Controversial Opinion: Gibson Basses Questionable Design Choices

[40Hz]

The Ripper/Grabber is based on the Marauder.

The first Marauder prototype were shown in 1974 and only went into production starting in 1975.

The first Rippers went into production and were being sold in 1973.

FWIW I don’t see any point of commonality between a Ripper and a Marauder. The body shapes are totally different and the electronic design shares nothing in common.

The Ripper and Grabber are also two very different basses beyond sharing the same body shape. The Ripper is a set neck. The Grabber a bolt on. Electronics are also about as different as it gets. Completely different sound and response.

 

[Eminor3rd]

I don't like Gibson basses either, but I disagree pretty strongly with your premise. Aside from the body shape on the SG/LP models, I don't see many similarities with their guitars at all. They've been pretty innovative, in fact, when it comes to pickups location particularly, to mixed results.

 

[Rocket Queen]

Cream.

Well, yes, I'm aware that Jack Bruce used an EB-something, and that the bassists for Jethro Tull, Mott the Hoople, Mountain, the Who, and I'm sure plenty of other bands, all used Gibsons. But I was wondering about the notion that the entire band's sound could be literally "defined" by the bass. So for instance, when Glenn Cornick left Tull and was replaced by a P-bass player, or when Entwistle moved from Fender to Gibson to Alembic, can you actually say that the very definition of those bands' sound perceptibly changed? That's what I'm curious about.

 

[PJ Muzikmansky]

I have no particular opinion, pro or con, about Gibson in general, but I'm genuinely fascinated by this comment. Can you expand a bit on this, and mention any well-known bands that you feel are actually defined by the Gibson bass sound?

RQ: Trevor Bolder, David Bowie's bass player in the early 70's during the 'Ziggy Stardust' period, used a Gibson EB3. It is very prominent on cuts like 'John I'm only dancing', 'Starman', & 'The Jean Genie' - to name but a few. In short, if you listen to any Bowie from the early seventies, you're hearing Trevor and his EB3. That booming, slightly saturated bass sound was perfect for David's music, and IMO was the defining bass sound for early-mid seventies glam-rock coming out of the UK

 

[Allegrus]

Well, yes, I'm aware that Jack Bruce used an EB-something, and that the bassists for Jethro Tull, Mott the Hoople, Mountain, the Who, and I'm sure plenty of other bands, all used Gibsons. But I was wondering about the notion that the entire band's sound could be literally "defined" by the bass. So for instance, when Glenn Cornick left Tull and was replaced by a P-bass player, or when Entwistle moved from Fender to Gibson to Alembic, can you actually say that the very definition of those bands' sound perceptibly changed? That's what I'm curious about.

It's probably more accurate for people to say that it's the bass tone that defined some bands' sound, and as we all know, that's not just a function of what bass is being played.

 

[Rocket Queen]

RQ: Trevor Bolder, David Bowie's bass player in the early 70's during the 'Ziggy Stardust' period, used a Gibson EB3. It is very prominent on cuts like 'John I'm only dancing', 'Starman', & 'The Jean Genie' - to name but a few. In short, if you listen to any Bowie from the early seventies, you're hearing Trevor and his EB3. That booming, slightly saturated bass sound was perfect for David's music, and IMO was the defining bass sound for early-mid seventies glam-rock coming out of the UK

Thanks very much. I'll listen to those tracks again with this in mind.

 

[Koshchei]

The first Marauder prototype were shown in 1974 and only went into production starting in 1975.

The first Rippers went into production and were being sold in 1973.

FWIW I don’t see any point of commonality between a Ripper and a Marauder. The body shapes are totally different and the electronic design shares nothing in common.

The Ripper and Grabber are also two very different basses beyond sharing the same body shape. The Ripper is a set neck. The Grabber a bolt on. Electronics are also about as different as it gets. Completely different sound and response.

I stand corrected on the Marauder timeline, but my recollection is that they were all Bill Lawrence designs intended to fight off the better-made and cheaper Japanese clones of the time. Also, don't forget the G-III... it's nice to see them getting some attention these days, but you couldn't give them away in the 80s and 90s.

 

[stonetone7]

A Gibson may not always work but when it does it's magic! This makes a Gibson more of a "band" bass rather than a "session player" bass IMO. In the right BAND a Gibson bass can pretty much define the band's sound.

Allen Woody’s Gov’t Mule springs to mind.

 

[Sergius Durante]

So I was thinking about why Gibson Basses are so rarely used and why I have never felt a connection to any Gibson bass I have ever played and it hit me:

Gibson's approach to basses is to simply make a larger guitar. There is no consideration of it being its own instrument with its own needs. They simply make a larger version of their guitars, take two strings off, and call it a bass.

Now I understand there are many guys who like their Thunderbirds, and I'm not trying to poopie in anyone's cereal, I'm just pointing out that while Fender designed the P and Jazz basses from the ground up as unique instruments, Gibson simply made a Les Paul bass, an SG bass, a Firebird bass... Why couldn't they have a designer work with some working bassists and design a bass that wasn't just an upscaled guitar. They build some of the finest guitars ever made, why can't they make great basses as well?

I think it's another case of Gibson not having connection with their "people".

The SG bass: Awful bridge design, awful bridge pickup, and no mids existant that aren't muddy mud

Thunderbird: Furthest 1st fret ever, Heavy, and has spawned brands that make better variants

Les Paul Bass: GIANT guitar

Their ideas of a bass in their mind are ridiculous, because they either have: playability issues and someone is in denial if the TB isn't a neck dive beast naturally, design flaws, or honestly not very good bass tone.

Gibson imho wanted to appeal to the bass player market Like fender and many other brands had (fender ruling them all, but now is in rough competition with Warwick EBMM Ibanez etc)

 

[Sergius Durante]

But I will say this, the grabber, ripper, the Jackson looking ones and such were a neat idea, just not worth the price back then nor now (imagine paying double for a MIA Pbass in the 70's and 80's)

 

[AboutSweetSue]

Gibson basses are fantastic.

 

[Stringly]

It's easier to make a bigger wheel than reinvent it.

 

[hrodbert696]

FYI, I don't see the OP as trolling here. The exact same point was made in The Bass Book: that there have been some exceptions, but to a great extent many of Gibson's most prominent bass designs have just been bass versions of their guitar designs. You can disagree but it's not a trolling proposition.

 

[40Hz]

I stand corrected on the Marauder timeline, but my recollection is that they were all Bill Lawrence designs intended to fight off the better-made and cheaper Japanese clones of the time. Also, don't forget the G-III... it's nice to see them getting some attention these days, but you couldn't give them away in the 80s and 90s.

The Ripper and G3 were always semi sleepers on the used market until recently, although the Ripper did sell surprisingly well in its heyday. Changing tastes in bass tone, and the advent of punk and synth rock in the latter 70s and 80s, didn’t help preserve the Ripper’s long term popularity however. And by then Gibson had already lost interest in the “fat bottom girls” (i.e. the Ripper, Grabber, and G3) and had moved on to the short lived Victory series which were soon to be followed by the RDs.

 

[mellowinman]

The Thunderbird is one of the great bass guitars.

 

[TBird1958]

I have no particular opinion, pro or con, about Gibson in general, but I'm genuinely fascinated by this comment. Can you expand a bit on this, and mention any well-known bands that you feel are actually defined by the Gibson bass sound?

FREE

The late Andy Fraser with his EB-3 positively tearing it up, lots of chords and a great solo.

 

[MtManiac]

Just to remind people, the Precision released to the public in 1951.

The Strat was 4 years later!

Maybe youur time space continuum is different?

Re-read the history - or perhaps completely read this thread.

 

[dbsfgyd1]

So I was thinking about why Gibson Basses are so rarely used and why I have never felt a connection to any Gibson bass I have ever played and it hit me:

Gibson's approach to basses is to simply make a larger guitar. There is no consideration of it being its own instrument with its own needs. They simply make a larger version of their guitars, take two strings off, and call it a bass.

Now I understand there are many guys who like their Thunderbirds, and I'm not trying to poopie in anyone's cereal, I'm just pointing out that while Fender designed the P and Jazz basses from the ground up as unique instruments, Gibson simply made a Les Paul bass, an SG bass, a Firebird bass... Why couldn't they have a designer work with some working bassists and design a bass that wasn't just an upscaled guitar. They build some of the finest guitars ever made, why can't they make great basses as well?

I always considered my 2 EB3s were viable Basses. I found that I didn’t have a use for the voice for the music I was playing at the time. It would be cool if I still had my walnut 69 EB3 (not interested at all of my 74) but honestly I don’t miss it that much to buy another one.

 

[40Hz]

But I will say this, the grabber, ripper, the Jackson looking ones and such were a neat idea, just not worth the price back then nor now (imagine paying double for a MIA Pbass in the 70's and 80's)

The Ripper debuted at a list price of $450 in 1973 and landed on the street for around $380 hardshell case included. That’s about $2200 in today’s dollars and was about average for a Gibson in that era.

I paid $368 for mine in 1974. Same price in 1973 too. So using 1973 and adjusted for inflation that’s $2118 today.

In 1973 a new Fender Jazz with maple neck listed for $375. And a hardshell case for it was about $75 bucks for a total of $450 list. Hmm.…just the same as a Gibson Ripper. I bought my first JB in 1976 and paid $365 or $2100 in today’s dollars.

So for me it was an $18 difference in today’s money.

So much for how expensive and overpriced a Ripper was when it came out compared to buying a Fender.

So just who was paying double to get a Ripper compared to buying a JB?

 

[SactoBass]

Tom Scholz played a Gibson EB-0 bass on the first couple of Boston albums (pic below of Tom with the actual bass that he played on those recordings....notice the addition of a bridge pickup that he shoe-horned in for more treble). I think it sounds great!

And I haven't seen Tom rummaging through the clearance bins at Walmart, so it seems his Gibson bass worked out rather well for him.