- Mar 13, 2008
- 18,904
- 142,316
- Disclosures
- Endorsing Artist Mike Lull T Bass pickups, The Bass Shop, Seattle WA.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
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.
No Gibson's??
- Thread starter Ianhin
- Start date
Here's a picture of a West Highland Terrier using my Thunderbird as a pillow.
If you're looking for an argument, you're drinking at the wrong saloon.
See my post #19.
In response to the OP question I answered.
" I think you don't see a lot of discussion of Gibson basses in the general forum for a couple of reasons. There are less of them around than say, Fenders, and naturally fewer bass players have them- so I guess less overall interest in them. Also some bass players obviously don't like them and make their feelings plain which can make discussion of them in some places unproductive and unpleasant."
We have had some good discussion between the sadly predictable.
If I wanted to discuss Gibson basses would I talk to a Fender endorsing artist?.... let me ponder that one.
They also made some other large mistakes - letting their quality drop off, pricing their products at nearly boutique levels... and yeah - failing to keep up with design changes. Buying Tobias was a perfect example of what is wrong with Gibby - a very respectable bass line *ruined* by their failure to execute. Lord knows that they aren't alone - Fender does it over and over - but in this case, they bought the one thing they always struggled with - basses that sell - and then made them unsellable. Bad joss, all the way around.
And yes, I've owned a Gibson. Heck, I might again.
Their instruments are (mostly) pretty but the electric guitars and basses are unjustifiably expensive and their quality control is uneven. I hang out on another forum which is full of Gibson fans, but they continually ridicule the CEO of Gibson for the stupid things he has done, they continually mock the quality control, and they have been predicting major sales problems from the recent huge price increases on Gibsons.
Gibson frankly doesn't know their a** from a hole in the ground when it comes to basses. They have built some iconic basses (none recently), most of which are not available or produced anymore if their name isn't Les Paul. They simply pay no attention to basses.
I see plenty of Gibsons used by bands that are established and making a buck...or by musicians who have good professional jobs and play music as a hobby.
That's a matter of opinion.
Although, I did own two RD Artist guitars from the mid '70s and made some great recordings with them. I also owned, for a very short time, a Ripper that I bought new in '77.
That's because 90% of the discussion revolves around Fender. That leaves 10% to split between everything else.
That's a matter of opinion.
My son has an 77 RD Artist guitar- lovely guitar. He still gigs it sometimes but his LP Standard and Explorer get most of the gigs.
well, my Les Paul guitar is as heavy as my basses, so I shudder at how heavy a Gibby bass will be.
The Tbird is their only real seller, one day I'd like one.
The Tbird is their only real seller, one day I'd like one.
I have tried a bunch of Gibson basses, and I want to like them. I love the looks of most of them. My problem, is every one I have tried sounds muddy to me. But that's what they're going for I suppose. My main players are Stingrays and P-basses, so its a different sound than I'm going for , and that's great. What's not for me, is good for someone else.
The serious complaints with Gibsons, are the neck dive, and the price.
The serious complaints with Gibsons, are the neck dive, and the price.
Grizzled old coot (born in '49) chiming in here. I'm going to offer my comments as bullet points, for clarity's sake in response to so many posts.
1) Gibson basses, new from the store, cost more than Fenders partly because of the name and partly because of the workmanship. Gibsons were more artisanal in construction, Fenders more industrial (as per Leo's original intent). In the collector market, the name game has been reversed; Fender on the headstock commands a much higher price than Gibson.
2) Even in the sixties, where I lived (Shreveport, LA) it was much rarer to find a store that did not stock Fender than it was to find one that stocked Gibson. This was by Gibson's intent, based on brand snobbery. It cost a lot to have the Gibson franchise. Now nearly every American manufacturer, including Fender, is playing that game to the extent that very few stores, especially mom & pops, can carry the line.
3) The "mudbucker" slam is based largely on the recordings of Jack Bruce with Cream and Felix Pappalardi with Mountain and yes, the EB-3 and EB-1 are both crazy distorted. But by then we were into the era of arena rock and the volume had gone stupid loud in nearly all venues. Run an EB-2 or Rivoli into a B-15 and the result is quite different. Youtube some stuff by the Animals, Yardbirds,
Nashville Teens, Mitch Ryder and the Detroit Wheels, or even the McCoys or the Gentrys and tell me *that* is indecipherable mud.
4) Gibson did not promote their basses as much because they had less riding on them. Before Fender even came on the scene, Gibson had a half-century of marketing the full spectrum of stringed instruments, including acoustic and upright electric basses. Fender was going to sink or swim with the Telecaster and the Precision Bass, so of course Fender was going to heavily promote their basses.
5) Both Fender and Gibson (as well as Gretsch and Guild) became trapped by their early successes, in the sense that their vintage-era product became iconic images of the brand. The G-badged makers tried to break away in the seventies and eighties with little success. No new models stayed in the line as long as product introduced in the sixties or earlier, Gibson's EB series basses being the primary example. Fender tried to get away from its heritage into the new and modern with its Heartsfield and HM lines of the early nineties. We know how that ended. People just *expect* certain things if Fender or Gibson is on the headstock.
Only Rickenbacker seems to have avoided taking the bait; there is not a great deal of visual difference between a 2015 Ric and a 1958 4000. Badges like Dillion and Eastwood are making money off credible copies of not only top-tier vintage models, but second and third tier as well (a phenomenon which I think deserves its own thread).
6) Even though when I was growing up, having a Precision or Jazz was the status symbol that you had "made it" as a bassplayer, I was so little that I had to begin with short-scale basses; and that meant Epiphone or Gibson. I was past thirty before I got my first Precision. And even though my most recent bass purchase is a 2013 Mexi-P, I still have a partiality for Gibson-ish basses.
I am an endorser of my own personal checks or those made payable to me.
1) Gibson basses, new from the store, cost more than Fenders partly because of the name and partly because of the workmanship. Gibsons were more artisanal in construction, Fenders more industrial (as per Leo's original intent). In the collector market, the name game has been reversed; Fender on the headstock commands a much higher price than Gibson.
2) Even in the sixties, where I lived (Shreveport, LA) it was much rarer to find a store that did not stock Fender than it was to find one that stocked Gibson. This was by Gibson's intent, based on brand snobbery. It cost a lot to have the Gibson franchise. Now nearly every American manufacturer, including Fender, is playing that game to the extent that very few stores, especially mom & pops, can carry the line.
3) The "mudbucker" slam is based largely on the recordings of Jack Bruce with Cream and Felix Pappalardi with Mountain and yes, the EB-3 and EB-1 are both crazy distorted. But by then we were into the era of arena rock and the volume had gone stupid loud in nearly all venues. Run an EB-2 or Rivoli into a B-15 and the result is quite different. Youtube some stuff by the Animals, Yardbirds,
Nashville Teens, Mitch Ryder and the Detroit Wheels, or even the McCoys or the Gentrys and tell me *that* is indecipherable mud.
4) Gibson did not promote their basses as much because they had less riding on them. Before Fender even came on the scene, Gibson had a half-century of marketing the full spectrum of stringed instruments, including acoustic and upright electric basses. Fender was going to sink or swim with the Telecaster and the Precision Bass, so of course Fender was going to heavily promote their basses.
5) Both Fender and Gibson (as well as Gretsch and Guild) became trapped by their early successes, in the sense that their vintage-era product became iconic images of the brand. The G-badged makers tried to break away in the seventies and eighties with little success. No new models stayed in the line as long as product introduced in the sixties or earlier, Gibson's EB series basses being the primary example. Fender tried to get away from its heritage into the new and modern with its Heartsfield and HM lines of the early nineties. We know how that ended. People just *expect* certain things if Fender or Gibson is on the headstock.
Only Rickenbacker seems to have avoided taking the bait; there is not a great deal of visual difference between a 2015 Ric and a 1958 4000. Badges like Dillion and Eastwood are making money off credible copies of not only top-tier vintage models, but second and third tier as well (a phenomenon which I think deserves its own thread).
6) Even though when I was growing up, having a Precision or Jazz was the status symbol that you had "made it" as a bassplayer, I was so little that I had to begin with short-scale basses; and that meant Epiphone or Gibson. I was past thirty before I got my first Precision. And even though my most recent bass purchase is a 2013 Mexi-P, I still have a partiality for Gibson-ish basses.
I am an endorser of my own personal checks or those made payable to me.
I've never cared much for Gibson basses. I had a Les Paul bass around '94 that I got used for a good price. But I never could get on with it, and much preferred my Fenders. I'm not picking on Gibsons though. I've also owned a couple of Stingrays, Rics, and a Modulus and STILL always preferred my Fenders.
A couple months ago I snagged a 2013 Gibson EB. I liked the dual humbuckers (with pull pots to switch to single coils); the 34" scale; and the fact that it's passive. I've been very pleasantly surprised with it. A lot of punch; evenness across the strings; lightweight; and tons of tonal possibilities. The biggest negative for me is that it does have neck dive. I'm still a Fender man; but I'm also enjoying this EB. Moreso than any other Gibson bass I've played.
I went to my local guitar center and saw the epiphones and the looked very nice even for their $300 price tags.
I love my eb-3 (2014 sg special) the price was right, the quality was excellent, and after 10 min of setup its become my favorite bass. The pickups have a lot of definition and punch and growl. I had to eq different than my fenders but I eq differently for all my basses.
Gibson needs to do what it did with the sg special a lot more. Release an American made, innovative bass with the "Special" tag on it for less than a grand. Would thunderbird and Gibson lovers buy a Tbird special with some nifty pups for 899? Hell yeah. My sg is my bass for half my gigs right now. Its thicker than my jazz or jaguar, runs almost as growly as my carvin lb50, and has more vintage mojo and vibe than my hofner ever did. I'm no paid endorser, but id rep Gibson if they offered me a shot. They aren't for everyone, but neither are P basses
Gibson needs to do what it did with the sg special a lot more. Release an American made, innovative bass with the "Special" tag on it for less than a grand. Would thunderbird and Gibson lovers buy a Tbird special with some nifty pups for 899? Hell yeah. My sg is my bass for half my gigs right now. Its thicker than my jazz or jaguar, runs almost as growly as my carvin lb50, and has more vintage mojo and vibe than my hofner ever did. I'm no paid endorser, but id rep Gibson if they offered me a shot. They aren't for everyone, but neither are P basses
Well said. Not quite as old as you, good sir, but not far.
Growing up in Australia, Fenders were not common and I identify with what you are saying.
I didn't own one for quite a while.
I've never cared much for Gibson basses. I had a Les Paul bass around '94 that I got used for a good price. But I never could get on with it, and much preferred my Fenders. I'm not picking on Gibsons though. I've also owned a couple of Stingrays, Rics, and a Modulus and STILL always preferred my Fenders.
A couple months ago I snagged a 2013 Gibson EB. I liked the dual humbuckers (with pull pots to switch to single coils); the 34" scale; and the fact that it's passive. I've been very pleasantly surprised with it. A lot of punch; evenness across the strings; lightweight; and tons of tonal possibilities. The biggest negative for me is that it does have neck dive. I'm still a Fender man; but I'm also enjoying this EB. Moreso than any other Gibson bass I've played.
I am interested to try one of these - my last great hope.
The odd thing I find about Gibson is that a number of the basses seem to be derived from guitars - 4 string SGs etc. Perhaps basses derived from guitars is not a good thing.
I also think Gibson is simply just not trying to make good basses in the jazz music sense - they seem to make basses to rock hard and that is it.
I owned and played a mid-1970s SB450 bass for a while as a late-teen, and it was not a very good bass. Honestly, I've never played a Gibson bass that I thought was a very good bass, though I had a neighbor/inspiration as a youngster who had a EB2D that he made good use of, and I'd love to own one because they just were so darn cool.
I can testify for a fact that Gibson is very busy these days producing high-end guitars (Les Pauls mostly) for overseas shipment to meet demand driven by aging men of means, the majority of whom really can't play a guitar. Gibson management is delighted to be cashing in on their "American rock-n-roll icon-legacy" in this fortuitous trend.
That's just the way it is, and Gibson understandably likes to make money.
I can testify for a fact that Gibson is very busy these days producing high-end guitars (Les Pauls mostly) for overseas shipment to meet demand driven by aging men of means, the majority of whom really can't play a guitar. Gibson management is delighted to be cashing in on their "American rock-n-roll icon-legacy" in this fortuitous trend.
That's just the way it is, and Gibson understandably likes to make money.
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
Do stainless steel strings loose there sound quicker than other material- Latest: Thunderthumbs73