Just got an EB5 -- is there a war on Gibson?

[EdwardofHuncote]

Thanks for the congrats! Well, the Q80 financed this purchase. It was gone an hour after I put it up for sale. Great bass, but the world keeps turning, and since I'm moving to 5ers for now, I thought it was far too nice to leave it in storage.

Double-congrats then. If I didn't already have a Q-80, I'd have had to buy yours a while back.

Seriously, that new EB-5 T is fantastic. Especially in fireburst. Enjoy it!

 

[Fun With Dirt]

There is at least a vocal majority here that think that anything that isn't a Fender isn't worth their time.

I am definitely not in that camp. I have owned too many good basses that weren't Fenders or even any sort of obvious knockoff of a Fender model. I will absolutely say that my Jazz is the first bass I have ever owned that I just LOVED. I really liked my mid-90s Ibanez AFR bass. It was a SUPER nice bass. ...but the neck started to twist.

Conversely, I have literally had people tell me how much they liked the sound of my bass.... but wouldn't be caught dead playing Fender anything. lol. To each their own. If you can bring it... I just don't care what you brought it on.

 

[Redwine006]

Historically most Gibson basses have been terrible designs, the kind of thing a guitar player who's never played a gig on bass would think looked cool. Luckily yours is one of the exceptions.

I feel attacked! Hahaha

 

[micguy]

Well, yeah. Same could be said of Rics and just about any other brand.

Gibson's problem is that they're big and have had big ups and downs - it's really tough to run a business and make it profitable and good for the employees when you're opening and closing factories every few years.

Rickenbacker runs their business in a very different manner - by keeping production low enough and pricing at a high, but not stratospheric level, their demand always slightly exceeds supply - they have a very stable, predictable, and profitable business, which works for both the owners and the workers. The only thing they have to give up is the greed that they might make more money by growing fast. It's a very smart way to run a business.

Rickenbacker also knows how to protect intellectual property. If you let others use your IP too long, legally you lose your IP - that's Gibson's problem - they're trying to recapture something they gave away by not policing things. Rickenbacker (and Fender with their headstocks) do it right, not waiting decades to try to rein in violations.

In property law, if you walk across your neighbor's yard on a regular basis, and he or she don't say anything about it for a time (typically 7 years), you create an "easement" - you now have the right to be able to do that in perpetuity, the owner can't stop you, and if the owner puts up a fence, you can sue them for blocking your easement. That principle is at work here - Gibson is trying to enforce something that long ago became not their intellectual property, and it's due to their own inaction. It's also losing them good will. The instruments are decent, but if they want to sue people over IP violations, they need to make something new and protect that - that ship sailed long ago on their 50 and 60 year old designs, and it's nobody's fault but their own.

 

[HaveBlue]

I'm in the same boat. Bought this 2014 EB5 because I was looking for a passive VVT 5-string bass. Leading up to acquiring this instrument I was taught to 'dislike' Gibson as many of us bass players do. I was offered this bass used and dirt-cheap, expected nothing but mediocrity and lousy quality control but came home with a great instrument which feels perfectly at home between my Fender, Yamaha's and Musicmans

 

[bylar13]

I like the Gibson basses posted in this thread that aren’t Thunderbirds or SGs. Anything that looks like neck dive city doesn’t do it for me.

Nice bass OP and congrats on the NBD! My 2014 Thunderbird. No neck dive. I use a 3" leather strap.

I played a 1973 Jazz bass for 20+ years before switching to this bass. The Jazz needed significant repairs to make it playable after sitting for a long time. I had been asked to play in a band again after about 10 years off. I needed a new bass and thought I should force myself out of the comfort zone of what "I knew".

I am 52 and have been playing since I was 16. I had absorbed a lot of "Gibson basses are crap, Gibson basses are muddy, Gibson basses are starter basses until you can afford a USA Fender P or Jazz bass " throughout the years.

It took letting go of how I interacted with the Jazz bass (The way it hung, the angle of the neck, the neck profile etc.) to be able to understand how to use the T-bird. Shocking I know, since its not a fender bass!

The strap solved any neck dive issues. FWIW, I used and use the same width strap on the Jazz bass for comfort. I moved the rear Gibson strap button up 3" and that allows the back of the bass to sit lower, put the neck at a slight upward angle and that solved any reach issues.

The head stock strength was tested at a recording session when the bass fell off a wall mounted hanger, about 6ft to the floor below. I had left it plugged in (D'Oh!) and the cable got tangled around my foot as I tried to walk away.....other than a dent in the finger board, no issues. Not scientific in anyway but also not a piece of China.....
It is by far, my favorite bass. I made some upgrades (mostly cosmetic) and have recorded 2 albums, played about 75 live gigs and hundreds of rehearsals in the last 3 years. Not one issue. The bass rarely goes significant out of tune, even after live shows/rehearsals or sitting in it case for weeks at a time. Neat.

Again, not science but regularly get compliments on the tone from sound men & women, as well as, non bass playing gig goers. I now play in 2 bands and both band's drummers who are in no way "gear focused" have both requested that I use the Thunderbird because of the low end.

All bass preferences are subjective for sure but I was taught not to trust "conventional wisdom" as it is often times comprised of other people's biases. Hell, I KNOW I repeated all the anti-Gibson bass stuff myself with no real experience to draw from.

 

[Redwine006]

Nice bass OP and congrats on the NBD! My 2014 Thunderbird. No neck dive. I use a 3" leather strap.

I agree. I have the Epi Classic Pro IV. Bought it just because, assuming I would just use it for fun. It became one of my favorites. Sounds great and no neck dive with a good leather strap. Feels better than my American Jazz. Plays smoother, but the sound are two entirely different animals. It's comparing apples to oranges when it comes to tones on a Tbird with HB's and a Jazz/P with their configurations. I think they all sound phenomenal in their own right.

 

[bylar13]

I agree. I have the Epi Classic Pro IV. Bought it just because, assuming I would just use it for fun. It became one of my favorites. Sounds great and no neck dive with a good leather strap. Feels better than my American Jazz. Plays smoother, but the sound are two entirely different animals. It's comparing apples to oranges when it comes to tones on a Tbird with HB's and a Jazz/P with their configurations. I think they all sound phenomenal in their own right.

Exactly. It is OK to have different instruments that are different. I still have my Jazz bass and hope to have it back in action in a few weeks. The truss rod anchor failed and it being repaired.

 

[deff]

I am definitely not in that camp. I have owned too many good basses that weren't Fenders or even any sort of obvious knockoff of a Fender model. I will absolutely say that my Jazz is the first bass I have ever owned that I just LOVED. I really liked my mid-90s Ibanez AFR bass. It was a SUPER nice bass. ...but the neck started to twist.

Conversely, I have literally had people tell me how much they liked the sound of my bass.... but wouldn't be caught dead playing Fender anything. lol. To each their own. If you can bring it... I just don't care what you brought it on.

For sure. I've owned/played a lot of great Fender basses. I have no objection to them myself. What I do object to is the ignorance in saying something like, Gibson doesn't have any good basses, or Gibson doesn't make any original good basses. These things are simply not true. People may like their Fenders or love them more than anything, but it is pointless to disparage other's experiences.

 

[Fun With Dirt]

For sure. I've owned/played a lot of great Fender basses. I have no objection to them myself. What I do object to is the ignorance in saying something like, Gibson doesn't have any good basses, or Gibson doesn't make any original good basses. These things are simply not true. People may like their Fenders or love them more than anything, but it is pointless to disparage other's experiences.

Exactly. Gibson actually, when they cranked up their bassline, they were doing some original things. I'd even argue they still are doing those same things. Granted, they didn't catch fire like Fender did.

...but their approach to start their bass guitars was that bassists for the jazz world in particular (which was still fairly popular in the 50's) wanted an upright bass sound but more portable. Their EB1 was actually more of a viola shape and had the peg stand. The mudbucker was meant to help get that super wooly thick bass tone you might expect from an upright. ...but it just didn't catch on as more people were gravitating towards the more "guitar" shaped basses. So, they adjusted...but they adjusted their way. It would eventually take on the SG shape but the mudbucker remained so bassists could still get that insanely fat sound if they wanted. The bridge pickup would come later for those wanting to get more high tone or clarity. Although I am not at all looking, if I just had money killing me, I would likely get an SG bass and modify some. ...more for appearance than anything. It is a very serviceable bass and worlds apart from my Fender. There is VERY little the same other than they are both called bass and have 4 strings. Honestly, I am not certain who people think Gibson is trying to mimic. ...especially when it comes to their basses. They have their Thunderbird which just never seems to go away. The SG bass which seems to kind of come and go. Now they have the Les Paul DC Bass. This is all... pretty unique to them. Maybe they mean they just don't come up with anything "new" for them. Well, how much does really any manufacturer get away from their bread and butter? They do tweak their models though. They do little things.

 

[BergerHead]

I highly prefer the previous installment with the more "old School" head stock.

All 4+1 head stocks look kinda odd to me: Fender, MM, Gibson and specially the Thunderbird turns out pretty ugly in this config ... to keep them brand shapes by force is a bad idea imo.

 

[Frenchy-Lefty]

ummm...would I pay more for a Gibson J200 acoustic than for a Martin D28?...yes

 

[bassplayer9512]

Gotcha. Pickguard special 12th fret inlay and the old headstock. Looks like the strap pin was on the 15th fret which in my experience would usually make it neck heavy. If you notice, mine is on the 13th fret. 14th fret is usually the balance point for most 34" basses which has always been a design mistake on most Gibbys.

If you don't use nylon or polished leather straps nothing should neck dive. Everyone complains about t-birds and neck dive and none of mine have the issue. I also only use 3 or 4 inch wide leather straps too.

 

[Herrick]

Another nice thing about these EBs is the light weight, even on the 5-strings.

 

[oldfclefer]

Exactly. Gibson actually, when they cranked up their bassline, they were doing some original things. I'd even argue they still are doing those same things. Granted, they didn't catch fire like Fender did.

...but their approach to start their bass guitars was that bassists for the jazz world in particular (which was still fairly popular in the 50's) wanted an upright bass sound but more portable. Their EB1 was actually more of a viola shape and had the peg stand. The mudbucker was meant to help get that super wooly thick bass tone you might expect from an upright. ...but it just didn't catch on as more people were gravitating towards the more "guitar" shaped basses. So, they adjusted...but they adjusted their way. It would eventually take on the SG shape but the mudbucker remained so bassists could still get that insanely fat sound if they wanted. The bridge pickup would come later for those wanting to get more high tone or clarity. Although I am not at all looking, if I just had money killing me, I would likely get an SG bass and modify some. ...more for appearance than anything. It is a very serviceable bass and worlds apart from my Fender. There is VERY little the same other than they are both called bass and have 4 strings. Honestly, I am not certain who people think Gibson is trying to mimic. ...especially when it comes to their basses. They have their Thunderbird which just never seems to go away. The SG bass which seems to kind of come and go. Now they have the Les Paul DC Bass. This is all... pretty unique to them. Maybe they mean they just don't come up with anything "new" for them. Well, how much does really any manufacturer get away from their bread and butter? They do tweak their models though. They do little things.

I read an interview with Stanley Clarke where he said that his initial bass was a Gibson EB0. In a later interview he hinted that the basic dimensions for his sig model Alembic were taken from that Gibson. Jack Bruce loved that viola gibby. They are the reasons I bought my EB0 back in the 1970s after playing a friend's Precision for about a year. I found out rather quickly that the EB0 wasn't the bass for me and I traded it in on a Ric 4001 (inspired by Paul Mac) that I played for about 7 years. I've owned a Gibson Tbird (inspired by Leon Wilkeson), great bass, but not for me. I bought a Q80 about 5 years ago and was pleasantly surprised at how much it felt like a Fender neck -- probably due to Wayne Charvel's design. I just wish they would have done something besides stick it in on that giant Victory body. Great bass though and up to now, my favorite Gibson. This EB5 has won me over very quickly. I've never counted out Gibson at all when I'm gassing . I'm hard to please. Still have a Ric 4003, two Precisions (4&5), an Alembic Essence KL4, and this EB5. My suggestion to any bassists is to keep an open mind. Don't let political leanings or the silly dalliance's of a guitar maker's management keep you from at least trying out something of theirs that would interest you.

 

[oldfclefer]

ummm...would I pay more for a Gibson J200 acoustic than for a Martin D28?...yes

I take it you don't play Bluegrass

 

[Smooth_bass88]

There is at least a vocal majority here that think that anything that isn't a Fender isn't worth their time.

I agree. I don’t particularly care for Gibson basses, although I acknowledge that there are plenty of folks who play and love them. If they’re happy, that’s great!

 

[oldfclefer]

All 4+1 head stocks look kinda odd to me: Fender, MM, Gibson and specially the Thunderbird turns out pretty ugly in this config ... to keep them brand shapes by force is a bad idea imo.

I'm not that hung on aesthetics. My thought is if you have to turn the strings on a neck this wide it might twist it in the long run.

 

[Frenchy-Lefty]

I take it you don't play Bluegrass

I actually do but I use a Larrivee OM3R. It is just that J200's are more expensive than D28's. Personally, I'd take a J45 any time over many Martins. Although I absolutely love the cheaper 000-15.

 

[ezstep]

When I win the lottery, I will get a Hummingbird, and probably a Martin, too.