Gibson Music Inc. struggling?

Playing guitar doesn't pick up chicks like it used to. It's a real problem for the industry

 

Guitaronomics: How Much Does it Actually Cost to Build a Guitar? | Reverb »

Somewhat related to the discussion at hand. I thought this was an interesting article.

 

I love my Gibson 1965 Southern Jumbo! the glory days indeed...not my guitar as pictured...mine is in better shape.

 

I'm an old guy and I wouldn't even give an Asian guitar a second look. I couldn't even name an Asian guitar company if I tried. They just don't interest me. Maybe the younger generation feels differently. I own four Gibson guitars and they are all amazing.

Gibson 2002 Les Paul R8 Custom Shop Sunburst (w/real PAF's from 1961)
Gibson 2003 Les Paul R9 Custom Shop Sunburst with Brazilian fretboard
Gibson 2014 Les Paul R8 Custom Shop Lemonburst
Gibson 1989 Chet Atkins SST

 

Wasn't Gibson owned by Bain Capital for awhile? They were probably spun off with a ton of debt, that's the way Bain makes its money.

 

OUTSTANDING!

 

I worked for Gibson for a little while way back in 1992. They weren't all that loved by their employees, but many of those employees had lots of talent and they offered some products that were as good as anything the company ever made.

I remember the L5 Archtop template, used to rough out the solid arch tops before fine tuning by hand. One was the very same template commissioned by Lloyd Loar, complete with his signature.

Lots of history and lots of talent, but the market is long since over saturated. They were, after all, running their Nashville plant 24 hours a day back in 1992. All of those guitars are still out there.

 

The odd thing is Gibson owns the Epiphone name.

As of lately Gibson is putting out guitars (true street price, not their "MSRP" ) just slightly more expensive than an Epiphone, and in most cases much better for the cost.

Seems to me they are shooting themselves in their Epiphone foot so to speak in the long term.

 

I don't think there was enough time. Commitments are in the distribution and retail channels months ahead of time. Literature and other collateral is printed well in advance as well. Then there's the time needed to agree on designs, protoype, test, sort out the parts supply chain, and actually manufacture without unforeseen problems and assembly line issues. There's also no rule saying that initial changes have to be product-oriented. Often, internal efficiencies or changes or modifications of some sort (staff loads, staff loading, bookkeeping, accounting, office management, etc.) take place first in order to help figure out the best ways to actually all get along with the 'new' people in the design groups and engineering groups. They don't know each others ways or methodologies or personalities. Typically, in the first year of any merger or partnership very little that's visible takes place.

 

A lot of the die-hard Gibson fans hate the current management of the company. I too believe they are out of touch.

I know Fender's biggest issue is their reliance on Guitar Center. That probably applies to Gibson as well.

Interesting read: The End of Guitar Center »

 

Not really. Bain took an ownership stake in Guitar Center. The major guitar line at Guitar Center is Gibson. Other than that, Bain is not associated with Gibson. Bain also helped screw up Guitar Center (2013-2014) even more than it already was.

As far as Bain making money through spin-offs goes, it's really not the only thing the company does.

 

Probably not, and I'd expect the Onkyo design for new lines to be in pipeline months ahead. Probably just coincidence but I'll be interested how they take the RZ line forward now if at all (unappealing to me, admittedly), or if they stick with the more traditional TX-NR look. That in turn was probably due for refreshing though.

Thanks for the rest of the info, but I'm aware of how mergers work; a number years in the banking industry and most recently with two large UK and Spanish banks. The complexity was off the scale.

 

Interesting discussion. Agree with lots of the observations on variable quality but I will also note, much as I love the Heritage story, one of their mid 90s 575s was the only guitar I had to get rid of because I could not get this thing to sound right. One area of the neck just always seemed dead no matter what we tried and the p'ups would crap out without warning some nights, due no doubt to some small circuit problem. I traded it on a Gibson 335 which I still have and plays great. Short of a luthier like Campellone, I suspect every manufacturer has a few duds along the way, which is why it's so important to try before you buy.

I take lessons from a pro who loves guitars and he first pointed out to me that the robo-tuners had been a disaster for Gibson. He also mentioned to me that now was a great time to get a good price on a Les Paul if you wanted one. I've never been a LP player and to be honest, they have so many variants on the model I would not even know where to start if I wanted to try now. But who would not like another guitar that played great at a decent price? All to say, I hope Gibson find a way out of their problem, they're an iconic brand in the history of music.

 

But that's the way it's GOT to be if you want tight tolerances and even quality. I've never built a guitar, but I've built pianos. Sohmer pianos were "hand made", sometimes very sloppily, with quality all over the map. Later I worked for Kawai, and their "machine made" pianos were much better. There was no "hit or miss" as it was with laboriously assembled hand-made instruments.

 

Anyone who thinks CITES is going to make anything sustainable is living in a fantasy world. Much more Brazilian rosewood (which isn't actually that great a guitar wood) was burned in bulldozed piles than exported in the last couple of decades, and that is true to a lesser extent of other rare woods from Africa, South America and most of Asia.

Good guitars can be made from common North American woods exclusively, and if you add in woods from other areas that are not particularly sought after and in no short supply, the choices are wide.

Personally I hope Gibson goes Chapter 11. That way a smaller, leaner, quality oriented Gibson can come back, and the other stuff can be managed better. There was nothing good for musicians that ever came out of the present ownership.

 

I was having dinner in a now-pricey favorite sushi restaurant here in San Francisco a couple of years back and overheard some investment types having a conversation about Bain. Very interesting. Essentially, Bain was a huge success because they took out scads of debt just as interest rates went into a prolonged period of decline. So they borrowed to buy a company, hollowed said company out, got a few quarters of solid financials out of them, then used that revenue stream to borrow even more money, paid off the original debt using money borrowed at a lower interest rate, then lathered, rinsed and repeated. They'd spin off or sell off some of the properties they acquired, but to a degree it didn't matter if the stripped down company survived or not. It would be sorta like buying a farm and then not maintaining it or even buying enough seed for the next year. Your numbers look great for a season, and after that it doesn't matter if the wheels come off. You sell the tractors, you sell the barn, you sell the land, or you spin it off / sell it off to some suckers and let them clean up the mess.

It's something like a credit theft ring, but preying on corporations instead of individuals.

The big problem for Gibson and the other manufacturers is that Guitar Center is a massive retail presence and owes them a ton of money. If Guitar Center goes under, it takes a bunch of instrument makers with it.

 

My 1973 Gibson Les Paul Custom Black Beauty- Paid $375.00 used in 1985. Just received a Musician's Friend catalogue Brand New Les Paul Custom $4800.00. Back in 1985 I could of bought a new one for $600.00. What kid could afford one of these nowadays?

 

Indeed. This is why I could not care any less about Henry J.'s Gibson. For a very long time, too many other companies (and private builders) have made these "classic" guitars (sometimes the same guitars) as good or better and often more faithful. Putting Stanton in the ground, etc. etc. No love lost for me if Henry J.'s Gibson disappeared entirely. I still know people who work there from accounting on down. They hate it.

 

I've got a '64 B-25. I love that little acoustic. Plays awesome and sounds wonderful. But, that ain't from Henry J's Gibson.

 

cool! those early 60's Gibsons are incredible!

 

That's why I so passionately hate what has happened to Gibson and am so displeased with it's current leadership; angry and sad at the same time.

 

yes, but there's always a chance they will be great again...

 

That would be awesome. Oooooo, it would be poetic justice if Mr. Smith could acquire the company and keep his own line; but, also start building classic Paul's, 335's, etc. again (like they should be built) with the Gibson name. Ha ha ha haaa. Heck, let Heritage have it "again". Anybody, just cut the head off the dragon...

 

in this day and age anything is possible!