In Response to Gabe Dalporto

Guitar Center CEO Gabe Dalporto Says Guitars Haven’t Changed in 50 Years. Here’s Why He's Wrong.

“We are about to do something insane,” Dalporto says in a TikTok video. “Guitars

haven't changed that much in the last 50 years, and we're about to change that.”

That line landed like a novelty tremolo dive: dramatic, attention‑grabbing, and—if you’ve

spent any significant time behind a Guitar Center counter, like I have—a little off‑key.

I own my own shop, and now have sold guitars professionally for almost 20 years. I've watched players walk in with a problem and walk out with a hardware or electronics solution that, five years earlier, would have sounded like witchcraft. I’ve seen Floyd Rose systems

installed at midnight for a kid who needed to nail a gig the next day. I’ve pulled strings

so active pickups could be swapped in for touring metalheads who refused to play

anything that didn’t cut through a wall of amps. I’ve seen multiscale necks and

EverTune bridges go from “weird boutique stuff” to the exact features customers asked

for by name. So when a CEO with a tech background says the instrument hasn’t

changed much in half a century, it reads less like a bold thesis and more like someone

skimming product pages from the wrong decade.

Let’s be clear: the Strat/Les Paul silhouette still sells because it works and because it’s

iconic. That doesn’t mean the instrument has been frozen in amber. The last 50 years

are littered with practical, player‑driven innovations that changed how guitars are

played, built, and maintained. Here’s the short version, from the floor to the factory.

What actually changed (and why it matters)

- Hardware that keeps guitars usable on the road. Floyd Rose locking tremolos, locking

tuners, EverTune bridges—these aren’t cosmetic. They solve the single biggest problem

for gigging players: staying in tune while doing things that used to wreck a guitar’s

setup. A guitar that stays in tune under stress is a different tool than one that doesn’t.

- Electronics that expand sonic territory. Active pickups, piezo bridges, onboard

preamps and acoustic imaging let one instrument cover multiple roles. Want a

metal‑ready signal with a clean acoustic shimmer? Modern electronics make that

possible without swapping guitars mid‑set.

- New geometries and materials for playability. Headless designs, multiscale (fanned

frets), roasted necks, carbon composites and 3D‑printed bodies change balance,

tension, and durability. These are not fashion statements; they’re ergonomic and tonal

solutions for players pushing range and technique.

- Extended range and true intonation fixes. Seven, eight, nine‑string axes and True

Temperament fretting address musical demands that didn’t exist in the mainstream 50

years ago. Players writing in lower tunings or exploring microtonal ideas need

instruments built for those tasks.

- Onboard digital and modeling tech. Smart guitars and digital modeling have blurred

the line between instrument and effects rig. A guitar that can emulate multiple

instruments or record internally is a different workflow for a songwriter or touring

musician.

If you want a list of the headline inventions, they’re not hard to find: Floyd Rose, EMG

active pickups, Steinberger headless designs, fanned frets, EverTune, sustainer

systems, True Temperament, stainless frets, piezo hybrids, 3D printing, roasted necks,

and onboard DSP/modeling. Each one solved a real problem for a subset of

players—and many of them migrated from niche to mainstream because players

demanded them.

Why the “crowdsource a brand” idea sounds good on paper—and smells like trouble in

practice

Crowdsourcing design is a great marketing play. It gets people talking, it creates

content, and it makes customers feel involved. But there’s a difference between

soliciting ideas for buzz and running a disciplined R&D program that produces a

reliable, well‑made instrument.

From the floor, I can tell you what works: controlled prototyping, experienced luthiers,

realistic manufacturing timelines, and quality control that doesn’t treat the first

production run like a beta test. Guitar Center’s past private‑label efforts have shown the

danger of rushing production to meet a marketing calendar: inconsistent QC, unhappy

customers, and returns that cost more than the initial margin.

And then there’s the legal side. Asking players to hand over ideas for free is a one‑way

street. If you want genuine collaboration, you don’t hide behind a waiver that assigns

every idea to the company with no compensation. That’s not community building; it’s

unpaid R&D with a PR veneer.

The disconnect: product people vs. players

Dalporto’s background—strategy, digital platforms, and boardrooms—gives him a useful

lens for retail transformation. But product innovation in musical instruments is not the

same as product innovation in software. Musicians are not just users; they’re

co‑designers by necessity. They test gear in real rooms, on real stages, under real

stress. The people who buy and use guitars are the ones who will tell you whether a

change is meaningful.

Saying “guitars haven’t changed much” is a CEO’s shorthand for “the classic designs

still sell.” Fine. But it’s not the whole story. It’s like saying cars haven’t changed because

sedans still exist—ignoring ABS, fuel injection, airbags, hybrid drivetrains, and adaptive

cruise control. The silhouette is the silhouette; the engineering inside is where the

change happens.

What Guitar Center should do if it actually wants to build something players will use

If Guitar Center wants to be taken seriously as a guitar maker, here’s a short, practical

playbook from someone who watched customers vote with their wallets for nearly two

decades:

1. Pay for ideas that matter. Offer bounties, royalties, or at least paid prototype testing. If

you want the community’s best thinking, compensate it.

2. Hire or partner with experienced luthiers. Retailers are not factories. Partner with

builders who understand materials, setup, and long‑term reliability.

3. Prototype publicly, but manufacture privately. Use public forums for feedback on

concepts, not as the primary R&D engine. Keep QC and manufacturing timelines

realistic.

4. Be transparent about IP. Don’t bury a blanket assignment in a TikTok caption. If you

want community input, make the terms fair and clear.

5. Start small and iterate. Release a limited, well‑made run, get it into players’ hands,

and iterate. Don’t try to launch a mass market line off the first forum thread.

Final note from the floor

I’m not against Guitar Center trying something new. I’m for it—if it’s done with respect

for the people who actually play the instruments. The guitar has changed in ways that

matter to working musicians: tuning stability, tonal flexibility, playability, and durability.

Those are the changes that keep a kid from missing a gig, a band from losing a set, and

a pro from having to carry three different axes.

So yes, build a new guitar. But don’t pretend the last 50 years were a lull. They were a

slow, steady revolution—one that happened in workshops, on stages, and in the hands

of players who needed solutions, not slogans. If Guitar Center wants to lead, it should

start by listening without a waiver in its back pocket and by paying for the expertise it

solicits. Otherwise this “revolution” will look a lot like a marketing campaign with a fresh

logo—and the players who matter will notice the difference.