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.
Why didn't Gibson and Epi basses catch on?
- Thread starter caden000
- Start date
Thank you. Yes, its an LP. The nice thing about Gibson's not being as popular is that you can pick up a vintage one for a fraction of the price of a vintage Fender. Quality control has been a problem of theirs for decades, IMO. That being said, 60's models seem to be tight, super light and are not too expensive. Like others stated, the pickup position affected sound and looks....both negatively IMO, but I loved the look and feel of the short scale so I modified it. To each his own.
I used to own a Gibson RD Artist and though it sounded wonderful it was staggeringly weight. The left side of my neck to this day is more developed than the right and that was 30 years ago. I played a Gibson T-bird in a GC and it was heavy, I didn't like the feel of the neck and it had poor balance. Later, I purchased a Epi non-reverse T-bird which I really loved the "look" of but, again in the end I sold it because the playability poor and it had neck drive.
I'm open to Gibson if they ever want to put out a bass that combines ergomonics, sound and affordable price.
I'm open to Gibson if they ever want to put out a bass that combines ergomonics, sound and affordable price.
IME the T-Bird is a pathetically inadequate design-prone to neck dive because of the upper strap button position, with worse than bad upper fret access (if you're gonna put frets there, they oughtta be reachable, duh)-but it sure looks cool. I'm gonna open myself up for a flaming here, but although many rockers play them, I have never seen a player who I would call a real master of the unstrument use one.....not even once. IMHO of course.
- Nov 8, 2010
- 1,391
- 9
- Disclosures
- Unofficial Endorser: Ibanez, D'Addario, Zoom
I had an LP bass for a while and the unique or shock value is there, it is a very cool looking bass which I think most Gibson's are but they are just better guitar makers and for the price you can get much better bass instruments.
I completely agree with Entwistle, and I fully acknowledge great music can be made with that design, I just feel that is has made obvious ergonomic sacrifices in the name of form.
Yes, but John even cut off (or unbolted) the T-bird neck to make his crazy-cool "FenderBirds."
This is a timely discussion; I just picked up an Epi Goth T-bird last night. Nothing broken, nothing damaged, works fine.
I've had bad GAS for a T-bird for a while. Unplugged, it sounds phenomenal, rings out loudly in a way my alder MIM P Bass doesnt (as if unplugged means all that much). Plugged in, it has all the muddy tonal characteristics I've been warned about. No definition, controls that don't seem to drastically effect tone, etc. Neck dive (moved the strap button, solved it), a chunky neck that doesn't seem as comfortable, and that matte finish is meh.
But, it definitely is deep and booming. This saturday I'll get to see how it sounds "in the mix," though I'm not optimistic. Glad I didn't pay much for it; I can almost recoup my losses if I sell it elsewhere.
I've had bad GAS for a T-bird for a while. Unplugged, it sounds phenomenal, rings out loudly in a way my alder MIM P Bass doesnt (as if unplugged means all that much). Plugged in, it has all the muddy tonal characteristics I've been warned about. No definition, controls that don't seem to drastically effect tone, etc. Neck dive (moved the strap button, solved it), a chunky neck that doesn't seem as comfortable, and that matte finish is meh.
But, it definitely is deep and booming. This saturday I'll get to see how it sounds "in the mix," though I'm not optimistic. Glad I didn't pay much for it; I can almost recoup my losses if I sell it elsewhere.
I think tone is the other significant factor beside neck dive, price and neck feel (I actually don't mind the necks, personally).
With the PA systems and bass amps of the 60's, the last thing you needed was a mudbucker, especially if it was on a short-scale bass. Plug an EBO into an older low-wattage tube amp and a 2*15, and all you get is mush. Back then, boom was easy to find, but clarity was harder- cutting through a wall of loud guitar amps was a bitch, and Fenders edged Gibson big-time on the clarity stakes.
Now that the majority of bassists play through solid-state or hybrid amps and small-driver cabs with lots of "zing", I've noticed that Gibsons are undergoing something of a resurgence...
With the PA systems and bass amps of the 60's, the last thing you needed was a mudbucker, especially if it was on a short-scale bass. Plug an EBO into an older low-wattage tube amp and a 2*15, and all you get is mush. Back then, boom was easy to find, but clarity was harder- cutting through a wall of loud guitar amps was a bitch, and Fenders edged Gibson big-time on the clarity stakes.
Now that the majority of bassists play through solid-state or hybrid amps and small-driver cabs with lots of "zing", I've noticed that Gibsons are undergoing something of a resurgence...
My second bass was a Gibson and I have owned dozens more since then.
Since 1973 I have never been without a Gibson or an Epiphone bass. In fact I can't think of a single model I haven't owned. I love Gibson basses. Well... most of them. There were a few dogs in the family. But even though I have a Gibson heart I still see the problems with them. And even though I have always owned a Gibson or Epiphone I have also always owned something else right along side them.
I've owned over 100 basses in my lifetime (I'm 55) and the most basses I ever owned at once was around 2 dozen. At that time only about 5 to 7 were Gibson products.
Right now I own 1 Epiphone, 2 Fenders, 1 Wilson Brothers & 1, Gretsch.
Of the top of my aging bald head I can think of several reasons that Fender surpassed Gibson in the bass world.
#1 Gibson didn't offer a long scale bass until the Thunderbird. And in the 1960s, the Thunderbird was just too radical for it's time. Bassists, most of who were used to playing upright, prefered the timbre of the longer scale. An interesting note; Fender started with 34" scale basses and later introduced 30" models. Gibson started with 30" models and later added 34" scale instruments.
#2 Gibsons were much higher priced than Fenders. Except for their their POS Kalimazoo line but then it competed with the Fender Musicmaster Bass. By then Fender had the name and the market position. And while the Musicmaster sounded just as bad as the Kali's it played better. Both were short scale.
#3 Until the early 1970s Gibson offered dealers "protection". Which meant that they would usually only allow one dealer in a market (city) to be an authorized dealer. Later when Ginson bought Epiphone (1956) they also only allowed one deal in each market. In major metropolitans you'd have one Gibson dealer and one Epiphone dealer. In smaller cities the Gibson dealer became the Epiphone dealer.
For example I grew up in Louisville, KY and Durlauf's was the ONLY Gibson/Epiphone dealer in the entire county. While you could buy a Fender from Durlauf's, Music Center (3 locations), Kay's Music and IIRC Shackelton's (2 locations) So you could go to ONE store and buy a Gibson or Epiphone or go to one of at least SEVEN stores to get a Fender.
#4 Gibson was a GUITAR, BANJO and MANDOLIN company that just happened to make basses. Fender was a company that made Guitars, Basses and Amplifiers. In fact the only reason that Gibson bought Epiphone was to acquire their tooling to build acoustic basses. (Gibson's bass tooling was damaged/lost during WWII).
#5 The predominance of Fender basses used in recording by bands such as the Ventures, the Chantays, the Beach Boys etc, as well as the "Motown Sound" changed the style of music. And the Gibson sound just didn't cut through the mix.
Gibson was very old school. They wanted their electric basses to sound like acoustic basses. Their first bass, the EB-1 not only was violin shaped but it came with a long detachable endpeg so it could be played standing up.
#6 Gibson has never been "devoted" to their basses. They introduce a model, produce it for just a few years and then drop it without warning. Only to reintroduce something else later on. They seldom give a model a chance to really catch on. Hells BellesTM it took from 1966 until 1976 for the (reverse) Thunderbird to catch on. (thoise were the years they didn't make any). When they reintroduced then ibn 1976 they were still slow sellers. But then again the Firedird, Explorer, and Flying V were considered failures too. The Firebird/Thunderbird was just considered to be less of a failure. Now look at them. They are as common as slutty cheerleaders.
Leo Fender threw himself headlong into basses and continued to develop and refine them. When he designed a bass he stuck with it. He never lost his passion for them. One of the last things Leo designed before CBS took over was the Mustang Bass. A short scale bass that played like a Gibson but still sounded like a Fender.
After he left Fender he designed the original Music man basses and then came G&L, and he was STILL creating new basses.
#6 Fender made great bass amplifiers to compliment their electric basses. Gibson produced some amps but after the early 1960s they lost some steam and became rather cavilier in their thinking about amps. Like their basses they'd make a model for a short while and then drop it. One HUGE mistake was swiching from Tube to Solid State. No one wanted them because they just didn't sound quite right. (Anyone remember the big Les Paul Amp? With a huge cabinet with 4 12s and two horns, sorta like the Suoer Beatle, except the Les Paul had a head that was just a preamp and the power amp was in that big heavy 4x12 cab.) The problem was they put all their eggs in one basket and stopped producing their tube amps. When Fender introduced their Zodiac solid state line around 1966/67 they at least had the good sense to NOT discontinue their tube models.
There are actually a few more reasons but the above are the main ones.
Since 1973 I have never been without a Gibson or an Epiphone bass. In fact I can't think of a single model I haven't owned. I love Gibson basses. Well... most of them. There were a few dogs in the family. But even though I have a Gibson heart I still see the problems with them. And even though I have always owned a Gibson or Epiphone I have also always owned something else right along side them.
I've owned over 100 basses in my lifetime (I'm 55) and the most basses I ever owned at once was around 2 dozen. At that time only about 5 to 7 were Gibson products.
Right now I own 1 Epiphone, 2 Fenders, 1 Wilson Brothers & 1, Gretsch.
Of the top of my aging bald head I can think of several reasons that Fender surpassed Gibson in the bass world.
#1 Gibson didn't offer a long scale bass until the Thunderbird. And in the 1960s, the Thunderbird was just too radical for it's time. Bassists, most of who were used to playing upright, prefered the timbre of the longer scale. An interesting note; Fender started with 34" scale basses and later introduced 30" models. Gibson started with 30" models and later added 34" scale instruments.
#2 Gibsons were much higher priced than Fenders. Except for their their POS Kalimazoo line but then it competed with the Fender Musicmaster Bass. By then Fender had the name and the market position. And while the Musicmaster sounded just as bad as the Kali's it played better. Both were short scale.
#3 Until the early 1970s Gibson offered dealers "protection". Which meant that they would usually only allow one dealer in a market (city) to be an authorized dealer. Later when Ginson bought Epiphone (1956) they also only allowed one deal in each market. In major metropolitans you'd have one Gibson dealer and one Epiphone dealer. In smaller cities the Gibson dealer became the Epiphone dealer.
For example I grew up in Louisville, KY and Durlauf's was the ONLY Gibson/Epiphone dealer in the entire county. While you could buy a Fender from Durlauf's, Music Center (3 locations), Kay's Music and IIRC Shackelton's (2 locations) So you could go to ONE store and buy a Gibson or Epiphone or go to one of at least SEVEN stores to get a Fender.
#4 Gibson was a GUITAR, BANJO and MANDOLIN company that just happened to make basses. Fender was a company that made Guitars, Basses and Amplifiers. In fact the only reason that Gibson bought Epiphone was to acquire their tooling to build acoustic basses. (Gibson's bass tooling was damaged/lost during WWII).
#5 The predominance of Fender basses used in recording by bands such as the Ventures, the Chantays, the Beach Boys etc, as well as the "Motown Sound" changed the style of music. And the Gibson sound just didn't cut through the mix.
Gibson was very old school. They wanted their electric basses to sound like acoustic basses. Their first bass, the EB-1 not only was violin shaped but it came with a long detachable endpeg so it could be played standing up.
#6 Gibson has never been "devoted" to their basses. They introduce a model, produce it for just a few years and then drop it without warning. Only to reintroduce something else later on. They seldom give a model a chance to really catch on. Hells BellesTM it took from 1966 until 1976 for the (reverse) Thunderbird to catch on. (thoise were the years they didn't make any). When they reintroduced then ibn 1976 they were still slow sellers. But then again the Firedird, Explorer, and Flying V were considered failures too. The Firebird/Thunderbird was just considered to be less of a failure. Now look at them. They are as common as slutty cheerleaders.
Leo Fender threw himself headlong into basses and continued to develop and refine them. When he designed a bass he stuck with it. He never lost his passion for them. One of the last things Leo designed before CBS took over was the Mustang Bass. A short scale bass that played like a Gibson but still sounded like a Fender.
After he left Fender he designed the original Music man basses and then came G&L, and he was STILL creating new basses.
#6 Fender made great bass amplifiers to compliment their electric basses. Gibson produced some amps but after the early 1960s they lost some steam and became rather cavilier in their thinking about amps. Like their basses they'd make a model for a short while and then drop it. One HUGE mistake was swiching from Tube to Solid State. No one wanted them because they just didn't sound quite right. (Anyone remember the big Les Paul Amp? With a huge cabinet with 4 12s and two horns, sorta like the Suoer Beatle, except the Les Paul had a head that was just a preamp and the power amp was in that big heavy 4x12 cab.) The problem was they put all their eggs in one basket and stopped producing their tube amps. When Fender introduced their Zodiac solid state line around 1966/67 they at least had the good sense to NOT discontinue their tube models.
There are actually a few more reasons but the above are the main ones.
Two of my all time favorite basses were;
#1) my 1976 Bicentennial Thunderbird that my father bought me right before he passes away. It played even better than my '64. Both of those sound MUCH better than today's T-Birds.
#2 my 1980 RD Artist Bass. T-Bird vibe with much better tonal variations.
Sadly both of the above were stolen at the same time.
I also liked my L9S Ripper. But the finish on the maple fretboard was so thin that I word through it in less than a year.
#1) my 1976 Bicentennial Thunderbird that my father bought me right before he passes away. It played even better than my '64. Both of those sound MUCH better than today's T-Birds.
#2 my 1980 RD Artist Bass. T-Bird vibe with much better tonal variations.
Sadly both of the above were stolen at the same time.
I also liked my L9S Ripper. But the finish on the maple fretboard was so thin that I word through it in less than a year.
Aren't you going against the club?...you know it's supposed to be crappy bassist with expensive gear, not crappy bassist with crappy gear! ha ha! that's MY club..jk, hope it works out better so ya don't have to sell it. The pots do kinda suck IMO as there is a very fine line between getting outta the mud & getting the horrible wet fart sound. Out of the box, the Goth sounded "growlier" than my ebony IV. After mulling it over for a month (as to which one was gonna get flats), I flipped a coin & strung the Goth with Chromes. It did tame the muddiness somewhat and helped increase what little control over the tone one does have. I'm not much of a pick player, but recently detuned the Goth & played with a pick...seemed like it was a completely different creature. Yeah & meh to the satin finish, although I've had a lot of compliments from the ladies on how "sweet" my bass looked...guess they don't care how it sounds ha ha!
As far as what this thread is about, I think Fender and Gibson have done a pretty good job covering the basses for the masses for decades with Gibson just choosing a different strategy, maybe less "cookie cutter" and more "unique" designs & sound....just my opinion.
I've heard so many horror stories about that 3 bolt bridge I doubt I would even consider owning one. It just looks poorly designed. However I don't think I would shy away from the Epi Pro IV. I also owned a Epi Viola that I wish I had back. i sold it to fund a 6 string Ibanez bass. Turns out I don't like 6 string basses and I suck at playing them. That Viola was better than any Hofner I've ever tried.
Oh yeah, the fact that Fender took basses seriously and created bass amps to go with their shiny basses, I had forgotten about that. That's definitely a huge factor as well.
Anyway, I like the Epi Viola a lot, but that's a Hofner copy, so Gibson gets no credit.
Anyway, I like the Epi Viola a lot, but that's a Hofner copy, so Gibson gets no credit.
Hahaha! I wish I was a crappy player with crappy gear. Then I wouldn't feel so guilty!
I put on some of my favorite nickle DR's last night (E string 110). The strings on there were turning graphite colored, so it helped a bit with the sound. I haven't tried downtuning yet, but I will given that it's something I could keep it for, if it sounds good. Maybe it'll sound good with the bass big muff...
