Smashing Guitars

Why do I keep thinking of John Hiatt??

Cuz he's a perfectly good guitar ... player?

(saw him with Lyle Lovett, Guy Clark and Joe Ely a while back -- John was the Mr. Charisma of the group.)

Breaks my heart... :(

Every time someone smashes a guitar an angel gets its wings..... :D

Just kidding but I have to agree with everyone...there are better things you could do with a guitar than smash it.

Hey Twisted, I dig the shades 8) 8)

I believe you're drawing a distinction between "wasteful" and "wasted" mentality???

That's worse, they're both US imports!

Hey Twisted, I dig the shades 8) 8)

paintshop pro baby!

I know I'm a little late, but I would like to put my thoughts in here.

Warning: May contain devil's advocate like opinions.

Straight to the point, I don't believe Gibson, or the Hard Rock Café, did anything abhorrent.

As much as I would like to believe that Gibson only loves music and builds guitars to further musical talent across the globe, it is not true. Though I am sure they have some rather flaky mission statement that says just that that, it is just a marketing ploy. Gibson Corp is a business like any other.

Now, I am not sure, but I do not believe that Gibson is a public corporation. I looked for awhile and I could not find a stock quote for them anywhere. However, this does not mean they do not have private investors or other stakeholders who have invested in them. I would even bet my Fender Acoustic (hehe) that they do. It would actually be illegal for Gibson to be socially or environmentally responsible unless they can PROVE that they believe it will help their economic bottom line. If that sounds horrible to you… well… join the movement

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_bottom_line

When corporations donate aid to Katrina it is because they believe it will either draw customers to them, or because they think if they do not, their customers will back away. We, as a civilized society, expect those who have the money to help those without; and that is a good thing. Boycotting polluters or social miscreants is a good way to force a triple bottom line style of “accounting”.

So here is the situation. Gibson wants kids to play guitars; more guitar players, more guitar sales. Can you say Cha-ching? So I am sure they do everything possible to get kids to play. Not because they like music, but because they like the colour green. They also have butt-loads of defects coming down the line that they would USUALLY shred. Guitars are very precise pieces of equipment, 100 defects is probably just a fraction of the pile. Why shred? Because they are defects! If you are donating defects to people who can not afford them it seems almost like donating ripped clothes. They most likely can not afford to fix them up, and if they can, Gibson certainly does not want them resold. If Gibson sold the defects as cheep “fixer-uppers” under some “no name” brand, well, that might work. But then again, someone said they used to do that. So if they stopped, obviously it was not working out fiscally for them.

So Gibson grabs 100 defect guitars off the line before they fall into the shredder, then gives them to Hard Rock Café, whom Gibson has a rather tight relationship with. They even use the same signage company “Total Identity” co-incidence? I think not. These two are in cahoots. Universal Studios also has a tight relationship with Gibson and Hard Rock. Anyway, Hard Rock smashes the guitars and now Gibson and Hard Rock have their name in Record Books as almost free advertising for years! Sweet deal.

Waste of guitars? Well a shredded guitar does not get mentioned on the news or in record books, so these 100 were much more useful than they would have been otherwise. I know most of the above opinions lean towards donating them, but they ARE defects. I am sure the pieces of the smashed guitars even found their way to the shredder eventually (that or signed and sold on eBay, that is what _I_ would have done). Then Gibson donates money on top of that so that more kids CAN get their hands on guitars. Socially responsible? Or just building their own market?

So imagine 10 kids go to some musical program funded by Gibson Corp. They find they want to play guitar. They heard of the 100 Gibson Guitar smash and go out looking for a Gibson. And you all know what happens next: addiction, accessories, upgrades, new guitars, and just a general outpour of money. Gibson Corp laughs hysterically and rolls around on their bed covered in money.

And it's not Gibson's fault they are greedy, it's our capitalistic requirements on corporations. Gibson needs to maximize their RIO and social responsibility can only be considered as an investment opportunity with financial rewards.

If you still are not convinced look at it this way: If the Gibson CEO's daughter dies of breast cancer, will Gibson Guitars donate money to Breast Cancer Research? Most likely not, because they would have a hard time convincing investors it will generate more profit. Now, if Avon makeup's CEO's daughter dies of breast cancer, then she COULD donate money to Breast Cancer. Most of the Avon clientele are women and the whole corporate environment is about empowering women. Customers get to feel like they are helping out their gender by buying Avon products, and they are.

As for the merits of guitar smashing in general, after an intense set the blood is rushing, you are all pumped up, and you just let it all out on the guitar, and possibly the speakers around you if you are The Who. It helps ease the tension at the end of a show and finalizes everything. I think that is the only context I enjoy it in. Often when I play with friends we will mimic a guitar smash at the end of a really rockin' set. Just feels good to let it out. And who does not like to see things get smashed or blown up? =)

Sorry about the rant, I am in a rather dull lecture right now.

I think all your concerns about waste have merit, but your problem is not with Gibson or Hard Rock, but with the way corporations are managed in North America.

matthew, I agree with most of what you say - it's all down to money.

However, the message that is being sent is that Gibson has given Hard Rock Cafe $200,000 worth of LPs to smash. They are not making it public (as far as I know) that these are scrap guitars - the general public thinks that they're perfectly good instruments - and THAT'S what's wrong.

If they did make it public, no-one would take a blind bit of notice. That's insulting the intelligence of the public IMO.

Good points Matthew.

matthew, I agree with most of what you say - it's all down to money.

However, the message that is being sent is that Gibson has given Hard Rock Cafe $200,000 worth of LPs to smash. They are not making it public (as far as I know) that these are scrap guitars - the general public thinks that they're perfectly good instruments - and THAT'S what's wrong.

If they did make it public, no-one would take a blind bit of notice. That's insulting the intelligence of the public IMO.

Does anyone covering this actually state 200 (or $200k worth of) LPs anywhere? If so -- and IIRC -- the pictures tell a story of varied body styles, most of which are not LPs ... and look suspiciously low-end. Sounds as if the story is growing.

I don't care what you say. It's a waste of money and a bad example.
Thats my opinion