New Gibson EB bass

[Showdown]

I don't really understand why in almost every thread about Gibson there are people that come in, say "Gibson basses suck" then leave. If I don't like a particular brand I just don't bother going into threads about that brand, I don't feel the need to attack them.

 

[hdracer]

Don't know why everyone is getting their undies in a bunch. I think it looks awesome, especially in white. Love the retro look. I want to try it out! It's something new with a cool, vintage style. It's not a boring Fender knock-off, and that alone should be welcome.

Then why are you in a Gibson thread? Just like to go in, throw stones then leave? Can you maybe contribute something meaningful instead?

What is it with Gibson and Ric threads that people feel they just have to jump in and say something bad?

I don't jump into threads about basses I don't like and will never own unless the op is asking should I get bass A or bass B, what do you think.

 

[fivestringgecko]

I don't really understand why in almost every thread about Gibson there are people that come in, say "Gibson basses suck" then leave. If I don't like a particular brand I just don't bother going into threads about that brand, I don't feel the need to attack them.

I feel the same way about the guys that come into the fx forum and say something like "I just plug straight into my amp."

5sg.

 

[ggvicviper]

Then why are you in a Gibson thread? Just like to go in, throw stones then leave? Can you maybe contribute something meaningful instead?

File me under the same thing other people who have said unfavorable things about Gibson in this thread.

It's a discussion, and I said what I had earlier about my reasons for not liking Gibson basses.

Why don't YOU contribute something more meaningful?

 

[RED J]

And before I forget, it wasn't neck-divey!

With this testimony, I liking the Mosrite meets Fender V 1968 looks, cool !

 

[stiles72]

Regarding the new EB bass, at first glance I didn't like it either. To me it looks like a watered down version of an RD blended with a Mosrite/Teisco. A Gibson for non-Gibson players if you will. Kind of like how the NR Thunderbird appeals to Fender folks who normally wouldn't consider a Bird.

But looking at the EB specs, the electronics, and the finishes, I bet it's a great sounding instrument and probably fairly comfortable to play. At the price point, I'm reserving judgment on them until I get my hands on one. My oldies project "encourages" (requires) me to play a P-bass because they feel the T-bird looks "too metal"; but this EB might just fit the bill.

 

[smcd]

File me under the same thing other people who have said unfavorable things about Gibson in this thread.

It's a discussion, and I said what I had earlier about my reasons for not liking Gibson basses.

Why don't YOU contribute something more meaningful?

+1

That's what a messageboard is all about. I'm not really interested in threads that are applause-only. I'd rather see some dissenting opinions.

 

[hdracer]

I'll take a Jazz any day over any Gibson model.

File me under the same thing other people who have said unfavorable things about Gibson in this thread.

It's a discussion, and I said what I had earlier about my reasons for not liking Gibson basses.

Why don't YOU contribute something more meaningful?

You call that meaningful?

I own both, 3 Jazz's and a Gibson along with a Ray a Spector a MTD and a P bass and had a Ric. They all have there place and are all different.

The fit, finish, fret work, nut and overall quality of my Gibson is the best of all of them. The neck on my Gibson is the most stable of all too. It is the only bass I own that I do not have to adjust the truss rod 3-4 times a year.

 

[Showdown]

File me under the same thing other people who have said unfavorable things about Gibson in this thread.

It's a discussion, and I said what I had earlier about my reasons for not liking Gibson basses.

Why don't YOU contribute something more meaningful?

You have never played the model that the thread is about, yet you feel the need to come in and bash Gibson anyway. You aren't adding anything to the discussion.

 

[smcd]

I don't know if anyone's hitting Gibson for poor quality. I've never owned a Gibson that wasn't very well made. I think the main criticism is that Gibson is a big company that can't seem to get their head around the bass market. Despite the fact that they've been making basses for over 50 years.

Look at their current catalog. With the exception of this new "EB" bass, EVERY other Gibson bass model is a retro-reissue design. And even this new EB bass, IMO, is kind of a half baked retro model. Gibson gave up even trying to innovate 25 years ago.

 

[hdracer]

I don't know if anyone's hitting Gibson for poor quality. I've never owned a Gibson that wasn't very well made. I think the main criticism is that Gibson is a big company that can't seem to get their head around the bass market. Despite the fact that they've been making basses for over 50 years.

Look at their current catalog. With the exception of this new "EB" bass, EVERY other Gibson bass model is a retro-reissue design. And even this new EB bass, IMO, is kind of a half baked retro model. Gibson gave up even trying to innovate 25 years ago.

You hear the same thing about Fender. But when they come out with something new and innovative nobody buys it.

Look how the Tobias line is working for Gibson.

People that want a Fender buy P's and J's
People that want a Gibson want a 'Bird, a SG or any "Retro" type bass

 

[TBird1958]

I don't know if anyone's hitting Gibson for poor quality. I've never owned a Gibson that wasn't very well made. I think the main criticism is that Gibson is a big company that can't seem to get their head around the bass market. Despite the fact that they've been making basses for over 50 years.

Look at their current catalog. With the exception of this new "EB" bass, EVERY other Gibson bass model is a retro-reissue design. And even this new EB bass, IMO, is kind of a half baked retro model. Gibson gave up even trying to innovate 25 years ago.

Since they are primarily a guitar maker that also make basses ( Like PRS for example) I don't think find your criticism all that valid. There are far more guitarists than bassists and Gibson's strong point is guitars, they are simply going where they know they are strongest. Personally I'm happy with what they do, I've sampled and reviewed 3 new Gibson basses (RD, Explorer Longscale and G-3) in 2012, likely at least two more than anybody else chipping into this thread. The basses I reviewed didn't have any serious QC issues, nor were they simple rehashes of the originals.
When viewed from the outside (of Talkbass) threads like this are viewed as a joke, mostly because the bashers have no idea what they're talking about - A quote from a friend on another forum sums it up nicely.....

"If idiots have no other useful function, they are always good for entertainment..."

 

[NOT]

I love Gibson basses! A lot of people complain about their quality and neck dive. I have never had any of those problems with my Tbird, Ripper, or Grabber. I see the Gibson neckdive issues being sort of a myth among non Gibson players

 

[ggvicviper]

You have never played the model that the thread is about, yet you feel the need to come in and bash Gibson anyway. You aren't adding anything to the discussion.

I have said valid opinions. While mainly negative, I stated that I like some of Gibson's designs. At least my opinion was more well thought out and said than TBird1958's "Jazz Bass = pffft" - and even TBird1958 is being more civil than you are.

All you have done in this thread is jump on people that have said anything bad about Gibson. Not even a comment about the bass this thread is about. You accuse me of something you are guilty of yourself.

If you don't want me here on this thread, no problem. I will leave - just remember it's not your thread or your property to be policing.

You call that meaningful?

I own both, 3 Jazz's and a Gibson along with a Ray a Spector a MTD and a P bass and had a Ric. They all have there place and are all different.

The fit, finish, fret work, nut and overall quality of my Gibson is the best of all of them. The neck on my Gibson is the most stable of all too. It is the only bass I own that I do not have to adjust the truss rod 3-4 times a year.

I'm glad you like yours. I'm not saying what I am saying is particularly meaningful, but I certainly think Showdown is being hypocritical for not posting anything related to the thread.

 

[Showdown]

You hear the same thing about Fender. But when they come out with something new and innovative nobody buys it.

Look how the Tobias line is working for Gibson.

People that want a Fender buy P's and J's
People that want a Gibson want a 'Bird, a SG or any "Retro" type bass

This. Gibson has come up with new models at times, and they generally fail. There has been a call the last few years (I think TalkBass has had something to do with it) for non-reverse Thunderbirds, so they reissued them. They can't compete with Fender on Fender style basses, so they do what they do. Gibson owners are generally the people that don't want another Fender clone.

Gibson has had this "Gibson basses are muddy" reputation since I bought my first Thunderbird in 1976 (which isn't muddy at all). That was based on the old mudbucker EB basses, and isn't true for any other Gibson model. Old reputations die hard.

Gibson basses aren't for everyone. People that like Fender style basses (I have quite a few myself) should buy them.

 

[Showdown]

I'm glad you like yours. I'm not saying what I am saying is particularly meaningful, but I certainly think Showdown is being hypocritical for not posting anything related to the thread.

What I am posting IS related to the thread, since I am responding to posts in the thread.

As far as the subject of this thread, I think it is pretty ugly, but it is probably a good bass otherwise. I bought a new Gibson earlier this year in the same price range and am very happy with the quality (short scale Thiunderbird).

 

[vegas532]

I'll add something useful. If anybody viewing this thread is anywhere near the Greater LA area, take a trip to the Gibson Beverly Hills Showroom and test this bass out for yourself. Haters are gonna hate and, just to play devil's advocate, my glowing opinion of this bass is only mine.

These threads sometimes go into the realm of parody with one side saying "It's a Gibson, so it's going to suck" and the other side going "I love Gibson basses, but this doesn't look like a Gibson."

Forget the name on the headstock and PLAY IT! I own a Wal, a Fender Geddy, a Casady, a Sage, and a First Act...anybody wanna venture to guess which one smokes the rest?

 

[johnson79]

I really dig the EB, although I haven't played one yet. I like the fact that it is a new idea for Gibson. Honestly, they have a lot of interesting things out now, for pretty good prices.

 

[smcd]

Since they are primarily a guitar maker that also make basses ( Like PRS for example) I don't think find your criticism all that valid. There are far more guitarists than bassists and Gibson's strong point is guitars, they are simply going where they know they are strongest. Personally I'm happy with what they do, I've sampled and reviewed 3 new Gibson basses (RD, Explorer Longscale and G-3) in 2012, likely at least two more than anybody else chipping into this thread. The basses I reviewed didn't have any serious QC issues, nor were they simple rehashes of the originals.
When viewed from the outside (of Talkbass) threads like this are viewed as a joke, mostly because the bashers have no idea what they're talking about - A quote from a friend on another forum sums it up nicely.....

"If idiots have no other useful function, they are always good for entertainment..."

It's completely irrelevant whether Gibson is primarily a guitar maker. They're a major manufacturer of basses, and as such are compelled to satisfy their customer base. Gibson's current line of basses is ABSOLUTELY a rehash of old designs. That especially includes the RD, Explorer and G3. They may have made improvements in the pickup design (God I hope so), but all but one of their bass models are virtual mirror images of 30+ year old designs.


What exact community is there outside of TB that considers threads like this "a joke"? I have a very hard time believing that. Most bashers in this thread (whether I agree with them or not) do seem to know at least something of what they're talking about. They either currently own or have owned Gibson basses, and that gives them enough purchase to state their opinion.

 

[Showdown]

It's completely irrelevant whether Gibson is primarily a guitar maker. They're a major manufacturer of basses, and as such are compelled to satisfy their customer base. Gibson's current line of basses is ABSOLUTELY a rehash of old designs. That especially includes the RD, Explorer and G3. They may have made improvements in the pickup design (God I hope so), but all but one of their bass models are virtual mirror images of 30+ year old designs.

Fender's two top sellers (J and P) are 50 year old designs. Ernie Ball's top seller is a 35 year old design. Hofner's main bass is a 50 year old design. Rickenbacker's is a 50 year old design. That is what the majority of people want, the classics.

There are plenty of companies producing newer designs if you want (Ibanez, ESP, etc.), but the classic designs from the classic companies are everywhere.

I just don't see why it is an issue when Gibson does it, and not an issue when everyone else does.