Bad News for the Big G

[Ironwolf]

I agree that Gibson guitars are likely to live on. I think most of their problems arise from having tried to become a monster.

I agree a lot with that, it really does remind me of General Motors of the 70s and 80s. I think it's driven by greedy investors and bankers and corporate mentality, once a company successfully starts turning out well loved reasonably high quality product, you get bankers and investors trying to teach you how to turn the crank shaft higher and faster (more product more money) and go into parallel divisions and replicate a second moneymaking scheme. all of a sudden you find you got away from the product that made you successful.

Like having to order parts from General Motors to fix my Frigidaire dishwasher in the 80s. I'm saying to myself geez, so the people that make Corvettes are now making dishwashers and refrigerators???,
I just looked it up, Gibson is now 13 different divisions. so making guitars is just a tiny part of their company. certainly one CEO cannot possibly influence each division to be successful.
just like General Motors failed after they took over 27 different companies, then they had to divest everything, started over to focus on the products that were good at, don't get greedy , just be a good corporate citizen supplies jobs, and high quality products to the world, while the investors make a healthy profit,,, but greed seems to creep back into these large successful organizations.

and I really do believe back in 2015 they (Gibson) started to get it, I for one have been buying Les Paul's and SG's here and there every few years, hoping to find one that had that magic mojo, and they were close. but they all had minor issues and they just wandered out of the stable got sold.
I think in 2015 they tried to do too many things at once, but they are at the root of innovation of guitars, since the 50s and 60s, so that's what they said we are going to innovate,(remember McCarty)
I for one think the robot tuners are such a forward thinking innovative concept, it's just that its at the beginning stages of being technologically invisible to the user, it reminds me of the first cell phones everybody said their stupid and there too big and their clumsy and they don't have enough power, and there's problem after problem. but having the vision to continue developing in the face of all the complainers takes heart. I do actually think they'll get there or close eventually, transparent little micro motors that can't be seen or heard in your guitar, and your string never goes out of tune, I understand the vision. each execution and each iteration truly has been getting better.
and I also don't understand all the complainers, a nearly perfect replica of arguably one of the best sounding guitars on the planet can be had. do you want an iconic guitar that sounds and plays identical to the guitar on thousands of hit records, you can go buy it. but you can't demand that they stop making guitars that might improve on that guitar. "don't you dare try to improve the guitar", you should make R9's and R9's only. today's Corvette has elevated the driving experience to a joyful level versus a 69 Corvette, while still maintaining the spirit.
so in 2016 I bought the Les Paul high-performance, the tone and playability the innovative zero fret, the 20 different tones, 4 push pull pots, the Axcess neck, the weight relieved chambered mahogany, all the pieces of innovation I was looking for for the last 10 years, the tone is incredible, the guitar is simply one of the best guitars I've ever played. I'm sort of neutral on the robot tuners, only because it's not perfect 100% of the time, I occasionally have to tune it manually, but they are very impressive and fun. so when I hear people telling them to go make R9's only, it just doesn't make any sense, I guess the last bullet point is people wish they could buy these fantastic American-made guitars for $1000 but it's just not going to happen ever again. but they will complain about it for 1000 hours.

I also believe the market has evolved the Gibson CEO has it right the guitar market has become extremely complex and competitive, the younger generation is actually picking up acoustic guitars instead of electrics. total guitars of all kind sales have been about the same for the last eight or nine years. but the average price due to the good quality Asian guitars, puts pressure on the American-made guitars, Fender and Gibson can no longer make large profits anyway. I saw another article saying there are now 260 different manufacturers of electric guitar. the massive dilution of the market, and his other point about Amazon.com dominating the way we purchase everything. Paul S, has said it himself it's a saturated market, the industry is pumping ~2 million guitars per year into the market for the last 15 years, and seeing how guitars seem to last 30 or 40 years, approximately 100,000,000 guitars for 20,000,000 players.
companies are now relying on guitar players to each own 10 to 20 guitars a piece. which most of you do.

Sales of guitars in the U.S. guitar market increased steadily from 2005, with a peak of 2,341,551 guitars sold in 2011. Since 2011, guitar sales stayed at approximately the same level through 2013. However, between 2005 and 2011, the average value of each guitar sold has fluctuated from $590 in 2005, with a low of $529 in 2010, which further declined to $353 in 2013.

my conclusion is I don't think Gibson is doing all that much wrong in guitar manufacturing, (the other 13 divisions are losing the money) they have equal sales to fender and PRS, they have high interest in their iconic guitars, they are trying to offer innovative guitars, as well as the classic. I do think we all agree they had a period of time where quality control went in the toilet, and they have tried to turn it around in the last 4-5 years, at least started heading in the right direction, the 2016 G product I have is nearly flawless, only slightly lower in quality, to my amazing stunning 594 PRS, all they need to do is stop trying to be General Motors. go back to a core business concept, instead of a corporate takeover debt acquisition leveraged buyout business. which they are not good at. check out how many companies they are, crazy how many money losing brands they own.

http://archive.gibson.com/Press/press_divisions.asp

it's a trap that PRS could fall into as well, investors start convincing him to diversify, you should start making computers and microphones Paul.
wow that turned out to be a lot of words. apologies.

 

[WeFixFlats]

A New York Times story from March 30th...

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/30/business/gibson-guitars-bankruptcy.html

Not looking good for Henry...

 

[Ironwolf]

I like what Henry says

" auto tuning of guitars was scaled back, after the trolls took over the dialogue. "

I do think that's one of big G's problems is that legacy from 1952 through 1959. there is a small 3 to 5% base of fans who constantly complain on the LP forums, that Gibson should only offer historic models made identical to 1959 and never change a single thing, never improve never innovate, year after year they complain about the new exciting lineup of innovation. always mixed in with it might be okay if the price was 30% lower. it should be the same price as 1959. I seriously look forward every year to see what Gibson is offering because it always seems new. I remember the year the PLEK debuted, such a good idea.

"The only good guitar ever made has plastic nibs as part of the fret, and a guitar that doesn't have nibs is not a correct guitar, and they should weigh 13 pounds with no weight relief", and they are extremely vocal trolls, they literally spew venom about changing, evolving, or improving a guitar that they loved 45 years ago.
I personally was afraid to buy the high-performance LP, as I thought people (trolls) would laugh at me, until I played it, freaking awesome I immediately sold all my other Gib LP versions.

I think Gibson should modernize and distance themselves from that historic era fan boys, those guitars are highly flawed beasts,
I have the high-performance LP and it is simply a fabulous guitar, all of the flaws from the 50s are completely engineered out. and it has the new toy of automatic tuning, which like Henry said is most likely to continue to get better and better and better, smaller and more transparent to the user.

I have no problem with them continuing to offer older flawed guitars through the custom shop, a 59 replica. there are certainly features that need to be maintained. but there's no way that can be more than 1-2% of their sales. how many 59 replicas can you sell, till the end of time 3 to 4000 per year? not worth it as a corporation.
so the least important people with the least amount of impact on sales get to drag the company down and not let them innovate, by yelling the loudest. they say "I have no intention of buying a new guitar, but I'm going to complain bitterly and tell everyone else the company sucks and the wrong product is being offered".

I think people should mention when they see quality control issues, so those complaints are somewhat valid. but I do think the 60-year-old diehards who can't handle innovative experiments of trying to improve or change a guitar stops Gibson from being vibrant. and the fact of the matter is they've already got 5 - 59 historic's. we now have enough 59 historic's for everybody on the planet to own one. the weight relief is a perfect example, the complaining about the loss of tone,for 20 years now, and the reality is the 8.0 pound guitar sounds every bit as excellent as the 13 pounder after 20 years of complaining about weight relief. there finally letting it go, they also complain about smart phones, who needs a smart phone, what's wrong with rotary phones.

they really should adopt a similar attitude to PRS. He basically says; this well thought out rational design feature will be implemented this year, because it improves the tone, the playability, and enjoyment of the guitar, without worrying too much about the people who have the 10-year-old model, Sorry it's better.

I like high tech well thought out, well engineered, well executed, fun products, we really don't see any Ford model T replicas for sale for a reason.
I hope the big G survive and improve. simplify the lineup. and execute well. just my opinion

 

[László]

I like what Henry says

" auto tuning of guitars was scaled back, after the trolls took over the dialogue. "

I do think that's one of big G's problems is that legacy from 1952 through 1959. there is a small 3 to 5% base of fans who constantly complain on the LP forums, that Gibson should only offer historic models made identical to 1959 and never change a single thing, never improve never innovate, year after year they complain about the new exciting lineup of innovation. always mixed in with it might be okay if the price was 30% lower. it should be the same price as 1959. I seriously look forward every year to see what Gibson is offering because it always seems new. I remember the year the PLEK debuted, such a good idea.

"The only good guitar ever made has plastic nibs as part of the fret, and a guitar that doesn't have nibs is not a correct guitar, and they should weigh 13 pounds with no weight relief", and they are extremely vocal trolls, they literally spew venom about changing, evolving, or improving a guitar that they loved 45 years ago.
I personally was afraid to buy the high-performance LP, as I thought people (trolls) would laugh at me, until I played it, freaking awesome I immediately sold all my other Gib LP versions.

I think Gibson should modernize and distance themselves from that historic era fan boys, those guitars are highly flawed beasts,
I have the high-performance LP and it is simply a fabulous guitar, all of the flaws from the 50s are completely engineered out. and it has the new toy of automatic tuning, which like Henry said is most likely to continue to get better and better and better, smaller and more transparent to the user.

I have no problem with them continuing to offer older flawed guitars through the custom shop, a 59 replica. there are certainly features that need to be maintained. but there's no way that can be more than 1-2% of their sales. how many 59 replicas can you sell, till the end of time 3 to 4000 per year? not worth it as a corporation.
so the least important people with the least amount of impact on sales get to drag the company down and not let them innovate, by yelling the loudest. they say "I have no intention of buying a new guitar, but I'm going to complain bitterly and tell everyone else the company sucks and the wrong product is being offered".

I think people should mention when they see quality control issues, so those complaints are somewhat valid. but I do think the 60-year-old diehards who can't handle innovative experiments of trying to improve or change a guitar stops Gibson from being vibrant. and the fact of the matter is they've already got 5 - 59 historic's. we now have enough 59 historic's for everybody on the planet to own one. the weight relief is a perfect example, the complaining about the loss of tone,for 20 years now, and the reality is the 8.0 pound guitar sounds every bit as excellent as the 13 pounder after 20 years of complaining about weight relief. there finally letting it go, they also complain about smart phones, who needs a smart phone, what's wrong with rotary phones.

they really should adopt a similar attitude to PRS. He basically says; this well thought out rational design feature will be implemented this year, because it improves the tone, the playability, and enjoyment of the guitar, without worrying too much about the people who have the 10-year-old model, Sorry it's better.

I like high tech well thought out, well engineered, well executed, fun products, we really don't see any Ford model T replicas for sale for a reason.
I hope the big G survive and improve. simplify the lineup. and execute well. just my opinion

I like your post, because it initiates an interesting discussion, namely, what exactly constitutes innovation? Is it a quest for tone improvement? Playability? Gizmos? More?

This is a time where it’s not only a bunch of old crocks like me who’re nostalgic about the guitars of the early rock years; young people have been on a vintage kick for a long time, too.

PRS has innovated often. The 408 pickups, the 513 and 509, the Narrowfields, the experimentation with scale lengths, materials from nut to bridges to patented tremolo systems, hell, the list could go on and on.

What’s an innovation, and what’s a gimmick? The answer is going to vary according to whoever’s deciding. I think we players benefit from being open-minded.

Your post reminds us not to follow the herd. That’s a good thing.

 

[Ironwolf]

I like your post, because it initiates an interesting discussion, namely, what exactly constitutes innovation? Is it a quest for tone improvement? Playability? Gizmos? More?

This is a time where it’s not only a bunch of old crocks like me who’re nostalgic about the guitars of the early rock years; young people have been on a vintage kick for a long time, too.

PRS has innovated often. The 408 pickups, the 513 and 509, the Narrowfields, the experimentation with scale lengths, materials from nut to bridges to patented tremolo systems, hell, the list could go on and on.

What’s an innovation, and what’s a gimmick? The answer is going to vary according to whoever’s deciding. I think we players benefit from being open-minded.

Your post reminds us not to follow the herd. That’s a good thing.

I think innovation starts out as a promise, a small group of clever people tests an idea, and finds it has value in their small window or their limited context,
most small companies (or large companies) then introduce it into a limited market or as a limited edition, as it rolls into the bigger context, the promise of improved....... tone? Playability? Safety? Parameter X, is then evaluated by a larger statistical population, often times unintended value is found in the bigger test window. but also many times only small limited value is found, the product or the innovation moves to version 2.0 or 3.0, is taken up by the masses and hailed as a success, or the money is too much for the value and its termed a gimmick or a passing fad.
remember the fat finger, the C clamp that clamps an extra pound of metal on the end of your guitar, promises to increase sustain, I think that's a good example, it almost worked, you can go from 29 seconds of sustain to 31 seconds of sustain. gimmick fad probably.

I only bought my first electronic D Addario clip on headstock tuner two years ago, super awesome innovation fantastic value. not a gimmick.
but I was certainly part of the bigger statistical test pool for the experiment. I gave it a thumbs up by purchasing 4 more. so voting with your dollars is how the next generation version of it continues to improve.
fantastic question.

 

[Michael_DK]

In my view, the "Innovation" of the robot tuners were simply not market ready. I remember playing one of the 2016 models (I think). Robot tuners that ALMOST worked, where they'd had to put on the brass nut to compensate somewhat - with the result that the neck was horribly wide. My hand hurt from playing that for five minutes. That along with the 30% price hike. Seriously misjudging the market in my opinion. If your product is not ready for release - don't release it until it is. And don't increase the price by a third. Crazy.

 

[Ironwolf]

I agree, they should have made it optional and/or limited release to get market feedback and wait for iterative revisions. they have been working on the concept for 10 years the original robot SG. it's only slowly improving. definitely improving though.
Henry said that in the article that we rushed it, we tried to move it ahead to quickly.

but if you look ahead with Star Trek vision, I can imagine a world where it could get to the point. where you just say Siri tune my guitar, a superfast very quiet micro motor tunes the guitar, in less than two seconds. so I like the vision but it's not ready for prime time.

the 2015 was the extrawide with a brass nut,(fail) I also purchased one of those,not bad but I was excited to sell it to get the 2016,
2016 is the model I have only slightly bigger than a PRS with a titanium nut, (win, win) 44.4 mm nut. I love the fact that the frets go over the binding, no string fall off, which I experienced on all my earlier nibbed versions 10 years ago.
I'm one of the lucky people with large hands. I'm completely immune to neck width and shape, every single guitar pickup, I like it.

Except I cannot play a music man Ernie Ball which uses a 41.3 mm nut, I cannot play a single open chord on that tiny nut width,
so I need the 1 11/16 spacing. because I have big fingers.

while I enjoy the robot tuners as a gizmo, I do find that it is not as accurate, as I would like, they're pretty amazing to watch though, to watch it just home in and get the guitar string nearly spot on is pretty freaking cool,
I am just about ready to put some nice locking tuners on there. at least the Gibson recognized; we need to make these completely removable so every player can put the tuners on they desire, so very happy with that foresight,

everybody complains about price for every guitar I think, that's become a national pastime, every single guitar made is too expensive is what I hear.
until you look at the PRS factory tour, and then I said how can they possibly make a guitar this cheap $3000 seems like a bargain. I think healthcare is driving up the price of anything made in America, along with increased property values and the overhead of running a business rent increases through the roof.
cheers

 

[merciful-evans]

I like what Henry says

" auto tuning of guitars was scaled back, after the trolls took over the dialogue. "

I do think that's one of big G's problems is that legacy from 1952 through 1959. there is a small 3 to 5% base of fans who constantly complain on the LP forums, that Gibson should only offer historic models made identical to 1959 and never change a single thing, never improve never innovate, year after year they complain about the new exciting lineup of innovation.

I entirely agree. I have been using the G forum since early 2015. At that time I was shocked by the attitude of most of the users there (many more than 3-5% you experienced). They were passionate and bitterly angry at the 2015 changes. Don't get me wrong, I've come to admire & respect many of them. However the stark reality of situation is this; G must continue to innovate as nearly all of the diehard 1959 club will be gone within 10 years.

I personally loved the 2015 models, and picked one up with a 49% reduction on the purchase price. That heavy discounting occurred when the 2016 sprint run appeared later that year.

The HP models point to the future, and continued innovation is a must. I also hope they pull through somehow, because as much as we may love PRS, its good to have a choice, and the world is better with that company in it.

 

[gush]

I've only owned two Les Pauls and I was unhappy with both. I had a Gibson V too but I sold it.

I got tired if trying to keep them in tune. The neck on my first one started warping at the neck body joint and the 03 classic had quality issues.

When I see the prices of LPs increase and think about the issues I've dealt with it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Robot tuners? I've never tried them but with my past LP experience and the fact that they almost work I think I'll stay in the prs camp.

I can't help but think that there are a lot of folks just like me who just want a superior guitar that plays well, sounds great, stays in tune and looks fantastic.

How do you stay afloat while driving your potential buyers to other manufacturers?

I do hope Gibson can survive but I'll stick with a guitar company like PRS. The passion for making the best guitars on the planet shows in every prs I own.

 

[pac90]

I have never owned one, but just an observation, they do seem to have a lot of very nice flamed maple tops, I see lots of striped ones that stunning

 

[CVS]

Great thread & lots of insightful comments, especially about the overall guitar manufacturer market . As a retired strategist for a large corporation (unfortunately dealing with more boring industries such as pumps manufacturing and electronic components manufacturing), innovation can be anything from a minor tweak to a ground breaking new approach and in the case of the guitar can encompass playability, tone, & quality improvements as well as cost reduction initiated changes (which may not be of interest to we guitar players but help the manufacturer make more profit and/or stay in business).

Another form of innovation can come from changes in how you take your product to the market. For example (& I am not saying PRS would do this - but I am sure they have discussed the pros and cons - probably more than once), but PRS could elect to start selling guitars right on their web site. That would be "innovation" as well.

Last but not least, the amount of profit any particular company makes is determined by 2 factors - 1) The overall health and profitability of the market they serve 2) The company's competitive position in the market they serve (are they better or worse than the competition in terms of product offering, service offering, and cost position).

My take is that there are many companies out there that are not honest with themselves about these points & live in denial. The good news is that I don't think that PRS is one of them. All the moves that they have made at least over the past 6 years since I have been paying attention have been good ones.

OK, Now I will get off my soapbox & actually go get ready for a band practice!

 

[11top]

I've only owned two Les Pauls and I was unhappy with both. I had a Gibson V too but I sold it.

I got tired if trying to keep them in tune. The neck on my first one started warping at the neck body joint and the 03 classic had quality issues.

When I see the prices of LPs increase and think about the issues I've dealt with it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Robot tuners? I've never tried them but with my past LP experience and the fact that they almost work I think I'll stay in the prs camp.

I can't help but think that there are a lot of folks just like me who just want a superior guitar that plays well, sounds great, stays in tune and looks fantastic.

How do you stay afloat while driving your potential buyers to other manufacturers?

I do hope Gibson can survive but I'll stick with a guitar company like PRS. The passion for making the best guitars on the planet shows in every prs I own.

I had a major PRS and Gibson dealer tell me years back if you want a good Gibson, buy from the Custom Shop. I think that advice was spot on. One of the things I most admire about PRS is the consistency of quality products throughout its offerings. The high quality of its imports, core, and custom is remarkable; a feat no other guitar company can match. However, Gibson makes an exceptional product through its custom shop.

 

[Ovibos]

The G robotuners were the Apple Newton. Something with some good ideas in it, but the tech wasn't quite there yet.

In a few years, someone is going to get it right and they will become the next replacement like lockers are now.

 

[andy474x]

Interesting points here. I don't know if I agree with the logic to stop making reissue guitars, if people are going to buy them then why not make them? And, even if it's not a huge seller, it's part of the brand concept, there's a mental association with a lot of players, they need to be able to still provide the thing that made them relevant. Well, except the nibs, because I hate nibs, and it's all about me.

I was very against the robot tuners at first, and kind of rightly so I think, because I just didn't trust it. I had a buddy buy one of the early limited run LP's with the first gen robot tuners (G force? or was it called Robot first and now G force? I dunno) and the mechanism broke, and now that Gibson is changing the units he couldn't buy replacement parts. Which is really, really lame. One of the things we take for granted as guitar owners is the modularity of our instruments, almost every part of the guitar except the body and neck can be replaced if parts fail - heck, even the neck can be replaced on bolt-on guitars. Which, let's face it, parts will fail given enough use.

But, now that I think about it, there are situations that it would be VERY handy to have that robot tuning ability. I recently got a TC Polytune pedal, and being able to quick-tune all six strings simultaneously is seriously cool. How much better would it be to just press a button, strum, and a few seconds later you're good to go? But, maybe of the reason it was dismissed by some, is there wasn't trust of the brand there, and as it turns out, rightly so. And that's the bigger problem I have with Gibson's "innovations" like robot tuning, baked maple, brass nuts, there's just not the passion behind them like there is for PRS. I fear a hidden (or not so hidden, ahem, baked maple) agenda within the company, rather than a passion for what will make the instrument better.

 

[Michael_DK]

Interesting points here. I don't know if I agree with the logic to stop making reissue guitars, if people are going to buy them then why not make them? And, even if it's not a huge seller, it's part of the brand concept, there's a mental association with a lot of players, they need to be able to still provide the thing that made them relevant. Well, except the nibs, because I hate nibs, and it's all about me.

I was very against the robot tuners at first, and kind of rightly so I think, because I just didn't trust it. I had a buddy buy one of the early limited run LP's with the first gen robot tuners (G force? or was it called Robot first and now G force? I dunno) and the mechanism broke, and now that Gibson is changing the units he couldn't buy replacement parts. Which is really, really lame. One of the things we take for granted as guitar owners is the modularity of our instruments, almost every part of the guitar except the body and neck can be replaced if parts fail - heck, even the neck can be replaced on bolt-on guitars. Which, let's face it, parts will fail given enough use.

But, now that I think about it, there are situations that it would be VERY handy to have that robot tuning ability. I recently got a TC Polytune pedal, and being able to quick-tune all six strings simultaneously is seriously cool. How much better would it be to just press a button, strum, and a few seconds later you're good to go? But, maybe of the reason it was dismissed by some, is there wasn't trust of the brand there, and as it turns out, rightly so. And that's the bigger problem I have with Gibson's "innovations" like robot tuning, baked maple, brass nuts, there's just not the passion behind them like there is for PRS. I fear a hidden (or not so hidden, ahem, baked maple) agenda within the company, rather than a passion for what will make the instrument better.

Well said, and I agree with most, if not everything.

Conceptually speaking, I think robot tuners are a great idea. It just fell way short in the implementation.

 

[merciful-evans]

But, now that I think about it, there are situations that it would be VERY handy to have that robot tuning ability. I recently got a TC Polytune pedal, and being able to quick-tune all six strings simultaneously is seriously cool. How much better would it be to just press a button, strum, and a few seconds later you're good to go? But, maybe of the reason it was dismissed by some, is there wasn't trust of the brand there, and as it turns out, rightly so. And that's the bigger problem I have with Gibson's "innovations" like robot tuning, baked maple, brass nuts, there's just not the passion behind them like there is for PRS. I fear a hidden (or not so hidden, ahem, baked maple) agenda within the company, rather than a passion for what will make the instrument better.

I played many 2015 models and the G-Force tuners on demo models were constantly abused by customers trying out different tunings etc. The was a YT vid of someone replacing the G-Force with Klusons I think; Anyway, he made a big deal out of smashing the G-Force to pieces. Sadly that attitude is typical of the faithful, who despise & resent any change.

The model I bought was new. I promptly applied for the titanium nut replacement and fitted it. I wanted to give the G-Force a fair chance. I am still using it now, and can report it works fine. I do think it allows more slippage than a Grover or Schaller tuner, therefore I retune more often. String changes are very fast and easy. (The earlier 2014 system was called Mini-Tune).

As for baked (called torrefied) maple fingerboards. I have one on my 339 Studio. It was the main reason I choose that model over the blingy ones. It feels nicer than lacquered maple. It feels similar to ebony. I really wish I had it on the LP as well.

As for QC, that has improved I think, but still lags way behind PRS. I tried several 339s before choosing mine. 3 of the 2014 models had QC issues. One even had the neck out of alignment to the bridge! It should never have left Memphis like that.

 

[Tosca]

Add another 50 million to that problem...

https://reverb.com/news/tronical-ge...bloggibsonlawsuit&utm_medium=FB&utm_source=FB

 

[CVS]

Big G is a company with a billion dollars in revenue per year. It's not like they're just going to turn out the lights and everyone goes home.

1st they will declare bankruptcy.
Henry J will "retire"
A court appointed overseer will handle the bankruptcy
Most of upper management will retire or be let go
Most likely a capital management firm will buy the company at fire sale prices
More successful sub-brands will be sold off.
Less successful sub-brands will be shut down.
Product lines will be streamlined
New upper management will be installed
Capital Management firm re-sells the company in 2-3 years.

Sounds like you are in my former line of work & agree with you as to what will happen. The brand name still has plenty of value. The current owners probably just overpaid for the business and used lots of debt to finance the purchase.
The only other thing I would add is that some lawyers, an investment bank and some CPA firms will make a lot of $ going through this process. They are the "winners" when something like this happens.

 

[Michael_DK]

Add another 50 million to that problem...

https://reverb.com/news/tronical-ge...bloggibsonlawsuit&utm_medium=FB&utm_source=FB

Looking to get their pay before they get pushed to the back of the line by the big investors, I imagine (without knowing any legal technicalities related to cases such as this)

 

[drdoom8793]

Some news...

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...bankruptcy-with-deal-to-renew-guitar-business