Talk:List of Gibson players/Archive 1

Stuart Garrard
Stu has been endorced by Gibson for about 13 years He is the lead guitarest for Delirious? I've put the following in like 5 times and every time it's deleted like 2 minutes later. why?!Bertoduran09 (talk) 18:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Stuart Garrard (Delirious?) uses a variety of Gibsons including a Les Paul Standard, (sunburst); ES135 (black); Les Paul Deluxe, (goldtop '74); and a Les Paul Studio, (white), and a few others.
 * The page has a strict criteria for inclusion. Just being a Gibson player isn't notable. And Stuart Garrard is just that... a player, no different than the thousands of other Gibson players who don't meet the criteria for entry on the list. The Real Libs-speak politely 18:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

....and yet when you go to Gibsons website and look under Artists you find his name.Bertoduran09 (talk) 18:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately it doesnt make him notable. You essentially have to be immortalized before you can be on this list. It's relatively lame, but that's the way it goes. -nbfan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.130.23 (talk) 18:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Bernard Sumner
I'd like to include Joy Division/New Order guitarist, Bernard Sumner, as he's used his own, slightly customized, Gibson SG for over 25 years. The entire duration of his musical career. I can't think of any other qualifications, other than the unique sound and style he'd produced, fleshed out through the... Gibson! Let me know if I should offer anything else in order to contribute him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.94.29.223 (talk) 16:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Quit removing Bernard, and leave him. He's been using his SG for over 30 years and is far more important to modern music than half the people already listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.10.98.72 (talk) 23:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * New entries must meet the criteria in the article lead section and must have references from reliable sources to support that criteria as well. Wether B (talk) 23:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Yep. He meets the criteria. 1) He's faithfully been using Gibsons for over 30 years. 2) His guitar is customized. 3) Upon researching guitarists who'd been directly influenced by Joy Division/New Order I'd noticed a string of Gibson users... Paul Banks, Robert Smith, The Edge, Jamie Stewart, Thom Yorke... And just scrolling through the article I find countless artists just sitting there as "Gibson Players".... Well, Bernard is a Gibson player as well, kids. A big one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.10.98.72 (talk) 00:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The references added show use. But do not show notability for use. He appears to meet the single criteria about use of a single instrument. But the references need to prove that. One of the references added was just a mirror of an old version of this same Wikipedia article. And Wikipedia cannot be used as a reference for itself. The others were just pictures. Fair Deal (talk) 00:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Why are George Thorogood and Lenny Kravitz on the list when they are simply Gibson players? Without citations? Does anyone know WHO exactly Bernard Sumner is and what he's done for modern music? He's been using Gibson for the past 30 years. He meets the first point of criteria, so I'm leaving him in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.206.184.158 (talk) 04:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * References must pass WP:RS (as noted previously) and they must support "notability" not just ownership. The Real Libs-speak politely 01:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Ray Toro
lead guitarist and one of two backup vocalists for My Chemical Romance. He plays Gibson Les Paul guitars with Seymour Duncan pickups

Frank Iero
Iero is a rhythm guitarist and is one of the two backup vocalists for My Chemical Romance. He plays Gibson Les Paul and sometimes epiphone guitar.

John Mayer
John Mayer is a notable Gibson guitar player, even though he is mainly known for using Fenders. If Jimi Hendrix is labeled as a notable Gibson guitarist, when he exclusively used Fenders, than John Mayer should be on the list too. Since 2005, Mayer has been using the Gibson ES-335 along side of his Strats. He uses them on his more blues-based songs. Like on his songs "Try!" and "I'm Gonna Find Another You". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.107.67.131 (talk) 17:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Jon Foreman
He is definitely notable, has used Gibson guitars almost exclusively (with the exception of a Strat and a Tele occasionally, but who hasn't?) for almost the entire time that his band (switchfoot) has played been in existence. I think he should be on the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.171.0.143 (talk) 00:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, he should definitely be on the list —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.211.192.79 (talk) 23:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

William Murderface, Skwisgaar Skwigelf, and Toki Wartooth
The names above have been included (and restored) for several reasons:
 * 1) It meets WP:Notability in several categories, most obviously in Entertainers.
 * The show is #1 in it's time-slot for 18-34 year olds.. As if it needed to be said, that's many thousands of people.
 * The band had a song featured on Guitar Hero II, which sold 1.3 million copies in 2006 alone. There's another 1.3 million people.
 * It has both a "large fan base" and a "significant 'cult' following".
 * 2) Gibson themselves is taking Dethklok completely seriously, since they have an exclusive sponsorship of the band, just as they do for traditional bands. They're also releasing a Dethklok Signature line of guitars. If this doesn't indicate a close and serious relationship between Dethklok and Gibson Guitars, I don't know what does. How many "notable" people on this list have an exclusive sponsorship and a Gibson Signature line?


 * 3) Most importantly, the fact that the band is virtual band as opposed to traditional does not make them any less worthy of inclusion or in any way diminish their WP:Notability. Alvin and the Chipmunks or Gorillaz ring a bell?

156.34.142.110: If you'd like to discuss this with me, please do so here instead of snap-reverting. I feel I'm on solid ground in terms of Wiki-policy, and reverting the edit after I specifically asked for a Discussion in my edit summary smacks very heavily of incivility. 24.29.58.38 17:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * New Point: Take a gander at this page from Gibson's own website and tell me why Dethklok doesn't belong here. 24.29.58.38 17:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Another revision of my edits, another empty edit summary, another empty discussion page. This is not how Wikipedia editing is supposed to work. This page exists for a reason. It's called the discussion page for a reason. Not bothering to leave edit summaries or discuss your edits on the discussion page after you make them is a violation of Wikipedia policy, specifically WP:EQ. If people were just willing to show some courtesy I'm sure we could work this out. 24.29.58.38 08:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No cartoons. 142.166.250.55 10:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * List already too long. Previous discussion and opening paragraph are quite clear. No non-notables which includes toons. Next thing the list will end up having the national champion Guitar Hero player simply because the controller is shaped like a Gibson. 216.21.150.44 02:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If it is, as 24.29.58.38 that Gibson are 'making' signature dethklok guitars then they are entirely notable as the only virtual band that have a sponsorship, surely they are very notable for gibsons creation of artificial reality guitars? Maurauth ( talktome )( wha? ) 07:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Check the Dethklok page. Their first album just pulled 4 out of 5 stars on AMG. It's getting considerable radio airplay (where I am anyway). They actually have a large variety of sponsors: Krank for amps, EMG for pickups, Line 6 for gear, and, of course, Gibson for guitars. Gibson is serious about this, and they're sponsoring them just like any other band, and Brendan Small (Dethklok's behind the scene guitarist) got a whole bunch of custom axes sent to him from Gibson.

Bottom Line: The band itself meets WP:NOTE and WP:MUSIC, else they wouldn't have a page at all. The album was highly reviewed and is currently getting a lot of radio airplay. The viewer-ship on the TV show has gone up staggeringly; the word is getting out. Gibson has officially sponsored the band and supplied the band with guitars. On the show, the band always plays their Gibsons (as per the sponsorship agreement). The band members meet the standard in the lead section. The band being virtual is not a legitimate excuse for dumping them. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a legitimate excuse either. They're going back on. I suggest we have an intelligent, reasonable discussion about this. Bullzeye (Ring for Service) 07:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It's been beat to death already before. Anyone can play one. Thousands of professional guitarists/bassists use Gibson products. The list isn't a gear list. It's a small list of artists whose particular use a a Gibson has been historically significant or whose brand loyalty over a long career makes them stand out among thousands of others for their influence on the brand. Dethklok are entertaining... but they are still just a novelty. It will have it's 15 minutes of fame... but then it will be gone... and what instruments were drawn into the characters hands will be barely a footnote in memory. Gibson cashing in on the cartoons recent popularity is a fine business move on behalf of the company. They would be stupid not to. But Gibson endorses many artists and just because they do doesn't automatically get an artist included onto this list. This list is modeled after other player lists that have reached FA status because of the clear direction and strict criteria for inclusion... "long careers with faithful use", "used a particular instrument of historical importance", "contributed significantly to the popularization of a particular instrument". These 3 main rules were not created specifically for this list... they were copied directly from other lists already on Wikipedia. Ten years down the road if Metalocalypse is still on the air and Gibson is still riding its coattails and there is a new generation of young musicians who claim they are using Gibson products because they saw them on the cartoon.... then they would definitely warrant inclusion. But for now, like thousands of others... they are "just plain old users" and don't meet the list criteria. The list is already too long and several key entries still sit without enough cites. The focus of the list should be to improve whats there... streamline some of the content... it's already too abundant with Rock musicians and does not include near enough entries from the Jazz, Blues and Country genres. That is where the list needs work. 156.34.230.78 12:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Technically, as the first virtual band to exclusively use gibson guitars, they are of note on the gibson website. That is a milestone by the idea that the first virtual band to exclusively use a brand uses gibsons AND recieves official gibson endorsements. I argue that they deserve to be in on the grounds that with songs included on guitar hero and official endorsements, it creates a legitimacy to their claim. Guitar hero has ALREADY been shown as a strong influence on young guitarists, and dethklok's inclusion adds the "popularization of a certain instrument". And dethklok is still going strong, have a successful tv show, have sustained popularity for over 4 years, have two albums out, and have a strong, legitimate fan base. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.63.239.149 (talk) 07:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Mike Ness
Mike Ness (front man of Social Distortion) seems to fit the criteria for the notable Gibson player list but he's not currently on it. Ness has had a pretty big impact on punk rock and it's well known that he plays a 1956 style Les Paul Goldtop. I'm not sure how citations work, but Ness plays the Les Paul Goldtop (with an Orange County sticker and Clay Smith Cams Woodpecker sticker) at all his shows

He has played Gibson SG's in his earlier years as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frayden (talk • contribs) 17:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Steve Vai
I am removing Steve Vai from the list. He only owns one Gibson guitar, and he does not not play it regularly, nor has he designed any. --Blahm 02:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how to work this, but can somebody please add Neil Young to the list? He is one of the most innovative Les Paul players there is, and one of the greatest artists of our time.

Change discussion
In the interest of getting this article inline with the style of List of Telecaster players, I propose we rename it to List of Gibson players and start finding sources for each entry. If an entry does not have a citation that they were a notable Gibson player, we remove them until one can be found.

So, criteria for including guitarists on this list would be:
 * They made notable use of a Gibson guitar.
 * A reliable citation can be found proving that.

Thoughts? -- Aguerriero  ( talk ) 19:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Let's do it! Should a temporary sandbox be created to use for potential "add-ins" or "take-outs"? Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 19:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, good idea. Did you do that for the Telecaster article?  How did it work? --  Aguerriero  ( talk ) 23:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Rohirok had "the com" on that page and he built it by trial/error-cut/paste back and forth from the articles talk page. My thoughts on the sandbox were to paste the entire article as-is to the sandbox. Split it(as time passes) between cited and uncited. Then, when a substantial cited list is built...simply paste the new list onto the main page inplace of the existing and put the uncited, but probable, players list onto the talk page with a prompt for editors to find a cite and move them to the main page when appropriate. A temp list still exists on the Tele page so it would work here too....I think. "Gibson Players" is quite ambiguous. Should the list be broken down further into specific models? Doing this would eliminate the POV notable lists from just about every model article out there(which is what PJM and I have been thinking about doing for a long long time). Thoughts? Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 12:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What do you think about just going through the list in the article one by one and either adding a citation or moving the entry to the Talk page if a citation can't be found? That way seems a bit more transparent to people just passing by.  I don't know, maybe it doesn't matter.  I was thinking about breaking the article up into sections by model - so there would be a Les Paul section, alphabetical, an SG section, etc.  If it gets too unwieldy, we can split it. --  Aguerriero  ( talk ) 15:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it can be maintained through the main article and talk page easily..and like you said...more accessible to the casual reader who might have that 1 little cite that no one else can find. And I like the idea of the seperate sections for separate models. Gibson has a bizillion models. Having a separate section section for each and every one could get cumbersome. But I don't want to put anyone's nose out of joint by lumping their favorite rare model into an "other" section either. Either way, I will be glad when my Bacon books arrive from back order. Because finding online cites is alomst impossible for some of the guitarists listed who are definitely Gibson notables. I am thinking of players like Jeff Beck who is so identified as a Strat user but, along with Keith Richards, was one of the first guitarists I ever saw with a Black Beauty. Anyways.....away we go! Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 20:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Added a ref(woohoo!) For now I quickly found a gear list to link to. Would prefer to find a nice quote about "notable Gibson use" for each entry (a la le list de Telecaster) but will start slow for now. Also atarted trimming the "list fat" and tried to add a bit of consistency to each entries wording. Since it's a list of Gibson players...its kind of redundant to add the "Gibson" name into each and every list entry. Wikilinking every model probably isn't required either since a Gibson link is at the bottom of the page(feel free to disagree with me on that) Came very close to adding {fact} tags at the end of every list entry as well but decided not to since "serial taggers" are jerks. Sorry...had to add that in :) . I only did the first few alpha-groups. Stopped at "H" today. Will try to continue later(if someone else doesn't pick up the torch) Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 03:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Billie Joe Armstrong
It should be noted that he does not actually play his signature model, as they are just replicas of the real vintage juniors he plays.
 * It's pretty much the same for all Sig model artists and not really worth mentioning. If a production year citation could be found for the model he does play...that could be added in. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 11:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I know his vintage sunburst is 1956. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rootbeersoup (talk • contribs) 20:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Buck Dharma
"The Gibson SG was the guitar most seen in this axemaster's hands!" Is it just me or is that a bit POV? It's not quite encyclopaedic either.

Angus Young
I think a picture should be added of Angus Young playing his SG, there are no pictures of an SG on the page and he is one of the best guitarists out there.Tubyboulin 02:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * i second this. the red SG is commonly associated with him. Whitey138 05:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Maintain lead criteria
There is a tendency for lists like this to turn into POV lists or nn lists. As per previous discussion above, some diligence must be kept so that the player list is kept short and "notable" as per the lead-in criteria. This is the previous concensus decided on this talk page by contributing guitar project members. No "short-timers" and all new entries must be have proper refs to professional publications, books or direct artist interviews. 156.34.142.110 17:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Jimmy Page
anyone have any info on Jimmy's double necked SG? i know it was a Gibson. i believe they started remaking them just recently. Whitey138 05:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Eddie Van Halen
The additional of Eddie Van Halen to this list violates any and all criteria and vaibility of the list. He has endoresed many brands of guitars, none of which are Gibson.
 * It has nothing to do with endorsement. His first guitars were all Gibson models including several Les Pauls, a Junior and an ES-335. His Frankenstrat use was sporadic in Van Halen's early studio years and these guitars were used on several tracks all the way up to the Women and Children first album. 156.34.234.7 00:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Before he got the strat in the very early days he played a gibson explorer, you can see a picture on an issue of guitar one. End of this debate.

Wishful thinking and riduclous stretch. I can site a picture of William Hung "playing"a Gibson guitar. That would qualify by your standards as well? I believe you would have a better argument if the page was titled "Players that rejected Gibson guitars for one reason or another".

The Explorer EVH is seen using on the first couple of tours, and also used to record most of the rhythm tracks on the first 3 albums, is actually an Ibanez "lawsuit" Explorer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.236.240.214 (talk) 10:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The inclusion Edie Van Halen on this list damages the already limited credibility of the article. The reference cited mentioned EVH's use of a Flying V as a footnote; an exception. He is known for his use of his personally built guitar employing Kramer and other various parts, pickups, etc. Thereafter he developed and endorsed Peavey guitars. HM211980 (talk) 03:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)HM211980HM211980 (talk) 03:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Van Halen meets the criteria in this list lead-in simply by the uniqueness of his guitar itself. He is one of only a handful of artists who own an original issue korina model V. Only Dave Davies has one that is more 'iconic' than Van Halen's. Also, despite the narrowness of the reference, Van Halen has used the korina V on more recording than mentioned. The sound and tone of the V were the original 'brown sound'. He still does photo shoots in his own home studio playing the V model. It has never been deleted to the storage warehouse of guitars that he owns and he has rejected every monetary bid ever given to him for it because of his attachment to it. Fair Deal (talk) 01:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If it will end the confusion of the non-guitarist who keeps blanking the section... Van Halen's V falls under criteria "the particular instrument they used was unique or of historical importance" Van Halen has stated in several interviews that his 'franken-creations' were more for stage use and that he did not use them in the studio often. In his early 80s GP interview he states that his favourite guitar of all time is his ES-335.. which is his 'true' main guitar in the first few recording years of the band. Early club pictures of VH show him using an LP as his main guitar. Apart from the Korina '58 V he also has a 1958 Les Paul and a 1959 Les Paul which he says are the centerpiece of his entire guitar collection. He uses an early 80s LP customized with his trademark red/white/black stripes, as well as a chopped in Floyd. He uses another sunburst 80s model LP also with a Floyd added-in.... given to him by Les Paul himself. He uses 2 70s LP Custom models (1 black beauty and 1 white one), a 1956 goldtop LP and 2 1958 Juniors. His use of Gibson guitars is extensive. But for the criteria of this page only the Korina V is mentioned as the instrument itself is of unique historical importance. If he had bought it and just stuck it in a vault as an investment that would be one thing. But he uses it fairly often in the studio and it has shown up on just about every VH album recorded since he acquired it. The section could be expanded to include the LP given to him by Les Paul. VH stated that he was honoured by the gift but felt bad that Mr Paul had gone to this effort because he did not like the tone change of the guitar which was a result of the floyd add-in and subsequently did not use it very much. The Real Libs-speak politely 13:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Who's the "non-guitarist" to whom you are referring? I don't believe that EVH belongs in the article, but I am very much a guitarist; actually for quite a long period time. Sorry, just owning a particularly rare or unique instrument doesn't qualify one for inclusion in the article. Otherwise, I could be on it myself. HM211980 (talk) 16:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)HM211980HM211980 (talk) 16:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Madonna
Re: removal of Madonna. Madonna meets all lead in criteria. 1. Notable and 2. Verifiable Gibson player, sourced by Gibson themselves : http://www.gibson.com/allaccessfeatures.aspx?aliaspath=/AllAccess/One-of-a-Kind%20Madonna%20Les%20Paul
 * The guitar is notable enough to be mentioned in the Madonna article as a trivia item. The player is not notable and does not meet up to the reason/criteria for the creation of the list. Hundreds of guitarists play Gibsons. Very few are notable for doing so. Madonna wearing a Gibson and playing air guitar with it is "novelty" not notablilty" 156.34.234.7 00:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the guitar itself could be mentioned somehow in the Madonna article but as a player she isn't notable. 216.21.150.44 02:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll direct your attention to the definition of "notable" (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=Notable), with emphasis on "2. prominent, important, or distinguished: many notable artists.". Your revision is subjective and the cititaion serves as verification.

This really has to be a joke surely?86.146.42.147 (talk) 14:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Image selection and biased Rock additions
There is no shortage of images in this list (almost too many). And there is an overpopulation of Rock guitarists, both pic and in the list itself. There are a great many Blues, Jazz and Country guitarists being ignored here. Perhaps some of the less notable Rock and metal players should be swapped for guitarists from other genres who are much more deserving of being on the list than some of the untalented Nu metal hacks that have been stuck in there now. 216.21.150.44 02:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * the problem is influence. in the world of jazz, many a purist will reject the electric guitar due to it's connection to fusion. However, I'm pretty sure that notable jazz players that purists will accept include:Joe Pass, Wes Montgomery and Freddie Green

Robert Fripp should be on too, with his creative pioneering "Progressive Rock" sound, which was also free jazz, and his invention of frippertronics, plus the invention of new standard tuning, he has created a sizable place in rock history, and he seems to always use a les paul.

What about bassists? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.63.239.149 (talk) 08:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:JoeWalsh.jpg
Image:JoeWalsh.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Dercyk Whibley
While I understand if Dave Baksh isn't considered enough of a veteran Gibson player to be noted on this page, Deryck whibley, I believe, should be. He played Gibson guitars live almost exclusively for most of his musical career, and continues to use them in the studio.
 * So have thousands of other musicians. Just because they play one... doesn't make them notable for doing it. The list too many nn users as it is. All new additions need a reference for notabilty. 156.34.142.110 17:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

This time I actually provided a source that backs up Whibley's extensive Gibson use. There is no reason not to include him in this page. He used Gibsons almost exclusively for for the majority of his earlier career and is in a well-known band. (Blastero 18:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC))


 * A photo gallery doesn't show notability or historical use... just use. Like it says above "just because they play one, doesn't make them notable for doing it". It's not a gear list. It's a verifiable list of guitarists who's use of a specific Gibson model made that model unique or valued or historical. Example... Gibson produced less than 100 Explorers in 1958 and then discontinued it as a complete failure. Suddenly in the early 70s Eric Clapton gets his hands on one... records an album with it... and then uses it on the support tour and demand for Explorers becomes so great that Gibson has to start making them again. Now thats notable use. Clapton also has the same effect on the Les Paul by using one in the mid-60s while with the Bluesbreakers. Whibley has used a Gobson in the past. But, like thousands of others, he just another user. 156.34.142.110 19:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * "...that is, they are musicians with long careers who have a history of faithful Gibson use..." would strike me as something Whibley would fit under. He is notable for his Gibson use because, with very few exceptions, he used Gibsons as his only guitars for about 7 years with Sum 41. He's also a devoted collector of Les Pauls, as he himself has stated. Plus, I fail to see how artists like Thom Yorke, who are on this list, have made their Gibson use any more notable than Whibley. (Blastero 20:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC))
 * Agree re: Yorke. You can probably remove him without too much argument from anyone. 156.34.239.61 14:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Matt Heafy
Where is he? or he does not play gibson anymore? --Unsigned

Someone seemed to remove him by accident, re-adding. ≈  Maurauth  ( Ravenor ) 22:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

He has switched to Dean guitars (as far as I know, he doesn't even practice on Gibsons anymore...): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Heafy#Guitars 24.227.104.18 14:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Nick Valensi
I added Nick Valensi to the list but it keeps getting removed and I want to make a couple things clear.

While Valensi's main guitar is an Epiphone, he can be seen playing a Gibson Les Paul Junior in performances like this one and this one. Because of this, I think we should add him. If anyone objects, please state why before removing! Thanks.
 * The article lead-in is very clear. Notable use including references to verify the notable use. Thousands of guitarists play Gibson models. But only a handfull are notable for doing so. In the grand scheme of things... Valensi is just a player and does not meet the articles lead-in criteria. 156.34.212.57 20:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Image range
Every picture on this article, excepting Angus Young, displays a Les Paul. Gibson has produced a wide variety of electric and acoustic guitars and bass guitars as well as banjoes, mandolins and resonators. With the format we're using (one picture per letter of the alphabet) we could have pictures of twenty six different instruments rather than two. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ufossuck (talk • contribs) 23:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Some players other than Rock players would add more balance as well. But free-use images of Jazz and Bluegrass players are few and far between. A few Blues players are out there and could easily be added. But I think having 1 pic per every letter is a bit extreme and anything more than 6 or at most 8 will just be clutter. Unless maybe they're contained in a gallery at the foot of the article. 156.34.212.88 23:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * There arn't any bass guitar pictures. The two Gibson playing bassist that immediatley come to mind are Jack Bruce and John Entwhistle. Using one of Bruce would replace the only mandolin in the article. We could put one of Entwhistle with a Thunderbird in, but the only picture I know of on Wikipedia already is one of him playing a different bass. (Still a Gibson I believe, but I'm uncertain of the model) Can anyone find a usable pic of Entwhistle with a Thunderbird?ufossuck 22:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Carl Barat
Surely he has to be included, him and pete doherty pratically revived british rock music in the early 2000's...i'm not too good on editing wikipedia pages with citations and that...he plays a Melody Maker —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.109.103.236 (talk) 19:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * He doesn't meet the lead-in criteria for inclusion. 156.34.142.110 14:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

tom morello
what about tom morello? he uses gibson guitars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.185.67.3 (talk) 08:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * THousands of artists use them. This list isn't a gear list. It's intended as a brief overview of a few of the most notable players of all Gibson products(banjo, mandolin, acoustic model etc). 156.34.230.78 10:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Tom Morello CLEARLY uses a les paul throughout Audioslave. Infact the entire revelations album was recorded with a les paul that had a decal physically burned off. He can be seen in both the revelations music videos with it, and he can be seen at the "Live in Cuba"(the first american hard rock act to play cuba) with two different les pauls. And to add insult to injury, he can be seen in an issue of guitar one with his revelations les paul. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.63.239.149 (talk) 07:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Claudio Sanchez
He almost exclusively only uses gibson guitars, in live performances and in music videos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.57.221.229 (talk) 20:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Featured List
Has anyone considered putting this article forward for Featured List review? I think it meets the criteria. -- Web H amster  21:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it has some work remaining. A lot of the entries need sources yet.  We are working on List of Stratocaster players right now and maybe can come here next. --Spike Wilbury ♫  talk  17:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

If this list is featured for anything it should be for being subjective and incomplete the edit decisions despite the lead in criteria are still subjective and the best way to deal with it properly is to delete the list completely. All guitars are different many players have more than one how Maddonna can be a noteable player of a Gibson is way beyond my comprehension and the deletion of Billy Byrd from the list was really the last word in stupidity for me, there have been others.86.146.42.147 (talk) 14:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Billy Byrd doesn't have a Wikipedia article so removing him from this list was the correct thing to do. You should get an account so that you can create an article for Byrd. Then add references to support notability for this list and re-add his name. Citations for notability should not be hard since he has a model named for him. Wether B (talk) 20:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Keith Richards
i've just entered extensive corrections to the Keith Richards entry, but need some help with the references, please: since references are so vital to this thread, for now i've left them as they were, hoping very much that the errors i corrected aren't from those books!

the 59 sunburst LP was the subject of an article in the september 2007 Guitarist magazine; that article garbled the dates considerably, but it did lead to pretty good documentation that Keith bought that guitar at Selmer's in London, not in the US; since it first turns up in photos/footage in autumn 1964 there's no reason to think he acquired it much earlier than that. here's a link to a thread that (if you scroll down a bit) includes that article and extensive discussion of the instrument's history: http://www.iorr.org/talk/read.php?1,605110,page=2

i hope someone with more experience in creating acceptable references will be able to derive what's needed from that thread - thanks! meanwhile, the bit about the instrument being auctioned is probably not worth keeping - it's gone up for sale again at least once since then.

Keith's black 3PU LP Customs: there's ample photographic evidence to show that Keith owned a number of these, from 1966 on; the psychedelic-painted one is seen in photos from 1968 through 1970. the photo on the cover of the 1975 Gibson catalog is not "a later model" - it's a 1954 Black Beauty that Keith was using in 72 and 73.

the other corrections i've made seem not to be associated with particular books, so maybe i can leave my defence of them until someone asks. Sssoul (talk) 21:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Added back a referenced sentence that was removed in a previous edit. Changed wording of another sentence as previous edit altered data that contradicted the Bacon book reference. The blog conversations in the link above were interesting reading but please note... blogs and chat rooms cannot be used as references. If the conversations in the blog refer to certain books or magazine interviews then those books or mamgazines have to be listed as the source including the publication information, year, issue, page numbers and author/interviewer. The references have to be reliable sources. And blog and chat rooms do not fall into that category. Links to blogs and chat rooms are also vios of Wikipedia's WP:EL policy. Here at the library where I am currently working we have digital access to hundreds of thousands of publications. If an editor has partial data as to a book or magazine article we can usually call up the remainder of the publication information so that the reference can be added in the article properly. In most cases we can call up the entire article and verify that the wording being added does not contradict the actual wording of the reference. Hope this helps. 156.34.238.173 (talk) 09:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

regarding where/when Keith bought that 59 Sunburst LP in 1964: does the book you're citing state its sources for the claim that he got it in the US in mid-64? blogs/chatrooms may not be allowed as sources here, but that doesn't mean they're wrong, or that books are invariably correct/up to date. i know of no (0) photos/footage of Keith with that guitar prior to autumn 1964, so what is the statement that he got it in mid-1964 based on? and: photos of the guitar with its previous owner have come to light in the last six months; that owner traded it in to Selmers in London. the september 2007 Guitarist article posted in the link i gave mentions this; the article includes a number of errors but if a magazine article is an acceptable reference i'll be grateful for assistance in adding it (i've tried to wade through the wikipedia instructions for citing sources, but find them impossible to follow, sorry.)

meanwhile i hope a compromise be acceptable? i'm suggesting "Richards purchased a 1959 sunburst Les Paul in 1964." and: are details of a 2004 auction in which the guitar wasn't sold really of ongoing interest/value? it's not the last time the guitar's been offered for sale; even if a guitar Keith didn't really use very long is deemed worthy of so much space in the article, there are more (to me!) interesting (and less "time-sensitive") details that could be mentioned - eg that it was purchased by Mick Taylor in 1967, and/or that it was used again by Richards on stage in 1969.

thanks for the assistance and for being open to compromising. Sssoul (talk) 07:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The Bacon book falls under WP:RS. On Wiki, if there are two different views... you add both into the page with their conflicting references. Ex: the "bought while on tour in 1964" line becomes "according to"-"bought while on tour in 1964"--"although SOURCE X claims the guitar was bought in autumn of 1964 in London". The SOURCE X must also be a reliable source. Editors can't pass judgement over the 'betterment' between 2 sources when both sources meet WP:RS. Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia. If an editor tries to rm cited text and re-add his his own different cited text... its a personal POV call... which just isn't allowed. Another option, which fall back to your original "compromise" suggestion of simply stating "purchased in 1964", could be re-implimented with the two conflicting refs added side by side at the end of the text. This cuts down on the superfluity and also remains neutral as it gives the reader the option of going to the refs themselves to find out more details. If you have all the publication details for the magazines mentioned in the blogs then you can add direct quotes and the magazine data right here on this talk page where other editors can see it. Citation formatting is a bit of a pain but if your can get all the req'd details added here, an editor with more experience can move it over to the main article space with your added references. Once you see how your refs have been merged into the article it will show you how so that you can correctly add your own references later on. This article is srtuctured using {cite web} and {cite book} formats. Which means those formats are used as "inline" references. Reference overkill is not a bad thing. For this type of page where it is really just a collection of facts and quotations without any overly "poetic prose"... it's perfectly OK to have a reference at the end of each and every sentence. There is no such thing as too many refs... as long as they are reliable sources. Wikipedia's foundation is WP:V.... that's verifiability. Even with all those detailed book refs added in... if this page were ever to be pushed towards Featured Article status... all those inline refs would likely be restructured yet again into Harvard Ref style. When a book, (or two, or three) is used multiple times in an article the {cite book} ref is changed to the shorter 'Harvard' style and the books fine details are added into a sources section at the page footer. I am a librarian and have used the long {cite book} style a thousand times here. I am not as quick on the 'Harvard style'. But, as mentioned earlier, if you want to add information you feel should go into the article along with the detailed book/magazine publication data(author/date/page number/publisher/etc... plus mention how/where your think the text fits in... it can be copied into the article along with the correctly structured inline ref and then you can have free reign to fine tune it as much as you want. And, because this is WIkipedia... anyone else can edit your added content too.(as long as they don't alter the text to contradict the references). On Wikipedia this page, and every other 2 million+ page, will never ever be at a "frozen" stage where the content doesn't need to be edited any further. The Keith Richards entry could get to the point where you think its "absolutely perfect" or "in the can" or "do not touch". As good as you think it is... 5... 10 years down the road... people will still be changing it :D. Welcome to the oft-times frustrating world of Wikipedia. It's a "living" encyclopedia. Always changing. Never 'set in stone'. The List of Telecaster players is a featured article on Wikipedia. This page looks similar to it only its much longer. Because the Tele list is a featured article it is in a state of "soft" lock down. It can be edited. But all contributions must meet the page criteria and be properly referenced. The List of Stratocaster players article is going into Featured Article status building stage right now. You can read the talk page over there to see how content suggestions are added onto the discussion page for other editors to see and use. It's cooperative encyclopedia building. I found lots of content here in the library and added it to the talk page over there for the other FA project editors to use. Whether it all actually gets used or not... I don't really care. But the content is all there and the sources are mentioned with as much detail as I could find.... so if the editors want some "bricks" to build on... they're all they for everyone to see. Feel free to add as many bricks as you want here on this page. 156.34.219.91 (talk) 10:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

>> If you have all the publication details for the magazines mentioned in the blogs then you can add direct quotes and the magazine data right here on this talk page where other editors can see it. <<

the magazine that published the evidence that Keith bought the guitar at Selmer's - and rightly points out that it was first seen in Keith's hands during the Stones' second US tour in the autumn of 1964 - is the september 2007 issue of Guitarist. the article (pages 55-58) is called "The 'Keithburst' Les Paul"; the author is Dave Burrluck. Guitarist is apparently published by Future Publishing Limited (Reg No. 2008885 England), 30 Monmouth Street, Bath, BA1 2BW UK. is there anything else you need to know to create a citation? thanks for the help with that.

it may be worth noting that the reminiscences (in the article's sidebar) from the previous owner's brother include some misleading dates (kind of implying that Keith acquired it in early 1963, which is obviously impossible), but photos of the previous owner with the guitar sure seem to substantiate the general gist of his recollections. these photos were published on line, not in the magazine, so i grasp that they're "inadmissable" for wikipedia's purposes, but the article at least provides good grounds for not stating "he got it in mid-64 on the Stones' first US tour" as if that were established fact. (and by the way if anyone has a photo or footage of him with this guitar prior to autumn 1964 i'd love to see it - thanks!)

i still suggest "Richards purchased a 1959 sunburst Les Paul in 1964." (i also still suggest skipping the bit about its nonsale in a 2004 auction - there aren't any such details in the section about other Gibsons he's owned/used for a lot longer than that one.)

anyway thanks again for help with the citation. Sssoul (talk) 15:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Mick Taylor (& Keith Richards Continued)
i hope i've managed to insert a proper web reference now (it still doesn't look quite right, but i tried!); i also hope it's deemed an acceptable source: http://www.gbase.com/Powered/GearDetails.aspx?Dealer=8eedde97-8e6e-4ca0-a8a6-227c7f435505&Item=1778604

i felt it was important not to leave the statement that this guitar was stolen in 1971, since that's potentially libelous toward subsequent owners and is apparently not as well substantiated as is commonly believed. i hope this "gear description" will be satisfactory as a source for the statement that the guitar's history from 1971 onward is "unclear", as well as for the fact that Taylor bought this guitar from Keith Richards. if this *is* an acceptable source, it might also be usefully added as a reference in the Keith Richards section. thanks for any insight as to its suitability - and for any available assistance in getting it into the right form. Sssoul (talk) 21:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * My only comment(s) are A) The whole point of the list is to give an overview of Gibson players... and now 2 of 3 Stones players have substantially longer entries than anyone else. Fine details can go into their individual articles. Not that the read isn't interesting... and sourced... just that it is getting wordy and should be trimmed a bit while still maintaining as much "girth" as possible (like I said, it's an intersting read) Leading to my second comment... B) One way to trim some duplication would be to rm the Christies details from the Richards entry and just leave it as sort of a "to be continued" after selling it to Taylor (yes he still played it himself after the sale but... something needs chopped)... the "post-sale" auction details can stay in the Taylor entry. Your writing style is good I expect you should ne able to make one flow into the other quite smoothly. I made one "Wiki" correction earlier in that I rm'd the links on all the years (see WP:DATE) Years w/o specific dates that don't really support much in the article... or the linked year doesn't contain any mention of the text you are editing... don't need linked. If you notice any other linked years within the article fell free to unlink them. Also... it's a list of Gibson players so the word "Gibson" need not appears in front of any specific model mentions throughout the article. That was a point brought up a long time ago on this article but the odd one still gets in. If you're reading through and spot any superfluous Gibsons feel free to delete them. The new additions are great. But those entries... specifically the Richards one... should get a sentence ot two or three chopped from it. Hope that helps. 156.34.225.77 (talk) 23:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * thanks - i suggested a couple of times that the whole 2004 auction thing seems outdated/of minimal interest, since it's not even the last time that guitar's been sold or offered for sale. but i was "outvoted". i'll try streamlining it all a bit as you've suggested, though.  and thanks for fixing my overzealous year linking - i get the idea now. Sssoul (talk)


 * update: okay, maybe it's a bit more streamlined now? i would still happily delete the 2004 auction bit altogether; right now i've left it only in the Taylor entry, but i still think there are more interesting/pertinent things to use that space for. the Richards entry ... well i can't help it that i love Keith's Gibsons, and that it's so interesting that he's used so many of them! :] i suppose the bit about the hand-painted LP Custom could go, but last time i tried deleting something with a reference connected to it, i got overruled, so this time i'd rather have a consensus first. Sssoul (talk) 02:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The article lead-in in pushes for lengthy history, model dedication or unique instruments. The hand painted Custom falls in there. In the end, by the lead criteria, the hand painted guitar ends up more notable than most of the other ones... even more so than the 59 Junior(one of my own favourites). Most people don't ever seem to read the lead in and just drop anyone's names into the list simply because the person might have touched a Gibson at some pooint in their life. At least Richards' entry is one of the list showcase pieces... I think anyways. Most people tend to think only of Micawber when they picture him. There's a lot more than that. 156.34.225.77 (talk) 02:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * i entirely agree - and those Juniors belong there on Lengthy History grounds! if the Richards entry really needs any more cuts maybe the first sentence can be shortened a bit, and/or the white ES-345 could be skipped (although it's a very interesting guitar: it may be the only 1964 ES-345 with an original white finish).


 * the Taylor section seems unbalanced, though: even though that 59 LP is regarded as particularly "iconic", it's just one guitar that in the end neither Keith nor Mick T owned/used for very long, and the sentence about its post-1971 history & the Christies auction still seems to me highly replaceable; i suggest changing the previous sentence to "In 1967 he bought Keith Richards' 1959 sunburst Les Paul, which he used on stage until 1971, with the Bluesbreakers and later The Rolling Stones" and giving the "gbase" and "burrluck" references (i'm not familiar with the book cited) and then moving on to something else. for example: from 69 to 71 Taylor probably used that cherry SG on stage more than the Les Paul; in photos from the Exile on Main Street sessions it's plain that he used an ES-355 extensively while recording that album (isn't that interesting?!) and his post-Stones career seems to be given mighty short shrift - i believe he still uses a Firebird and SG on stage as well as Les Pauls, but i hope some Taylor Expert can provide more balance and appropriate references. Sssoul (talk) 09:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

i'm still concerned about the "gbase" reference, which (after the rearrangements discussed above) is now cited first in the Keith Richards section. i suspect it should be in a form like the web sources in (for example) the Townshend entry, but i couldn't figure out how to get it in that format. any assistance with that would be very gratefully received - thanks. Sssoul (talk) 09:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The format of that ref is good. All websources should use the {cite web} formatting. Most of the weblinks on this page aren't done properly. The gbase ref format is one of the few cites that's actually proper formatting. I have one concern about the ref. It has a lot of detail but the source of the link is a "sales" link which, were it not being used for a ref, would be a WP:SPAM vio. Also... If/When/maybe the guitar actually sells the host will remove the link and your reference will be dead. For now though... all is good. If you have some time... there is also a List of Epiphone players article. Richards, like many early British Invasion pop stars, made some use out of a few classic Epi models. If you can flesh out an entry over there that would be great. 156.34.225.77 (talk) 11:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * thanks for the reassurance about the format of that reference - i'm glad i got it right by accident! i share your concern about it being a sales link, but at present i haven't got any other source that has full and correct facts about this instrument. i'll keep looking for one, though!
 * as for the Epiphone: yeah Keith used an Epiphone Casino from mid-1964 (before the Beatles got theirs, mind you!) to at least 1966, so i'll gladly see what i can do. (by the way: does the reference to Epiphones in the Lennon entry really belong on the Gibson Players' Page? just curious ...)
 * meanwhile, can we *please* delete that "subsequent history/Christie's auction" sentence from the Taylor entry? again, i'd remove it myself but i was "outvoted" before, and i don't want to be mistaken for a vandal; i just don't see why it matters how much a guitar didn't sell for on one occasion a few years ago. Sssoul (talk) 11:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The 59 auction (or the failed 59 auction if you will) falls under the " the particular instrument they used was unique or of historical importance" part of the lead. But, in the end, its details about the guitar... and not the player... so I suppose it can be removed. Perhaps the wording can be added somewhere in the Gibson Les Paul article. That page doesn't have a section for "specific/unique" Les Paul guitars. The "Keithburst", the hand painted Custom, Page's No. 1 and No. 2 and his own stolen Custom, Bob Marley's Special, Billy Gibbon's Pearly Gates, Snowy White's Goldy, The Peter Green/Gary Moore LP, Les Paul's "personal" Personal... all of these guitars are unique and have a history unto themselves and could be a separate section in that page. A section that talks specifically about the tech details of the guitar and leaves the "player details" for this article. I've owned/played the same 2 SGs and the same old beat up Casino for 30 years... I don't know why I have such a fascination with the 59 Les Paul???... I guess its because I don't have $400 000 clams kickin' around to go out and buy one. 156.34.142.110 (talk) 16:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * thanks ... it's not that i don't understand the interest in this guitar - just that the auction information seems out of date, plus which the guitar is mentioned in two entries and at least three other references besides the auction story. again, i don't want to be the one to delete it, since i don't want to look like a vandal, but if the Taylor entry is seeming both overlong (to the commentator above) and not well balanced (to me) i still vote for removing the "subsequent history/auction" sentence in favour of something about Taylor's other/later Gibsons. (and ... if it makes you feel any better about lacking a spare $400 000 for a 59 LP, that "burrluck" reference indicates that what they're hoping to get for the Keithburst is closer to a million.) Sssoul (talk) 21:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

if people want more emphasis on the historical importance of that Keithburst, maybe the statement in the "gbase" reference that it probably contributed to both Page's and Clapton's interest in LPs would fit into the Richards entry? if you check out the "more images" section on that page there are photos of Page (circa 1965 i think?) and Clapton (in 1966) with the instrument. if it seems appropriate to people, i think i could fit that into one sentence and tuck it into the Richards entry somewhere. let me know ... Sssoul (talk) 11:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Eric Clapton
this entry seems rather chaotic - is there a Clapton expert in the house to help clean it up? the information about the ES-335 needs streamlining, consolidating or something: i gather (with some difficulty!) that it's the same red ES-335 referred to throughout, so perhaps something like this might work:
 * - has used a variety of Gibsons throughout his career. The second electric guitar Clapton owned was a red ES-335 that he used with The Yardbirds, Blind Faith, and as a solo artist; in 2004 he sold it at an auction to benefit the Crossroads Centre. He acquired the first of several Les Pauls in 1966 while with John Mayall & the Bluesbreakers. In 1967 Clapton acquired a 1964 SG[12] painted by the Dutch artists collectively known as The Fool. Other models Clapton has used extensively include a Firebird I and a 1958 Explorer[14] that he used on his 461 Ocean Boulevard and EC Was Here albums.

i'm not much of a Clapton-spotter but a] surely there's more information on the production years/specific models of these instruments (what vintage of ES-335 is it, and the LP mentioned was a 1960 sunburst LP wasn't it - you know, good stuff like that); and b] surely there are other Gibsons he's used prominently? (what's that he's got in the film Hail Hail Rock & Roll, for example - don't i vaguely recall some anecdote connected with that one?) and: is the Rock & Roll Circus "Dirty Mac" appearance with the red ES-335 worth mentioning? another puzzle is: i don't understand what some of the the references are referring to: if the one after "1964 SG" is a source for the whole story of when he got it & who painted it, it should be at the end of the sentence; same with the reference after "1958 Explorer". please advise! and thanks. Sssoul (talk) 14:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Your wording looks fine. References are usually added at the point where they backup that specific piece of text. But, over time, if more wording is added then a ref might lose it's place and not point specifically at what it was intended. As for Clapton's 64 SG... I can conform that A) The Bacon book says it was a 64 acquired in 67 and B) it was painted by the Fool collective. So that ref can fall at the end of the sentence rather than in the middle. I will double check the Explorer ref. Clapton using it for the 461 OB album/tour is a fairly common trivia in a number of guitar related books/mags. What I've wanted to see is citable wording that says Clapton use of the model... and the subsequent demand following him using it... may well have prompted Gibson back into production of the model. Keef may have been the first "star" with a Les Paul. But many a guitarist has said it was Clapton pairing an LP with a Marshall and getting that "sound" on the Beano album that made everyone else really want one. The reference for Billy Gibbons' Pearly Gates clearly states this. Clapton the "Strat man" is similar to Keef the "Tele man". People tend to forget their vast importance to Gibson's history. He deserves a good entry. 156.34.225.77 (talk) 18:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * thanks for the help with the references - i'll work on that some more before putting it in the article. i agree that Clapton deserves a good entry; and more about his Les Pauls seems very worth adding. i'm glad if my wording above seems like a likely start, but since i don't own the Bacon book: does it state that ES-335 was his second electric guitar? as for the Les Pauls: i'd like to try something like: "In 1966 while with John Mayall & the Bluesbreakers, he acquired a 1960 sunburst Les Paul" - is that accurate, and will the Bacon book do as a source to support it? - and then can i say something like: "This was the first of several 1958-60 Les Pauls that Clapton used, contributing significantly to these models' popularity"?  it's just the facts, man! :]  but of course a reference would help, if you have one.  Sssoul (talk) 19:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * PS: since the Bacon book is the source for so much of this, can i use the "ref name" thing, skip the page numbers and then re-cite it, or does each reference to it have to be full, include page numbers, etc? Sssoul (talk) 20:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * PPS: well all right - i found a reference for that 2004 auction - it *is* the same ES-335, right? http://www.modernguitars.com/archives/000040.html
 * "Lot #41, a 1964 Gibson ES-335 TDC, fetches $750,000, ($847,500 after auction house premiums), setting a world record auction price for a Gibson guitar and earning it the third highest rank for a guitar bought at auction." is that record auction price for a Gibson still current, and is it worth including in the entry? (i am not an enemy of mentioning auction prices, you see - just not that into out-of-date non-sales.)


 * consolidating all that, here's what i've got so far, just to see how it looks. it still reads kinda clunky, so i'd like to keep working on it if someone can check my facts, let me know what's not right yet and what could be usefully added (for example, if he used that painted SG for any famous tours/recordings, it would read better to add something like that) - thank you!


 * Eric Clapton - has used a variety of Gibsons throughout his career. The second electric guitar Clapton owned was a red 1964 ES-335 TDC that he used with The Yardbirds, Cream, Blind Faith and as a solo artist. In 2004 Clapton sold the guitar at an auction to benefit the Crossroads Centre, where it sold for $750,000 - a world record auction price for a Gibson. In 1966 Clapton acquired a 1960 sunburst Les Paul that he used while a member of John Mayall & the Bluesbreakers and Cream. This was the first of several 1958-60 Les Pauls that Clapton used, contributing significantly to these models' popularity. In 1967 Clapton acquired a 1964 SG painted by the Dutch artists collectively known as The Fool.  Other models Clapton has used extensively include a Firebird I and a 1958 Explorer that he used on his 461 Ocean Boulevard and EC Was Here albums.


 * those references are 1] Bacon page 139; 2] the Modern Guitarist auction article; 3] Bacon page 123; 4] Bacon pages 135-135; 5] Bacon page 129 - but as i say if i can use the "ref name" thing for all the Bacon references that would be way cool. thanks for any ideas, insights, suggestions, etc. Sssoul (talk) 21:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

That reads very well. I am not sure about the 'ref name' format. I see it used a lot for web sources. For a {cite book} reference the citation also includes the page number. And if you use the 'ref name' don't you lose the page number? Otherwise... all looks good. nice link for the Crossroads auction... interesting read. You know you've got a lot of buck when you roll into a guitar auction and walk out with Blackie, Cream 335 and Lenny under your arm. 156.34.225.77 (talk) 00:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I restored the Christian wording... with clarification. That's one of those situations where it seems like POV... but is actually heisting words from the given reference. It appears a lot in this article wherever a {cite book} is added. (See Paul Kossof). It's these "cited" poetic descriptions that push the article towards a possible "featured article" status. Although, yes, it does seem like POV... it's pov from a reliable source. 156.34.225.77 (talk) 00:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I looked at the Paul McCartney article for a better usage of the book references using the 'ref name' format. That article lists the citations in the "Notes" section (with 'ref name/page number' formats) and then puts the technical book details in the reference section using the Harvard reference format. I am not so familiar with this style of citation formatting. But it would certainly save a lot of "inline text" within the article to go that route. 156.34.225.77 (talk) 01:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * cool about the Charlie Christian wording - i didn't realize it's a direct quote. thanks for fixing that.
 * thanks too for checking out the reference formats - see the new section below for my adventures in trying to figure it out.
 * glad you like the Crossroads Auction article! but it's confused me a bit: maybe the interviewees were overexcited - either they'd lost track of what decade it is, or they think Cream was a mid-70s formation - but the Clapton entry before i started fiddling with it specified that he didn't use the 335 with Cream.  i'm not a Clapton-spotter so i can't judge who's correct - can you/anyone help, please and thank you?
 * it would also be good to say what Clapton used that painted SG for, or what years he famously used it, or something like that - please and thank you for something to highlight its importance as an instrument and not just a work of art.
 * and: do we have a production year for the Firebird I, and can we say when he used it, or what tours/recordings he used it for?
 * regarding that Explorer ... would it be too "pov" to say he made "influential" use of it, instead of "extensive"?
 * thanks for all the help, ideas, insights, encouraging words, etc. Sssoul (talk) 11:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Clapton used "The Fool" on Disraeli Gears and Wheels of Fire(same Bacon ref). Adjectives that can't be attributed to an rs can just be removed.... influential, extensive or otherwise. Gibson only made a few Explorers in 1958 and then stopped as it was a huge failure (some guitar stores actually hung them outside their shop signs just to catch attention.. figuring they were of no use other than "shock advertising") Gibson wasn't prone to re-release anything that was a bust.(it took them until the mid-80s to start properly re-creating 58-60 LP 'bursts' for %@^# sakes) Something perked Gibson into making the Explorer again in 1976??? What would make them do that? Demand? Clapton recording and touring with one in the 2 years previous to them re-introducing the model certainly helps. Have you even seen that sort of mention coming out of "anything Gibson"? I could be wrong. Explorers and Firebirds and Flying Vs have interesting histories. Gibson discontinued the V in 1959 but suddenly started piecing together old stock parts and selling a couple hundred of these "Frankenstein Vs" in the late 196os. That's the "Hendrix effect" (all respects to Lonnie Mack who was a long time user but just couldn't "sell 'em" the way Jimi could). Clapton used a Firebird I almost as much as he used the Fool while he was with Cream. But Gibson didn't ride Clapton's star power on the Firebird use. So maybe it wasn't Clapton using an Explorer that promted Gibson to start them up again. In the mid-1970s Gibson was getting volumes of free publicity for V and Firebird guitars because the whole world was watching Paul Stanley from Kiss use them. And when Gibson re-started Explorer production... they didn't give them to Clapton... they gave bunches of them to Paul Stanley. But something/someone had to spark them into remaking the guitar in the first place. And that something/someone is listed somewhere on this page. 156.34.225.77 (talk) 14:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * thanks for the details re The Fool - i'll add that.
 * i will ponder that adjective question some more ... seems like someone eminent must have said something quotable in some publication somewhere! on the other hand, the things that guitarists & luthiers don't ever get around to articulating in words would fill volumes :] Sssoul (talk) 14:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

oops - a couple of new historical-detail questions: the main wikipedia article on Eric Clapton states that he bought his first Les Paul in mid-1965; in this entry here we have 1966. which is correct? and: would it be accurate to say that first Les Paul became his main stage guitar with the Bluesbreakers and Cream, or "Les Pauls were among his main stage guitars" in that period or something like that? (part of what i'm trying to do is add some variety to the sentence structure in the entry, to make it read better.) thanks again for all this good help Sssoul (talk) 15:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

reference format question
okay, maybe i've figured out how to include page numbers in the "ref name" format, and i've entered a test run of that for a few of the Bacon citations, just in the Beck, Bolan, Clapton and Santana entries for now. if it's a right way to go, i can do the same thing to the Bacon quotes in the other entries as well - his three books seem to be cited about 20 times in the article so it would save some space, and it's probably also worthwhile to use a more consistent reference format throughout. let me know if i should continue, or undo it if it's not the way to go - thanks. Sssoul (talk) 13:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * ref name is the way to go. There are at least 3 Tony Bacon books the Richard Chapman book the Jeff Kitts book the the autobiography on my good friend Dr. Stompin' Tom Connors(One of my favourite entries on the list... not all notable Gibson players are American or British... or internationally successful... regional coverage is the one place this article is painfully lacking) Using the Macca article as a good reference point (it has over 300 citations!) or, even better, use the List of Telecaster players articles as a guide(it is a Featured article on Wikipedia... an excellent resource... an article you don't edit without proposing your edits on the talk page first). From reading the earliest discussions on this page this list is modelled after the Tele player list... so it's a good place to start as far as formatting goes. The List of Stratocaster players went through a cotation cleanup before Christmas by a Wikipedia administrator who is the leader of the whole guitarist project. It can be used as a guide as well. 156.34.225.77 (talk) 15:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * cool - i'll start working on "ref-naming" the rest of the quotes - i'll start with the Bacon books. i trust i got the respective publication dates right? and for when i get to it: is the Jeff Kitts book from 2002, and co-edited by Brad Tolinski? Sssoul (talk) 15:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

and a different formatting question, now that i've looked at the List of Telecaster players: do the dashes after the players' names really belong in the entries on this Gibson players' list? i've been standardizing the entries, and inserted them when they were missing because most of the entries have them, but they don't really make much sense, as punctuation goes. since the Telecaster list doesn't have them, can i remove them here? Sssoul (talk) 15:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I would say if the Tele list and Strat list don't have 'em... they aren't req'd here. 156.34.225.77 (talk) 17:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

update: i've changed all the Bacon, Kitts & Chapman references to "ref name" format - i hope that's some help. in the process the total number of references was reduced a bit, but only because there are a few multiple references to exactly the same page. the only one i eliminated was a duplicate reference in the Edge entry (two in one sentence to the same page in Bacon seemed excessive). Sssoul (talk) 22:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Brian Jones "citation needed"?
can someone let me know what part of the statement seems doubtful to someone? he did certainly play all the models mentioned. the one bit i'm not sure of is the vintage of the Goldtop, or whether he ever appeared with it other than on the Rock & Roll Circus. but i can try to come up with sources for the rest if i know what's being "challenged". Sssoul (talk) 18:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * He just falls into the "a good reference(or 2 or 3) is required for all list entries". He played all the guitars mentioned... he just needs a decent backup to satisfy WP:V. 156.34.142.110 (talk) 18:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * cool, i'll see what i can come up with. do you have a source for the year of that Goldtop? i'm finding sources (not citable ones, but still!) saying it was a 68, and the dvd/photos don't do much to confirm or deny that. Sssoul (talk) 21:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * update: for the time being i'm removing the statement that it was a 1956 LP Goldtop that Brian used, since i can't find a citable source for the production year. meanwhile, does his use of a Hummingbird in the film One + One count as notable? Sssoul (talk) 23:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Neil Young reference?
there's some kind of untamed reference in the Neil Young entry - the site it points to is in a language that my browser doesn't support, and i don't know whether the link should be put in "ref name" format or jettisoned. an expert decision would be welcome! thanks Sssoul (talk) 20:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Kurt Cobain
Didn't Kurt Cobain play a Gibson Firebird? I'd call him pretty damn notable. THen again, i don't know how long he used one, so there is probably a good reason he's not on this page, but could someone explain it to me?


 * okay i'll try (although i wish you'd signed/dated your comment!): it's not the musician that needs to be notable to be included in the list, it's his/her use of Gibsons that needs to be notable (see the introduction to the list). if it's not clear that Cobain used a Firebird extensively, or that his Firebird was a historically interesting one, or that he inspired hordes of players to start using Firebirds or something like that, then it's hard to call his use of it "notable" in the sense this list is aiming at. Sssoul (talk) 18:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Albert Lee
Albert's entry states that he plays an "Everly Brothers Flattop." I have never known this model to be known by this name. It's either a "Gibson Everly Brothers," or a "Gibson Everly Brothers Model." Even Gibson state in their recent catalogues, with regard to the J-180 re-issue: "The release of the famous Everly Brothers model (otherwise known as the J-180) in 1962" etc, etc, but I can't seem to change it. Pat Pending (talk) 16:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * well, actually if you try googling Everly Brother flattop you'll find a number of references calling it exactly that. here's one: http://www.provide.net/~cfh/everly.html
 * of course that doesn't mean that's technically the right name for the model Albert Lee plays, but: what *does* he play - a J-180 reissue, or a pre-72 Everly Brothers model or what? Sssoul (talk) 18:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

He plays the one that was given to him by Don Everly, only one of two "real Everly Brothers Models" Pat Pending (talk) 18:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * cool - but the Everly Brothers actually favoured SJ-200s, didn't they - is that what Don gave Albert??
 * by the way here's a page where Gibson uses the term "Everly Brothers flat-top":
 * http://www.gibson.com/en-us/Lifestyle/Features/On%20the%20Road%20with%20Warren%20Haynes/
 * "Haynes ... gave Allman another Gibson in return: an Everly Brothers flat-top, which features a J-185-style body, an adjustable bridge, star-shaped inlays, and a pickguard that covers most of the top of the body."
 * here's another: http://www.gibson.com/en-us/Lifestyle/Features/Chris%20Walla%20Takes%20a%20Hike%20from/
 * "... Walla’s Gibson Everly Brothers flattop ..."
 * i'm not arguing with you - just noting that the term is used, even by Gibson, probably mainly to make sentences sound normal - technically the name of the model is Everly Brothers but "he plays an Everly Brothers" sounds odd, so folks add "flattop".
 * anyway do you want me to try to amend the Albert Lee entry, and if so to what, exactly? and of course if you've got a source to cite while we're at it that would be brilliant. Sssoul (talk) 18:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No please don't, this is not the correct name. I still have all the original paperwork that came with mine, it states "Gibson Everly Brothers" If you give me a mo, I try to find a link to it's correct name. Cheers, Pat Pending (talk) 19:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Found it! "Gibson Everly Brothers" Cheers, Pat Pending (talk) 19:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * well good - but please note that in this article we aren't including "Gibson" in the model names, since the name of the list makes that redundant. please also note that the word "model" is not a part of most signature models' names, but check out the other entries in the list: it's pretty standard practice to use it after the model name - not capitalized, since it isn't part of the name - if that helps a sentence sound normal.
 * as for the reference: what's needed is a source for Albert Lee using this model, not for what the model in general is called. like i said, i wasn't arguing with you, just intrigued by the usage. Sssoul (talk) 19:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * For this page... as mentioned above... for a page title "List of Gibson players"... the word 'Gibson' isn't required in any of the instrument models detailed on the page... which goes without saying... it's a list of Gibson players. The Lee wording is a bit "familiar" and, in keeping with all the other entries, I would support simply calling it an 'Everly Brothers model'. It was also brought up in a previous edit summary (by user Lion King I think?) that the words 'acoustic' and 'electric' do not need to be detailed anywhere in the page and (by decree of admin Anger22) no instrument models need to be linked anywhere on the page since the link to Gibson products is included in the lead. Reasoning being, I assume, that if the reader wants to go after the techie gear details they can just use the list. It also eliminates instuments being linked over and over and over on the page. Sorry for the extra-long comment... but I've been monitoring this page for a year and a half so I've seen all the ins/outs in its construction. Just wanted everyone to know some of the old history on it. 156.34.228.106 (talk) 19:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

"Everly Brothers model" is a perfectly accurate descricption of the guitar, the only trouble is, it won't allow me to enter it! Will someone who authorized please do so. Thanks. Pat Pending (talk) 19:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * there you go - hope it looks good to you now! if you locate a reference for Albert Lee's use of one given to him by Don Everly that would be a nice addition. thanks & swing on Sssoul (talk) 21:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much. There's lots of references for Don giving Albert his black J-200, but no luck so far with the "Everly Brothers model". I know he has it, I've seen him using it. I'll keep on trying. Thanks once again for your help. Pat Pending (talk) 22:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * well, a reference about him giving him the J-200 would be cool too, if you have one handy from a cite-worthy source. and just to make sure i've been clear: it's not that i disbelieve you about him playing an Everly Brothers - it's just that the editor called 156.34.228.106 taught me it's good to cite references for everything we can find good sources for. Sssoul (talk) 22:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Don Everly's 1958 black J-200 and Clapton's LP Custom Cheers, Pat Pending (talk) 23:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * way cool - i'll put that in as a reference in the morning, unless someone like 156.34.228.106 gets to it before then. thanks for unearthing it ... and swing on Sssoul (talk) 23:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem, glad to help. Cheers, Pat Pending (talk) 09:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * okay, done! just for the record: it's gone now, since it was bugging somebody, but to me "flattop" is also a "perfectly accurate description" of the Everly Brothers model, as long as it's not capitalized as if it were part of the official name. and since it imparts more information than the word "model" i can see why some writers use it. but if "model" seems reasonable to everyone ... so be it!
 * now all the entry needs is a reference for Lee actually using that model - but meanwhile: thanks & swing on Sssoul (talk) 11:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I see where your'e coming from, but would you find "Gibson Sheryl Crow Signature Flattop", or "The Dwight Yokum Y2K Flattop" acceptable? There is no such guitar as an "Everly Brothers Archtop", and Flat top is two words anyway:) Cheers...."Keep on truckin' mama, truckin' those blues away, keep on truckin' mama, truckin' 'til the break of day." Pat Pending (talk) 16:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Flat top, Flat-top, flattop etc are all incorrect - it's correct name is the Soundingboard or Sound board. But what the hell guys, Americans think that because the instrument has a back and sides, it's a case of: "Hey guys, it's the top!" Good job Gibson don't make Harps - what would that be? The Side-top? The Flat-side top? LOL! 91.106.192.127 (talk) 23:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Michael Weikath
Helloween's Lead Guitarrist has been always using Gibson Guitars. 1990 Gibson Les Paul black, 1990 Gibson Les Paul white, 1990 Gibson Flying V white, 198?. Gibson Explorer custom black/white, 1976 Gibson L6 S. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.67.70 (talk) 13:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

tremolo or vibrato?
now that tremolo is spelt properly (thanks Scarian!): do we want to choose which to call these devices? at the moment they're called both tremolo and vibrato in different entries (besides the ones that sidestep the whole question by calling them "tailpiece" or just "Bigsby" or something like that). i personally usually try to sidestep it that way, but when that's awkward i do think the list should use either "vibrato" or "tremolo", not both. i guess i'd vote for "vibrato", in spite of the historical and popular wrong usage of "tremolo", but ... share your thoughts! Sssoul (talk) 11:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Bernard Butler
I'm not sure why he got deleted (sorry, I'm new to this), but here's an article which verifies he uses a Gibson 355 TD SV - http://line6.com/artists/292/. As for notability, if you know anything about British indie music, he's right up there with Marr when it comes to guitar idols. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dazzak (talk • contribs) 19:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * thanks for bringing this to the discussion page. if you have a look at some of the earlier discussions on this page, the question isn't whether a given artist who's used a Gibson is notable, but whether his/her use of a Gibson is notable, for example because of inspiring hordes of others to use the same models, or long-term "loyal" use of Gibsons - things like that. there are lots of famous players who have used Gibsons who aren't on the list - but if you feel Bernard Butler's use of a 355 is notable in the sense this list is trying to be about, i hope you'll point out the evidence - right now i'm trying to find any indication that he's used a 355 for more than maybe 3 or 4 years.  again, thanks for using the discussion page ... and if you can sign your discussion posts by putting four ~s at the end that will be way cool too.  thanks Sssoul (talk) 21:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, man. He's used that same 355 for about 16 years now. He says it in that article I linked to. There's videos of him using the same guitar 15 years ago and this year if that'd help? One from 1993: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaEc_5abpfA and one from 2008: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsXDZmMq-So . It's been his guitar of choice his entire career, and in Britain especially, it has helped the standing of 355s. Why when I asked my local music shop why they had two 355s in the other day, they simply replied "Bernard Butler fans". Dazzak (talk) 23:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * thanks - it's too bad that your local shop doesn't count as a cite-worthy source for Wikipedia purposes! it'll now be good to wait for some other editors to chime in so that there's some consensus about the proposed addition. the emphasis on influential/long-term use do give the list a sort of built-in bias favouring older players, but it's not meant to be "ageist". and just for the record: i'm a she-sssoul Sssoul (talk) 09:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * ps: just out of curiosity, did your shop say whether they actually sell any stereo 355s due to Butler's influence? SVs are flip city! 8) Sssoul (talk) 09:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * pps: again just out of curiosity: could you point out where in that article he says he's been playing the 355 for 16 years? i see where he says he's owned one of his Vox amps for 15 years, but ... ? it's not a big deal, and it's not that i don't believe you - but a] most youtube links won't count as sources for Wikipedia purposes; and b] i'm curious about how much my reading skills have decayed. Sssoul (talk) 10:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Ha, you're pretty condescending, aren't you? Firstly, yeah, my mistake - he was referring to the Vox in that interview. In this, however - http://arts.guardian.co.uk/features/story/0,,1858079,00.html - he explicitly states he bought the 355 in the early 90s (it was late '92). Secondly, the shop thing was purely anecdotal. And those two 355s they had were ordered specifically for fans of Butler. Dazzak (talk) 12:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "condescending"?! not in the least - i'm simply intrigued, and was concerned that i'd missed something in the article you'd provided, and was hoping to help you make a good case for this inclusion in the list. i understand that your mention of the shop was purely anecdotal, and i *am* sorry it's not cite-worthy for Wikipedia's purposes. thanks for the new link, and again i was not intending anything remotely "condescending". Sssoul (talk) 12:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

In the meantime no evidence has been placed to support the argument that the entry meets the article criteria. It seems noteworthy enough if a third party reliable source can be found to properly illustrate the music shop anecdote. If that type of trivia were a common occurrence you would've thought an article would have been done about it in a guitar related magazine. 156.34.222.121 (talk) 13:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Why then is, say, Buckethead included in the list when the only reference given is a page from a fansite listing his gear? At least I've gotten a reference in which the actual guitarist is the primary source. Dazzak (talk) 14:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * i personally have no idea what Buckethead is doing on the list; meanwhile, does anyone have the march 98 issue of Guitar Player? apparently there's an article about Butler's influential status in there, but i don't have access to it. Sssoul (talk) 18:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

anyone have any arguments in favour of keeping Buckethead on the list? until further notice i agree with Dazzak that Butler would make more sense as an entry than Buckethead. Sssoul (talk) 10:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Elliott Smith
I have added this artist into this list for the second time. It makes no sense for him not to be in this article. He used an es330 in almost all of his live performances. There are references in the article. If someone could explain why they feel he should not be included in this list then please do so instead of just deleting him. Thoraxcorp (talk) 21:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It is deleted because any new entries require a refernce for notablility that passes WP:RS standards. The reference for Smith is a "self-ref" and says nothing about notabilty for use. It just says that he used the models. Thousands of musicians use Gibson products. The criteria for this article was set a long time ago by members of the Guitarist Project: musicians are listed here only if their use of these instruments was especially significant — that is, they are musicians with long careers who have a history of faithful Gibson use, or the particular instrument they used was unique or of historical importance, or their use of the Gibson model contributed significantly to the popularization of that particular instrument. Just using/owning one doesn't cut it. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 21:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Article title
If we're going to have a List of Gibson players, then it ought to be a list of Gibson players, without other criteria. Of course, the five Pillars still apply, as in any Wikipedia article. If the guitarist is notable and has played a Gibson guitar as part of the musical style or performance for which he or she is notable, then that guitarist belongs here. Applying ersatz policies to this article that have never had community approval is simply the wrong way to go. We have WP:NOTABLE but we don't have WP:ESPECIALLYNOTABLE. --SSBohio 19:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It is a list that is modelled after other lists which have attained featured status because of their strict criteria. There are a hundred thousand Gibson players. There are only a couple of dozen who are notable for it. The rest are just non-notable "owners". If an entry does not meet the criteria for entry then it will be deleted. The Real Libs-speak politely 22:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I can go along with your tone of command; We're meant to discuss these matters, not issue instructions about them.  Your red herring argument about "100,000 Gibson players" doesn't address my point that if the guitarist is notable and has played a Gibson guitar as part of the musical style or performance for which he or she is notable, then that guitarist belongs here.  By applying existing policies, non-notable owners are already removable.  It's not an unreasonable request that this article abide by the policies that have gained wide support within the Wikipedia community, rather than some other, more subjective criteria.  If you want a list of especially notable Gibson guitar players, one could be created.  I think that the Five Pillars we already have will address the needs of this list quite well. --SSBohio 04:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * the way i understand the list, it's not implying that the players listed need to be "especially notable"; it's meant to focus on musicians whose use of Gibsons has been notable, influential, etc. i think the current introduction to the list outlines the criteria pretty well.
 * it can be a bit baffling/frustrating sometimes for newcomers (including myself) who weren't around for the original discussions that hammered out the criteria, but that doesn't mean there hasn't been discussion or that there's no consensus. were those discussions archived somewhere where people can access them? that might help some ... Sssoul (talk) 07:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Wes Montgomery.png
The image Image:Wes Montgomery.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --02:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Toki Wartooth or Brenden Small
in the tv show metalacalypse the character toki uses a gibson flying v in real life i think its played by brenden small should we add toki or brenden? (Demonslayer50054 (talk) 00:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC))
 * Neither one as they do not meet the criteria of the article's lead in. (they don't even come close) The Real Libs-speak politely 00:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

James Dean Bradfield
What about James Dean Bradfield of the Manics?, he has used Les Paul Customs as his main guitars almost during all his career, but for the Lifeblood days when he used a Flying V as main guitar. I think he should be added. 190.71.241.225 (talk) 16:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Doesn't meet article criteria. The Real Libs-speak politely 21:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Surely he meets the criteria? There are lots of lesser known guitarists listed, and well known guitarists who have used gibsons only briefly. Bradfield has penned two #1 UK singles, 10 top 20 albums and over 30 top 40 singles. He has toured the world with his white Les Paul from the beginning of the 90's to this day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Puskaradio (talk • contribs) 15:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Adam Jones
Why is Adam Jones always deleted. In my opinion, his use of gibson guitars is more notable than artists like Thom Yorke or Tom Delonge.
 * Thousands of musicians play Gibson products. Entries must have a reliable reference proving notable use to match the criteria of the article lead. No ref, no entry. You can delete Thom Yorke and Tom Delonge if you wish. The Real Libs-speak politely 03:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

There are a lot of references stating that Adam Jones exclusively plays Gibson LE LP Custom Silverbursts. He owns five of them. It's even stated on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Jones_(musician)#Guitars —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.139.76.200 (talk) 20:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The entire gear section of the Jones article is unreferenced. Wikipedia can't be used as a citation for itself. Third party reliable sources that verify notability are needed according to the article rules detailed at the beginning of the article. Fair Deal (talk) 21:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Entries
There are a few noteable ommisions from the list of Gibson Players, I would like to nominate a few for consideration where does one initiate the process of offering up worthy entrants for such saintification?RogerGLewis (talk) 05:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It isn't a nomination process. If an entry satisfies the criteria of the lead-in they can be added. Some IP added Kenny Burrell... with no citations from reliable sources.. which are a must or else they are removed. The Real Libs-speak politely 10:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello libs, that was a guy from the gibson forums called Robert Nahaum he's from Australia and something of an expert on L5's and other Gibson Archtops and Jazz players,at least it was probably Robert he also nominated George Benson who played an L5 and there is a link to George benson in the Wilkipedia it is out of date in that it hasn't recorded his death several years ago. George Benson is generally accepted as one of the greatest jazz players of all time his collection of guitars was sold by Skinners of Boston last Spring I think it was the L5 which I think once belonged to Wes Montgomery sold for £41,000. Citations to reliable sources is an interesting one is the extant entry on George Benson considered reliable. What is the citation for KT Tunstall as an example?I'm sure that we will all get the hang of this eventually, it would be nice to be able to view entries without some obvious jarring omissions. One of the other Gibson Forum people mentioned Mary Ford who played Guitar with Les Paul, a gibson acoustic and a les paul when they came out part of the Les Pauls initial popularity was based on Mary Fords and Les Pauls celebruity in the US, Mary Ford really should be on the list there are plenty of others. Mike Bloomfield is a featured guitarist on the Gibson site this week with a sig model Les Paiul, Trini Lopez has a signature Gibson Model that alone would seem to qualify under the three headings. Thanks for your continuing input it is much appreciated. RogerGLewis (talk) 14:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Entries like that are great. But they need citations. Editor "experts" are = WP:NOR and fail WP:RS. Newspapers, magazines and books can all be cited. When it is a specific instrument... that instrument needs to be detailed in order to show "notability". Attempts have been made to add Bloomfield already... his inclusion would be superb. (he is on the Tele player list) But the entries did not have valid refs. Same for Lopez... another great addition (gloriously omitted up to now for lacking refs). An new entry should never just say "X played a 19XX X model". There are already too many of those that still need cleanup or removal. IF you want to see an excellent entry on a notable player list... go to the List of Stratocaster players and read the Rory Gallagher entry. Great wording. Quotes (cited quotes) are excellent additions. For this page most of the entries are still sparse (the Les Paul one being a good example) At the same time there are already articles for each specific model so we can't have too much duplication of content. The Jimmy Page and Keith Richards entries on this page are decent. The Billy gibbons entry is a good example of a shorter one. Again... quotes really help flesh out an entry. Leslie West is associated closely with the LP Junior. A quote from him about the little orphan would be welcome. Same for Johnny Winter and his long devotion to the Firebird. Does anyone use a 135 with more dedication than Thorogood?... not too many in the rock world. But his entry just says "uses an ES-135". *Sigh*... a continual work in progress. Just "using" a model doesn't cut it. We need to emphasise "notability". with citations... just as the article lead-in paragraph states (there are also some hidden rules on the page that are viewable when the edit box is clicked) Notable Gibson players doesn't just cover guitars either. The Achilles heel of the entire article is the lack of mandolin and banjo players. A few are included. A few more would balance the article out. Everyone and his dog has played a Les Paul. If the lead-in is followed it makes it easier to clear the "users" from the "notable users" I have read a few of the posts on the Gibson forum to your newly opened discussion. None of the editors "got it right" as none seemed to understand the strict criteria of the lead-in. And one post was full of information that was just flat out wrong. The List of Telecaster players is a good example of a notable player list. Hope that helps. The Real Libs-speak politely 16:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks real libs, I'll take all of that constructive advice on board and set about preparing citations etc in line with the model examples of Billy Gibbons and Rory Gallagher (one of my particular favourites, so will enjoy reading that anyhow) On the Mando and Banjo front I'll e-mail a few of the guys into those instruments and see if I can drum up a bit of interest for them to mobilise their expertise in this direction. Thanks again RogerGLewis (talk) 18:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Mark Knopfler
Can someone please explain to me why more than half the players listed on this page have NO references, yet when I post a brief entry about Mark Knopfler with a few [indisputable] facts it gets removed for "needing citations"? I understand and agree with the need to cite sources but I am simply following the precedent on this page. If my posts are going to be removed with such prejudice then I believe that someone should go through this page and remove all players without references, just to be fair. 66revolver (talk) 04:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66revolver (talk • contribs) 04:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The rules stated in the lead in say all 'new' entries must be referenced and that they must emphasize notability, not just use. References must come from reliable sources and not blogs or amateur websites. GripTheHusk (talk) 05:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm bound to say that I agree with 66revolver on this - everyone understands that there need to be rules, but I think they need to be applied consistently, and this is not the case on this page. I have tried a couple of times to add Robert Fripp to the list (and someone else agreed as they made a reversion to my edit) but will give up now, as (having read all the cited rules on reliable sources and notability etc) I can't understand how rules are being enforced here. And, I did think maybe after all these years, that 'Guitar Player' magazine might be regarded as a reputable publication.... --Ndaisley (talk) 08:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) i've asked before (see above) for a link to where the criteria for this list were hammered out, but meanwhile: my understanding is that the refs need to establish that the artists' use of Gibsons has been notable/influential, not just that the artist is notable and has used Gibsons. if earlier entries were "grandfathered in" from the days before inline citations became the standard, it's not strange that that seems confusing and frustrating; why not tag those as ("citation needed")? meanwhile, is it hard to find references supporting Knopfler's and Fripp's notable/influential use of Gibsons?? Sssoul (talk) 09:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Woody Guthrie
...plays an L-00, not a Southern Jumbo in the picture.

Derek Trucks
Derek plays a Gibson SG almost exclusively from what I have seen, and have never seen a picture of him without his red SG.

Here is an interview with Gibson noting so. "Early on I loved the sound of the Gibson Les Paul, but it was just too heavy for a nine-year-old. The SG gave me a similar sound without all the weight. I also saw a picture of Duane Allman with an SG and that look has always stuck with me."

http://www.gibson.com/en-us/Lifestyle/ArtistsAndEvents/Stories/Gibson_s%20Exclusive%20Q_A%20with%20De/

--142.56.86.35 (talk) 22:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Greg Sage
(from Wipers) He played a Gibson SG, should this be mentioned? 82.41.209.185 (talk) 21:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Fictional Characters?
Um, would fictional characters count? Because Yui Hirasawa from Japanese manga K-On! plays Gibson Les Paul, and I'm sure there's other fictional characters play Gibson Les Paul.Scyoon95 (talk) 10:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "Um, would fictional characters count?" the short answer is um, no 8) Sssoul (talk) 09:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

those Coheed and Cambria additions
to the IP who's been adding the two Coheed and Cambria guitarists: thanks for including a citation, but does the source you've cited indicate that their use of these instruments is influential, historical and/or otherwise notable in the sense that the list intro specifies? also please note that this list is alphabetized by surname; that the list entries give the model names without specifying "Gibson" (the list subject makes it redundant to repeat "Gibson" in individual entries); and that phrases like "is known to" are not used on Wikipedia - see WP:Weasel. thanks Sssoul (talk) 14:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Adrian Smith(Iron Maiden)-Early 70's Les Paul Goldtop Deluxe, Gibson SG's and a Gibson Double cutaway Melody Maker as seen in the video for the song "Flight Of Icarus". Scott Gorham(Thin Lizzy)-Early 70's era Les Paul Deluxe and various Les Paul Standards John Sykes(Thin Lizzy, Whitesnake, Blue Murder)-Played a Black Les Paul Custom his whole career —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.70.253.52 (talk) 05:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)