[T Schmidt (trosse)]

Here comes the newest "get-a-laugh-message" from Gibsons marketing department, that more or less runs Gibson production:

It looks like that this department don't know much about the history of the electric guitar - judge it yourself. In the newest e-mail spread worldwide produced in the department you can read this ridicilous conclusion:

When it first hit the scene back in 1961, the Gibson SG (short for Solid Guitar) was the most radical design the electric guitar world had witnessed so far, and it still makes a bold statement today.

Hmmm... bold statement...hmmm the most radical design? Wonder if someone at Gibson should have heard the word Stratocaster??? (Or maybe they just don't like this word)

PS: BTW one of the most impressive details about this radical design always was, that it's quite neck heavy... (which Gibson do know as they put a chromed brass thing on the SG once and gave this hole new (radical?) design a cars name)

PPS: They must have heard the word Stratocaster btw - they did make a Jimi Hendrix signature... erh... sort-of-a-stratocaster. A bright logic marketing controlled strategy - with huge sale figures, we must believe

[J GGoerge (joey257)]

I don't know - to me the SG shape seems way more radical then the Strat shape...especially way back then with those sharp double horns. Les Paul was certainly freaked out about it when they tried to put his name on it.

[T Schmidt (trosse)]

J Galante (Johnny G), on 20 August 2010 - 01:06 PM, said:

I don't know - to me the SG shape seems way more radical then the Strat shape...especially way back then with those sharp double horns. Les Paul was certainly freaked out about it when they tried to put his name on it.

Gibson marketing put it this way: When it first hit the scene back in 1961, the Gibson SG (short for Solid Guitar) was the most radical design the electric guitar world had witnessed so far

No it wasn't - because the Stratocaster was around seven years before the SG and that guitar was the true radical departure from traditional guitar thinking, building, and shaping - which I believe Gibson marketing may have had in mind (what else?. The SG was Gibsons answer (I guess) to the Stratocaster.

Anyway it's alway stupid to use terms first, biggest, talest etc... the next day you will realize that there's something even more...

[B Bowden (Bobb)]

Personally, I would say that the Flying V, Explorer and Moderne were more radical designs than the SG. Those designs might not seem all that radical these days, but in 1957 you can bet that the guitar world thought that Ted McCarty had totally lost it.

[p carlino (jimihendrix)]

You have to put things in context of the time period...at a time when people dressed conservatively and the cold war was on along with the race to reach the moon...before the Beatles and the Stones...YES...the Gibson SG was a radical design for it's era...cretainly a departure for the Les Paul...

[m dailey (milod)]

Speaking as one who was around at the time...

The "F" brand stuff already had the glisten of bolt-on necks gone - and they weren't seen in ways as "the same thing" as a set neck guitar. The LP was a "board" guitar in ways, but in ways it also was an extension of the archtop.

So... here's a wild looking thing that still sounds pretty much like a Gibson was expected to sound, but without feedback, a set neck, kinda shaped and built like a real guitar but with access way up the neck...

Yeah, it was pretty radical. It had all the elements of a traditional guitar except it had a solid body. That was the difference, really.

In ways it's still radical - and in ways still more radical than other Gibson solidbody designs. You can make a case about the V, I guess... but...

m

[T Schmidt (trosse)]

m dailey (milod), on 20 August 2010 - 03:26 PM, said:

Speaking as one who was around at the time...

The "F" brand stuff already had the glisten of bolt-on necks gone - and they weren't seen in ways as "the same thing" as a set neck guitar. The LP was a "board" guitar in ways, but in ways it also was an extension of the archtop.

So... here's a wild looking thing that still sounds pretty much like a Gibson was expected to sound, but without feedback, a set neck, kinda shaped and built like a real guitar but with access way up the neck...

Yeah, it was pretty radical. It had all the elements of a traditional guitar except it had a solid body. That was the difference, really.

In ways it's still radical - and in ways still more radical than other Gibson solidbody designs. You can make a case about the V, I guess... but...
m

It's not at all a question about how we do understand the word radical... Gibson calls it the most radical design the electric guitar world had witnessed so far... so far??? So far are the key words in that sentence because it puts the SG into a time line that leaves the impression, that the SG was a first. But it wasn't. The most radical guitar design the world had witnessed so far took place seven years or so earlier - called the Stratocaster. That was a radical departure from tradition guitar design - and the SG was only Gibsons answer to that. The reason why they used a set neck was probably that a bolt on neck was too radical for Gibsons customers at the time. Glued in necks was what Gibson always had done. Another thing was to arrange all the electrical components on a single plastic scratch plate - an idea Gibson freely copied later for the SG and others - as well as they copied the bolt on neck on some models when then realized it was economically safe.

[J GGoerge (joey257)]

You're right - they stink!

(Gibson marketing, that is)

[p carlino (jimihendrix)]

C'mon...show some love for the Gibson SG...

[T Schmidt (trosse)]

p carlino (jimihendrix), on 20 August 2010 - 05:40 PM, said:

C'mon...show some love for the Gibson SG...

I love SG's... I've even owned a few over the years (and played them too). So - I think it's my relationship with Gibson Marketing Department that's stroke by a few fuzz tones. I wonder if Henry Juszkiewitcz check all those chromed words they pump out. Personally I would pull the break if I were in his shoes. I think they make fool of themselves in this blind chasing money.

And I'm gonna say it again: Concentrate on building quality guitars. I Gibson managed to get quality up where it were they don't need that massive marketing hype. As fast as we find out about dropping qualities we will know and telle everyone when things become superb.

[M Weaver (Awfers)]

p carlino (jimihendrix), on 20 August 2010 - 05:40 PM, said:

C'mon...show some love for the Gibson SG...

Agree, the guitar itself is great. (it's on my list as the guitar to buy with my year-end bonus)



The Marketing.. Well...... I think that's a bit weak....

[M Weaver (Awfers)]

T Schmidt (trosse), on 20 August 2010 - 06:32 PM, said:

I love SG's... I've even owned a few over the years (and played them too). So - I think it's my relationship with Gibson Marketing Department that's stroke by a few fuzz tones. I wonder if Henry Juskiewitz check all those chromed words they pump out. Personally I would pull the break if I were in his shoes. I think they make fool of themselves in this blind chasing money.

And I'm gonna say it again: Concentrate on building quality guitars. I Gibson managed to get quality up where it were they don't need that massive marketing hype. As fast as we find out about dropping qualities we will know and telle everyone when things become superb.

Please put a sticky on the post quoted above...

[A Jordan (vortexx)]

Well... the sideways vibrato is still ahead of it's time. The flying V was more radical than the stratocaster.

[S Tari (Steven Tari)]

[attachment=40:th_11.jpg] This is a picture of a Gibson Kalamazoo KG-2a. It was made to look like a Strate to me. But it didn't stay around to long and the body style was changed to a SG. I still play mine all the time. The melody maker pup's gives it that old 60's sound. I still wonder if they had to change it, but like the licks of a tottsie pop, I guess the world will never know.

[Z Gentle (Z Alex Gentle)]

T Schmidt (trosse), on 19 August 2010 - 11:40 PM, said:

Here comes the newest "get-a-laugh-message" from Gibsons marketing department, that more or less runs Gibson production:

It looks like that this department don't know much about the history of the electric guitar - judge it yourself. In the newest e-mail spread worldwide produced in the department you can read this ridicilous conclusion:

When it first hit the scene back in 1961, the Gibson SG (short for Solid Guitar) was the most radical design the electric guitar world had witnessed so far, and it still makes a bold statement today.

Hmmm... bold statement...hmmm the most radical design? Wonder if someone at Gibson should have heard the word Stratocaster??? (Or maybe they just don't like this word)

PS: BTW one of the most impressive details about this radical design always was, that it's quite neck heavy... (which Gibson do know as they put a chromed brass thing on the SG once and gave this hole new (radical?) design a cars name)

PPS: They must have heard the word Stratocaster btw - they did make a Jimi Hendrix signature... erh... sort-of-a-stratocaster. A bright logic marketing controlled strategy - with huge sale figures, we must believe

All I can add is I recall the Beatles short video of Paperback Writer that came out (and I think previewed on the Ed Sullivan show) in 1966; George Harrison was playing a heritage cherry SG Maestro and I remember thinking Harrison's SG was about the coolest thing I had ever seen. I got my first SG Maestro a year later to play in a garage band, that ended up doing proms and parties, and such. Been an SG enthusiast ever since. Always will be.

[P Petiniot (Blues4U)]

I don't know if they were the most radical design, but they sure are cool and nice:)

[T Schmidt (trosse)]

Z Gentle (Z Alex Gentle), on 21 August 2010 - 09:24 PM, said:

All I can add is I recall the Beatles short video of Paperback Writer that came out (and I think previewed on the Ed Sullivan show) in 1966; George Harrison was playing a heritage cherry SG Maestro and I remember thinking Harrison's SG was about the coolest thing I had ever seen. I got my first SG Maestro a year later to play in a garage band, that ended up doing proms and parties, and such. Been an SG enthusiast ever since. Always will be.

I do agree.
But my point is not about the SG itself - but about Gibsons strange lack of historical guitar knowledge. The Stratocaster was around seven years before the SG. So the SG cannot - in 1961 - be the most radical guitar design the world had witnessed so far. Right? But that's what Gibson stupidly say.

Producing such nonsense Gibsom leaves the impression of being a guitar company without history. And they actually litterally are. Because if you ask them questions about their technical roots for instance - including the CEO - then the answers is "Sorry, but we left all the papers in Kalamazoo".

They sure did. They left Gibson spirit, and Gibson build quality too. But then go back an get it for god sake. You need it. Get to your roots or Gibson continue as the worlds biggest company for making Gibson copies - if you see what I mean.

When it comes to the SG itself it is btw not the most radical guitar design the world had witnessed. It's a rather traditional design - and was as well already in 1961 - with a glued in neck, two pickups and hardware taken directly from Gibsom designs that were already around in 1961 and had been for a while. It's basicly a shaved down Les Paul (the maple shaved off) given a Stratocaster inspired outline and ergonomically features.

So it's simply rubbish - and why shall we - who pay grotesque money for these guitars - contribute finansial to such nonsense they produce in the marketing department. If Gibson cut these expenses off then Gibsons could be a lot cheaper - even still being the most expensive guitars on planet Earth stimulating the impression that they also are the guitars of the highest quality.

[J GGoerge (joey257)]

Shoot - all this hype for the SG now I have to try one! I avoided it because it was a bit too radical for me with the horns and all, but now I look and they do have a certain appeal (and I don't have 1!).

Hmmm...and of course what's the 1st thing to pop up at the Gibson site? An SG Standard! Fate???

[m dailey (milod)]

The reason I wrote in support of the comment is from a pretty broad-stroked general perspective and living through some of the era:

The Broadcaster, then later "F" guitars were, as I saw them in the late 50s, kinda inevitable extensions of the sorta thing that had been around quite a while in terms of stuff bolted together as a sort of electric guitar. Rickenbacker's frying pan was pretty much along those lines much as a wooden banjo neck would be attached to a metal rim. Various switch arrays were available for car accessories at the time that aren't that unlike stuff on Fenders even as Gibson knobs mostly were through the wood of the body.

Gibson, meanwhile, initially was in the game with electrified archtop variations. The ES175 is too small really for acoustic playing in "bands" of the era in which it evolved. As an electric it was ... almost revolutionary. The LP, in effect, in appearance was a small archtop made of more or less solid wood with various holes in the wood for the electrical stuff. That was pretty radical too.

The SG - initially the replacement for the LP, had a guitar shape but with double cutaways, set neck and the knobs were in the wood as on an archtop rather than on a piece of metal or plastic. In a design sense it's a "board guitar" that combines much of the best of the set neck tradition and the lightweight, anti-feedback benefits of a solid piece of body material.

"Radical design" is a term can be taken in a number of ways. One might make a case that virtually all electric guitar designs up to, say 1962 or 3, were pretty radical. Not much has changed since then. A thin archtop with a board down the middle? Without the pickups it'd be worthless, but it certainly worked out well.

Living through the nascent "rock era" involved many, many changes and experiments and dead ends that sometimes returned a decade later and sometimes didn't. Amplification and expectations of amplification brought much of that.

But one might note that consistent "steel" strings to replace gut for the violin family may have been a more radical change. It allowed larger audiences for orchestral works in the baroque era - and led to new kinds of guitar. All that was thanks to better wire making technology.

m

[T Schmidt (trosse)]

m dailey (milod), on 22 August 2010 - 10:48 PM, said:

The reason I wrote in support of the comment is from a pretty broad-stroked general perspective and living through some of the era:

The Broadcaster, then later "F" guitars were, as I saw them in the late 50s, kinda inevitable extensions of the sorta thing that had been around quite a while in terms of stuff bolted together as a sort of electric guitar. Rickenbacker's frying pan was pretty much along those lines much as a wooden banjo neck would be attached to a metal rim. Various switch arrays were available for car accessories at the time that aren't that unlike stuff on Fenders even as Gibson knobs mostly were through the wood of the body.

Gibson, meanwhile, initially was in the game with electrified archtop variations. The ES175 is too small really for acoustic playing in "bands" of the era in which it evolved. As an electric it was ... almost revolutionary. The LP, in effect, in appearance was a small archtop made of more or less solid wood with various holes in the wood for the electrical stuff. That was pretty radical too.

The SG - initially the replacement for the LP, had a guitar shape but with double cutaways, set neck and the knobs were in the wood as on an archtop rather than on a piece of metal or plastic. In a design sense it's a "board guitar" that combines much of the best of the set neck tradition and the lightweight, anti-feedback benefits of a solid piece of body material.

"Radical design" is a term can be taken in a number of ways. One might make a case that virtually all electric guitar designs up to, say 1962 or 3, were pretty radical. Not much has changed since then. A thin archtop with a board down the middle? Without the pickups it'd be worthless, but it certainly worked out well.

Living through the nascent "rock era" involved many, many changes and experiments and dead ends that sometimes returned a decade later and sometimes didn't. Amplification and expectations of amplification brought much of that.

But one might note that consistent "steel" strings to replace gut for the violin family may have been a more radical change. It allowed larger audiences for orchestral works in the baroque era - and led to new kinds of guitar. All that was thanks to better wire making technology.

m

Still it's not the words most radical I'm after - but "the most radical design the world had witnessed so far...". No it wasn't the most radical design so far...

The word radical to describe the SG guitar itself - hmmm... is not the first word that comes to my mind either - unless of course somebody think that if you do things the way you always did is radical: Set neck, controls in the wood, two pickups, tune-o-matic bridge, stop tail piece. Is that radical? No. And a solid double cut away body wasn't either in 1961. far from actually!