So...Why do People Hate on Gibson and Fender Again?

[pawel]

Not necessarily, but innovation for the sake of change isn't very appealing if it doesn't bring something to the table. Ok, a guitar that can tune itself, woot, how have I managed for all those years ?
See the almost overwhelming positive response to the evertune bridge, which brings a solution to an existing problem.

Well, a traditional-looking guitar where you can change tunings on the fly without modelling is not that silly of an idea to me - not something I'd need, but I don't see it as a gimmick for gimmick's sake.

Point taken that innovation has to be meaningful, but trying and failing is very much a part of it, so at the very least I would give Gibson the credit for that. Besides, we will all have different conception of what is innovative - SS.org may be about new materials, designs, and ERG solutions, while there are other parts of the guitar playing community still complaining about the fact that no company fully embraced the various polyphonic synth possibilities etc.

 

[epsylon]

The hate for Gibson and fender seen around here is just like the love for bkp's and black machines: teenagers on the internet suffering from herd mentality.

The same argument goes both way :
The love for Gibson and fender seen around here is just like the love for bkp's and black machines: teenagers on the internet suffering from herd mentality.

Both Fender and Gibson have spent millions of dollars advertising their classic guitar designs. Their customers are very conservative precisely because they have managed to make everyone think that their designs are the best (using the good old "appeal to tradition" marketing technique).
It's a fallacy to say that Gibson and Fender don't innovate because their customers don't want them to : they have worked relentlessly for decades to ensure that.

I was reading an article the other day speaking about how the De Beers company (the cartel controlling most of the diamond market worldwide) managed to greatly increase the demand for engagement rings (notably in the US). Through clever and relentless advertising, they managed to convince every American women that the man must pays two months worth of salary for a diamond if he proposes. All this for a virtually worthless piece of carbon.
The market for electric guitars is "natural" (because regardless of whether they were advertised, electric guitars would still be sold to people who want to play music with them), so it's even easier for a marketer to sell guitars. You just have to be one of the first big players and have clever advertising (and that includes having "star" performers use with your products).
Note that I haven't said anything about the intrinsic quality of Fender's or Gibson's (and I certainly don't hate them).

People hate proportionnally more on Fender or Gibson because they are big and ubiquitous (and they are big and ubiquitous because they've been here from the beginning and worked hard towards remaining big and ubiquitous). There are also ESP and Ibanez haters, who gives a shit ?

 

[pawel]

Both Fender and Gibson have spent millions of dollars advertising their classic guitar designs. Their customers are very conservative precisely because they have managed to make everyone think that their designs are the best (using the good old "appeal to tradition" marketing technique).

It's a fallacy to say that Gibson and Fender don't innovate because their customers don't want them to : they have worked relentlessly for decades to ensure that.

That's true to a degree - a huge chunk of Fender and Gibson's sales comes from the appeal to tradition which their advertising definitely contributes to, but they don't fully drive their market. In the 1960s Gibson decided that the singlecut LP design is dated and ditched in favour of what is now the SG. Around that time the first generation of rock electric guitar heroes (or maybe second after Hank Marvin and co.) started playing Les Pauls and the Les Paul came back. I can imagine that a similar re-focus on the Les Paul came around when Slash hit the scene in the late 1980s. Also, both Gibson and Fender made pointy superstrats in the 80s to respond to the market demand and even now Gibson is still trying to do something other than sell R9s.

Maybe it's a bit of a romantic vision, but IMO there is something more to the enduring popularity of the Tele, Strat, and Les Paul designs besides advertising and wanting to be like Eric/Jimi/Jimmy/Jeff/Stevie/Slash. Advertising in the 1960s and 1970s was not what it is now and, even with more and more solidbody electrics hitting the market, these were the designs that had the staying power. Maybe it's because they were some of the first, but I think Fender and Gibson did get something right back then.

 

[canuck brian]

I love strats. I've never had a chance to fully do one up the way I want, but i've got one in pieces at my place now that i'm slowly modifying. I'm not sure of the most current models, but for the longest time, I thought the made in Mexico ones played better than their American standard models. With a change in pickups, i figured they'd slay them.

Gibson....I don't even know where to start with this company. I've peeled two black Les Paul's down to their bare wood and found 3 piece bodies when they're supposed to be two. When a particular break gets the moniker "the Gibson break", it might be time to revisit how you scarf joint your necks. A friend of mine works in a pretty large store with well over a hundred Gibsons - we've laughed about how atrocious the quality control is in recent years - easily pointing out brutal finish, bad masking, terrible fretwork, numerous deep scratches in a lot of fretboards.... I'll snap pics of the shitty mask job on a $4000 Les Paul custom. It really sucks because the Explorer i bought brand new in 1996 was pretty badassed and basically flawless. Put a Gibson beside a PRS in the same price point and it's night and day.

Gibson also has the dubious honor of releasing the biggest heap of crap I've seen in the BFG Les Paul. I can't even think of a single thing on that guitar that I could remotely describe as quality. Everything about it was sub par and was basically sold based on the name on the headstock.

 

[purpledc]

You don't. You pay the extra money to pay the salary of someone who lives in the US, not China or Korea. Knowing that and that those new entry-level Gibsons are actually about the same damned price as most nice Korean guitars these days, there really isn't much room for complaint.

Well to each their own. But there are quite a few companies who can offer more than what gibson offers at a price point that is more competitive. Canadians are paid similar wages as USA employees and the la si do company who produces seagull and godin do a great job at keeping prices down and quality up. And they do things really old fashioned over there. IMHO gibson asks premium prices based on the legacy of their name.

Id also take one of those nicer korean guitars over an entry level gibson. IMHO quality fit and finish, materials and components trumps Country of manufacture any day. Ten or 20 years ago I wouldnt have said this. But as the quality gap between the USA and overseas production closes more and more every year USA production means less and less. I understand pride. But it can also be a bad thing if you rely solely on it.

 

[purpledc]

These two companies make the same stuff on purpose. They sell lots of guitars to older players and people with other Gibsons/Fenders. When they make changes, their biggest consumers bitch about it. I had a guy a couple days ago actually get mad that we have a Studio with a Floyd. He walked out.

They're doing what they know they can do well. Gibson puts modern stuff on some of their guitars though. The Robots, which are stupid as hell but it's modern, the wiring inside a Standard is definitely not a historical way of doing things.

Same with Fender, minus the robot stuff and computer-like wiring in Standards. But they've made modern takes on vintage guitars - look at the Deluxe Strats. They're hitting the boutique guys with the Select Series. Nobody bitches about Suhr, but that's exactly what Fender is going for with their Selects.

Gibson also owns Steinberger. Fender owns Jackson. They're keeping their name synonymous with what it always has been. They have other brands for the other stuff.

But, people hate them because they played one bad one and assume they're all bad. Or they read about it from some 14 year old LTD fan on the internet who says his F-100 kills every Les Paul he's every played.



I work for Sam Ash, and this is not the case at all at my store. I've been there for three years and the amount of Gibsons I've seen issues with can be counted on one hand. I send an Ibanez back two or three times a month. The frets stick out on Ibanez more than any other brand I've seen. LTDs are very solid. Fenders have more issues than Gibson, but still less than most other brands. Gibson has the highest quality control I've seen.. I've worked at two Gibson dealers. I've said it before and I'll say it again - unless Gibson is just sending all their good guitars to the stores I work/have worked at, I find the quality control comments very odd.

EDIT: This coming from someone who owns three Ibanez guitars with another coming this week.. I do own a Gibson, but I'm by no means a homer. I'm just a guy who is very impressed by the hundreds and hundreds of guitars I've seen from them. They build good stuff. If it's worth the price or not is another debate entirely. Most common issue I've seen is regarding the finish. I've seen a couple with finish bubbles around the tuners on the headstock.

You have to remember that I worked for these companies between the years of 1998 to 2003 or 2004. So we are looking at a decade of evolution between then and now. I all ready stated that LATELY gibsons have stabilized with their quality control but that it hasnt always been that way. And it would seem a few people like me hold a grudge and others simply repeat what they hear. I have no doubt though about the current ibanez guitars. I dont remember picking an indo ibby up at a GC in the last few years that was even playable much less in tune. I guess every company has its ups and downs.

 

[satchisgod]

People just like to hate whatever is popular.

This is so true. I was one of those people...pure ignorant. I grew up learning the guitar to metal etc so it could only be Jackson, ESP, Ibanez and other "progressive" companies like that. Thin necks all the way, when in truth, the wide thin necks like on Ibanez don't suit my hands at all.

Recently bought a Les Paul Traditional and it's astonishing. The LP is the biggest guitar in rock for a reason. They are the best sounding, bar none. I've never experience tone like it and I have played a lot of guitars that would be a lot more expensive, some of which I own.

 

[hairychris]

My most recent guitar purchase was a vintage spec FSR MIM Telecaster and it's awesome; factoring in the price-point of well under GBP400 I don't have a bad thing to say. A guy I know who owns a similar MIM does not want to A/B it against his vintage '68 in case it kicks the '68's arse. Some of the old Squire stuff was foul, but I'm glad that I scratched my Tele-itch with a MIM. Would I go MIA? Not really worth it from where I'm standing.

Gibson... erm. Firstly I haven't found their Epiphone range consistent in the slightest, and certainly in the UK you need to spend a chunk of cash for the real deal. However I have played some LPs that were stunning - the one that sticks in my mind is a Standard, one of the most resonant guitars that I've ever tried. I don't get on with the carved top/TOM combo of the LP so have never seriously been in the market for one.

I don't particularly hate on either, but as it is right now I'd trust a product less if it came from Gibson then from Fender.

EDIT: I used to hate PRS guitars when I was younger until I got a good deal on a Cu22. Immediate convert at that point. I suppose that until you try it you only have the image to go on.

 

[Mr Richard]

Personally I find they are two of the best examples of "paying for a brand name" in the guitar market. Personally I find just the same old same old boring models for $3000+ year after year.

They seem way to attached to their "vintage" image and I'm just not a "vintage" kinda guy. I've owned a MIM Strat and a Gibson Firebird V and enjoyed both. Hell, aside from the mini buckers and neck dive the Firebird was one of my fav guitars I've owned. That being said my main beef with Gibson and Fender is what you get for the money.

All you really need to do is look at PRS guitars. Many of those guitars are $3000+ but you have some of the coolest finishs AND you get quailty along with it.

For me though, it boils down the paying for a brand name and getting the saem old same old. Not saying you don't get quality, but I can get quality anywhere for that price.

 

[Overtone]

What's interesting about the branding concept of continuing a tradition ends up skewing the reference point for what is vintage, modern, etc.. The first Jem came out in the late 80's. When you think about it, it is 80s as fuck! But it still looks like a "modern" guitar to me and many people because of the Fender/Gibson reference point.

 

[Choop]

Meh, you can easily get a used american standard strat for under $1k, IMO they are a fantastic bargain. There is definitely a point of diminishing returns with any product line really as far as price/performance.

 

[pushpull7]

Now you guys have got me wanting a Les Paul, thanks sevenstring!

 

[Steinmetzify]

Best thing about both brands to me is resale value. Fenders and Gibsons are money in the bank, and higher end examples are investments, as far as it goes.

FWIW, I rarely sell guitars...so I went the custom route. I had a luthier friend build me a LP with my specs/finish, because Gibson wouldn't do so. I A/Bed my custom with a LPC and it killed it, and the same for the LP Classic Custom I had.

Cheaper Fenders are great modding platforms....I recently picked up a MIM strat, which I'm outfitting with a Hipshot bridge and BKP Painkiller. Should rock for what it is.

I wouldn't buy either brand hoping for a be-all/end-all guitar though...

 

[RagtimeDandy]

Gibsons sound good to me but I find them unplayable half the time. Also the fretboards tend to be pretty shitty in my experience. I also find them profoundly uncomfortable to play overall. So good sound...which is half the battle, but I need to be able to play the damn instrument too.

Fender is just too old school for me. Awesome for blues and clean tones are amazing, but I've never picked up a Fender and wanted to buy it.

Also to play devil's advocate, the only Ibanez I've ever loved is my own JS1200 and even that has a weak sound to me. I find the craftsmanship of the regular models to be a total shitheap. Gibson and Fender atleast are consistent and you know what to expect. With Ibanez its monetary Russian Roulette.

I'm a PRS guy. The best guitar I've ever played is my Custom 24. I've never had a guitar bond like that. Every time I pick it up I either write some riffs or just don't want to put it down. I've never experienced that with any of the other mentioned brands. In fact I really couldn't write music till I got my CU24

Id say it'd unsurprisingly personal preference.


Posted from Sevenstring.org App for Android

 

[broj15]

The same argument goes both way :
The love for Gibson and fender seen around here is just like the love for bkp's and black machines: teenagers on the internet suffering from herd mentality.

Both Fender and Gibson have spent millions of dollars advertising their classic guitar designs. Their customers are very conservative precisely because they have managed to make everyone think that their designs are the best (using the good old "appeal to tradition" marketing technique).
It's a fallacy to say that Gibson and Fender don't innovate because their customers don't want them to : they have worked relentlessly for decades to ensure that.

People hate proportionnally more on Fender or Gibson because they are big and ubiquitous (and they are big and ubiquitous because they've been here from the beginning and worked hard towards remaining big and ubiquitous). There are also ESP and Ibanez haters, who gives a shit ?

Hmmmm, an interesting point. But explain something to me: How exactly can people that love Fender and Gibson have a herd mentality when you just said yourself that people hate proportionally more on those two companies? Last time I checked if you weren't in the majority then the only other place you could be is in the minority and a herd/ hive mind mentality is something usually only present in the majority group.

I also don't think you can call it herd mentality when someone is inclined to purchase what has been a time tested industry standard for the last 30-40 years. That's the same reason you see people rave about the 5150/6505. They don't say it's a good amp because everyone else says the same thing. They say it's a good amp because it really is the best tool for the job. Sometimes a strat, tele, les paul, sg etc. is just the best tool for the job. Bkp's on the other hand are a different story. In that situation someone with a minuscule amount of fame decided that bkp's were superior and the the next thing you know every fanboy was riding the dick train to bkp land, just because it's what some "famous" musician said on the internet. That, my friend, is a real herd mentality.

 

[Basti]

shall we just say it's because of opinions and bandwagons?

It's because of opinions. And bandwagons.

 

[craigny]

I think the cheaper Fenders have gotten ALOT better and Gibson is finally getting around to making some decent affordable guitars....that's how I believe a fair amount of the "hate" has dissipated for them.

 

[Unknown Doodl3.2]

Well, what I don't like of Fenders and Gibsons is that they're still just the same as 50 years ago...Strats with useless tremolos, for example.

A while ago I made a thread about why I don't like them and I got bashed because they are good guitars and popular. I don't question the quality of their make, or a particular sound they might have, but popular doesn't mean the best.

My main reason not to like them is that 50 years ago those brands were the ones bringing the latest in electric guitar technology and design, and they've just kept in the past. I'm not saying strats and les pauls should dissapear, but Fender and Gibson could release more up to date models of those guitars; I'd like that.

I began playing the guitar first with a Squier Stratocaster and then bought a Fender Stratocaster. I used to like them and kind of worship them...but after I grabbed an Ibanez RG for the first time, I felt the latter were way more comfortable, better sounding and I could use the tremolo without detuning all strings.

I think it's just a reputation they've gained over the years, and most people think they are the best brands, but I think if everyone had the chance to try other brands as well as custom luthier guitars, they'd just forget them, or they would start asking for more up to date designs.

Again, they are fine and playable guitars; no doubt most designs are based on those, but my oppinion is that they've stuck in time and have nothing new to offer. But well, they sell, a lot...so I don't think they're willing to change as long as people buy them.

As much as I want to side with your point it just seems to me that you're asking fish to fly and birds to swim.

Canadians are paid similar wages as USA employees and the la si do company who produces seagull and godin do a great job at keeping prices down and quality up. And they do things really old fashioned over there. IMHO gibson asks premium prices based on the legacy of their name.

I've sold all these brands for years now and while la si do make really good stuff (especially for the price), comparing them to some of the stuff gibson and fender release is pure apples and oranges. Not even in the same league.

I agree with those who spoke of herd mentality. Ibanez, with a few exceptions, hasn't done an RG worth buying since 2001 and no one's ever convinced me they SOUND good stock (keep in mind I own 2), Dean is firing on all cylinders trying to break the world record for the amount of lemons released, and Jackson's QC is all over the place (which is unfortunate since they've been releasing some interesting models lately, mirror that thought for Ibz).

Schecter seem to be one of the only "big" guitar brands lately coming out with stuff that actually feels like you're getting your money's worth. They have interesting models, different options for different players (most models available lefty as well, woot), signature models that are worth the extras, and something that resembles customer service in contrast to the aforementioned brands. PRS's quality is without question but it's sort of expected given how much they charge for their guitars (not saying it's not worth it of course).

In terms of quality or bang for your buck, I can understand those who feel Gibson and Fender can be falling behind especially compared to some of the options we have now like Shur, Vigier, Tom Anderson etcetc... all these brands that sell a product in a similar price range and are way more consistent in quality.

So why do people still buy LPs and Strats? Because nothing else feels or sounds like em. It's not about better or worse

 

[Grand Moff Tim]

Well to each their own. But there are quite a few companies who can offer more than what gibson offers at a price point that is more competitive. Canadians are paid similar wages as USA employees and the la si do company who produces seagull and godin do a great job at keeping prices down and quality up. And they do things really old fashioned over there. IMHO gibson asks premium prices based on the legacy of their name.

Well yeah, of course they'll try to capitalize on their name. They're a business, after all, and if people are willing to pay a little extra for something that says "Gibson" on the headstock, they'd be fools not to take advantage of that (to a point). Looking at the prices of the Godins on the market right now, they're actually right there alongside most of the Gibson USA line, ranging from $500 to $2k depending on specs.

As I understand it Godin does have better QC, but (and I almost hate to sound like I'm making excuses for them) Gibson is a much larger company. I'm going to go out on a limb and assume they pump out way more guitars every year than Godin does. You could say that if their QC can't keep up with their production then perhaps they should scale back their production a bit, but from the business side of things their production needs to keep up with demand. QC issues or no, the demand still seems to be there.

Id also take one of those nicer korean guitars over an entry level gibson. IMHO quality fit and finish, materials and components trumps Country of manufacture any day. Ten or 20 years ago I wouldnt have said this. But as the quality gap between the USA and overseas production closes more and more every year USA production means less and less. I understand pride. But it can also be a bad thing if you rely solely on it.

For what it's worth, so would I, in most cases. It still comes back to the wages the workers are paid. If it takes more time and effort to make a higher quality guitar, then you're going to have to pay someone more to put in that extra time and effort. Guess which worker you're going to be able to get more time out of for an $800 guitar: an American or a Korean? I've been living in Korea for almost 14 months now, and I assure you, living is cheaper here.

All that means when I'm looking to be frugal and have a certain type of guitar in mind, I'll go for the import. I've bought three guitars since coming here, one an MiA (a Gibson, in fact), one MiK (strat clone), and one MiChina (Epi LP), in descending order of price, each to fill a specific need and on a specific budget. If I had more money to fuck around with, though, then you bet your ass I'd pay extra money for the MiA, even if it is just for the name on the headstock . I'm fine admitting that. I want dat mojo .

 

[Dooky]

I own a Gibson Les Paul Custom, so no hate from me.
But I have noticed Gibson & Fender do tend to get quite a bit of hate from time to time.
All the higher end Gibsons & Fenders I've played have always been really great guitars - so it surprises me when I read or hear people say that they have played some absolute dud Gibson Customs or Fender Deluxes. Perhaps I'm just lucky... or can't tell that I'm playing a piece of shit