Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Controversial Opinion: Gibson Basses Questionable Design Choices
- Thread starter peteygrizz
- Start date
Ahem...to put this thread down, Ive digged up a little something from the wiki. It goes:
Gibson first marketed the EB-1 (initially calling it simply, the Electric Bass) in 1953 in response to the success of the Fender Precision Bass. Rather than styling the body after an electric guitar, they shaped the EB-1 to resemble a double bass, even painting false f-holes on the top of the body. EB-1 production ended in 1958, when Gibson replaced it with the EB-2 and the later EB-0. They renamed the Electric Bass to the EB-1 at that time.
Gibson basses are modelled after double basses, Fenders are big guitars...
...and that concludes this disputas. Gibson won this time, sorry Fendres
Gibson first marketed the EB-1 (initially calling it simply, the Electric Bass) in 1953 in response to the success of the Fender Precision Bass. Rather than styling the body after an electric guitar, they shaped the EB-1 to resemble a double bass, even painting false f-holes on the top of the body. EB-1 production ended in 1958, when Gibson replaced it with the EB-2 and the later EB-0. They renamed the Electric Bass to the EB-1 at that time.
Gibson basses are modelled after double basses, Fenders are big guitars...
...and that concludes this disputas. Gibson won this time, sorry Fendres
Funny how this became a Gibson vs Fender thing.
They are two completely different bass manufacturers with their own distinct designs and sound.
Kinda like comparing apples and oranges where what they have in common is stems and they're grown on trees. Other than that, completely different flavors.
They are two completely different bass manufacturers with their own distinct designs and sound.
Kinda like comparing apples and oranges where what they have in common is stems and they're grown on trees. Other than that, completely different flavors.
Maybe it’s time that both Gibson and Fender come out with more “reissue” models. After all we here at Talk Bass started the fire, why not throw another can of gas on the Grill and see what happens.
fender has already come out with some reissues of the classic Precision and Jazz basses. Boom!!!
Yeah, it tells me their marketing and product offering is a mess. Are you implying something otherwise?
just saying fender basses are more popular for a reason. gibson obviously makes great gear but you don't see players playing their basses generally. and i didn't make the comment about their marketing.
Maybe ... I didn't mention Fender in my post. I'm simply speculating that Gibson doesn't have a large market share for reasons other than what the OP is suggesting. I mean, any implication that Gibson isn't capable of designing or building basses at the same quality of other makers ... seems preposterous. If there is a question of quality of design or manufacturing, it's related to consistency over time, not ability to design and make a bass.
Simply put, nothing would stop Gibson from resurrecting and building a good quality basses (they have/had and made them) other than themselves. It's marketing whose job it is to develop their share of the market. Of course I can't prove it but I believe that it's not the designs that turn people off ... because Gibson has had more than their fair share of good ones. My biggest worry with Gibson would be availability of parts/support because of their record for the short runs of designs they have. Also, they aren't in a position to refine designs when they do this either; how could they possibly perfect a design like Fender has for the J/P basses?
Truly, I don't think it's mainly the designs that make people attracted to whatever Fender is offering, but that's a completely different thread.
Simply put, nothing would stop Gibson from resurrecting and building a good quality basses (they have/had and made them) other than themselves. It's marketing whose job it is to develop their share of the market. Of course I can't prove it but I believe that it's not the designs that turn people off ... because Gibson has had more than their fair share of good ones. My biggest worry with Gibson would be availability of parts/support because of their record for the short runs of designs they have. Also, they aren't in a position to refine designs when they do this either; how could they possibly perfect a design like Fender has for the J/P basses?
Truly, I don't think it's mainly the designs that make people attracted to whatever Fender is offering, but that's a completely different thread.
Last edited:
well we know that gibson has had some problems. they've been sold several times and when that happens things suffer. it would also be hard to design a completely new unique kind of bass. there are only so many body styles available and gibsons body styles don't lend themselves to basses except maybe the LP JR or the LP studio solid body models.
^^ No doubt ... as you indicate yet another reason Gibson suffers. It's not for lack of or poor designs. I think it's about consistency, in many areas; Ownership, marketing, product strategy/offerings.
I think you give some of the less eccentric designs to a capable maker that knows how to mass manufacture ... it wouldn't be the design that holds it back.
I think you give some of the less eccentric designs to a capable maker that knows how to mass manufacture ... it wouldn't be the design that holds it back.
sadly they will probably be bought out by a foreign country and another iconic american brand will be gone. it going to take another generation of musicians to lift them up and buy gibsons.
You're missing my point. Of course they made some alterations to the design of the basses when developing them bases on the guitar styles, but they were still based on their guitars rather than being a new or unique design.
Sorry to burst your bubble but the Stratocaster came after the P bass and the body design of that guitar was translated from the P bass body. P bass was released in '51 while the Strat came out in '54. The only elements the P bass had in common with the Tele was the headstock and pickguard design, which were purely aesthetical design choices. The body is very different obviously considering it is a double cut rather than a single like the Tele. Of course they would use the same headstock design since all makers use these as a representation of their brand. When the Strat grew in popularity they went with that headstock on their P bass when they redesigned it just as they did on nearly all of their guitars, just as Gibson does with their instruments. The headstock shape is just as important as the logo for guitar brands. The Tele has maintained it's unique headstock design as it was their first success and they wanted to continue with the same basic look.
This was never meant to be a Gibson vs Fender argument as I am not claiming one is better than the other, just different. Still I think Gibson could have tried to come up with bass designs that weren't just based on their guitars.
Which they did on several occasions as pointed out previously in this thread...so we're going around in circles, 20 pages later.
That sucks that you didn't like the bass. I see there are plenty of people that love theirs and that's great. Personally I prefer Ibanez basses although I also use a Japanese P bass special from the 80's. It's the same bass that Duff McKagan used on all of the GnR stuff and still uses to this day. I have found that the workmanship on Japanese instruments is fantastic and easily matches or exceeds the quality of USA made.
Another thing about Gibson is that while they are very expensive and touted as supposedly the finest instruments money can buy, they often have multiple cosmetic and mechanical issues that fans will just tell you is just part of their charm. Like yeah, their poorly designed headstocks cause tuning issues due to the string angles and break easily due to the tilt angle, but that's just how they are. Not saying other builders don't make mistakes, but at least they will actually correct them. Les Paul's don't stay in tune from the factory and almost always have problems with the binding, but you're just expected to accept that as part of their tradition. Also their bridges are terribly designed and much more difficult to adjust compared to others.
I'm not going in circles. I made the statement once and stand by it. What designs did they make that were original? Someone said the Grabber and Ripper but they're just double cut Les Paul Juniors. The RD was guitar first. I have seen some more recent ones but these were based on the Tobias and Jackson brands they purchased so again no original design for a bass from Gibson.
Well, if you see Ripper/Grabber/G-3 as the bass versions of Les Paul Junior...nothing to be said, really. Apart from politely noting that RD was not a guitar first, the bass came out simultaneously in the same year (1977).
Didn't start this as a Gibson vs Fender thread but since you brought it up, sounds like Gibson started out trying to play catch up and has been doing so ever since. What guitar is the P bass based on? It's not. The Strat design was taken from the Pbass ,not the other way around. Fender must have done something right considering the P bass is the standard by which all other basses are judged by and the EB1 is a footnote in bass history.
And I'm not even really a Fender fan, but just because you don't like the truth doesn't make it any less true.
I find it hilarious how many people are taking my opinion personally. It's all a matter of personal taste and if you like your Gibson bass then who care what I or anyone else thinks. I actually like the Thunderbird and Ripper basses a lot and have actually been looking for a vintage Thunderbird recently but just haven't found the right one.
I just finished reading The Gibson Bass Book and posted a review of it under Miscellaneous, and based on that reading would like to address comments made in this thread.
1) Gibson based their basses on their already existing guitars.
* True, to a certain extent, but by no means in all cases. And in the vintage era, nearly everybody designed their basses to complement their guitars. Looking at catalogs from the time confirms this. It was a family affair.
2) Gibson was not innovative.
* Simply not true. But the innovative instruments are obscure and in some instances never made it into production.
3) Gibson R&D and marketing could not get on the same page.
* True in far too many instances, as TGBB is not shy about pointing out. It's like the baseball team that has both good pitching and good hitting, but never seems able to have both at the same time.
4) Gibson's production runs are too short.
* All too often true. But often, the short production runs were by design (Bass of the Week). And again, back in the vintage era and with the exception of Fender, most basses had short production runs. Seven years was considered a good run; a decade or more almost unheard of. Two to three years was more the norm for most models.
I bring up these matters because I think there are several misapprehensions in this thread that need to be addressed.
1) Gibson based their basses on their already existing guitars.
* True, to a certain extent, but by no means in all cases. And in the vintage era, nearly everybody designed their basses to complement their guitars. Looking at catalogs from the time confirms this. It was a family affair.
2) Gibson was not innovative.
* Simply not true. But the innovative instruments are obscure and in some instances never made it into production.
3) Gibson R&D and marketing could not get on the same page.
* True in far too many instances, as TGBB is not shy about pointing out. It's like the baseball team that has both good pitching and good hitting, but never seems able to have both at the same time.
4) Gibson's production runs are too short.
* All too often true. But often, the short production runs were by design (Bass of the Week). And again, back in the vintage era and with the exception of Fender, most basses had short production runs. Seven years was considered a good run; a decade or more almost unheard of. Two to three years was more the norm for most models.
I bring up these matters because I think there are several misapprehensions in this thread that need to be addressed.
Last edited:
Latest posts
-
-
The Official Gallien Krueger 400RB picture thread/fanclub- Latest: frank cucinotta
-
-
