Gibson's shooting themselves in the foot again

@johnniegoat - no fight, just a typical interweb discussion. I had to google 'Poe's Law' - amused with the 'next word' displayed either side of it on one website as being 'pop the cherry' on one side and 'plumbers crack' on the other - what can I say? I have a *sophisticated* sense of humour.

To be fair to @Rick, I'd read his first statement as a rhetorical question and responded in kind......and yes....... I had to spell-check 'rhetorical'.

I've never picked up a Gibson guitar, don't know much about them as an instrument / organisation / work of art, but I honestly do feel that fifty (sixty?) odd years is long enough for them to have made money out of their trademark shaped guitars. Others imitate - get over it and make sure your guitars are just 'better' than everyone else's.

I'm not sure I feel the same about the headstock shape - that's just "theirs", isn't it?

If someone's making a blatant knock-off with Gibson on the headstock - find them, destroy them (ouch), trace it back to the place of manufacture and 'prosecute'.

Statements have already been made along the lines of....... "no-one is going to accidentally buy a new Dean / Edwards / HB etc. thinking they're buying a Gibson". I agree with that. Should those manufacturers be paying some small royalty to Gibson for 'borrowing' their shape? Now, after 60 years - No. In the intervening period - probably 'yes' for a limited time.

This 'long-term earning from a long-ago effort of work' is something I feel strongly about - although it applies less to a musical instrument and more to 'music'. I can't help but compare it in very simplistic terms to a wall, built by a bricklayer. Brickie builds a wall from which an individual derives some benefit or pleasure 30 years later - no royalty is going to be paid to the wall builder - doesn't seem unreasonable - payment for building the wall has been made. Few bricklayers will be millionaires. The 'norm' for those who write and perform music expect to keep taking money in every time their song is played.

There we go - that's sufficiently off on a tangent and far away from original topic for now. Can't help rambling - I'm at that age...... where's the old-fogey emojis / smiley thing?
 
Last edited:

ScutMonkey

Well-Known Member
I sort of wondering if it’s a prank - about not having enough time to tune your guitar - and I honestly can’t believe someone would think it wasn’t a fundamental aspect of playing.

I’m on vacation for a few months and taking about gear was fun. I think that the removal of auto-tuners reflected that most people still just tune a guitar.

It takes less than a minute and is fundamental.
No, I have two young kids and a job. I have responsibilities and not time. I'm not a pro. Just someone who enjoys playing, not tuning.
 

ScutMonkey

Well-Known Member
Well, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

Electricity added another dimension, but a guitar is just a tool to make music, not the music itself.

The guitar hasn’t changed much but music continues to evolve.
Actually, music hasn't evolved. There is a section of "This Is Your Brain On Music" which discusses the reality that music hasn't evolved in a couple hundred years. It's the same scales over and over with a new timbre.

Same notes with new sounds. So if new sounds don't develop, the whole thing stagnates. Which is probably why music has moved more and more towards electronic music. Guitar sounds aren't evolving.
 

Wade Garrett

I am the projectionist.
Actually, music hasn't evolved. There is a section of "This Is Your Brain On Music" which discusses the reality that music hasn't evolved in a couple hundred years. It's the same scales over and over with a new timbre.

Same notes with new sounds. So if new sounds don't develop, the whole thing stagnates. Which is probably why music has moved more and more towards electronic music. Guitar sounds aren't evolving.
That's interesting, I'd never really thought about it that way.
 

Chu

Well-Known Member
No, I have two young kids and a job. I have responsibilities and not time. I'm not a pro. Just someone who enjoys playing, not tuning.
I've heard a number of artists talk about the benefits of Evertune bridges, mostly about the time spent tuning. I've never analysed how often I tune when recording but I know that as the front man in a band, tuning my guitar is a total buzz kill. Having a guitar always in tune can only be a good thing for me.

I know how to tune a guitar. I also know how to cut my lawn yet, I've got an automatic lawnmower. Luxury, yes. Necessity, no.

Of course, some people love that shit and that's just fine but if automatic tuners were simple and always worked, I'd have them.
 
Last edited:

drittal

Nerd on the Prairie
Actually, music hasn't evolved. There is a section of "This Is Your Brain On Music" which discusses the reality that music hasn't evolved in a couple hundred years. It's the same scales over and over with a new timbre.

Same notes with new sounds. So if new sounds don't develop, the whole thing stagnates. Which is probably why music has moved more and more towards electronic music. Guitar sounds aren't evolving.
If guitar sounds aren’t evolving explain the Miku Pedal.

Check and mate.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

everfreetree

I... I like trees.
Neat. Some of that was genuinely good to hear and nicely reported.
To quote myself:
the lawsuit against Dean and others was apparently already started up before JC took over, and it just got "escalated" under his new leadership, meaning he likely had almost nothing to do with the "escalation" bit, and more to do with the damage control (like the Mark Agnesi video, which could've been handled better, but I think the intention was to ATTEMPT to paint a more... understandable picture of the lawsuits, before they started).
And to quote the article:
"All of the recent attention on the few lawsuits in process stem from several years of legal action initiated well before the new leadership arrived in November of 2018. With specific regards to the inherited and ongoing legal dynamic with Dean Guitars, the new Gibson team have made several attempts to communicate with them directly to avoid a prolonged legal battle. Gibson has genuine intentions of constructive resolution that could be beneficial to both sides."
So yeah, it was an existing thing being blown out of proportion by the media, etc, and they're actually working with others that are NOT involved in the lawsuit, instead of suing them (like past leadership saw fit to do). They likely just couldn't back out of that lawsuit without some form of resolution involving out-of-court settlements with Dean and the others involved, or something of that form.
Who knows.

All-in-all, I believe them. This seemed confusing and out of character, compared to their other stuff, AND it makes the pulling of the Mark Agnesi video make more sense, because they intended it to be a warning to actual counterfeiters, but then suddenly all the Dean/etc., lawsuit stuff was all over the media and they didn't want that to be associated with the video, and blahblahblah misunderstandings, butt-covering, and overreactions lead to sour press.

Let's wait and see how they recover and move forward.
 

ScutMonkey

Well-Known Member

This portion right here is going to be Dean's biggest hurdle to overcome in this lawsuit. Really, really important point which people just gloss over.
 

johnniegoat

Stop, don’t, come back.
latest

https://www.guitarworld.com/news/dean-files-countersuit-against-gibson-seeks-trademark-cancellations

The suit cites the example of Carlino Guitars – a guitar shop in Medford, Massachusetts – which it claims was sent cease and desist letters by Gibson in April and May 2019. The letters allegedly demanded the removal of all Dean V and Z guitars from the shop’s website, accused them of being party to trademark infringement by stocking Dean instruments, and threatened the store with legal action if they didn’t comply.

nice work gibson
 

beans & rice

Well-Known Member
"There are only so many shapes..." - Kennis Russell

This is what drives me crazy. NO THERE ARE NOT. The number of shapes is only determined by your imagination.
Aesthetically speaking, yes, there are. There ain't a whole heckuva lot that's gonna appeal across a broad enough base to support the manufacturing end.
You can make them all kinds of shapes and sizes, but a dong-shaped guitar is only going to sell to a handful of people. See what I did there? :D
 
Top