New Gibson EB bass - Page 7

kurosawa · #**121** 01-11-2013, 11:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tommygunn

God I threw up

It's better to throw down.

leegreenman · #**122** 01-12-2013, 12:23 AM

I'd like to try one out. I'm definitely intrigued by this bass.

Sartori · #**123** 01-12-2013, 02:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smcd

Ric is guilty - more guilty - than Gibson of living off the past. Fender, also guilty, but they've made a better effort at introducing good new models. EBMM, though, has been a pioneer in introducing interesting new basses. The Big Al, Bongo, and Reflex are all unique, innovative, and excellent.

Gibson can't compete against Fender in the bass market. On the other hand, that should free them up to do more interesting things. But they don't. They don't even try.

What? Fender pretty much just makes P's and J's, and combinations of the two. That's pretty much all they've done for quite a while. The one bass I can think of that they make that isn't a P or J is the Jaguar bass. And that's basically a J with a different body shape and some fancy electronics.

Sartori · #**124** 01-12-2013, 02:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kurosawa

Fender committed some crimes too, like the Bass V and the Mustang/Musicmaster, but nothing like the Ripper/Grabber/S3 or the RD series, ermagerd. It makes it worse that I want so much for a grand old name like Gibson to hit one out of the park.

There are quite a few people who really love RD's.

swamp2 · #**125** 01-12-2013, 04:56 AM

... and I think there's quite a few people who really love their rippers, grabbers, and S3's as well...

and I really love my SG Supreme... To be fair on the QC front, my SG -purchased new, had a bad ground wire connection on one of the pickups. I could have fixed it in 5 minutes but let the shop do it under warranty. Should not have left the factory like that, but it's been otherwise perfect ever since.

There were no apparent quality issues with the EB I played yesterday. I'd rather it have a nice gloss finish, but it doesn't. Folks may not care for the body style - i happen to like it and the fact it's a bit different - but regardless that doesn't make it a bad instrument. My experience was quite the contrary.

Play it before ripping on it.

thunderstation · #**126** 01-12-2013, 05:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FrednBass

Actually, looks like a Mosrite...

+1

vegas532 · #**127** 01-12-2013, 08:23 AM

I hadn't checked in on this thread in a while. It's good to see the old "consistent TB maneuver" of people bagging on an instrument that they haven't played is still ever present.

swamp2 · #**128** 01-12-2013, 09:04 AM

I guess folks feel qualified to critique as they may have once touched a Gibson bass - and - other than a new body style, new bridge, new pickups, new wood for the body, new electronics - this EB is just the same old thing...

vegas532 · #**129** 01-12-2013, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by swamp2

I guess folks feel qualified to critique as they may have once touched a Gibson bass - and - other than a new body style, new bridge, new pickups, new wood for the body, new electronics - this EB is just the same old thing...

Well played, sir!

Funkinthetrunk · #**130** 01-12-2013, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vegas532

I hadn't checked in on this thread in a while. It's good to see the old "consistent TB maneuver" of people bagging on an instrument that they haven't played is still ever present.

As always!

Lowbrow · #**131** 01-12-2013, 10:35 AM

I think this looks cool but wish they had chosen a different headstock design - this looks too formal/fancy to me in relation to the body.

scubaduba · #**132** 01-12-2013, 11:00 AM

No thanks. That is not a pretty instrument.

SDMFJay · #**133** 01-12-2013, 11:08 AM

I gave up on Gibson's bass department after the Thunderbird was invented. In my opinion they haven't taken the time or effort to really map out and create something players would raise an eyebrow at in excitement. Then again maybe I'm just not and never have been a Gibson bass-type person.

TBird1958 · #**134** 01-12-2013, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDMFJay

I gave up on Gibson's bass department after the Thunderbird was invented. In my opinion they haven't taken the time or effort to really map out and create something players would raise an eyebrow at in excitement. Then again maybe I'm just not and never have been a Gibson bass-type person.

That's ok

I've always felt that way about Fenders, you could give one to me

ericbroski · #**135** 01-12-2013, 11:23 AM

I actually really like it. I don't mind the price, I'd just rather an old hi flyer bass for probably half the price. It makes sense why its a grand, though.

andysleigh · #**136** 01-12-2013, 12:28 PM

i like it.
Tried one out and dont have anything to complain about sound or play wise.

The pole pieces showing look **** tho.
it was really light weight, which made it feel cheap :/

Showdown · #**137** 01-12-2013, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andysleigh

it was really light weight, which made it feel cheap :/

That seems to be how many people feel, but I find it odd. I've played cheap basses that were heavy and expensive basses that were light, so weight really has nothing to do with whether a bass is cheap or not. I guess it is a psychological thing.

ericbroski · #**138** 01-12-2013, 01:22 PM

I prefer lighter basses. Not too light, like 10 lbs

DrSpunkwater · #**139** 01-12-2013, 01:47 PM

I'm normally a fan of Gibson basses - Thunderbird and EB necks are two of the most comfortable I've ever played.

However, I don't care for the "unbalanced" appearance of this new one. Same reason I hate the look of a non-reverse Thunderbird.

vegas532 · #**140** 01-12-2013, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andysleigh

it was really light weight, which made it feel cheap :/

If weight dictates quality, than no bass can ever surpass the MOTHMAN!!