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
Actually, it is not. There have been a few "real" bass violins made over the years and they are fricking huge.
This has almost been beaten to death, but there's one final blow to deliver. If you look at the previous stringed instruments that existed before violins (viols), you realize that the upright bass is a modest update of those - it's not a derivative of a violin. The violin is the instrument that's closest to "all new" (although even it isn't all that different).
I honestly wouldn't even try to find rhyme or reason in what appeals to people. You just kind of have to accept what does or doesn't. The SG basses, while not widely used, definitely has its appeal to bassists. It has its own sort of cult following. Thunderbirds, too. You could well be right though that Fender's designs have been more of a hit for bassists due to their intent of making a bass that was mean to be an alternative to the upright bass. I am sure that was likely somewhere in Gibson's figuring as well, but, I would agree, was looking at the goal through the lens of guitar building.
I know a dude that plays a Grabber and LOVES it. It isn't just a "conversation piece" for him. It's been one of his primaries for decades now. Another friend, his Thunderbird bass is his primary. Yet another friend, who is a musician's musician, totally digs on his Gibson EB bass. I would honestly expect someone of my tastes to be more into Ibanez or more into the whole headless bass thing going on now. ...but, the Fender Jazz I have is just the bees knees to me. Just no accounting for taste. If there was, there'd only be one bass because it got perfected.
I know a dude that plays a Grabber and LOVES it. It isn't just a "conversation piece" for him. It's been one of his primaries for decades now. Another friend, his Thunderbird bass is his primary. Yet another friend, who is a musician's musician, totally digs on his Gibson EB bass. I would honestly expect someone of my tastes to be more into Ibanez or more into the whole headless bass thing going on now. ...but, the Fender Jazz I have is just the bees knees to me. Just no accounting for taste. If there was, there'd only be one bass because it got perfected.
Well, the original concept of the Jazz bass was, bass version of jazzmaster guitar (offset body).
The whole premise is flawed. If you have a comfortable and attractive body design in a guitar, why wouldn't you adapt that to a bass?
As far as Gibsons go, I've never bonded with any I've played, but it had zero to do with body shape. I think most of their basses are aesthetically pleasing, both the ones derved from guitars and the more unique models.
As far as Gibsons go, I've never bonded with any I've played, but it had zero to do with body shape. I think most of their basses are aesthetically pleasing, both the ones derved from guitars and the more unique models.
i think fender has the corner/monopoly on the interchangeable parts thing: which has both upsides and downsides. i don't think most gibson pieces were ever designed with that in mind --- as an 'option' for the player. so, in my view: gibsons are more in the "you like it or you don't" category while fenders (and a few others) are: "if you don't like it you can swap some parts." maybe over-generalized as i'm sure there are plenty of exceptions to go around.
i've played a few axes that i thought were impressive enough, just didn't need another one at the time.
i've played a few axes that i thought were impressive enough, just didn't need another one at the time.
i used to love Gibson basses. Had one of every kind. Problem with Gibson Basses is they really went downhill quickly. The attention to detail, the quality control, let alone never offering bassists any cool options that they do for guitar...
For me-Bottom line was the quality decline. I bought a reissue explorer a few years ago. It hangs on a wall. Never bumped it-Never banged it in any way. A few months ago i went to gently wipe it with a guitar cloth and paint came off of the horn. That epitomizes the horrible quality control of recent years. They really seemed to have given bassist the finger. (haha! Then to add insult to injury-Just bump up the cost of a t-bird by 700 bucks, why don't ya!....) I would not consider buying a new gibson.
(I still love playing my older gibsons. They feel and sound great.)
This is partially correct. The upright bass is not a member of the violin family but of the viol family, an older family of string instruments that resemble violins. That's why a much older name for it is the bass viol.
devnulljp
Supporting Member
Nearly everybody, even the makers for the catalog stores, made basses based on their guitar designs, possibly for band image purposes (almost like a band uniform): Guild, Gretsch, Kay, Harmony. I've seen a video of the Turtles where the lead player is rocking a Hofner violin guitar.
ouch... I've had one on my wish list, and still do unless you have more tales of the unseemly in regards to the build and sound quality. if it just hangs on a wall there must be more to the story, and I hope it's good.
weapon of choice
Aww yea
There was a guitar with the G3 pick up system called the Gibson S1 - lookie, a guitar modelled after a bass!
As a Gibson and Epiphone owner, I refuse to take the bait.
Indeed, but there is a lot of design 'cross-pollination' between the second generation P and the Stratocaster. I suspect the only reason the P as we best know it (split pickup, sculpted body) was released first was because the design was evolutionary, not revolutionary.
