Talk:Gibson Guitar Corporation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gibson Guitar Corporation article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
This article is part of WikiProject Guitarists, a group dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to guitarists. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
This article is supported by the Guitar equipment task force.

Contents

[edit] Disambiguation?

There's quite a lot of disambiguation material on this page now. I think it's time we sorted it out properly: either primary-topic disambiguation with Gibson about the guitars and Gibson (disambiguation) as a clearing-house for other Gibsons, or equal disambiguation with Gibson as a disambiguation page and the guitars moved to another page (Gibson Guitar Corp or Gibson (guitars)).

The main advantage of primary-topic disambiguation is that most links to Gibson on Wikipedia are likely to refer to the guitars: the cocktail is an unusual variant of the martini, appliances are not exactly cultural touchstones, and links to the people of that name are likely to be written with the appropriate forename: William Gibson (which is itself a disambiguation page), Mel Gibson, Debbie Gibson. Many pages about guitarists refer to their preferred brands and models and linking to Gibson is quite natural. With primary-topic disambiguation, Wikipedians writing about guitarists would be able to continue to refer to their "Gibson guitars" without having to make a piped link.

The potential advantage of equal disambiguation is that people searching Wikipedia for "Gibson" may be looking for people of that name, though I think they're more likely to be looking for the guitars than the refrigerators. They would end up with a simple menu of all the relevant choices rather than having to click through to the Gibson (disambiguation) page.

Or maybe I'm wrong and having four (or more, once someone adds Mel and Debbie, and indeed Orville) lines of disambiguation stuff at the top isn't a problem at all. At the moment, I would prefer primary-topic disambiguation with all the other Gibsons sent to Gibson (disambiguation). What do you think?


--rbrwr± 10:56, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Argh. It's been changed to an equal disambig now, and I can't see the point. Just look at what links to the page; one link to the guitar makers after another. Sorting this out won't be easy, not to mention we didn't do it well; however it was managed, my comments below are still here, from when this was still a primary-topic place. I vote for primary-topic. Deltabeignet 22:55, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

It wasn't me who did the disambig, and I certainly understand why you reverted it back, but now there are two articles with the same info on them, and you could have done something about that. . . . . . see Wikipedia:Duplicate articles. I'll do it, but just for future reference, any editor (i.e. you and me) can and should take care of cleanup stuff like this. Soundguy99 22:01, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for working that out; sorry about leaving it as is (just got the Crossroads Guitar Festival DVD, and I haven't been paying much attention to the rest of the world). Deltabeignet 19:13, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fender vs. Gibson

As I've mentioned on the Fender talk page, I'm thinking about a page dedicated to the Fender-Gibson rivalry. It'll have stuff on solid-body vs. hollow-body, basses, amps, and that kind of thing. Does it sound useful, and what should I call it if so?Deltabeignet 01:19, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

-but will there be another page on the intense Squier-Epiphone rivalry?


Hmmmmmm. . . . . . my first question would be how much verifiable info is out there about a genuine business rivalry between the two companies? My impression from various things I've read is that maybe in the early 50's when the electric guitar market was pretty small the two companies might have gone gunning for each other, but once the Beatles hit the whole market grew so fast that there was no real "rivalry" - both companies had all the business they could handle. If the article would just wind up as basically an argument between two guitar players over which is "better", then there's no point.

Another point is that your "vs." examples don't seem to really divide the two companies, or at least one company so overwhelms the other one that no real "rivalry" can be said to exist. Examples:

  • Both companies produce solid-bodies (Strat vs. Les Paul) but Fender's never really had a viable or popular hollow-body, whereas Gibson's had several.
  • Fender's also never had any real presence in acoustic guitars, while Gibson's got several important models.
  • OTOH the Fender P-bass and Jazz bass have run rings (in sales, popularity and notability) around any bass that Gibson's ever put out.
  • And Fender also dominates the amp market. Some early Gibson tube amps have become collectible, but I think they pretty much gave up on the amp business about 1975.

I'm not saying it's a horrible idea, necessarily, just raising some questions about format and content. You might want to work on this in your User space before putting it out into the general Wikipedia, so it doesn't get put up on VfD before you have a chance to improve it. If you do work on it there and would like me to take a look at it, let me know on my talk page. Soundguy99 22:58, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. The competition has always been so nuanced and unique, it seems like a shame not to give it a page. I'll see what I can do (though I still don't know what to call it.). Deltabeignet 19:13, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

this is kind of redundant, its like comparing hip hop to rock, they are two completely different things with different sounds and have different purposes and uses. --AlexOvShaolin 01:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I think much of the current "rivalry" seems to be as much an invention of the consumers as it is a legitimate competition between the two companies. I'm sure that at some point (the beginning) they both had it out for each other's throats, but I really don't see Gibson being all that concerned about Fender somehow sneaking up from behind and cornering the "single-cutaway with humbuckers" market. I think it's as much brand loyalty and preference for certain features as it is anything else. As has been stated above, Gibson seems to be content to let Fender dominate the amplifier and bass guitar market, and Fender doesn't seem to mind Gibson's acoustic and hollowbody sales too much. Occasionally I will notice a guitar model (mostly Squiers) that seems to be aimed at a consumer who probably wouldn't normally go for that brand. The Squier M-80 seems to have some suspiciously Gibson-like features for a Fender product, and I remember a Squier from a couple years ago (I think they've stopped selling it by now) that looked, to me, to be a very budget-oriented version of Kirk Hammett's ESP model, but none of it seems to go much further than trying to grab a couple extra customers. I guess my biggest concern about the idea is that a lot of it seems to be a matter of opinion. Also, this isn't exactly the Pepsi Challenge; I'd liken it more to the idea that Applebee's and Burger King might secretly be competing - just two companies doing very different things and aiming towards some pretty specific markets of their own - and, for the most part, ignoring each other. intooblv 05:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Move/change redirect

Currently, the article Gibson Guitar Corporation redirects to Gibson, where the actual article is. I think that, for consistency with the rest of Wikipedia, that the article content should be moved to "Gibson Guitar Corporation" (with a redirect to this from "Gibson Guitars" and "Gibson Guitar"), and the "Gibson" page should redirect to Gibson (disambiguation). I think this require an administrator to pull this off, or maybe I'm just too dumb. Comments? Realkyhick 19:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Support move, obviously - the guitar company is not the overwhelmingly most common meaning. Also move Gibson (disambiguation) to Gibson. sjorford (talk) 09:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support per sjorford, assuming this is the official name of the company, which it is unclear whether it is.—jiy (talk) 12:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, that's a good point - I've dug around on http://www.gibson.com but they just seem to call themselves Gibson, or possibly Gibson Musical Instruments. sjorford (talk) 16:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I've moved the pages per consensus above. Izehar 23:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I thought we were still debating it??? sjorford (talk) 00:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Artists who play Gibsons

Might I suggest that we link directly to artists pages from this section, not just their bands? SnakeSeries 19:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I can't figure out how to start a new topic, but it should be noted in the introduction that Peter Townshend of The Who also played SG's almost exclusively for a time.

It's probably time to create a separate page: List of guitarists who use Gibson guitars. Anyone disagree? --Blahm 22:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

BTW don't they teach the alphabet to kids anymore? Is it that hard to insert the artist's name in the correct alphabetical order? Maybe with a list it'll be more ordered,
Sorry, couldn't help myself. It's done: List of artists who use Gibsons

[edit] Gibson Serial Numbers

I removed the Gibson serial numbers link:

because when linked it redirects to the store's home page. Curiously, when copied and pasted, it goes to the serial number page. Anyone up for a Wikipedia page for Gibson serial numbers that isn't a music store's homepage? RC Cola 05:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Photo?

Why isn't there a photo? There should be a big old photo of a vintage Les Paul on this page. If not a guitar (which I suppose could be handled by the individual guitar model pages) there should at least be a picture of the Gibson logo

Well, there are appropriate pictures on the Gibson Les Paul, Gibson SG etc. pages, all tagged {{Promotional}} and presumably taken from the Gibson website. We also could claim fair use of the Gibson logo for this page. What would be better, though, would be good free content (e.g. public domain, GFDL, cc-by or cc-by-sa) photos of Gibsons. Do you own a Gibson? And a camera? Just hoping! --rbrwr± 20:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Regrettably, I don't own a Gibson (yet). The more I've thought about it though, it would be better just to have a picture of the Gibson logo for the article on the Gibson company, as opposed to selecting a single guitar model for the picture. Jhayes94 21:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gibson in trouble?

I'll leave my personal opinions out of this, but I will say that I know 3 shops, 2 of them quite large, that have stopped dealing Gibsons recently due to a perceived nose-dive in quality of manufacture and ever-increasing prices.

I've read plenty about Gibson's quality control problems in the past couple of years. Check out the product reviews at guitarcenter.com. Monkeybreath 11:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

You can't conclude the subject here to be in trouble from those statements, regardless of how factual they are. It would qualify as Original Research. Please look for explicit sources instead. Ariedartin JECJY Talk 12:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Timeline of ownership of Gibson and names of the company

No date is given as to when the Gibson Mandolin-Guitar Manufacturing Company Limited became the Gibson Guitar Corporation, or whether the company was known by any other names in between.

Also, while the current management and the year when they took over are clearly stated, no other managers or owners are mentioned. This would be annoying for someone trying to find when Ted McCarty was president of Gibson, what the name of the company was when McCarty was president, or when the notorious "Norlin Era" was, as I was just doing.

Does anyone know where these important facts can be sourced? Respectfully, SamBlob

[edit] Product List

i think the product list needs it own page so it can be freely expanded on without worry of clutter, ect. for example i was thinking about adding another branch off the Les Paul studio section, but it would only add clutter. furthermore i cant see how that list is useful to the casual reader, another reason it should be given its own section, instead of having a list of all the electric guitars the section should merely name the most important ones in an article format. just so we're clear i think the list is excellent and i think that it is worthy of having it's own page. --AlexOvShaolin 01:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reference list

I added a reference but it doesn't show up. Can anybody see something wrong with it? It looks okay to me. Professor marginalia 01:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, fixed now. Professor marginalia 01:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/i/b/Talk%7EGibson_Guitar_Corporation_bdc0.html"