's basically been *the* sound. Despite them using Gibsons here and there, it's ultimately a Fender sound.
@@Official_KC steven tyler sad it all "Dream on ". If it makes you sleep better go with it, thank God the popularity of the Les paul doesn't rest on how you feel about it, like I've said before they are both great guitars and both have it's place in music, it would sound strange listening to a old country song played with a distorted P90,, and Leslie west playing Mississippi queen with a strat won't quite get it, they both have their spot on stage,,,
What Gibson’s problem was they charged way too much for a guitar that was a gamble in the first place. Gibson’s quality is so iffy, that they lost a lot of customers due to the price and the shotty quality control. There’s so many boutique guitar builders out there that make a much better product for about $1,000 cheaper.
Gibson priced themselves out of the market. I found a Gibson Les Paul at a music store for $10,500. The same store had an Epiphone Les Paul for $279. They looked identical, they both sounded great,and quite frankly, Epiphone does a better job at quality control. Epiphone does use cheaper parts, but it still more than sufficient for the average player, and swapping out parts to upgrade is easy and not very expensive.
I have a couple Epis, love them... but a fact you don't seem to know about quality control, it's Gibson doing the quality control. All the Epis made in Asia, are shipped to Gibson in the US and go through Gibson's inspection, before going out to the dealers.
I bought a Epiphone Blues Zephyr Deluxe (based on a Gibson L-5) and stripped the electronics, replacing them with the highest quality stuff I could find (Lollar pickups). The guitar itself was $800 and the new parts were about another $600. So, for $1,400, I got a big box jazz guitar that sounds and plays as good or better than a Gibson at a fraction of the cost. I would encourage others to do the same thing.
That’s why Fender is doing so good! (Although replacing the Mexican Standard series with the low quality and more expensive player series is a sign that they’re struggling too)
I don't agree with the idea that Gibson's woes are due to the guitar being unpopular for two reasons. One, No other guitar company is struggling the way Gibson is, some have issues, but none are in this full-blown crisis mode that Gibson is in. Also, sales are booming for a lot of smaller, boutique guitar makers right now. Two, the guitar certainly isn't as popular as it once was in pop music, but that's really it. There's a huge indie rock craze dominating college radio and music festivals right now, guitar culture is really booming online, and almost any live music events you go to are going to have guitar players with almost every act. Just because there's not a lot of guitar in top 40 radio, doesn't mean the guitar industry is on the way out. The unpopularity of Guitars is very over-exaggerated by main stream media and old rock dads bemoaning that Led Zeppelin isn't on top 40 radio anymore. Gibson is failing because they made a lot of very bad moves with their guitars. Over the past 15 years their quality control has plummeted (to the point where in multiple press releases for their 2018 lineup they mistakenly released pictures of damaged instruments) and their prices have skyrocketed. They also pulled a "New Coke" move in 2015 when they completely redesigned the Les Paul with stupid gimmicks like robotic tuning pegs and made the original Les Paul design not available. This made sales plummet in 2015, and they ended up having to completely reverse everything for their 2016 lineup. Bottom line, Gibson has nothing to blame for their failures except their own bad business techniques. Specifically their abysmal quality control, and their outrageous prices that don't even come close to their competitors prices.
Exactly. The idea that guitars are declining in sales seems pretty off. Retail companies decline nowadays because of the online market, It doesn't help Gibson when people are open to buy any other brand and any guitar out there without having to find a tangible store that sells the one they want.
I have to agree. I could buy an epiphone for a quarter of the cost of a Gibson and have a luthier set it up and swap the electronics the way I want it and STILL spend less than HALF of the price of a Gibson Standard Les Paul. The cost of a Gibson is so high that a lot of shops like Guitar Center will place them high on walls out of reach of the consumer, which also kills sales.
Thanks for the concise reply. I have always thought Gibsons were too expensive for what you recieved, but I was unaware of their more recent moves which essentially trashed the brand. So sorry to see this happen to Gibson.
Beenthere Donethat Name one other guitar company doing as badly as Gibson. Guitars aren’t dying, rock maybe, but every pop band still plays electric guitars. Gibson has gone to shit, plain and simple. Their quality control is garbage for their price point which is already too high. Nobody wants to take a 2000 dollar risk when there are better instruments to be had for less. This is coming from someone who has 3 Les Pauls.
gabriel77196 I got my first Gibson in December amazing guitar but bad experience when the neck came cracked so maybe Gibson will fix that but the company I got it from sent me a new one right away
Maybe it's best they didn't. Here's their Hail Mary of an aborted guitar. www.guitarworld.com/.image/ar_16:9%2Cc_fill%2Ccs_srgb%2Cq_80%2Cw_1280/MTUzNTU2MTYzOTk1MzEzOTA1/custom-flying-v.jpg
I as well work at Gibson USA and the introduction of the self tuning LPs was a huge mistake made by the then CEO. Henry took a huge loan out to introduce these tuners and customers hated them. He signed a contract to have many thousands of the self tuners made and couldn't get out of the contract. This was the start of the problems. This is what got the ball rolling on the downturn. Henry should've asked the public what they liked and what they didn't. He presumed they'd love this new introduction. Henry should've been more in tune with what the public wants and not what he liked. Thank God we're back on track and have great new owners.
Wait. A person who makes $9 an hour shouldn't buy a $300K house? If only someone could go back to 2006 and explain this radical idea to bankers/investors.
Also maybe explain to Moody's that securities based on a bunch of shit tier mortgages shouldn't be rated AAA just because they want the bank's business. Oh well at least that corrupt company fell apart because of the trillions of dollars lost because they didn't do their job... oh, right -_-
Christopher Conard Damn if I had only watched this video before I bought that house. All kidding aside Gibson's quality control has been inconsistent for a long time. The rock stars don't get their guitars from fender, gibson, or wherever. A luthier builds them and gets permission to slap a brand name on the head stock. Slashes appetite guitar, not made by gibson (fact look it up kids).
@@Oldman808 I disagree.. I think what Company man says it right. People get inspired to pick up instruments from the music they enjoy and what is the popular style of the day. And there's just not nearly as much of it that's guitar based anymore. I grew up in the 80s and 90s and there were tons of non-guitar based acts that were huge- Michael Jackson, George Michael, Madonna, etc. But still topping the music charts were bands like Van Halen, Def Lepard, Motley Crew, Poison and I could go on. If you analyze the same big artists today, I would say the ratio is much lower- it's mostly Hip hop, solo acts, not much that is going to inspire someone who wants to pick up a guitar.
@@kevinmach730 all 3 of those non-guitar based acts you mentioned all had guitar based music. Hell, Eddie Van Halen played guitar on a few MJ song as well as many other guitar players. Both George Michael and Madonna actually played guitar themselves on stage at many shows.
For the money Gibson charges for their guitars, they should be perfection itself. Instead, they are hit and miss. The Epiphone division is hit and miss as well but with an average street price of 350 to 450, you can expect that. But with 2 grand, I want perfection. And an L5 for 11K? Ya gotta be kidding. What could you possibly put in a guitar that makes it worth 11K or more?
Ride Like a Pro Jerry Palladino.... I find your point of view to be more realistic, however lots of people think they are making the best product they ever have.... but there again they shouldn’t have lied about there weight relieving system... I mean, why would you remove wood from under the bridge.... oh well... fender it is then... lol
Ride Like a Pro Jerry Palladino I think they must make you play better for $11k, but nope... if you suck... you just have an $11k guitar that lets everyone know you suck... and you clearly have way to much money haha
It's insane...my father in law went to school with Paul Smith (of Paul Reed Smith fame)...I got the chance to meet him a number of years back...he was a cool guy, but the burning question I just had to ask was, why charge so much for a Dragon Inlay?? His response? "Because we can. People buy it, thus making it worth that much." Couldn't argue with that...just looks like Gibson had the same thought process, but along the way people didn't think it was worth it anymore...
I disagree with epiphone being hit and miss I have never picked up an epiphone that had issues nor have I ever owned an epi with any issues I have however I have picked up many a Gibson and actually bought 2 1st gibby was a used late 70's SG back in the early mid 90's which was fine and a 2000 les paul standard and the standard had to have fret level and crown just to make it playable and that isn't including having to replace the pots ( although hindsight I should have went with cts instead of replacing with the same Gibson branded ones) and a setup.
Joe Morrow if you cannot be “responsible” for and actually stand by your product (i.e., in this case use the product as you’ve clearly stated), then we certainly do had a grand problem, I most certainly agree!! 😓😪
Wrong. Leo Fender didn't play guitar but he knew how to build em and made what was pretty much the Ford Model T of Electric Guitars, dependable, well built, easily maintainable and at the time affordable.
Super Wukongo I love Fender but Leo Fender had some flawed designs that later designers fixed for him. Truss rod screw at the heel of the neck? why??? That just makes adjusting the truss rod an incredibly annoying and time consuming process
TheProgGuy but again, the Epiphone's tube amps were kind of popular, good low price tube amps is something uncommon on the marketing today. Also, they just need to lower the price of their stuff and make the more modern versions less expensive.
They've had 66 years to design a nut for the Les Paul that's fit for purpose and they still failed. Sorry but there's no excuse - a guitar costing that much should be perfect when it leaves the factory. It shouldn't be necessary to replace the nut.
Where did they go wrong? Model after model that nobody who plays a guitar can afford during an economic down turn, compounded by less popularity in the market to begin with. Because what we really need are some more $5,000+ models for those 3 people out there.
I recently saw a Fender Yngwie Malmsteen Edition Stratocaster at a guitar shop, I was surprised when I saw the price because figured it would be in the $5-6000 range but it was only $1800 by itself or you could buy the complete set up which included an overdrive pedal signature strings and some other bits and bobs for $2200 while an Angus Young Gibson SG Special was almost $5000.
Gibson of today isn't gibson of yesteryear. That's the problem with them demanding the prices they are. You can go buy complete 1 off customs for less than even mid range gibsons cost. There's many boutique manufacturers who are head and shoulders above gibson, offering far higher quality and options for the same money. Gibson is just relying on a name to sell their guitars. Yes, their good ones are quite good, but they are no where near $5000 good. You can buy a PRS for that, and any US made PRS is going to be a better guitar. Epiphones aren't any different than any of their competition, and have less quality options than their competition at the same price point. Their entire brand is really not surviving in a competitive atmosphere. Fender took the right approach to the market, gibson did not. You can get something damn close to custom shop quality from fender for right at $1k. You can get signature customshop models for less than $2k. They come with aftermarket pickups and all the nice mods you'd normally do to a guitar, and they come with these without charging a premium for them. And when you drop big bucks on a fender, you're usually getting a 1 off that was hand built.
In my opinion Fender began a pivot about fifteen to twenty years ago in which they began to focus on raising the quality of their lower end model line (Squier) and seemed to have put a lot of effort into simplifying their manufacturing methods and ensuring reasonable QC over that sector. Gibson made a huge mistake in thinking that it could coast on premium brand recognition and continue to attempt to streamline production, which at their price-point- you can't. I think what Fender did was very savvy, they maintained close ties to their budget line rather than treating it like an unwanted step child (like Gibson does with Epiphone), and raised the quality and affordability to gain market share while also allowing their high-end and custom shop to flourish with some autonomy from the workaday bulk of manufacturing. You can still get a premium Fender and they have great reputations, but they sell tons of Squiers with very few complaints about the quality.
Yeah the past 15-20 years Fender has done a great job of getting their guitars into as many people as they can and at a price point that can work with everyone.
Jean Lau you’re not wrong, the majority of guitarist would love to buy a Gibson LP but simple couldn’t even afford a standard american made LP. Set you back about 2500, a standard no bells and wistle good old american stratocaster is probably half that on black friday. So perhaps yes, price had something to do with this...
Thankfully Gibson has reacted to the backlash somewhat; the price of a Les Paul Standard has dropped to $2500. Still absurdly expensive for their STANDARD model, but much better than the $3300 it was before.
On top of that, repairs for a Gibson are insane. If you snap the headstock of a Gibson, you’re screwed. If you snap the headstock of a Strat, just slap on a new neck. $200 and you can do it yourself. So if I’m someone looking to buy for the first time, I’m gonna get the guitar that is more forgiving of mistakes.
Gibson charges way way too much for a guitar. C&C machines replaced lots of human labor cost but their guitars keep going up in price!! Just a rip off!
Also James using machinery doesn't make the end product cheaper otherwise it would be pointless to buy machinery. It does however produce a better product, faster and more repeatable. Any errors in that area are due to untrained employees and under maintained equipment. I buy tools and equipment that make my life easier but it doesnt change my price in the end, it makes me money otherwise it would be pointless.
Making studio monitors that look like a Les Paul is NOT the answer. Does anybody think of Gibson when they think of buying STUDIO MONITORS?! Absolutely CLUELESS leadership at Gibson.
reemo I know..its retarded. The goof ball CEO admitted he was trying to turn Gibson into a ....and I quote..." a lifestyle brand". Smack my fukin head. Anyways...with this Chapter 11 filing..he will be gone. And the bankers are going to jump in and pick apart and sell off all these bullshit company's that Gibson acquired and that have nothing to do electric guitar. My prediction is Gibson isn't going anywhere except maybe some models (or even all of them) may very well be built in other countries in the near future. The used market prices for made in USA models and pre bankruptcy guitars will sky rocket. I could be wrong. Indont know. Just my prediction. I have a Gibson Les Paul Special with humbucker I bought new in 2003. Just a stripped down workingmans Gibson L.P. No fancy maple cap. No bindings or fancy inlays. Just dot neck. A real players guitar and it plays and sounds great. My only axe. I never had any intentions more than just playing the damn thing over the years. I paid 650$ for it brand new in 2003. On a job I was on traveling with my dad in Sioux Falls South Dakota on a day off from work. But Iam keeping it for real real now. But if my prediction turns out to be true and real deal Gibson's are going to start being made in other countries..that would be a big deal in the used market. And I think if someone were to buy that Gibson Les Paul Standard model with the American Flag (I think they are silly personally) top now....man that thing just because of what it is might fetch huge bucks in the future. I could be all wet here. These are just my thoughts.
@@guitarsrcool4922 Not exactly for economic capabilities, they charge a nice percentage just for a logo that constantly loses value as a quality sign and the rest of the guitar only proves that. So paying $3000 for the quality of a $1000 is nonsense unless someone thinks the logo is worth the difference.
@@abcrx32j Of course your paying for the brand name. I have one and I admit it. At the time I bought it as a treat for myself. Some people will say it's worth every penny and that's fine too. I play it every night. Have to get my money's worth out of it.
Harry Parker the thing is that a guitar of the same quality from other manufacturers costs about half, and their QC is shit. You can get a shitty guitar for 3k from Gibson. Fender nor Schecter Nor ESP nor PRS will fuck you up with a 3k guitar (that will be better than the Gibson even if the QC is on point)
Not even close... After all Apple has lost a lot of their market. Ferrari doesn't have a hundred competitors in their segment. Any crap guitar with kick-ass pickups will sound as good as a GIbson (heck, there is a video of a plank of wood from Home Depot that sounds just like a Les Paul). So... why are they trying to get $2500 for a simple guitar? Let alone their new 2018 models (Modern Flying V) for just $4500.....
314jrock I teach piano at a music store. They also sell guitars, and my good friend and one of the managers explained to me one day why they don't stock Gibson. Apparently, they're a Draconian dealer. They require stores to buy at least one of each of their guitars, and because that's a lot of shelf space and half of their guitars could possibly suck, they choose other dealers like Ibanez and ESP.
NO MA'AM I don't live in a big city, so I probably don't have the best frame of reference (plus, I'm a trade guy), but every comic shop I've been in around me has been a small store in a strip mall. Of course they can't stock everything and would prefer to pick and choose Spider-Man and whatever movie just came out. They don't have enough shelf space for all of Marvel.
NO MA'AM With Bendis leaving, who wrote about half of the good Marvel stories this century, what talent do you think Marvel has that could keep the spirit alive?
I own a 1977 Les Paul Standard that I purchased back in 1977 for $450(case included). They only had three main models back then, Custom, Standard and Deluxe. Periodically there were other limited production models. Now I can't keep up with the number of choices. Sad to see to state of current affairs. I still own that '77 Les Paul. Even though it's well-worn, it still plays beautifully. Sweet guitar.
In the late '90's they treated their smaller dealers like crap and catered to Guitar Center and Musician's Friend. The smaller dealers across the country couldn't compete and dropped the line. Made it harder for the consumer to find their product compared to other companies like Fender and Ibanez.
Brad H . You hit it square on the head. They treated the MOM and pops like crap. Priced themselves right out of the store with HUGE buy ins and orders. Little pity for prozac Henry.
If you own a guitar shop they require you to purchase $80K worth of gear up front and require a 5 year commitment. Over the last month or so I went to 6 different mom and pop guitar shops and not a single one had a single Gibson.
They did the exact same thing here in the UK - they demanded that if you wanted to be a gibson dealer you had to carry massive amounts of stock, far more than was realistic for the smaller shops, so they where forced to drop gibson. Now gibson is mostly a 'box shifter' brand, though there are still a few of the bigger shops stocking them (andertons comes to mind). It's been such a shame to see gibson's slow but inevitable demise, but they lost sight of the goal a long time ago, and now they're so far of course I honestly don't know what can save them.
While you are correct, ibanez sucks and fender builds guitars in Mexico and calls them the same as an American made fender, ridiculous. Sadly the companies that survived are even worse, outsourcing is a plague.
It's sad what you get for $2500 from Gibson these days. They don't pay attention to detail. Everything is made with a CNC or router, then slapped together buy a disgruntled employee. A Les Paul standard is basically a $700 guitar if it weren't for the nitro finish and binding.
Sam Frechette True. Plus any bands that I've seen that actually play guitar and are in the charts all play Fenders. In the early 2000s a lot of pop punk and ""emo"" stuff was charting. Humbuckers are better for those more distorted tones so they went for Gibson. Today you have bands like The 1975 who prefer single coils for their clean sound. They buy Fenders, which makes kids want Fenders. That's my theory anyway.
Sam Frechette yeah and epiphone guitars (that Gibson owns) are now having Gibson pickups built into them and are using the same wood, just built in other countries so it’s 4x less
Sam yes, and that hasn't perhaps endeared the make to a lot of real musicians. People who I know that are really into music will play anything they can afford and that's available, and that's rarely a Gibson. Gibsons in my experience seem to be the preserve of stodgy dad bands and retired people with a bit of cash who always wanted to "own a Gibson".
They aren't listening to what the average musician wants, that's why their sales are falling. Making a $5000 guitar for rich people who want to keep it in a glass case is just not going to boost revenues. Making a reasonably priced vintage inspired les paul targeted at working musicians would help.
I absolutely agree man. Fender and Squier have been churning out quality guitars at a reasonable price for years. Not only that but Gibson really hasn't been catering to where Guitarists are going, a lot of people play 7 and 8 string guitars in the Metal community and that's been dominated by Agile, Ibanez and Schecter just to name a few. They also haven't done much to capture the indie hipster craze either, unlike Fender who has been taking full advantage of it.
You should also take into consideration what their corporate identity has been over the last 6½ decades: they are an elitist brand, just like Mercedes Benz and Ferrari in the car business. Don't expect Mercedes Benz to make Opel Astras and don't expect Ferrari to make Fiat 500s. Ferrari, Maserati, Lancia and Fiat belong to the same concern, but they are separate brands, each with its own type of customers. That's market differentiation. Gibson always stood for TRADITION. They are OLD and respected for their traditional approach. The moment they started messing with that identity, their customers turned their back on them. They DON'T WANT gimmicks and gadgets, they want traditionally built electric guitars, because they are CONSERVATIVE. That's why they want their guitars to be as close to a 1959 Les Paul as can be, because they are convinced that 'in the old days' everything was BETTER. This leaves very little room for innovations under the Gibson flag. They could try them under a different flag, since they took over several other guitar companies that are less traditional, such as Valley Arts.
Ok.... well here is the thing 20 years from now what is that Ibanez going to be worth? I have a 1971 Les Paul Deluxe... I bought it in a pawn shop 32 years ago for $350.00 Its worth close to 10 times that today. Ibanez's TANK in the second-hand market. An AMERICAN made Fender holds up okay but not like a Gibson Les Paul will. So if you are only looking at a playable instrument that sounds decent then yeah, you can pay less. Your NEVER getting your money back outside the American made Fender and the Gibsom Les Paul.
if you play the guitar, it's value will fall rapidly. A worn out guitar values less than a new. The main issue is the frets. They can wear out pretty quickly on expensive guitars also. Very few guitars on the market have stainless steel frets and big manufacturers(Gibson, Fender) don't produce them. A refretted guitar costs less than a non refretted. So, if you want to have a guitar locked in it's case, and admire it's beauty from time to time, a Gibson will do the work.
Rob Schaller well that's true but resale prices aren't helping Gibson!!! The guitars cost too much. I own 3 American Fender guitars. For me they're a better value, better sounding instrument minus the pretty artwork. Sure there is a niche market for guys that are willing to pay 2500-3500 for a single guitar but that's not a good business model for such a large company. I feel like they should tweak the designs of the lower priced guitars like the SG and go after Stratocaster customers.
They are declining because they are putting out a product and charging way too much for it. I loved Gibson when I first got into guitars. But the quality went down and the prices went up.
It’s also stupid to walk into a guitar shop where there is no new guitar to been seen and see a grand price tag on a beat up les Paul that doesn’t even have some shmuck’s signature on it. Haha. Priced by name alone.
A friend of mine worked at the Gibson guitar factory and learned about a strange policy they have. Most instrument makers, if there is a slight cosmetic blemish on a newly manufactured instrument, will sell it as "B stock" for a slightly reduced price, so a professional trumpet normally worth $2100 might be listed for $1950 instead. Still a perfectly great instrument, but won't look perfect. Gibson refused to do this. Any blemish, even a purely cosmetic one, and the guitar was destroyed. These are professional guitars that sell for a few thousand dollars! Seems like a waste of money.
As someone who worked in the guitar industry from 2002 to 2012, I can tell you another big reason of why "they aren't as popular as they used to be." They are a shitty company that treats their dealers horribly and thinks that raising prices is how you offset low sales. They were consistently year-over-year raising the annual minimum purchases on dealers to outrageous levels. This did two things: 1. It pushed out dealers who just plain couldn't afford to buy in every year, and 2. the companies that did want to re-up would have to blow-out their old inventory in order to afford the new stuff, thus devaluing the entire product line. There's also the issue of employee turn-over in Memphis. Gibson just cannot pay what someone like a car manufacture down the road can, and unfortunately, it's only cool to work on a guitar assembly line for so long before you realize that you can make 2-3x as much at a different factory a couple miles away. Combine all that with the fact that overseas import guitars are just so damn good nowadays there's little reason for anyone to buy a high-dollar US guitar unless you just plain want it and can afford it.
So they treated both their customers and their employees badly, the most important assets any company has - and then ignored both in order to buy failing companies they knew nothing about. It's been done before, and usually a recipe for disaster.
Local dealer here was required to pay $25,000 year just to carry the line, but they couldn’t get the guitars their customers wanted, only what Gibson was willing to send, so the guitars gathered dust. The dealer dropped the brand, I couldn’t buy the Gibson I wanted. I lose, but Gibson really loses. If I can’t test drive a high dollar guitar, I am not going to buy it blindly.
I have a Vietnamese made LTD Eclipse. The fretwork is absolutely amazing, and it plays better than any les Paul I've ever laid my hands on. Why would I spend over $3000 on a guitar when I could but something as good or better for $500? Gibson prices make no sense at all, considering its the Asian factories that are putting in the effort required to make consistent and high quality instruments.
Sean Molin. Photographer extraordinaire and Guitar aficionado. Now, if we could get you on the Trump train, you'd be a triple threat! Hahaha. Gibson has gone down hill since the 90's. The price versus quality has suffered so dang much. Don't get me wrong, I love the older Les Pauls, but I recently bought two Strats for half of what I would pay for a lower level Les Paul. Until they can get their quality to reflect their pricing or their pricing to reflect their quality, I don't expect them to be around for the next 20 years.
The markup on Gibson's is beyond absurd. I bought a Custom Deluxe in 1989 for 800.00 brand new. Even if you adjust for inflation that same guitar I bought would be 1,500.00 today. However that same model today costs approximately 3500.00! A Les Paul Traditional is around 1,700.00! That's crazy! I've played 300.00 imports that sound every bit as good. Gibson needs to get over themselves, come back down to earth, and start charging a reasonable price for their guitars! They also need to scale their lineup back. They have way too much bloat in their inventory. Way too many models within models.
killerdude35, You said it. Same here, I bought a LP standard for 800.00 new in 1990 and a Classic for 1000.00 in 1991. Quite frankly, I think the line up should be Studio, Standard, Custom and Deluxe. Bring the prices back down to earth and if you want something crazy expensive or some kind of relic, get it through the custom shop.
Bad management by Henry J., poor quality control, unreasonable stocking requirements of authorized dealers, ever increasing prices, micro-management-bad corporate culture, and frequent stupid mistakes, the biggest one not listening to musicians and dealers.
Matias Araya Personally, Fender really made the electric guitar we know today, Gibson just improved on it. Since the Gibson LP was Rock N Roll's go to guitar, that's why Gibson has always been viewed as #1 to most people. To be honest, i think Fender has done so much more to the guitar world than Gibson and I believe Fender should have always been #1.
Right now gibson only appeals to boomers, Fender also appeals to boomers but still gets a huge part of the millennial market thanks to their offsets, and the Squier and Jackson brands.
Of all the major manufacturers, Fender will likely ride out the coming death of the guitar, primarily because they've never lost sight of their core business and audience. They make affordable, reliable instruments that have changed little since their inception, and that dependability will make them attractive to the remaining guitarists out there for years to come.
Mediocre instruments made largely by machines with less than stellar tolerances sold for astronomic prices. Also more and more players are going to get custom made instruments because you actually get a MUCH.better instrument for a more reasonable price that is actually built by a human.
Agreed. I can buy a Tom Anderson, John Suhr or Wood library PRS for thousands less than a high end Gibson. Or a really great “made in Asia” PRS SE that’s far better (IMHO) than an Epiphone or low end Gibson. Their quality / quality control / price for perceived quality are out of line with their markets. Also, to address the decline of guitar manufacturering - all the guitars made over the last 60 years are still around - I’d buy a quality used guitar over a new one, most days of the week. Woods are better, finish quality is better, mojo is possible, and a ~$100 trip to a luthier will replace failing components like pots, switches and sockets.
every company uses machines you stupid fuck. the human part is assembling the pieces (frets, pickups, hardware, putting the neck on if it's a set neck or bolt on, or gluing the pieces of wood together, and painting the instrument.) and then setting it up and whatnot.
If you want to make money as a 'music lifestyle' just put together some trashy headphones, slap a music star's logo on the side and sell them for $200 or os.
For one thing, doing totally stupid things like putting fingerboards on a $4000 Gibson Les Paul Custom that are made out of PLASTIC (Gibson calls it "Richlite", as if nobody could figure out that it's plastic, if they don't CALL it plastic) isn't helping....and then totally destroying the Les Paul line with locking tuners, automated "robotic" tuners, all this is killing them....if you're not smart enough to know how to tune a guitar, you probably don't need to be spending $2500 on one....
Really? Damn I just assumed Gibson always installed an ebony fretboard on their guitars. I wonder why. Maybe ebony is getting scarce like rosewood is. I hear most rosewood nowadays comes from Africa, because Brazilian rosewood is very scarce.
Gibson has always used both ebony and rosewood, neither of which are terribly hard to come by, it's just that the most desirable jet black non-figured ebony has been harvested at this point. That's why you see companies like Taylor pushing to make normal ebony (with some streaks and visible grain) more common and accepted on guitars. Like you say, Brazilian rosewood has been a no-go for large scale manufacturing for some time now, but there's no shortage of Indian rosewood, and there are loads of other species that work just as well from all around the globe. Mexican rosewood, Honduran rosewood, the list just goes on. Rosewood won't be a problem anytime soon as long as we're not too hung up on where it comes from.
paradisegunshot Fenders are better built instruments in my opinion. Sadly though the best built guitars are ones built by companies like Ibanez, Jackson, Carvin, Schecter, and, ESP but we're used to seeing Gibson and Fender so that's what we end up buying.
I've wanted a Gibson SG since I was 10.. never had the $$ for one.. after reading last year they were having financial troubles and prices were going down, I checked the local shop.. SG's were now starting at $1200 CAD, rather than about $2400... Since I'm a professional photographer and need to invest money into gear that makes me money, I still couldn't justify buying a $1200 guitar.. Well, I just spent $50 and rented for a month.. and it's a dream to play, and since it's a rental, it sells for $1000.. Think I'm going to have to pony up, and at age 36 finally get my SG.. :)
@@chrisdidonna7371 Gibson has had SG standard for roughly $1200 for over a decade, They have different models that get up there. But Gibson selling an SG for $1200 is not a new thing nor is it the cheapest they sold SGs for. The SG Specials and guitars like that were around $800 ish at one point. You use to be ablet o get a Gibson Les Paul Studio for $699 new. But in the past 25 years unlike other companies, Gibson has upped the prices and lost their QC. Just because its made in the US doesnt mean its better. Just like when i see people buy an amp that includes a "Celestion speaker"... well what model is it ? "The 70/80". Well thats a POS speaker so that shouldnt make you want the amp anymore than before. That shouldnt be the selling point for consumers but most dont know any better and know the name and the amps sell. But the Gibson name and quality are hit or miss and with the prices their guitars have creeped up to, they have allowed these other companies to gain their market share. People can get one hell of a guitar with a name brand on the headstock that looks awesome and will knock your socks off for 1/4 of the price, if not lower. Ive seen $200-300 guitars that blow my mind.
As a musician, I think Gibson missed the mark on incoming artists. Their epiphone line of starter guitars aren’t up the pare when compared to Fender’s squire line. Also, Gibson guitars are also a lot more expensive than Fender guitars, not as many upcoming artists have ever played a Gibson. Fender has had a better track record with newer musicians
One of Gibson's problems is that they have no decent products for people who have $600.00- $800.00 to spend on a guitar. I can buy a Fender, or a PRS or a Gretch, Ibanez, Martin etc and get a guitar that isn't an embarrassment to show people. And plays well after a basic set up. What does Gibson have for me? Nothing. They have Epiphone, which some of their guitars are decent, but they are not Gibson's. Fender was smart enough to begin to make lower priced guitars that are still Fenders. Quality control has been a huge issue also, ask any luthier about that. You shouldn't have to spend over $2,000.00 for a decent guitar, and at that price point, I am buying a RIC. The other was trying to run a business they know nothing about.
they're failing because of bad management-period, and they're also getting killed by other guitar companies whom generally produce higher quality for way less money...
I agree, and their quality has been steadily declining. Horrible decisions like the self tuners that everyone hates are a good example. They will refinance or get bought and hopefully get back in touch with what their customers want. We'll see....
I don't necessarily think other guitar makers make higher quality for less money but they certainly produce at the very least the same quality for way less money.
yeah- was primarily making this comment in light of how the quality at Gibson declined dramatically over the past several years making other manufacturer's quality quite better...
Steve - They're actually not getting killed by other guitar companies. While Gibson as a corporation is in trouble the guitar division is very stable. I own four Gibson Custom Shop guitars and they are all phenomenal instruments. LOVE them. But I do think they need to work on the quality of entry and mid-level guitars. And you misused the word "whom". Should have been "who".
could you give me an example of low gibson quality? is there a youtube video showing the production defects and lousiness of quality? i keep hearing it on the internet but i owned a gibson studio and was amazed at the quality of the instrument, how the design seemed so simple but perfect, nice action great feel and sound i even dropped it on the headstock and the tuner bent but the head stock didnt break, i dropped it sqaure on the but one time and it bounced back up into my hand, i could barely make out the blemish where it hit, i was amazed, maybe just a lucky spot it hit.
This is not how capitalism work. Enterprises can only scale up, or they disappear. Especially when debt is involved. We are going to see that with the USA in a short time now.
gibson: make les paul standards how you did in 59 and price them about the same as a fender strat. your company will be back on track in a year i guarantee it.
If you are a guitarist you know why...The quality of their guitars are poor. Using robotic tuners, circuit boards on their guitars. They have no clue what the average guitarist wants or needs.
Agreed, I've owned 3 guitars from Gibson over the years. All left-handers, one SG, one Les Paul Custom and one Les Paul Studio. The Les Paul Custom was fabulous but it was from the 70's and the sheer weight of it did my back in so eventually it got sold of. The Studio is from the last few years and is ok but that's as far as I'll go. If I buy any more guitars (I doubt it at that this point in my life as I have 6 or so which enough for any sane person) I'll be looking at other companies as the Gibsons I've tried in-store are quite awful on the whole and the best sounding guitar I've tried this years is a Fender Squier Classic Vibe. I'm not overly impressed by Fender's American guitars either, I find their Japanese output to be far more consistently well made.
Because it diversified more, also it has some very, very affordable products out there. It also got less involved in recent years with doing silly things like sticking robot tuners on guitars or stuff like that. Having said even Fender's sales have declined in recent years. I own guitars by both, I have no particular brand loyalty and would buy a guitar from any company if I felt it was well made and played well. One of my own personal guitars which is a favourite is a beaten up Telecaster copy which I bought for next to nothing and tidied up a bit. Gibson's debt level is apparently really ludicrous at this point, I can't see them disappearing considering the way they are tied up with the history of popular music. I could see them downsizing or been bought out and restructured by some other company and either becoming more of a boutique brand than they are now or undergoing the same process that made a mess of much of Fender's output when it changed hands many years ago.
Harley and gibson are in the same boat...branding oneself as a "lifestyle" may often exclude the very people that got them to the dance. While i own both brands,i certainly do not buy into some "lifestyle"...gibson needs to concentrate on its product and getting it into the hands of potential players and not some damn "lifestyle"...
Sort of true. They both are inferior brands, but they both work as advertised and come with a lot of personality. I'll buy gibsons all day long, but I'd never buy a harley.
The same thing happen in the 80's , remember Rolling Stone said the guitar was dead in that decade ! Young people will outgrow current fads in music , remember guys nothing turns girls on more than a man that can use his hands to make music !
Yes HD and Gibson have some of the same issues that they can do nothing about except figure out how to adjust. Fewer people are riding motorcycles, less and less kids grow up riding and have little interest buying a bike when they get in their 20’s. When they do buy bikes they are leaning towards bikes with better suspension, brakes and more power. The HD ‘mystique’ is lost on them to a large extent. But make no mistake the motorcycle industry as a whole is feeling it. HD also has the issue with folks ‘aging out’, those who have the money and like HD are getting older and simply stop riding for health, safety whatever reasons.
Can't say I'm suprised. Looked at a few Les Pauls today at a guitar store. A 2018 Les Paul Custom was selling for $2500. The fret job was pathetic, bits of plastic binding hanging off the end, and a sloppy paint job. I didn't want to believe the Gibson trash talking of late, but their QC has truly become the worst in the industry.
No offense, but I find it funny how you saw guitar that cost $6,000 for $2,500. If you were truly looking at a Les Paul Custom, they are almost always flawless in their finish and details. Let stay on point here.
woperholic every LP I have seen lately has a buckled pickup surround at the neck. (Between the pup and fingerboard). I have also seen where you could take your fingernail and pop out an inlay or two and I don’t mean pry. Big gap, no glue. Shit my 74 Les Paul was just like that. Way overpriced for what you get. Long gone are the days of the true luthiers working for Gibby. Then again, I don’t care who worked on it or what wood it used, even if I was crazy rich I would never give $250k+ for a 59 LP. I was just at NAMM and I purchased an Aristides 060. They are custom made to spec and will blow any Gibson out of the water in sound and craftsmanship. I’m cheap and only buy used guitars now but damn, I ponied up for that new 060. Should be here around August. Yeah, they are that good.
They've moved their electric guitar production from Memphis to Nashville with all other instrument production. Man, Memphis is a hole of economic suck, I'm amazed that anything survives there.
Option 1: Bankruptcy Keep in mind, the B word doesn’t always mean the company dissolves. Especially a biz with viable product lines like Gibson. It’s more likely a bankruptcy would result in a restructuring of debt-creditors would huddle together with Gibson lawyers/accountants and make a plan to basically issue new debt to pay off the old, perhaps taking a “haircut,” by forgiving a percentage of the old debt in order to draw a higher percentage return on the new bonds. The bond holders might demand operational concessions, too. It’s not nice, but reducing costs through layoffs, salary cuts, and even closing whole divisions is sometimes a path to making the company long term viable again. And number 3 “Selling companies” can be part of a restructuring bankruptcy plan as well-a way to stave off the total liquidation scenario.
Not gonna work that way. I agree Gibson will survive, but the current owners will not be part of it. New owners will be debtholders and secured creditors; all others get flushed. They will eventually sell to a new investor group (and probably keep a piece of Gibson), who will make money making Gibsons without the horrendous debt structure.
@Justin - Gibson recently screwed a lot of people by shutting down SONAR. And, a lot of SONAR owners and myself had bought SONAR's "lifetime" updates. They neglected to tell us "their lifetime" would soon be ending.
Agree. There will be a Gibson, just not one with Henry. The most valuable thing Gibson owns is the name and patents. Highest bidder will get those. It might be someone who wants to make great artisanal guitars, it might be a Far East manufacturer looking to sell a lot of genuine $400 Les Pauls, or maybe Paul Reed Smith buys it (doubt it, but not impossible). But the company itself is gone. Who is going to help refinance $500M in debt on a company in a declining industry with current annual revenues of $1.25B and shrinking? No one. Now, if someone with pockets and resources can get the rights to make actual (as in actually legally branded) 335's and Les Pauls, and sees a way to money, then yeah.
This well focused video has a modest tone. Gibson lost focus when they took on an egotistic tone. As a professional musician Gibson is the name of a company that changed my life. I have instruments that were made by Orville Gibson in the early part of the 20th century. It's very sad to see that the name Gibson on products that won't be around in 5 years.
I worked at a music store for 8 years during the 2000's. Gibson's would be ridiculously overpriced if they were good quality, but they aren't (or weren't then). One we got had black hardware, but I guess they ran out of black bridges so someone had colored it black with a sharpie. Another one came in with the knobs stuck in the finish. Yeah, I'll pay $4500 for that.
I worked for a music shop in the 90s and believe it or not, we did not sell new Gibsons period. The only Gibson guitars we had in the inventory were used instruments we took in trade. My shop owner had had too many of those type of QC problems with Gibson and he absolutely refused to even do business with them
Good synopsis. Their guitar prices keep climbing while the quality keeps dropping. The Les Paul is a great example. I can't speak for how they manage other companies they've acquired but as a guitar player with 35 years experience, I can confidently say that their guitars are no longer worth the expense. They used to be. They were pricey but the quality could be counted on. No more.
Jason Desjardins true that, I had 3k to put on a new LP, I went tru 3-4 stores trying them, and not one turned me on. I ended up buying an old 2000 standard LP cant be happier. :)
Gibson should downsize and be a smaller, high-quality guitar company, like Martin, Taylor or even Paul Reed Smith. There are too many models and variations all at once. How they are going to downsize and still honor their debt is a good question. Maybe they should file for bankruptcy and the name should be sold once again to a small hardcore dedicated team that can start with a blank slate.
That's what I'm thinking. A fresh/new Gibson company would build a high quality standard for tradition sake. Then offer a LP style with a redesigned headstock and a light weight body. They need to focus on quality and put top-notch components on them like stainless frets, high-strength 3/5/7 piece necks and interesting color/wood combinations. That company would be well-served to look at what Kiesel is building and incorporate some of those things into their guitars. Then put the Gibson name on it and people will buy it IF the price is right. The price would have to be under $2000 with some models based around $1000, but offer the same quality and workmanship as a higher-end model.
They did try that laminated neck design in the early 80s and it was one of the major complaint points, along with maple unbreakable necks, polyester finishes an 1/8th inch thick and lessening of headstock and neck-set angles. Everything to make a warranty claim almost nonexistent. They got their wish but THAT is what really started the vintage-guitar fetish - if you wanted a GOOD one, you had to go find a 25-year-old example when they were made right. They should make the VOS instruments their standard instruments. They already have SGs, Les Pauls, 335s, Flying V's, Explorers, Melody Makers, the ES-175, Byrdland, J-45s, J-200s.... etc etc they don't NEED any more models beyond what they offered 1957-1967.
I think you've nailed it here. Years ago if you played guitar you wanted a Gibson or Fender and there weren't many good alternatives. Now there are some brilliant guitars for less than half the price of a Gibson. Reading reviews it looks as if quality control has been problematic. Selling on your name just doesn't work these days, the product has got to be good.
The quality of Gibson guitars has declined bad enough that I won't buy one. I think the Epiphone brand sounds and plays well, but shelling out 3k-4k for a Gibson Les Paul that looks great but plays crappy isn't in my future.
You can get an American Stratocaster for around $1000 vs a Gibson LP starting at $2500, and I prefer playing on a strat, the neck is finished off much nicer than the neck on an LP.. bought an LP and loved the sound, but hated playing it..and too heavy too
I was a dedicated Gibson user and still have my 1962 Les Paul SG custom, but as Gibson prices went up some Japanese companies made exceptional copies of popular guitars and were very well made I bought some and replaced the pickups with 60's era Gibson humbuckers and Gibson parts from pawnsops, Grover tuners, Gibson Bridges w metal saddles & TP6 fine tuning Tailpieces, I modded the electronics and used these Guitars instead of putting wear and tear on my original Gibsons, My LP copiy sounded like anything from a Danelectro, Telecaster, Strat or a Rick at the twist of a knob. without any extra holes or switches on the guitar body and still retain the full humbucker performance when needed. All 4 of the knobs interacted together passively to modify the sound and tone to what type of guitar I wanted to emulate. My friends dubbed them Excalibur. I still have one as a keepsake,
That's what I do too John, wood is wood, so I buy Asian copies at a 10th the price and then replace the P/Us and electronics. I don't always go Gibson, I may use Seymour Duncans for example
A classic case of poor management. The attempt to acquire additional companies ( and borrow money to do so ) is a high end gamble, assuming you borrow at correct amounts and rates, and assuming what you purchase can be garnered into enough income to warrant the loan. One of the largest forces hitting Gibson is not only a change in music styles, but a substantial change in demographics ( ie fewer buyers ), and a resulting massive oversupply in the markets ( ie no need to buy new when a used one is less and better quality ). Gibson Brands Moody Rating of Caa3 remains.
I've never really liked Gibson. They make overpriced fantasy guitars for dentists and lawyers, instead of making affordable, quality guitars for real players. *They put style over substance.*
Exactly! They are catering to collectors, not musicians. You'll see these people walking around music stores talking about intricate nitpicking details about a certain year of production, who are looking to buy a guitar at an astronomic price yet cant even play the damn thing.
Yeah, I don't know. I'm a kid from the 80's. I've owned a Gibson Sonex 180 from when I was 16 years old. It was not a Les Paul but a budget guitar. It was made pretty solid and still plays well even today. After I got older and had a few dollars I bought a Les Paul Gothic. It's a case queen but it does sound incredible. What they're doing today I can't really know first hand. I've seen a lot of press and video about quality control going to hell. Now with their debt load and poor publicity, it's most likely the end of the road for them. Standard disclaimer: I did not get into dentistry or become a lawyer, just pretty much a middle class lifestyle is all I've known.
Whenever I go to a guitar center, I never see the really good players/shredders playing a Les Paul, usually the better guitar players are either playing a strat or they are playing a metal guitar such as Ibanez or Schecter, Dean, etc. The ones trying out Les Pauls are usually weaker players, at least that's what I've noticed from experience whenever I go.
Gibson. I consider myself fortunate to own more than one vintage model of said guitars However unfortunately it seems to be the fact that the company is teetering on the brink of becoming a Chinese conglomerate owned zombie brand
Its truly sad to see Gibson struggle. I worked at Gibson for 5 years and.built my own. They pretty much brought it on themselves when starting prices are 4 grand or more. I have switched to gretch and ibanez great quality for thousands less.
Gibson used to make good guitars. Henry J wanted his potential customers to believe Gibson made mythically magical guitars. Henry needs to be the first thing to go.
I just want to add to this. It seems like both Fender and Gibson became complacent over the decades with their status and their ability to just rely on their names and their reputation in the industry. I have not looked into how Fender is doing as a business these days, but anyone who has been playing guitars for long enough can totally recognize that Fender got wise in the last decade or so. They realized that they can’t just simply rely on their name and their legendary guitar and bass models. Look at the changes in quality that they’ve made to Squier guitars. Look at the Parallel Universe series guitars. I think Fender realized two major thing within the last decade; they can’t simply rely on their name anymore (for reasons mentioned in this video; i.e. guitar being less popular in general these days) and that the music gear market has opened up SO wide that competition is around every corner. Musicians, specifically guitar and bass players, don’t have to turn to Fender or Gibson these days for quality. The internet/used gear market is making it easier than ever to not have to turn directly to these companies anymore. There are tons and tons of great options out there from other brands these days (a lot of which can be found for relatively reasonable prices). I guess what I’m trying to say is that out of the two big brands (Gibson and Fender), Fender seems to have wised up more as of recently. They seem to be done simply relying on just their name. They also seem to be winning the culture war of the two by being trendier. People don’t care about Slash anymore like they did in the past.
With the advent of Reverb and Sweetwater, there are better outlets to buy instruments than Guitar Center. As for Gibson and Fender: both companies cannot compete with other big brands like Ibanez, Jackson, ESP, PRS, Schecter, etc. as those brands have better QC, materials, and often update their designs to reflect modern playing styles, and come in at far cheaper prices. Gibson and Fender are most certainly guilty of resting on laurels and not meeting the needs of the current consumer market...
I’d argue that Fender have been doing much better. The quality of their guitars is only improving with each iteration, and they’ve focused on what the players want. There’s not really any lottery when you buy a US Fender, you’re going to get a good guitar, the same cannot be said for Gibson by all accounts.
Totally agree, I don't actually own any FMIC instrument at the moment, but they really make good stuff at every point in the line. If you're just starting out a Squier is fine for the money. As you go up the chain to the Vintage Modified and MIM, their stuff stays pretty consistent.
Here's a guitar player's perspective. Quality isn't the issue per say(it was in the 80s). Maybe it's gotten bad since I quit paying attention 5 years ago. They make good guitars...in fact the quality is so good that people still buy their older guitars at a high premium. Things like the PLEK system allow them to keep a good standard for out of box guitars. They don't break unless you drop them. Technically they will last you a lifetime. That's the experienced player's view. The new player's view. Who wants to pay $2000 for a standard Les Paul, or American made Fender for $1200. I've owned many guitars including the two mentioned...but my favorite guitar? A $300 used Mexican made strat, and an Epiphone SG400 Pro that I got for $288 new during a sale. Required some adjustments out of the box, but plays amazing. Gibson is the extreme end of the "non-custom" spectrum and as such their customer base is professional guitar players and rich guys that play or are looking to start playing and want a real Gibson. Gibson to me, has always been more about the name than anything else. It's like Harley. They really aren't the best deal, but it's a "lifestyle" brand. They also were putting out $15,000 reissues of guitars. Who the hell buys those things? You could buy a room full of guitars for less than that. It's absurd.
Ummm... You obviously missed a lot in that half decade you decided not to pay attention. Gibsons break when you look at them now. But thanks for your self admitted out of date perspective anyways.
You are right. My 20 year old les paul special is just getting broke in. My other 20 year old guitars are in taters. Just bought a new SG that came from the plek machine. The neck is absolutely perfect. It's unbelievably easy to play and sounds great. Maybe gibson should have sued the pants off of the million other companies aping their designs.
crush537 Lol they would lose all those lawsuits and would be branded as a monopoly. And that depends on care, even my 18 year old SG replica is still alive from years of playing metal, and all I did was change the nut and pickups to SD BlackOuts
Players seek out the older gibsons because there was Real craftsman,ship in the build of the early guitars'''''Sure wish Id have hung onto my 1970''L.P. deluxe'''
If I had a Gibson, I would probably keep it in a glass case on the wall..! I would be far too precious about it to play it. My Epi SG that I love dearly is accessible; sounds the business; I may mod it with a clean conscience, and - with my current playing level - I feel that it is an instrument of which I am 'worthy'... Like, only card-carrying RoK GoDs can really play a Gibson. It's like, Gibson has "exclusive'd" itself to the max, and made itself unreachable. Untouchable. Unplayable. Epiphone is great :-) Feels great, somehow seems to have fewer limitations as far as models go (Epiphone basically carry the same designs as Gibson, but it also has a few unique ones such as the Cheshire...), and even though Epiphone is officially slated as "Gibson on a budget", many players pick an Epi over a Gibson - Noel Gallagher and BB King being two that immediately come to mind. Fender is somehow more accessible than Gibson, mod friendly, easy to repair - or replace entire guitar parts. You can 'play' them, 'work' them, experiment with them... Even Kit-Build guitars basically come out looking like a Strat, Tele, Jazzmaster, or some unique combination of parts from all three - which are (to an extent) INTERCHANGEABLE..! Restructuring the finance of the company is all well and good, but restructuring the mindset in management and their vision of the future will be the most critical things to do.
Maybe if they stopped sticking to some really bad choices because of those being *traditional* (i.e. headstock angle or tuners placement) their guitars would sell better.
Les Paul players include: Eric Clapton (early), Carlos Santana (early), Mike Bloomfield, Jeff Beck, Peter Green, Gary Moore, Paul Kossoff, Mick Taylor, Jimmy Page. The older blues greats tended to favor ES335: BB King, Freddy King, Buddy Guy, many others.
@@taunokekkonen5733 So, for 494 years, Beretta has never gone through a period where they weren't growing? There are corporations that have existed since the year 1000. Are you telling me none of these companies have experienced anything but growth? Just because YOU don't know how to turn a profit without growing doesn't mean it's impossible.
@@sambolino44 not looking at the stats, but I wager that Beretta has more profit and revenue today than 1000 years ago. You do need to grow in the long run, especially if you are publicly listed. Even if you are a family business and want to just keep a job for you and the missus, you will be slowly eaten away by inflation and rising cost of raw materials. Growth is the backbone of investments; why would I invest in a company and get the same amount back in 5 years, when it's worth less? Or how can the company keep giving out dividends yearly if their revenue stays flat?
Musician? I would call them that unless they know how to play a REAL MUSICAL INSTRUMENT. (Like a Guitar, Saxophone Trumpet, etc) Synphesizers, sequencers, and all that are not musical instruments, they are just interfaces
I would argue another issue facing guitar companies is an oversaturation of their products, particularly in the used market. Why would I spend $1,000+ on a new Les Paul or SG when I can buy an older model used off Craigslist for hundreds less?
TartTooth yup.most musicians that play guitar oriented music tend to be more or less struggling and save money where they can. The people that buy guitars arent rockstars that will make the money back in one night. Its people that play for fun or in bars and small gigs.
Funny you should mention (and this video come out today) as my wife and I were just walking past a pawn shop earlier today and noted a substantial quantity of guitars - many of which were classic Gibson styles. Guitars are pretty durable - regular use doesn't hurt them much and they're not hard to fix. Eventually you reach the point where there's just so many on the used market you can't really keep up. I mean...how much innovation has there been just in the last 20 years for electric guitars?
Michael Eversberg II youre right. Guitar makers seem to use the "If it aint broke don't fix it" philosophy. The technology for wireless microphones and recording equipment has developed a lot over the years. But the guitar itself has stayed more or less the same.
Once there were 2 or 3 guitar companies. Now everyone and their brother is a guitar company and just about everything they make is a strat or les paul with some kind of twist.