[r ferrell (raven999)]

A Holt (Progressive Luddite), on 26 October 2010 - 02:44 PM, said:

Advance the design of the guitar just like Les did back in the day. Electrify a guitar? Insane!
Let's see advanced materials. Carbon fiber!
Entirely new ways to read strings. Maybe something that senses the whole string, not just a window of it.
Built in bays that you can pop your favorite effects in and out of in seconds.
Carbon strings that last for months!
Keep reissuing stuff all you want, however, if Gibson doesn't do something to innovate, someone else will!

Funny, Electra and Yamaha did much of those back in the 80's, didn't work then either.

[m dailey (milod)]

I think "we" have decided kinda that somewhere in the '60s guitar development was - or should be - frozen.

I dunno. That seems to hit lots of folks young enough to be my grandkids too. OTOH, ditto violins.

m

[r ferrell (raven999)]

To me it seems, that Les, and Ted, Leo, George, all the other guys that pioneered, the electric guitars, be they solid, semi, or even fully hollow bodied hit on just the right balance's, and that most of the "advances" since the mid-60's have all been fluff and nonsense, otherwise, why would certain designs and builds still continue, while others have fallen by the way side. Seriously people, things go away for a REASON. Sure, some things new come along, and if they're worthwhile, (active electronics, slim-taper, neck-thru, to name a few) but for the most part, the features that didn't survive through to the modern era, didn't because they were ****! Just because something is "vintage", or "old-school" does NOT mean it was worth a damn then, much less now. And also keep in mind that "new" or "progressive" was what they called some of the junk back then, too.

[V Kennedy (V Kennedy)]

If I saw one of these in a shop I'd buy it:

[K Gilbert (Kevin1960)]

m dailey (milod), on 24 September 2010 - 04:01 PM, said:

I dunno... This may sound silly, but...

I'm convinced that 30 percent of complaints about Gibbies - Epis or anything else for that matter - new in the box are a result of transportation/climate, etc. Another 30 percent is from retail store mistreatment and lack of post-transport setup.

Perhaps 20 percent is a combination of some other factor resulting in a legitimate short or long-term problem with product - or somebody who wouldn't be happy if they were hanged with a new rope.

The last 20 percent of some "reviews" I've seen on all kinds of guitar has resulted from new and/or younger players who seem almost to me to have an expectation that the guitar will be so perfect it almost plays itself. When the complaint is about strings on a new guitar I don't know whether to laugh or just shake my head.

So... I wonder if a "guitar 101" might not be a good idea to be plastered anywhere and everywhere possible, from web stores to Gibson web site... whereever it might be seen. You don't even need a CD - just a web address: "YOU MUST READ THIS."

What is setup. What about strings. How do different strings affect setup. How do you tune your guitar after a setup. What do you do if a tuning machine seems loose or...

A video that can be downloaded in, let's say five or six segments and is specifically oriented to a beginner and/or the beginner's parents. I got something similar on a CD, but it seemed more like a "general first guitar lesson" rather than "okay, you just unwrapped your new guitar of any brand - what should you expect."

Heck, no experienced player expects to use "factory" strings, do they? But oddly that seems to be a major complaint from web pages like Musicians Friend. The kid/family looking for a beginner guitar at any price point is in the same boat. I even wonder if some "bad pot" complaints aren't because they're turned down or off.

I dunno. Those who don't read have no advantage over those who can't - but I wonder if some "so you're interested in a new Gibson/Epi" set of vids and or web pages might not at least allow a disclaimer of "hey, we put factory strings on so the neck doesn't bend during transportation." Or <grin> "You can expect to need a setup in the U.K. because of climate differences compared to central North America affecting the wood."

It could also have a "Okay, while you're putting on your new 'low' E string, here's the tone you're looking for. Then...."

m

Having dealt with the public in a Customer Service Management role I love the "Hanged with a New Rope Comment". It is accurate as are your other speculations.

[S McGregor (duncan)]

J Alexander.

Here's what I would love to see not only just at NAMM as demos, but as actual production models.

LP Standards that have no weight relieving or chambering whatsoever.
LP Studios that have no weight relieving or chambering whatsoever.
RD Custom (not in silverburst), not weight relieved.
LP Doublecut that has no weight relieving or chambering whatsoever

I think you see a trend here.


The fact that I can't buy a modern LP that doesn't have half the wood cut out of it bothers me.


Oh, and bring back the Grabber bass.

[D Thompson (rockstar232007)]

A Holt (Progressive Luddite), on 26 October 2010 - 03:44 PM, said:

Advance the design of the guitar just like Les did back in the day. Electrify a guitar? Insane!
Let's see advanced materials. Carbon fiber!
Entirely new ways to read strings. Maybe something that senses the whole string, not just a window of it.
Built in bays that you can pop your favorite effects in and out of in seconds.
Carbon strings that last for months!
Keep reissuing stuff all you want, however, if Gibson doesn't do something to innovate, someone else will!

Someone else already did! And, they got the same reaction (cough*Fender*cough), well maybe not the same reaction, but they still got hosed on their "innovative" idea (the VG Strat).

What I would like to see is Gibson getting back to the basics guitar-wise. If they want to "innovate" anything they should shuv all of the "technology" from the Fireturd...I mean, "Firebird X" into a Goldtone amp (Goldtone V2), or better yet, release a line of pedals (like the POD XT, or the Digitech RP series, but preset with all of the classic Gibson tones from over the years).

[r akers (wrick)]

Did I hear a Les Paul with all that neck breaking,sweet tone like I the old days where?God I miss it

[I Stoddard (Low-B 5-String)]

S McGregor (duncan), on 02 November 2010 - 07:58 PM, said:

Here's what I would love to see not only just at NAMM as demos, but as actual production models.

LP Standards that have no weight relieving or chambering whatsoever.
LP Studios that have no weight relieving or chambering whatsoever.
RD Custom (not in silverburst), not weight relieved.
LP Doublecut that has no weight relieving or chambering whatsoever

I think you see a trend here.

The fact that I can't buy a modern LP that doesn't have half the wood cut out of it bothers me.

Oh, and bring back the Grabber bass.

+1 to each, except I'll take Silverburst on anything that isn't in Natural.

[C Webb (essgee)]

How about an EB3L Bass?

[m dailey (milod)]

I think one thing that strikes me as "interesting" about the new guitar and some of those leading up to it is the same thing exactly that bothered me very much nearly 50 years ago when I was first getting into playing "pop" music for money.

Amps are heavy. Period. Power equals weight, if not in the electronics, at least in the speaker systems involved.

In a sense, that's why I personally don't care all that much for big, heavy combo amps, nor for big, heavy cabs and oversized heads and...

So I'd object to the idea somewhat of putting all sorts of "stuff" into a Gibson amp as opposed to ... somewhere else.

The idea of separate piezos under each bridge saddle gives a lot of options all by itself; the electronics then to make various things happen are not anything crazy or even particularly new. Various other electronic options on a guitar seem to me to be a great idea limited only but that big bugaboo of all electronics, reliability.

I have nothing whatsoever against the idea of the new "X." In fact, I rather like the idea. I do wonder about the potential of interchangeable modules and I think to an extent that is being addressed with a "bus" that allows various stuff to be connected.

If one were to make significant changes to amplifiers, though, it would to me have to be in weight.

Or... since many of us are plugging into various boards and spending bundles on additional equipment to mike amps that lack line-out... I keep wondering why we keep buying amps at all in an electronic world.

Why shouldn't more effort go into making the guitar more versatile and a concurrent effort to make PA systems more practical and lightweight for sound produced to serve small bands ranging from an A-E two-mike duet up to a six or seven-piece rock band?

Why can't we have three to a half dozen "pieces" of amplification equipment, each weighing under 35 pounds, that can either break eardrums for a 500-seat venue or reproduce the subtle sounds of a jazz or A-E folkie performance?

m