HP 635 W demo

[JuanCarlosVejar]

Folks,

 

 

Check it out:

 

 

 

 

 

JC

[EuroAussie]

Seriously .... it looks and sounds like a Taylor. Its thin, light and just dont sound like a Gibson.

 

Awful.

[MorrisrownSal]

I think it sounds pleasing... It doesnt sound like a Bird of J45; sounds more like a Martin or Taylor in that Performing Arts genre, which is its goal. I just would not call it thin EA... Respectfully.

 

I would not want the richlite though...

[vacamartin]

Like some have stated...."Looks and sounds like a Taylor"....not a bad thing, but where'd the Gibson go? 16 neck radius?....no thanks......at least the tuners aren't automatics!

[OldCowboy]

Sooo.... Let's see if I'm following all this.... Here we have a Gibson guitar that sounds like a Taylor on purpose. Meant to appeal to? Gibson owners who are really closet wannabe Taylor owners? Taylor owners who are really closet wannabe Gibson owners? But.... Taylor Guitars already sound like Taylors. Why are all those people in the closet? Maybe it's for Taylor owners who are tired of dealing with Taylor necks? The marketing/design crews must have dreamed this one up at last year's Christmas party - or maybe they got together on New Year's Eve?

[JuanCarlosVejar]

To me this still sounds like a Gibson.

Very different from the normal legendary designs but still a Gibson.

 

People complained that Gibson made 1000 versions of the J 45 ...And now that they have come up with something new and exciting some of you guys won't even give it a chance.

 

 

I would like to see one of these played by Larry (The Missouri Picker) He could probably do one of these justice.

 

 

I am intrigued by this model myself

 

 

 

JC

[OldCowboy]

To me this still sounds like a Gibson.

Very different from the normal legendary designs but still a Gibson.

 

People complained that Gibson made 1000 versions of the J 45 ...And now that they have come up with something new and exciting some of you guys won't even give it a chance.

 

 

I would like to see one of these played by Larry (The Missouri Picker) He could probably do one of these justice.

 

 

I am intrigued by this model myself

 

 

 

JC

Can't speak for anyone else, but don't take my initial reactions too seriously. There are a few things about which I'm a hardcore traditionalist - many, according to my wife - and I'm still trying to come to grips with accepted realities like pickups in acoustic guitars.

[Buc McMaster]

This seems to be a Gibson model for a new generation of guitarist and does appear to mimic Taylor.........and that's okay with me. I'll not buy one, being the traditionalist I am, but I can't fault the company for trying to broaden their market share. The scaled down body and factory electronics may well appeal to 20-something performers and I'd guess this is the market Gibson is after with this model. And Juan, it's the traditionalists among us that rant about 50 versions of the J-45 that just don't seem necessary.......and do seem silly. At what point is it no longer a J-45 but in name? Gibson can design and market any manner of guitar they choose, but diluting their own history is what sticks in the craw.

[MissouriPicker]

Juan, I appreciate the compliment within your suggestion, but in all sincerity, I have absolutely no interest in this kind of guitar or the kind of music they just played with it. The only justice I could do for it is return it if I was foolish enough to bring it home. And in all honesty, I don't do justice to any guitar...lol.... I understand Gibson wanting to appeal to the "new age" style of music/tones, but it's on another planet from what interests me. I'm pretty much along the line of what Buc describes himself as: a traditionalist, and I also agree with everything Buc says in his post..... Also, I do think it sounds on the thin side and has the Taylor tone (and there's nothing wrong with that if it's what one likes. Plus it's likely what Gibson wants from this instrument). I just don't identify with it. Likewise, I don't really go for the thin bodies. I definitely lean toward the dreads and bigger sized guitars. That Eric Church "so-called" Hummingbird is a great looking instrument, but the thin body kills it for me. Don't know why they called it a Hummingbird. Sounds okay, but certainly doesn't have that threatening yet sweet tone of a Hummingbird. Perhaps "Baby Bird" or a new model name or something like Baby Taylor. Anyway, I typically avoid anything that reminds me of the Taylor sound, and this HP635 reminds me of that. And my view has nothing to do with the likely quality of the instrument. It's just not me.

[Lukec88]

Thinner body, maple neck.. I think this combination gives little bit brighter tone.. they should leave at least body depth the same.

 

Here is another video of new HP line:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txbfrIWaf-I

[blindboygrunt]

If the restaurant next door is stealing customers you can do two things , try harder to make better food in your own , or buy the restaurant next door as well .

 

 

 

I'm fairly sure that this is Gibson flashing it's name at a separate market than us boring farts in here who don't want anything to change . But for every guy who can't see anything else in the shop but a hummingbird there are 4 guys who think they look god awful

 

 

Taylor sell lots of guitars and to me this guitar would attract the same guy who is attracted to a Taylor / Yamaha / humfydink4

[JuanCarlosVejar]

I am also a traditionalist.All the guitars I own are the legends we know and love (with exception of 2 15" jumbos) .But I still want to give these a chance

 

 

 

 

Btw I loved the fact that they would build different variants.

 

 

 

 

JC

[MissouriPicker]

I hope Gibson sells a great many of this new model. I want the company to "kick butt and take names." I have no issues with the countless variants, aside from many (most?) of them being so different from their namesake that they should be called something different. They're all excellent guitars and with new names could have already been appealing to different generations of buyers. I've heard many times in here that the J45 and Southern Jumbo are the same guitar, except for cosmetics? SO, why so many different J45s now (along the J200s and the birds)? For example, had Gibson named some of these variants differently, they might already be attracting the interest of those who think every guitar called a J45 is a J45 like the model they're not interested in......At least they didn't call this new guitar a J45 thin-body-walnut-cut-a-way.

 

[scared]

[EuroAussie]

Interesting mix of responses and i want to build on mine. I fully understand the marketing perspective of driving penetration (i.e acquiring new buyers to the brand). My day job is in marketing & advertising strategy and driving penetration is the No1 growth strategy any business can appply.

 

Hence i get that to appeal to a broader 'category user' who might for example favour Taylors, be possibly younger and less stuck on tradition, and with the right price point Gibson may well achieve their penetration objectives.

 

Martin did that with their R2D23CPO models or whatever they were called and it seemed to have been a relative success for them.

 

My main point is that from a purely personal perspective I dont like them at all, as they dont sound like Gibson to me. From a business perspective it may well be a winning strategy.

[rbpicker]

I think they sound fine for the market they are trying to reach. Better, to me, than a Taylor..more Gibson-like and a little warmer. I hope they sell a ton of them, as long as the don't screw around with the current lineup of guitars that we love so much.

 

Maybe younger folks who buy these instruments will migrate to the traditional models as they age.

 

RB

[rbpicker]

Oops, duplicate post.

[kidblast]

IMHO, that guitar sounded fine... for the asking price (1,800 USD) it's a decent setup.

 

I happen to own a very nice Taylor GS Jumbo, I love the way it plays and sounds.

 

Truth be know, the J200 does what it does, and the GS J does what it does... I'm very happy with both.

[mountainpicker]

They aren't my cup of tea in any way but I have to applaud the drive towards tonewoods from North America. I think they reveal the future of the materials that will be used in acoustic guitars. Makes me think of that scene in Blade Runner where Deckard asks the girl if her snake is real and she scoffs and exclaims something like, "What? Do you think I'm rich or something?" In fifty years people will look at the fret boards on most of our guitars and exclaim, "...and look, the fret board is real wood not Richlite!" I question the flatter board for younger players. It might be easier to bend strings but as a beginner I remember having the hardest time learning to barre on guitars with flat boards and string bending wasn't even on my radar at that point in my playing (makes me wonder all the features you'd want built into a guitar designed to make learning to play a steel string as easy as possible?). But I get that as a company Gibson has to keep throwing things out there to see what might be the next real money maker.

[kidblast]

It's a guitar for crying out loud. And a good sounding one.. Really guys, come back to the mother ship... lol