Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

I have a bone to pick with Gibson design team


Recommended Posts

Hello guys, this is a lengthy one, yet a good one.

First off, I would like to humbly disclose, that I do have an eye for a beauty and desing, I studied Interior architecture and furniture design.

1- The Standard Traditional Desert front is stunning, yet Gibson found a way to screw it up with that ugly solid brown back that shows 0 wood grain and 0 character. The person who decided that should be, dare I say, fired.

 

2. The chambering of these guitars is a pathetic excuse to make Les Pauls lighter, what made a Les Paul what it is, is the massive weight with massive neck, hence the massive tone.

 

3. This one might draw controversy, yet I will post it, this one relates to the chambering and weight relieve. I emailed Gibson design 4 years back, suggesting instead of the Swiss cheese holes and the chambering, design a Les Paul with rib-cage contour and an Arm Rest contour. This would result in a double win design, on one hand Les Paul will evolve to a very comfortable instrument, and on the other some wood would be accordingly shaved off the guitar hence compensating to the swiss cheese holes etc. the arm-rest does not have to be on all models, but I think they should make one, and I know it will be a big hit. I keep getting these marks on my forearm from the sharp edge, especially when I practice/play for a while. Now with the Alex Lifson, they did the rig-cage contour and the neck-heel, but not the arm rest, also the first Gibson with an arm rest as far as I know is the Firebird X limited. I would like to see it on some LPs

 

4. The affordable Studio Mahogany and faded cherry, I am sure design team did not say, let's make them as ugly as we can, no offence guys I have one myself until I found the one you see in the sig. but come on why screw up a nice wood grain with solid brown and solid cherry.

 

You may reply and just state to which item you are commenting on 1, 2, 3 or 4

Link to post
Share on other sites

1. who looks at the back of the guitar? defantly not the audience so i dont think that really matters.

2. weight does not automatically relate to good tone

3. the cambering they do is worked to keep the tone the way it is and add resonance if you just start cutting off wood in random places it might dramatically alter the tone in a negative way

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Mr. Guitarhead,

 

We have reviewed your comments and have the following response: we don't care, because people buy them anyway, thus we make money anyway. As always, we appreciate customer input. We just don't listen to it.

 

Sincerely,

 

Henry

 

Haha

 

It's funny cuz it's true!

 

*sigh*

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Mr. Guitarhead,

 

We have reviewed your comments and have the following response: we don't care, because people buy them anyway, thus we make money anyway. As always, we appreciate customer input. We just don't listen to it.

 

Sincerely,

 

Henry

 

=D>[flapper]](*,)[lol]+:-@[thumbup]

Link to post
Share on other sites

1. who looks at the back of the guitar? defantly not the audience so i dont think that really matters. I look at the back of the guitra, who cares about the audience, I do not even play for audience.

2. weight does not automatically relate to good tone. I agree

3. the cambering they do is worked to keep the tone the way it is and add resonance if you just start cutting off wood in random places it might dramatically alter the tone in a negative way. Ya, but fender found a way to have these comfort features, yet keep a good tone, even Gibson did it with the new Limited run explorer, which now has the arm rest, hence it is doable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1. My Traditional+ has a one piece back, stained in the regular see-through cherry mahogany, and shows the wood grain nicely.

2. My Traditional+ is not chambered. My Studio 60s is. Both sound great, the chambering gives a slightly different resonance than my Trad. But I love them both, and they each have their own voice.

3. I don't think I'd like, or be at home with an LP with belly and arm contours. I'm too used to playing them the way they are.

4. Don't really care about that one.

I'm more inclined to pick a bone with them about the 'plek' system than anything else.

Or, why do they put the wrong pickup combinations on a lot of LPs?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello marvar, what is worng with the plek sys. and can you elaborate on the wrong pickup combo. also regarding the rib-cage contour, as I mentioned Alex Lifson LP now has it, but you have to spend more than a couple of grands for it.

1. My Traditional+ has a one piece back, stained in the regular see-through cherry mahogany, and shows the wood grain nicely.

2. My Traditional+ is not chambered. My Studio 60s is. Both sound great, the chambering gives a slightly different resonance than my Trad. But I love them both, and they each have their own voice.

3. I don't think I'd like, or be at home with an LP with belly and arm contours. I'm too used to playing them the way they are.

4. Don't really care about that one.

I'm more inclined to pick a bone with them about the 'plek' system than anything else.

Or, why do they put the wrong pickup combinations on a lot of LPs?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand.

You replied to chris' "2. weight does not automatically relate to good tone.", with "I agree", yet your in your original post you stated "2. The chambering of these guitars is a pathetic excuse to make Les Pauls lighter, what made a Les Paul what it is, is the massive weight with massive neck, hence the massive tone."

 

So which is it?

Do you consider "massive tone" a bad thing?

 

Not that chambering/weight reief matters.

A good deal of tone is what the player brings to the playing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen LP Specials w/a contoured back. I thought they looked pretty nice. I don't believe the chambering & weight relief holes had anything to do w/tone. Too many people were complaining about the weight. Although I think they did their best not to mess up the tone. I personally would be very interested in a contoured Studio.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand.

You replied to chris' "2. weight does not automatically relate to good tone.", with "I agree", yet your in your original post you stated "2. The chambering of these guitars is a pathetic excuse to make Les Pauls lighter, what made a Les Paul what it is, is the massive weight with massive neck, hence the massive tone."

 

So which is it?

Do you consider "massive tone" a bad thing?

 

Not that chambering/weight reief matters.

A good deal of tone is what the player brings to the playing.

thats true a whole lot of tone is in your fingers

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand.

You replied to chris' "2. weight does not automatically relate to good tone.", with "I agree", yet your in your original post you stated "2. The chambering of these guitars is a pathetic excuse to make Les Pauls lighter, what made a Les Paul what it is, is the massive weight with massive neck, hence the massive tone."

 

So which is it? He said weight does not automatically relate to good tone, and I agree with that as not any heavy weight guitars with a butcher block of wood would result in a good tone. Yet with Gibson, the quality heavy wood they use does matter, and anyone who say chambering does not make a difference is mistaken, as it does, as does the age of the wood, type and density etc. when it is said repeatedly, chambering add to the resonance and acoustic sound “acoustic, buy an acoustic guitar”. I just need the original sound that all solid Gibson produced in the past. Chambering does make a difference and it has this hallow cold acoustic sound and to me it is to the worse. Not what you expect form and electric LP. I have 05 LP standard and it sound like a true Gibson.

 

 

Do you consider "massive tone" a bad thing? Of course not

 

Not that chambering/weight reief matters.

A good deal of tone is what the player brings to the playing. Agree, yet with a exceptional sounding instrement, it makes the tone that much better.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I kinda agree with not liking the solid colored back... as ridiculous as that sounds. Even though the back is not so visible most of the time.... part of the appeal of a nice Gibson Les Paul (for me) is the beautiful grain on the back.

 

 

As far as chambering and weight.... I like chambering. It gives the guitar a resonant tone. The only issue I have with chambering is sometimes it causes feedback at higher gain and volume levels.

 

I don't believe massive Les Paul tone comes from the weight of the guitar. I've heard many 1959 Les Pauls were only around 8 pounds or so.

 

My Standard Faded is only 7.5 to 8 lbs. and it sounds absolutely HUGE!!

 

Actually.... all my Les Pauls sound HUGE regardless of their weight.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"So which is it? He said weight does not automatically relate to good tone, and I agree with that as not any heavy weight guitars with a butcher block of wood would result in a good tone. Yet with Gibson, the quality heavy wood they use does matter, and anyone who say chambering does not make a difference is mistaken, as it does, as does the age of the wood, type and density etc. when it is said repeatedly, chambering add to the resonance and acoustic sound “acoustic, buy an acoustic guitar”. I just need the original sound that all solid Gibson produced in the past. Chambering does make a difference and it has this hallow cold acoustic sound and to me it is to the worse. Not what you expect form and electric LP. I have 05 LP standard and it sound like a true Gibson.

 

 

Do you consider "massive tone" a bad thing? Of course not"

-guitarhead

 

Sorry, guess I misunderstood.

It's just that your statement,"The chambering of these guitars is a pathetic excuse to make Les Pauls lighter, what made a Les Paul what it is, is the massive weight with massive neck, hence the massive tone." kind of makes it sound like you are indeed basing the tonal qualities of a Les Paul based on it's weight, and how heavier, non-weight-relieved or chambered guitars have massive tone.

It sounded like a blanket statement even though "automatically" was not used.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello marvar, what is worng with the plek sys. and can you elaborate on the wrong pickup combo. also regarding the rib-cage contour, as I mentioned Alex Lifson LP now has it, but you have to spend more than a couple of grands for it.

First, let me say I've been and am a life-long Gibson guy. And all this is just my opinion-

I'll talk about the pickup combinations first-

For instance: Last month in GC flyer, they list a '57 spec LP Custom,- 'just like the 57s of yesterday', but, what pup combo do they use? the 498T/490R-(which certainly wasn't even thought of in the 50s.

why not use the 57 classics on a 57 spec guitar? Not to mention that that is probably the worse pairing of 2 pickups ever. There are many examples of marketing a guitar a certain way, then pairing it up with the wrong pickups for the vibe they are going for.

Don't even get me started on the 500T/496R series.

And, it seems every time they come up with a guitar I might like, Gibson will put at least one stupig thing on it that isn't needed, wanted, or used, and is enough to turn me off to the purchase.

As for the Plek, there is volumes written about what it supposed to do, how it's supposed to work, and what it does for your guitar. IMO Gibson didn't read the instuctions, or isn't using it as it was originally intended, and they use it as a marketing ploy.

My 849 dollar studio(not plek'd) played better, was better set up, has no dead or high spots, than my 2200 dollar Trad + (plek'd)

was, which, after 7 mos, I'm still trying to dial in!

Link to post
Share on other sites

First, let me say I've been and am a life-long Gibson guy. And all this is just my opinion-

I'll talk about the pickup combinations first-

For instance: Last month in GC flyer, they list a '57 spec LP Custom,- 'just like the 57s of yesterday', but, what pup combo do they use? the 498T/490R-(which certainly wasn't even thought of in the 50s.

why not use the 57 classics on a 57 spec guitar? Not to mention that that is probably the worse pairing of 2 pickups ever. There are many examples of marketing a guitar a certain way, then pairing it up with the wrong pickups for the vibe they are going for.

Don't even get me started on the 500T/496R series.

And, it seems every time they come up with a guitar I might like, Gibson will put at least one stupig thing on it that isn't needed, wanted, or used, and is enough to turn me off to the purchase.

As for the Plek, there is volumes written about what it supposed to do, how it's supposed to work, and what it does for your guitar. IMO Gibson didn't read the instuctions, or isn't using it as it was originally intended, and they use it as a marketing ploy.

My 849 dollar studio played better, was better set up, has no dead or high spots, than my 2200 dollar Trad + was, which, after 7 mos, I'm still trying to dial in!

where did you buy your traditional plus? cause unless you bought it online it probably had a setup from wherever you bought it not the pleck set up. and as far as pick ups the 57 pickups are new thats probably why they arnt on that model

Link to post
Share on other sites

where did you buy your traditional plus? cause unless you bought it online it probably had a setup from wherever you bought it not the pleck set up. and as far as pick ups the 57 pickups are new thats probably why they arnt on that model

In your original post, you said; " You may reply and just state to which item you are commenting on 1, 2, 3 or 4"

Well, I made my comments, and now I feel like you don't seem to like what I have to say, seem to be defensive- and that I have to defend my opinion!

I bought my guitars Both of them from GC, right out of the box-

your second part about the 57s doesn't make sense to me- 498T pickups sure weren't around in the 50s either.

I just think Gibson could put more thought into the pickups they use with certain guitars.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In your original post, you said; " You may reply and just state to which item you are commenting on 1, 2, 3 or 4"

Well, I made my comments, and now I feel like you don't seem to like what I have to say, seem to be defensive- and that I have to defend my opinion!

I bought my guitars Both of them from GC, right out of the box-

your second part about the 57s doesn't make sense to me- 498T pickups sure weren't around in the 50s either.

I just think Gibson could put more thought into the pickups they use with certain guitars.

marvar, you are mixing me "guitarhead" with chris, the above comment you are replying to is made by chris and not me the originator for the post,

Link to post
Share on other sites

My '03 Studio Plus has a very nice flamey desertburst on the front. The back and sides are a dark (almost black) brown. All things being equal, I'd prefer to see as much wood as possible, but in reality the visual execution of the front matters to me a lot more than the back or sides. What I'm looking at 95% of the time is the front. As for chambered bodies vs solid, each guitar should be evaluated on it's own merits, as there are way too many variations that make it difficult to generalize about the impact of certain features on tone (not to mention, we all have our own internal version of what constitutes good tone).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...