They've GOT to stop the madness!!!!

[Hall]

All of which are at most minor variants of his designs, built on his production line. There haven't been any significant changes made ... yet.

 

-- Bob R

 

And that is noteworthy. Thanks, Bob. The reminder is timely.

[EuroAussie]

But, but ... its a Taylor, have you lost your marbles !!

 

Oooo...we're gonna have to agree to disagree on that one. I love my dark Gibby burst, but this is neither boring nor screwed up --

 

 

P

[krbagman]

Sorry if it has already been mentioned but........I thought I saw a used J-45 Kris Kristofferson at GC about a year ago.

 

Ken <><

[Phelonious Ponk]

But, but ... its a Taylor, have you lost your marbles !!

 

It is a Taylor. With a great burst. I don't dislike Taylors, myself. I owned one for years, a small one, an 812c. And while a big Taylor would never replace my Gibson, that little Taylor was a great guitar. If wanted to keep a guitar around just for finger picking, particularly in open turnings, and I didn't have the coin for something like a Lowden or a Ryan, Taylor would be the top of my list. I don't prefer Gibsons because they are universally the best guitars in the world, I prefer them because they are the best match to the music I play most.

 

P

[Guth]

I don't prefer Gibsons because they are universally the best guitars in the world, I prefer them because they are the best match to the music I play most.

 

This is the perfect explanation of why I play the specific GIbsons that I've personally selected over the years. It also explains why I've stuck with my current three Gibsons for as long as I have, with no changes to be made for the foreseeable future.

[Phelonious Ponk]

This is the perfect explanation of why I play the specific GIbsons that I've personally selected over the years. It also explains why I've stuck with my current three Gibsons for as long as I have, with no changes to be made for the foreseeable future.

 

What are your three and what style do the fit best?

 

P

[ParlourMan]

I don't prefer Gibsons because they are universally the best guitars in the world, I prefer them because they are the best match to the music I play most.

 

 

Probably one of the most valid personal opinions I've read on here... Good for you, man.

I like them for the growl and rumble, plus also being a bit of a shallow bastard and dedicated dandy I do think they look the business too.

 

While I'm not a great fan of Taylor's modern looks it's the sound & feel I'm not in to. Well enough made guitars and all that but just not the ones for me. However as I put very little importance on others perspectives I would expect others to feel the same about my tuppenceworth.

[Phelonious Ponk]

Probably one of the most valid personal opinions I've read on here... Good for you, man.

I like them for the growl and rumble, plus also being a bit of a shallow bastard and dedicated dandy I do think they look the business too.

 

While I'm not a great fan of Taylor's modern looks it's the sound & feel I'm not in to. Well enough made guitars and all that but just not the ones for me. However as I put very little importance on others perspectives I would expect others to feel the same about my tuppenceworth.

 

ARE YOU READY TO RUMBLE!!!!!?

 

Yeah, me too. I never quite got the growl metaphor, but big Gibsons have this big, broad midrange that makes them all chunky and chewy and delicious for rock and country and things that go bumpity bump bump in the night. And just as important, to me anyway, is that the best of them have a pretty small helping of the treble overtones that give Taylors their sparkle, and they fill that space with volume, projection, and big, fat round notes, even from the unwound strings. I have played some that have a lot of jangle in them. They're fine-sounding guitars, but they're not coming home with me. That's not what I want a Gibson for. I told this story the other day, but one of the most "Gibson" Gibsons I've played in years was a brand new J-100 I picked up a couple of weeks ago in Sam Ash. Sounded huge.

 

P

[fortyearspickn]

Probably one of the most valid personal opinions I've read on here... Good for you, man.

I like them for the growl and rumble, plus also being a bit of a shallow bastard and dedicated dandy I do think they look the business too.

 

While I'm not a great fan of Taylor's modern looks it's the sound & feel I'm not in to. Well enough made guitars and all that but just not the ones for me. However as I put very little importance on others perspectives I would expect others to feel the same about my tuppenceworth.

 

Agree. It is curious how some tastes develop, whether acoustics, cars, liquor, women, or, dare I say, politics? Many who prefer scotch can't stand bourbon. But, to the point - you described exactly how I feel about Taylor's. So, I won't try to repeat or restate and probably water it down. The point, as I know you know, being a shoe aficionado rivaled only by Imelda Marcos, is that there are literally millions who love Taylor's above Gibsons, so there is obviously nothing at all wrong with them. It is purely a subjective taste, touchy-feely thing - impossible to defend in a court of law or a science lab. I respect Taylor's, Martins, etc. but I'd rather have an "entry level" Gibson than a high end Taylor. Don't know if that is a blind spot, chauvinism or a politically incorrect from of bias. But I think it is a part of what I see as my "identity". Along with Tequila, bow-legged women, Fords and all the possible variations of The J45.

[fortyearspickn]

OWF,

For your consideration. The J45 Custom Mystic Rosewood. If a guitar builder finds an especially delicious pallet of rosewood, should they just slap it on every and any guitar coming down the line, or should they concentrate it in one particular run, so those of us here who look for something special and are on a quest, would be able to find and try out those guitars? The alternative is having a wider variation in the existing models and drawing flack from some here who abhor inconsistencies in the same models?

I can hear it now. "I was in the GC and there were two AJ models and it looked like the b/s of each was different wood. They both sounded different to me. Are these the same model?"

I think it is the customer's responsibility to become educated on the naming conventions used by the guitar builder, or beware of buying a rosewood J45 because he foolishly thought all J45s were identical hogs. Phylum, Class, Order, Family. Few of us would plunk down $2k for a "sheepdog" without figuring out which one of a couple of dozen sheepdog breeds had the characteristics they wanted. So, my conclusion after 6 pages is: A. The guitar maker has the right to name his products however he chooses, this is Much Ado About Nothing. (Or was it just meant to be purely humorous after all ? )

[nodehopper]

OWF makes a very valid point that I think has gotten lost in all the rhetoric and grandstanding in this thread.

 

Gibson is obviously in the top three guitar makers worldwide. OWF is pointing out that they are pretty much resting on their laurels and instead of innovating they are regurgitating. OWF concludes this is marketing guys in slick suits to blame. We don't really know, but hey when I saw that Gold Top J-45 a few minutes before reading this thread... I was already at a loss on what Gibson is doing these days.

 

Heck I am the proud new owner of a New J-35 and I love the thing and yes I know it is a regurgitation of the past. I am guilty of loving Gibson Acoustic Guitars, but still I would love to see some innovation coming out of Bozeman.

 

In example: why isn't Gibson a leader in creating new and innovative models using sustainable non-traditional woods. Or an all North American wood guitar. A strong R&D team working on this would be great for the future of acoustic guitars and show a leadership role for Gibson.

 

Or technology-wise why haven't they created a neck joint that can be adjusted and never needs to be reset?

 

I get that we Gibby Acoustic fans tend to be traditionalist, but still I think we want to also see Gibson as a company looking forward and creating new and cutting edge designs that meld tradition with the present so that we can see Gibson moving forward.

 

When I saw that J-45 Gold Top I didn't for a second think that a top Luthier at Gibson was sitting at his bench drawing up plans for the next generation of Acoustic guitar and in a moment if inspiration thought ..."Yah Gold Top" ....that was a slicky Marketing guy all the way.

[capmaster]

I admit that it's due to personal taste, but I don't like gold tops at all. There interestingly are some all gold guitars which I find do look better, such as the Epiphone Jack Casady signature bass and the Fender Telecaster, although I don't really like them. I just prefer all gold over black (J. C. bass) or Arizona Orange (Tele).

[ParlourMan]

....being a shoe aficionado rivaled only by Imelda Marcos

 

She was certainly flawed, but is somewhat of an inspiration for reasons mentioned.

 

Just back from town and scored another two pairs today. Happy days.

[fortyearspickn]

She was certainly flawed, but is somewhat of an inspiration for reasons mentioned.

 

Just back from town and scored another two pairs today. Happy days.

 

Good four you!

[fortyearspickn]

OWF makes a very valid point that I think has gotten lost in all the rhetoric and grandstanding in this thread.

 

Gibson is obviously in the top three guitar makers worldwide. OWF is pointing out that they are pretty much resting on their laurels and instead of innovating they are regurgitating. OWF concludes this is marketing guys in slick suits to blame. We don't really know, but hey when I saw that Gold Top J-45 a few minutes before reading this thread... I was already at a loss on what Gibson is doing these days.

 

Heck I am the proud new owner of a New J-35 and I love the thing and yes I know it is a regurgitation of the past. I am guilty of loving Gibson Acoustic Guitars, but still I would love to see some innovation coming out of Bozeman.

 

In example: why isn't Gibson a leader in creating new and innovative models using sustainable non-traditional woods. Or an all North American wood guitar. A strong R&D team working on this would be great for the future of acoustic guitars and show a leadership role for Gibson.

 

Or technology-wise why haven't they created a neck joint that can be adjusted and never needs to be reset?

 

I get that we Gibby Acoustic fans tend to be traditionalist, but still I think we want to also see Gibson as a company looking forward and creating new and cutting edge designs that meld tradition with the present so that we can see Gibson moving forward.

 

When I saw that J-45 Gold Top I didn't for a second think that a top Luthier at Gibson was sitting at his bench drawing up plans for the next generation of Acoustic guitar and in a moment if inspiration thought ..."Yah Gold Top" ....that was a slicky Marketing guy all the way.

 

I don't remember OWF stating this complaint. Regardless, wasn't it Gibson and Les Paul that pioneered the electric guitar? I guess you're angry with both the Marketing Suits and the Engineering Suits then. R&D is a department that plays an important part in some industries. Electronics, cell phones, autos..... But not as much in other industries . Why should the clothing industry invent new closures. Let someone else discover things like Velcro and then just figure out if their is a way to use it. The laws of physics sort of make it hard to invent a new way of building a centuries old design. I think your point deserves a new thread, but has nothing to do with the question of whether there should be so many variations in the J45 family of acoustic guitars.

[zombywoof]

I don't remember OWF stating this complaint. Regardless, wasn't it Gibson and Les Paul that pioneered the electric guitar?

 

Les Paul created his "Log" at the Epiphone factory around 1940. But he was not even close to being the first to work with the idea. Ric came up with the first marketable solid body electric (albeit a lap guitar) more than a decade earlier and was making a hollow body electric (some with a vibrato tailpiece) by the mid-1930s. As far as production of a solid body electric, Paul Bigsby came out with what I believe was the first one in 1948.

[Red 333]

Not even close. Ric came up with the first marketable solid body electric (albeit a lap guitar) and was making a hollow body electric (some with a vibrato tailpiece) by the mid-1930s. Paul Bigsby came out with what I believe was the the first solid body electric guitar (made for Merle Travis) in 1948.

 

Just as point of interest, the first solid-body guitar made of wood (and he first Spanish-style, I think) was produced by Vivi-Tone of Kalamzoo, MI in 1934. The earlier Ro-Pat-Ins (which later became Rickenbaker) and Nationals (which were lap-steel type guitars) were made from bakelite or aluminum.

 

Interestingly, Vivi-Tone was founded by Lloyd Loar after he left Gibson, where he had for years been experimenting with pick-up and electric guitar designs.

 

Gibson's first commercially produced electric guitar (an archtop) was the ES-150, in 1936.

 

Red 333

[zombywoof]

Credit for designing, building and selling the first solid body electrics often goes to a guy named Paul Tutmarc who was making "Spanish" guitars using black walnut around 1931. By 1933 he was also making an electric bass. Story goes he had the patent papers drawn up but balked at spending the couple of hundred bucks required to file them.

[fortyearspickn]

Wowsers. I guess I should have said Les Paul invented the first solid body, viable, marketable electric guitar and then worked with Gibson to take them from being a one-off novelty item to a musical instrument used and wanted by the masses. You know, like the Wright Brothers invented the airplane, and not that guy you see on TV in old fblack and whit film clips with the bicycle with wings that takes of from a barn roof.

 

http://www.guitarzzz.com/2008/who-invented-the-first-electric-guitar/

[Red 333]

Wowsers. I guess I should have said Les Paul invented the first solid body, viable, marketable electric guitar...

 

http://www.guitarzzz.com/2008/who-invented-the-first-electric-guitar/

 

Leo Fender did that.

 

But Les Paul was certainly one of the pioneers and most influential figures in the development and adoption of guitar electrification and amplification, multi-track recording, and a host of other things, as well.

 

Red 333

[Red 333]

Credit for designing, building and selling the first solid body electrics often goes to a guy named Paul Tutmarc who was making "Spanish" guitars using black walnut around 1931. By 1933 he was also making an electric bass. Story goes he had the patent papers drawn up but balked at spending the couple of hundred bucks required to file them.

 

 

Tutmarc's story is interesting. Like many others, he experimented early with pickup designs. In 1931, he and a guy named Art Stimson developed a blade-type pickup, and amplified Tutmarc's flattop guitar with it. Before they tried to manufacture or sell the pickup, though, Tutmarc and Stinson invested $300 (a lot of money on those days. Today, too!) on a patent search, to make sure their design would be protected if they chose to go into business.

 

They were advised by their lawyers that their design was non-patentable, as the Bell telephone company and others had patents on similar types of designs already. In fact, it was the way telephones worked that had inspired the direction of their experimentation (as well as Les Paul's and others'.)

 

Thinking that their invention was a bust and they could not profit from it, Tutmarc and Stinson split up.

 

In 1933, Dobro began selling their All-Electic model, which had metal parts and a blade pick up manufactured by Ro-Pat-Ins. Later, to his dismay, Tutmarc would learn that Dobro had filed a 1933 patent application for the design of a guitar with a pickup, which apparently WAS patentable, instead of just a pickup--which he had been told was unpatentable. The worse thing of it all was the patent application listed his ex-partner, Art Stimson! He had sold his and Tutmark's design to Dobro for $600.

 

Tutmark continued to experiment with amplifying instruments (including basses), and in 1934 started the Audiovox Manufacturing Company, which made lapsteels among other things. In 1935, Audiovox began making cello-sized electric basses, and a few of the walnut solid-body guitars mentioned above. They never really caught on, though, as Audiovox had no national distribution agreements, apparently.

 

Red 333

[fortyearspickn]

70 years from now, people will believe Al Gore invented the internet.

[nodehopper]

I don't remember OWF stating this complaint. Regardless, wasn't it Gibson and Les Paul that pioneered the electric guitar? I guess you're angry with both the Marketing Suits and the Engineering Suits then. R&D is a department that plays an important part in some industries. Electronics, cell phones, autos..... But not as much in other industries . Why should the clothing industry invent new closures. Let someone else discover things like Velcro and then just figure out if their is a way to use it. The laws of physics sort of make it hard to invent a new way of building a centuries old design. I think your point deserves a new thread, but has nothing to do with the question of whether there should be so many variations in the J45 family of acoustic guitars.

 

Fortyears. OWF I believe was making a point with his list of various J-45 models and then a few posts later gave a better explanation of his opinions...

 

Like I said in another post,the last true NEW model Gibson came out with was the 2003 Songwriter.....everything else, a different dress on the same models.....Where is the innovation spirit??? Why not try a baritone, a 13 fret model, carbon fiber, new bracing patterns. Man, I'll bet Ren is like a kid in a candy store, able to try many new things over at Guild, not so encumbered with tradition and rigid thinking and limited by marketing deciders.

 

Just because a design is centuries old doesn't mean that innovation is impossible. It takes a leader in an industry to make innovating that design a PRIORITY, finding talented people and then doing the dirty work of R&D. How old was the design of the violin when Stradivarius hit his golden era. How old was the Mandolin when Lloyd Loar Started working for Gibson?

 

I am not "angry with both the Marketing Suits and the Engineering Suits then." I just agree with OWF on this.... I am also not happy the way that Gibson has basically gotten rid of Mom & Pop Dealers. When looking for my J-35 two stores that had previously been Gibson dealers both said that due to Gibson's Dealer policies they no longer carry Gibson and I ended up at a Guitar Center where I had terrible customer service. - I know ...a different topic altogether

 

Love those Gibson Guitars....Right now I think Gibson is making better guitars than Martin in my opinion, but the company does have some issues.

[MissouriPicker]

Good, good discussion. Lots of commonsense.

[bobouz]

As far as production of a solid body electric, Paul Bigsby came out with what I believe was the first one in 1948.

Bigsby's guitar built for Merle Travis was actually a solid neck-through-body design with hollow wings. Basically, he took Les Paul's Epiphone log idea one giant step further, and gave both Fender & Gibson a major glimpse into their futures.

 

Leo of course denied that Bigsby's guitar had any influence on his own design, but you know he was aware of Merle playing it in & around LA - launching one of the guitar world's most significant cases of headstock envy!