# Mastodon's Kelliher: I Left Gibson Because That Company Is Falling Apart



## ezcomes (Jul 28, 2008)

Seems like even the pro's are pi$$y with Gibson...
Mastodon's Kelliher: I Left Gibson Because They Treat Artists Like Shit, That Company Is Falling Apart

Mastodon guitarist Bill Kelliher was asked by UG interviewer Justin Beckner about leaving Gibson and joining the ESP fold last year, to which he replied:



> "It was a lot of reasons.
> 
> "I never really felt like I was accepted at Gibson. The communication over there is terrible.
> 
> ...


Asked whether he reached out to ESP or the company contacted him, Bill replied:



> "They had been approaching me for a couple years now but I was with Gibson. I was happy with Gibson at the time but I was also in the middle of making guitars with Gibson.
> 
> "I was ready to jump ship and then it just kind of came together when they didn't renew my contract.
> 
> ...


----------



## jdto (Sep 30, 2015)

I can't imagine how this one's gonna go.

It's a sad thing to hear of them just sort of dropping the ball like that.


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

Didnt this break when they were building kelliher and hinds models and K keft for ESP while Hinds went to epiphone?


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

or, "ESP finally offered me more money than Gibson"?
Theres probably some truth to it, but I'm always wary of taking one side of a story as gospel even when its against someone/something that so many love to hate.


----------



## vadsy (Dec 2, 2010)

Henry wanted him to push the Firebird X...


----------



## LanceT (Mar 7, 2014)

_"I never really felt like I was accepted at Gibson."_

Did his feelings get hurt? When I see this kind of comment I am immediately suspicious.


----------



## colchar (May 22, 2010)

Budda said:


> Didnt this break when they were building kelliher and hinds models and K keft for ESP while Hinds went to epiphone?



Since Gibson owns Epiphone that seems like a bit of a pointless switch doesn't it?


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

colchar said:


> Since Gibson owns Epiphone that seems like a bit of a pointless switch doesn't it?


No - he didnt have to deal with gibson and got what he wanted.

Update: the news is the precise fingerpointing.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

business is business, guys. and I'm referring to both sides in this. in the end its all about selling guitars and making money. the drama is bullshit.


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

Diablo said:


> business is business, guys. and I'm referring to both sides in this. in the end its all about selling guitars and making money. the drama is bullshit.


They won't sell nearly as many guitars if everyone thinks they're just a ton of assholes making money churning out garbage and treating their employees poorly to boot. They won't sell nearly as many guitars if their own artists are smearing their "good" name online (that isn't something that just disappears)".

You don't run a successful business being a dick to everyone involved with your company, regardless of field.


----------



## Spazsquatch (Aug 2, 2017)

The execs will be gone by the time people start jumping ship. The new guy will come in for the turn-around where he’ll rebuild the brand.

Rinse and repeat.


----------



## Scotty (Jan 30, 2013)

Budda said:


> They won't sell nearly as many guitars if everyone thinks they're just a ton of assholes making money churning out garbage and treating their employees poorly to boot. They won't sell nearly as many guitars if their own artists are smearing their "good" name online (that isn't something that just disappears)".
> 
> You don't run a successful business being a dick to everyone involved with your company, regardless of field.



Yup, sales 101; if you are constantly searching for new customers because you can't keep the previous ones, you are doing something very wrong.

It's all about securing the call backs


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

Budda said:


> They won't sell nearly as many guitars if everyone thinks they're just a ton of assholes making money churning out garbage and treating their employees poorly to boot. They won't sell nearly as many guitars if their own artists are smearing their "good" name online (that isn't something that just disappears)".
> 
> You don't run a successful business being a dick to everyone involved with your company, regardless of field.


It's worked fine for them so far.
Respectfully, this story is far from the first of its kind about Gibson.

Not sure how many guitars Bill Keliher has sold for them anyways. On the gibson endorsee list, he's a d-lister.


----------



## keto (May 23, 2006)

All I can say is that Mastadon’s Leviathan is a brilliant hard rock album. Just finished working out with it on for inspiration.


----------



## 4345567 (Jun 26, 2008)

__________


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

Gibson is just suffering the large company syndrome. Many large companies have suffered the same thing, especially when they think and act likely everyone needs THEM.


----------



## Business (Jul 30, 2013)

String gauge? No better argument than that?

"I left Gibson because that company is falling apart" [...] "when they didn't renew my contract"

Translation: you didn't leave them, they sacked you 

Metal kids don't have money to buy Gibson stuff; old geezers with money buy Gibsons, not people who listen to Mastodon
Hence, Gibson wasn't making any money with that guy. So they, quite logically, let him go


----------



## Scotty (Jan 30, 2013)

I love the "can't possibly be anything wrong with the company" mentality.


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

Sure, we all have ideas on how Gibson (or Fender or Marshall or Vox or ........ ) can be run better. But we're probably better off leaving them to their own ideas while we ply our great ideas on our own multi-million dollar corporations. I'm pretty sure every armchair quarterback here has one of those he can tinker with, right? I mean, it's just that easy, right? Right? 

I'm also sure all of us don't care if our multi-million dollar corporations make money, right? That's just for those greedy multi-millionaires, not us down-to-earth, compassionate multi-millionaires.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

High/Deaf said:


> Sure, we all have ideas on how Gibson (or Fender or Marshall or Vox or ........ ) can be run better. But we're probably better off leaving them to their own ideas while we ply our great ideas on our own multi-million dollar corporations. I'm pretty sure every armchair quarterback here has one of those he can tinker with, right? I mean, it's just that easy, right? Right?
> 
> I'm also sure all of us don't care if our multi-million dollar corporations make money, right? That's just for those greedy multi-millionaires, not us down-to-earth, compassionate multi-millionaires.


And these companies should also follow every whim of every artist they have on an endorsement deal. Because rock stars are omniscient, and great business people. 
It's probably like dealing with this:


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

Diablo said:


> And these companies should also follow every whim of every artist they have on an endorsement deal. Because rock stars are omniscient, and great business people.


Not to mention their political acumen. Something we always seem to lean on in times of trouble or discontent (i.e. "the other guy won, godammit").


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

Business said:


> String gauge? No better argument than that?
> 
> "I left Gibson because that company is falling apart" [...] "when they didn't renew my contract"
> 
> ...


1. Yes a sig model should come with the right strings in the right tuning.
2. Metal kids have money - they are kids. No mortgages and school debt yet. Who do you think puts the flavour of the week builders on the map? Its not the guy with kids 
3. They could have been making money with him. ESP will.

Remember, Gibson couldnt be bothered to keep James Hetfield. That's bad.


----------



## Business (Jul 30, 2013)

Budda said:


> 1. Yes a sig model should come with the right strings in the right tuning.
> 2. Metal kids have money - they are kids. No mortgages and school debt yet. Who do you think puts the flavour of the week builders on the map? Its not the guy with kids
> 3. They could have been making money with him. ESP will.


1. I disagree
2. I disagree
3... I disagree


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

Budda said:


> 1. Yes a sig model should come with the right strings in the right tuning.
> 2. Metal kids have money - they are kids. No mortgages and school debt yet. Who do you think puts the flavour of the week builders on the map? Its not the guy with kids
> 3. They could have been making money with him. ESP will.
> 
> Remember, Gibson couldnt be bothered to keep James Hetfield. That's bad.


So you think kids are buying CC's, true historics etc?
I don't. I DO think it's guys with kids....I'm one of them. Most of my gear I bought after the age of 30. My income to debt ratio has been highest since then.
$7000 guitars are easier to manage with a Mortgage than $7000. guitars on a McJob. 
Gibson wants to sell as few guitars as possible..... but with the highest margins possible. They want to be Ferrari. Not Hyundai.


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

I betcha Gibson still sells more guitars because of inactive (either really old, changed brands or long since past) musicians that had used their products in days gone by - guys like Peter Green, Jimmy Page, Randy Rhodes, Eric Clapton, etc. - than either of these guys. 

They don't have to pay them, they don't have to put up with their complaints and demands and prima donna attitude. In short, they don't really need these new guys. I'm sure these guys were thrilled when their chosen guitar builder for years, Gibson, recognized them and wanted to work with them. But, you know, if they aren't the most important artist in Gibson's stable, I'm sure they weren't happy about that. Gibson has lots of artist relations, they must have felt they didn't need these two bad enough to deal with them - or they still would be dealing with them. No one here knows the back and forth between the mfr and the artists - and we're only hearing one side of the story. Gibson would be crazy to air their public laundry so we will only ever hear one side of the story.

ESP on the other hand will probably benefit greatly from the relationship. Their list of endorsee's is huge (I have a buddy that was endorsed by them, got to pick up a new bass at the head office and everything). You've never heard of about 95% of them. These guys would be big fish in that ESP pond while they weren't in Gibson's. I'm sure that hurt their feelings, and ESP makes them feel more important. No doubt they like that. But none the less, for some reason, they did start with Gibsons and not ESP's. Go figure, eh?


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

Diablo said:


> So you think kids are buying CC's, true historics etc?
> I don't. I DO think it's guys with kids....I'm one of them. Most of my gear I bought after the age of 30. My income to debt ratio has been highest since then.
> $7000 guitars are easier to manage with a Mortgage than $7000. guitars on a McJob.
> Gibson wants to sell as few guitars as possible..... but with the highest margins possible. They want to be Ferrari. Not Hyundai.


the explorer they made for him was really cool, and was only a couple grand. maybe i'm wrong, but i think most kids could't care less about true historic this or re issue that. 
not doing things to bring in young people doesn't seem smart. 
we grew up with page and others, so some of us appreciate those things. kids didnt and most of them are into other stuff.
people make the same argument with harley davidson. they do nothing at all to attract young buyers. eventually, that's going to be their downfall


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

Diablo said:


> So you think kids are buying CC's, true historics etc?
> I don't. I DO think it's guys with kids....I'm one of them. Most of my gear I bought after the age of 30. My income to debt ratio has been highest since then.
> $7000 guitars are easier to manage with a Mortgage than $7000. guitars on a McJob.
> Gibson wants to sell as few guitars as possible..... but with the highest margins possible. They want to be Ferrari. Not Hyundai.


No its the kids who are buying strictly 7, hufschmid, kiesel, $2k ibanez sigs, $4k PRS sigs (mark holcomb, dustie waring), etc. 

You may not think teenagers buy $6k worth of gear but they do.


----------



## Scotty (Jan 30, 2013)

Diablo said:


> Gibson wants to be Ferrari. Not Hyundai.


But they aren't. They are Ford at Lincoln prices.


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

No sympathy for either side of this equation. Gibson is a company with a wonderful storied history but is a current clusterfuck of shabby quality control and public/customer/endorsement relations, well out of touch with the scene. Kelliher naively overestimates his status in and affect on the market, and though part of his argument is legitimate, expecting Gibson to co-operate is expecting too much.

Signature and endorsed products are too much of a scam for my liking. Overpriced as signatures, and of dubious benefit as endorsed. Neither party owes the other initially, the financial perquisites slim, and the whole thing has nothing at all to do with art and composition.

Having ranted all that, if Godin wants to make a MOOH signature guitar and slap my name all over their advertisements, I will totally recant everything I said above and whore myself out to the company.

;-)


----------



## greco (Jul 15, 2007)

Mooh said:


> Having ranted all that, if Godin wants to make a MOOH signature guitar and slap my name all over their advertisements, I will totally recant everything I said above and whore myself out to the company.


The Godin "MOOH" ...has a nice 'ring' to it, for sure.


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

Easier to inlay than *Master Owen O'MacDonaldsonstein Heatherstonehaugh *I suppose.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

Scotty said:


> But they aren't. They are Ford at Lincoln prices.


ahhh...you're not a car guy 
My analogy had nothing to do with quality. It's about prestige.
Most ferraris will be bested by corvettes, hellcats, not to mention Porsches, etc at less cost. But that doesn't matter to the owners or the general public.
I see Gibson in this same light. Additionally, I said they "want" to be perceived this way. But i do believe, love them or hate them, they have the most valuable brand in the industry. Much as Ferrari, Rolex etc do in their own industries. It doesn't mean they are the best, if there's any reality in such a statement anyway.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

holy cow the flames i have incited by saying that in the past


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

Mooh said:


> ... expecting Gibson to co-operate is expecting too much.


Expecting the company that agreed to work with you to honor that agreement is too much? Huh.


----------



## Scotty (Jan 30, 2013)

Diablo said:


> ahhh...you're not a car guy
> My analogy had nothing to do with quality. It's about prestige.
> Most ferraris will be bested by corvettes, hellcats, not to mention Porsches, etc at less cost. But that doesn't matter to the owners or the general public.
> I see Gibson in this same light. Additionally, I said they "want" to be perceived this way. But i do believe, love them or hate them, they have the most valuable brand in the industry. Much as Ferrari, Rolex etc do in their own industries. It doesn't mean they are the best, if there's any reality in such a statement anyway.



No, I am somewhat of a car guy. Cars only make sense to me in 2 ways;
1) if they appreciate in value well beyond the cost of storage, insurance and upkeep;
2) If they offer the most value for the depreciating dollar.

What I was referring to is that Ferrari offers a considerable amount for the dollars invested. It is much, much more than a measure of prestige.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

Scotty said:


> No, I am somewhat of a car guy. Cars only make sense to me in 2 ways;
> 1) if they appreciate in value well beyond the cost of storage, insurance and upkeep;
> 2) If they offer the most value for the depreciating dollar.
> 
> What I was referring to is that Ferrari offers a considerable amount for the dollars invested. It is much, much more than a measure of prestige.


Re: paragraph 1, I respect that position. Although I think it's dangerous to view cars in such an "investmental" way.

Re: paragraph 2, how so? They are indeed fun, but many more affordable cars can be just as much fun if not more. The big difference is the attention one gets with a Ferrari vs something more ubiquitous like a vette or Audi ie the name on the headstock. The other, being intangibles like the marques connection to racing history etc....ie the car equivalent to guitar mojo.


----------



## Scotty (Jan 30, 2013)

Diablo said:


> Re: paragraph 1, I respect that position. Although I think it's dangerous to view cars in such an "investmental" way.
> 
> Re: paragraph 2, how so? They are indeed fun, but many more affordable cars can be just as much fun if not more. The big difference is the attention one gets with a Ferrari vs something more ubiquitous like a vette or Audi ie the name on the headstock. The other, being intangibles like the marques connection to racing history etc....ie the car equivalent to guitar mojo.


Guitar mojo is in the hands. (As long as the guit is not a total turd, but even then I'm sure SRV could have made the worst Harmony cry)

Amp mojo, well that's different


----------



## vadsy (Dec 2, 2010)

Scotty said:


> Guitar mojo is in the hands.


No it isn't


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

Scotty said:


> Guitar mojo is in the hands. (As long as the guit is not a total turd, but even then I'm sure SRV could have made the worst Harmony cry)
> 
> Amp mojo, well that's different


Hands, or mind.
But that was my point all along.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

Budda said:


> Expecting the company that agreed to work with you to honor that agreement is too much? Huh.


True. Large companies very often walk away from their agreements or sidestep some of the issues. I've worked for a few. If it is not financially viable for them, they usually do what they want.


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

Budda said:


> Expecting the company that agreed to work with you to honor that agreement is too much? Huh.


Normally, yes, but Gibson isn't the pinnacle of businesslike dealings.


----------



## Scotty (Jan 30, 2013)

vadsy said:


> No it isn't


I expected as much from you anyway...


----------



## bolero (Oct 11, 2006)

High/Deaf said:


> I betcha Gibson still sells more guitars because of inactive (either really old, changed brands or long since past) musicians that had used their products in days gone by - guys like Peter Green, Jimmy Page, Randy Rhodes, Eric Clapton, etc. - than either of these guys.
> 
> They don't have to pay them, they don't have to put up with their complaints and demands and prima donna attitude. In short, they don't really need these new guys. I'm sure these guys were thrilled when their chosen guitar builder for years, Gibson, recognized them and wanted to work with them. But, you know, if they aren't the most important artist in Gibson's stable, I'm sure they weren't happy about that. Gibson has lots of artist relations, they must have felt they didn't need these two bad enough to deal with them - or they still would be dealing with them. No one here knows the back and forth between the mfr and the artists - and we're only hearing one side of the story. Gibson would be crazy to air their public laundry so we will only ever hear one side of the story.
> 
> ESP on the other hand will probably benefit greatly from the relationship. Their list of endorsee's is huge (I have a buddy that was endorsed by them, got to pick up a new bass at the head office and everything). You've never heard of about 95% of them. These guys would be big fish in that ESP pond while they weren't in Gibson's. I'm sure that hurt their feelings, and ESP makes them feel more important. No doubt they like that. But none the less, for some reason, they did start with Gibsons and not ESP's. Go figure, eh?


 this!!

also re: guitar mojo....I think there are only a small percentage of guitar players, who don't really care about BRAND, compared to functionality as a musical instrument

I have seen the reactions of non-musicians & laypeople when someone walks out on stage, or even just opens a case and pulls out a Gibson or Fender

these "non-enlightened" souls  have quite dramatic reactions, and are obviously impressed by the brands

it's almost like a credibility card, or a Harvard degree on your wall


----------



## vadsy (Dec 2, 2010)

Scotty said:


> I expected as much from you anyway...


Well it's true. I can buy instant mojo and cred with high end relics. If they happen to be a signature model, well that's just a bonus.


----------



## Scotty (Jan 30, 2013)

vadsy said:


> Well it's true. I can buy instant mojo and cred with high end relics. If they happen to be a signature model, well that's just a bonus.


It's only a bonus to HJ. If you think you can buy mojo, have at it.


----------



## vadsy (Dec 2, 2010)

Scotty said:


> It's only a bonus to HJ. If you think you can buy mojo, have at it.


Make no mistake, tone is in the wallet.


----------



## Scotty (Jan 30, 2013)

vadsy said:


> Make no mistake, tone is in the wallet.


Stop being a twat


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

Mooh said:


> Normally, yes, but Gibson isn't the pinnacle of businesslike dealings.


So we arent supposed to hold them to the same standard?


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

It's a little funny that keliher is all butthurt that Gibson went in a different than he agreed with...I guess they should have bent over backward to please him...yet ironically, when fans criticize his musical direction, he basically tells them to fuck themselves.
MASTODON Doesn't Give A Shit That You Don't Like Its Poppier Songs - Metal Injection


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

Diablo said:


> It's a little funny that keliher is all butthurt that Gibson went in a different than he agreed with...I guess they should have bent over backward to please him...yet ironically, when fans criticize his musical direction, he basically tells them to fuck themselves.
> MASTODON Doesn't Give A Shit That You Don't Like Its Poppier Songs - Metal Injection


LOL

Shoe, meet other foot! 

They should let their fans run their band and decide what they are supposed to write and record, right? How is that any different than him dictating to Gibson how they run their business.


----------



## Lola (Nov 16, 2014)

This is a very interesting thread.

Gibson makes all these replicas and "inspired by" but they can't make a guitar for James Hetfield.

There's always three sides to the story.

Look how well the "Slash" model sold and it was affordable. 

Just maybe Henry has too big of an ego!


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

Diablo said:


> It's a little funny that keliher is all butthurt that Gibson went in a different than he agreed with...I guess they should have bent over backward to please him...yet ironically, when fans criticize his musical direction, he basically tells them to fuck themselves.
> MASTODON Doesn't Give A Shit That You Don't Like Its Poppier Songs - Metal Injection


Gibson and Kelliher had a contract. Mastadon and their fans do not.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

Budda said:


> Gibson and Kelliher had a contract. Mastadon and their fans do not.


Can you point out in that contract where Gibson gave 100% control or even final say in what gets produced over to keliher?


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

Lola said:


> .....
> 
> There's always three sides to the story.
> 
> Just maybe Henry has too big of an ego!...


Out of the mouths of babes. 
Three sides indeed. Not sure why ppl always want to point fingers in one direction. Evil empire vs heroic Jedi knight. Often this stuff happens when both sides don't see eye to eye anymore. I think there was more than one big ego in this situation. Keliher found another vendor more focussed to work with him, one that needs him more than Gibson did, and Gibson will have a hundred others lined up to take kelihers place. Life and business goes on. It's petty drama. No ones going broke over this.


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

Diablo said:


> Can you point out in that contract where Gibson gave 100% control or even final say in what gets produced over to keliher?


Why start work with someone if you arent going to follow half the stuff they want in the product you are designing for them? Thats a waste of everyones time.

Im trying to see where Gibson is in the right and its not coming up.


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

Aren't these artists pursued by the companies, I doubt that it would work well the other way.
Why wouldn't the artist expect to have his signature guitar built to his specs?

I'll put it this way, if you ordered a custom build and when you recieved it the specs were wrong.
Would you be pissed?


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

Budda said:


> So we arent supposed to hold them to the same standard?


Of course we should. Somehow Gibson seems immune though. As a little guy I gave up on the company years ago, I tend to vote with my feet and wallet, besides there are SO MANY great choices in the market nowadays and I simply don't have the time to screw around with Gibson.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

Budda said:


> Why start work with someone if you arent going to follow half the stuff they want in the product you are designing for them? Thats a waste of everyones time.
> 
> Im trying to see where Gibson is in the right and its not coming up.


So...that degree of control wasn't given to Keliher then?
Seems like keliher wasted everyone's time actually.

I'm trying to see where Kelihers in the right, and not just expecting things that were never agreed upon or even reasonable from the point of view of a manufacturer. Companies have profit margins, product managers etc that direct what they sell. Keliher can start his own company and make guitars precisely to his own specs and sell them if the wants.
You brought up a contract before like some kind of trump card. Do you know what a contract is? It outlines the terms for which both parties can expect from each other. If it ain't in there, don't get butthurt later for those things. Keliher sounds like a 16 yr old in this.


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

@Diablo to start he said there was high rotation of artist relations people. He couldnt get anywhere because he was constantly working with new people who didnt know what was going on. He pointed out that Gibson wasnt even listening to what he was saying let alone having a conversation about what he wanted in his signature guitar.

It sounds like Gibson didnt hold up their end of the contract, not the other way around. The fact that they have a poor track record with their own artists doesnt make it sound like Kelliher is in the wrong...


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

sulphur said:


> Aren't these artists pursued by the companies, I doubt that it would work well the other way.
> Why wouldn't the artist expect to have his signature guitar built to his specs?
> 
> I'll put it this way, if you ordered a custom build and when you recieved it the specs were wrong.
> Would you be pissed?


Does it seem reasonable that every artist is treated the exact same way? Does Keliher sell as many guitars as Vai, evh, or Zakk Wylde? It's unlikely that he pulls as much weight with a manufacturer then. God forbid BK is ever in the same room as Clapton...but I hope someone gets it on YT.
Signature guitars aren't often built to exact replica specs. I don't think all (Any?) of zakks sig models had the bass string e-string. He didn't have a hissy fit though.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

Budda said:


> @Diablo to start he said there was high rotation of artist relations people. He couldnt get anywhere because he was constantly working with new people who didnt know what was going on. He pointed out that Gibson wasnt even listening to what he was saying let alone having a conversation about what he wanted in his signature guitar.
> 
> It sounds like Gibson didnt hold up their end of the contract, not the other way around. The fact that they have a poor track record with their own artists doesnt make it sound like Kelliher is in the wrong...


Paragraph 1. He said she said. Just the facts, ma'am. Is it likely that Gibson would also have an unflattering story of working with BK? Probably. But it's unbecoming for companies to air this sort of dirty laundry. Any dummy can take one side as gospel and run with that.

Para 2. Funny, Gibson have long standing relationships with LOTS of A-list artists. Jimmy page, billy gibbons, zakk wylde, Slash, the eagles guy (s)....do I really need to go on? They've sold tons of guitars in collaboration.
So your point on this is...compromised.


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

Diablo said:


> Does it seem reasonable that every artist is treated the exact same way? Does Keliher sell as many guitars as Vai or Zakk Wylde?


Why sign on an artist an not honour their wishes then, no matter who they are?

Chambering a guitar when it was specifically requested as a solid build.
They couldn't even put the guage of stings he asked for, why?


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

Zakk wylde left. Billy Gibbons isn't a strict Gibson guy.

I cant think of any newer artists they are really helping out. I think its stories like Kellihers that are turning people away, or they find out for themselves.


----------



## Business (Jul 30, 2013)

I wouldn't be surprised if he asked for a non-chambered guitar and Gibson sent him a weight-relieved guitar
He (like many other people) got the 2 terms mixed up (and how did he find out it was chambered or weight-relieved?)
The guy barely knows what gear he's playing


----------



## Xelebes (Mar 9, 2015)

I thought Mastodon was listened to by guys in their 30s. Their first album came out in 2002.


----------



## Scotty (Jan 30, 2013)

sulphur said:


> Why sign on an artist an not honour their wishes then, no matter who they are?
> 
> Chambering a guitar when it was specifically requested as a solid build.
> They couldn't even put the guage of stings he asked for, why?



THIS. 

But there will be those to find anything to protect the beloved, so this conversation is a fruitless effort


----------



## Business (Jul 30, 2013)

Really, I don't think anybody's protecting Gibson 

The article/interview (with misleading title... as he didn't even leave the company) is just another bait to get people on the Gibson-bashing bandwagon
The "arguments" in there just have 0 substance, they should just be scoffed at and brushed off


----------

