The History Of: Gibson

While working in his small Kalamazoo, Michigan workshop on a hot summer afternoon in 1894, Orville Gibson did not comprehend the affect his instruments would have on the music world. Starting with strong convictions about instrument design and quality, Orville created a whole new family of guitars and mandolins and later inspired generations of craftsmen to produce some of the finest instruments the world has ever heard or seen.

A virtuoso classical mandolinist and acoustical engineer, Lloyd Loar joined Gibson in 1919, one year after Orville's death. Loar's cultivations of Orville's orginal carving concepts brought about the Master Model F-5 mandolin and L-5 guitar, with tuned tops and backs and the first "f" holes ever found on fretted instruments. The F-5 was hastily judged the greatest mandolin ever built, while the L-5, in the hands of players like Eddie Lang, became the first guitar to take a serious role in the orchestra scene. It quickly replaced the tenor banjo as a rhythm instrument and became the basis for Gibson's dominance ans superiority in the new field of arch top guitars.

The 1920's saw another period of incredible innovations, including elevated fingerboards, bridges with height adjustment, and Thaddeus McHugh's adjustable truss rod, patented in 1921. Simple and direct in operation, the truss rod balanced the tension of the strings on the neck and kept the neck in perfect alignment. The 1920's also saw Gibson develop banjo concepts like the modern tone ring and resonator which revolutionized the tenor banjo of its day and laid the foundation for Earl Scruggs and Bluegrass music 20 years later.

By 1924, Loar had a prototype of an electric bass with a strong design emphasis on the pickup and the strings. Anticipating a sound and market by almost 30 years, Loar's radical design was not accepted by Gibson management or the public and he resigned in 1924. It was the first example of Gibson engineers being far ahead of their time. During the Depression, Gibson entered the toy market and expanded its stringed instrument production to include instructions of the violin family, an ironic return to the designs which had inspired Orville in the first place. Innovation continued in all areas, and the company even introduced an inexpensive "Kalamazoo" line of acoustic guitars.

In 1934, the L-5 was expanded to a larger size to compete with brass-heavy orchestras, and an entirely new design, the Super 400, was introduced for the staggering sum of $400. The extra-large jazz guitar had the power to cut through any horn section, and is considered by many to be the high point of arch-top design. Almost immediately, however, Gibson engineers found another way to cut through the horn section. This time, the market was ready.

The 1937 Gibson catalogue featured a new electric guitar, the ES-150. This "Electric Spanish" guitar blended the new technology of magnetic pickups with arch-top design in an instrument designed to be amplified. When a young man from Oklahoma named Charlie Christian plugged in with Benny Goodman, he turned the guitar into a lead instrument. Music would never be the same and Christian's forceful lead guitar lines invented a whole new musical style that's been duplicated for over 50 years.

During World War Two, Gibson's instrument production was suspended as materials became very difficult to obtain. In 1944, the company was brought by Chicago Musical Instruments (CMI) a noted music wholesale company. With the end of the war, production resumed in 1946 and an enormous pent-up demand for musical instruments developed another boom era for Gibson. In 1948, industry veteran Ted McCarty was hired.

McCarty's tenure as President of Gibson lasted from 1950-1966 and in those 16 years the labor force increased 10 times, profits increased 15 times, and sales went up 1250%. Additionally, McCarty and his gifted team created such classic instruments as the Les Paul, Byrdland, ES-335, Flying V, Explorer, SG and Firebird electrics, the Hummingbird and Dove acoustics, as well as the Tune-o-matic, stop bar tailpiece, and the humbucking pickup.

Les Paul had been developing the concept of the solid body guitar since the 1930's. In 1941, he split an arch-top Epiphone in half lengthwise and bolted both sides to a 4" x 4" solid block. This two pickup monster (Les called it "The Log") was not a pretty sight, but it established Les' idea that solid body instruments had a unique sound and musical future.

Les had presented his ideas to Gibson in 1945 or 1946, but demand for traditional Gibsons that the company didn't see the need. According to Les, "They poliely ushered me out the door. They called it the broom-stick with a pickup on it." However, several years later, Gibson executives recognized the significance and future of Les Paul's solid body design.

Ted McCarty found Les and Gibson's Les Paul guitar made its debut in 1952. For the first time, two woods - maple for the top and mahogany for the back - were combined on a solid instrument for a musical purpose, balancing the bright attack of maple with the warmth and richness of mahogany. The tune-o-matic bridge appeared on the Les Paul in 1954, and the humbuckers followed in 1957. When the LP was offered with a cherry sunburst top in 1958, one of the greatest electric guitar designs ever was firmly established.

In 1957, CMI bought Epiphone, had all the remaining tooling shipped to Kalamazoo and begin manufacturing Epiphones in 1959. At first, the remaining original parts were used. Later, Epiphones used standard Gibson parts and hardware even though many traditional Epiphone names - Emperor, Sheraton, Coronet - remained.

The 1960's was a period of incredible growth for the music business in general and Gibson in particular. The explosion of rock and roll, jazz and folk music produced unprecedented demand for guitars of all types. Back-orders were as long as two years on many models. Major makers - including Gibson - began to experiment with new materials, designs and production changes in an effort to speed production and improve profits. CMI was acquired by Norlin Industries in 1969, and in 1975, Gibson opened a new factory in Nashville, Tennesse.

The recessions of 1980-81 took their toll on many American companies. At Gibson, the engineers had noticed the upsurge in vintage instrument sales and began to revise instruments like the Les Paul and ES-335 to their orginal specifications. In addition, completely new designs like the Chet Atkins CE solid-body classic guitar were developed.

With the music market still weak, Norlin decided that it had no future in the music business. They decided to sell out, and on January 15, 1986, Gibson was bought by a team headed by Henry Juszkiewicz and David Berryman.

By 1952 Les Paul was not only the most popular guitar player in America, he was also a leading innovator in guitar and electronics design. He had been experimenting with electric guitars for as long as there had been electric guitars. He had once mounted a guitar string on a railroad tie to confirm his belief that a solidbody guitar would maximize sustain, and he had incorporated a mini-railroad rail-a 4"x4" piece of pine-into the body of a homemade solidbody electric guitar he nicknamed "TheLog." (Which I spoke of before)

In the early '50s, when the solidbody guitar first became commercially viable, Gibson designed an instrument that would change the image of the solidbody electric from a simple plank of wood to an elegant, stylish piece of art. Such a guitar would be a radical move for a traditional company like Gibson, but Gibson had been founded on the radical mandolin and guitar designs of Orville Gibson back in the 1890s. This new model would have the same carved-top contours that had set Orville's instruments apart from all others.

With the new model near ready for market, Gibson approached Les Paul, the obvious choice to help launch it. Les was already intimately familiar with the unique characteristics of a solidbody electric guitar. And he was at the top of his career. His 1948 hit, "Brazil," featured six guitar parts, all played by Les in a virtuoso demonstration that would eventually earn him recognition as the father of multi-track recording. When he combined his guitar and electronic talents with the vocals of his wife Mary Ford, the result was gold-two million-selling records in 1951, "Mockin' Bird Hill" and "How High the Moon."

The Les Paul Model, as it was originally called, has changed little since its debut in 1952. Except for an updated bridge and humbucking pickups, the Les Paul Standard of today is still the pretty much the same guitar. The Les Paul has been the driving force behind many changes in popular music. It powered the blues rock sound of the late '60s and the southern rock of the late '70s. By the '90s the Les Paul was providing signature sounds for every genre of rock, from alternative to metal. With a renewed committment to the best specifications of vintage instruments and a vigorous program to make each new Gibson the best it could be, changes began right away. The market was ready to believe in Gibson and the new team was happy to provide Gibsons worth believing in.

A new R&D team, dedicated to both Gibson history and innovation, expanded traditional product lines and invented new ones. The Chet Atkins family was expanded with creative use of wood technology yielding the SST and SST-12 string which offer acoustic tonality at stadium tonality at stadium volume levels. Guitars like the Les Paul Classic captured traditional technology, while instruments like the M-3 set new standards in functional shapes and creative use of electronics.

Acoustic instruments and banjos were also evaluated, historic models revived, and new designs created. In 1990, Gibson opened a state of the art facility for acoustic production in Bozeman, Montana where the dry climate made building conditions ideal.

Gibson celebrated 100 years of inspired musical instrument design and production in 1994. Then and now, Gibson products offer an unbeatable combination or performance and value for any musical purpose. Continuing in the tradition of providing "American Guitars - Built by American Musicians" each Gibson is an investment in your musical future, and an example of one of the greatest traditions in music history.

Research From

(Most of it came from) gibson.com

josaka.com

kpl.gov

ezinearticles.com

POSTED: 11/06/2006 - 09:47 am

+ print this article

+ mail to a friend

Comments

[smb]

Erm... plenty of research here but a bit much to read in one article!

[Muppet]

Very messy. You could at least make some under-headlines.

[xX Maverick Xx]

i really dont see why ud buy a gibson when u can buy an epiphone these days. theyre the same guitar its just a marketing scheme...

[wfro_07]

Good article, but i agree with smb, little to much.

[deltaguitar]

Great article. Thanks for the research, NIN&J5.

[mockjam]

xX Maverick Xx :
i really dont see why ud buy a gibson when u can buy an epiphone these days. theyre the same guitar its just a marketing scheme...

gibson and epiphone are NOT the same guitar, I'm not a fan of either but they have major differences.

[greenbox]

Gibsons tend to have a bit more time invested into them. They are essentially the same though Gibsons tend to have a bit more craftsmanship in them. Plus you're paying for the name.

[jakaman]

I don't know why you guys think it's too long, if you are really interested in it then you'll see it's not too long. Great article, thanks for research NIN&J5.

[NIN&J5]

No prob, I really apreciate the great responce and appreciation. If there are any others you'd like researched ill do it

[IronfistGuy]

The concept of this is great, and some of the content and research is first-class. Having said that, the article is pretty disjointed, and at occasions hard to follow, especially with the constant changes in time period which are being described (e.g. talking about the 80's ownership and then going straight to the 50's and Les Paul, as well as discussing "The Log" twice.

Great content and concept however.

[Tigerwhite_1]

very good article, good effert put in, and jakaman is right its not to long, definatly not to long, keep up the good job NIN&J5. but some sub-headings would make it look neater and be good for any reader that wants to find just a particular piece of info with haveing to read the whole thing, and giving a general sum in the fist paragragh is good for those who don't wan't to read the whole article but want just an idea of what the article has is a good idea. then you can go into greater detail in the rest of it. anyway, i liked it and look forward to more of your article. and i liked the fact of you bolding the names of people and guitars, etc.

great job!

[Kutanmoogle]

[Creative Name] wrote:

The first thing I think of when I hear the word Gibson is overpriced. They are nice guitars but I will never buy one because of the price.

True, but I hold alot of respect for Gibson seeing as how classic they are. That and the fact that Firebirds always hold a special place in my heart.

[porchmonkey4lif]

i own an epiphon sg, my friend owns a gibson sg. Huge difference, his is way better

[Slash_HuDsOn]

^if you buy a higher end epi SG the diff isnt so much but still when buying a Gibson is like buying BMW, you can upgrade and trick out a civic as much as you want but it will never be a BMW, that's why Gibson's are so popular, they're classis

[xX Maverick Xx]

gibsons ARE awesome tho, the las paul is my 2nd fav guitar, 1st is the white falcon gretsch

[Slash_HuDsOn]

^classics*

[E V H 5150]

As I was in the section where you were talking about the 1980's, I noticed that there was a sudden turn, where it was all of a sudden about Les Paul in the 1950's. I think that there is a lot of information missing here, like the invention of the electric guitar. What happened to the Fender Esquire, which according to my sources, was the first succesful solid electric. Or the fact that the LES PAUL is just a TELECASTER knockoff. Yeah, I said it. First time I saw that two, I thought, "Hmmm, they look alike". The Tele was made in the 1951, and the LP in 1952. And the Tele is so much better. And so is the Stratocaster. The Stratocaster pwns anything Gibson has. And it is also so much more customizable. Anyway, Gibson markets the Les Paul much more than any other guitar they have. That's sad, at least most other quality guitar companies offer many other body styles and pickup arrangements.

[NathanWolff]

I like playing other people's gibsons and then going home dreaming I had one. what a sad life ,ahahaha

Checked.

[IrishGuitar77]

Gotta love Gibsons. And they are def not the same guitars as Epiphones. I bet you any Gibson guitar will last longer and sound better than any Epiphone, just beacause of the extra time put into Gibsons

[MIK4YC]

GIBSONS RULE!!!!!

[gyzer_8970]

Great, except there wasn't much info on Orville Gibson...

[Dattt]

xX Maverick Xx :
gibsons ARE awesome tho, the las paul is my 2nd fav guitar, 1st is the white falcon gretsch

i hope that las paul sounds as good as a les paul =/

[mattfm]

too spread out...organize more and make sure everything is there. you left out the later years in gibson history

[mattfm]

ADD: yeah and make more sources from books. websites arent always dependable because of their own sources

[dcoyle4040]

xX Maverick Xx wrote:

i really dont see why ud buy a gibson when u can buy an epiphone these days. theyre the same guitar its just a marketing scheme...

spoken like someone who whishes they could afford one!!

[achiles03]

good article. I don't really like gibson or epiphone thier to heavy and everyone has one.

xX Maverick Xx wrote:

i really dont see why ud buy a gibson when u can buy an epiphone these days. theyre the same guitar its just a marketing scheme...

not true. gibson pickups are much nicer the what they put in the epiphone guitars. Also the body finish that they use on the gibsons offers more sustain and smoother sound not so with the epiphones.

[pugnapugnapugna]

"The History Of: Gibson. This article is a true account of how Gibson came into the spotlight as the world's finest guitar company."

That's a lie straight from hell and you know it!

[timi_hendrix]

It just reads like a big advertisment really....

[Pedro14]

briliant article

[Chickenfrmheck]

nice guitars, but i prefer my standard strat - im heavy on the whammy bar :p

[Chickenfrmheck]

timi_hendrix wrote:

It just reads like a big advertisment really....

lol

[KeViNp]

pugnapugnapugna wrote:

"The History Of: Gibson. This article is a true account of how Gibson came into the spotlight as the world's finest guitar company."

That's a lie straight from hell and you know it!

Yes it is.
Gibsons are good guitars but I can't see a young boy going up to his parents asking them "mommy,daddy, could I have this guitar"
Unless the price took a "dive bomb" or if the kids parents are rich then I doubt the kid will get it.

Gibsons get their ridiculous price because EVERYONE USES ONE!!!

Look at most every band the lead guitarist has a gibson LP.

I don't want to follow gibson for price and for popularity.

IBANEZ!!!

[Stryker_66]

There is a difference between Epiphones and Gibsons. The rejection standards are very different. I examined several Gibson & Epiphones in my local store, and yes, there are obvious differences in quality. I do think the Gibson's are over priced and they sell them at that price because they can! I like the Gibson SG's, but I prefer a Strat anyday because of the price and versatility. Nice article.

Checked

[Kenkthulhu]

Without getting into a serious discussion. I have an Epi SG and a Gibson SG. There is no contest. Clarity, endless sustain, tone, warmth, bite... everthang.

[RadioMuse]

You failed to mention that Gibson abandoned Kalamazoo in the early 80s, probably one of the greatest mistakes they've ever made. When they closed that plant they lost a very large number of extremely talented and professional luthers (some of whom I know personally, since I live in the area) and left the heritage behind... Ironically if you're in town you can purchase Heritage guitars that are still built in the old Gibson facility (though in much smaller numbers) and I would argue beat the shit out of 95% of the Gibsons I've played.

[K!!LsWiTcH]

E V H 5150 wrote:

As I was in the section where you were talking about the 1980's, I noticed that there was a sudden turn, where it was all of a sudden about Les Paul in the 1950's. I think that there is a lot of information missing here, like the invention of the electric guitar. What happened to the Fender Esquire, which according to my sources, was the first succesful solid electric. Or the fact that the LES PAUL is just a TELECASTER knockoff. Yeah, I said it. First time I saw that two, I thought, "Hmmm, they look alike". The Tele was made in the 1951, and the LP in 1952. And the Tele is so much better. And so is the Stratocaster. The Stratocaster pwns anything Gibson has. And it is also so much more customizable. Anyway, Gibson markets the Les Paul much more than any other guitar they have. That's sad, at least most other quality guitar companies offer many other body styles and pickup arrangements.

that is bs. strats a.)are pains in the asses wen u break a string and need to fix it. its not that strats suck, its just that there are a lot of things that make a Gibson way better. bolt on neckj maybe? those things get ****ed up so often and thats the reason strats are more customizable so they get u to spend more on necks, bridges and other assorted things that should be better at first. and epi is no way as good as a Gibson ive played a lot of epi's and they dont compare at all to my gibsons but yes a lot of there guitars are overpriced cause a superstar plays one

[79stratSTONES]

Fender rules. Gibsons are cool, but way overpriced. unless the thing is a bona-fide custon guitar, you shouldn't be paying $2000+ for just the "standard."(ie les paul standard).

[go away]

good article gave me some insight into the history of gibson

[xXbleed4meXx]

My cousin's husband (donno what that makes him to me) has a super super old ES-335 from the 60's I think...I house-sat for him one time and oh my god I was playing that thing day and night. I love that guitar.

[Dix_Fix]

hi gr8 article
[IMG]http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l160/Dix_Fix/interesting/lespaul3.jpg[/IMG]

[niuguitarman]

E V H 5150 wrote:

As I was in the section where you were talking about the 1980's, I noticed that there was a sudden turn, where it was all of a sudden about Les Paul in the 1950's. I think that there is a lot of information missing here, like the invention of the electric guitar. What happened to the Fender Esquire, which according to my sources, was the first succesful solid electric. Or the fact that the LES PAUL is just a TELECASTER knockoff. Yeah, I said it. First time I saw that two, I thought, "Hmmm, they look alike". The Tele was made in the 1951, and the LP in 1952. And the Tele is so much better. And so is the Stratocaster. The Stratocaster pwns anything Gibson has. And it is also so much more customizable. Anyway, Gibson markets the Les Paul much more than any other guitar they have. That's sad, at least most other quality guitar companies offer many other body styles and pickup arrangements.

first of all: given... the les paul is pretty much the only guitar marketed by gibson [and somewhat the sg]. secondly: it is not a completely better guitar than the strat they produce different sounds; when you start customizing a strat you end up ruining the strat sound and it essentially produces a les paul sound. thirdly: fender is not the first company to make a solid-body electric. fender was originally making amps and in 1950 they were the first to successfully market a solid-body electric. the first solid-body guitars were made in the thirties by companies like audiovox and rickenbacher. fourth of all: the telecaster along with the les paul are similar in body design, however they are still for the most part different... a tele is wider and fatter and the les paul is smaller with more circular ends... the tele originally had one single-coil pickup while the paul had two... the necks were glued on pauls instead of bolted and the paul has always had strings mounted on top of the guitar on the bridge rather than through as on the tele. lastly... ... ...i hate the telecaster and all others in the "esquire" dynasty including the broadcaster.

[dcoyle4040]

KeViNp wrote:

pugnapugnapugna wrote:

"The History Of: Gibson. This article is a true account of how Gibson came into the spotlight as the world's finest guitar company."

That's a lie straight from hell and you know it!Yes it is.
Gibsons are good guitars but I can't see a young boy going up to his parents asking them "mommy,daddy, could I have this guitar"
Unless the price took a "dive bomb" or if the kids parents are rich then I doubt the kid will get it.

Gibsons get their ridiculous price because EVERYONE USES ONE!!!

Look at most every band the lead guitarist has a gibson LP.

I don't want to follow gibson for price and for popularity.

IBANEZ!!!

??? That made no sence if everyone had one then every kid would be asking mommy and daddy for one.. Professionals have one because they have the money to pay for the BEST sustain and one of the greatest sounds on the market! Ibenez also has a great sound Ill agree with that but The Gibson will sustain FOREVER!!! Gotta love that!

[RCT2head]

gibsons are so expensive...
but accoring to what i remember at the rock n roll hall of fame musuem up there in cleveland, it said the log was the first step towards electric guitars...

[Barti]

I have a Cort M600, and i get tons of comments that it looks just like a gibson les paul...

dont know if that means anything, but I got it used for 200 bucks

[DString]

Those who didn't like this article either are lovers of some other guitar maker, or they don't like to read. This is well-done research article, and I challenge those who didn't care for it to write a better article. Gibson is a great guitar, and I DO NOT own a Gibson. I have a Fender and I am looking to add a Gibson to my arsenal of Axes. Good Job, very good article.

[acoustic87]

I respect Gibson, but personally I just can't stay away from that clean funky Fender Tone, just listen to Stevie Ray Vaughan.

[FeatherBreeze]

sorry guys but u gotta realize that even for the price of a paul standard you could get a custom built to YOUR specifications. not some one elses.

secondly: i own a paul and three strats
what does that tell you? strats are WAAAAAY more versitile, pauls can get chunky tones but thats about it. thats why i only have one.

as for the FENDER vs. GIBSON argument EVEN JIMMY PAGE USED A TELE in place of his paul once in a while!!!! and hes really the most renound Gibson player ever. Jimi played a V once in a while, but he too prefered Fender.

A customised Epi Paul sounds better to me than any off-the-line gibson Custom, Standard, VOS, piece of overpriced "High-Quality" lumber.
but an off-the-line strat is good no matter what.



FENDER IS GREAT QUALITY(so's Gibson but.....*price*)
AND GOOD PRICE(cant say that about anything Gibson makes that looks like the Deluxe American Sienna Strat)
AND GOOD REPUTATION, sorry but i gotta go with fender with the overall qualifications, dont argue with me if your only gonna say "your wrong" and not post why. --'

Cut out the flaming of any guitar producing brands please.

Further, toning down the amount of talk about which brand is better would be appreciated.


This may seem like a polite casual request, but it's much more.


Checked/Deleted.

[hah2488]

dcoyle4040 :
xX Maverick Xx wrote:

i really dont see why ud buy a gibson when u can buy an epiphone these days. theyre the same guitar its just a marketing scheme...


spoken like someone who whishes they could afford one!!

haha sounds like me!

[DString]

DString wrote:
Yes I own a fender will always own a fender I just like collecting guitars, I can't help it I'm a guitar freak.....
Those who didn't like this article either are lovers of some other guitar maker, or they don't like to read. This is well-done research article, and I challenge those who didn't care for it to write a better article. Gibson is a great guitar, and I DO NOT own a Gibson. I have a Fender and I am looking to add a Gibson to my arsenal of Axes. Good Job, very good article.

[DString]

yeah man, I digs that funky tone too. Nothing like it at all.

acoustic87 wrote:

I respect Gibson, but personally I just can't stay away from that clean funky Fender Tone, just listen to Stevie Ray Vaughan.

[Samuel777]

Yeah i don't see why people are complaining aboiyt the article. He did a good job and i read about alot of the early history of gibson when i was younger and it all seems acurate and is easy to follow.

I think some people just like to bitch

[Kurt_Rosenwinkl]

If you think Epi's are better or just as good as gibsons, your playing the wrong gibsons. There is a huge difference, number one being the woods used In gibson made guitars,Epis are also manufactured,not hand made... This can make a huge difference in the way a guitar sounds. 1. being the wood!

[Kenkthulhu]

I have to agree with you there Kurt_Rosenwinkl. It's all about the wood - mahogany/maple v alder/basswood. I think a lot of people are talking about stuff they've never touched - and if they say they can hear the difference without actually owning one, then I will point out that there's a lot of variables in the equation to "what is a good sound"?
And while I'm here - I don't own a fender, so I can't comment. I wish a lot of others would say the same about every company/brand/model they DON'T own.

[cornellspoonman]

the only difference i see in the two is what type of music your playing. If your goin for like a funky/bluesy sound with some rock exeptions go for a Fender. But if your a hard rocker like myself a Gibson is the way to go.

[_3Lm0_]

Finest guitar company is a big claim...

[Danis1]

slam me for saying this, i dont care, the same way you people say Fender or Gibson are the best guitars in the world, i say JACKSON are the best!
It is not really right to say something is the best in such a broad area like guitar, even just rock. There are so many subgenres and such that anything could really fit into something, and be the best for its type of music.
I know some of you might argue that they did say that such is good for this type of music, but im talking to the people who wallop out their wonderful claims, unsubstantiated.
I play metal and i would love to know what people think is the better metal guitar.

[TK'65]

I agree dude,,, *skim* *skim* *skim*

[SG6578]

Personally I dont care.....cuz Ill never have enough money to buy one

[Room237]

The Fender vs. Gibson thing is a joke...seriously...Tell me a logical way to compare a Strat to a Les Paul...so yeah...They're different for a reason...and yeah they don't sound the same...

And personally I think Epi's are pretty good...That Elitist series they have makes some nice guitars...And Gibsons are just way too expensive...but heck so are those American Fenders...just an opinion really...

[Sloopy]

I'm a Fender guy, but the Gibson Firebird and Gibson Explorer has always attracted me.

Getting my vintage tele soon!

[Spartan 117]

Slash_HuDsOn wrote:

^if you buy a higher end epi SG the diff isnt so much but still when buying a Gibson is like buying BMW, you can upgrade and trick out a civic as much as you want but it will never be a BMW, that's why Gibson's are so popular, they're classis

i agree completley.

[Amy_Lee]

I'd like a Gibson some day...when I can pay for it myself, maybe... Amy_Lee

[stukes 04]

The fact is that if your going to try and pick which is better (Fender or Gibson) your going to have to argue over which type of music is better because both guitars sound great but with different types of music. Fender is more bluesy and Gibsons are kind of classical in a way. SRV's Fender sounds orgasmic but Stairway is played on a Gibson and sounds terrific. You can't compare the two because they are not made for the same sound.

[Trutru_iknow]

I liked the article. I can't really say it helped me with anything, but then, I don't think it was supposed to either. I do however like knowing the history behind my '76 Les Paul, and I love the thing. It has such a kick ass sound, I don't think I could find a guitar to top it.

Nice Article

[wingedgopher]

good article, even if i detest gibson guitars.

[metalicatrivium]

I know how NathanWolff feels. My friend has a Gibson Les Paul Studio and it is a kickass guitar and now I go to school looking at guitar magazines dreaming I had one. I am going to get one soon though. I am going to get a job and then get it and then a Marshall half stack or Marshall full stack. Damn I want a Les Paul.

[metalicatrivium]

Do not dis Gibson guitars. Well just not the Les Pauls. They are probably the top brand of guitars. I like them a helluva lot better than Fender. Fenders have the same feel as a Squier it is just that the strings are easier to bend. I dont like Fenders.

[metalicatrivium]

I agree with Danis1 though. Jacksons are kickass. Its what Corey Beaulieu of Trivium used in the recording of Ascendancy. And also dead guitar god Randy Rhoads used the Jackson.

[falafel]

xX Maverick Xx wrote:

i really dont see why ud buy a gibson when u can buy an epiphone these days. theyre the same guitar its just a marketing scheme...

i dont see why you buy a ferarri when you can buy a skoda

[ECwomantoneman]

I think Gibson guitars are really pricey, but if you think about it their prices have gone down over the years. For example, in 1977 when my dad was gonna buy an SG the price was £250, which was like 2 month's pay for him!

[ECwomantoneman]

Havin said that, they're mostly done by machines now, but all the binding and neck setting is done by hand which is the difference between a guitar surviving for decades and falling to bits when its shipped out.

[MESAexplorer]

I really enjoyed this artical, thanks for the time and research put fourth to write this.

[MESAexplorer]

ECwomantoneman wrote:

Havin said that, they're mostly done by machines now, but all the binding and neck setting is done by hand which is the difference between a guitar surviving for decades and falling to bits when its shipped out.

All gibsons are handmade, no exceptions. American manual labor costs more than other countries and the quality stands out more on the higher end models but nothing too terribly bad. And about the price, its hard to complain about a $3000 guitar if you went back and sold it for $2900 on ebay, or waited 20 years and sold it for $3200 or so.

[NIN&J5]

i personally think they are just different and put out different tones. Neither is better or worse, and it largely depends on your set up. If you play a strat on a marshall tube stack its gonna sound better than a gibson on a 15 watt squier amp! the two guitars were made totally different to appeal to different genres.

OI.


Stop comparing brands.


This is about Gisbsonnot Ibanez, Fender or anyone else.

Checked/Deleted.

[NIN&J5]

thank you guitarist

[MM&A7X]

another great article by the master, NIN&J5. Hes a friend.

[Fltho2ker]

im probably the 321543658743 person to say this, but it was kinda long, but pretty interesting.

[sTx]

The tone from a Gibson is unparalleled. Period.

[crassdump]

E V H 5150 wrote:

As I was in the section where you were talking about the 1980's, I noticed that there was a sudden turn, where it was all of a sudden about Les Paul in the 1950's. I think that there is a lot of information missing here, like the invention of the electric guitar. What happened to the Fender Esquire, which according to my sources, was the first succesful solid electric. Or the fact that the LES PAUL is just a TELECASTER knockoff. Yeah, I said it. First time I saw that two, I thought, "Hmmm, they look alike". The Tele was made in the 1951, and the LP in 1952. And the Tele is so much better. And so is the Stratocaster. The Stratocaster pwns anything Gibson has. And it is also so much more customizable. Anyway, Gibson markets the Les Paul much more than any other guitar they have. That's sad, at least most other quality guitar companies offer many other body styles and pickup arrangements.

[crassdump]

Well, for my one penny worth. All the major U.S. guitar manufacturers, all the minor U.S. manufacturers, in fact all guitar manufacturers worldwide, even any company that manufactures anything, anywhere, has one main aim. To sell what they make. In the 1950's Gibson wasn't aiming to create high-art that would fetch ridiculous prices 50 years after the guitars left the factory. The guys & gals at Gibson (or any other factory that made guitars which are now prime vintage collectables) didn't sit at the pickup winding machines saying to each other "we better make these PAFs good cause they are going to be the greatest thing ever one day". They sat at their benches the same way people sit at their benches now. Looking foward to the weekend and payday, not necessarily in that order. The Les Paul model was you say was Gibson's reply to the Esquire & Broadcaster & Telecaster, but Gibson still retained their 'family' traits...arch-top etc. it seems Gibson feared being as radical as Leo Fender, but it was a direct attempt to answer the sales of Fender's single cutaway guitar. Whatever Gibson or whoever put on the market and however they market that product is driven by one group only. The consumer....you & me. The direction their marketing and sales drives take is directed indirectly by us (???). If someone doesn't like Gibsons or Fenders or any other brand because of looks, sound or whatever then your most likely not going to buy that product. But lots of others will. The majority of people who play electrics guitars would like to have a Gibson, maybe not as their only guitar but given the chance.....

I don't have a Gibson but money aside I could list you 30 easy that I would like and that's just the electrics! I spent $3500 on a guitar. I could have got a pretty nice Gibson for that. I bought a Tom Anderson. It's more versatile and has really nice sounding pickups, very good build qualty etc. etc. I would have loved to have bought maybe a second-hand 1959 Historic Reissue but I went for the versatility because it was to be my only real quality guitar at the time. I don't think there is much doubt that Gibson's are just more complex to build than a Fender (or it's derivatives) bolt-on type.

My memory of the 1980's is that it was all Jackson/Charvel, Kramer, Ibanez, B.C. Rich etc, etc. I attended GIT in 1989 and the school was all of the above but mostly Ibanez. Very, very few Les Paul's. Maybe Slash may have been Gibson's most efficient marketing tool back then. Anyway I'm going to bed now so there. Good-nite!

[one vision]

Good article.

All the Gibson haters, let em hate. They're just jealous.

[lclermont5]

Excellent article, it's amazing how a few men who really cared for what they did could change the history of music. As for Gibson haters, the only people who hate Gibson guitars are those who can't afford them or those who haven't played one. I can't afford one myself, I have a Hagstrom Viking, but I love them for how they look, sound, feel, and what they did to make guitar playing better.

[biga29]

Gibsons are the most durable guitars ever...no competition at all..mine sat in a cold,damp basement for a couple decades and wen i got it it played perfect the neck was completely straight..only problem was someone left a 9 volt in it for about 12 years which rotted the wire but i fixed that and its the best guitar ever..

[GIBSONGUY3000]

Well said, mate.

[GIBSONGUY3000]

sorry... I don't know how the damn quote thing works...lol please help?

[eyesonly]

E V H 5150 wrote:

What happened to the Fender Esquire, which according to my sources, was the first succesful solid electric. Or the fact that the LES PAUL is just a TELECASTER knockoff. Yeah, I said it. First time I saw that two, I thought, "Hmmm, they look alike".

They look nothing alike, even a blind man will tell you that. The Esquire had one pickup, then the Broadcaster had two pickups. Gretsch already had that name so they changed it to Telecaster. The Les Paul is what Gibson envisioned a solid bodied Gibson guitar to be and it was nothing like the Telecaster in any way, shape or sound! Gibson crafted stringed musical instruments whereas Fender made production line items where the focus was on ease of manufacture. They were fundamentally different.