Hot or Not? Gibson Shark Nouveau Noir

[Flamencology]

It isn't for me, but I find it funny that we complain about guitar makers being in a rut, then complain when they break out of it.

If they say, why, why, tell 'em that it's human nature.

I don't think that anyone has really criticized Gibson for failing to reinvent the wheel, so much as we've criticized Gibson for failing generally. It simply cannot, relative to its competitors, compete on a simple X/Y graph that measures quality to price. That's been true of its acoustic guitars, its electric guitars, its attempted innovations, whatever. On top of this, the company management (still in place) played some really tacky political posturing during the last administration to endear itself to a specific consumer base, and those politics didn't sit well with some of us.

It's a brand, and it succeeds because the company name has cultural value. People don't but Gibson because it's good product or good value, they buy because they've always wanted a Gibson. That's why, like Harley-Davidson, they've licensed themselves to countless products. Can't blame them for making cash for investors, but they're fair game for pretty much everything else.

 

[Danhedonia]

"Look at me! Look at me! Look at me! Look at me! Look at me! Look at me! Look at me!"

Srsly, f that.

 

[wok]

I think it looks a lot better than most of what they have released the last decade

 

[reverend1]

Stunningly ugly

 

[Gary Blanchard]

I don't think that anyone has really criticized Gibson for failing to reinvent the wheel, so much as we've criticized Gibson for failing generally. It simply cannot, relative to its competitors, compete on a simple X/Y graph that measures quality to price. That's been true of its acoustic guitars, its electric guitars, its attempted innovations, whatever. On top of this, the company management (still in place) played some really tacky political posturing during the last administration to endear itself to a specific consumer base, and those politics didn't sit well with some of us.

It's a brand, and it succeeds because the company name has cultural value. People don't but Gibson because it's good product or good value, they buy because they've always wanted a Gibson. That's why, like Harley-Davidson, they've licensed themselves to countless products. Can't blame them for making cash for investors, but they're fair game for pretty much everything else.

I don't think that anyone has really criticized Gibson for failing to reinvent the wheel, so much as we've criticized Gibson for failing generally. It simply cannot, relative to its competitors, compete on a simple X/Y graph that measures quality to price. That's been true of its acoustic guitars, its electric guitars, its attempted innovations, whatever. On top of this, the company management (still in place) played some really tacky political posturing during the last administration to endear itself to a specific consumer base, and those politics didn't sit well with some of us.

It's a brand, and it succeeds because the company name has cultural value. People don't but Gibson because it's good product or good value, they buy because they've always wanted a Gibson. That's why, like Harley-Davidson, they've licensed themselves to countless products. Can't blame them for making cash for investors, but they're fair game for pretty much everything else.

Notice, I didn't say Gibson, I said guitar makers. We do that with many brands, and I am as guilty as others. Just an observation.

 

[Hubert Stumblin]

Kind of a dark, murky mess IMHO.

 

[jaxn slim]

I like it.