QUOTE=baldbloke;n31342286]Idunno, that link, whilst no manufacturer can be perfect all of the time, leans heavily towards Gibson as being more problematic than others. Seems discouragidiscouraging. Even after years of feedback, how can they not evolve? I might need a bit more encouragement before I try out a Gibson after reading that.
I've been wanting to like Gibson for years - actually, for all of my guitar-cognitive years - but there's been no joy in it. I was compelled to get a Hummingbird in 1973 and checked a bunch of them out. They seemed to be calling me. The last one I played was on a wall in a store next to a Martin D-35 and I played them both. The Martin was clearly the better sounding guitar and when they were there on the wall side-by-side it was also evident the Gibson looked cartoonish in contrast to the Martins plain good looks. I bought the Martin ($735.00 w/HSC).
Since then I've kept Gibson in the periphery playing samples of them and always in comparison to comparable Martins or other reputabe brands of similar models. Gibson isn't a contender in every single sampling I've done. The reason for it, I've been told, is I don't have an ear for the Gibson sound. Ah! That must be it because otherwise I'm sure they're fine instruments. I wish I'd have thought of that back when I wanted a Hummingbird. It would have sounded great to everyone else but me and that's okay. I'd be playing to an audience anyway and that's all that matters.
Gibson sound my ass.
RE; The Article
The truth of the matter is the company drives it's employees like machines. The old addage that a company consists of the 3-Ms (Men, Money and Machines) places Men at the forefront for a reason. They are the single most important aspect of a company. Lose them and you may as well put ketchup on your money and machines. Gibson's CEO is a person who will ultimately win by circumstances or fail by his own hand. His employees have circumvented the suggestion box and utilized the internet to communicate the problems. One problem is being harrassed to produce guitars with defects. Martin does that as well and I'm sure others have a samping that would embarrass them. The difference lies in the way Gibson treats its work force. When you don't have integrity to give, you won't get any back. The products suffer from the fallout as does the reputation from frequent public disclosure from disgruntled workers.
I see China in Gibson's near future as a survival tactic.