ShortScale.org

Look.

Everyone of these guitars looks like those sad faced Formaldehyde-ridden failed Alien-Human Hybrids that Ripley burned in Alien IV: Resurrection.

None of them should have ever lived and it's for the best if they all die.

Mike wrote:

Yeah, well done. You have redefined ugly.

http://www.gibson.com/en-us/Divisions/G ... eExplorer/

I'd definitely love to have a Gibson Moderne but I'd give up guitar and pick up a banjo before I'd strap on this turd.

ultratwin wrote:

bubbles_horwitz wrote:actually, i kinda like the headstock design.

Viva l'Ashbory, mon frere?



I'd soooo like to play one...Likely the only silicone I'll ever actually want to fondle.

The difference being that Ashborys aren't shit.

I like those, but they do look like double enders :s

Nonsense. They're Fijian war clubs for ninja bassists.

I don't think it would be as bad if it weren't for the awful headstock, and the weird scratchplate. Otherwise, it would just look like another big daft lump of wood guitar from Gibson.

Apparently the headstock is MCarty inspired. Dunno what that means.

It's got that weird bulge on the underside. It's a tumor.

Headstock like a club foot.

BobArsecake wrote:

Progrockabuse wrote:if you had to decide owning that or sleeping with someones grandma, tough call lol

Hmm, depends who you're a(u)sking.

bob your brilliant.

Ok, I will let you guys in on a little secret. Dwarfcraft is just a cover, I'm actually trying to bring gibson down FROM THE INSIDE.

WTF Gibson. No one would really care if you just did LP, SG, 335, V, Explorer, L-5, etc.

Why do they feel the need to release 1000 different variants of every dumb guitar - same BS Fender does with the strat.\

If Gibson would make guitars shaped like this I could finally begin to pursue my muzik biz dream of
1. finding 4 hefty mongolian men
2. having their heads surgically altered
3. forming and managing the Klingon Beatles

stewart wrote:christ. have gibson recruited david blunkett to their r&d department?

I dont know why they bother with these new variations on old classics, its the same on the rare occasion when Fender release something like the 'Katana'. They never sell.
That end of the market is now dominated by more affordable and efficient designs made by the likes of Washburn, Dean and BC.
Gibson should rest on their design laurels here and enjoy the fact that the Flying V and Explorer are still popular and still sell.

I'm suprised they say they are McCarty inspired, the DC range were way more classy.

I dunno, I'd like to see Fender and Gibson take risks like they used to have to. I mean, Neither company would dare introduce something as contreversial as the Flying V or the Explorer nowadays. Gibson was doing that in the fifties, like (or the sixties, can't remember and can't be arsed checking).

I'd like to see them take a risk as well, and make their guitars more affordable to intermediate players. The Melody Maker is the only Gibson guitar at sub-£500 new.

BacchusPaul wrote:I dunno, I'd like to see Fender and Gibson take risks like they used to have to. I mean, Neither company would dare introduce something as contreversial as the Flying V or the Explorer nowadays. Gibson was doing that in the fifties, like (or the sixties, can't remember and can't be arsed checking).

'58 I believe

BacchusPaul wrote:I dunno, I'd like to see Fender and Gibson take risks like they used to have to. I mean, Neither company would dare introduce something as contreversial as the Flying V or the Explorer nowadays. Gibson was doing that in the fifties, like (or the sixties, can't remember and can't be arsed checking).

i'd like to see them take risks on new designs too... but they should probably work harder on concepts before rolling the dice.

That is an unholy toley of a guitar.

Gibson's history of foot-shooting is long and ignoble, I guess. Seems to me it's fairly difficult to come up with a radical new design within the customary spec of An Electric Guitar that actually pleases the eye. You're limited to a fairly narrow range of scale lengths, which has to rule string length, balance (physical and aesthetic), weight, ergonomic stuff like hardware, knobs & switches etc.

Strikes me the better designs over the past 50-odd years (once Leo got going with the Tele & Strat) have involved a mix of baby-step bodyshape evolution and uh...novel erogonomics. Or just one of those.

The Jaguar's a good example: it's obviously related to the Strat & Tele in an offset stylee - and the singular design of both whammy and twin circuits make it stand out as original. Plus that chrome!

Gibson don't do this. They've got some great designs, great guitars. Personally, I'll take the gold top LP, just about any SG, and the 330 thank yew. The Flying V and Explorer are ok too, radical designs at the time, not great.

Gibson's approach doesn't seem to take that path. They seem to think "hell, they liked the Explorer, let's give 'em something else spiky with an unusual headstock", with hardly an awareness of what actually made the Explorer a good design.

Or else they give each "new guitar" project to a 6-year old partially sighted kid with a mescaline supply, and tell him "whatever".

Discuss. I'm going to buy a bottle of cheap whisky.