An interesting read

[DuncanCE22]

Not sure if anyone else has seen this,

http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/news...em_and_their_customers_think_theyre_crap.html


Not trying to hate on Gibson but I found it very interesting, especially as it comes just as a friend of mine has been complaining he has been having a lot of issues with a Les Paul he bought 6 months ago.
I always considered Gibson to be one of the big boys in the guitar industry that you can rely on to always be there producing quality guitars, I'd expect this from a cheaper, newer company thats driven by profits rather than the love of great guitars.

Would love to hear everyone else's thoughts on the subject.

 

[sergiodeblanc]

Look, I don't own a any Gibson guitars anymore but this is a pretty lame article.

I think too many people complain about them because... haters just wanna hate. I've owned at least fifteen Gibsons from the dreaded Norlin years up until the late 90's and none of them were crappy guitars. The PCB thing is inconvenient for sure, but if you're the type of dude thats gonna buy a guitar based on how you think it should or could sound, rather than how it actually does sound, then why are you buying that guitar in the first place?

The woman complaining that she doesn't have three hours to fill out an application sounds like a f@cking nightmare of an employee. She doesn't want to spend a day in a "corporate jail cell" when she's applying for a job in a factory? Excuse me?

She's more concerned about her f@cking Tinder profile than getting a job! She can't keep a relationship with a partner going, how is she gonna show up to work every day? I'd be more understanding if it was OkCupid or match.com but Tinder? That's a hookup site where people who don't know what they want browse for mates. Sounds like she doesn't know if she wants a job either.

Henry J's mission statement of "awesomeness" could use a little re-wording, but why does she think she is entitled to know what plans their marketing department is up to? Until they offer her a job and she accepts, that's not any of her business. A ton of places are pretty secretive about that. I'm sure Paul and Jack don't sit down potential employees and lay out: "Well, in March we're gonna release an offset cutaway guitar, and in June we plan on releasing the P-245 Semi-hollow... So if you're not gonna take the job... Take that information to your next interview at one of our competitors."

I look at this as a slanderous article with no clarification, no resources, no actual data, and no class.

 

[NomadMike]

I'd expect this from a cheaper, newer company thats driven by profits rather than the love of great guitars.

All companies are driven by profit in the end, even PRS.

I always considered Gibson to be one of the big boys in the guitar industry that you can rely on to always be there producing quality guitars,

Well... I've seen, owned or used mostly good ones. Yes, Les Pauls often have some special quirks, but all are easily fixed with a file or a screw driver or a wide strap. The biggest problems I've seen are usually the result of trying to mass produce a guitar that was never meant to be mass produced which results in their build being rushed.

The "article" is pretty lame and looks more like something from a forum than any form of journalism.

 

[Bluesboy998]

You nailed it Sergio

 

[László]

Let's put things in perspective - something that the article doesn't really try to do.

Gibson management's reputation isn't the most savory. Here in Michigan, the bad publicity started with their abrupt move from Kalamazoo to Nashville. We have all heard stories about the guy that runs the company. Their PR is not very good. Their litigation against PRS was a bad choice, and in the end they lost a case that never should have been started. Their employees have aired gripes and grievances that we simply don't hear out of other guitar companies.

Their marketing has in some cases been laughable (remember the recent touting of laminated fingerboards when they couldn't get rosewood?). The automatic tuning machine decision makes me scratch my head and ask what they must be thinking.

They have had some quality control issues over the years, and we've all seen 'em and heard stories.

On the other hand, they also make some fine guitars. That means that for whatever it's worth, they're also making some good decisions, and running a decent enough show.

It's never all black or all white. There are lots of shades of gray.

 

[IKnowALittle]

There are lots of shades of gray.

50, I believe :flute:.

The weirdest thing I've read about the 2015 models is making the fretboard wider than the strings. May work a treat, but it's got me :iamconfused:.

 

[CoreyT]

I read that article a few days ago from a Facebook source.
When I got back into guitars spring of 2012 I hung out on the official Gibson board having just bought a 2012 '61 SG Reissue.
Mine is pretty much flawless except for perhaps wet wood in the neck as it will not stay in tune for very long, even with locking tuners.

But...I read countless posts over there complaining about how the control knobs were put on in various angles, so they did complain a lot about QC.
Read a few replies at the link above, and one cracked me up about PRS being over priced junk.
Please, I bet the guy has never even played a PRS.
My 408 is such a joy to hold and play, and it stays in tune.

 

[Steve B]

Sergio is "spot on" with his take on this article...

In my mind Gibson is a great brand that is unfortunately making (in MY opinion) some poor choices.

These "Poor Choices" led me to buy my first PRS and for that I thank them profusely!

 

[drdoom8793]

All companies are driven by profit in the end, even PRS.


Well... I've seen, owned or used mostly good ones. Yes, Les Pauls often have some special quirks, but all are easily fixed with a file or a screw driver or a wide strap. The biggest problems I've seen are usually the result of trying to mass produce a guitar that was never meant to be mass produced which results in their build being rushed.

The "article" is pretty lame and looks more like something from a forum than any form of journalism.

Pretty much this. Mass production is simply difficult to do while maintaining a high level of quality, especially with the amount of craftsmanship that went into these guitars decades ago as they were first being created. However, I do agree that they have made some questionable business decisions recently (crazy wide neck top to bottom on the new LPs, auto tuners on the headstock).

Gibson does seem to be in an interesting spot. As someone who is still pretty young (just a baby at 23), before I discovered PRS, Gibson always seemed like the holy grail, so to speak. It was unattainable at the time due to the costs of course, so I had to settle for other brands like Schecter and LTD. Now that I'm older and actually have money to buy a medium/high end guitar, Gibson just really isn't that appealing. The new ones don't have the same feel that the older ones did and when it comes down to value for price, I would get either one of the singlecut SEs (245, Bernie Marsden, etc.) or an LTD EC-1000 rather than something like a Studio or a Classic, or for a little more than a 2015 Studio, the S2 Singlecut feels like a better value. And when you get to the price range of a Traditional or a Standard, there are plenty of alternatives that will net you either a better guitar for the price or a better price for equivalent quality.

In all honesty, I think Gibson should stop trying so hard to innovate (funny coming from a PRS player) and go back to building the guitars that people love(d). There are sooooo many iconic players that used LPs, soooo many great songs and albums recorded with them. I think it's a case of, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

YMMV