# New gibson dusk tiger



## signalgrey (Dec 2, 2009)

check it

In pictures: the Gibson Dusk Tiger guitar | Musicradar.com


i dunnooooo gibson...


----------



## Prsdiezel (Dec 2, 2009)

thats one crazy gibson.


----------



## Arminius (Dec 2, 2009)

I thought it was a toy at first glance. The wood grain looks really nice but all the other stuff makes it look strange.


----------



## D-EJ915 (Dec 2, 2009)

that chrome crap needs to go


----------



## Dr Love (Dec 2, 2009)

Besides a camera battery and an impedance switch, what is new? Cool looks and a limited production run do not make that six string &#8220;the most innovative guitar in the history of music&#8221;. Of course I would want one (or a Dark Fire) if they weren't so damn unaffordable.


----------



## SpaceDock (Dec 2, 2009)

Should have been Gibson Firefox.


----------



## signalgrey (Dec 3, 2009)

i agree the Darkfire looked awesome. this...welll...chrome? no sir


----------



## Prydogga (Dec 3, 2009)

"Most innovative guitar in history" 

Fixed bridge
3 way switch
(I'm guessing) 24.75 scale


----------



## Bloody_Inferno (Dec 3, 2009)

D-EJ915 said:


> that chrome crap needs to go


 
+1


----------



## xtrustisyoursx (Dec 3, 2009)

what's even funnier is reading how absurd this press release is

Gibson prepares for Dusk Tiger launch | Musicradar.com


----------



## AK DRAGON (Dec 3, 2009)

We are not amused


----------



## silentrage (Dec 3, 2009)

I thought it's a really cool idea, but why they have to make it look so repulsive... that I have no idea.


----------



## loktide (Dec 3, 2009)

Gibson does it again 

they should rather re-introduce the solid-bodied LP standard instead of this crap


----------



## -K4G- (Dec 3, 2009)

Whatever they're smoking, i don't want one.


----------



## IDLE (Dec 3, 2009)

It looks horrible but I like the XLR out.


----------



## lefty robb (Dec 3, 2009)

Well, according to Gibson, everything they make is the most innovative thing in history, so why not this too? LOL...

God Gibson, please, just stop already. We get it, you have a fan base that is pretty much made up of 55+ Year old's with bulging 401Ks and pension funds who buy this crap because they want to play Led Zeppelin on it to look cool.

I thought PRS's had horribly gigantic neck joints, but that takes the cake.


----------



## Variant (Dec 3, 2009)

That is so much fail right there.


----------



## noob_pwn (Dec 3, 2009)

fail.


----------



## Loomer (Dec 3, 2009)

I mean... I LOVE Gibson guitars, and own two of 'em. It's the brand of Sixers I always end up falling back on, but GODDAMN!

This is hideous, unnecessary and overhyped. The Overzealous press for this will no doubt cause a backlash like nobody's business. If this sells more than a comparative handful of units, I'll be very suprised.


----------



## march (Dec 3, 2009)

the low impedance/XLR thing is brilliant, dark fire, robot tuning also etc ...

but the looks of it, I mean please ... who's in charge of marketing there ?


----------



## Sang-Drax (Dec 3, 2009)

Nice try, Gibson


----------



## signalgrey (Dec 3, 2009)

I agree with everyone Gibson is falling by the wayside. i love how they are saying this is gonna be cheaper than the Dark Fire. but it will cost you all your dignity.


----------



## Xiphos68 (Dec 3, 2009)




----------



## distressed_romeo (Dec 3, 2009)

Wow...with that name I was expecting it to be some kind of pointy metal machine.


----------



## Janiator (Dec 3, 2009)

Am I the only one that kinda likes the design of it? I dig the wooden grain a LOT. Would NEVER buy one though. It's way too expensive, and probably plays like crap compared to other guitars in that pricerange.


----------



## Sebastian (Dec 3, 2009)

I liked the Dark fire wayyy more


----------



## Justin Bailey (Dec 3, 2009)

gibson, stop trying to be innovative, thats why you bought Steinberger. What you need to do is what you do best, build les pauls, sgs, vs,explorers etc. and have Steinberger reissue the M series. All will be resolved.


----------



## bacid22 (Dec 3, 2009)

With that name I thought it was going to be the new George Lynch signature.  But seriously Gibson, this is getting old. Every month you make a "New Limited Edition Most Innovative Guitar of the Century." I'm pretty sure they only make guitars for mid-life crises now.


----------



## tuttermuts (Dec 3, 2009)

That thing wouldn't look half bad if they just got rid of that ridiculous chrome stuff, the inlays, those fartsy knobs....wait that would be pretty much a les paul now wouldn't it?

also: why 2 black knobs and 2 of those inlay ones, instead of all black?


----------



## Mattmc74 (Dec 3, 2009)

I think it's really ugly!


----------



## TomParenteau (Dec 3, 2009)

Justin Bailey said:


> gibson, stop trying to be innovative, thats why you bought Steinberger. What you need to do is what you do best, build les pauls, sgs, vs,explorers etc. and have Steinberger reissue the M series. All will be resolved.


 Alright, you're making WAY too much sense now.


----------



## JohnIce (Dec 3, 2009)

I like how they claim it has _countless_ new features, but can only mention two. I guess at Gibson, you can't count to two?

This company and their marketing is a joke so bad that it stops being funny and ends up being just aggrevating.


----------



## scottro202 (Dec 3, 2009)

Justin Bailey said:


> gibson, stop trying to be innovative, thats why you bought Steinberger. What you need to do is what you do best, build les pauls, sgs, vs,explorers etc. and have Steinberger reissue the M series. All will be resolved.



 

They need to stop regurgitating "new" LPs, SGs, etc and just make those guitars. People have always bought them, and probably always will until the end of time. Why? Their fucking Gibson, one of the biggest guitar companies in the world. Some of the most famous players in the world play them, of yesterday (Page, Clapton, Frampton) and today (Buckethead, Wylde).

I would want them to make a 7, but it'd probably be hideous, and over priced


----------



## JohnIce (Dec 3, 2009)

I think it's great that Gibby are progressing and trying new things, but they completely fail at it. Instead of embracing the newer ergonomic features that are found on most newer guitars, which would actually be appreciated (i.e. heel-less neck joints, contoured back, neck volute, better fret access etc.) they stick to age-old designs but make them uglier and put odd and mostly impractical digital stuff in them and sell the crap at ridiculous prices.

What I dislike about Gibson designs is that they all fail at simple issues. The LP has too poor fret access, the SG, Flying V and Explorer are too neck heavy etc. and they all break very easily at the headstock joint. These designs have been around for decades, why the hell haven't they fixed it, when pretty much every other company has?


----------



## signalgrey (Dec 3, 2009)

they dont really change what needs to be changed and instead add on bells and whistles etc...

i agree dude^

refine the great designs you have.


----------



## Groff (Dec 3, 2009)

I dig the top on it. It's an interesting design, I kinda like it!

Kudos for them trying something different. And by different I DON'T mean reverse V.


----------



## Dusty201087 (Dec 3, 2009)

TomPerverteau said:


> Alright, you're making WAY too much sense now.





I love the top... Not sure about the chrome but I could certainly deal. Only thing that actually seems "innovated" though is the jack


----------



## ZeroSignal (Dec 3, 2009)

JohnIce said:


> I think it's great that Gibby are progressing and trying new things, but they completely fail at it. Instead of embracing the newer ergonomic features that are found on most newer guitars, which would actually be appreciated (i.e. heel-less neck joints, contoured back, neck volute, better fret access etc.) they stick to age-old designs but make them uglier and put odd and mostly impractical digital stuff in them and sell the crap at ridiculous prices.
> 
> What I dislike about Gibson designs is that they all fail at simple issues. The LP has too poor fret access, the SG, Flying V and Explorer are too neck heavy etc. and they all break very easily at the headstock joint. These designs have been around for decades, why the hell haven't they fixed it, when pretty much every other company has?



This.


----------



## Daemoniac (Dec 3, 2009)

I've got to say, I came into this expecting to absolutely despise everything about the guitar, but I actually think it's pretty cool... I agree that the Chrome should go, i'd be far more happy with a brass/bronze coloured metal there, but other than that, i think it's pretty nifty... Though Gibsons ridiculous (and heartily exaggerated) marketing campaign sure as hell isn't doing them any favours though...


----------



## Daemoniac (Dec 3, 2009)

JohnIce said:


> I think it's great that Gibby are progressing and trying new things, but they completely fail at it. Instead of embracing the newer ergonomic features that are found on most newer guitars, which would actually be appreciated (i.e. heel-less neck joints, contoured back, neck volute, better fret access etc.) they stick to age-old designs but make them uglier and put odd and mostly impractical digital stuff in them and sell the crap at ridiculous prices.
> 
> What I dislike about Gibson designs is that they all fail at simple issues. The LP has too poor fret access, the SG, Flying V and Explorer are too neck heavy etc. and they all break very easily at the headstock joint. These designs have been around for decades, why the hell haven't they fixed it, when pretty much every other company has?



Though I do agree with most of this too... EDIT: I think the access doesn't phase me much because I'm not a shredder in the slightest, and i can't comment personally on the rest as i've not owned one


----------



## Customisbetter (Dec 3, 2009)

Justin Bailey said:


> gibson, stop trying to be innovative, thats why you bought Steinberger. What you need to do is what you do best, build les pauls, sgs, vs,explorers etc. and have Steinberger reissue the M series. All will be resolved.



THIS

I will never own a Gibson and its for the aforementioned reasoning of AGE OLD guitars that cost an assload and haven't been fixed.

But i guess when you buy a guitar based upon the name on the headstock...


----------



## tian (Dec 3, 2009)

Groff said:


> I dig the top on it. It's an interesting design, I kinda like it!
> 
> Kudos for them trying something different. And by different I DON'T mean reverse V.


+1, I think it's pretty cool as well. I'm not a huge fan of all the aesthetics, but I like the general vibe and it's cool to see Gibson continue the development of a new technology.


----------



## TheHandOfStone (Dec 3, 2009)

Um, no.


----------



## TomParenteau (Dec 3, 2009)

I agree with both sides. If I want a Gibson, that's what I want--complete with its classic bad points. If I want an "innovative" Gibson, I want a Gibson with some real improvements and not this laughable crap they are trying to sell now.


----------



## sol niger 333 (Dec 3, 2009)

What a shit name


----------



## Gameboypdc (Dec 3, 2009)

I honestly don't know what the Gibson design department was thinking when they made this. Sure the finish is not bad, but I think it would be better if it didn't have the weird guard/thing that I cant really explain thats planted all over the front. Aside from that Gibson is overrated, I thought I was getting into a sweet deal with a self tuning guitar on the first wave. Oh boy! I was wrong. I got a self tuning piece of furniture with strings. Sure it play's, but it plays worse in my opinion than my knock off Series 10 brand Les Paul. So now I find myself keeping it mint in the case in the corner of my room. Although I like to use my 3k money sink experience to make conversation with strangers at the local SamAsh and GuitarCenter, in hope to persuade people into buying better built guitars for their money.


----------



## Koshchei (Dec 4, 2009)

There's nothing innovative about another robot guitar based on the same 60 year old design that everything else they make uses. Hell, even the Ibanez RG and S series guitars are over 20 years old now.

TIme to make something that actually IS innovative, rather than selling the same old shit with innovative marketing.


----------



## JohnIce (Dec 4, 2009)

Koshchei said:


> There's nothing innovative about another robot guitar based on the same 60 year old design that everything else they make uses. Hell, even the Ibanez RG and S series guitars are over 20 years old now.
> 
> TIme to make something that actually IS innovative, rather than selling the same old shit with innovative marketing.


 
Indeed. And you can see the progress Ibanez have made over the years. A simple improvement like the AANJ for example. They realized it was better than a block heel, so they started doing it on all their guitars. And they're always designing new trems and pickup/switching systems, and they're never afraid of refining an already working concept. Sometimes they kind of miss the target, but that's forgivable. They keep evolving, and that's what matters. They just want their entire product line to always be up to date.

Gibson is the opposite of that.


----------



## Pablo (Dec 4, 2009)

This guitar seems slightly silly, to be honest. I am by no means a Gibson hater and would really love to have a great Les Paul... However, I do feel Gibsons are WAY too hit-and-miss bareing in mind their conciderable price tags. With that said, if I had $6000 in my pocket, the R9 VOS on my local guitar pusher's wall, would have a new home - an EXCELLENT instrument.

Cheers

Eske


----------



## signalgrey (Dec 8, 2009)

i dont really see the appeal to the tuning system. i mean yeah have it all on one guitar i get that. but how many tunings do you really need to play one set? I cant remember who said this but theres some musician who brags about how he plays in alot of different tunings....who cares.

i dunno i think there are cooler things gibson could be investigating instead of coming out with the 4th wave of the Robot series.

robot 1
robot 2
dark fire
dusk tiger.

.....alll the saaaaaaaaaaaaame.


----------



## Jogeta (Dec 8, 2009)

great features (although Line6 and Fender beat them to most of them) and terrible looks!
its a step backwards from the Dark Fire imo
still its not Gibsons most epic recent failure

24.75 inch scale 7 string explorer for the unprecedentedly epic fail

does anyone else think the tiger on page 8 of the review looks hilarious?


----------



## Wi77iam (Dec 8, 2009)

I want one, just for lulz.


----------



## hairychris (Dec 8, 2009)

lefty robb said:


> Well, according to Gibson, everything they make is the most innovative thing in history, so why not this too? LOL...
> 
> God Gibson, please, just stop already. We get it, you have a fan base that is pretty much made up of 55+ Year old's with bulging 401Ks and pension funds who buy this crap because they want to play Led Zeppelin on it to look cool.
> 
> I thought PRS's had horribly gigantic neck joints, but that takes the cake.



Hey, I can get to the 24th fret on my PRS no problem! LP joints could do with a little more sculpting though....


----------



## vhmetalx (Dec 8, 2009)

Gibson has been going down the shitter unfortunantly... Which is sad cause i have an 07 explorer.
will all this gibson making crap make gibsons go down in value? cause if so then i need to sell my explorer and get my moneys worth.


----------



## screamindaemon (Dec 10, 2009)

Jogeta said:


> does anyone else think the tiger on page 8 of the review looks hilarious?



Hahha, crap, you beat me to it. I want the kitty more than the guitar.

RAWR







He looks as angry as us for being included in the same web page as that guitar...


----------



## vampiregenocide (Dec 10, 2009)

Gibson trying to be modern again and completely missing the point. They think teh world of today is full of robots, hovercrafts and lightsabers, when its really not that diferent. They need to listen to guitar players and build a basic guitar to accomodate the needs of today, instead of just slapping on ridiculous features and hoping it will sell well because its a Gibson.

I'm they should put out a Les Paul with a tinner neck, 25.5 scale, decent metal pickups like SDs or something passive of some kind, a bigger cutaway for higher frets (make it 24), nice mahogany body with tone chambers to reduce the weight. Sort out the headstock so its stronger, and make it available in both hardtail and FR versions. Mayeb add some other subtle but good shit. Make soemthing liek that in an LP, SG and Firebird shape and you revitalise Gibson, and make a guitar that will appeal to a wider range of modern players. I garantee they would sell and regain a lot of respect among musicians.

EDIT - And make it under £2500


----------



## screamindaemon (Dec 10, 2009)

If Gibson made a lightsaber Les Paul, i would absolutely get it.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Dec 10, 2009)

screamindaemon said:


> If Gibson made a lightsaber Les Paul, i would absolutely get it.



Likewise actually


----------



## conorreich (Dec 10, 2009)

looks like gibson is trying to redo les paul's actualy custom with the low impedence pickups. looks very grotesque though


----------



## Bungle (Dec 10, 2009)

screamindaemon said:


> RAWR


----------



## ellengtrgrl (Dec 10, 2009)

Hmmmmm, how quaint!!! It looks like a mutant redux of the 70s Les Paul Recording model. No thanks! And to think that I was a Gibson Girl for a long time. 







BTW, as for the Dark Fire LPs and SGs - from what I read on a couple of other forums from some players with a bit of an inside connection to Gibson, those things have turned out to be some serious lemons for Gibson! They break down often, and don't tune consistently (in some cases, the robot machine heads have kept on turning, until the strings broke!).


----------



## Demiurge (Dec 10, 2009)

I dig the look, but I don't care for all the computerized crap. If I can't solder it myself if it breaks- I wouldn't bother.

And the name... Gibson should have just called it the Sex Panther. Don't name guitars so people think that they'll smell musky while playing it.


----------



## Ultraworld (Dec 13, 2009)

I think it would be revolutionary if Gibson would improve the quality of their Les Paul's and brought the prices back to earth. Then they wouldn't need off the wall models like this.


----------



## signalgrey (Dec 13, 2009)

i agree^

fucking ripoff these days


----------



## sworth9411 (Dec 13, 2009)

Sharp fret Ends on a $5000 Les Paul Custom....Binding coming up in a few places from a brand new guitar....right out of the box...

Unfortunatley we all know Gibson has moved the bulk (as in 99.9%) of the operations to Mexico, and is sourcing all their electronics and parts from China. Most of the custom shop assembly is done onsite but thats really it these days.......

This Guitar is why I am never purchasing a new one again......


----------



## redlol (Dec 13, 2009)

no.


----------



## ZeroSignal (Dec 13, 2009)

redlol said:


> no.


----------



## jl-austin (Dec 13, 2009)

There have been very few Gibson's I have liked. The BFG is the one that comes to my mind. I am just not into the whole "Led Zeppelin" or "AC / DC" look.

That being said, I am not surprised I don't care for this, I mean, I don't like any thing else they make.


----------



## JesseTheMachine (Dec 13, 2009)

Dusk Tiger? As soon as I saw this thing I couldn't stop laughing. 

Whoever is designing these things for Gibson needs to be fired right away - I found myself wondering who the target market is for these things and then I found the ads for it on this very forum! 

What do they take us for?

Edit: to be clear, I hate the chrome pickup cover/pickguard - absolute trash. And the inlays are very trite, also.


----------



## Konfusius (Dec 13, 2009)

Another reason for me to name when someone asks me why I dont like Gibson.


----------



## march (Dec 13, 2009)

Too much trolling in this thread, yes the guitar is ugly as hell and most of the community is being very vocal about that fact, me included. 

By the sounds of it, most of the haters in here did not even bother checking out the features of the guitar, and just figured this post would be the perfect place to vent their "I hate Gibson" and just trash it for the sake of it. It's far from perfect but at least Gibson is trying !

All analog signal chain with customizable global EQ and voicing, no digital modeling whatsoever, alternate tunings on the fly, no need to have multiple guitars in a studio. That thing allows to split the signal for each different strings and with a fanout/breakout box you could feed six different amps, again analog all the way. Or through firewire with six tracks straight to a DAW. The only thing close is the Roland VG-99 but then there's heavy digital modeling involved, and it does not allow you to split the signal outside of the VG-99 afaik. 
The possibilities are endless. How many have battled with their bass sounding muddy, or their highs/mids being this and that ? With a capable rig you could route/setup each string invidually with their own EQ/gain/amp, whatever you can think of ... we're finally seeing something approchaing the flexibility of what keyboards/synth can achieve. But guitars are lightyears behind still. 

The only thing this guitar/technology needs is actually someone using it to its full capabilities, in a musical context.

So yeah, all you haters please try thinking out of the general "basswood sucks", "EMG sucks", "Marshall sucks" and "insert-hated-brand-of-the-month-name sucks" box for once.


----------



## jl-austin (Dec 13, 2009)

march said:


> Too much trolling in this thread, yes the guitar is ugly as hell and most of the community is being very vocal about that fact, me included.
> 
> So yeah, all you haters please try thinking out of the general "basswood sucks", "EMG sucks", "Marshall sucks" and "insert-hated-brand-of-the-month-name sucks" box for once.



Funny, that is exactly what most Gib$on fans think. That basswood sucks, EMG sucks.

I'm sorry that we all don't stand in awe of Gib$ons "innovation".


----------



## Thrashmanzac (Dec 13, 2009)

it looks dumb.


----------



## march (Dec 14, 2009)

post edited, there's just no point to try discussing anything


----------



## MusicMetalHead (Dec 14, 2009)

You can all go suck a fat one. I think thats one of the sickest looking guitars ive ever seen. Yeah, its expensive, but with a full eq for each string, you can do just about anything you want on the friggin thing. SHUT UP!


----------



## BigBaldIan (Dec 14, 2009)

Whilst it's commendable that Gibson is trying to push the boundaries, they seem to be remarkably adept at shooting themselves in the foot whilst doing so. With current QC being the way it is (and I've seen plenty of lemons), complexity on this level equals a recipe for an epic Charlie Foxtrot. If they want guitarists to embrace the technology, why wrap it in an aesthetic package which will potentially alienate a large potential customer base? 

IMHO it screams a "lifestyle" guitar (you know the types), something that is designed as a talking point rather than to be actually played. Gibson should really be focusing on getting the basics right and cleaning up their act. Then perhaps dare I say it even refining the LP design (get the Axcess neck joint on more models for example). It'll be a better start than producing media "White Elephants" (perhaps the next one can be all white to fit).


----------



## guitarister7321 (Dec 14, 2009)

EWWWW GROSS!!!


----------



## TomParenteau (Dec 14, 2009)

I hate to admit that I'm the guy March is talking about. I just thought it was an ugly guitar.

EDIT: OK, I'm not completely that guy. I read Guitar Player cover-to-cover every month, and have for about 30 years. + all the real-life accounts I read about stuff in this forum. That's far from being ignorant. But I haven't read about the Dusk Tiger yet. Without knowing what it really was, I saw an ugly guitar & automatically said "Dusk Tiger sucks!"


----------



## dpm (Dec 14, 2009)

BigBaldIan said:


> Whilst it's commendable that Gibson is trying to push the boundaries, they seem to be remarkably adept at shooting themselves in the foot whilst doing so. With current QC being the way it is (and I've seen plenty of lemons), complexity on this level equals a recipe for an epic Charlie Foxtrot. If they want guitarists to embrace the technology, why wrap it in an aesthetic package which will potentially alienate a large potential customer base?
> 
> IMHO it screams a "lifestyle" guitar (you know the types), something that is designed as a talking point rather than to be actually played. Gibson should really be focusing on getting the basics right and cleaning up their act. Then perhaps dare I say it even refining the LP design (get the Axcess neck joint on more models for example). It'll be a better start than producing media "White Elephants" (perhaps the next one can be all white to fit).



This... seriously. This is exactly right.


----------



## Prydogga (Dec 28, 2009)

Bit of a bump, but I think it gets uglier in real pics than stock ones, first time I've seen that happen.


----------



## conorreich (Dec 28, 2009)

i think i threw up in my mouth a little....

that's horrid...


----------



## GazPots (Dec 29, 2009)

Prydogga said:


> Bit of a bump, but I think it gets uglier in real pics than stock ones, first time I've seen that happen.



Without the retarded scratch plates, oversized pickups (one of those is a humbucker (wtf?)) and inlays that would make only a small, retarded child happy it would be really nice.



Just imagine it with the top free of the 3 guards and no inlays. Only then would it actually be worthy of some money.


----------



## Justin Bailey (Dec 29, 2009)

totally agree take away the faceplates, and gay inlays and you've got a nice looking les paul with some cool electronics.


----------



## 6o66er (Dec 29, 2009)

Fugly. Innovative...but f***ing ugly.


----------



## Dusty201087 (Dec 29, 2009)

Prydogga said:


> Bit of a bump, but I think it gets uglier in real pics than stock ones, first time I've seen that happen.



Hmmm... I honestly don't think it looks too bad


----------



## Esp Griffyn (Dec 30, 2009)

march said:


> Too much trolling in this thread, yes the guitar is ugly as hell and most of the community is being very vocal about that fact, me included.
> 
> By the sounds of it, most of the haters in here did not even bother checking out the features of the guitar, and just figured this post would be the perfect place to vent their "I hate Gibson" and just trash it for the sake of it. It's far from perfect but at least Gibson is trying !
> 
> ...




If none of the features work properly, the guitar is still fundamentally an ancient design and its ugly as sin, why should we congratulate them for trying? The fact that it's as ugly as it is denotes how out of touch Gibson are - they aren't giving us what we want, they are giving us what they think we want, and the response of this thread denotes how most people feel about Gibson these days.


----------



## Ultraworld (Dec 30, 2009)

What would be revolutionary is a Les Paul Standard with no chambering, a long neck tenon, a nice top, great fretwork, a nut cut properly, saddles arched corectlly, locking tuners, good pickups for about $1,800.00. That would be the biggest development in Gibson History.


----------



## conorreich (Dec 30, 2009)

Ultraworld said:


> What would be revolutionary is a Les Paul Standard with no chambering, a long neck tenon, a nice top, great fretwork, a nut cut properly, saddles arched corectlly, locking tuners, good pickups for about $1,800.00. That would be the biggest development in Gibson History.


i played a solid body (completely) greco one time that was modeled after a black and gold les paul custom and it had all these qualities for about 800 usd.

but then again you said gibson


----------



## skattabrain (Jan 4, 2010)

you know there is some pompous ass nephew of a bigger pompous ass in a corner office at corporate that insisted on taking his kids crayon sketch to production. you just know there are engineers and luthiers in their R&D department that are secretly laughing behind this pricks back too. lol

seriously gibson ... why not call it a liger or a guitarger or something.






Les Paul hasn't even been gone a year and you release this? any awesome in the sound or playability of this guitar is negated. adding insult to injury, every guitar site with google ads has this eyesore plastered all over it.



march said:


> It's far from perfect but at least Gibson is trying !



sorry man, but after 40 years of charging 4 fold for a design created in the 50's ... that hasn't changed very much to boot, the hate is well deserved. maybe they should concentrate on some new sunbursts.

seriously ... i love gibsons ... i'd *love* a les paul custom silverburst ... but my Agile 3100 takes me more than halfway there and costs $400.


----------



## xMitch92x (Jan 4, 2010)

Gibson are starting to make some really really pathetic guitars imo.


----------



## Fikealox (Jan 4, 2010)

It's made from parts of a real tiger... it's illegal in nine countries.


----------



## DavyH (Jan 4, 2010)

Ultraworld said:


> What would be revolutionary is a Les Paul Standard with no chambering, a long neck tenon, a nice top, great fretwork, a nut cut properly, saddles arched corectlly, locking tuners, good pickups for about $1,800.00. That would be the biggest development in Gibson History.


 
What you're describing is more widely known as a PRS Singlecut.


----------



## xMitch92x (Jan 4, 2010)

Fikealox said:


> It's made from parts of a real tiger... it's illegal in nine countries.



60% of the time...it works every time.


----------



## Triple-J (Jan 4, 2010)

When I first saw the pics of it online I didn't think it looked that bad but on saturday I saw one in person and it's absolutely fucking horrific so bad I actually started laughing in the guitar store, it's like one of those no name rip off guitars from the 80's you see in pawn shops or a poor attempt to cross a BC Rich with a Gibson.
The faceplate is ridiculously cheap and looks like someone cut open a beer can flattened it out then nailed it to the body, all in all it's just so bad I think you have to see it in person to appreciate how abhorrent it truly is.

Sad thing is that next to the Dusk Tiger on the wall was a framed photo in memorial of Les Paul and a classic L.P. model next it and that really brought home to me just how far the apple has fell from the tree in recent years.


----------



## Zugster (Jan 4, 2010)

Ultraworld said:


> What would be revolutionary is a Les Paul Standard with no chambering, a long neck tenon, a nice top, great fretwork, a nut cut properly, saddles arched corectlly, locking tuners, good pickups for about $1,800.00. That would be the biggest development in Gibson History.



Bingo. Well said!


----------



## skattabrain (Jan 4, 2010)

i bash this ugly guitar and all but the tech is pretty cool. imagine if they wrapped that all up into a classic les paul style. the response might not be overwhelmingly negative.

but what i want to know is, let's assume it's not so fugly, what is the market for this kind of tech? seems to me, the high tech crowd is not the same crowd that pays $2500 for the Gibson label. maybe I'm wrong ...

i think they need to reboot this idea into a classic style asap. the marriage of the variax type tech plus traditional styling, playability and sound ... that would be cool.


----------



## Troegenator (Jan 14, 2010)

Come on Gibson either be a little more creative, or just stick to what you do best, making the traditional les pauls, SGs, etc. 

And please, the most innovative guitar in history? Get the fuck out of here.


----------



## walleye (Jan 14, 2010)

vampiregenocide said:


> Gibson trying to be modern again and completely missing the point. They think teh world of today is full of robots, hovercrafts and lightsabers, when its really not that diferent. They need to listen to guitar players and build a basic guitar to accomodate the needs of today, instead of just slapping on ridiculous features and hoping it will sell well because its a Gibson.
> 
> I'm they should put out a Les Paul with a tinner neck, 25.5 scale, decent metal pickups like SDs or something passive of some kind, a bigger cutaway for higher frets (make it 24), nice mahogany body with tone chambers to reduce the weight. Sort out the headstock so its stronger, and make it available in both hardtail and FR versions. Mayeb add some other subtle but good shit. Make soemthing liek that in an LP, SG and Firebird shape and you revitalise Gibson, and make a guitar that will appeal to a wider range of modern players. I garantee they would sell and regain a lot of respect among musicians.
> 
> EDIT - And make it under £2500



so turn gibson into ibanez?

there are other ways for them to improve. "thinner neck, 25.5", metal pickups, mahoghany and 24 frets" doesn't make it satisfactory of "the needs of today"
sounds like you want them to satisfy the needs of you


----------



## AeonSolus (Jan 14, 2010)

the only good thing that gibson would do to save it's ass is to erase from their memory what they've done lately (Reverse Vs, Holy Vs, The Dusk Tiger) And just staying true to their "tradition"..That and adding a volute arround the nut area


----------



## signalgrey (Jan 14, 2010)

walleye said:


> so turn gibson into ibanez?
> 
> there are other ways for them to improve. "thinner neck, 25.5", metal pickups, mahoghany and 24 frets" doesn't make it satisfactory of "the needs of today"
> sounds like you want them to satisfy the needs of you




truth

hahaha.

some little improvements would be nice though.


----------



## possumkiller (Jan 14, 2010)

They really should just stick with the reissues. Thats the only thing people ever buy from them anyway.


----------



## budda (Jan 14, 2010)

Everyone complains when they don't try anything new, they try something new and everyone complains.

If you don't like Gibson, you don't like Gibson. I won't buy a new one, but give me a killer used LP or SG and I'm there.


----------



## Curt-Platt (Jan 14, 2010)

i think gibson should just stick to its guns an do what it does best, make good quality traditional sounding guitars. i would suggest why not release these guitars in another brand that belongs to gibson for instance kramer?


----------



## Zugster (Jan 14, 2010)

budda said:


> Everyone complains when they don't try anything new, they try something new and everyone complains.
> 
> If you don't like Gibson, you don't like Gibson. I won't buy a new one, but give me a killer used LP or SG and I'm there.


 
I happen to have a killer used Gibson SG. What can I say? I absolutely love that guitar.


----------



## possumkiller (Jan 14, 2010)

Im not saying gibson sucks. Well ok yeah they do when it comes to QC issues. I love lps, sgs, flying vs, the hollowbodies and such. My point is that gibson is about 50 years past their time of being on the cutting edge of guitar tech and they should just leave that part to the new guys and stick with their traditions.


----------



## TomParenteau (Jan 14, 2010)

Zugster said:


> I happen to have a killer used Gibson SG. What can I say? I absolutely love that guitar.


 
You should! Many old SGs are awesome. I love 'em, too!


----------



## Koshchei (Jan 14, 2010)

I think that to Gibson, "modern" means pimped out like a chopper motorcycle. They don't seem to get that adding chrome bits to a really old design just makes it a really old design with gaudy chrome bits attached.

I suspect that the reason for this is that Gibson actually buys their own PR about the "legendary" Les Paul, and genuinely consider it to be the ultimate guitar.


----------



## walleye (Jan 15, 2010)

march said:


> post edited, there's just no point to try discussing anything



i was bored so i started counting, from page 1, the number of "gibson should stick to their original designs" posts in this thread. i got to 8 before i saw your post. whats the point of posting a post thats already been said almost word for word ## times in the thread already?

another thing to note is that your post is on page 8 of the thread and you're the first person to actually acknowledge the split signal for each string thing. 

you hit the nail on the head with this being a haven for gibson trashers. this is the 5 finger death punch thread (seven-string section) thread all over again. >swear word<

having said that, i don't like gibson either. oops. but thats irrelevant


----------



## BurialWithin (Jan 15, 2010)

Old gibsons are awesome because they were the originals from kalamazoo. The new gibson crap sucks. If you want awesome old gibson quality get a Heritage


----------



## guitarplayerone (Jan 17, 2010)

scottro202 said:


> They need to stop regurgitating "new" LPs, SGs, etc and just make those guitars. People have always bought them, and probably always will until the end of time. Why? Their fucking Gibson, one of the biggest guitar companies in the world. Some of the most famous players in the world play them, of yesterday (Page, Clapton, Frampton) and today (Buckethead, Wylde).
> 
> I would want them to make a 7, but it'd probably be hideous, and over priced



they do now, the explorer 7 with emg's


----------



## signalgrey (Jan 19, 2010)

i tried one a darkfire that one of the studio owners bought. sounded good, and the tuning thing was cool. but it popped a string when it was tuning back up hahaha. he also said getting the thing adjusted properly is a nightmare.


----------



## MusicMetalHead (Oct 22, 2010)

Wow. I used to like this think. wtf was I smoking?


----------



## Spinedriver (Oct 22, 2010)

I think they're just trying to prove that they can make the ugliest, most worthless piece of junk, stamp "Gibson" on the headstock, charge $2K for it and they'll sell a thousand of 'em.


----------



## Hemi-Powered Drone (Oct 22, 2010)

I haven't really been that impressed with Gibson's newer, non-remake stuff. I did like those quilt top SGs they had a while back, the SG Diablo, and the Les Paul Baritone but not much else. I wish they would have followed up on the LP Baritone and seven string Explorer and made more ERGs. I would love a seven string SG(And don't say an ESP Viper is the same, it isn't).

Still, though, this is pretty cool. If they took off the pickguards, though, it would look a hell of a lot better.

At least they're trying something new, unlike another original electric guitar company( _Fender, cough cough_).


----------



## Guitarman700 (Oct 22, 2010)

What the fuck is this?
Sigh, gibson-high prices and low innovation.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Oct 22, 2010)

Spinedriver said:


> I think they're just trying to prove that they can make the ugliest, most worthless piece of junk, stamp "Gibson" on the headstock, charge $2K for it and they'll sell a thousand of 'em.





dragonblade629 said:


> I haven't really been that impressed with Gibson's newer, non-remake stuff. I did like those quilt top SGs they had a while back, the SG Diablo, and the Les Paul Baritone but not much else. I wish they would have followed up on the LP Baritone and seven string Explorer and made more ERGs. I would love a seven string SG(And don't say an ESP Viper is the same, it isn't).
> 
> Still, though, this is pretty cool. If they took off the pickguards, though, it would look a hell of a lot better.
> 
> At least they're trying something new, unlike another original electric guitar company( _Fender, cough cough_).





Guitarman700 said:


> What the fuck is this?
> Sigh, gibson-high prices and low innovation.



*You be post'n in a necro-bump. *


----------

