• 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.

Why aren't G&L basses more popular?

Status
Not open for further replies.
#322
Chef said:
SB1frontcu.jpg
Click to expand...


Gorgeous.
 
#324
I think they're a little plain looking, and they don't have any distinguishing features. They look like the poorer cousins of Fenders and Musicmans.

I had an L2000 for a while I think they're good basses, but they are very anonymous.
 
#325
kevteop said:
I think they're a little plain looking, and they don't have any distinguishing features.
Click to expand...

You could say the same thing about Sadowsky. It's called "understatement", where form follows function. As opposed to an emphasis on blingbling cosmetics. G&L's were never intended to be a "kid's guitar".

They look like the poorer cousins of Fenders and Musicmans.
Click to expand...

Not sure what that means, or what it even could mean. I suppose the limited exposure to G&L in Europe might account for such a perception. Obviously, there's a much deeper understanding of the history of Leo Fender here in the States.
 
#326
Templar said:
You could say the same thing about Sadowsky. It's called "understatement", where form follows function.
Click to expand...

It's called "under-designed". And forgive me but it seems to me that Sadowskys are just Jazz basses. They don't appear to have put in much effort in the design department either.

Templar said:
I suppose the limited exposure to G&L in Europe might account for such a perception. Obviously, there's a much deeper understanding of the history of Leo Fender here in the States.
Click to expand...

I lived in the USA for 3 years and owned an L2000 for a couple of years, and I think even us pig-ignorant Europeans have heard of Leo Fender. Please explain the depth of history knowledge required so I can better appreciate his later ugly duckling models.

My point was that they look very plain - hence cheap - guitars in comparison to Fenders and Musicmans. I think it's the lack of a pickguard and the generic body shape. No character to them at all. And the same can be said of the sound - while my L2000 was pretty versatile it really had no character of its own. It was just dull.
 
#328
Ken Baker said:
I've found that with the L-2000/2500/ASAT, the bass sings with its own voice with both pickups on, series or parallel, active or passive (no treble boost), and (this is most important) bass & treble controls to no more than 75% and volume no more that 80%.

That'll give you G&L. If you've been diming the volume, it'll also give you back some control from the beast.

Ken...
Click to expand...

+1000.. I guess I'm a slow learner- it took me years to figure this out. Finally, for some reason, I decided to back off on the tone controls and volume and the sound of the bass really opened up in a very good way.
 
#330
Chef said:
Sadowsky?
Under-designed?
Click to expand...

What design work did they undertake that didn't involve tracing a Fender? I suppose they had to change the shape of the headstock, that must've been a busy afternoon for them.

Chef said:
G&L? Under-designed?
Click to expand...

I think the reason a lot of basses have pickguards is because the bodies are so big and bulky - they look very plain without. I think that's why burst finishes have always been popular on basses too, it breaks up the vastness of the body a little. And the bodies on the Lxxxx models are especially slabby looking, there's no interesting curves going on.

palmann said:
And I got no answer to that.
Click to expand...

Never mind, post anyway, what the hell.
 
#331
kevteop said:
I think they're a little plain looking, and they don't have any distinguishing features. They look like the poorer cousins of Fenders and Musicmans.
Click to expand...

What would be your idea of a "distinguishing feature"? (Please don't say a Gene Simmons "Axe Bass")

And what could be more "plain looking" than a Fender Precision or Jazz?
 
#335
kevteop said:
I lived in the USA for 3 years and owned an L2000 for a couple of years, and I think even us pig-ignorant Europeans have heard of Leo Fender. Please explain the depth of history knowledge required so I can better appreciate his later ugly duckling models.
Click to expand...

Hey, I'm just offering an excuse as to why you may not "get" the G&L appeal that others do get.

It's common knowledge that Fender implemented innovations successively throughout his career, culminating with G&L. That's the history that the older guys here watched unfold over the decades, and that's where the deep appreciation has its roots.

G&L basses are jam packed with innovative features from stem to stern. Not everyone likes those features, but they are there nonetheless.
 
#338
Personally, I think most play and sound great but, they are very plain looking to me. Also, I just can't get past the headstock design. I know it sounds crazy but, it screams "Fender Copy!" to me. Yes, yes, I know. . . . it sounds crazy considering the countless Fender copies on the market. But, it's always the first thing that pops into my mind when I see one.

Yes, I know I sound nuts, feel free to flame me but, do so knowing I know how dumb it sounds.

I'm just saying. . . .
 
#340
I just don't get the "can't get past the headstock" or "it looks so plain". I guess I'm the other way around - I don't like "odd" or "unique" looking basses for the most part. But, if it's a quality instrument with a great sound, the looks really don't matter (to me.)

Although I really can't see myself playing a musicman toilet seat, er... Bongo
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back