The Purpose of Gibson

[mt.tran10]

Hi everyone,

 

My name is Minh and to be honest I don't know much about guitars or Gibson, but I am very much interested in learning more about both. I'm working on a project for school and my research in on the ethos of Gibson. In another word, what is Gibson's main purpose? Core values? If Gibson was gone tomorrow, what would the world lose?

 

Hopefully, someone could shed some insight to this. Thank you!

 

MT

[Dom_JEM]

we would lose a way of life

[S t e v e]

Hi everyone' date='

 

My name is Minh and to be honest I don't know much about guitars or Gibson, but I am very much interested in learning more about both. I'm working on a project for school and my research in on the ethos of Gibson. In another word, what is Gibson's main purpose? Core values? If Gibson was gone tomorrow, what would the world lose?

 

Hopefully, someone could shed some insight to this. Thank you!

 

MT[/quote']

 

are you saying that you want us to do your project for you? , i'm sure someone will come along and help you out

[mt.tran10]

Oh no, of course not. I wanted to see what everyone thinks. I wanted to know what your opinions were on these questions and if your views of Gibson matches with the company's views.

 

MT

[pohatu771]

Gibson's purpose is to make instruments and sell them at a profit.

 

A long time ago, a guy named Gibson had designs for mandolins that were different than the normal instruments of that time, so he began building and selling them. Eventually he went crazy and the company was taken over by other people, who continued to introduce new designs and sell them, still, at a profit.

 

Then 1961 came around, and nothing Gibson did after that would ever be good enough for anyone, but they continue to build instruments, be criticized for not doing it exactly the same as they did it in 1959 or 1961 or whatever year the "best" were built in, and sell them for a profit.

 

In short, Gibson's purpose is to profit. If they weren't, they wouldn't be doing it anymore.

[milod]

Okay, here's a shot at your question.

 

Gibson guitars, as with a very few other types of product, is much more than a trademark, it is a signature, a legend, a mythos and a tradition of musical instruments with an assumed presence of quality as well as excellence in design.

 

If Gibson, the company, disappeared tomorrow, the mythos would remain.

 

1. The width of the "nut" of the guitar and the fingerboard width likely would end up being called the "Gibson standard" if the company disappeared tomorrow.

 

2. A balanced sound per shape of given acoustic guitars might today be considered a "Gibson standard." Different sizes and shapes do offer slightly different sounds, but Gibsons always have been well balanced for their size.

 

3. Gibson guitar designs, acoustic and electric, as well as other stringed instruments, are very much world standards.

 

4. Gibson and perhaps one other ongoing guitarmaking company brought in a new era of mass produced stringed instruments in the late 19th century unimagined in earlier days by combining the skills of the individual luthier with "modern" mass production methods.

 

In short, Gibson might be considered something of a Cadillac or Mercedes of guitar brands. As with that brand of cars, it's not the market leader in numbers, but the name itself has a certain panache and tradition of representing quality. If either Cadillac or Gibson quality, even design, don't measure up to the mythos, the company takes far more criticism than a lesser marque. On the other hand, it's Cadillac, not Ferrari or Rolls Royce that are virtually individually handcrafted.

 

The Gibson company has had a number of shifts in ownership, and it includes other brands and types of product.

 

However, note that those who support "the brand" do not always support the corporate ownership or decisions if they perceive it falls short of the mythos surrounding the name.

 

There always is a degree of cynicism involved in either an individual craftsman, owner or corporate owner of various products, but yes, most everyone requires "profit" at various levels in order to eat, either as an individual or a group. Note that the Stradivarius shop also had a need to operate at a profit in its time and place.

 

m

[pohatu771]

I'm not saying profit is bad, by any means... I just find the romanticism that people have with Gibson (or any number of companies) is a bit misplaced, as if the companies are doing it solely for the love of doing it.

 

Personally, I think the current ownership is doing it for the right reasons - they're maintaining a successful company, and it all started because of a guitar that Henry Juszkiewicz bought as a teenager.

[zigzag]

Good response milod. I would like to emphasize that Gibson is not only in the business to make money, they are in it to make a lot of money. I believe that their ownership understands that people will pay more for the Gibson name, and they are right. Since demand has likely increased over the years, the ability of Gibson to maintain quality has, in my opinion, decreased. What has been said about Gibson design is correct- their design is the standard. IMO (and the majority on this board), I also believe that a flawless Gibson is highest quality guitar built- design, sound, playability, durability, etc. In the jazz genre, Gibson was the first and is still the standard, even though there are other brands who produce quality instuments for that genre; many copy or vary the Gibson template. In the history of electric guitars, most older Rock and Rollers aspired to own two guitar brands- Fenders and Gibsons. Those remain the most popular brands today. I think most would agree that if Gibson is the Cadillac of guitars, then Fender is more the Ford F-150.

[Hector Arcadius]

For me, Gibson remains the best mass-producing guitar manufacturer on the planet. If they close down, all Gibson guitars available would get immense value and would be really hard to get... Our only choise would be to turn to some true custom makers. (now that I think of it, they would be probably be cheaper than Gibson Custom shop!).

[djroge1]

If Gibson were to dissapear today and assuming all other sister owned companies too (such as Epiphone) then I believe the price of Fender guitars would go up because there would now be only two BIG guitar makers (Fender and PRS). In other words it gets closer to a monopoly.

 

I hope it would also increase the value of the Gibson and Epiphone guitars I already own.

[tulsaslim]

Okay' date=' here's a shot at your question.

 

Gibson guitars, as with a very few other types of product, is much more than a trademark, it is a signature, a legend, a mythos and a tradition of musical instruments with an assumed presence of quality as well as excellence in design.

 

If Gibson, the company, disappeared tomorrow, the mythos would remain.

 

1. The width of the "nut" of the guitar and the fingerboard width likely would end up being called the "Gibson standard" if the company disappeared tomorrow.

 

2. A balanced sound per shape of given acoustic guitars might today be considered a "Gibson standard." Different sizes and shapes do offer slightly different sounds, but Gibsons always have been well balanced for their size.

 

3. Gibson guitar designs, acoustic and electric, as well as other stringed instruments, are very much world standards.

 

4. Gibson and perhaps one other ongoing guitarmaking company brought in a new era of mass produced stringed instruments in the late 19th century unimagined in earlier days by combining the skills of the individual luthier with "modern" mass production methods.

 

In short, Gibson might be considered something of a Cadillac or Mercedes of guitar brands. As with that brand of cars, it's not the market leader in numbers, but the name itself has a certain panache and tradition of representing quality. If either Cadillac or Gibson quality, even design, don't measure up to the mythos, the company takes far more criticism than a lesser marque. On the other hand, it's Cadillac, not Ferrari or Rolls Royce that are virtually individually handcrafted.

 

The Gibson company has had a number of shifts in ownership, and it includes other brands and types of product.

 

However, note that those who support "the brand" do not always support the corporate ownership or decisions if they perceive it falls short of the mythos surrounding the name.

 

There always is a degree of cynicism involved in either an individual craftsman, owner or corporate owner of various products, but yes, most everyone requires "profit" at various levels in order to eat, either as an individual or a group. Note that the Stradivarius shop also had a need to operate at a profit in its time and place.

 

m

[/quote']

 

 

Good job, Milo. Written like a man who writes for a living.

[milod]

Tulsa....

 

<grin>

 

m

[ChanMan]

Good job' date=' Milo. Written like a man who writes for a living. [cool']

 

 

/chuckle

 

It IS that obvious.... MiloD can't say "yes" in less than 4 paragraphs

 

 

 

But he is right, and if you'll just paraphrase his response, you've got an excellent base for your assignment.

[tartanbeastie]

Gibson is a business and is there to make money by selling good quality instruments.

They have given us beautifuly shaped and sounding instuments over the years which have inspired people to want them, pick them up and play them...and to drool over till they can afford them.

Gibson may be in part about the romance or the love affair with the brand but it is and has been the stuff of many peoples dreams and aspirations.

I love my sg, it took me twenty years to be in the position to go buy one without using credit etc. I still get the waynes world moment of we're not worthy when i pick it up.

[zigzag]

I still get the waynes world moment of we're not worthy when i pick it up.

 

You too? ...more motivation for me to become worthy.

[matiac]

You too? ...more motivation for me to become worthy.

 

I, too, felt that way with all 3 I owned. Especially the Goldtop. I miss that guitar. F@cking economy. The SG was pretty bangin' too. It's OK though, I DO still have my Epiphone ( a Gibson subsidiary ), and I wouldn't part with it for anything, mainly because I'd never get back what I've got in it, and it's just too kool to get rid of.

[Thundergod]

Then 1961 came around' date=' and nothing Gibson did after that would ever be good enough for anyone, but they continue to build instruments, be criticized for not doing it exactly the same as they did it in 1959 or 1961 or whatever year the "best" were built in, and sell them for a profit.

[/quote']

 

 

OMG I almost sh-t myself when I read that...

 

After this I'm gonna have to take a deep breath before I read Milod's post.

[NeoConMan]

Good response milod.

As always!

 

 

 

I think most would agree that if Gibson is the Cadillac of guitars' date=' then Fender is more the Ford F-150. [/quote']

Yep.

[djroge1]

Gibson is a business and is there to make money by selling good quality instruments.

 

I'm not arguing with you about this but I do ask everyone - if this is what their purpose is, then how is that working out? In other words are they making good quality instruments? Is the quality consistant?

 

Has anyone looked up the companies vision statement, mission statment, and discovered what they say their purpose really is?

 

If I have time later I may investigate that.

[milod]

"....vision statement, mission statment..."

 

Okay, I may show more of my age than I really want to on this, but I have a rather low opinion of such things that have been such a fad for the past cupla decades.

 

It's my observation that such "statements" in most cases I've seen are feel-good baloney at best and a reflection of mental illness and warped perception at worst, as opposed to reflecting reality of corporate governance.

 

I know, I'm sounding really cynical. There's a good reason for that in my case. <grin>

 

My assumption is that Gibson - and other companies - wanna make money for owners/stockholders, if they're wise will try to keep employees capable of maintaining an acceptable level of quality performance both in the product and its sales, and that's about it in corporate terms.

 

Now if our Mr. Whazzizname happens to be a guitar guy as well as a car and manufacturing guy, that adds a degree of pride of ownership that one wouldn't find if a beer company or clothing conglomerate bought Gibson. How any pride of ownership manifests itself will be somewhat different among different sorts of people.

 

m

[djroge1]

No disrespect Milod, but I believe your first comment is a reflection of your age too. Most (not all) people over the age of 55 or so that I think the same thing. Then they retire so the young ones can lead in new directions ~ sometimes good sometimes bad, but new.

[retrosurfer1959]

Lot's of good and accurate comments here but if I am going to take a shot.

 

Gibson sells a dream

 

Just like Harley Davidson, Colt Firearms, John Deere tractors and a few other iconic companies they build more than a product that's why feelings are so strong about them. These product remind us of something that many feel is gone a simpler and maybe even better time and were all trying to get back there somehow even if it as only for a moment and only in our own homes.

 

there's no way in hell a piece of wood is worth 10k but who get's to put a price on a dream...

[milod]

Rog... Actually...

 

I don't quite get what you mean...

 

Frankly I thought I was rather cynical on discussion of "mission statements," and in ways equally cynical on the original.

 

I don't think it's so much a matter of "age" as background. I think those whose family background and upbringing was that of a small business/farm or ranch are more likely to perceive what is being created by a business than those whose background is of something less entrepreneurial.

 

E.g., one doesn't retire from a small biz. One may sell it, one may lose it or one may give it away, but "retire" isn't quite it in the same sense as going onto some sort of pension.

 

Again, though, there's a different mentality among those of an entrepreneurial background, especially in rural areas, than in more urban environments. It ain't age per se, unless you figure the 22 year old here is my age. <grin>

 

I've a lady friend roughly my age who could go buy a jet and fly the world as long as she's healthy. But no, every spring she's out in the snow helping birth lambs on a ranch an hour from the closest town in good weather. BB ain't quit pickin.

 

Retro... in some ways I agree with you... that's what I meant by "mythos."

 

m

[djroge1]

Yeah I have to remember what I know of your back ground and location (background). Likewise, much of my world centers around church work and vision and mission is in the front of most of our discussions right now.

 

In my context, there are older pastors in the area who are foreign to the concept of having a vision (goal of where we are going) and then the mission which is what we do to move towards that goal. This concept of vision/mission is seems is out of the grasp and ability to think that way in church work... from my point of view its frustrating.

 

Perhaps it is a little of both at times even - it's age and background. I guess every situation and person is different.

[zigzag]

"....vision statement' date=' mission statement..."

 

Okay, I may show more of my age than I really want to on this, but I have a rather low opinion of such things that have been such a fad for the past cupla decades.

 

It's my observation that such "statements" in most cases I've seen are feel-good baloney at best and a reflection of mental illness and warped perception at worst, as opposed to reflecting reality of corporate governance.

[/quote']

 

Boy, don't I know what you're talking about. This new MBA corporate business model that incorporates ISO, 5-S, Six Sigma, Continual Improvement, SPC, etc., etc. have got employees so mired in corporate muck, it is a wonder that we get anything done at all. It works for the Japanese because that is their mentality and culture, but it stifles individuality and creativity, and it is simply a system that allows managers who have no common sense or personality to impose their corporate persona.

 

There I go, on another rant. Sorry everyone.