Why aren't G&L basses more popular?

[jfh2424]

The G&L side of the story as told in George Fullerton's account is that Music Man canceled all orders with CLF Labs (Leo's R&D & mfg facility) to punish them for not capitulating on certain matters. George and Leo founded G&L so they wouldn't have to lay everyone off and shut down the plant.

Your point that Leo wasn't a great business man is well taken, however. G&L never turned a profit during Leo's life....

Irrelevant of why Music Man did not work out for Leo, the fact is it simply didn't work out for business reasons, not because of the quality of their work. He wound up having to sell his own business because he could not make it work. That is why he founded G&L.

G&L is certainly profitable. But the point I was making is: whether it is in the foolish way he sold Fender, the fact that he signed away his right to produce his own designs, the lawsuits that Fender brought in against him forcing him to desist making certain basses, the way he ran Music Man into the ground and the fact that G&L never took over as a serious option in the bass world, Leo was simply not a great business man. He was a man of vision, a man of ideas and we are fortunate that he chose to design basses. But at every step, he was taken advantage of by people who were much better business men. And to me, G&L continues that tradition. By this I mean: great basses, superior design, crappy marketing, weak business plan = the company being an afterthought in the bass buying world when they really should be top dog, or at least near the top.

I don't really mind, I love their stuff. I own 6 G&Ls! But I recognize his genius on the design side while mourning his lack of business sense.

John

 

[lposavad]

I live up the road from Buffalo Brothers in Carlsbad, California; they're a huge G&L dealer and usually have about a dozen G&L basses laying about. I've not yet found one that gets me excited. They feel somewhat clunky... I guess I'm not a fan of their ergonomics. And I really wish I was!
Having said that, I have three G&L guitars on the wall, and they're my favorites when I need a skinny string fix.

 

[scubaduba]

Hey your avatar is great. Sometimes I feel that way.

 

[Faderoktopus]

Templar's post from Nov. 2007... I just thought it was humorous

"Just for the record, the pointy "eye gouger" on the headstock was George's idea.

While it may appear to be non-functional, it's not. The gouger is actually an ingenious "anti-lemming filter".

It acts as a disturbing visual repellent. Players with a lemming mentality are instantly so un-nerved by the headstock shape that they won't even bother to play or listen to a G&L.

In this way, G&L mantains a level of exclusivity, appealing only to those players who judge a bass with their hands and ears.

You've heard this before...."G&L's are not for everyone". "

Funny stuff.

I think it is important not to underestimate the power of looks, though. Not just as a means to explain why "other" bassplayers buy certain gear, but also as a factor in how you feel about your instrument, how often, and for how long, you sit around playing it and thus how good you get at handling it. I certainly play my L1500 a lot more than my L2500, there are many reasons for this, one being the slightly less elegant look. This may be a bit controversial in a musicians forum, but music isn't only about sound. I would bet that if your bass appears unatractive to you then you either adjust your aesthetic standards or end up playing below your potential.

I actually really like the G&L headstock on the 4-strings, finally someone put some curve and nerve into what could have been just another (Leo-made) fender copy. What appeals to anyone at any time is a matter of habits as well as aesthetics and these factors are social creations much to complex to be summed up in a few sentences regardless of any training in graphic design. G&L might not appeal to everyone, I love the look but might disagree with a lot of you about, say, warwicks.

Anyone simply stating tha G&L's are ugly are wrong. Period.

.

Other than that I have only good things to say about the instruments, the pups aren't for the faint of heart but thats how I like it. I think one of the reasons they aren't more present is because the design, in terms of both look, sound and playability, is aimed at consumers with a taste for tradition, and the G&L brand is just not as classicoriginalvintageoldschoolidolised as Fender, simply because Fender came first. This might change, though, when the instruments gain a little more notoriety and their qualities become common knowledge.

I mean, come on guys, it's an upgrade, right?

 

[Aspidites]

Anyone simply stating tha G&L's are ugly are wrong. Period.

Actually anyone that states that G&L's are ugly is correct in the same way that anyone that states that G&L's are gorgeous is correct because it is a matter of personal opinion and personal opinions are not right or wrong they just are.

I personally happen to like the way they look.

 

[Faderoktopus]

Actually anyone that states that G&L's are ugly is correct in the same way that anyone that states that G&L's are gorgeous is correct because it is a matter of personal opinion and personal opinions are not right or wrong they just are.

I personally happen to like the way they look.

You're right, of course. Except that opinion is not something that just "is", it is a dynamic proces that is constantly influenced by many things, including well taken photos of a bass and discussions such as this. And anyone googling for information on G&L might find links to this page, so opinion is actually being shaped right here. Oops, rambling again..

 

[Doug Parent]

You're right, of course. Except that opinion is not something that just "is", it is a dynamic proces that is constantly influenced by many things, including well taken photos of a bass and discussions such as this. And anyone googling for information on G&L might find links to this page, so opinion is actually being shaped right here. Oops, rambling again..

Reality could also be stated as the collective agreement about what "is" and that in itself could vary quite a bit from tribe to tribe, nation to nation, or individual to individual. Whats true for you is true for you.

 

[Bassdirty]

Hard to find around here, in fact I don't think I ever saw one in person.

+1 on hard to find..
never played one...but..I saw one once.. a guy in the bar band was playin it...sounded good.Never got to touch one though.

 

[shawn2000]

Ugly? I find all of my G&L's quite friendly on the eye. Here are a couple of them. I think one of the reasons they are not more popular, is that you cannot do a search for them here. lol.

 

[MiniMoose234]

I've always really liked their telebass shape.

 

[loendmaestro]

Ugly? I find all of my G&L's quite friendly on the eye. Here are a couple of them. I think one of the reasons they are not more popular, is that you cannot do a search for them here. lol.

The ASAT, the ASAT! Good god man....that thing is beautiful!

 

[vroc38]

...it's the headstock, pure & simple!...an uglier one doesn't exist on the planet, lol...

I passed G&L by for 20 years because of the headstock. One of my greatest regrets! Now I find myself trying to make all other basses sound like a G&L.

 

[lmfreeman9]

There a lot more info about this here.

http://www.talkbass.com/forum/showthread.php?t=377975&highlight=

This is the thread I was trying to find and from that originally posted by Keef, this list:

TOP TEN REASONS G&Ls AREN'T MORE POPULAR

(donning flame-retardant suit)

1. Lack of a Unique, Original Design – a Rick is instantly recognizable from across the room, as is a P, a Jazz, a Stingray, a Steinberger, a Thunderbird, a Wal, a Status, a Hofner, a Burns, a Mosrite, a Danelectro, a Spector, a Corvette, etc, etc. When I see a G&L from a distance, my first thought is "what is that... a Carvin..? A G&L..? A Washburn..? A Dean? A Stingray without a pickguard? A... ???" G&L's most instantly-recognizable, distinctive body style is the ASAT... a TELECASTER GUITAR COPY! All of the other G&Ls lack a unique style – they're just kinda... there. To my eye, they're just, well... generic. And dare I say it..? Carvin-y.
2. Brand Recognition – I think it would have been of great help to G&L if they had chosen one headstock shape, and stuck with it. Brand recognition matters (and I'm sorry, but that pointy little doohickey on the headstock is so blatantly the quickest, laziest, least-inspired way to get around copyright infringement – MusicMan did the Fender headstock copyright-dodge better.... Lakland did it better... Sadowsky did it better... cripes, RONDO/SX did it better!).

3. Weight – All the G&Ls I played (many years ago) were absolute boat anchors – maybe they've changed (?), but bad impressions (and back pains) last a long time.

4. Too Complex – Most basses (at least the ones that sell in the zillions of units) have Volume/Tone or Volume/Volume/Tone. Even the classic active Stingray established itself with only three knobs. Start putting mini-toggle switches on a bass, and people get confused and intimidated – it's sad, but true – even a cursory glance at the forum reveals this. Give 'em a Jaguar, they start clamoring for schematics! Want to scare your average bassist? Show him a mini-toggle switch!

5. No "trademark" Sound – Read any of the threads here, people want "P-Bass thump", "J honk", "Rick clang", "Warwick growl". When was the last time you heard someone ask for a "G&L sound"? IS there even a "G&L sound"? Which leads us to...

6. Too Versatile – What people don't seem to want is true versatility. Don't believe me? Do a forum search for Wal basses, like I did last night – all you'll read are a bunch of complaints from people who couldn't instantly "dial in their tone". From what I've witnessed, 99% of bassists don't want to have to experiment to get a sound that suits them (aka: P, J, 'Ray).

7. Unorthodox Colors – If G&L offered more traditional colors (Candy Apple Red, Lake Placid Blue), I have no doubt they'd sell more instruments. People like tradition.

8. Lack of B&M Vendors – I like to try a bass out before I buy it. There aren't enough G&Ls in STORES.

9. Lack of Celebrity "star" Players – no Jaco, no Entwistle, no Geddy. Granted, this is a really STUPID reason, but no one can deny it's veracity – no McCartney = no Hofner. People buy what their idols play. If Flea/Claypool/Fieldy started using G&Ls exclusively, G&Ls would start flying off the shelves.

10. Carrots.

Anyway, these are my honest thoughts – no offense intended to the faithful. And I'm no hater, either – I'd really like to try an L-2500 (the headstock doohickey looks much better on a 3+2, IMO).

I'd probably have bought one, had I been able to actually try one first.

 

[Rebmo]

This is the thread I was trying to find and from that originally posted by Keef, this list:

TOP TEN REASONS G&Ls AREN'T MORE POPULAR

(donning flame-retardant suit)

1. (so, show me an early 80s SB-1 or L-1k look a like) Lack of a Unique, Original Design – a Rick is instantly recognizable from across the room, as is a P, a Jazz, a Stingray, a Steinberger, a Thunderbird, a Wal, a Status, a Hofner, a Burns, a Mosrite, a Danelectro, a Spector, a Corvette, etc, etc. When I see a G&L from a distance, my first thought is "what is that... a Carvin..? A G&L..? A Washburn..? A Dean? A Stingray without a pickguard? A... ???" G&L's most instantly-recognizable, distinctive body style is the ASAT... a TELECASTER GUITAR COPY! All of the other G&Ls lack a unique style – they're just kinda... there. To my eye, they're just, well... generic. And dare I say it..? Carvin-y.
2. Brand Recognition (all the decent bass players I know are aware of G&L, nubes maybe not) – I think it would have been of great help to G&L if they had chosen one headstock shape, and stuck with it. Brand recognition matters (and I'm sorry, but that pointy little doohickey on the headstock is so blatantly the quickest, laziest, least-inspired way to get around copyright infringement – MusicMan did the Fender headstock copyright-dodge better.... Lakland did it better... Sadowsky did it better... cripes, RONDO/SX did it better!).

3. Weight ( I have some lighter ones from early 80s 8-9 lbs and some heavy 9-11lbs, but if 1 lb more is too much for you too lift play guitar wimp (exception those with back issues)) – All the G&Ls I played (many years ago) were absolute boat anchors – maybe they've changed (?), but bad impressions (and back pains) last a long time.

4. Too Complex (show me a less complex bass than my SB-1s or L1000, I do have a brain though and have no problem understanding how to get the sound out of my 81 L2Ke, and even my previously owned 97 L2k) – Most basses (at least the ones that sell in the zillions of units) have Volume/Tone or Volume/Volume/Tone. Even the classic active Stingray established itself with only three knobs. Start putting mini-toggle switches on a bass, and people get confused and intimidated – it's sad, but true – even a cursory glance at the forum reveals this. Give 'em a Jaguar, they start clamoring for schematics! Want to scare your average bassist? Show him a mini-toggle switch!

5. No "trademark" Sound – (Really? I have yet to find a bass that can match my 82 SB-1 in sound, or my L-1000s. I am very happy with these basses and don't dislike but don't need the other follow the crowd sounds) Read any of the threads here, people want "P-Bass thump", "J honk", "Rick clang", "Warwick growl". When was the last time you heard someone ask for a "G&L sound"? IS there even a "G&L sound"? Which leads us to...

6. Too Versatile – (huh? why post this) What people don't seem to want is true versatility. Don't believe me? Do a forum search for Wal basses, like I did last night – all you'll read are a bunch of complaints from people who couldn't instantly "dial in their tone". From what I've witnessed, 99% of bassists don't want to have to experiment to get a sound that suits them (aka: P, J, 'Ray).

7. Unorthodox Colors – (sunburst, tobacco burst, powder blue, trans green, olympic white, black, yeah, trans red, really off the wall stuff, and yeah did have a LPB SB-1, very nice but sold it) If G&L offered more traditional colors (Candy Apple Red, Lake Placid Blue), I have no doubt they'd sell more instruments. People like tradition.

8. Lack of B&M Vendors – ( a legitimate complaint, however, I haven't had a problem finding any, there is the internet, and sure enought, all the ones I bought without playing, great players, luck maybe. Dealers near me like the follow the crowd brands and don't want to take chances with the suckie economy) I like to try a bass out before I buy it. There aren't enough G&Ls in STORES.

9. Lack of Celebrity "star" Players (yeah, Dee Murray from Elton John is not a very celeb bass player) – no Jaco, no Entwistle, no Geddy. Granted, this is a really STUPID reason, but no one can deny it's veracity – no McCartney = no Hofner. People buy what their idols play. If Flea/Claypool/Fieldy started using G&Ls exclusively, G&Ls would start flying off the shelves.

10. Carrots. (the fact that G&L isn't mainstream is OK with me, I love it when folks ask what is that bass it sounds awesome. My P bass is not that bass, although it sounds pretty good)

Anyway, these are my honest thoughts – no offense intended to the faithful. And I'm no hater, either – I'd really like to try an L-2500 (the headstock doohickey looks much better on a 3+2, IMO).

I'd probably have bought one, had I been able to actually try one first.

(Honestly, I would not have tried one either, but a dealer near me in the early 80s sold me one of the 1st SB-1s, and a 81 L2K, and wow. I liked going a different direction, and these basses were hot. I since have found nothing like them. I own many G&L basses, and think there are many other great basses too.)

 

[Rockmusician]

The name. Nothing wrong with the instruments, they just don't have the brand power that some bigger names have.

I disagree with your comment about the name. The company was started by George and Leo Fender. Fender is the most well known name in musical instruments. The real reason is marketing and the fact that in the beginning, they were pricing themselves lower than Fender. Now, they have raised their prices and are more in line with new Fenders. Many people look at G & L as nothing more than glorified Fender copies and figure for the price, thay can get a genuine Fender. It all comes down to marketing. If you convince people that your products are better and that they need it, they will buy it.

 

[chadhargis]

Actually that was George Fullerton and Leo Fender. They used the first letter of their first names since Leo was prohibited from marketing anything using his last name after he sold Fender. Hence, G&L.

I've never understood why anyone considers how a bass looks. I've never heard anyone ever say, "Wow, that band really sucked...they sounded fantastic, but MY GAWD, the bass players bass was hideously ugly. We'll never book them again."

I think the reason G&L isn't more popular isn't due to anything G&L can control. I think it's due to the fact that there are so many copy cat players out there. They want to sound like Geddy Lee, Jaco, Jamerson, etc. They feel like they need to play the same brand and type of bass as the "masters" to get the same tone or to be true to the genre.

For those folks that spend any time in studios, you will probably see that the famous name players don't always play the same bass on the recording that they play on stage. Session players also play a plethora of instruments. I'd venture to guess that we've all heard a G&L lay down a great bass line, but didn't know it was a G&L.

 

[M.R. Ogle]

Okay, who's gonna forward this entire thread over to BBE so they can read it?
There's a $$$ worth of good niche-market insight to be learned here if they care enough to read through all of this.

 

[Joebone]

We may have heard G&L's but thought they were Fenders. Dave Pomeroy, a leading Nashville studio bassist for many many years, has long championed fretted and fretless L-2000's. and perhaps the L-2500 as well.

 

[MtManiac]

This is the thread I was trying to find and from that originally posted by Keef, this list:

TOP TEN REASONS G&Ls AREN'T MORE POPULAR

(donning flame-retardant suit)

1. Lack of a Unique, Original Design – a Rick is instantly recognizable from across the room, as is a P, a Jazz, a Stingray, a Steinberger, a Thunderbird, a Wal, a Status, a Hofner, a Burns, a Mosrite, a Danelectro, a Spector, a Corvette, etc, etc. When I see a G&L from a distance, my first thought is "what is that... a Carvin..? A G&L..? A Washburn..? A Dean? A Stingray without a pickguard? A... ???" G&L's most instantly-recognizable, distinctive body style is the ASAT... a TELECASTER GUITAR COPY! All of the other G&Ls lack a unique style – they're just kinda... there. To my eye, they're just, well... generic. And dare I say it..? Carvin-y.
2. Brand Recognition – I think it would have been of great help to G&L if they had chosen one headstock shape, and stuck with it. Brand recognition matters (and I'm sorry, but that pointy little doohickey on the headstock is so blatantly the quickest, laziest, least-inspired way to get around copyright infringement – MusicMan did the Fender headstock copyright-dodge better.... Lakland did it better... Sadowsky did it better... cripes, RONDO/SX did it better!).

3. Weight – All the G&Ls I played (many years ago) were absolute boat anchors – maybe they've changed (?), but bad impressions (and back pains) last a long time.

4. Too Complex – Most basses (at least the ones that sell in the zillions of units) have Volume/Tone or Volume/Volume/Tone. Even the classic active Stingray established itself with only three knobs. Start putting mini-toggle switches on a bass, and people get confused and intimidated – it's sad, but true – even a cursory glance at the forum reveals this. Give 'em a Jaguar, they start clamoring for schematics! Want to scare your average bassist? Show him a mini-toggle switch!

5. No "trademark" Sound – Read any of the threads here, people want "P-Bass thump", "J honk", "Rick clang", "Warwick growl". When was the last time you heard someone ask for a "G&L sound"? IS there even a "G&L sound"? Which leads us to...

6. Too Versatile – What people don't seem to want is true versatility. Don't believe me? Do a forum search for Wal basses, like I did last night – all you'll read are a bunch of complaints from people who couldn't instantly "dial in their tone". From what I've witnessed, 99% of bassists don't want to have to experiment to get a sound that suits them (aka: P, J, 'Ray).

7. Unorthodox Colors – If G&L offered more traditional colors (Candy Apple Red, Lake Placid Blue), I have no doubt they'd sell more instruments. People like tradition.

8. Lack of B&M Vendors – I like to try a bass out before I buy it. There aren't enough G&Ls in STORES.

9. Lack of Celebrity "star" Players – no Jaco, no Entwistle, no Geddy. Granted, this is a really STUPID reason, but no one can deny it's veracity – no McCartney = no Hofner. People buy what their idols play. If Flea/Claypool/Fieldy started using G&Ls exclusively, G&Ls would start flying off the shelves.

10. Carrots.

Anyway, these are my honest thoughts – no offense intended to the faithful. And I'm no hater, either – I'd really like to try an L-2500 (the headstock doohickey looks much better on a 3+2, IMO).

I'd probably have bought one, had I been able to actually try one first.

I agree with all of this, and also the name - G&L - it doesn't evoke an image in the mind of someone who knows nothing abut them.

They may have the best bass & guitar technology ever, but if their marketing sucks (which includes their sales and distribution channel) no one will buy.

Same as any industry - think of all the companies with great products who just couldn't compete with Microsoft, despite their having universally inferior products, and many of those MS competitors are now defunct. eg. Banyan, Novell, Corel, Sun Microsystems, even Apple for a while until the iPod gave them new life.

 

[Burlington]

I hope they don't change. Well, a few things I would like to see would be a L-1500 Tribute and a 5 string Jazz.