@@styrenebuilds6851 cheapest Gibson in 1980 was $549, avg minimum wage was $3.10/hour, so 177 hours of work. Cheapest Gibson currently is $1499, avg minimum wage is $7.25/hour, so 207 hours of work... For comparison, the Les Paul Junior was $99 when it first came out, it was the cheapest Gibson and avg minimum wage was $1/hour, so 99 hours of work, Gibsons have more than doubled their cost.
Even if a young person does have money, most young people wouldn't buy a Gibson. Why do young people buy PRS SE guitars, Ibanez, Mexican Fender, & Squire, instead of Epiphone?
Yet if you go to any festival even with young band these days it is all Gibson and Fender, yes more Fender but still a lot of Gibson. Those are history and that cannot be replaced by any new brand.
I am a boomer, but for the reasons discussed in this video, I am not a Gibson fan. You are still correct, boomers do like the nostalgia - and Gibsons, but not me. I like the new sounds and the new technology. I will eventually sell my Les Paul because I just don't pick it up.
@@johnhill9280 didn’t mean anything disparaging about people of your generation, just making an observation about what I think the image of Gibson is in the eyes of Gen Z.
Very well said, Gibson is the Harley Davidson of guitars. Caters to boomers and the young musicians are starting to see it as a boomer guitar for boomer music. They are focusing too much on short term gains selling high price gear to boomers and not thinking 20 years ahead when many of them start dying. Their absurd pricing is also out of touch with younger gen and most musicians even. By the time the damage is done the execs would have made their pay day and will be long gone
If all Les Paul's played identically to a '59 burst, what would distinguish the artist? Their respective skills and approach. What would THEN make any one of those instruments so valuable as to prevent an opportunity to own one, much less access to play one? (They all sound the same) I'll keep my Firebird V and hone my meager skills rather than hope to run randomly into a fire breather that only a virtuoso/ genius could coax out a melodic success.
You’re spot on. A small example. My 17 year old kid performed at an “open stage” event at school the other day. Around 10 students performed for fellow students and parents. Some played piano, some did poetry, whatever. The guitars used by the students were… three Fender Strats, a Squier Jazz bass and an acoustic by another brand. This was similar last year and the year before. My kid owns one of the Strats. He finds my Les Pauls okay but much prefers the Strat. Guess we can blame that on Gilmour. Thing is, the guitar is very much alive but Gibson (and even Epiphone) are not really a part of the conversation. My two favourite “new” bands are The Warning and Band-Maid. They use mostly PRS. Not a Gibson in sight. Most newer artists that I’ve seen seem to prefer Fender, be it Strats, Jazzmasters or otherwise. Gibson needs to wake up.
It’s easier said than done. The way guitarist work is almost backwards compared to any other market’s target audience. Have you looked at what the best selling guitar models are last year? It’s still dominated by the likes of strat, tele, sg, lp. Maybe they got it right the first time when designing those shapes and sounds, or maybe we are just used to seeing our guitar heroes playing them growing up. That’s a huge influence on the style and brand of guitars we choose. Gibson realized this and is the reason why they reshaped their whole strategy starting in 2019. People don’t want new technology on their Gibson guitar, they don’t want radical innovations. They want the way it was made back in the 50s and 60s. People finally got what they wanted, and I think it’s great now they split their models into the original series and modern series. Gibson sells more instruments when they are selling nostalgia. That’s just the facts. But you can’t please everyone and you shouldn’t. There will always be haters. Gibson sells nostalgia even more so than fender nowadays by constantly pushing out re-makes and giving us replicas of the gear our guitar heroes used to play. Even if it’s not for the masses it still achieves its intention very well, by selling this iconic guitar brand imagery. So from a business standpoint at least in the short run it still makes perfect sense. But to your point I also agree with you that especially Gibson, should have a long term strategy to branch out to the younger crowd and future generation. That means supporting and promoting young talents. I mean really promote it and push it for us to notice them. I think fender does this very well. And it seems to be working. Just take a look around and see how many young kids are playing jazzmasters. Brands like D'angelico is another great example. I don’t believe in the price point argument as much when it comes to Gibson being a turn off. In fact it’s the opposite. I remember being the same way growing up, owning a Gibson was expensive and seemed far from reach. But that only motivated me to want to get it more. That progress in obtaining the dream guitar is a big part of the experience and is still true to this day. Don’t let anybody guilt trip you for getting an expensive guitar you worked hard for to obtain. Do I think Gibson should offer more affordable guitars for the youth? They already do under the Epiphone brand. Now I know that’s not really a Gibson but that’s the approach they seem to take to bring more affordable prices to the same style of guitars. This is a whole other argument but I think there’s good and bad to both sides of this. The good is we can have Gibson-like guitar for cheaper. The bad is it’s still not called a Gibson. Does that matter? Yes to some. The other shame is that Epiphone has a rich history and unique designs of its own from the past that really should be pushed out more under better quality build. It shouldn’t just be a brand that pushes out more affordable Gibson designs, and that includes the new inspired by Gibson series they are pushing out. I think PRS does this much better in having a SE line that has become almost an industry standard for quality for the bucks. This clearly isn’t the direction Gibson is taking but it’s certainly worth considering. Speaking of PRS I don’t see nearly as many ppl complaining about the ridiculous price PRS charges for their over the top private stock guitars. Oh but they are better built? They have better QC? No one is paying the extra 5k-8k for better quality control. You are doing the same thing paying because of its collector’s status and knowing you own an over the top instrument.
I’m 21 and just recently purchased a Gibson les Paul but I agree Gibson don’t really appeal to younger people starting with the fact that you see fender work with and support younger up coming bands while are realising signature models always for the same people it feels like, I know someone that is abit younger than me called Toby lee and he’s won like young blues guitarist of the year and all though he’s works with Gibson you don’t see them actually promoting younger people, I think that’s why recently with the new standard series they’ve started doing models that are brighter colours so they can get a new audience of younger people in
We went over all of this in our first podcast! You are absolutely correct. Young people are NOT playing Gibson. Go to a festival and you will see Fender, ESP, Schecter, Ibanez, and PRS. These are working musicians, that know their gear. Why are they not playing Gibson? Hmmm.
And let’s be real, a lot of people couldn’t tell a difference between a Gibson and an Epiphone or another cheaper Guitar brand/copy during performances if the guitar player is good. 😂
I Like your points on this . But listening to what music streaming sights like Spotify are listing as their top songs of today , I really don't hear many songs with relevant guitar parts in them . I
As much as I couldn't stand Henry Juszkiewicz, he actually tried to make modern, forward-thinking guitars. And no one wanted them. Everyone bitched about they hated robot tuners, and Firebird X guitars, and just wanted '59 reissue Les Pauls. So that's what Gibson is doing.
I find it offensive that one of their goals is to 'quite frankly - own the share of sound'. Whats next? JC going to try to copyright the sound of a guitar? This is one of the reasons I hate that company and will never buy one of their guitars - new or second hand.
@@brendanbeirne2 Agreed. Lets face it - they are not a guitar company, they are a lifestyle company owned and directed by venture capatalists, all held up by nostalgic, brand loyal, and frankly gullible boomers and Slash simps.
love the analogy of the auto industry...the difference between Oldsmobile and Buick, for example, is that Buick "evolved", and now Oldsmobile is gone- mainly because Oldsmobile focused on their previous success, and not getting into the game for the future until it was too late (it was a shame to see, because i thought the "Aurora" was a really nice, modern car design at the time...)...
Interesting. I would like to hear your take on Mark Agnessi at Gibson. I believe his title is something like Director of Artist Relations, or something to that effect. I was skeptical of his hiring at first but now think he’s done some interesting things at Gibson, I.e., Gibson TV, the Gibson “Stores” in Nashville and London, etc. Working with young Artists is obviously very important in shaping the sound going forward.
I agree with this so much. I wonder why Gibson is only looking at the “guitar hero” crowd. Like, maybe they think the people interested in Laufey won’t actually go buy a guitar or aren’t their market? I can’t imagine I would be persuaded to buy anything because of an artist, but for young people that is a way they form opinions on products. It does seem like about 80% of Gibson/Epiphone players right now like the brand in spite of Gibson. I wonder if the UA-cam gear videos might have more influence than artist endorsements these days.
I'm a proud Epiphone Les Paul player and the Gibson videos don't influence me one bit. A lot of my guitar heroes played Gibson style guitars and some Stratocasters as well. I actually despise all of the cork snobbery coming from Gibson. They need to advertise less and just get organic exposure. Ex. Young rock bands across different genres playing affordable Gibson/Epiphone guitars, like Studios, Tributes, etc. Squier classic vibe guitars are killing it right now. They're incredibly nice guitars for the average bedroom musician.
They quit making the model of guitar Laufey uses a while back, along with a bunch of other ES styles, when they shuttered the Memphis factory. Anybody that wants a jazzy-looking guitar is going to *have* to look elsewhere.
You could get a U.S. made SGs and Les Pauls under $1000 only a few years ago. SG Specials for $600-700. This was only 7-8 years ago. They’ve just priced themselves out of the market and tried to get people to accept Epiphones for the same price. But the current profile of Gibson with newer bands is just part of a cycle. Fender are sort of omnipresent but Gibsons come in and out of favour. The 80s for example. Until Slash appeared, they were nowhere.
Hendrix did it in under 4 minutes with "Johnny B. Goode", using the 3 position switch on his Strat to illustrate the possibility of Chuck Berry's rendition. 'Thrones' does it too. If things had gone differently, would we be quarreling over clarinets, Goodman vs. Miller arrangements? LOL.
My daughter and her friends are in their early 20's, and they listen to and follow a DJ named GRiZ. It is electronic music & light show with a funk groove and occasional saxophone riffs laced thru the self-described future-funk. This dude's concerts are massive too ! I'm pretty sure there's not a guitar insight !
Because of banker induced inflation, guitar prices have gone to the moon. Companies like Gibson ( or Fender) need to come up with creative ideas to produce introductory level models that an avg guitarist can afford. Such ideas as: roughing out neck blanks and laminating fretboards in mexico, final finishing in USA, or painting bodies in Mexico, or a model called a " husk" , that looks like the regular model ( with all the regular body routes, but only includes 1 pickup, bridge and tuners, that can be upgraded _later_ as the customer wishes.
It feels like this is a problem if only seeing into the next quarter for profits. They are not investing in the future, they are not going for mind share, as you say. I think there are people in the comments missing the point, this is not about making more affordable guitars, or guitars that are different with new features. This is about ensuring new music is also associated with the brand. It can be aspirational, they can work on those other things if they make sense, but building the reputation is the hard part.
Gibson needs to get back to the basics. Forget 'owning the music', stop with the stupid signature guitars, and quit making 10+ thousand 'Murphy' models. You know my humble opinion (not that anyone is asking !) is they should do three things: - Come out with 'The Basics' line. Keep it simple, three models - the Standard, the Studio and the Garage. The Basic Standard is the Gibgson Les Paul Standard with say a satin finish, Burst Bucker pickups without the flame tops and binding with case - priced around $1799. The Gibson Les Paul Studio without a carved top (Still maple top with Mahogany sides) 490R + 490T with case priced at 1299. And finally the Garage - all mahagony no carved top with two P90s in a poly finish for $999 in a gig bag. - Give the basics to every indy, punk rock band. Aggressively get the Basic Standard and the Basic Studio into the hands of every musician on the festival circuit. Create a line of Mesa amps that cost < $1000 without sacrificing quality/build and put those out on festival stages. Get your name out on tour and artists. Not just Slash and legacy bands - but the punk, indy, and festival scene. - For the basics line, new logo 'Gibson - the basic sound of music' or something like that. Re purpose the brand with the 'Basic' line to carter to the new generation in both spirit and the pocket book. - And lastly - get 'regular everyday musicians to push your Basics line. No mega star endorsers - they have the historic, standard, pro and custom lines. Gibson needs to go after the kid in the garage again. And thats all I have to say about that :)
That's it man, like Gretsch, all of their line has the proper gretsch logo on them, but the only ones with the most expensive professional line has the top quality appointments and specs. Doesn't mean the cheaper gretches are not damn good instruments, I gigged my electromatic as my No1 five days a week for years, eventually upgrading it as I went, Gibson p94 in the neck and TV Jones in the bridge. Epiphone to me is a beginner brand, I know that's not how they started as a company, but the only epiphone guitars I've ever really fancied are the ones original to their own history like the Casino or the Riveriera.
or one step-quality, there are buyers at every price point. folks with playing experience and $ are more likely to notice lack of quality and not get stuck on a body shape. let's face it, without lp shape and head stock no none would ever buy newer gibsons
@@theuserthatishere The Gibson quality control issue is at a point that one could get hurt by playing the guitar or hurt financially when the guitar falls over and the neck breaks. People have cut their hands from fret sprout at the music stores. Just hearing that somebody needed stitches by grabbing the neck of the guitar (hypothetical scenario) to play it at the store is enough for me to be turned off by a brand even if it happened years ago.
You've hit the nail. Nothing better summarizes the true nature of Gibson than "money-grabbing, margin-sweetening memorabilia (company) aping" famous guitarists' gear. All they have been doing for years is riding the overpriced and low-quality memory lane. Such companies deserve no respect.
You're right. But if you're Gibson, how do you do it? You would probably need to develop new lines of products; affordable ones for the younger musicians. Who's done that in the past half century resulting in massively popular new guitar models? I'm afraid no-one (PRS is trying with the SE products but they have not exactly made it yet despite the incredible markering effort and I'm not sure they're going to succeed in the end...) P.S. Gibson from the get-go, 120 yrs ago, never had this approach to product development. They were a premium instrument manufacturer aiming for the heavier wallets. They just happened to have a lot of success in the late 30s and the 70s. They are not Fender! (Leo was God!)
@@charlesbolton8471 I think that he was a very practical man; I also think that despite the fact that he wasn't an engineer, he did possess a surprisingly acute engineering mindset, that - believe it or not - comes with an ethical stance (at least it did in the 1940s!). And yes, not being a traditional luthier - not being a luthier at all actually - and having to compete with well established "luthiers", e.g. Gibson, he had to go for the masses from a marketing viewpoint. Moreover, thinking out of the box, he designed products that could be manufactured cheaply, sold at competitive prices and as a result give him a sweet profit margin. It was a win-win scenario! That's why it still works 75 yrs later. Go to any festival and count how many people are not playing Fenders on stage; it's really discouraging for other companies.
@@vorpalblades I wouldn't like to comment HB; they have a long way to go before they prove they're worth considering seriously (despite their obvious progress in the last 10 yrs). They may make it though, we'll just have to wait and see. You're right about the others - I would especially consider Ibanez as a good example - but I leave guitars built for heavy metal musicians out of the discussion. These are designed for a particular approach to guitar playing that I don't enjoy personally and in my opinion they luck a broader scope of use. I think that electric guitar today - and probably for the next 100 yrs plus - has become the basic instrument for most music genres - not just heavy rock; it's the piano of the modern era!
This is an outstanding video. I really like, how you bring your executive level job, and apply it to your love of guitars, and how the major guitar companies are run. A company that is good to compare is Harley Davidson. They seem to miss the mark all of the time. Gibson has not been very innovative lately, but they have been great at a money grab. The prices on some of these Epiphone guitars is beyond exorbitant. I understand, that guitar makers need to keep coming out with new products, because you can only sell so many high end Les Paul’s, SG’s, and Firebirds. I saw the new Epiphone Firebirds, and I wondered what the average buyer thought of it. The Kirk Hammett Epiphone V is pretty silly too.
Sadly, imho, there are guitar companies that have created innovations to modern guitars that make playing guitar easier, sound better and cheaper. Gibson has fallen behind in those areas, and have failed to listen to customers. If I were to start learning to play guitar again, I would recommend getting two $400 Harley Benton LP & Strat style guitars (with stainless steel frets), a Katana amp, and that rig can cover just about 90% of every genre out there. Also, there are too many Gibson counterfeits out there. I have to pay extra attention to open up the guitar cavities, take out pickups, and check everything whenever I buy a used Gibson. Lastly, they are just too bl**dy heavy for an old guy like me, lol. Gimme a light 7 lbs / 3.2 kg guitar anytime (I love my Kiesel Vader). Thanks for suggesting #Laufey - wow she's great!
People forget that the '59 Gibson Les Paul was a sales failure and the original sunburst was due to a paint failure when the paint had contact with the sun when they were put out on display windows. Many of the stars were just handed '59 Gibson Les Pauls for free to be played on stage. Meanwhile they played other guitars for recording. Getting a '59 Gibson Les Paul reissue is like getting a Yugo reissue, but for some reason these players like it until they realize there is something better. At least PRS "fixed" all the flaws and came out with its own version (the 594).
huge problem with my Ebony Double cutaway Les paul of Honor is that damn 4th String going off tune every 5 seconds and my damn DROP A Doommetal tuning 6th String also going nuts any advise how to fix some of this would be valued my comrades
Sounds like the nut needs some work. You could try lubricating all friction points with something like Lizzard Spit or Big Bends Nut Sauce. You could also use graphite powder for the nut slots. That will help, but the nut HAS to be properly cut.
thank you RAY for awesome info i suspect that could be an issue not sure if i have to also replace my Tuners since they are already about 2 decades old my poor little DC Black Beauty she is a very heavy metal Granny
@@GothicXlightning You are quite welcome. I doubt your tuners are the issue. If you know how to properly string, it will be a non issue (unless the tuners really suck, but yours don't). Most tuning issues come from friction. A lot of times it's the nut. I hope this will help to get your beloved guitar into shape!
I'm not even one of those saying to bring the price down of most Gibson models even though I think they're super high (because I understand they have their place), but at least give us the option for a budget Gibson. That's why I feel like the Gibson Tribute was a breath of fresh air. I'd choose the Gibson Tribute over any of the higher end Chinese Epiphones.
The student models of the past like Melody Maker, LP Jr., LP Special were inexpensive when introduced. Sure, Gibson isn’t going back to a $200 starter, but they could go to $500-$600 with cosmetic upgrades. The age of the Rock Guitar God is over. There are smaller manufacturers making truly excellent products for a reasonable price point. If you’re over 30 and think you know what the younger generation wants, stop in your tracks and GO ASK THEM!
I could be way off here but I assume unless the artist has a contract with Gibson then Gibson can't promote the artist even though the artist might use Gibson guitars? As for the numbers of people playing guitars and this is just my opinion based on observation. Most younger people who now play guitar play it for tiktok vids to show off their skills etc, they don't play it with the idea in mind of forming a band and putting out music, which is a shame. Good video. :)
They don’t even make most of their cool jazzboxes and jazz thinlines anymore that neo-soul and pop jazz players would gravitate to. Cool newer-ish thinline models like the ES275 or ES137 Custom, or jazzbox classics like the ES175 or L5, aren’t in the lineup anymore. You can pretty well only get a 335 or 339 variant, and even those don’t have some of the features they used to (e.g. stereo 355s or varitone knobs on 345s), unless you spring for a signature model, or if you want a jazzbox shape you can spend US$10K on a Chuck Berry ES350.
Cross referencing to other comments I've made, this is my opinion too. If marketing is trying to stratify Gibson into Holy Relic Headquarters, then suffer results. Differences in Artistry leads to evolution (reference Star Spangled Banner, pre/post 1969). What instrument renders this is immaterial as it's the artist. How arrogant that one company thinks it's only through their products that anything happens is dumbfounding.
I really love Gibson guitars. In my perception, they are at the top of the guitar pyramid. That's crazy because I will also stipulate that there are many other guitar brands that are better built (PRS, Heritage, etc.). But there is just something about a Gibson Les Paul or ES-335. Maybe, it's mojo (lol)...don't know. Anyway, that's my feeling, your mileage may vary, of course. However, they are not without their foibles, as we know. I have to re-tune my 2020 Les Paul every time the A/C comes on, checking the tuning after almost every song (ugh). All that having been said, I think this guy is spot on. In order to be relevant, you have to be...well...RELEVANT. If you want people to stop branding you as a 'boomer guitar company', you have to do something to change that perception. It must be said, taking the example of Laufey, yes, she DOES choose to play a Gibson. She also chooses to perform in a genre that gives more than a passing nod to the music of the past. She performs older style music and plays a traditional looking and sounding guitar. Now, either Gibson is making gobs of money under their current marketing strategy, and I'm pretty sure they do OK, or they are not quite sure just how to turn the ship around and, at the same time, keep their current customer base.
Ironically epiphone is more in tune with what younger generations want. With modernized versions of flying Vs, explorers, and les pauls. And at much more reasonable prices. But unfortunately it seems like gibson isn't interested in moving with the times. Gibson is more interested in building collectors pieces than something for the working musicians. Its a luxury product now. Not a tool
One thing that does not change, is that change happens. At some point, young people will notice that no one plays Gibsons, and it'll be cool to play them because no one is playing them. Being different for the sake of being different is a characteristic of youth. That's why I was a punk rocker back in the early '80s. It was shocking and different. It wasn't Led Zeppelin, or The Who, or The Stones. Gibson couldn't give away Flying Vs and Explorers in 1958, but then they became sought after symbols of individuality, even rebellion. Gibson will be cool again. Count on it. In fact, maybe buy up a few when their value is not appreciated, then make a killing on 'em when people "Discover" them again. :D
I feel like Gibson are doing a 'silent' endorsement of Laufey at the moment. She recently did a giveaway of an Epiphone and she pretty much only plays Gibsons. I wouldn't be surprised if there is something bigger in the works. She could certainly sell lots of guitars to her young fan base.
Gibson needs to put guitars in the hands of young bands. They need to get out of the nostalgia game and make guitars for regular players. I think a lot of Indy musicians would gladly play both Fender and Gibson style guitars. They need to have a competitive analog to Squier Classic Vibes.
New bands are not part of the U.S. music scene. Most of the up and coming bands are not from the U.S. Usually those countries have less money which means that the Gibson brand has to make cheaper guitars. They also need to have better quality control because there are other guitar makers that have cheaper guitars and proper quality control.
Thanks for sharing. I wasn't aware about it. That itself may be indicative that Gibson may want to hype these programs half as much as their Murphy Lab guitar are
From my point of view, their biggest problem is I just don't want one. I have the money to get one if I wanted, but despite their desire to be an aspirational brand, they are just not doing it for me. They also strike me as quite an arrogant brand, which is another turn off. I'm not saying never, but for the moment, they just don't have anything to offer me.
@@orlock20 Charvel, Jackson and EVH are all under the Fender Musical Instrument Corporation, so yeah. Fender does a great job serving legacy artists and exposing their younger new artists. I always see new bands on the Fender UA-cam channel.
I heard a lot of generic “business speak” without specific recommendations. Toward the end he said “Gibson, do something.” Who pays these people to spill out shallow kicks in the ass?
Gibson has done a good job of alienating a generation of players, who now look at a Gibson guitar as a wall-hanger for some boomer blues-lawyer. Fender never punished me with an ugly headstock because I was broke. I remember things like that & play fenders because of that.
I don't think the bands of today are as big as they were in the past. They aren't selling out arenas like the older bands are still able to do. These young players look up to the players that Gibson is backing. You don't have the big guitar star out there in any of the new bands. They are good, but their playing isn't out front like it used to be. Gibson through Kramer and Epiphone has some younger artists (Lizzie Hale, Emily Wolfe, Charlie Parra). UA-cam? They got the biggest one in Rick Beato. They could still do more, but they have some of the biggest names in the game, the guys everyone looks to: Slash, Metallica, Foo Fighters etc. For the future of sound, guitar music needs to be more in the forefront, it's been in limbo since the 90s. Music industry is broken and it's hard for these new bands to survive and make money. They don't have it as good as the bands of the 80s/90s. Also, name a brand with bigger stars than Gibson? If Gibson were smart, they would really lean into Country Music, because guitars are still in the front in that Genre.
you know I emailed Kramer which is owned by Gibson with a paint idea that i wanted to buy directly from them the Assault 220 fr but Kramer emailed me back stating they don't do custom but mass production. where Gibson has a custom shop I was like what the hell man so I i ever see the assault 220 I am going to be pissed off man.
the whole massive on spotify thing is a huge misnomer, rick beato has a good vid on how spotify is hugely disingenuous when it comes to music popularity and what that really means or doesn’t actually. spotify will be the death of music innovation.
Do you think that (Django/ Segovia/Montgomery)would get a recording contract today? A passing glance...where are the dancers/banshee vocals/pyrotechnics....EVH got a Grammy for 3-16...no vocal, wall of Marshalls no where in sight; he had hands and a vision. Clapton can pick up a tennis racket and still be Clapton. What's special? Innovation and that can be on any guitar/ instrument. Zappa played bicycle spokes.
talent. Biggest problem with Gibson is marketing a guitar as if it is Holy Grail or grander, like a Shroud of Turin, which ends up a tourist trinket. It's great fun to mimic and pose like your "hero"; somebody's gotta pay for the "Beat It" jacket, but it does nothing for the tune or talent that otherwise exists... Does that clear it up,as I did not intend to obfuscate the difference between talent and theater, with its trappings. Enjoy your instrument, whether or not it's collectable or not, just don't fall into the delusion that you're nothing without a $150k axe with a matching stadium backline. A Steinway is expensive for a reason, but a Farfisa still can allow a rendering of "Eine Kleine Nachtmusik". Marketing is not Music.
Find a cheap/affordable National "map" guitar. Who ever played one? Where's the Yarzo Spatflute posters? Page played whatever was available (in the studio or otherwise) and you don't see or hear any clamor for old Harmony's or Rickenbachers... It's the hands. If you got 'em, show us... Meanwhile, damn I look good with my Veleno or Manson!!
As a counterpoint...Martin is not involved in any of this nonsense and are without a doubt the best and most important guitar company in the history of guitars.
the old sound don,t come from a gibson its the celestion pre greenback speaker that make the 60s and 70s tone if play a gibson with g12t75 speakers you dont nail that old tone because the t 75 has to much mid scoop
Gibson and in some ways didn’t have any real competition in the sixties and the seventies. Companies like Ibanez, Schecter, ESP, and Cortez ( Cort) were upstart companies so Gibson and Fender were considered high quality instruments for serious musicians which is why our heroes played those instruments and why us younger musicians wanted to play them. By the eighties these upstart companies upped their game and kept their instruments affordable other companies like PRS, Hamer and Kramer came along bringing more competition, meanwhile Fender got out from under CBS and upped their game while Gibson has just continued with the modern corporate business model of profits for the shareholders at the expense of ignoring everything and everyone one else and now they’ve taken up litigating their competitors out of business or relying on the name of some guitar hero from the past to make money off of a overpriced signature model so wealthy Boomers or Gen Xers ( I’m Gen X ) can put it in a case and say they have it. Fender much better by continually marketing a design that’s sixty or seventy years old as something new.
or one step-quality, there are buyers at every price point. folks with playing experience and $ are more likely to notice lack of quality and not get stuck on a body shape. let's face it, with out lp shape and head stock no none would ever buy newer gibsons
Totally agree, the recruitment of new artists is zero. They are just pushing boomers and Gen-X heroes, which is not bad, but they are not expanding by endorsing new artists.
When Gibson tries to make something "modern" it doesn t really work out well . Their market is most likely men 40-70 years age with well paid jobs . Their MOD shop guitars sell fast usually . CS Gibsons are very expensive but they still sell . Epiphone is Gibsons cheap ass guitars and more in the price range for younger people . I think they are doing OK with the new owners .
I think they are doing an amazing job for the 40+ demographic, much better than the previous owners. My point is, they should not only rely on the 40+ demographic, which is mostly a repeat business (more product to the same users) and focus on adding new users, especially at Point of Market Entry (20s and onward)
Gibson did not start as a corporation with shareholders and a board with an ex banker ceo who earns bonuses… gibson are not a guitar manufacturer, they manufacture products for profits that pay bonuses!
I think you are confusing the marketing problem..... There is NO marketing problem. Share of sound is not as important as Preference. The macbook had the smallest share in yesteryears yet the most preference and they are still around and probably now the leaders in the laptop segment. The best marketing is the marketing wherein you don't have to target everyone and yet they have Gibsons without endorsement. Case in point: would you spend US$10k MASTER BUILT Fender Strat or a US$10k Murphy Lab? By default a lot will say that they would spend US$10k on that Murphy Lab because of perceived value i.e. construction, aesthetics, sound, heritage, etc. The music genre that Gibson built is still around today more so than Fender with the exception of Country which now has its share of Gibsons. There is no low end Gibson.... if you don't count epiphone. Thats an impossibility in today's market unless you have a Preferred equity. And yet we know Fender has more market share in number of units sold. Gibson has no tone modelling amplifier to worry about. There is no Gibson branded effect. In fact the purchase of Mesa Boogie, is proof of liquidity on the part of Gibson and Brand Strength Synergy which Fender unfortunately has squandered on their amps. One would think that Marshall should have been purchased by Gibson, but they were wise to see that side of the pond was headin more to the consumer biz side of things. In fact, Marshall today would have ruined Gibson. Unlike a purchase of Mesa Boogie which actually reinforces the higher end market that Gibson is known for.
They have cornered themselves into a corner, much like marshall with the jcm800, fixing a Gibson would mean theyre acknowledging they have been ripping people for 70 plus years selling something flawed from the factory
Like most disasters, there's never just 1 reason. Reason 1: Gibson abandoned their core values and target market when they messed with the "Standard" in 2008. People didn't want a USA Standard that was hollowed-out, with robo-tuners, comfort cuts, printed circuit boards and quick connect pickup wiring. A LP Standard should be The Standard, faithful to the originals: Hand-wired, high-quality. If I am looking for a used LP Standard today, I am completely avoiding 2008-2020 models. Gibson already had a "Modern" line of their guitars - they should have leveraged that to the non-traditionalist market. Reason 2 - It's fairly widely accepted that Gibson's quality had slipped, and that Gibson guitars did not offer good value for the money at their prices. Reason 3: Gibson, under Henry J, took on a pile of debt they couldn't handle, acquiring multiple companies that didn't really align with the core business. Gibson was forced to sell controlling interest in the company to a Private Equity firm, whose only goal is Return On Equity. Reason 4: Gibson Guitars are unaffordable. Why are people not gigging them? Because if they are lucky enough to afford to buy a Gibson, they sure a hell don't want to take it out to get beaten-up. People are gigging with more affordable, less "valuable" guitars that aren't such a financial loss if damaged or stolen. Personally I think Gibson needs to re-introduce the U2 guitar - I mean, PRS makes a Strat. Gibson had the U2 years ago, which was basically a Super Strat. They're missing out on a whole market segment that prefers Strat-Style guitars and Shred-oriented Super Strats.
That cheapest Lite LP will be 2000€ in 3 years. Not even a proper LP. Discontinued the Tribute for that. Bought my Tribute new for 650€ in 2015. With mahogany neck and classic 57 pickups. Gibsons focus on older players will bite them. Too many expensive collectables. That last Slash is just another money grab. How many Slash guitars are there? He is the one getting me into Les Paul guitars but never felt the need to get one.
"Owning the share of sound" Idiotic, pretentious, dellusional corporate speak. These companies spend more time congratulating themselves for making a mockery of our language. Than they do actually making a product worth owning. No amount of rhetoric will ever overcome insescapable mediocrity.
Have you been on Instagram? They have been promoting 10 year old Indian guitar sensation Maya Neelakantan, surely you have heard of her, in their stories a lot lately even giving her control of their page for a day. Her as as well as many other young players. Gibson is not their yet but they are doing a much better job at what you are asking for.
Only on youtube on fender you can see 3-4 artists per week, most of them new, and Gibson is only posting very old rock and metal players. Most of them forgotten. Gibson is trying to be Louis Vuitton in guitar world. They don't care for artists.
I agree with your comments in this video - the fact that Gibson has failed to make the most of the fact that Taylor Swift uses a Les Paul amazes me. They could make a fortune if they released a signature model.
@@thechameleon2636 - Integrity? They're a business that exists to make money. I think the Firebird X and the robot tuners say a lot about Gibson's "integrity". Not to mention the multiple Slash signature models. Nice bit of snark, though...I doubt you'd say that to my face, but good luck to you for being such an alpha male in the UA-cam comments. ☺
As you know very well, “shaping the future of sound” is just a slogan. 100% marketing. Just like “heart healthy” - it means the opposite like most of these corny CEO-led rally cries.
Maybe, Gibson and the rest should stop with all the signature models and make a great guitar at a reasonable price point with out the royalties being paid to some non guitar playing celeb. Please go back to the old days and enough with all the signature junk. Years ago we had a Les Paul it was what it was no hype no B.S.
A Les Paul was what it was no hype and no B.S. Ha ha really! It was an EXPENSIVE SIGNATURE MODEL GUITAR. It always has been and it always will be. That being said, the craziest thing about Gibson is that they have dozens of signature artists using someone else’s signature model as their own signature model. I wish Fender would offer me a signature model. I would ask for an Eric Clapton Strat with a few changes for my preferences.
@@charlesbolton8471 Not necessarily yes it was the first "signature" model but the by the guy that invented most of it. Now they are just a bunch of jumbled up parts on a Les Paul or whatever 1950's design.And yes there was a time owning a Les Paul was no big deal it was just a tool to make music on. Just like the Top wars there were no AAA flame tops you got what you got some were great some not so great you just had what you got. Now with marketing you pay more depending on theta wood. It is all hype. If you have not been buying or playing for 50 years you will not understand the way it was or the mind set.
@@michelleneeds4165 Except the guy who's name was on it helped invent it. Little different then the name to hype sales. Remember the iconic Les Paul at one time was a flop.
@@charlesbolton8471 not true . In the 70’s and 80’s they were no big thing. This is marketing in the past 20 years . In fact in the eighties Jackson, Charvel and Kramer dominated over Gibson. You could walk into stores and find quilt top Les Paul’s for under $700.00 while the first Jackson RR sold for $1600.00. I know I bought both back then.
Well when most of their guitars are sold to Doctors, Dentists , Lawyers and Corporate guys thats who you cater too. Milking it is easier and less risky then innovation 😮
Young rock artist like Marcus King and fusion guitarist Dr Molly Miller are keeping Gibson relevant with millennials. And most young jazz guitarists are opting for ES335 over hollow jazz boxes.
Haters gonna hate , especially ones that can't afford the real deal. Hate on haters. I can't afford em either but I refuse to jump on the hate train because the truth is I love and want a few and am willing work hard to achieve.
Took me til I was 36 til I had my first Gibson (Murphy) with lots of intention and work. All those haters would Really hate how great this guitar plays/feels though 😂Seasons of life my friend, buy used and maximize value. Your turn is coming and it’ll 100% be worth it for you, cheers
It's not about affording. It's about quality. Im 43, grew up with a ton of music made with Gibson's, and when I started playing guitar a Les Paul is what I wanted more than anything. Fast forward to now when I can easily get one and set out on a journey to find a Les Paul I like and I couldn't find one. Ended up buying a USA Music Man JP6 that when I first picked it up it just felt like magic in my hands. No Gibson I picked up was even close. Point is unless you grew up as a guitar player playing Epiphones (I didn't) chances are Gibson's just won't feel that great in hand to you. That's a problem they have for sure.
Did you understand his point? He wants Gibson to address new music and come to the table with better ideas. Anyone can get a Gibson if they want one. Every brand has eye watering price guitars! His direction of thought is Fender and PRS want the tomorrow musician not just the Hendrix or Santana fans. Even Brian May has guitars pointed at the younger players. But, he is right. Gibson only seems to concentrate mainly on the rock style.
@@SirSneakerPimp well when you change ownership every few years it can be tough to have a coherent direction. Gibson is moving up market now and epiphone is taking the first time buyer market exclusively now, which makes that pivot even more difficult. If anything epiphone needs to get to work courting fresh young talent. As long as Gibson sees themselves as a lifestyle brand first (see: luxury) they won’t have any effective platform from which to market lower end buyers. Bolt on guitars will also always be cheaper to produce, so import epiphones will be the only place from which to compete.
Not sure that Gibson offering plenty choices (for any type of player) is a "money grab". NO ONE IS FORCING ANY ONE TO BUY ANY GUITAR. I like having choices when I go shopping. I would actually say that "click baity" video titles with headers like "the problem with Gibson..." is more of a money grab. Something to think about.
Gibson reminds me of Kodak. Like Kodak, Gibson was a pioneer and and established a reputation of being the standard in the industry. Like Kodak, Gibson failed to deliver products that consumers want and could afford. We all know what became of Kodak. Will Gibson be the next Kodak. I own a Gibson Les Paul and I would still love to have one with a Floyd Rose. However, Gibson does not make an affordable Les Paul with a Floyd Rose. They could have put one on a Les Paul Studio. Well, until the economy improves, a new guitar is out of the question.
Gibsons newest artist models are for fans 50 years and up. Even mark Morton’s fans are in the 40’s and 50’s. In the end hunting whales is easier than trying to catch lots of little fish. Epiphone gets those not Gibson.
Most Gibson guitars too expensive for younger players, not to mention various issues with design (tuning stability) that they refuse to address. They are great for some things but not as versatile as other companies.
Tuning problems? How many Gibsons have you owned, I've own quite a few in the last 43 years and never had a tuning problem. This is a popular thing to say online but if your guitar doesn't stay in tune it is most likely the nut and not the guitar itself. Stop it with this bulls**t that Gibsons have tuning issues, they don't.
@@TeleCaster66 I haved owned Gibsons (among many other brands) for many years as well, used Les Paul’s and ES175 mostly - don’t get me wrong, they sound great and there is nothing like them for certain genres, but yes, compared to other brands with different designs (straighter string pull), their tuning stability is not as reliable and consistent. Not a nut issue. We all have our own subjective experiences and anecdotal “evidence”. I’m glad you’ve experienced positive results with them, just not my experience.
I was born 80s, not earning a lot, but earn enough to own lots of Ibanez and PRS top line guitars. Never ever do I want to pay my money to this greedy Gibson nonsense product.
Fender is driving the future marketing to all races & genders while not forgetting their past. Gibson is quite stuck. Their gear is too expensive for younger players.
Gibson, has ZERO vision! DINOSAURS of the Industry. Anything "new" they've rolled out has been a disaster. Unfortunately, for them, no one associates Gibson with "innovation", or even "quality" at this point. Just the same old product, endorsed by Dinosaurs of the music business. And price tags only baby-boomer Dino's can afford. I'd suggest; start refining and boosting the quality of what people can afford. And leave innovation and cutting edge products to the upstarts and companies associated with that market. All that said... I'm a Gibson owner! But nothing newer than 1998! I bought ONE new Gibson Songwriter, 2007 that went back to the factory twice, and still had issues! I swapped it at the GC I bought it at, for something that worked.
@@theuserthatishere He's a star on UA-cam where his videos are viewed by millions, So good exposure for Gibson,. On the other hand, he focuses on classic rock, so not necessarily current.
This channel deserves a million subs. No nonsense, informative, entertaining and straight to the point. Keep it up man, you’re great
Agree! This is the wife in me just being supportive 😃
His speaking voice is the best. It helps me to relax.
P. S. Young people don't have any money.
I know unlike us who were teens in the 80s who were loaded
then young people will eventually start with epiphone. PRS arent cheap either.
A lot of middle aged ones these days don’t, either
@@styrenebuilds6851 cheapest Gibson in 1980 was $549, avg minimum wage was $3.10/hour, so 177 hours of work. Cheapest Gibson currently is $1499, avg minimum wage is $7.25/hour, so 207 hours of work...
For comparison, the Les Paul Junior was $99 when it first came out, it was the cheapest Gibson and avg minimum wage was $1/hour, so 99 hours of work, Gibsons have more than doubled their cost.
Even if a young person does have money, most young people wouldn't buy a Gibson. Why do young people buy PRS SE guitars, Ibanez, Mexican Fender, & Squire, instead of Epiphone?
Absolutely spot on. Gibson are seen as a boomer brand, and the more they push these old signature models the worse this will be going forward.
Yet if you go to any festival even with young band these days it is all Gibson and Fender, yes more Fender but still a lot of Gibson. Those are history and that cannot be replaced by any new brand.
I am a boomer, but for the reasons discussed in this video, I am not a Gibson fan. You are still correct, boomers do like the nostalgia - and Gibsons, but not me. I like the new sounds and the new technology. I will eventually sell my Les Paul because I just don't pick it up.
@@johnhill9280 didn’t mean anything disparaging about people of your generation, just making an observation about what I think the image of Gibson is in the eyes of Gen Z.
Very well said, Gibson is the Harley Davidson of guitars. Caters to boomers and the young musicians are starting to see it as a boomer guitar for boomer music. They are focusing too much on short term gains selling high price gear to boomers and not thinking 20 years ahead when many of them start dying. Their absurd pricing is also out of touch with younger gen and most musicians even. By the time the damage is done the execs would have made their pay day and will be long gone
100 %wisdom
Boomers can’t ride Harley’s because of arthritis. Same thing with Les Pauls. Too heavy weight wise.
If all Les Paul's played identically to a '59 burst, what would distinguish the artist? Their respective skills and approach. What would THEN make any one of those instruments so valuable as to prevent an opportunity to own one, much less access to play one? (They all sound the same) I'll keep my Firebird V and hone my meager skills rather than hope to run randomly into a fire breather that only a virtuoso/ genius could coax out a melodic success.
You’re spot on. A small example. My 17 year old kid performed at an “open stage” event at school the other day. Around 10 students performed for fellow students and parents. Some played piano, some did poetry, whatever. The guitars used by the students were… three Fender Strats, a Squier Jazz bass and an acoustic by another brand. This was similar last year and the year before. My kid owns one of the Strats. He finds my Les Pauls okay but much prefers the Strat. Guess we can blame that on Gilmour. Thing is, the guitar is very much alive but Gibson (and even Epiphone) are not really a part of the conversation.
My two favourite “new” bands are The Warning and Band-Maid. They use mostly PRS. Not a Gibson in sight. Most newer artists that I’ve seen seem to prefer Fender, be it Strats, Jazzmasters or otherwise.
Gibson needs to wake up.
I think you have a very valid point, it's their branding.
It’s easier said than done. The way guitarist work is almost backwards compared to any other market’s target audience. Have you looked at what the best selling guitar models are last year? It’s still dominated by the likes of strat, tele, sg, lp. Maybe they got it right the first time when designing those shapes and sounds, or maybe we are just used to seeing our guitar heroes playing them growing up. That’s a huge influence on the style and brand of guitars we choose.
Gibson realized this and is the reason why they reshaped their whole strategy starting in 2019. People don’t want new technology on their Gibson guitar, they don’t want radical innovations. They want the way it was made back in the 50s and 60s. People finally got what they wanted, and I think it’s great now they split their models into the original series and modern series. Gibson sells more instruments when they are selling nostalgia. That’s just the facts. But you can’t please everyone and you shouldn’t. There will always be haters.
Gibson sells nostalgia even more so than fender nowadays by constantly pushing out re-makes and giving us replicas of the gear our guitar heroes used to play. Even if it’s not for the masses it still achieves its intention very well, by selling this iconic guitar brand imagery. So from a business standpoint at least in the short run it still makes perfect sense. But to your point I also agree with you that especially Gibson, should have a long term strategy to branch out to the younger crowd and future generation. That means supporting and promoting young talents. I mean really promote it and push it for us to notice them. I think fender does this very well. And it seems to be working. Just take a look around and see how many young kids are playing jazzmasters. Brands like D'angelico is another great example.
I don’t believe in the price point argument as much when it comes to Gibson being a turn off. In fact it’s the opposite. I remember being the same way growing up, owning a Gibson was expensive and seemed far from reach. But that only motivated me to want to get it more. That progress in obtaining the dream guitar is a big part of the experience and is still true to this day. Don’t let anybody guilt trip you for getting an expensive guitar you worked hard for to obtain.
Do I think Gibson should offer more affordable guitars for the youth? They already do under the Epiphone brand. Now I know that’s not really a Gibson but that’s the approach they seem to take to bring more affordable prices to the same style of guitars. This is a whole other argument but I think there’s good and bad to both sides of this. The good is we can have Gibson-like guitar for cheaper. The bad is it’s still not called a Gibson. Does that matter? Yes to some. The other shame is that Epiphone has a rich history and unique designs of its own from the past that really should be pushed out more under better quality build. It shouldn’t just be a brand that pushes out more affordable Gibson designs, and that includes the new inspired by Gibson series they are pushing out.
I think PRS does this much better in having a SE line that has become almost an industry standard for quality for the bucks. This clearly isn’t the direction Gibson is taking but it’s certainly worth considering. Speaking of PRS I don’t see nearly as many ppl complaining about the ridiculous price PRS charges for their over the top private stock guitars. Oh but they are better built? They have better QC? No one is paying the extra 5k-8k for better quality control. You are doing the same thing paying because of its collector’s status and knowing you own an over the top instrument.
I’m 21 and just recently purchased a Gibson les Paul but I agree Gibson don’t really appeal to younger people starting with the fact that you see fender work with and support younger up coming bands while are realising signature models always for the same people it feels like, I know someone that is abit younger than me called Toby lee and he’s won like young blues guitarist of the year and all though he’s works with Gibson you don’t see them actually promoting younger people, I think that’s why recently with the new standard series they’ve started doing models that are brighter colours so they can get a new audience of younger people in
We went over all of this in our first podcast! You are absolutely correct. Young people are NOT playing Gibson. Go to a festival and you will see Fender, ESP, Schecter, Ibanez, and PRS. These are working musicians, that know their gear. Why are they not playing Gibson? Hmmm.
And let’s be real, a lot of people couldn’t tell a difference between a Gibson and an Epiphone or another cheaper Guitar brand/copy during performances if the guitar player is good. 😂
agree...i also don't think they look forward in their designs...there's, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it...", and then there's "something else"...
I Like your points on this . But listening to what music streaming sights like Spotify are listing as their top songs of today , I really don't hear many songs with relevant guitar parts in them . I
As much as I couldn't stand Henry Juszkiewicz, he actually tried to make modern, forward-thinking guitars. And no one wanted them. Everyone bitched about they hated robot tuners, and Firebird X guitars, and just wanted '59 reissue Les Pauls. So that's what Gibson is doing.
you are exactly right
And some of those guys probably don’t even play or use the Les Paul as much and use it as a display piece in their man cave
I find it offensive that one of their goals is to 'quite frankly - own the share of sound'. Whats next? JC going to try to copyright the sound of a guitar? This is one of the reasons I hate that company and will never buy one of their guitars - new or second hand.
That one comment makes me never want to buy a Gibson. It sounds like Paul Wolfowitz's 'full-spectrum dominance' Pentagon memo...
@@brendanbeirne2 Agreed. Lets face it - they are not a guitar company, they are a lifestyle company owned and directed by venture capatalists, all held up by nostalgic, brand loyal, and frankly gullible boomers and Slash simps.
Very interesting video. Your perspective cannot be wrong.
love the analogy of the auto industry...the difference between Oldsmobile and Buick, for example, is that Buick "evolved", and now Oldsmobile is gone- mainly because Oldsmobile focused on their previous success, and not getting into the game for the future until it was too late (it was a shame to see, because i thought the "Aurora" was a really nice, modern car design at the time...)...
Interesting. I would like to hear your take on Mark Agnessi at Gibson. I believe his title is something like Director of Artist Relations, or something to that effect. I was skeptical of his hiring at first but now think he’s done some interesting things at Gibson, I.e., Gibson TV, the Gibson “Stores” in Nashville and London, etc. Working with young Artists is obviously very important in shaping the sound going forward.
I agree with this so much. I wonder why Gibson is only looking at the “guitar hero” crowd. Like, maybe they think the people interested in Laufey won’t actually go buy a guitar or aren’t their market? I can’t imagine I would be persuaded to buy anything because of an artist, but for young people that is a way they form opinions on products. It does seem like about 80% of Gibson/Epiphone players right now like the brand in spite of Gibson. I wonder if the UA-cam gear videos might have more influence than artist endorsements these days.
I'm a proud Epiphone Les Paul player and the Gibson videos don't influence me one bit. A lot of my guitar heroes played Gibson style guitars and some Stratocasters as well. I actually despise all of the cork snobbery coming from Gibson. They need to advertise less and just get organic exposure. Ex. Young rock bands across different genres playing affordable Gibson/Epiphone guitars, like Studios, Tributes, etc. Squier classic vibe guitars are killing it right now. They're incredibly nice guitars for the average bedroom musician.
They quit making the model of guitar Laufey uses a while back, along with a bunch of other ES styles, when they shuttered the Memphis factory. Anybody that wants a jazzy-looking guitar is going to *have* to look elsewhere.
@@brostoevsky22 Yeah, the cork snobbery is what I was referring to about us liking Gibsons in spite of Gibson.
You could get a U.S. made SGs and Les Pauls under $1000 only a few years ago. SG Specials for $600-700. This was only 7-8 years ago.
They’ve just priced themselves out of the market and tried to get people to accept Epiphones for the same price.
But the current profile of Gibson with newer bands is just part of a cycle. Fender are sort of omnipresent but Gibsons come in and out of favour. The 80s for example. Until Slash appeared, they were nowhere.
Bought my Tribute Future in 2015. Calculated to 2024 it was 835 USD
This is an excellent point sir! I am sure you seen the latest Fender add with the multiple artist playing the same song in their style?
Hendrix did it in under 4 minutes with "Johnny B. Goode", using the 3 position switch on his Strat to illustrate the possibility of Chuck Berry's rendition. 'Thrones' does it too. If things had gone differently, would we be quarreling over clarinets, Goodman vs. Miller arrangements? LOL.
My daughter and her friends are in their early 20's, and they listen to and follow a DJ named GRiZ.
It is electronic music & light show with a funk groove and occasional saxophone riffs laced thru the self-described future-funk.
This dude's concerts are massive too ! I'm pretty sure there's not a guitar insight !
Okay.
They now have Gibson Records, Slash new blues album was released by them, a great opportunity to approach young talent and make them huge!
Because of banker induced inflation, guitar prices have gone to the moon. Companies like Gibson ( or Fender) need to come up with creative ideas to produce introductory level models that an avg guitarist can afford. Such ideas as: roughing out neck blanks and laminating fretboards in mexico, final finishing in USA, or painting bodies in Mexico, or a model called a " husk" , that looks like the regular model ( with all the regular body routes, but only includes 1 pickup, bridge and tuners, that can be upgraded _later_ as the customer wishes.
It feels like this is a problem if only seeing into the next quarter for profits. They are not investing in the future, they are not going for mind share, as you say.
I think there are people in the comments missing the point, this is not about making more affordable guitars, or guitars that are different with new features. This is about ensuring new music is also associated with the brand. It can be aspirational, they can work on those other things if they make sense, but building the reputation is the hard part.
Gibson needs to get back to the basics. Forget 'owning the music', stop with the stupid signature guitars, and quit making 10+ thousand 'Murphy' models. You know my humble opinion (not that anyone is asking !) is they should do three things:
- Come out with 'The Basics' line. Keep it simple, three models - the Standard, the Studio and the Garage. The Basic Standard is the Gibgson Les Paul Standard with say a satin finish, Burst Bucker pickups without the flame tops and binding with case - priced around $1799. The Gibson Les Paul Studio without a carved top (Still maple top with Mahogany sides) 490R + 490T with case priced at 1299. And finally the Garage - all mahagony no carved top with two P90s in a poly finish for $999 in a gig bag.
- Give the basics to every indy, punk rock band. Aggressively get the Basic Standard and the Basic Studio into the hands of every musician on the festival circuit. Create a line of Mesa amps that cost < $1000 without sacrificing quality/build and put those out on festival stages. Get your name out on tour and artists. Not just Slash and legacy bands - but the punk, indy, and festival scene.
- For the basics line, new logo 'Gibson - the basic sound of music' or something like that. Re purpose the brand with the 'Basic' line to carter to the new generation in both spirit and the pocket book.
- And lastly - get 'regular everyday musicians to push your Basics line. No mega star endorsers - they have the historic, standard, pro and custom lines.
Gibson needs to go after the kid in the garage again.
And thats all I have to say about that :)
That's it man, like Gretsch, all of their line has the proper gretsch logo on them, but the only ones with the most expensive professional line has the top quality appointments and specs. Doesn't mean the cheaper gretches are not damn good instruments, I gigged my electromatic as my No1 five days a week for years, eventually upgrading it as I went, Gibson p94 in the neck and TV Jones in the bridge.
Epiphone to me is a beginner brand, I know that's not how they started as a company, but the only epiphone guitars I've ever really fancied are the ones original to their own history like the Casino or the Riveriera.
or one step-quality, there are buyers at every price point. folks with playing experience and $ are more likely to notice lack of quality and not get stuck on a body shape. let's face it, without lp shape and head stock no none would ever buy newer gibsons
@@theuserthatishere The Gibson quality control issue is at a point that one could get hurt by playing the guitar or hurt financially when the guitar falls over and the neck breaks. People have cut their hands from fret sprout at the music stores.
Just hearing that somebody needed stitches by grabbing the neck of the guitar (hypothetical scenario) to play it at the store is enough for me to be turned off by a brand even if it happened years ago.
You've hit the nail. Nothing better summarizes the true nature of Gibson than "money-grabbing, margin-sweetening memorabilia (company) aping" famous guitarists' gear. All they have been doing for years is riding the overpriced and low-quality memory lane. Such companies deserve no respect.
You're right. But if you're Gibson, how do you do it? You would probably need to develop new lines of products; affordable ones for the younger musicians. Who's done that in the past half century resulting in massively popular new guitar models? I'm afraid no-one (PRS is trying with the SE products but they have not exactly made it yet despite the incredible markering effort and I'm not sure they're going to succeed in the end...) P.S. Gibson from the get-go, 120 yrs ago, never had this approach to product development. They were a premium instrument manufacturer aiming for the heavier wallets. They just happened to have a lot of success in the late 30s and the 70s. They are not Fender! (Leo was God!)
Does that mean you think Leo Fender set out to make “affordable” guitars for the masses?
@@charlesbolton8471 I think that he was a very practical man; I also think that despite the fact that he wasn't an engineer, he did possess a surprisingly acute engineering mindset, that - believe it or not - comes with an ethical stance (at least it did in the 1940s!). And yes, not being a traditional luthier - not being a luthier at all actually - and having to compete with well established "luthiers", e.g. Gibson, he had to go for the masses from a marketing viewpoint. Moreover, thinking out of the box, he designed products that could be manufactured cheaply, sold at competitive prices and as a result give him a sweet profit margin. It was a win-win scenario! That's why it still works 75 yrs later. Go to any festival and count how many people are not playing Fenders on stage; it's really discouraging for other companies.
Uh, Harley Benton.
LTD. Solar. All available with stainless steel frets, modern electronics , available for less than $1,000.
@@vorpalblades I wouldn't like to comment HB; they have a long way to go before they prove they're worth considering seriously (despite their obvious progress in the last 10 yrs). They may make it though, we'll just have to wait and see.
You're right about the others - I would especially consider Ibanez as a good example - but I leave guitars built for heavy metal musicians out of the discussion. These are designed for a particular approach to guitar playing that I don't enjoy personally and in my opinion they luck a broader scope of use. I think that electric guitar today - and probably for the next 100 yrs plus - has become the basic instrument for most music genres - not just heavy rock; it's the piano of the modern era!
This is an outstanding video. I really like, how you bring your executive level job, and apply it to your love of guitars, and how the major guitar companies are run. A company that is good to compare is Harley Davidson. They seem to miss the mark all of the time. Gibson has not been very innovative lately, but they have been great at a money grab. The prices on some of these Epiphone guitars is beyond exorbitant. I understand, that guitar makers need to keep coming out with new products, because you can only sell so many high end Les Paul’s, SG’s, and Firebirds. I saw the new Epiphone Firebirds, and I wondered what the average buyer thought of it. The Kirk Hammett Epiphone V is pretty silly too.
Spot on... Get behind the future Gibson! It will only benefit you financially.
Very interesting analysis.
As Colonel Sanders famously said “ sell the sizzle”!
Sadly, imho, there are guitar companies that have created innovations to modern guitars that make playing guitar easier, sound better and cheaper. Gibson has fallen behind in those areas, and have failed to listen to customers. If I were to start learning to play guitar again, I would recommend getting two $400 Harley Benton LP & Strat style guitars (with stainless steel frets), a Katana amp, and that rig can cover just about 90% of every genre out there.
Also, there are too many Gibson counterfeits out there. I have to pay extra attention to open up the guitar cavities, take out pickups, and check everything whenever I buy a used Gibson.
Lastly, they are just too bl**dy heavy for an old guy like me, lol. Gimme a light 7 lbs / 3.2 kg guitar anytime (I love my Kiesel Vader).
Thanks for suggesting #Laufey - wow she's great!
People forget that the '59 Gibson Les Paul was a sales failure and the original sunburst was due to a paint failure when the paint had contact with the sun when they were put out on display windows. Many of the stars were just handed '59 Gibson Les Pauls for free to be played on stage. Meanwhile they played other guitars for recording. Getting a '59 Gibson Les Paul reissue is like getting a Yugo reissue, but for some reason these players like it until they realize there is something better. At least PRS "fixed" all the flaws and came out with its own version (the 594).
I so agree with you, where is the Britany Howard signature SG, or for that matter a Sister Rosetta Thorpe SG?
huge problem with my Ebony Double cutaway Les paul of Honor is
that damn 4th String going off tune every 5 seconds
and my damn DROP A Doommetal tuning 6th String also going nuts
any advise how to fix some of this would be valued my comrades
Sell that piece of shit and buy a 7 string for drop A.
Sounds like the nut needs some work. You could try lubricating all friction points with something like Lizzard Spit or Big Bends Nut Sauce.
You could also use graphite powder for the nut slots. That will help, but the nut HAS to be properly cut.
thank you RAY for awesome info
i suspect that could be an issue not sure if i have to also replace my Tuners since they are already about 2 decades old
my poor little DC Black Beauty
she is a very heavy metal Granny
@@GothicXlightning You are quite welcome. I doubt your tuners are the issue. If you know how to properly string, it will be a non issue (unless the tuners really suck, but yours don't).
Most tuning issues come from friction. A lot of times it's the nut.
I hope this will help to get your beloved guitar into shape!
You can get a decent 7 string for less than $300.
Why bother trying to get a short scale guitar to hold tuning that low?
I'm not even one of those saying to bring the price down of most Gibson models even though I think they're super high (because I understand they have their place), but at least give us the option for a budget Gibson. That's why I feel like the Gibson Tribute was a breath of fresh air. I'd choose the Gibson Tribute over any of the higher end Chinese Epiphones.
The student models of the past like Melody Maker, LP Jr., LP Special were inexpensive when introduced. Sure, Gibson isn’t going back to a $200 starter, but they could go to $500-$600 with cosmetic upgrades.
The age of the Rock Guitar God is over. There are smaller manufacturers making truly excellent products for a reasonable price point.
If you’re over 30 and think you know what the younger generation wants, stop in your tracks and GO ASK THEM!
Well said, as always.
I could be way off here but I assume unless the artist has a contract with Gibson then Gibson can't promote the artist even though the artist might use Gibson guitars? As for the numbers of people playing guitars and this is just my opinion based on observation. Most younger people who now play guitar play it for tiktok vids to show off their skills etc, they don't play it with the idea in mind of forming a band and putting out music, which is a shame. Good video. :)
A very good and relevant video. Gibson should be working with you. Vision is what is needed
Thanks
Bocchi The Rock Anime…the girl plays her dad Les Paul Custom….I think that anime drive the price of Gibson in Japan :p
They don’t even make most of their cool jazzboxes and jazz thinlines anymore that neo-soul and pop jazz players would gravitate to. Cool newer-ish thinline models like the ES275 or ES137 Custom, or jazzbox classics like the ES175 or L5, aren’t in the lineup anymore.
You can pretty well only get a 335 or 339 variant, and even those don’t have some of the features they used to (e.g. stereo 355s or varitone knobs on 345s), unless you spring for a signature model, or if you want a jazzbox shape you can spend US$10K on a Chuck Berry ES350.
Cross referencing to other comments I've made, this is my opinion too. If marketing is trying to stratify Gibson into Holy Relic Headquarters, then suffer results. Differences in Artistry leads to evolution (reference Star Spangled Banner, pre/post 1969). What instrument renders this is immaterial as it's the artist. How arrogant that one company thinks it's only through their products that anything happens is dumbfounding.
I really love Gibson guitars. In my perception, they are at the top of the guitar pyramid. That's crazy because I will also stipulate that there are many other guitar brands that are better built (PRS, Heritage, etc.). But there is just something about a Gibson Les Paul or ES-335. Maybe, it's mojo (lol)...don't know. Anyway, that's my feeling, your mileage may vary, of course. However, they are not without their foibles, as we know. I have to re-tune my 2020 Les Paul every time the A/C comes on, checking the tuning after almost every song (ugh). All that having been said, I think this guy is spot on. In order to be relevant, you have to be...well...RELEVANT. If you want people to stop branding you as a 'boomer guitar company', you have to do something to change that perception. It must be said, taking the example of Laufey, yes, she DOES choose to play a Gibson. She also chooses to perform in a genre that gives more than a passing nod to the music of the past. She performs older style music and plays a traditional looking and sounding guitar. Now, either Gibson is making gobs of money under their current marketing strategy, and I'm pretty sure they do OK, or they are not quite sure just how to turn the ship around and, at the same time, keep their current customer base.
You're a Kool Dude, keep up the great work 💜🤍❤💥🎸✌️
As a Singaporean I wanted to buy a Gibson but could not find anyone selling them.
Ironically epiphone is more in tune with what younger generations want. With modernized versions of flying Vs, explorers, and les pauls. And at much more reasonable prices. But unfortunately it seems like gibson isn't interested in moving with the times. Gibson is more interested in building collectors pieces than something for the working musicians. Its a luxury product now. Not a tool
Sage words. Well said sir
Thank you
One thing that does not change, is that change happens. At some point, young people will notice that no one plays Gibsons, and it'll be cool to play them because no one is playing them. Being different for the sake of being different is a characteristic of youth. That's why I was a punk rocker back in the early '80s. It was shocking and different. It wasn't Led Zeppelin, or The Who, or The Stones. Gibson couldn't give away Flying Vs and Explorers in 1958, but then they became sought after symbols of individuality, even rebellion. Gibson will be cool again. Count on it. In fact, maybe buy up a few when their value is not appreciated, then make a killing on 'em when people "Discover" them again. :D
I feel like Gibson are doing a 'silent' endorsement of Laufey at the moment. She recently did a giveaway of an Epiphone and she pretty much only plays Gibsons. I wouldn't be surprised if there is something bigger in the works. She could certainly sell lots of guitars to her young fan base.
I am glad to hear this. Thank you for sharing
Gibson needs to put guitars in the hands of young bands. They need to get out of the nostalgia game and make guitars for regular players. I think a lot of Indy musicians would gladly play both Fender and Gibson style guitars. They need to have a competitive analog to Squier Classic Vibes.
New bands are not part of the U.S. music scene. Most of the up and coming bands are not from the U.S. Usually those countries have less money which means that the Gibson brand has to make cheaper guitars. They also need to have better quality control because there are other guitar makers that have cheaper guitars and proper quality control.
hi , really enjoying your content and insight . refreshing
Thank you
Anyone who says we should move away from rock and roll is doing a disservice to the music industry
You didn’t mention the fact that Gibson has an ongoing ‘Gibson Generation Group (G3)’ project for upcoming young artists many of whom are female.
Thanks for sharing. I wasn't aware about it. That itself may be indicative that Gibson may want to hype these programs half as much as their Murphy Lab guitar are
From my point of view, their biggest problem is I just don't want one. I have the money to get one if I wanted, but despite their desire to be an aspirational brand, they are just not doing it for me. They also strike me as quite an arrogant brand, which is another turn off. I'm not saying never, but for the moment, they just don't have anything to offer me.
Fender does a much better job at promoting young new artists. 🍺🇨🇦
Along with Jackson and PRS.
@@orlock20 Charvel, Jackson and EVH are all under the Fender Musical Instrument Corporation, so yeah. Fender does a great job serving legacy artists and exposing their younger new artists. I always see new bands on the Fender UA-cam channel.
I heard a lot of generic “business speak” without specific recommendations. Toward the end he said “Gibson, do something.”
Who pays these people to spill out shallow kicks in the ass?
If Gibson goes belly up, Fender will buy the name ( guaranteed)and produce Gibson guitars made in Japan or South Korea.
Gibson has done a good job of alienating a generation of players, who now look at a Gibson guitar as a wall-hanger for some boomer blues-lawyer.
Fender never punished me with an ugly headstock because I was broke.
I remember things like that & play fenders because of that.
I don't think the bands of today are as big as they were in the past. They aren't selling out arenas like the older bands are still able to do. These young players look up to the players that Gibson is backing. You don't have the big guitar star out there in any of the new bands. They are good, but their playing isn't out front like it used to be. Gibson through Kramer and Epiphone has some younger artists (Lizzie Hale, Emily Wolfe, Charlie Parra). UA-cam? They got the biggest one in Rick Beato. They could still do more, but they have some of the biggest names in the game, the guys everyone looks to: Slash, Metallica, Foo Fighters etc. For the future of sound, guitar music needs to be more in the forefront, it's been in limbo since the 90s. Music industry is broken and it's hard for these new bands to survive and make money. They don't have it as good as the bands of the 80s/90s. Also, name a brand with bigger stars than Gibson? If Gibson were smart, they would really lean into Country Music, because guitars are still in the front in that Genre.
That's a good point on country music
you know I emailed Kramer which is owned by Gibson with a paint idea that i wanted to buy directly from them the Assault 220 fr but Kramer emailed me back stating they don't do custom but mass production. where Gibson has a custom shop I was like what the hell man so I i ever see the assault 220 I am going to be pissed off man.
Yes you are correct 👍
the whole massive on spotify thing is a huge misnomer, rick beato has a good vid on how spotify is hugely disingenuous when it comes to music popularity and what that really means or doesn’t actually. spotify will be the death of music innovation.
You are Very Insightful! Thank you So Much! WooF!!🐶🐶
Fender is definitely good at featuring young artists on their channel.
it's a deliberate effort from them
Do you think that (Django/ Segovia/Montgomery)would get a recording contract today? A passing glance...where are the dancers/banshee vocals/pyrotechnics....EVH got a Grammy for 3-16...no vocal, wall of Marshalls no where in sight; he had hands and a vision. Clapton can pick up a tennis racket and still be Clapton. What's special? Innovation and that can be on any guitar/ instrument. Zappa played bicycle spokes.
@@DouglasMcLaughlin-kq7hk What?
@@endezeichengrimm Temporary talent generated by monied agent equals diluted quality product. Equipment does not equal
talent. Biggest problem with Gibson is marketing a guitar as if it is Holy Grail or grander, like a Shroud of Turin, which ends up a tourist trinket. It's great fun to mimic and pose like your "hero"; somebody's gotta pay for the "Beat It" jacket, but it does nothing for the tune or talent that otherwise exists... Does that clear it up,as I did not intend to obfuscate the difference between talent and theater, with its trappings. Enjoy your instrument, whether or not it's collectable or not, just don't fall into the delusion that you're nothing without a $150k axe with a matching stadium backline. A Steinway is expensive for a reason, but a Farfisa still can allow a rendering of "Eine Kleine Nachtmusik". Marketing is not Music.
As long as there are posters and videos of Jimmy Page and Angus Young ruling the rock universe with their Gibsons, Gibson will be relevant.
Find a cheap/affordable National "map" guitar. Who ever played one? Where's the Yarzo Spatflute posters? Page played whatever was available (in the studio or otherwise) and you don't see or hear any clamor for old Harmony's or Rickenbachers... It's the hands. If you got 'em, show us... Meanwhile, damn I look good with my Veleno or Manson!!
Page played Stairway to Heaven on his Fender Telecaster.
As a counterpoint...Martin is not involved in any of this nonsense and are without a doubt the best and most important guitar company in the history of guitars.
I think Gibson could draw a successful business strategy for next 20 years from these comments here.
the old sound don,t come from a gibson its the celestion pre greenback speaker that make the 60s and 70s tone if play a gibson with g12t75 speakers you dont nail that old tone because the t 75 has to much mid scoop
Gibson and in some ways didn’t have any real competition in the sixties and the seventies. Companies like Ibanez, Schecter, ESP, and Cortez ( Cort) were upstart companies so Gibson and Fender were considered high quality instruments for serious musicians which is why our heroes played those instruments and why us younger musicians wanted to play them. By the eighties these upstart companies upped their game and kept their instruments affordable other companies like PRS, Hamer and Kramer came along bringing more competition, meanwhile Fender got out from under CBS and upped their game while Gibson has just continued with the modern corporate business model of profits for the shareholders at the expense of ignoring everything and everyone one else and now they’ve taken up litigating their competitors out of business or relying on the name of some guitar hero from the past to make money off of a overpriced signature model so wealthy Boomers or Gen Xers ( I’m Gen X ) can put it in a case and say they have it. Fender much better by continually marketing a design that’s sixty or seventy years old as something new.
Gibson will start emphasizing their connection to Laufey when her fans are old enough to afford guitars associated with her.
Fair take
or one step-quality, there are buyers at every price point. folks with playing experience and $ are more likely to notice lack of quality and not get stuck on a body shape. let's face it, with out lp shape and head stock no none would ever buy newer gibsons
Totally agree, the recruitment of new artists is zero. They are just pushing boomers and Gen-X heroes, which is not bad, but they are not expanding by endorsing new artists.
When Gibson tries to make something "modern" it doesn t really work out well . Their market is most likely men 40-70 years age with well paid jobs . Their MOD shop guitars sell fast usually . CS Gibsons are very expensive but they still sell . Epiphone is Gibsons cheap ass guitars and more in the price range for younger people . I think they are doing OK with the new owners .
I think they are doing an amazing job for the 40+ demographic, much better than the previous owners. My point is, they should not only rely on the 40+ demographic, which is mostly a repeat business (more product to the same users) and focus on adding new users, especially at Point of Market Entry (20s and onward)
Gibson did not start as a corporation with shareholders and a board with an ex banker ceo who earns bonuses… gibson are not a guitar manufacturer, they manufacture products for profits that pay bonuses!
The lower Gibson lines dont cost a lot more than mexican fenders. Kids dont need a Les Paul Standard any more then they need a usa pro grade fender
I think you are confusing the marketing problem..... There is NO marketing problem. Share of sound is not as important as Preference. The macbook had the smallest share in yesteryears yet the most preference and they are still around and probably now the leaders in the laptop segment. The best marketing is the marketing wherein you don't have to target everyone and yet they have Gibsons without endorsement. Case in point: would you spend US$10k MASTER BUILT Fender Strat or a US$10k Murphy Lab? By default a lot will say that they would spend US$10k on that Murphy Lab because of perceived value i.e. construction, aesthetics, sound, heritage, etc. The music genre that Gibson built is still around today more so than Fender with the exception of Country which now has its share of Gibsons. There is no low end Gibson.... if you don't count epiphone. Thats an impossibility in today's market unless you have a Preferred equity. And yet we know Fender has more market share in number of units sold. Gibson has no tone modelling amplifier to worry about. There is no Gibson branded effect. In fact the purchase of Mesa Boogie, is proof of liquidity on the part of Gibson and Brand Strength Synergy which Fender unfortunately has squandered on their amps. One would think that Marshall should have been purchased by Gibson, but they were wise to see that side of the pond was headin more to the consumer biz side of things. In fact, Marshall today would have ruined Gibson. Unlike a purchase of Mesa Boogie which actually reinforces the higher end market that Gibson is known for.
I pull the stock pickups out so I can have my own sound….. Gibson is grasping at straws, too many newer brands have more to offer
They have cornered themselves into a corner, much like marshall with the jcm800, fixing a Gibson would mean theyre acknowledging they have been ripping people for 70 plus years selling something flawed from the factory
Like most disasters, there's never just 1 reason.
Reason 1: Gibson abandoned their core values and target market when they messed with the "Standard" in 2008. People didn't want a USA Standard that was hollowed-out, with robo-tuners, comfort cuts, printed circuit boards and quick connect pickup wiring. A LP Standard should be The Standard, faithful to the originals: Hand-wired, high-quality. If I am looking for a used LP Standard today, I am completely avoiding 2008-2020 models. Gibson already had a "Modern" line of their guitars - they should have leveraged that to the non-traditionalist market.
Reason 2 - It's fairly widely accepted that Gibson's quality had slipped, and that Gibson guitars did not offer good value for the money at their prices.
Reason 3: Gibson, under Henry J, took on a pile of debt they couldn't handle, acquiring multiple companies that didn't really align with the core business. Gibson was forced to sell controlling interest in the company to a Private Equity firm, whose only goal is Return On Equity.
Reason 4: Gibson Guitars are unaffordable. Why are people not gigging them? Because if they are lucky enough to afford to buy a Gibson, they sure a hell don't want to take it out to get beaten-up. People are gigging with more affordable, less "valuable" guitars that aren't such a financial loss if damaged or stolen.
Personally I think Gibson needs to re-introduce the U2 guitar - I mean, PRS makes a Strat. Gibson had the U2 years ago, which was basically a Super Strat. They're missing out on a whole market segment that prefers Strat-Style guitars and Shred-oriented Super Strats.
That cheapest Lite LP will be 2000€ in 3 years.
Not even a proper LP. Discontinued the Tribute for that. Bought my Tribute new for 650€ in 2015. With mahogany neck and classic 57 pickups.
Gibsons focus on older players will bite them.
Too many expensive collectables. That last Slash is just another money grab. How many Slash guitars are there?
He is the one getting me into Les Paul guitars but never felt the need to get one.
"Owning the share of sound"
Idiotic, pretentious, dellusional corporate speak. These companies spend more time congratulating themselves for making a mockery of our language. Than they do actually making a product worth owning. No amount of rhetoric will ever overcome insescapable mediocrity.
I concur
No one will own music!
Have you been on Instagram? They have been promoting 10 year old Indian guitar sensation Maya Neelakantan, surely you have heard of her, in their stories a lot lately even giving her control of their page for a day. Her as as well as many other young players. Gibson is not their yet but they are doing a much better job at what you are asking for.
I haven't seen this but am glad to hear it
Only on youtube on fender you can see 3-4 artists per week, most of them new, and Gibson is only posting very old rock and metal players. Most of them forgotten. Gibson is trying to be Louis Vuitton in guitar world. They don't care for artists.
I agree with your comments in this video - the fact that Gibson has failed to make the most of the fact that Taylor Swift uses a Les Paul amazes me. They could make a fortune if they released a signature model.
Indeed. Schecter did just that with MGK. Not the best example lol, but I think it gets the point across.
They're probably trying. They would have to agree on money etc.
Do you realise what kind of cut she would ask for??? The negotiations would fail.
Maybe they have some integrity left and won’t stoop that low
@@thechameleon2636 - Integrity? They're a business that exists to make money. I think the Firebird X and the robot tuners say a lot about Gibson's "integrity". Not to mention the multiple Slash signature models. Nice bit of snark, though...I doubt you'd say that to my face, but good luck to you for being such an alpha male in the UA-cam comments. ☺
The roman-catholic church is more likely to reform than Gibson.
As you know very well, “shaping the future of sound” is just a slogan. 100% marketing. Just like “heart healthy” - it means the opposite like most of these corny CEO-led rally cries.
Maybe, Gibson and the rest should stop with all the signature models and make a great guitar at a reasonable price point with out the royalties being paid to some non guitar playing celeb. Please go back to the old days and enough with all the signature junk. Years ago we had a Les Paul it was what it was no hype no B.S.
A Les Paul was what it was no hype and no B.S.
Ha ha really!
It was an EXPENSIVE SIGNATURE MODEL GUITAR. It always has been and it always will be.
That being said, the craziest thing about Gibson is that they have dozens of signature artists using someone else’s signature model as their own signature model. I wish Fender would offer me a signature model. I would ask for an Eric Clapton Strat with a few changes for my preferences.
Your forgetting that the Les Paul was the original signature model.
@@charlesbolton8471 Not necessarily yes it was the first "signature" model but the by the guy that invented most of it. Now they are just a bunch of jumbled up parts on a Les Paul or whatever 1950's design.And yes there was a time owning a Les Paul was no big deal it was just a tool to make music on. Just like the Top wars there were no AAA flame tops you got what you got some were great some not so great you just had what you got. Now with marketing you pay more depending on theta wood. It is all hype. If you have not been buying or playing for 50 years you will not understand the way it was or the mind set.
@@michelleneeds4165 Except the guy who's name was on it helped invent it. Little different then the name to hype sales. Remember the iconic Les Paul at one time was a flop.
@@charlesbolton8471 not true . In the 70’s and 80’s they were no big thing. This is marketing in the past 20 years . In fact in the eighties Jackson, Charvel and Kramer dominated over Gibson. You could walk into stores and find quilt top Les Paul’s for under $700.00 while the first Jackson RR sold for $1600.00. I know I bought both back then.
Well when most of their guitars are sold to Doctors, Dentists , Lawyers and Corporate guys thats who you cater too.
Milking it is easier and less risky then innovation 😮
Rickenbacker don't give an eff about any of this and they're doing great...why would gibson be worried?
Rickenbacker doesn't produce sadly available bass guitars, hence why I ended up with Fender Precision Bass.
Young rock artist like Marcus King and fusion guitarist Dr Molly Miller are keeping Gibson relevant with millennials. And most young jazz guitarists are opting for ES335 over hollow jazz boxes.
Thanks for sharing. I am glad to hear this
Haters gonna hate , especially ones that can't afford the real deal. Hate on haters. I can't afford em either but I refuse to jump on the hate train because the truth is I love and want a few and am willing work hard to achieve.
Took me til I was 36 til I had my first Gibson (Murphy) with lots of intention and work. All those haters would Really hate how great this guitar plays/feels though 😂Seasons of life my friend, buy used and maximize value. Your turn is coming and it’ll 100% be worth it for you, cheers
It's not about affording. It's about quality. Im 43, grew up with a ton of music made with Gibson's, and when I started playing guitar a Les Paul is what I wanted more than anything.
Fast forward to now when I can easily get one and set out on a journey to find a Les Paul I like and I couldn't find one. Ended up buying a USA Music Man JP6 that when I first picked it up it just felt like magic in my hands. No Gibson I picked up was even close.
Point is unless you grew up as a guitar player playing Epiphones (I didn't) chances are Gibson's just won't feel that great in hand to you. That's a problem they have for sure.
@@vicenzor9699 in your mind maybe. Enjoy your Ernie
Did you understand his point? He wants Gibson to address new music and come to the table with better ideas. Anyone can get a Gibson if they want one. Every brand has eye watering price guitars! His direction of thought is Fender and PRS want the tomorrow musician not just the Hendrix or Santana fans. Even Brian May has guitars pointed at the younger players. But, he is right. Gibson only seems to concentrate mainly on the rock style.
@@SirSneakerPimp well when you change ownership every few years it can be tough to have a coherent direction. Gibson is moving up market now and epiphone is taking the first time buyer market exclusively now, which makes that pivot even more difficult. If anything epiphone needs to get to work courting fresh young talent. As long as Gibson sees themselves as a lifestyle brand first (see: luxury) they won’t have any effective platform from which to market lower end buyers. Bolt on guitars will also always be cheaper to produce, so import epiphones will be the only place from which to compete.
Not sure that Gibson offering plenty choices (for any type of player) is a "money grab". NO ONE IS FORCING ANY ONE TO BUY ANY GUITAR. I like having choices when I go shopping. I would actually say that "click baity" video titles with headers like "the problem with Gibson..." is more of a money grab. Something to think about.
Gibson reminds me of Kodak. Like Kodak, Gibson was a pioneer and and established a reputation of being the standard in the industry. Like Kodak, Gibson failed to deliver products that consumers want and could afford. We all know what became of Kodak. Will Gibson be the next Kodak. I own a Gibson Les Paul and I would still love to have one with a Floyd Rose. However, Gibson does not make an affordable Les Paul with a Floyd Rose. They could have put one on a Les Paul Studio. Well, until the economy improves, a new guitar is out of the question.
This is a great analogy
You have brands that make guitars and you have brands that make instruments. I prefere instruments.
Gibsons newest artist models are for fans 50 years and up. Even mark Morton’s fans are in the 40’s and 50’s.
In the end hunting whales is easier than trying to catch lots of little fish. Epiphone gets those not Gibson.
Most Gibson guitars too expensive for younger players, not to mention various issues with design (tuning stability) that they refuse to address. They are great for some things but not as versatile as other companies.
Tuning problems? How many Gibsons have you owned, I've own quite a few in the last 43 years and never had a tuning problem. This is a popular thing to say online but if your guitar doesn't stay in tune it is most likely the nut and not the guitar itself. Stop it with this bulls**t that Gibsons have tuning issues, they don't.
@@TeleCaster66 I haved owned Gibsons (among many other brands) for many years as well, used Les Paul’s and ES175 mostly - don’t get me wrong, they sound great and there is nothing like them for certain genres, but yes, compared to other brands with different designs (straighter string pull), their tuning stability is not as reliable and consistent. Not a nut issue. We all have our own subjective experiences and anecdotal “evidence”. I’m glad you’ve experienced positive results with them, just not my experience.
I was born 80s, not earning a lot, but earn enough to own lots of Ibanez and PRS top line guitars. Never ever do I want to pay my money to this greedy Gibson nonsense product.
Fender is driving the future marketing to all races & genders while not forgetting their past. Gibson is quite stuck. Their gear is too expensive for younger players.
Gibson, has ZERO vision! DINOSAURS of the Industry. Anything "new" they've rolled out has been a disaster. Unfortunately, for them, no one associates Gibson with "innovation", or even "quality" at this point. Just the same old product, endorsed by Dinosaurs of the music business. And price tags only baby-boomer Dino's can afford. I'd suggest; start refining and boosting the quality of what people can afford. And leave innovation and cutting edge products to the upstarts and companies associated with that market. All that said... I'm a Gibson owner! But nothing newer than 1998! I bought ONE new Gibson Songwriter, 2007 that went back to the factory twice, and still had issues! I swapped it at the GC I bought it at, for something that worked.
Be careful. Trogly is going to come hunting for you.
Is Gibson being clever by marketing a Rick Beato signature guitar? Or is this a further example of their cluelessness?
who? lol...more cluelessness. i'm 47, listen mostly rock and blues, other than youtube i've never heard or hear anyone talk about beato
@@theuserthatishere He's a star on UA-cam where his videos are viewed by millions, So good exposure for Gibson,. On the other hand, he focuses on classic rock, so not necessarily current.
@@LXS-ud6yf yeah