• 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 LES PAUL OVERSIZED BASS

#21
Cb4rabid said:
Meh, I mainly don't like Gibson because I don't feel they cater to bassists very much. I feel they don't put much thought into their basses. (feeding to the stigma that a bass is just a guitar with two less strings)

Probably because im an Ibanez guy. You get an RG (guitar) and compare it to an SR (bass) and they're completely different. But Gibson don't really try to change a design (aside from the Tbird), an SG is an SG and a LP is an LP.

I didn't mean to taint the thread, sorry, just sharing an opinion :p carry on.
Click to expand...

:p Dude I wasn't hatin'. I'm a Ibby guy too but, I always wanted a LP bass. Your right they don't really cater too us however, I don't think anyone puts as much thought into their basses as Ibanez does so that's not really fair comparing a RG to a SR IMO.

BTW How's the thread tainted aren't we all here to speak our minds?
 
#22
hdracer said:
Wrong, They are genuine Grovers, unlike that pos you showed.
Click to expand...

I know they are Grover machines. My point was the sealed Y-key tuners stick out like a sore thumb on an otherwise traditionally appointed instrument. I'm sure it was a weight saving issue since traditional vintage tuners would probably induce (or augment) neck dive. But it's cosmetically inconsistent and cheapens the overall appearance IMO.
 
#25
Haven't played one, I have played a few of the more recent LPs with the TB pickups. They were nice and maybe worth their price tag.
What I find frustrating about Gibson is generally what people have said here: Gibson doesn't invest much in its bass business. It's a shame, really, because Gibson has enough technical reputation and perspective to kill in the bass market. so closely adjacent to their home guitar market. But they clearly don't want to take enough of a risk to test that assumption. As a result, they give purchasers too much to worry about (with design problems, critics, etc) to gain a following. So they have created for themselves a chronic problem that shows itself as skepticism among bass purchasers. Too bad. Silly business mistake.
 
#29
I'd check one out, if it were nearby. A good friend has a '90s LP Standard bass, small guitar body, cherry sunburst, that he plugged into a Music Man HD-130 bass head and a Hartke 410XL cab. That had it all: ringing highs, deep bottom, great articulation and personality. Alas, it's also too heavy for us old guys, and he's back to playing his Squier Jazz. If only Gibson would put the thought and engineering they devote to their guitars, we might have something. As it is, a lot of us play Gibson guitars, but Fender basses.
 
#31
I have been gigging one of these for a couple of months and it is a killer bass.

It is heavy as hell (11+lbs) but has great tone. It has replaced my Bongo, '69 Jazz, '74 P and '78 Stingray as my main bass.

For anyone that hates Gibson basses of the past.... Try one of the new LP Oversized basses. Don't say all Gibson basses suck until you actually play one!:spit::D

I thought I was done with Gibson after I got sick of my Thunderbird and realized that the tone of my SG RI wasn't for me. The new LP changed my perception of Gibson basses. Is Gibson revolutionary or doing anything bleeding edge? NOPE! But this is a killer bass!
 
#33
To play devil's advocate here.... Some time ago I had the pleasure of recording some tracks with a full scale Explorer, 70's probably. It was definitely it's own type of beast but it didn't seem like an afterthought or modified guitar whatsoever. It felt heavy, looked heavy and sounded unbelievably HEAVY. I wouldn't look past a high end Gibson bass for fear of it being a hastily modified guitar platform with less strings and a longer neck.
 
#34
rockscott said:
Say what you will about gibson basses, you cant take away their claim to fame in legendary rock bands of the sixtys/seventys! I was playing a new sg last week, its a damn nice guitar!
Click to expand...

Everybody i know from that era said you basically had three choices back then, Fender, Rickenbacker and gibson. They might have been used but that doesn't mean they were good, quite the contrary actually, people hated them. I guess they look kind of cool but gibson basses feel half assed. Played thunderbirds and sg's, its a long guitar neck.
 
#35
KingCrimson said:
Everybody i know from that era said you basically had three choices back then, Fender, Rickenbacker and gibson. They might have been used but that doesn't mean they were good, quite the contrary actually, people hated them. I guess they look kind of cool but gibson basses feel half assed. Played thunderbirds and sg's, its a long guitar neck.
Click to expand...

No disrespect, but I have absolutely no clue what your point is...... Really, seriously, what is your point?

*** are you talking about?

Please advise.....
 
#36
Here's a pic for a point of reference regarding size. The last is a 66' Fender Coronado II which is near identical to the Casady bass size.
PC140560.jpg

A few points: The LP is no heavier than my 77' Jazz shown here. The neck is thinner than the Jazz but not as thin as the RIC. As far as Gibson not having many models, or not catering to bassists all I can say is that they are dead on with their business plan. They have no intention of making entry level basses. They leave that to the tier 2 and tier 3 manufacturers.
 
#37
I love your collection of basses. :smug:

f64 said:
Here's a pic for a point of reference regarding size. The last is a 66' Fender Coronado II which is near identical to the Casady bass size.
PC140560.jpg

A few points: The LP is no heavier than my 77' Jazz shown here. The neck is thinner than the Jazz but not as thin as the RIC. As far as Gibson not having many models, or not catering to bassists all I can say is that they are dead on with their business plan. They have no intention of making entry level basses. They leave that to the tier 2 and tier 3 manufacturers.
Click to expand...
 
#38
these Les Paul basses are really cool looking.

a friend of mine used to play an Epiphone Les Paul, sunburst with a flamed maple top. It was beautiful, had a BIG chunky neck that I loved, but he had it set up with this crazy high action that I hated. I always wanted to get my hands on it and give it a low action, throw some darkstars in it, would have been a sick bass.

I don't like the shape of the headstock on these Gibson LPs...
 
#40
I REALLY, REALLY wanted to like this bass. I got a chance to try one out a few weeks ago on NYC's famed 48th street. The Les Paul bass with the goldtop finish looks amazing. Let's not kid ourselves: aesthetics are important. But so is playability.

I found the Les Paul bass to be pretty heavy. I've got a fairly heavy bass in my Fender Roscoe Beck V. That bass is easily 10 lbs, so I'm somewhat accustomed to a bass with some heft. But the Les Paul I tried definitely beat that.

The neck was comfortable enough for me. I think the profile was closer to a Rick than anything else.

Tonally, I liked what the neck pickup could do. But I was not in love with the bridge pickup. It reminded me all too much of why I DON'T like 70's Jazz basses because of the placement of the bridge pickup. And that's because it's just too close to the bridge. With both pickups on, you get some nice oomph from the neck pickup balanced with some bite from the neck pickup. But overall, I really think that both pickups should have been shifted as much as 1 inch towards the fingerboard.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back