When will Gibson design a new solid-body shape?

[ibis]

Why doesn't Gibson try and come up with some new, really cool solid body shapes? All I've seen recently are GOTW Reverse V's, Reverse Explorers and now this hole-ridden V, whatever its official moniker.

 

Its almost as if they are too afraid to add a new design.

 

In the past there was the Blueshawk/Nighthawk (just a shrunken single LP single cut). Now deleted due to poor sales.

 

Further back was the M3. That was a radical superstrat (oops, wrong word) with a stupid neck. Now deleted due to poor sales.

 

I see other companies / independant luthiers trying out new designs. Some are gross, some are derivative but some are interesting. The only thing stopping me paying out my cash is the lack of a Gibson logo!

 

With GOTW issues seemingly being a rehash of existing combinations and permutations to the point where insanity starts to creep in, wouldn't it be better to experiment with some new shapes? I know they would be expensive, de facto custom shop runs but the company wouldn't need to spend millions on a new producy launch unless the reaction to a new shape GOTW was ecstatic. It would be a way of doing cheap market research in order to find your next killer product. Anyhow, whatever the price of the first run examples, I'm sure collectors would hoover them up regardless.

 

At present, Gibson can only be described as conservative. Can it really rely on its historic lines for ever?

 

I'd love to see some new shapes!

 

For a start, how about 'improving' the double-cut Les Paul? There is something not quite right with its shape, especially when compared to the beautiful lines of a Hamer Studio Custom. I'd like to see the shape revisted and revised, comfort chamfers on back, full body and neck binding on a slightly thinner/lighter body, coil tappable buckers with a 4-pot LP control layout. Plus a neck joint where top fret access was as good as an SG!

 

Perhaps we should doodle some shapes and post them here?

[Tim Plains]

How about this Longhorn? That's a pretty cool design.

 

I see your point...but honestly, why would they? Gibson's designs have thus far withstood the test of time. The Les Paul bldy style has been around for nearly 60 years...60 years, man!! It's still the most appealing guitar I've ever seen.. I used to love SGs more than anything...but now I've crossed over to the LP side.

[ibis]

That's new to me! I missed that Longhorn completely!

 

Oh well, I recant!! At least they are trying.

 

Can't say the Longhorn shape does it for me - I'd file it under Burns Bison style clunkyness. The top horn worries me.

 

Would be good for Texas cowboy redneck rock 'n roll!

 

Its more Rawhide than Raw Sex! <In my opinion>

[Ian Martin]

Don't forget the new Reverse Explorer too!

 

They've come out with a few, they're just more custom shop axes than standards.

 

The Zakk Wylde SG/V thing...the Johnny A signature (which is awesome)...ES-339 (which is Gibson copying itself I guess).

 

Honestly people looking for something contemporary seem to go for stuff like PRS, and the ones who want something radical go for Dean or BC Rich models (though the later hasn't seem to come up with anything new in a while).

 

By the way, the Longhorn is ugly, and will probably not sell well. But that's what they said about the Reverse V, too.

[ibis]

Don't forget the new Reverse Explorer too!

 

They've come out with a few' date=' they're just more custom shop axes than standards.

 

The Zakk Wylde SG/V thing...the Johnny A signature (which is awesome)...ES-339 (which is Gibson copying itself I guess).

 

Honestly people looking for something contemporary seem to go for stuff like PRS, and the ones who want something radical go for Dean or BC Rich models (though the later hasn't seem to come up with anything new in a while).

 

By the way, the Longhorn is ugly, and will probably not sell well. But that's what they said about the Reverse V, too.[/quote']

 

 

Reverse Explorer = 'Nuff said. Based on existing design.

Johnny A = Looks like a Barney Kessell. A solid body version would tick most of my boxes and be prettier than a Longhorn. Based on existing design.

Zakk ZV = Looks like SG/V! Pretty infantile design! Is Zakk really poud of himself for designing this? You too can look like a spanner! Based on existing design(s).

 

There are some stunning shapes out there made by other companies that may tip a nod to Classic Gibson design or are just completely 'out there'.

 

I'd like to see something 'fresh'! From Gibson!

 

At least the M3, with all its faults and bad timing was an attempt.

[Hydra26]

I understand what your'e saying, but I guess I'd say I tend to look at Gibson as constructing things in a slightly more traditional manner which is why I buy them. I don't buy them because I want something new fangled and radical. For that kinda stuff I look at Jackson, ESP, Parker, etc. Just my own opinion.

 

They did have a slew of stuff in the 70's and 80's that has also been discontinued for the same reasons you stated above, poor sales and also high cost to produce, I would suspect. Things like the Les Paul Recording, L6-S, Corvus, and numerous others.

 

I would speculate they've analyzed their market and determined that the money is not to be made in producing new designs like a corvus, for example but that when you want a real les paul, you want a real les paul. There's lot's of argument on the net over the various clones being just as good, but when it comes down to it, although they're not the highest tech, most ergonomical design in the world, they're pretty much a benchmark, and it's one of those tickets you kind of punch as a guitarist - "Yeah, I've got a Les Paul" - whether you prefer it or not.

[Tim Plains]

Zakk Wylde guitar, what's that? I've only seen the LP & V. Any pics?

 

Longhorn. I really like the look of that guitar. No, I don't live in Texas and no, I don't like country music.

If I wasn't already buying a R8, I'd definitely give that Longhorn a try. They should have put 57s or BBs in it, though.

[TheLiveSoundGuy]

Now that they have given us the Robot, what I want to know is when will they make a truly wireless guitar?

A new era was born when we yanked the cable.

A really good wireless system now gives the artist the creative freedom to move around on a stage, instead of being physically tied to the amplifier.

So it's been years now that we've carried transmitters taped to our straps, connected by a 2ft. cable to the guitar.

With technology being what it is today, why do we still need the transmitter? Seriously, why can't we just build it into the guitars electronics area? Transmitter technology is small enough these days, it could be done.

 

Is it going to make the guitar cost more? You bet.

 

Will it make Gibson's profit margins bigger? I'm not a bettin' man but...

 

Call me creative, say I'm just thinkin' out of the box. I'm just wondering who moved my cheese?

 

I dunno, I'm just sayin'

[LPDEN]

Now that they have given us the Robot' date=' what I want to know is when will they make a truly wireless guitar?

A new era was born when we yanked the cable.

A really good wireless system now gives the artist the creative freedom to move around on a stage, instead of being physically tied to the amplifier.

So it's been years now that we've carried transmitters taped to our straps, connected by a 2ft. cable to the guitar.

With technology being what it is today, why do we still need the transmitter?

 

[/quote']

 

There are too many variables for systems and the service issue I think to make that something I wouldn't be interested in. There are many good and bad RF wireless systems out there, and RF can be a dicey game with lots of electronics in the mix and I am not sure I would want to be given what ever is offered by default. I am certaininly not against progression, but to ask Gibson to build this in is and other electronic accessories would take the guitar aspect of the guitar away in my view. Accessories should be just that. The next biggest problem is warranty. I would rather replace a thrid-party aftermarket device than to have to go back to Gibson for what would likely be a sole-source provider device that would probably cost much more than an off the shelf aftermarket product.

 

But that's my take, others may or will feel differently.

[guitarstrummer]

Does it seem like this will be when?

 

 

 

O:)/ :-k/

[harmonicchaos]

the longhorn is really growin on me. if i had the money and it didn't have emgs i would definitely want one. the piezo option is pretty neat also.

 

is it just me or does the longhorn look like something josh homme would play?

[guitarstrummer]

I know, I know. It seems like they won't until this happens, but hang in there, I'm sure they're working on it.

 

[Ian Martin]

 

is it just me or does the longhorn look like something josh homme would play?

 

Yeah, but he's more vintage-indie-offbrand than that.

 

I think it's ugly, but Gibson has been needing something a little bit more "strat-shaped".

 

Another recent failed model was their Vegas hollowbodies...anybody played one of them? They seemed like they were just blinged-out Trini Lopez models.

[harmonicchaos]

 

Yeah' date=' but he's more vintage-indie-offbrand than that.

 

I think it's ugly, but Gibson has been needing something a little bit more "strat-shaped".

 

Another recent failed model was their Vegas hollowbodies...anybody played one of them? They seemed like they were just blinged-out Trini Lopez models.[/quote']

 

 

yeah i know - he is more of and offbrand guy but if he played a gibby i think that'd be the one (although i though he had a cream les paul double cut or something). in regards to the vegas series i would've liked them if they were an actual trini lopez reissue. i didn't like the hollow flat top or the irregular body shape. 95% of the time i'm a complete traditionalist (strange for a 14 year old) and like vintage guitars but every once and a while something a little more modern catches my attention.

 

i think part of gibsons legacy and charm is their vintage styled guitars and i think the v's explorers and firebirds are modern enough (at least for my taste). for the most part i like that gibson is willing to try new things but i almost always like their older instruments.

 

i really hope they don't try to do a strat shaped guitar. (i know they did a few back in the 80's though). a gibson strat would be wrong.

[ibis]

But a pretty doublecut with coil taps (and traditional body & neck binding) would be oh so right!

 

I recently bought a a very pretty Hamer Studio Custom, but am now having to consider swapping out the pups to get the coil taps. Plus I wished it had a nitro finish and nickel hardware and 'Gibson' on the headstock. There is a big gap in the market for a Gibson (better residuals and brand desirability) with those credentials. It would put a big dent in PRS and Hamer sales!

 

Are you listening Gibson?

[Taj]

Hi, how about the Gibbie LP Double Cut Pro? Granted, it doesn't have a coil tap - but otherwise it's pretty bloody nice. The first Gibson I ever owned was a modified double cut, double pup (humbuckers), re-finished '63 Melody Maker, which I later had to sell, unfortunately. Been looking for years for another - had to go with the Schecter S-1 Elite (have 3) in the meantime as the closest thing (Very nice guitars, by the way - and they DO have a coil tap). Still, I was always looking for another Melody Maker like my old one - and 2 months ago finally had success (Avatar shows the one I got). My original had been modded w/humbuckers, while this one's got P-90s, but no matter. I did not see the Les Paul Double Cut Pro until too late - I would have considered one - they are exactly the shape I like* (i.e. about the same shape and horn curve as the MMaker) and had some really fine finishes (Trans Amber!! ) - and are now apparently no longer in production (figures!). The only down side to the Pro is that they are the usual LP thickness, i.e. still fairly heavy, and use the usual LP heel design - while the MM is much lighter (but of course, doesn't have the arched top), and I think the heel form offers much better accessibility to the upper frets.

 

 

Also, would be interested in hearing on the side from Ian Martin about your Marshall TSL amp - will email you

 

* though the slightly lower priced double cut model offered concurrently with the Pro had a straight line edge across the heel between the horns, which I don't like; the Double Cut Pro had a full horn curve even on the reverse, as did the Melody Maker of old. Go here for a pic of the MM heel -

 

 

http://www.germancaps.com/MMheel.jpg

[Taj]

There really are a finite number of "radically new" - yet still practical - shapes available; it seems pretty hard to synchronize these two factors. Almost every guitar body contour currently on the market is a derivative of something already done. Some of the shapes that go beyond wierd turn me off totally - I am not impressed by bizarre for the sake of being bizarre, unless that's your band's all encompassing image. Other "radical" shapes seem almost too fragile (very thin points, hooks, etc.) that might shatter with hardly a hit, etc....while on the other hand, a large number of the more - dare I say - "standard" ?! body (and headstock) shapes seem to maintain a perpetual appeal, albeit with a tweak or two here and there. Gibson could certainly have modified its already ground breaking "V", for example, into the more aggressive-looking, off-set points of the Jackson pattern (I mean, before Jackson did it) - would that have been a "new" enough design? Probably not - still derivative.

On the other hand, creating totally bizarre (and probably less than practical) body shapes merely to claim ownership of a "radically" new design, is just not worth the investment (though I betcha that's the same thought that ran through Gibson exec's minds, way back when the Explorer and V came out - and fizzled~! ....but they had to wait a long time before trying 'em - successfully this time - again).

There are already an incredible number of body shapes already out there - but the tried-and-true Gibbie models seem to work, so Gibson doesn't care to look far afield anymore. They already put out (granted, long ago) two of the most radically unique designs in the history of electric guitars - so perhaps, they feel the company has made its major contribution to "exotica" and has the right to live off of its laurels henceforth, I suppose. These days, IMHO, it's more a question of technical improvements and equipment (pup design, bridge improvements, etc. - e.g. the Robot Guitar) or unique finishes, rather than a quest for "unique" body shapes (merely for the sake of uniqueness) which to me, more often than not simply look way toooo butt ugly for my taste!

I'll stick with the (STILL) incredibly cool looking Amoeba (Explorer) or the inimitable "V"; and, tried-and-true - as in the "LP" doesn't bother me in the least! (only the price inhibits me.....:-)

[GKingN]

They should come out with a Gibson Corvus Reissue. Alot of people wouldnt notice it, new enough?

 

http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images;_ylt=A0geu66vACFIxDsBs5FXNyoA?ei=UTF-8&p=gibson%20corvus&fr2=tab-web&fr=yfp-t-501

http://www.shikbyrd.com/GibsonCorvusPage---_0012.jpg

http://www.theguitarcave.com/guitar/corvushead.jpg

[littlekenny]

They should come out with a Gibson Corvus Reissue. Alot of people wouldnt notice it' date=' new enough?

 

http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images;_ylt=A0geu66vACFIxDsBs5FXNyoA?ei=UTF-8&p=gibson%20corvus&fr2=tab-web&fr=yfp-t-501

http://www.shikbyrd.com/GibsonCorvusPage---_0012.jpg

http://www.theguitarcave.com/guitar/corvushead.jpg[/quote']

 

 

That looks too much like a travel guitar, not something that would be your main axe and sit down with for a couple hours to play.

[GKingN]

Im not sure, I would love to have one. At least it would be different

[Ian Martin]

It may not be new, but I could go for a full-fledged Moderne reissue.

[rybass]

No body has really mentioned the basses either.

 

They are all pretty much overgrown guitar models. Where's the grabber, the rd, the victory's? (yeah I know two of those were guitars too, but a bass reissue would be nice) I would like a gibson bass but I don't want to match my guitarist. I want big and mean with some mud thunder. They are just holding on for dear life in the bass dept.

Even a reissue of the v bass would be a step away from the les pauls and sg's.

I don't want an ibanez or warwick look alike. I want a classic design, well balanced with pickups they actually thought about and put some time into. And a neck that doesn't resemble a Bonds bat. F*@# quilt tops and AAAAAAAAAAAA flames! Bassist don't need to be pretty they need to knock you in the balls! Theives should be scared to steal a bass, afraid they won't get far before it breaks a bone or totals their car.

Sad thing is I'm more excited about First Act's custom shop basses than anything I've seen from Gibby in decades. I know they have it in them, I just hope they don't keep half arsen around with the low end.

 

Sorry for the rant.

[harmonicchaos]

i want a ripper really bad.

 

easily my favorite bass ever.

[This one goes to 11]

Us guitarists, like bikers, are in many ways as funky as a conservative banker's convention when it comes to design and what we'll accept. The Corvus, Moderne, RD - heck there's a long list of shapes that never made it not because they were bad ideas necessarily, but because we didn't generally accept them. I agree with Taj that different for the sake of different is rather pointless, unless your stage show is more important than your ability to play. There are also only so many good-looking, sounding and playable shapes out there. By good looking I mean that more than 20 guitarists in the world would buy it.

 

What I find very ironic is the way that so many players and manufacturers regard Gibson as a conservative manufacturer. Considering that they gave us the Flying V, Explorer and Firebird in '58, I'd say they were one of the first to produce truly radical shapes. So many of today's "radical" guitars made by guys like Dean et al are only variations on them. Like Harley-Davidson the problem isn't a corporate lack of will to innovate (Robot guitar anyone?), but a conservative buying public. When you have a company built on a proven heritage that is a bench mark, it's very difficult to change something without upsetting your majority supporters who expect the expected from you. Be interesting to see how many die hard Fender fans would buy Les Paul/ES335/Flying V-alikes, wouldn't it.