Page 1 of 3
#1
So Im sure most people are tired of all of the stupid Gibson threads. So lets just try and keep it down to this one thread. If you want to discuss any of Gibsons horrid ideas or bad quality control, do it in this thread and dont make another.

If this is against the rules then sorry. I searchbarred and nothing like this came up.

EDIT: I did not make this thread to bash Gibson, it was just so people could talk about Gibson without making a million threads. I dont really hate Gibsons but I do believe that the quality control is going down and they need to start thinking of better ideas. These new ones are horrid. Im sure most of them are great guitars. Im not a Gibson kind of person.
Last edited by a7xplayer at Sep 19, 2009,
#2
we needed this. anything besides the original designs, is a load of horse****.

thank you.
Gear:

Gibson Les Paul Vintage Mahogany

Epiphone Les Paul Goldtop with Seymour Duncan Alnico II's

Seagull 25th anniversary Mahogany Edition

Crate GT65

Digitech Metal Master

Dunlop Original Crybaby Wah
#4
could go for an EPIPHONE les paul custom to fulfill that bassy sound in my recordings, in an inexspensive way, but other than that, "fawk that shat" haha
#6
quoted from my other thread.

I'm not saying Gibson is suckish or anything. Some of their designs just need to be thought over a bit more.

I mean honestly. Is this what was said at a Gibson "New Guitar Ideas" meeting?
"Wouldn't it look AWESOME if we put some holes in a flying V?"

Epic failzure.


On top of that, the Reverse Explorer wouldn't look so bad if the headstock didn't look like a morphed Monderne's. Putting holes in the Explorer didn't help much either.
#7
the holy cross v or w/e its called is awful looking too
Rattle Your Goddamn Head!
#8
The flying v and sg hybrid is

Its all zack wylde's fault. That stupid tool ...

This should be classified as one of those ultimate threads.
Quote by icpgettozone
are you legit?
No, I'm a


COMMUNIST

Quote by Daneeka
It feels a little good inside to be fair, i feel like i rocked to hard that i killed my amp.


...




#9
I bet their next guitar will have actual bullet holes in it.

...

Actually that sounds pretty cool.
*Loads pistol and takes out First Act guitar*
Breaking stereotypes by playing indie on a metal guitar.

Current Gear
- Epiphone Les Paul Standard (Plus Top)
- Crappy Strat Copy (Redecorated, looks snazzy)
- Ibanez Acoustic/Electric Guitar
- Ibanez RG1570 Mirage Blue
- Peavey Vypyr 30 Watt
#10
So is anyone hungry for a Gibson Les Paul copy like a Tradition?
Always tin your strings.

_____

Don't be afraid to be honest.
#11
To be fair, at least they are trying, what are Fender doing?




Quote by dogismycopilot
Absent Mind, words cant express how much i love you. Id bone you, oh yea.

Quote by lumberjack
Absent Mind is, as usual, completely correct.

Quote by littlemurph7976
Id like to make my love for Neil public knowledge as he is a beautiful man
#12
Quote by Absent Mind
To be fair, at least they are trying, what are Fender doing?


Icwatu didere.

Honestly, the gibsons are TO expensive
Quote by Holy Katana
Your last job only paid you $7.00 AUD an hour? That's like $6.05 in the US. What the hell is the minimum wage over there?


Quote by titsmcgee852
$0 for volunteer work

ollollolollol


^
#13
Quote by Henkdemachtige
Icwatu didere.

Honestly, the gibsons are TO expensive


as fender is to single coil?
Quote by grimms
All I know is that if UG were a prison, all of us will either be dead, a prison bitch, or a dead prison bitch.


...
#14
Hearing 'Teh Gibson Sux' from someone who can't afford to spend more then $500.00 on a guitar doesn't mean much to me.
#16
I went to a guitar store to do some amp hunting yesterday and the gracious hosts put me into a sound proof room with about 5 different guitars and 3 different amps (all of the small wattage variety though) and I actually got to spend a few hours time trying a few amps with several Gibsons, a G0, R6, and a '97 classic.

Ironically, the '97 classic, w/ the 498/500 pickups sounded the best of all of the them. In fact, through an HT-5, that guitar got almost exactly the Duane Allman, Fillmore East tone. I mainly went to A/B amps side by side (trying to find a low wattage amp for my apartment that won't piss off my roommates), but that classic was awesome. Sounded pretty good through all the amps (except the Tiny Terror, but none of the guitars sounded good through the Tiny Terror so...) Too bad it was ugly and a bit too expensive considering the guitar used to be sold for about $1300 and the used model was $1650.
Last edited by al112987 at Aug 23, 2009,
#17
Quote by Absent Mind
To be fair, at least they are trying, what are Fender doing?


They're doing what they've always been doing. Making quality guitars that people want.

So they're doing something right.
GO WINGS GO
#18
Quote by Absent Mind
To be fair, at least they are trying, what are Fender doing?


Not slowly grinding their good name into the dirt.
My Musical attempts

My youtube music channel

Quote by TOMMYB22
Dammit, beaten to it, and by someone with the same name

CURSE YOU TOMMYT!!!!!!!!!!!!


Quote by daeqwon10000
I hate tommyt and the high horse which he rides upon
#19
I love my Les Paul Traditional plus so much its scary....every time I look at the d@mn thing its instant motivation to play. Such a beautiful piece of instrument......

With that said, Gibson has made some questionable R&D choices IMO. The robot guitar COULD have potential, but d@mn if those servos arent gigantic. I literally laughed the first time I saw one of them up close. These rainbow guitars? What a joke. Put some of your $$$ into developing actual new guitars. I really think Gibson needs to come up with a new metal line of guitars. The Les Pauls and SG's look sexy, and you can play metal on them obviously, but they need something different that screams Br00talz. I think the Darkfire was a good attempt but those havent really taken off.
#21
Quote by IHeartMyCrybaby



as stupid as it looks, I'd love it if it opened up and had another slightly smaller one inside it, like gibsons very own russian dolls.
My Musical attempts

My youtube music channel

Quote by TOMMYB22
Dammit, beaten to it, and by someone with the same name

CURSE YOU TOMMYT!!!!!!!!!!!!


Quote by daeqwon10000
I hate tommyt and the high horse which he rides upon
#22
why would you want that?????? stick some red amber and red on that an youve got yourself a sh!tty traffic light
Gear:

Gibson 2005 Les Paul Standard
Fender Road Worn Strat w/ Noiseless pickups
Marshall JCM 2000 401C
Marshall Vintage Modern 2266
Marshall 1960A cab (Dave Hill from Slade's old cab)
Ibanez TS9DX
EHX Little Big Muff
Freshman Acoustic
#23
Quote by ZepherBass
They're doing what they've always been doing. Making quality guitars that people want.

So they're doing something right.

Except it isn't what people want.
Lets say Gibson cranks out a guitar called the Les Paul Standard III, and a UGer makes a thread on it.
I guarantee quite a bit of the comments will be 'Why doesn't Gibson ever do something new?'
#24
Their new guitar ideas aren't great, but still i respect them for making a few incredibly good well designed and influential guitars. It doesn't change the fact that when i saw their new models i wanted to puke.
.........
#25
Quote by GuitarDTO
I think the Darkfire was a good attempt but those havent really taken off.

i was at the airport a week ago, picking up my uncle and i saw this guy walkin around with a white guitar case. i didn't see the front of it at first, but when he turned the other way, it read somethin like: "Gibson Darkfire Limited Series..." somethin or somethin. all i kept thinking was: "he's bringing an >$3000 guitar on a plane. how is he gonna feel when he gets off the plane and finds his guitar either broken or just not there in general?"
Quote by pedromiles101
you're not gonna want to take a dump in a gross, off-colored, vintage toilet. you want something that is white and pearly; something that shines. something that you can put your cheeks against and say, "f*** yeah"
#26
Quote by tommyt
as stupid as it looks, I'd love it if it opened up and had another slightly smaller one inside it, like gibsons very own russian dolls.


Hahahaha
I think that design is the worst Gibson has made UNTIL NOW
#27
Quote by ZepherBass
They're doing what they've always been doing. Making quality guitars that people want.
As baby Joel said, when this happens people just complain 'why dont they ever do anything new'

They can still keep producing the good models that people want, and yet still try and come up with something new, it doesnt have to be either or


*disclaimer, I dont play Gibson or Fender, nor do I care about them at all*




Quote by dogismycopilot
Absent Mind, words cant express how much i love you. Id bone you, oh yea.

Quote by lumberjack
Absent Mind is, as usual, completely correct.

Quote by littlemurph7976
Id like to make my love for Neil public knowledge as he is a beautiful man
#28
Quote by carl drew
Hearing 'Teh Gibson Sux' from someone who can't afford to spend more then $500.00 on a guitar doesn't mean much to me.

you're missing the point of this thread a bit.

the point is we're all sick of a new thread being posted by stupid people who spot a new gibson model that they think looks horrible, and therefore, because it looks horrible, it's automatically an overpriced piece of crap since the price of a guitar is 100% relative to the way it looks .. basically, this is a thread to (hopefully) end all the annoying gibson hate threads, by putting them all in one place.

edit: why the heck is everyone using zakk wylde's epiphone that he designed as an excuse to bash gibson..
I like analogue Solid State amps that make no effort to be "tube-like", and I'm proud of it...

...A little too proud, to be honest.
#29
Sorry to piss on your chips, but make a "Gibson sux" thread and soon there'll be someone thinking they're clever with a "Fender sucks" trhead, when that happens it'll be a common place to have "[brand] sucks" threads and I don't think we really need that...
#30
I think that instead of doing things like the Reverse V or Holy Explorer, they should have made the V a Zoot (instead of the SG) and started reissuing some of the older discontinued models like the Moderne and the *Hawks.
#31
Quote by Punk_Ninja
Sorry to piss on your chips, but make a "Gibson sux" thread and soon there'll be someone thinking they're clever with a "Fender sucks" trhead, when that happens it'll be a common place to have "[brand] sucks" threads and I don't think we really need that...

yeah i didn't see that really.

this is a silly idea for a thread, even though it is getting very annoying seeing all these threads about gibson new models being 'overpriced pieces of crap', posted by people who have never played one.
I like analogue Solid State amps that make no effort to be "tube-like", and I'm proud of it...

...A little too proud, to be honest.
#32
Quote by Sir Anonymous
I think that instead of doing things like the Reverse V or Holy Explorer, they should have made the V a Zoot (instead of the SG) and started reissuing some of the older discontinued models like the Moderne and the *Hawks.



gotta agree with the hawks bit, but what people arent mentioning is that all these reverse guitars and stuff are just limited runs mainly made for collecters. ive played two reverse V's and i must say they played quite well but just didnt feel right.

Gibson are obviously doing something right as they are pulling a high number of sales in this Global Recession. So what if they make a loada guitars you hate, theres no point moaning about it really if you dont like it its fine but theres no need to bash the brand.
Guitars
Custom Les Paul
Custom ZW Bullseye
Brunswick BD200CE
Epiphone ZW Custom Camo
Custom Fender Highway Tele Daphne Blue
Parker Nitefly M
Squier Classic Vibes Strat W/BKPs
Ibanez SZR720QM W/EMGs
#33
Quote by nav00
gotta agree with the hawks bit, but what people arent mentioning is that all these reverse guitars and stuff are just limited runs mainly made for collecters. ive played two reverse V's and i must say they played quite well but just didnt feel right.

Gibson are obviously doing something right as they are pulling a high number of sales in this Global Recession. So what if they make a loada guitars you hate, theres no point moaning about it really if you dont like it its fine but theres no need to bash the brand.


The only thing Gibson is doing right is branding - that's why to this day they manage to bounce back despite all the ****ty ideas they're cranking out. Back in the day, people didn't buy Gibsons because "they got Gibson on the headstock and I'd like to be associated with that", they bought Gibsons because "they were well-made and hot damn they look nice".

If Henry (Gibson's current CEO) was the head of another guitar company that wasn't a major manufacturer he would not have the benefit of bouncing back. Names can do very wonderful things for people who want to make money. When you build up enough of a historic reputation with a company name, it doesn't even matter what the company does after that.. their name practically carries them to success. They could label a small turd 'Gibson' and still make a decent sale. Not as good as their well-known models but all that matters is that money was made in the end.

My friends (excuse the McCain phrasing here), I'd like to do an experiment. We should take a bunch of newer Gibson guitars, tape up the headstock or scratch the logo off so that you can't read the Gibson letters, and see what people really think of the guitars. My hypothesis is that a great majority would avoid the guitar because it's missing the Gibson name.
Last edited by HoffManCometh at Aug 23, 2009,
#34
For your information, I think there are a lot of people who buy their Gibson because it is exactly what they want. I wanted a Les Paul and Gibson was the one who made it. If I fell in love with a Les Paul and it was made by another company I would have bought that one. However all the Les Paul copies are just copies. They are not Les Pauls. It is insulting to lump all of us Gibson owners into a group of ignorant snob types.
Some of us buy what we want with no concern about impressing a bunch of 18 year old ***s.
Last edited by danohat at Aug 23, 2009,
#35
Quote by danohat
For your information, I think there are a lot of people who buy their Gibson because it is exactly what they want. I wanted a Les Paul and Gibson was the one who made it. If I fell in love with a Les Paul and it was made by another company I would have bought that one. However all the Les Paul copies are just copies. They are not Les Pauls. It is insulting to lump all of us Gibson owners into a group of ignorant snob types.


Hey, if you're not stuck in the category of partially loving the guitar for what's on the headstock, hats off to you. I'm just pointing out the fact that a lot of people buy Gibson because of branding, not because of how the guitars play.
#36
Everyone pays partially for the brand name. Even you.
Lets say your dream guitar is placed in front of you (For the sake of the argument, lets say it's an Ibanez Jem, the 777H or whatever the super model is).
You pick it up to start playing it, but while doing so you notice there is no Ibanez brand on the headstock, no serial, no brand markings anywhere, not even on the vibrato.
Would you still play it? Chances are your going to think its a fake, and probably not want to play it.
If you do play it, are you going to try to notice things that would qualify it as a fake? Are all the frets absolutely perfect, is the vibrato the right kind, and not an Edge III or similar?
You may realise that nothing is wrong with it. It plays and looks and feels just like a JEM, except there's no brand.

I'm guessing you would pass it off, and say, "Thanks, but I'm just going to save up for the real thing."

Just a hypothesis.
#37
Quote by Baby Joel
Everyone pays partially for the brand name. Even you.
Lets say your dream guitar is placed in front of you (For the sake of the argument, lets say it's an Ibanez Jem, the 777H or whatever the super model is).
You pick it up to start playing it, but while doing so you notice there is no Ibanez brand on the headstock, no serial, no brand markings anywhere, not even on the vibrato.
Would you still play it? Chances are your going to think its a fake, and probably not want to play it.
If you do play it, are you going to try to notice things that would qualify it as a fake? Are all the frets absolutely perfect, is the vibrato the right kind, and not an Edge III or similar?
You may realise that nothing is wrong with it. It plays and looks and feels just like a JEM, except there's no brand.

I'm guessing you would pass it off, and say, "Thanks, but I'm just going to save up for the real thing."

Just a hypothesis.


Yeah, this is exactly what I'm saying. Even I'm guilty of following brands. If my 2004 or 1971 Gibson didn't have "Gibson" on it, I'd feel weird playing them.

It really shows how vain we can be, though..
#39
Quote by Baby Joel
So.....
you're a hypocrite?


Yyyyyyyyyep. Doesn't mean I can't talk about how the great majority of people pay for the brand and how vain humanity is, though.

Anyway, I wouldn't buy any newer Gibsons because of the current CEO and the shoddy business practices that they're using nowadays.. bad QC, higher prices and stupid new models that play worse than they look visually. The 2004 LP I have seemed to be an exception to this rule.

But would I buy any newer Gibsons if Henry wasn't in charge and if they started worrying more about how their models were being produced? Yeah, maybe. I'm a Gibson fanboy, but I actually know whether I'm playing a good guitar or a bad one. If any good Gibsons were made in the past 5 years, those are pretty much rare occurances. :/
Last edited by HoffManCometh at Aug 23, 2009,
#40
Quote by Absent Mind
To be fair, at least they are trying, what are Fender doing?

Making good, less expensivfe, guitars for all different styles.
Quote by SlackerBabbath

I also have hairy butt cheeks, I once shaved a letter 'W' on each cheek, so that when I bent over it spelled WoW.

warning, some of the contents of this post may not necessarily be completely true.
Page 1 of 3