Fender vs. Gibson (Squier vs. Epiphone)

[SMaubass]

These companies are both some of the forerunners in making both guitars and basses, and basically any musical instrument, but I would enjoy to know what some of the key differences I might find when comparing these two. For instance, Fender/Squier gets the P and the J, but Gibson/Epiphone gets the Les Paul and the Bird (the bird is sexy)... And I'm not asking which is better, I would just enjoy a layout of the differences in each company

[garmenteros]

First thing that comes to my mind is that gibson is known more for its guitars than basses, acoustic guitars too. Fender is about even in being recognized as much for their guitars and basses in terms of the general public but I don't hear or know of people playing acoustic fender guitars. Quality wise I'd say both are probably on par with each other but maybe a slight edge to fender on a case to case scenario. I like both by the way.

[bassobrutto]

Fender make well designed, visually attractive, relatively simple instruments that are easily mass produced. Their guitars and basses tend to have a lighter, twangier sound. Gibson guitars and basses tend to have a heavier, fuller sound, using humbucker pickups. Their main instruments tend to have more traditional design features (set necks, more elaborately carved bodies), using more expensive woods (mahogany and ebony) and more complex electronics. I am guessing Fender sees Gibson (like Rickenbacker) as a rather old fashioned company that is slow to move with the times. I am guessing Gibson (like Rickenbacker) sees Fender as a mass producer of cheap, relatively low quality items. But both charge well over $1000 for their premium USA-made instruments. And both are as much in the nostalgia industry as the music industry, since both make most of their money from instruments that were originally designed fifty or more years ago.

[BassBob1]

The posts above me have pretty much hit it. Fender and Gibson are different animals. They have different sounds and feels. As far as designs go, fenders basses where designed and developed as basses where as gibson seems to have taken a guitar body shape and just turned it into a bass (which is perfectly ok for some). Personally, I prefer fender instruments to gibson. Especially when it comes to basses, I don't like the sound or feel of a gibson bass (any of them). This is all my opinion of coarse. Guitar wise, I like gibson but if I'm in a music store and want to pick up a guitar, 9 times out of 10 it'll be a strat or tele. In my opinion, gibson's production quality and what not is not really on par with fender. My brother has an SG standard from 97 and I haven't picked up any gibson newer than it that has felt as solid. Where as he just picked up a brand new 2011 american standard strat and it feels just as solid, if not better. Either way, people enjoy both. Neither can really do what the other does sound wise.

[msb]

Leo Fender was a repairman , and designed instruments that were easy to manufacture and fix . Bolt on necks , slab bodies , and bridges that could be adjusted in minutes . He listened to what the players wanted , and made innovative instruments . You could take one apart in minutes with a minimum of tools .

Gibson came from a long tradition of making acoustic instruments .

[SMaubass]

Originally Posted by msb

Gibson came from a long tradition of making acoustic instruments .

So... could you conclude that Gibson puts more care when making their instruments, or where is this statement supposed to lead us? Sorry, just a little confused

[bassobrutto]

People can make up their own minds whether they prefer the sound/feel/look of Fenders or Gibsons. But I don't think there can be any doubt that more "craft" is required to make, say, a Les Paul (set neck, arch top, usually with binding, body-mounted controls, nitro finish etc.) than a Strat (bolt-on neck, simple slab body, pickguard mounted controls, thick poly finish).

[Tupac]

As far as basses go, Fender blows Gibson out of the water, and so does Squier. Although it is a shame they don't make Rippers anymore.

[Phendyr_Loon]

Both companies make products with obvious trade-offs in features. Notable differences are Fenders ability to replace a neck in minutes compared to a Gibson, although the detail and craftsmanship in a bound and carved top Les Paul is heads over Fenders slab bodies.

The name that Gibson made for themselves as an acoustic guitar maker speaks to the orientation of quality since way more engineering in structure and tone goes into an acoustic over a solid body electric. This is indeed impressive since decades ago when Gibson started on acoustics mass production and foreign labor were at a minimum.

There is also charm in the simplicity of Fenders designs, and much like Gibson they are the "hold steady" for novice to professional musicians. In the case of Fender vs. Gibson, I see it as a "balance over beauty" comparison respectively.

I still prefer the feel, styling, and sound of Fenders basses. To each their own.

[msb]

Originally Posted by SMaubass

So... could you conclude that Gibson puts more care when making their instruments, or where is this statement supposed to lead us? Sorry, just a little confused

There would be more craft involved to make an instrument with a set neck , carved top , and binding compared to a slab bodied bolt on instrument . As far as basses go I think the Fender style instruments are much better than the Gibson style designs .

As far as guitars go both companies have made some classic instruments .

[SMaubass]

I dunno, but I find that the epiphone thunderbird I played today blew away all the squiers, it has a really solid, f**k you tone ;P

[jmlee]

I'd put my $0.02 in praise of the Jack Casady bass from Epiphone as a notable counter-example.

To take this discussion the whole way (especially the innovation versus nostalgia point), it's important to follow the progeny of the firms and their craftsmen as well: Music Man, G&L for Fender and Heritage for Gibson.

[Pascualito]

Disclosure: I own a Gibson SG bass (“Miz Gibson”) and an Epiphone Viola bass (“Viola”).

While I have not seen much discussion on this particular subject, one significant difference between Gibson and Fender instruments is the design of the headstock/neck.

The Fender headstock and neck are cut from one piece of wood, and are in straight alignment. The headstock portion is cut out to create the angle and downward force to keep the strings in place. For the E and A strings, the angle past the nut is sufficient to anchor the strings, but the for the D and G strings, Fender uses a string tree to "sharpen" the downward string angle.

The Gibson design also cuts out the headstock from one piece of wood, but to create the same downward force, Gibson cuts the angle into the wood itself. This is a big departure from the Fender design! The resulting change in grain direction weakens the neck/headstock as the grain direction changes—ask any luthier how many Gibson necks have suffered cracked necks near the headstock compared to Fender necks.

For an extreme example of the importance of grain orientation, cut out an ell shape from a short plank of wood. See how easy it is to snap the wood at the joint, where the grain makes its 90 degree bend. One way to make a stronger ell-shaped plank is with plywood, due to the alternating direction of the plies.

At the risk of upsetting Miz Gibson, I opt for the Fender neck/headstock design over the Gibson. The Fender has the obvious advantage of a quick unbolt and rebolt to change the neck, should it be necessary. The Fender truss rod is also easier to adjust than the Gibson.

We could talk forever about hard-to-quantify subjects like pickups, sound, playability, etc.

I prefer short scale basses, and Miz Gibson was too cheap to pass up! She plays nicely, and sounds marvelous. I will admit; however, that I have not had a chance to compare Miz Gibson against her Fender counterpart directly....

Bottom line? Inform yourself, try out both and play what you like.

[96tbird]

Originally Posted by Pascualito

The Gibson design also cuts out the headstock from one piece of wood, but to create the same downward force, Gibson cuts the angle into the wood itself. This is a big departure from the Fender design! The resulting change in grain direction weakens the neck/headstock as the grain direction changes—ask any luthier how many Gibson necks have suffered cracked necks near the headstock compared to Fender necks..

Wrong, every thing else you said is fine. But this is just wrong. The neck and head are two pieces joined under the nut with angled cuts called a "scarf joint" they both are cut with the grain running the length. The reason so many break is that most Gibsons are made of mahogany which is no where near as strong as Fender maple. The exception are the Ripper, Grabber, and G-3 all maple but still retaining the scarf joint.