• 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.

Gibson basses...

#61
Thats true the basses you own, but these are pretty Versatile-

RD Artist-one of the most versatile basses, of any bass - weight is the downside

Ripper-Versitile passive tones

Les Paul Standard & Money Basses - very versatile rock tones.
 
#63
I never really cared how 'versatile' any bass was. Just wanted ONE good tone out it. Just never found a Gibson that was really nice n punchy like I wanted. I'll admit it's probably years of playing P's and P clones. My Rippers and Victory sound LIKE a P, sort of. Just sort of 'softer' or smoother maybe. I could see where someone could appreciate them, but for loud n overdriven guitars, they are no match. Too weak. Gibson and Rics LOOK excellent. Sound weak.
 
#64
Greevus said:
I never really cared how 'versatile' any bass was. Just wanted ONE good tone out it. Just never found a Gibson that was really nice n punchy like I wanted. I'll admit it's probably years of playing P's and P clones. My Rippers and Victory sound LIKE a P, sort of. Just sort of 'softer' or smoother maybe. I could see where someone could appreciate them, but for loud n overdriven guitars, they are no match. Too weak. Gibson and Rics LOOK excellent. Sound weak.
Click to expand...

As with everything in music, so much is down to personal preference.

I happen to disagree strongly with just about everything you said here though. My Gibson T Bird has a sound that no other bass I have played has (when in a live mix). It's been nicknamed the Trouble Maker because with Js, Ps, EBs, whatever, we never have noise problems at this club I play at. With the T Bird comes, so do the cops.

This has been my experience/life.

Shrug.


I like Gibsons like none other, maybe its the music I play, or the people I play with... but they work so good for me. Fenders always get lost somewhere and feel disconnected to me.


...And its not just rock. Drippy sexy blues on a T Bird is dirty and powerful and awesome like no J or P I have ever heard.
 
#65
I've had a few SG-style basses, and I should've hung on to an SB-300 (single-coils, short scale) that had been stripped to natural. It sounded good, was lightweight and had great playability. I've never found another like it, though.
 
#66
They look cool as heck!! Back in the day I had GAS over those EBs and Rippers. Finally I tried to play one in the GC and...like holding a log.This was the reissue,of course,but it was heavy and so round-bottomed I never gassed for one again.

Guess looks are`nt everything,are they?
(did`nt Weezer have a Ripper in one of their videos?)
 
#67
I just bought a 1973 EBO bass, one of the years where Gibson moved the mudbucker away from the neck and almost half way towards the bridge. Being a Fender P Bass guy for the last 25 years, I have to say I like the EBO way more than I thought I would. I'm still getting used to the short scale, but through my Ampeg rig this thing sounds great. I ordered a Hipshot supertone bridge for it. From what I've read this bridge is a huge improvement over the stock Gibson 3 point bridge.
 
#68
I have 3 Gibson basses - two '76 Thunderbirds and an '87 "IV".

Image007.png



76tbird.png



PDRM0013.png
 
#69
Cudos to anyone who's digs Gibson. They are diehards, very much like Ric owners. I always said if you pay that much for a Ric or Gibson, then you MUST like it or you will feel ripped off. I just don't hear the Gibson tones everyone raves about. I don't mind people defending it, but where can I hear it on recordings? I hate to be a hijacker, but P's are what Gibsons long to be. P's just cut and sound thick. Seems Gibsons are muddy, murky, and even thin in some models. It's like Gibson go below and above a P's range, but never really nail it. I can appreciate someone who embraces the mud and twanginess and uses it in their own unique sound/style, no doubt. But I have tried Gibson type basses in several decades and I always get suckered in by the 'looks'. I like my Rippers looks so much that I give them chance after chance. I modded one from stock block passives to P, P/J, then active P, active P/Js. The active P/J combo gave it the most punch, cut, and brightness for sure. But as soon as I compare any P style body/pup, the P's win. My bandmates even asked me recently to not play the Rippers cause they cannot "hear the notes".
 
#70
Greevus said:
Seems Gibsons are muddy, murky, and even thin in some models. It's like Gibson go below and above a P's range, but never really nail it. I can appreciate someone who embraces the mud and twanginess and uses it in their own unique sound/style, no doubt.
Click to expand...

Thunderbirds are neither muddy nor thin sounding. And they aren't trying to sound like a P, so it's no shock that they don't.
 
#71
Yeah, I have no idea what this dude is talking about. No one wants to sound like a P.... heh. As for "making a unique sound work" but you not hearing it.... that sounds like a personal problem, man.

The best comparison I can come up with off the top of my head right now is Kings of Leon, because Jared started with EB-0s and wanted more than just mud, tried some P action, didn't like that, and got a Thunderbird since "Because of the Times" and plays T Birds exclusively now. In live shows, playing material from the first 2 albums with the T Bird sounds ****ing amazing. For mud, easy to run the Bird through some slight distortion. For extra brightness, give a little overdrive. **** is easy. Thunderbirds are really versatile basses, the only limiting thing really is whether you like the feel of the reverse body. Some people can't dig it, some of us do. Simple as that.

Also, if we all agreed on what was the "best" the world would be god damn boring! I'm glad some people are die hard thick-neck-weak-sound-lovers rocking single coils and properly balanced instruments.... you guys just don't know how to party!


EDIT: there is a reason no Gibsons have active electronics.... DO NOT WANT. **** always sounds terrible to me. Too manufactured and "fake". Give me a warm wood, dual humbuckers, and growl of a T bird. Some basses are deeper. Some basses are brighter. According to the internet, bold on necks have more attack, and with a properly set up instrument, difference in sustain is negligible. But nothing has all of it in the same way or combination that the T Bird has (imho the bass Gibson got most "right").



p.s. this is as useless as arguing about religion...

...and equally as fun (and offensive to some!).
 
#72
EDIT: there is a reason no Gibsons have active electronics.... DO NOT WANT. **** always sounds terrible to me. Too manufactured and "fake". Give me a warm wood, dual humbuckers, and growl of a T bird. Some basses are deeper. Some basses are brighter. According to the internet, bold on necks have more attack, and with a properly set up instrument, difference in sustain is negligible. But nothing has all of it in the same way or combination that the T Bird has (imho the bass Gibson got most "right").
Click to expand...

RD Artists, 90's LP were all active. However many say that LPs sound much better with the preamp taken out. The new Epi Pro has active electronics as well.
 
#73
Yeah, and they all sound so much better passive.

What I meant is that the best sounding Gibsons don't have active electronics. Their passive humbuckers are awesome.

Also, Epiphone =/= Gibson. Lets just be clear on that. To be fair to both parties... Epiphone was their own company making stand alone products for a long time.



Anyways, no instrument is perfect, and its all about what you are willing to sacrifice to get the tone and feel that YOU desire.
 
#74
$Lindz$ said:
Yeah, and they all sound so much better passive.

What I meant is that the best sounding Gibsons don't have active electronics. Their passive humbuckers are awesome.

Also, Epiphone =/= Gibson. Lets just be clear on that. To be fair to both parties... Epiphone was their own company making stand alone products for a long time.



Anyways, no instrument is perfect, and its all about what you are willing to sacrifice to get the tone and feel that YOU desire.
Click to expand...

Before Epiphone had Union problems and was bought up by Gibson Ilate 50's), they were one of the number one guitar manufacturers in the world. There was a time when having an Epiphone franchise was more desierable than having a Gibson of Fender franchise.
 
#76
I have 3 Thunderbirds, and I have played the modern SG basses.

Big difference between the T-birds and SG's vs. the Grabbers and Rippers is the body wood. SG's and T-birds are mahogany whereas Rippers and Grabbers are maple. (Someone please correct me if I'm wrong?) The vintage Grabbers and Rippers I've had a chance to try sounded very different. Much brighter, more midrange, and to my ears werent nearly as warm and deep sounding as the mahogany basses.
 
#77
Grabbers & Rippers at one point had alder bodies which sound a bit warmer than the maple ones. You can tell them by the more rounded horns and scratch much easier (softer).

Look here-

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

The pic is an alder Ripper
 
#78
Can anyone comment on the difference between the SG reissues and the vintage EB-3s?

Krishna from Guitar Garage is fixing up an old EB-3 for me and I can't wait for it...For the longest time I thought the EB-3 was only good for that overdriven Jack Bruce tone, but the Zombies got a good clean tone from it, and so did the band Slade.
 
#80
an anyone comment on the difference between the SG reissues and the vintage EB-3s?
Click to expand...

Both are short scale, but the newer SG has TB pickups in it, not a real mudbucker. The downside is it really does not sound like a vintage one, but the upside is it's a much more versatile tone (has treble!)

Also the SG has no varitone/choke — good or bad depending on your view of them.

If you are looking for that unique earth shaking mud, you will be disappointed, but if you want something a bit more modern & versatile it might do it for you as a second bass.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back