The Purpose of Gibson

[milod]

Okay...

 

We've one guy in an organization that is simply splashing in the water instead of swimming somewhere - and another guy who sees "mission and vision statements" as an excuse for bureaucracy that hides, rather than illuminates, realities of the institution meeting expectations.

 

I think there's too often truth to both perspectives. In fact, in ways they're different wordings for the same foundation problem faced by any team that doesn't really work together.

 

When an institution loses cohesion to the point that it's obviously dying by entropy, there's a problem.

One response is a hope that setting a corporate vision, goals and checkpoints, will create a framework that brings people to work together toward that achievement.

 

My cynicism sez that works sometimes. But even when it works, it often exhausts leaders. How? By busting their bippies trying to motivate "members" for the institution itself rather than their own internal reward structure. Unfortunately people only buy in if they get "paid" in a coin they consider valuable. A strong leader can keep something going only so long; after him the deluge...

 

Most non governmental institutions from churches to guitar makers are in similar situations. Those battling hardest to save a sick institution are the greatest targets. They lead because the effort is payment in a coin their own reward structure. They become targets or irrelevancies when the "membership" see no payment in their own coin.

 

Some healthy institutions become unhealthy when they bind themselves into the sort of bureaucratic bullpookie that Zigzag mentions.

 

The nonproductive behaviors become an independent goal that steal resources from productive behavior. The reward structure works only for the bureaucrats who run the system. They "win" even if the institution fails. It's the old "medicine man" trick of, "You didn't really take me seriously, that's why you failed. I was right."

 

Here's my observation: As in self defense, any technique can work; no technique always will work. Confidence and charisma at the leadership level can make lousy decisions bring good results... as long as followers feel "rewarded" by membership in the institution. And vice versa.

 

BTW, haven't we seen new leaders come into a sick organization, "rescuing" it as everyone works to help because it saves their own "membership rewards," and then when it's "safe," change comes where those members no longer feel valued or rewarded... and the organization is sick of yet another disease.

 

We are a complex species.

 

m

[ledzep59]

Yes we could focus on the fact that Gibson is a company and they have a certain philosophy and set of goals as a business that thrives on financial gain, but Gibson is also creating art. Of course there is capitalism backing the whole thing, but we cannot overlook the aesthetic contribution that Gibson has made. The company has come up with huge innovations since its first mandolins, to the legendary Les Paul, to the contemporary Dark Fire. Not only do guitars create beauty for those that play them, but I consider them to be intrinsically beautiful.

 

There are plenty of cliche expressions that describe Gibson's ethos when it comes to aethetics- quality, craftsmanship, etc... The guitars from Gibson are made to not only sound good but look good as well, and they do a fine job because many of us would agree that Gibson makes beautiful guitars. There are artisans working in those factories that put out wonderful instruments made to satisfy a variety of people. The creation of these instruments makes it possible for their owners to play, dream, create, and experience. There does of course exist some corporate trickery and marketing gimmicks, but there are plenty of well-intended pleasant things about the company and its products that equal or outweigh the negative aspects.

 

If Gibson were to disappear, there would be a lot of upset musicians around the world. I would be one of them.

[milod]

Yeah, I think Gibson and Martin and a few other companies are rather unique in having learned a paradigm of somehow combining the 19th Century concept of mass production without losing the art of fine craftsmanship.

 

It's a tightrope. Musical instrument companies may be among the first to come to mind, but there are a few others out there as well.

 

Zep... in fact, the more I think about it... it seems Gibson sometimes takes criticism largely when it doesn't seem as if the "art first, then technology, profit and other factors" is the paradigm. Ain't heard too many other musical instrument companies coming under the same sort of criticism. I've very seldom heard people criticize, for example, Fender <grin> for lack of artistry in a design or painting up a board. Even the "board" SG is far more visually artistic than most ... uhhhh ... competition among "flat solidbodies." The LP is the foundation on which even the finest as well as poorer carved solidbodies look to as the standard.

 

The jazz boxes? Sheesh, you've gotta go to the more or less custom shops to come close.

 

Acoustics? A lotta good companies try, but Gibson and in a more understated way in terms of visual artistry, Martin, are the standards against which every other instrument is measured. Ditto then their sound.

 

m

[zigzag]

milod and ledzep make very insightful and articulate posts. I don't know exactly how milod's apply to Gibson, because I don't work there. What I can say about about any manufacturer of mass produced products is that reputations are fragile. It is difficult to mass produce a product that requires the craftsmanship of individual artisans and maintain consistant quality. If the prize is only to make money, quality will suffer. If the prize is to make a quality product every time, making money will take care of itself, assuming people know who you are.

 

Edit: this post was made before milod's last.

[ledzep59]

Y The LP is the foundation on which even the finest as well as poorer carved solidbodies look to as the standard.

 

m

 

Exactly. I have been reading from "The Beauty of the Burst" by Iwanade and it goes pretty in-depth about the many meticulous details that went into creating the Les Paul- wood cut, carve, headstock angle, etc... The Les Paul particularly is a extraordinary mix of ingenuity and art. All the wood placement and construction of the LP (and other Gibson guitars) have both practical reasoning as well as aesthetic spirit to each choice that was made during its creation. Some days I just look at the curves of my LP and the figured top and am simply blown away. I have been in love with the simplicity, balance, and color of LPs ever since I saw my first one; I also am obsessed with the way LPs play and sound as well.

 

I seriously doubt that Gibson executives are somewhere scheming in a room for a way to sacrifice quality for cheaper production costs. I am well aware that decisions like this are probably made, but at the heart of Gibson as a company lies the fact that they MUST still produce quality instruments. People will only buy a product because of the brand name for so long. Look at Toyota now- a little problem with the accelerator and the stock takes a dive and all of a sudden people are buying more Fords. If Gibson were letting quality slip, we would probably see a decline in popularity or sales. The criticisms against Gibson for being "greedy" can probably be grounded, but they cannot avoid the fact Gibson still does everything in its power to bring you the best instrument possible (taking cost into consideration).

[zigzag]

I don't know if you've actually seen Gibson's production taking place. I have not, but I have seen the way Gibsons are made on videos in the download section of their web site. Most of the laminating and cutting is done mechanically, and most of the sanding, finishing, and assembly is done manually. There is lots of room for error; that's why it takes a real craftsman to construct those things.

 

I can only speak for myself when I say that I had to kiss a lot of frogs before I settled on the 335 that I did, and even after over a year, I am finding small flaws. Now I understand that a hand crafted instrument is not going to be perfect, but if you search the web and read reviews on Gibson products, you will find a lot of unhappy Gibson customers. For what you pay for those instruments, there needs to be better quality control at the Gibson plant and less "lets get it out the door and see if the buyer spots it" mentality.

[milod]

ZZ....

 

I'll wager that were we to have any of the so-called "old masters" of oil painting they could point to imperfections in their work as well.

 

That's the price one pays for something with significant handwork, yet also the division between "Craftsmanship" and computer controlled manufacturing.

 

I dunno. Firearms are pretty much the same way where one might find all kinds of "imperfections on a revolver, for example, that was - and had to be - finished by a human being. As virtually all that work came to be made by machines, the arms became increasingly "perfect."

 

The nature of wood makes imperfection almost a given, especially with more complex shapes and cuts.

 

But... I dunno... I do know I personally prefer the human touch, imperfect as fingers and eyes can be.

 

It's a tough thing to consider. I appreciate "perfection" as the next guy, but somehow I don't see guitars as complex as Gibson designs even possibly being as perfect as an equation in math.

 

Perhaps my expectations are too low. I dunno. There's a tightrope in fine pieces of any sort of product that has varying degrees of human craftsmanship involved. How does one match time for this or that and still cover costs? I dunno.

 

m

[ledzep59]

My last post was aimed more towards Gibson in abstract, i.e. their philosophy. In concrete, we have all played Gibsons that are sub-par. After the blueprints are drawn up and the executives have made their decisions, then the actual guitar that is being produced is bound to vary. Here are a few responses to the claim that quality has gone downhill:

 

1. more total guitars=more bad guitars

2. even in the "golden era" of Gibson they produced some duds

3. good preparation cannot account for incompetent workers, testers, delivery drivers, retailers

4. mechanization of production makes the instruments less appealing; people want a "good ol' handmade" guitar not a cog

5. there is no such thing as a "perfect" guitar, or perfect anything for that matter

6. appreciating the quality of a guitar can be subjective- your trash could be my treasure

 

I think it was in the "Beauty of the Burst" book, but I read somewhere that:

 

7. "Some wood was just meant to be in guitars, some wood was just meant for toothpicks"

 

As mentioned before, Gibson must "walk the tighrope" that milod brought up: one one side, you must be able to compete in a busy market and sell as many products as you can with aims to turn a profit. On the other hand, you must also still take into consideration quality and artistic responsibility. This "push/pull" relationship I think is reflected in Gibson's instruments: some were just thrown together to turn a buck, others are made with love and care and clearly show it. Businesses that make furniture, cars, beer, food, et cetera must all walk this fine line and hope to provide the customer with an artfully crafted product while still making some green.

[zigzag]

At the risk of kicking a dead horse, considering points 1., 3., and 7., those issues should be resolved internally, before the finished product gets to the customer.

[tartanbeastie]

5. there is no such thing as a "perfect" guitar, or perfect anything for that matter

6. appreciating the quality of a guitar can be subjective- your trash could be my treasure

7. "Some wood was just meant to be in guitars, some wood was just meant for toothpicks"

 

 

perfect is very subjective, my perfection may not be yours etc etc.

 

regarding actual wood, i do a lot of woodturning and yes theres many times i look at a piece of wood and think.. no way and just know that its not magically going to turn into anything good. Although usually with time and effort it can be made into a reasonable piece. then theres times you take a piece of timber and its full of burls, knots and grain and to me these are beautiful features in the wood and usually make the most attractive finished pieces.

So yes i fully agree, "Some wood was just meant to be in guitars, some wood was just meant for toothpicks"

[TommyK]

The A, number 1 purpose of Gibson, as with all corporations is this:

 

A-1. Make money for the stock holders.

 

Without that, all other aspirations and goals are moot.