2015 Gibsons: Some Thoughts

Synchro

The artist formerly known as: Synchro
Staff member
Jun 2, 2008
26,392
Tucson
I've had more than my fair share of Gibsons through the years, but have moved away from them over the last decade. None of these new changes make me want to buy a new one.
I couldn't agree more.

It's one thing to offer new inventions and innovations, it's another to make it mandatory on every instrument.
Apparently old Henry has decided that he knows better than his customers.

To us old foggies these new "improvements" must be kinda like the Flying V or Explorer back in '50s, or the Firebird in the '60s.
You never know where this stuff is going to go.
Not the first time Gibson raised some eyebrows, thats for sure.
To a kid coming up now, raised on computers, smartphones, iPads, Facebook and Google etc, it may look different.
I'm with you guys on the automatic tuners etc, but how does this stuff look to the new breed of techno-savy kids coming up nowdays?
If I were 10 yrs old again looking at this stuff it might be the coolest Christmas present ever :)
I don't see the comparison as being particularly valid. Flying Vs, Explorers, etc, look different from other guitars, but functioned identically. I've played them, and thought they are not my favorite instruments, they are good guitars.

Forcing auto tuners on all Gibson customers, and a stiff price increase to boot, that's just plain stupid. Tuning is a skill, one I consider very important, even in these days of electronic tuners. When I played a Gibson Johnny Smith, I kept an E tuning fork in the case and tuned from that using octaves and other tricks to work my way from the high E to the low E with everything in between being as close as possible to perfect. It trained my ear and made it so that I notice an out-of-tune string early in the game.

It's also enabled me to restring a guitar and tune it to nearly perfect pitch without an external reference. I can't do this every time, but I've gotten pretty good at it over the years. Sometimes this can come in very handy, such as when guitar shopping. At gigs I use an electronic tuner, but that's more because it's hard to hear well enough to tune accurately at a gig and my Son of Snark uses vibration, not sound.

I understand that the ten-year-old mind would find G-Force tuners appealing, but that doesn't raise their appeal to me. When I was ten, I thought my parents should buy a Corvette for our family car, and I'd ride in the open space under the back window. I wasn't thinking about snow, safety (riding unrestrained in the back of a '64 'Vette), insurance costs, theft risk, etc, I was seeing the gloss and glitter of it all.

When I was in my late teens I thought the my personal ride should have been a Lamborghini Jarama. I wasn't thinking in practical terms, I was ignoring huge realities and, essentially, living in a world of make-believe. At sixteen a Jarama seemed to have it all, at sixty, just the cost of tires would be enough to dissuade me from even considering it.

A ten year old kid might think that G-Force tuners are great, but chances are that kid isn't giving so much as a pico-second of thought to the fact that these will eventually quit working. Just the testimony in this thread tells of them not functioning as advertised and, they won't get better with age. These tuners involve motors, micro electronics and add weight to the headstock of a guitar. If you replace them you will have to pay Gibson's price, and as their 2015 pricing bears witness, they aren't afraid to ask a dear price for anything they sell.

Perhaps some enterprising party will design and market a replacement for these tuners; one which fits their footprint, but does away with all of the electro-mechanical nonsense. But it's a crying shame that Gibson sees fit to impose its choice across their lineup.

Ten year olds are not the prime market for Gibson instruments. Gibson is trying to appeal to a younger demographic, but I doubt it will work. For years, Gibson was the Caddilac of guitar companies. It was the guitar you bought when you were skilled enough, earning enough and had paid some dues along the way. This, BTW, would have described the kind of person that would buy a Caddilac automobile just as well as the person that bought a Gibson guitar.

The world has changed much since then and neither Caddilac or Gibson means what it used to mean. Caddilac has reinvented itself as a seller of luxury SUVs and luxury sports coupes and sedans. But along the way they made many missteps, such as the Cimarron, a Chevy sub-compact with a fancy grill. For decades they floundered until they found their footing and came out with the CTS. They finally found a way to meld their core, luxury, with the realities of the contemporary market, and have built a more successful line because of it.

Gibson, IMO, is still stuck in the Cimarron phase, trying to graft something they perceive as cool onto their core product. What they are failing to see, once agin, IMO, is that the market has changed dramatically and they need to get in touch with the core value that made Gibson a success for many years. What they seem incapable of comprehending is that Gibson, as esteemed as their guitars were, actually was a bargain brand. I don't meant bargain brand in the sense of a Hyundai being cheaper than an equivalent Toyota, but in the sense that a Gibson buyer got a lot for their money.

For example, I drive a Toyota. The reason I drive a Toyota is that it costs me less in the long run than a less expensive alternative. Toyotas are not less expensive than their competition, but they have a reputation for quality and durability that makes them a good investment. People buy Toyotas and drive them until they drop. 300,000 mile Toyotas are relatively commonplace.

If I was going to buy a new sedan today, it would be a Toyota Camry. If I had a million dollar windfall and decided to buy a new car, it would still be a Toyota Camry. If I became stinkin' rich and could afford a Lamborghini, I would still buy a Camry, albeit I might indulge a V-6 Camry at that point. Why? Because it's a solid, reliable product and I would be confident in it. You can buy a fancier car, but it's unlikely that you can buy a truly better car.

If I was trying to build Gibson's market share I would use Toyota as my example. Instead of trying to promote the line as innovative, I'd promote it as being high quality, reliable and a bargain in the long run. I would trade heavily upon the heritage of the brand. I'd look for examples like Peter Frampton, who got his three-pickup Les Paul back after being lost in a plane crash decades before. I'd show people like Charlie Daniels, who has played a Les Paul for decades. I would promote the permanence of ownin a Gibson. I'd seek out stories of people that were playing Gibsons they inherited from their fathers and grandfathers. I'd promote the idea that a Gibson was a lifetime instrument; then I'd subtly suggest that there's no reason you can't own more than one "lifetime instrument".

I'd use photos that depicted a grandfather showing his grown grandson an original '54 Les Paul with the subtle implication that the grandson would inherit that Les Paul someday. In the photo would be a more modern Gibson, the grandson's guitar and the grandson's 10 year old son would be present, witnessing the sense of legacy that Gibson guitars offer. My goal, would be for people to buy Gibson guitars as an investment, not for monetary gain, but an investment in passing a heritage of music forward onto their families. These are uncertain times and many people feel a sense impermanence in their lives. Make Gibson a product that offers permanence and discretionary income will come a knocking. That's Gibson's core value and one cannot stray from the core value of a product without risking rejection.

The sad thing is this; the current ownership of Gibson did honor their heritage for a number of years after buying the company, back in '86 or so. The guitars coming out after the nightmare of the Norlin years were of good quality and represented an excellent value. There were plenty of people waiting to buy a Gibson and the company was working hard to keep up with the demand. Buyers were more than happy to wait for a Gibson, why wouldn't they be? Somewhere along the line, the lure of higher profit margins and grandiosity sought to improve upon this happy situation, so now we have gimmickry and poor value per dollar spent.
 

Admiral Ballsy

Gretschie
Nov 25, 2014
101
Central IN
The tuner package comes off and is replaceable with no modification. Some dealers - Dave's is one - will do this for you at either no, or a very modest, charge.

I don't at all like the way it looks, but if you told me "wave this magic wand and your instrument will tune itself", I'd probably say "Tell me more".

I've met Henry twice. He and I will probably never be having lunch together, nor would I likely consider working for him. But he at least is trying things. What's Fender done lately, besides yet another batch of artist-endorsement versions of things that are really no different from anything else?

IMO, "value" is an inherently nebulous concept. If we were concerned with value inasmuch as objectively measurable quality per dollar, I suspect most of us would be playing PRS SEs or the like. We buy expensive stuff because we want to, and we can.

By the way, I drive a CTS. Full disclosure.
 

blc45

Country Gent
Aug 23, 2011
2,216
nc
Maybe I am just getting old and set in my ways but I am not sure I like the direction Gibson and some others are headed. self tuners, slip coils, db. boost, chips in Strats to change the sound or fret lite guitars. Modeling amps with two dozen knobs switches and dials and then you download your sound from the internet.

Hey just give me a good quality, plain old guitar and a good tube amp with just three or four tone adjustment knobs and let me find my own sound like the good old days.
 

Henry

I Bleed Orange
Apr 9, 2014
18,965
Petaluma
My feeling is that the auto tuner is an unnecessary but neat idea. The problem, to me, is not the idea, it's the implementation. If it doesn't work, don't put it on every guitar.

As for the brass nut, that actually appeals to me if it works well.

Which gets me to the main issue for me. Quality control. Charge the price, try the gimmick. But the dang axe better work and work well! I have the same feeling about fender amps. The stories of quality issues really scares me away.
 

Synchro

The artist formerly known as: Synchro
Staff member
Jun 2, 2008
26,392
Tucson
The tuner package comes off and is replaceable with no modification. Some dealers - Dave's is one - will do this for you at either no, or a very modest, charge.

I don't at all like the way it looks, but if you told me "wave this magic wand and your instrument will tune itself", I'd probably say "Tell me more".

I've met Henry twice. He and I will probably never be having lunch together, nor would I likely consider working for him. But he at least is trying things. What's Fender done lately, besides yet another batch of artist-endorsement versions of things that are really no different from anything else?

IMO, "value" is an inherently nebulous concept. If we were concerned with value inasmuch as objectively measurable quality per dollar, I suspect most of us would be playing PRS SEs or the like. We buy expensive stuff because we want to, and we can.

By the way, I drive a CTS. Full disclosure.

You make a good point regarding Fender. Frankly, I see them as treading water, at best. Fender's product innovations seem to be mostly about color schemes, and endless signature models, many of which I find dubious at best.

Frankly,I'm think that the major brands are at a crucial point right now. About all they have to trade upon is their past glory. I think that attended has done some good things, such as their Vintage RI amps.

The vintage RI guitars were good, at least they were before they decided to,expand the line to include reissues of guitars that didn't sell well in the first place. People seem to forget that the Jaguar and Jazzmaster guitars were, at best, mediocre in sales the reason that vintage Strats,and Teles were so desired is because they were superior instruments in comparison to what came afterward. Among the most successful of the post CBS era Fenders were the '52 RI Tele and the '57 & '62 RI Strats. These were great guitars, in their own right.

Amazingly, Fender seems to have painted itself into a corner and I don't know that they can ever get free. The Vintage Vibe Squiers are highly successful and, IMO, the products most true to Fender's heritage. Once again, Fender's success, in the pre CBS days, was based upon selling well-functioning instruments at very low cost. Vintage Vibe Squiers are competent stage guitars and the true heirs to the legacy of Fender's glory years.

Meeting Henry; that had to have been an experience. Everything I've seen of him, interviews, etc, tells me that he's no one I'd care to know. He is the friend of a friend, but I keep my mouth shut when in the presence of that friend.

I see your point about value and I agree to a great degree, but not completely. Strangely, not a year ago, I was offered a PRS single-cut with P-90s for an incredibly low price. I had a P-90 Les Paul many years ago that was very similar in design to the PRS, but I couldn't get a decent sound out for the PRS to save my life. My old Les Paul, OTOH, sounded incredibly good.

While I agree, people do buy for more than value, at least in the strata that most G-T members operate within, but the guitar companies are jumping through hoops to increase their profit margins and to appeal to an ever wider market. Something is out of whack in this picture. Perhaps it's their expectations. The Gibson guitar company, back in the CMI days, used to appeal to customers in the basis of quality and permanence.

In the nineties, ordering a Gibson meant waiting, perhaps for years, but then you got what you really wanted. These days, that's just not the case. If there were waiting lists for Gibson guitars they wouldnt change a thing. Back in the nineties Gibson came to a fork in the road and made, what I consider to be, a very poor choice. At that time, they decided to significantly increase prices, lower demand and make more profit on every unit shipped. It sounds like a good move for the comapny, but it altered the terms of their relationship with the consumer. No longer did I see Gibson as a good value, I saw it as overpriced. The backlog of orders dissipated and Gibson found themselves struggling to regain market share.

Look no further than the fortunes of Gretsch since then. In the early nineties, Gretsches were fairly low priced, but perceived by many as overpriced Ibanezes masquerading as Gretsches. I remember, at the time, playing a 6120 that a friend had bought because he was certain that Gretsch would not survive much longer. Flash forward roughly twenty years and Gretsch seems to be doing well as a brand. They've successully reproduced much of their vintage lineup and expanded with products such as the center block guitars. Their entry level Electromatics are competent instruments, right out of the box. I contrast this with Gibson's entry-level products; every Epiphone hollow body I've ever played was neck-heavy and thereby very uncomfortable to play standing up. I'd take a stock 5420 to a gig any day of the week, but when I was offered a killer deal on my choice of five Epi hollow bodies (two Dots, two Casinos and a Sheraton) I couldn't find even one that was comfortable to play while strapped.

This leads me to a question; where did all of the Gibson buyers go when Gibson's prices increased and the waiting lists evaporated almost instantly? I don't have any empirical data, but I'd be quite surprised if there weren't plenty that looked into a Gretsch and switched brand preference in favor of the innate value of the Gretsch line.

In spite of all this, I have to admit that if I came into a lot of money, I'd probably buy a Wes Montgomery L-5. The L-5 is one of the most beautiful and ornate archtops ever made and the Wes model represents the apex of the line, for my tastes. Honestly, it's the only Gibson I have any interest in owning. I see tha appeal of a Les Paul Custom or a Firebird, but I'm not going to buy either, there are far too many alternatives competing for more attention. For that matter, as much as I love the Gibson Firebird I'd much prefer the Billy Bo. A Gibson Firebird would hang on my wall and look cool, but a Billy Bo would be in my hands and sound great.

One thing I learned years ago, is that every discretionary purchase competes with all sorts of other purchases and can lose out to things that you wouldn't even think of as being in competition. In the early eighties, I drove a Ford Courier pickup and, for a short time, thought about putting a custom, step-side bed on it. Then I realized that custom pickup bed would cost as much as an electric piano, and I wanted one of those a lot more than I wanted a custom pickup bed. Eventually, I did, indeed, own an electric piano, in fact I've owned several over the years, including the Yamaha that currently graces my living room. I've never owned an aftermarket custom pickup bed, and I doubt that I ever will.

Ever since that realization, back in '81, I've come to understand that discretionary products operate under a different set of rules than do necessities. People can say no to discretionary products, and the tipping point between buying and not buying can be quite subtle. Buying something like a guitar can be a complex matter involving all sorts of mental trade-offs. Do I buy a Pro Series Gretsch or do I buy an Electromatic and a new compound mitre saw? Do I buy and L-5, or do I buy a Country Club and a bunch of other stuff? All decisions involve emotions and all decisions are trade offs.

The trade-off is a big part of the picture, but can be easily missed by the sales and marketing people. To whit, the Fender Bass VI. This instrument has been a problem for Fender ever since reissues came into being. It's an instrument that fascinates many, but the Custom Shop RIs never really took off. Why? The fact is simple, anyone contemplating spending $3.000 or so on a Bass VI was distracted by all the other instruments they could buy for that price. The fact is, the Bass VI is not a primary instrument for most players. It's a very cool, very interesting bass that has the versatility of two added upper register strings and occupies a relatively unique spot in the market.

A few years ago, I was at NAMM, and I pointed out to the Fender people that, IMHO, they had positioned the Bass VI in the wrong part of their price range. A lot of people wanted a Bass VI, but it was a secondary instrument and, as such, needed to be positioned in the lower end of the line, where it could be more of an impulse purchase, and less of a culminating purchase. Doing so eliminated all sorts of competition for that purchasing dollar. The buyer could, and probably did, think to the self, hey, I've always thought those were cool and bought the MIM or Squier Bass VI while the Custom Shop buyer would be more likes to be lured away by other instruments that were available in that $3,000 price range.

If I bought a Wes model L-5 it would be, mostly, an emotional decision, based upon my admiration of Wes and my perception of the value of the instrument. Ultimately, if I were to buy one of these it would be heavily influenced by nostalgia for the late Wes Montgomery. My Country Club Is the functional and sonic equivalent of an L-5. Likewise, my Guild Capri obviates any need for an ES-175, in spite of the fact that the venerable 175 is a foundation stone in the postwar Jazz guitar sound.
 

Synchro

The artist formerly known as: Synchro
Staff member
Jun 2, 2008
26,392
Tucson
Gretsch trades heavily in the power of endorsements too. Brian Setzer is a major factor in Gretsch sales. Malcom Young brings in more than a few buyers and, of course, Chet, who has been a mainstay of the line, even when he was endorsing Gibsons. Virtually ever Chet album cover from the late '50s well into the '70s, amounted to an ad for Gretsch guitars. In the nineties, and into the early 2,000s, when the classic Chet albums were coming out on CD he was still endorsing Gretsch guitars with the sale of every one of those CDs. When I bought the CD copy of "It's A Guitar World" I didn't feel compelled to rush out and buy a Gibson, even though Chet's endorsement was with them at that time. I think that it would be almost impossible to overestimate the value of Chet's endorsement of Gretsch over the years.

About the only advantage I can see to auto tuning is the ability to change tunings on stage, on the fly, so to speak. It's a cool idea, but of relatively limited appeal, at least to me. I think that Gibson's choice to push this upon their customers is a matter of wishful thinking on their part. Force them to try it and we'll get repeat business from customers that find that can't live without it anymore. It could backfire easily and leave them with a surplus of undesirable guitars and a decrease in market share. Over the last decade or so, I've seen Gibson make some very poor choices and I suspect that this choice will fall into that category.

Gibson, it is said, almost went out of business in the eighties because they basically walked away from their core market in search of greener pastures, all the while assuring themselves that they had come upon the way to stem the loss of market share that was happening because of Asian-made guitars. I remember an enthusiastic Gibson employee, Mike Elliot, coming into the store where I taught and explaining the wonders of this new strategy while I shook my head in disbelief. It was poorly conceived and a disaster for the company. Instead of an imported Les Paul copy, one could buy "The Paul"', an excessively heavy Les Paul with no finsh that would give a backache to Paul Bunyan were he to play it for any length of time on a strap.

Somehow, I doubt that the gateway to greener pastures is a massive price increase and G-Force tuners. Eventually, someone else will probably end up owning the Gibson name and, hopefully, they will respect the fact that name was built upon integrity and fine products at a reasonable price and not gimmickry and unrealistic margins.
 

Synchro

The artist formerly known as: Synchro
Staff member
Jun 2, 2008
26,392
Tucson
Maybe I am just getting old and set in my ways but I am not sure I like the direction Gibson and some others are headed. self tuners, slip coils, db. boost, chips in Strats to change the sound or fret lite guitars. Modeling amps with two dozen knobs switches and dials and then you download your sound from the internet.

Hey just give me a good quality, plain old guitar and a good tube amp with just three or four tone adjustment knobs and let me find my own sound like the good old days.

I couldn't agree more. My typical rig, these days, is a very simple amp (Winfield Cyclone), a reverb pedal (I told you it was a very simple amp) and a simple guitar. That's all I need to get a sound that I love.
 

T simmons

Friend of Fred
Jun 5, 2013
5,413
California
That G-Force tuning system is pretty much the last nail in the coffin for my relationship to Gibson. The last thing I want is some flaky, overly-complex tuning system on my guitar. I've been tempted to buy a Les Paul Special on occasion, but I assure you I will never own a guitar with an auto-tune system.

I agree with Synchro , No auto tuning system for me either.
 

Robbie

Friend of Fred
Jun 17, 2013
5,836
Sarnia Ontario Canada
I have a 70's Gibson 355 I would never part with. New Gibsons unfortunately leave me cold, I'm not a fan of their workmanship. They don't compare to my Gretsch OR my Reverends. Gretsch is just so much better than Gibson.
 

calvin lee

Country Gent
Jan 5, 2011
4,346
new york
i'm a younger guy, but i still think these auto tuning systems are stupid as hell.

do they work? kinda!

are they faster than tuning by ear? a little!

will this technology be obsolete in a year or two? of course not! remember the first gibson robot guitars? the demand for those is through the roof, right?

i hate absolutely everything about where gibson has been going for years. whoever made the decision to make the auto tune thing mandatory on all models really ought to buy a bullet and rent a gun.
 

Tony65x55

Gretschified
Sep 23, 2011
13,288
The 'Shwa, Ontario, Canada
i'm a younger guy, but i still think these auto tuning systems are stupid as hell.

do they work? kinda!

are they faster than tuning by ear? a little!

will this technology be obsolete in a year or two? of course not! remember the first gibson robot guitars? the demand for those is through the roof, right?

i hate absolutely everything about where gibson has been going for years. whoever made the decision to make the auto tune thing mandatory on all models really ought to buy a bullet and rent a gun.

(chuckle) I never thought I'd say this but thank God for Epiphone keeping the greatness of Gibson alive. The newest high end Epis are really good guitars and they continue to improve all the time. Playing an Epi Les Paul Tribute with '57 Classics in it was a real eye opener. Lookout Gibson, you are eating yourself.
 

Synchro

The artist formerly known as: Synchro
Staff member
Jun 2, 2008
26,392
Tucson
i hate absolutely everything about where gibson has been going for years. whoever made the decision to make the auto tune thing mandatory on all models really ought to buy a bullet and rent a gun.

It's just another case of a company trying to push their customers around, and in this case dealers too. Henry J strikes me as a classic bully and Gibson is reputedly a terrible place to work, at least in management.

Ultimately, such treatment of customers ends up costing the company in the long run. Forty years ago, I was a Gibson man, through and through. I never aspired to own any other brand, with the exception that I liked Martin flattops. Flash forward to the present, and I haven't owned a Gibson in over twenty years. I've looked them, test played them and concluded that there are alternatives which are better instruments for less money. Had they not become heavy handed I might well have remained loyal to the brand, but their poor treatment of their customers led me to seek alternatives. I doubt that I am the only person that has made this choice.
 

TC6119

Country Gent
Feb 10, 2013
1,523
Iceberg Alley
I'd like to buy a new 4x4 pickup with a manual shift on the floorboard too, and not have the pushbutton function. When something goes wrong with it you have to bring it to the dealer, which sucks and costs a pile of dough.
Nothing is repairable anymore by the common Joe.
I agree with the auto tuners. In my mind completely unnecessary, but it's the same as the pushbutton 4x4...the bells and whistles are what sell product. At least to the "uneducated".
I don't understand it but that's the way the world is going. Manufacturers treat us ALL like a bunch of idiots who NEED this stuff.
Give me simple. Simple to operate...simple to fix. I don't wanna plug anything into my computer to download the newest version of the operating system....whether it be the fuel injection mapping on my motorcycle or the tuners on my guitar.
But like it or not that is the way things are going.
I think Gibson sees this and are trying to get a leg up on the competition. I don't agree with it, but who's to say they're not right?
Only time will tell.
 

Admiral Ballsy

Gretschie
Nov 25, 2014
101
Central IN
Nothing is repairable anymore by the common Joe.

That's not really true, although I get where you're coming from.

I do all my own repairs unless said repair requires a piece of equipment or tool I don't own/can't get easily. I don't have an alignment rack, or a lift, or an AC purge/fill system...you get the idea.

In your example, all the pushbutton 4x4 stuff does is fire a solenoid that does the same thing that pulling the lever used to do.

In order to do repairs now, you pretty much have the factory shop manuals, occasionally need special tools, and have to understand the integration of electronic control systems with mechanical devices. I'm probably among the first generation (read: oldest) that was able to do that fairly naturally. My dad, for example, didn't make the jump.

Pining for the old days is fine, but you weren't going to get 500 horsepower and 30 miles per gallon without electronics.
 

Robbie

Friend of Fred
Jun 17, 2013
5,836
Sarnia Ontario Canada
This is an interesting discussion and some very insightful comments. IMHO, what we see going on is cyclical to any industry and at some point sense and balance will be restored, at least hopefully it will. There has been a benefit to all of this for me however. I never would have tried Gretsch or Reverend if Gibson's quality had stayed at a high level. I'm glad I found my way to these other manufacturers. There will be more Gretsch purchases in my future....no Gibsons.
 

elguapo776

Gretschie
Feb 5, 2010
450
San Diego
While I don't agree with it, I understand Gibson's reasoning behind this year's changes. The tribute series and other lower end models were in direct competition with the more profitable Epiphone line. So for them to refocus the brand towards more affluent buyers while attempting to increase the prestige of the brand makes sense.

As for the GForce system, it's definitely a major technological innovation for a field that rarely embraces sweeping changes in favor of more conservative approaches with respect to guitar manufacturing, so perhaps the saw a potential to lead the development of auto tuners a a source for potential future revenue via selling them as stand alone units for other manufacturers?

Regardless, if we like the old Gibsons, then the 2nd hand market is where we need to be. And if by chance this strategy fails, then things will return to the way they were.

On a final note, the sloppy looking Les Paul 100 signature being added to the headstock was an awful idea. I think they should have added that to the pick guards or kept it to the back of the headstock so that people who play these guitars aren't stuck with that graphic permanently.
 

RubenAlvarado

Gretschie
Jan 8, 2013
118
Atlanta, GA
i'm a younger guy, but i still think these auto tuning systems are stupid as hell.

do they work? kinda!

are they faster than tuning by ear? a little!

will this technology be obsolete in a year or two? of course not! remember the first gibson robot guitars? the demand for those is through the roof, right?

i hate absolutely everything about where gibson has been going for years. whoever made the decision to make the auto tune thing mandatory on all models really ought to buy a bullet and rent a gun.

That was pretty funny dude. I didn't read everything posted above but I will when I've got some more free time. I tried one the other day and the guitar had an issue where the A had dropped in pitch so low to the point where it was extremely slack. The guitar was unable to bring the string up to tension, it took forever to figure it out. One of the biggest issues with this is that you can't really use the tuners manually, it just sounds like you're winding up a toy racecar with gears that don't do anything to tighten the string and bring it to pitch. I'm not really fond of it.

At this point, the only Gibsons I would buy would have to be a vintage Goldtop Deluxe, a 335 or a LP Special DC with p90s. They won't get any of my business on new gear.

Also, here's a good article a tech out in Seattle wrote regarding the changes.
http://mmguitarbar.com/2014/09/11/a-note-on-gibsons-recent-price-increase-and-spec-changes/
 


Top