Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
What would YOU do to save Gibson?
- Thread starter ThinCrappyTone
- Start date
- Mar 8, 2011
- 12,232
- 51,187
- Disclosures
- Authorized greenboy designs builder/Owner of BNA Audio
I have no idea where or how you got that from what I said. My point, which was apparently clear to everybody else here who read it was that more of the same - or churning out endless copies of your cash cows - is no bad thing from a business perspective. And that Fender had been doing that for its entire history without ill effect to their product’s popularity or their bottom line. So why did you feel Gibson needed to die because they are allegedly doing something similar? It’s a product strategy that works well in the guitar industry. So where is it a bad thing?
Maybe, once you get over your outrage that somebody here had the effrontery to very mildly disagree with something you posted, you might want to read my post again.
Last edited:
Yeah…Good luck with that. Private corporations are called that because they are quite private about most things. Not having to answer to public shareholders (and do the required public filings) because you don’t have any outside shareholders is a powerful privacy safeguard.
I’ve got their newest EB.
It’s a perfectly fine bass. Lightweight, nice fast neck, fairly versatile pickup switching arrangement and decent build quality. A little Spartan looking. But I actually prefer that sort of utilitarian look.
But here’s the problem: it doesn’t look or sound like you’d expect something from Gibson to sound. It could be a bass from anybody. There’s no special magic to it. It’s just a decent workmanlike bass. Nothing about it says “EB” to anyone even half familiar with that product line. As in: Nada!
So it isn’t going to win over many existing Gibson customers. And it’s doubtful it’s going to attract that many new ones.
Oh well. The price was at least in line with what it is. That too is unusual for Gibson in recent years.
It’s all Eddie VanHalen’s fault. No one wanted to be like him. No one.
Don’t get me wrong. It’s a really nice bass. I wouldn't hesitate to gig with it or take it into the studio. And that featherweight body and beautiful balance is a dream. Wish I had that years ago when four hour club dates were the norm.
But…there’s something about the tone, which is clean and very modern, that lacks that authoritative girth and sonic footprint I always equated with “the Gibson sound.”
Bottom line, it’s a very different animal from what’s come before. And it displays a definite Tobias influence to my eyes and ears. Not a bad thing at all. But it really surprised me the first time I played one. And that was a first for me when it came to a Gibson bass.
Excellent description. Have to admit I am even more intrigued now!
If you are wondering if the CEO will magically disappear....
The Two Major Types of Bankruptcy
Chapter 7
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission states that under Chapter 7 of U.S. Bankruptcy Code "the company stops all operations and goes completely out of business. A trustee is appointed to liquidate (sell) the company's assets, and the money is used to pay off debt."
Chapter 11
This proceeding of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code involves not a closure, but a reorganization of the debtor's business affairs and assets. The company undergoing Chapter 11 expects to return to normal business operations and sound financial health in the future; this type of bankruptcy is generally filed by corporations that need time to restructure debt that has become unmanageable. Chapter 11 gives the company a fresh start, dependent on its fulfillment of obligations under the reorganization plan. A Chapter 11 reorganization is the most complex and, generally, the most expensive of all bankruptcy proceedings. It is therefore undertaken only after the company has carefully analyzed and considered all alternatives.
Public companies tend to try to file under Chapter 11 rather than Chapter 7 because it allows them to still run their businesses and control the bankruptcy process. Rather than simply turning over its assets to a trustee, a company undergoing Chapter 11 has the opportunity to retool its financial framework and be profitable again. If the process fails, all assets are liquidated and stakeholders are paid off according to absolute priority.
Keep in mind that Chapter 11 isn't a get-out-of-jail-free card. When a company files for Chapter 11, it is assigned a committee that represents the interests of creditors and stockholders. This committee works with the company to develop a plan to reorganize the company and to get it out of debt, reshaping it into a profitable entity. Shareholders may be given a vote on the plan, but as their priority is second to all creditors, this is never guaranteed. If no suitable reorganization plan can be prepared by the committee and confirmed by the courts, shareholders may not be able to stop their company's assets from being sold off to pay creditors.
The Two Major Types of Bankruptcy
Chapter 7
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission states that under Chapter 7 of U.S. Bankruptcy Code "the company stops all operations and goes completely out of business. A trustee is appointed to liquidate (sell) the company's assets, and the money is used to pay off debt."
Chapter 11
This proceeding of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code involves not a closure, but a reorganization of the debtor's business affairs and assets. The company undergoing Chapter 11 expects to return to normal business operations and sound financial health in the future; this type of bankruptcy is generally filed by corporations that need time to restructure debt that has become unmanageable. Chapter 11 gives the company a fresh start, dependent on its fulfillment of obligations under the reorganization plan. A Chapter 11 reorganization is the most complex and, generally, the most expensive of all bankruptcy proceedings. It is therefore undertaken only after the company has carefully analyzed and considered all alternatives.
Public companies tend to try to file under Chapter 11 rather than Chapter 7 because it allows them to still run their businesses and control the bankruptcy process. Rather than simply turning over its assets to a trustee, a company undergoing Chapter 11 has the opportunity to retool its financial framework and be profitable again. If the process fails, all assets are liquidated and stakeholders are paid off according to absolute priority.
Keep in mind that Chapter 11 isn't a get-out-of-jail-free card. When a company files for Chapter 11, it is assigned a committee that represents the interests of creditors and stockholders. This committee works with the company to develop a plan to reorganize the company and to get it out of debt, reshaping it into a profitable entity. Shareholders may be given a vote on the plan, but as their priority is second to all creditors, this is never guaranteed. If no suitable reorganization plan can be prepared by the committee and confirmed by the courts, shareholders may not be able to stop their company's assets from being sold off to pay creditors.
Oh, hey man! Thanks for the well wishes. I hope you can make it out tomorrow night - and that we play together again soon.
(Sorry for the threadjack, y'all.)
This video makes the case that it's issues have less to do with anything about guitar innovation/quality and more to do with how Gibson has handled debt in the face of a reduction in the guitar market.
My feeling is that Gibson should have shrunk with the Guitar market. They should be making fewer guitars. It isn't a publicly traded company so they should have been able to avoid the "growth mindset" that they got sucked into.
I own a 1999 Les Paul Custom. While I don't play it often (because it's a guitar) I don't think I will ever own a finer instrument.
My feeling is that Gibson should have shrunk with the Guitar market. They should be making fewer guitars. It isn't a publicly traded company so they should have been able to avoid the "growth mindset" that they got sucked into.
I own a 1999 Les Paul Custom. While I don't play it often (because it's a guitar) I don't think I will ever own a finer instrument.
Last edited:
- Apr 18, 2008
- 16,006
- 1
- 31,701
- Disclosures
- I'm highly opinionated and extremely self-assured
I’m always amused when I see Slash displayed as a Gibson poster child, since his workhorse instruments are painstakingly excellent copies not built by Gibson. I’m sure this is also true for other high-profile musicians.
The problem with capitalism and the basic corporate model, is that they are based on continuous expansion and growth. No one ever figured out how to successfully wind-down an on-going enterprise. Other iconic brands like Harley Davidson are also facing dire times. They make what made them famous era's ago. However, there just aren't enough people in the world who want or are even able to buy what made them famous.
Fender isn't exactly walking on sunshine these days, so that's not necessarily the best example. But Fender has been diversifying their portfolio for years, acquiring various brands within the same market, unlike Gibson who tried way too late to diversify by purchasing companies like TEAC. And speaking of diversity, Fender sells the most popular bass models on the planet - a segment Gibson doesn't come close to competing in, and Fender has an outstanding amp lineage as well, which can be seen in studios and on stages everywhere. My point is that Fender has a lot broader scope than Gibson, which primarily leans on the LP and SG models to stay afloat. I just don't think there is an apples to apples comparison between Gibson and Fender.
LoL outrage? I'm having a blast! No rage here. Nothin but love for ya, 40.
The beauty of capitalism is creative destruction clearing the field for new innovative ideas by forcing old companies to adapt and change or go extinct.
My approach would pretty much be "Become a completely different company". They're just too far out of touch with what the younger up and coming generation of musicians actually want. Look at the new modern flying V for craps sake...
I just can't understand why anyone in their right mind would jump at the thought of dropping coin on a Gibson these days. There are countless guitar companies out there now doing work at the same level of quality while offering newer and more innovative features to guitars for a fraction of the cost. They're staying afloat on reputation alone at this point.
That's coming from a Gibson owner as well. I have a Gibson LP standard that I bought about ten years ago. I have a cheaper bolt-on copy made by a company called Tradition that I bought shortly after the Gibson, and I'm not even exaggerating when I say it measures up to the Gibson in just about every way. The pickups were a little less warm, but all of the hardware is about the same or better, the tuners especially.
Nowadays, many younger musicians are looking for newer features. Locking tuners, humbuckers with coil splitting controls, etc.. When Gibson tries to offer something modern, they screw the pooch. Look at this joke...
Neon Modern Les Paul Axcess Custom
You have to be one of the world's biggest Gibson fanboys to buy something so simplistic for nearly 5 grand...
I just can't understand why anyone in their right mind would jump at the thought of dropping coin on a Gibson these days. There are countless guitar companies out there now doing work at the same level of quality while offering newer and more innovative features to guitars for a fraction of the cost. They're staying afloat on reputation alone at this point.
That's coming from a Gibson owner as well. I have a Gibson LP standard that I bought about ten years ago. I have a cheaper bolt-on copy made by a company called Tradition that I bought shortly after the Gibson, and I'm not even exaggerating when I say it measures up to the Gibson in just about every way. The pickups were a little less warm, but all of the hardware is about the same or better, the tuners especially.
Nowadays, many younger musicians are looking for newer features. Locking tuners, humbuckers with coil splitting controls, etc.. When Gibson tries to offer something modern, they screw the pooch. Look at this joke...
Neon Modern Les Paul Axcess Custom
You have to be one of the world's biggest Gibson fanboys to buy something so simplistic for nearly 5 grand...
