Guitar Gear

You can check it out here.

Hmm… Maybe the new management was actually listening. And by the way, these have not been publicly announced as of yet – maybe after NAMM.

At the top of the list are the Les Paul Standard models: ’50’s, ’50’s P-90, and ’60’s models. They must’ve realized from all the feedback that the Standard represents the actual Les Paul tradition, and not confusing things by making the Standard model their platform for experimentation. Notably absent is the “Traditional” model which people who argued in favor of the “HP” model would be the equivalent to the traditional Les Paul Standard because it didn’t have the bells and whistles and modern doodads.

The new, experimental stuff like push-pull pots and DIP switches has now been relegated to the “Modern” model. Now THAT makes a ton of sense. It provides Gibson with a platform to introduce new technologies. From a strategic point of view, it will allow them to gather metrics on responses to their innovations. If the response is high, then they can distribute the really popular stuff to the other models in the product line. Smart.

As for the Standards, I love these designations because they are meaningful to Les Paul aficionados. 50’s necks are completely different from 60’s necks. People have likened them to “baseball bat” necks. 60’s necks, on the other hand, are more tapered and shallower. That Gibson recognized this is pretty killer. The 50’s models had two pickup configurations, either Humbucker or P-90; though most notably, it was the ’57 Goldtop sporting P-90’s that was the cherished model. But no matter. That Gibson chose to make its Standard the standard-bearer of the line is the most important thing to consider.

Thankfully, Gibson has recognized that “Standard” means something very important; not just from a collector’s standpoint, but also from brand-identity perspective. When one thinks of a Les Paul Standard, there is an implicit sense of tradition goes along with it: That this model represents the foundation and provenance from which all Les Pauls derive.

I suppose Gibson tried to transfer that tradition with the Traditional model. But at least to this author, though the guitars were probably very good, Traditional didn’t evoke the same response as Standard had for me. And I know it’s just me, but I found that model to somehow imply a diminished, lower-quality guitar than the Standard, which implied that the Standard was the peak of quality and tradition.

It took bankruptcy to get Gibson to return to its roots. Thank goodness the new management has refocused the brand. I’m looking forward to some good things from Gibson going forward!