Bare Knuckle Pickups Forum
Forum Ringside => Guitars, Amps and Effects => Topic started by: Lew on April 09, 2009, 02:29:05 AM
-
(http://www.gibson.com/Files/aaFeaturesImages2009/eye-gtr-1.jpg)
http://www.gibson.com/en-us/Lifestyle/Features/the-new-eye-guitar-407/
What are they thinkin? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
-
Oh.. I've just been a little sick.. :( :? Mmm Nasty..
-
I like Gibson, but I'm not a fanboy, that is just not right.
-
... I don't know... There's something about it that appeals to me, somehow.
Not sure about the scratchplate though.
-
Someone needs to get fired for that guitar.......unless they came up with the autumn burst carve top SG thats also a limited edition, because that is nice.
-
I posted a pic of that in this thread a few days ago:
http://bareknucklepickups.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=16779.0 (http://bareknucklepickups.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=16779.0)
I think it's horrible, a typical example of Gibson getting something wrong. All they've done is morph an SG body shape (with a nod to a Hamer Phantom, probably entirely by accident). Then they've left the headstock unchanged so it doesn't match the body at all, spent 5 seconds designing a silly scratchplate, then painted it a ridiculous colour.
But soundwise, does it do anything new? 498T and 490R pickups, thin mahogany body, set mahogany neck... it's just an SG with 2 extra frets and an ebony board.
-
I posted a pic of that in this thread a few days ago:
http://bareknucklepickups.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=16779.0 (http://bareknucklepickups.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=16779.0)
I think it's horrible, a typical example of Gibson getting something wrong. All they've done is morph an SG body shape (with a nod to a Hamer Phantom, probably entirely by accident). Then they've left the headstock unchanged so it doesn't match the body at all, spent 5 seconds designing a silly scratchplate, then painted it a ridiculous colour.
But soundwise, does it do anything new? 498T and 490R pickups, thin mahogany body, set mahogany neck... it's just an SG with 2 extra frets and an ebony board.
exactly.
a body shape in between SG and some 80s superstrat design with a normal headstock that looks completely out of place, and for the scratchplate they asked a child to draw something "metal"... maybe without that plate and painted black (like sir jagger would suggest at this point) it could look just ugly. this way it looks awful.
-
Like Philly said... the biggest problem with that design is that the headstock looks way out of place with that body shape. Almost as taking a strat and putting gibson headstock on.
It did appeal in a certain way, but the headstock compared to the body is the worst part, and the horns look wrong...
-
I kinda like the tackyness of that
-
I posted a pic of that in this thread a few days ago:
http://bareknucklepickups.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=16779.0 (http://bareknucklepickups.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=16779.0)
I think it's horrible, a typical example of Gibson getting something wrong. All they've done is morph an SG body shape (with a nod to a Hamer Phantom, probably entirely by accident). Then they've left the headstock unchanged so it doesn't match the body at all, spent 5 seconds designing a silly scratchplate, then painted it a ridiculous colour.
But soundwise, does it do anything new? 498T and 490R pickups, thin mahogany body, set mahogany neck... it's just an SG with 2 extra frets and an ebony board.
oops didn't see the thread :shock:
-
i like it ok. if they do another sg or les paul they get criticised, if they do something a bit different it's just not gibson. they can't really win, can they?
i think the point of the guitar of the week thing is to try out lots of different ideas in small runs to see what works and what doesn't. many will be forgotten, or derided, but some will be classics, and may even become production models. i like the whole concept.
-
anyone who buys that needs to sort their life out
-
cool life sorting time
-
i like it ok. if they do another sg or les paul they get criticised, if they do something a bit different it's just not gibson. they can't really win, can they?
i think the point of the guitar of the week thing is to try out lots of different ideas in small runs to see what works and what doesn't. many will be forgotten, or derided, but some will be classics, and may even become production models. i like the whole concept.
i agree that those limited runs can be fun, but i can't see a future for this particular model... i'm not fond of weird shapes even if i don't limit design options just to the usual LP/SG/strat/RG shapes... i just think that a new shape must be really eye-catching or comfortable to become a new standard... this is not the case for this "stratized" SG. the idea is not bad per se, but they should have worked it a bit deeper than just prolonging a horn and mounting a bat-winged pickguard on an otherwise normal SG.
-
Quick Robin! To the Bat-studio!
-
Hmmm...
I think the look of the pickups spoils it...
But otherwise.... I quite like it , quite a lot :lol:
-
Hmmm...
I think the look of the pickups spoils it...
But otherwise.... I quite like it , quite a lot :lol:
Hang on, is this "Mister Anything-post-1963-is-too-modern" speaking? :P
i like it ok. if they do another sg or les paul they get criticised, if they do something a bit different it's just not gibson. they can't really win, can they?
i think the point of the guitar of the week thing is to try out lots of different ideas in small runs to see what works and what doesn't. many will be forgotten, or derided, but some will be classics, and may even become production models. i like the whole concept.
Fair point, but the concepts are usually only half-developed - if you're going to try an SG-meets-superstrat, why not come up with a six-per-side headstock to complement the body shape? Even an old Epiphone headstock shape might have worked. Maybe they could experiment with a bolt-on neck or different pickups.
Frankly, most of the GOTW models look like ways of using up leftover parts, not try-outs of new ideas at all.
-
I think gibson hired someone from bc rich to try and bling up an SG... and failed
-
Fair point, but the concepts are usually only half-developed - if you're going to try an SG-meets-superstrat, why not come up with a six-per-side headstock to complement the body shape? Even an old Epiphone headstock shape might have worked. Maybe they could experiment with a bolt-on neck or different pickups.
Good point - I think the Firebird headstock may have worked better on this, and perhaps instead of the mirrored batwing pickguard they could have cut it in half? '61 SG style, perhaps? And why have colour-matched pickup covers and then leave the knobs black?
Don't get me wrong, it would still be pretty unpleasant to look at, but as it stands that thing looks like someone fed a 4-year-old's drawing of an SG into a CAD machine. It seems that Gibson currently tend to rough out an idea and leave it unfinished before they go to production. I think the satin white Explorer and V with tacky "tribal" art that looks like something from a temporary tattoo set are pretty lazy as well, and would be a lot nicer without the graphics.
-
that's awful :lol:
-
####!!s.
-
Why are all URLs on their site containing the word "Lifestyle"?
Is that to compensate for lacking product quality or lack of strength in innovation?
-
I dunno, I wish Gibson would quit innovating.
If they stuck to guitars like they made in the old days, they wouldn't be nearly as annoying a company as they are when they try to get clever. The "Robot"? Didn't think so.
-
Why are all URLs on their site containing the word "Lifestyle"?
Is that to compensate for lacking product quality or lack of strength in innovation?
Because they make lifestyle products like fridges and hard disks too. Why would anyone buy a Gibson hard disk?
-
is it because you need an affluent lifestyle to afford one?
-
I dunno, I wish Gibson would quit innovating.
If they stuck to guitars like they made in the old days, they wouldn't be nearly as annoying a company as they are when they try to get clever. The "Robot"? Didn't think so.
but when they do that, people complain that they don't do anything new.
i think the robot, the digital guitar and the dark fire (despite it's silly name) are great innovations. they are in their infancy still, but i think these technologies will have a real impact on the future of our instrument.
if they'd been encased in the body of a Parker Fly, they'd be hailed as marvellous new inventions, but because they're in a Les Paul many people seem to view them almost as blasphemous!
i agree that gibson's corporate structure, it's quality control and it's custom shop pricing are all distasteful. but the same can be said about many companies; PRS may have better QC, but their limited editions are even more obscene than Gibson's. £30,000 for a guitar that Paul himself looked in on while it was built? with Mammoth ivory inlays! the next thing'll be an all brazillian rosewood mccarty, with inlays made from Ted McCarty's own shinbones!
yes, gibson make some things at massively inflated prices for collectors, but like any company they are taking advantage of a market to make money. if no one bought them, they wouldn't make them. they have also, in recent years, started making more affordable guitars like the faded series, which several forumites own and love. they are not the evil empire some people make them out to be.
-
Hmmm...
I think the look of the pickups spoils it...
But otherwise.... I quite like it , quite a lot :lol:
Hang on, is this "Mister Anything-post-1963-is-too-modern" speaking? :P
:lol: Yeah I was also thinking that while my opinion was forming... Can't explain it though - maybe it just looks "old" to me. Looks kinda "50s" maybe?
-
Don't get me wrong, you won't hear me praise PRS. Tastes differ, but I don't like the way they look; I don't like the way they play; I don't like the way they sound.
Other than that, PRS guitars are OK.
Parker? Meh. I don't have a problem with them but I don't exactly lust after them either. I wouldn't lust after them if they built Robots, either.
But as I said, tastes differ.
I dunno, I wish Gibson would quit innovating.
If they stuck to guitars like they made in the old days, they wouldn't be nearly as annoying a company as they are when they try to get clever. The "Robot"? Didn't think so.
but when they do that, people complain that they don't do anything new.
i think the robot, the digital guitar and the dark fire (despite it's silly name) are great innovations. they are in their infancy still, but i think these technologies will have a real impact on the future of our instrument.
if they'd been encased in the body of a Parker Fly, they'd be hailed as marvellous new inventions, but because they're in a Les Paul many people seem to view them almost as blasphemous!
i agree that gibson's corporate structure, it's quality control and it's custom shop pricing are all distasteful. but the same can be said about many companies; PRS may have better QC, but their limited editions are even more obscene than Gibson's. £30,000 for a guitar that Paul himself looked in on while it was built? with Mammoth ivory inlays! the next thing'll be an all brazillian rosewood mccarty, with inlays made from Ted McCarty's own shinbones!
yes, gibson make some things at massively inflated prices for collectors, but like any company they are taking advantage of a market to make money. if no one bought them, they wouldn't make them. they have also, in recent years, started making more affordable guitars like the faded series, which several forumites own and love. they are not the evil empire some people make them out to be.
-
I dunno, I wish Gibson would quit innovating.
If they stuck to guitars like they made in the old days, they wouldn't be nearly as annoying a company as they are when they try to get clever. The "Robot"? Didn't think so.
but when they do that, people complain that they don't do anything new.
i think the robot, the digital guitar and the dark fire (despite it's silly name) are great innovations. they are in their infancy still, but i think these technologies will have a real impact on the future of our instrument.
if they'd been encased in the body of a Parker Fly, they'd be hailed as marvellous new inventions, but because they're in a Les Paul many people seem to view them almost as blasphemous!
i agree that gibson's corporate structure, it's quality control and it's custom shop pricing are all distasteful. but the same can be said about many companies; PRS may have better QC, but their limited editions are even more obscene than Gibson's. £30,000 for a guitar that Paul himself looked in on while it was built? with Mammoth ivory inlays! the next thing'll be an all brazillian rosewood mccarty, with inlays made from Ted McCarty's own shinbones!
yes, gibson make some things at massively inflated prices for collectors, but like any company they are taking advantage of a market to make money. if no one bought them, they wouldn't make them. they have also, in recent years, started making more affordable guitars like the faded series, which several forumites own and love. they are not the evil empire some people make them out to be.
absolutely.
you can't blame Gibson and praise PRS, that has got currently 2 guitar designs and makes 120 variations of both, with absurd prices...
and some innovation is not that bad. don't get me wrong, i don't need either a robot guitar or a pickup-blending-with-piezo-plus-digital stuff... but i don't criticize gibson because they do it. maybe it's just an attempt, maybe every guitar will be built that way in the future... i don't know, but this IS innovation. you can like it or not, but it's something almost new...
-
Why am I being accused of praising PRS?
-
Why am I being accused of praising PRS?
don't worry, you're not! just using them as an example of another company that stick the arm in with ludicrous limited editions. fender do the same, maybe even more than the others.
it is a personal opinion thing, i'm certainly not disparaging yours, just giving mine.
-
Don't get me wrong, you won't hear me praise PRS. Tastes differ, but I don't like the way they look; I don't like the way they play; I don't like the way they sound.
Other than that, PRS guitars are OK.
Why am I being accused of praising PRS?
Fear not, I don't think anyone was accusing you of praising PRS.
Incidentally, once you've taken out the look, the sound and the playability, what's left to be "OK"? :P
-
Why am I being accused of praising PRS?
i wasn't answering your post... i wasn't answering to noone in particular, just to all the posts that accuse gibson to be in complete stall.
-
They're just experimenting. Its the same way we got the Les Paul Standard, which wasn't perfect from the beginning. Personally, out of the new 'Guitar a Month' models, i think the most promising one has to be that Les Paul with the Bigsby. That is exactly the kind of guitar i would buy!
Although i will admit, some of those look pretty awful, and the robot and dark fires don't really appeal to me. But i could image, in a gig context, or session musician, paid player what have you, they could be really useful.
-
Don't get me wrong, you won't hear me praise PRS. Tastes differ, but I don't like the way they look; I don't like the way they play; I don't like the way they sound.
Other than that, PRS guitars are OK.
Why am I being accused of praising PRS?
Fear not, I don't think anyone was accusing you of praising PRS.
Incidentally, once you've taken out the look, the sound and the playability, what's left to be "OK"? :P
That is sort of my point.
-
Am I the only person to see April 1st and think...........
April Fools????? :?