ShortScale.org

I love Gibson guitars. I love my Firebird V.

However, lately they've released two kinds of guitars: Super expensive reissues and innovative monstrosities. The darkfire, the plywood clown SG, the dusk tiger, the robot guitar... pretty much all shit. I thought they were going in the right direction with that 1950s studio Gold Top but now, as I understand it, they're no where to be found. Yet they some how can get production in gear for this ass clown's signature model. It fucking depresses me.

As much as I hate Gibson's current direction, the Les Paul Gold Top will always be the best electric guitar ever. Great balance, great tone, and it's looks amazing. However, I can't seem to think of one guitar Gibson design I like that hasn't originated from the Ted McCarty era. If Gibson can no longer innovate the least they can do is make quality, affordable, instruments that musicians can afford as well as making wall hangers for lawyers and investment bankers.

pumpkin wrote:the Fender Telecaster will always be the best electric guitar ever.

fixd

portugalwillie wrote:

pumpkin wrote:the Fender Duo-sonic II will always be the best electric guitar ever.

fixd

I sense i'm out on a creaky limb here...

I have to admit, the guitars I've loved the most in my life have been Telecasters of some stripe. I think it's the necks. And the fact you can slap pretty much any old shit on the front and it'll work well.

But this isn't a thread about good guitars.

It's about a massive diseased cockend who managed to suck his way to a signature model from a mighty giant of a guitar maker that appears to be trying to squirt its credibility as far up the wall as it can go.

stewart wrote:

portugalwillie wrote:

pumpkin wrote:the Fender Duo-sonic II will always be the best electric guitar ever.

fixd

I sense i'm out on a creaky limb here...

not in my forest.

Does anyone else think that guitar is really really ugly regardless? I mean its a LP but its an ugly one IMNSHO.

Also I don't know if anyone else feels this way but "signature" model guitars are kind of a turn OFF to me. In other words I am LESS likely to buy the signature guitar rather than the stock model, even if the signature guitar cost LESS let alone MORE. The only real exception to this could be a real innovation to the design or configuration that is particularly useful.

Some might consider the LP a signature model of sorts, I mean it does bear the Les' name (now he was someone worthy of a signature model!!!). But as I understand it he DESIGNED the instrument, or was instrumental in its design at the very least. But true to Gibson form (even way back then) they stuck his name on the SG even though I believe he had nothing to do with that design. From wikipedia (but I read it elsewhere years ago first): The new Les Paul (The SG) was popular, but Les Paul himself did not care for the new design, and requested the removal of his name from the new model (however, he was photographed with the new model several times).

soundofseventythree wrote:Does anyone else think that guitar is really really ugly regardless? I mean its a LP but its an ugly one IMNSHO.

Also I don't know if anyone else feels this way but "signature" model guitars are kind of a turn OFF to me. In other words I am LESS likely to buy the signature guitar rather than the stock model, even if the signature guitar cost LESS let alone MORE. The only real exception to this could be a real innovation to the design or configuration that is particularly useful.

Some might consider the LP a signature model of sorts, I mean it does bear the Les' name (now he was someone worthy of a signature model!!!). But as I understand it he DESIGNED the instrument, or was instrumental in its design at the very least. But true to Gibson form (even way back then) they stuck his name on the SG even though I believe he had nothing to do with that design. From wikipedia (but I read it elsewhere years ago first): The new Les Paul (The SG) was popular, but Les Paul himself did not care for the new design, and requested the removal of his name from the new model (however, he was photographed with the new model several times).

depends on the model, i have no qualms buying a sig guitar if i like the desing. in fact i have an epiphone supernova (noel gallagher sig) and a les paul signature (reissue of an obscure 70's hollowbody that was les pauls acutal signature guitar). I would still consider buying a wes borland signature (cool looking semi hollow), troy ban leeuwen signature (another cool semi-hollow), epiphone tom delonge 335 (ANOTHER cool semi-hollow), or white gibson billie joe armstrong Les Paul Junior (because white les paul jr's are hard to find).

pics of aforementioned...

finboy wrote:

HOT SHIT

i wish gibson would release a baby blue Junior Kimbrough signature LP deluxe or whatever the fuck it is...

soundofseventythree wrote:Does anyone else think that guitar is really really ugly regardless?

yes.

soundofseventythree wrote:Also I don't know if anyone else feels this way but "signature" model guitars are kind of a turn OFF to me. In other words I am LESS likely to buy the signature guitar rather than the stock model, even if the signature guitar cost LESS let alone MORE. The only real exception to this could be a real innovation to the design or configuration that is particularly useful.

totally agree. I like the old style signature models that were actually like a unique guitar model. the chet atkins, les paul, roy smeck, etc. these ones they do now where it's like they paint it a custom color, give it different knobs and pickups and call it a "signature model" is so lame. why would I want a guitar that's been customized for someone else? I'd rather just get my own of that same model guitar and customize it to my liking.

Mages wrote:

soundofseventythree wrote:Does anyone else think that guitar is really really ugly regardless?

yes.

soundofseventythree wrote:Also I don't know if anyone else feels this way but "signature" model guitars are kind of a turn OFF to me. In other words I am LESS likely to buy the signature guitar rather than the stock model, even if the signature guitar cost LESS let alone MORE. The only real exception to this could be a real innovation to the design or configuration that is particularly useful.

totally agree. I like the old style signature models that were actually like a unique guitar model. the chet atkins, les paul, roy smeck, etc. these ones they do now where it's like they paint it a custom color, give it different knobs and pickups and call it a "signature model" is so lame. why would I want a guitar that's been customized for someone else? I'd rather just get my own of that same model guitar and customize it to my liking.

EXACTLY!!! I mean some artists play some very rare, unusual, or highly modified instruments. These make much more sense to me personally and I could see paying more for something like this if it happens to be the guitar I want. Now I am just talking about my personal preference here. I am not criticizing or making fun of those who have and love signature guitars. For some people that is totally what playing guitar is all about, their heros and emulating them and that is totally cool. For others they may just happen to really like the finish or pickup combination on a signature model and would spend more money modifying a non-signature guitar to get that configuration. They may not even like the artist who's signature is on the guitar but simply find the guitar appealing. Whatever works. For me personally I just generally find having someone else's signature on a guitar makes that guitar LESS appealing and not more and I realize I am probably totally in the minority on that.

finboy wrote:

Is that the Les Paul signature? VERY VERY NICE! This kind of signature model makes a ton of sense to me BTW and I can see buying something like this, not because I want to play like Les Paul (if that were even humanly possible for someone other than Les Paul) but because I liked the guitar, and I do like the guitar!!! How much did the LP sig run you BTW?

soundofseventythree wrote:

finboy wrote:

Is that the Les Paul signature? VERY VERY NICE! This kind of signature model makes a ton of sense to me BTW and I can see buying something like this, not because I want to play like Les Paul (if that were even humanly possible for someone other than Les Paul) but because I liked the guitar, and I do like the guitar!!! How much did the LP sig run you BTW?

i think i paid somewhere btwn 600-800, mine had a headstock repair and was modded as seen below...

I think the bottom line when it comes to signature guitars and this one being ugly etc, I think what it comes down to is fans of Nickelback like ugly guitars (even if by association) and also have no qualms with wanting to look, sound, dress, and write songs just like Chad.

Damn... I didn't even know that guy was still making music.

That Yamaha Troy Van Leeuwen signature is hot shit, actually. I remember seeing a review when it came out, good stuff.

I really like the guitars Yamaha put out. I'd love a Mike Stern Pacifica, a Wes Borland Semi and a Troy Van Leeuwen.

Damn not having an endless supply of money!

finboy wrote:

I agree with these two. I love the Tom Delonge 333, the dirty fingers sounds really good in the hollowbody!

I also really like white LP jr's, but the billy joe one is waaayyy too expensive. Check this one out, It's a satin finish but it's half the price!



My friend has one of these and it looks and sounds really good! I prefer the P90 in it over the P100 in the billy joe too.

I hate the Delonge 333. It's a cool guitar made stupid. That pretty much seems to be Delonge's thing.

BacchusPaul wrote:I hate the Delonge 333. It's a cool guitar made stupid. That pretty much seems to be Delonge's thing.

^ this

delonge is a semi-hollow, billy. you should know this mang!

i can vouch that a dirty fingers in the bridge sounds class in a semi-hollow, but it really needs some versatility in the form of a p90 in the neck!