• 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 does everyone hate Gibsons ?

#61
My 2¢:
  1. Due to the lack of horns (or too-short horns) on many models, they balance poorly. Yes, I know there are fixes for this in some cases.
  2. To my eyes, the Grabber/Ripper types are unappealingly tubby-looking. They look like Ping Pong paddles with strings, not sexy at all, IMO. I had a friend who said that he'd had a Grabber previously – he said it sounded great. Well, a 300 lb. soprano sounds great too, but I wouldn't want to go take her home, either.
  3. To my ears, most Gibsons sound muddy.
  4. I had a friend's Thunderbird for a while. Great-LOOKING instrument, I love the look of the 'bird – but: sounded terrible; balanced terribly; I didn't like the lack of individual string height adjustability on the bridge; but worst of all, the nut seemed like it was a mile away. Supporting the neck is one thing, reaching out half way to Kansas to play the first fret at the same time is another thing. Beautiful, I really wanted to like the Thunderbird. Just look at this thing:

    [Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
    [Invalid or Expired Link Removed]---[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]---[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
    PS: I can't stand the ones without the metal pickup covers, they look cheap, IMO. Like a vintage Mustang (automobile) with all the chrome replaced with plastic.
  5. The Les Paul and the SG just look like guitar knock-offs to me. The Paul I don't care for at all (looks great as a guitar, though), the SG looks great but... ugh, most of them are short scales.
  6. Most of the Gibsons I've played have been uncomfortably HEAVY.
  7. I generally prefer a slimmer neck than I've found on most Gibsons.
I'd like to try an RD sometime, never played one of those. Ironically, the Gibson I liked the most was an old EB-2 (the one that looks like an ES-335):

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

Ironically, because it's both a short-scale and arguably the muddiest sounding bass ever produced. But as a one-trick mudslinger, I think it's unparalleled.

~
 
#62
CrapolaRockNRol said:
I checked out the SG RI and wound up with this.
Click to expand...



That my be a Guild,


The newer Gibsons are real nice and the EB-3 shape re issue comes in long and short scale.
I recently played a Les Paul (double cut) bass , long scale, and the neck was just sublime, it was like playing underwater.

I'm a Ric man , but I'd look at one of those before a fender or Fender-a-like ( any of the many many others :ninja: that look just like Fenders)

One thing I will say about Gibson, they have tried to be innovative in design, sure thers problems with that, but they really did hit the money with the Victory, and never produced enough of them to get them popular, they really did out play and out sound any fender at the time.



:hiding:
 
#64
their quality has gone way south if you listen to les paul buyers..
Click to expand...

I dont know anyone who has said that. In fact it's been the opposite. The Les Paul is one of their highest quality basses???

The quality on mine (newer chambered body one) is great
neckview.gif


birdseye.gif
 
#65
Quote:
their quality has gone way south if you listen to les paul buyers..

I dont know anyone who has said that. In fact it's been the opposite. The Les Paul is one of their highest quality basses???

The quality on mine (newer chambered body one) is great
Click to expand...
I suspect a lot of the critics who've posted here haven't tried a Gibson lately and/or haven't had experience with many Gibson models. I'm not knocking anyone with an informed opinion, but when I read a significant number of posts that just spout an opinion, without referring to any particular facts or experiences, I've gotta wonder... ;)
 
#67
the myth of mud doesn't even apply to all mudbucker equipped basses, imo. I'm able to get a well defined sound on my '72 EB-3 using just the mudbucker and I don't have anything special for amplification (decent, yes, but not 'special'). people thought the world was flat even after that myth was dispelled.
 
#68
Barkless Dog said:
You mean most Gibsons with Mudbucker I hope. You never played a G-3, Rd, Ripper, victory, T bird or LP- Those sound muddy to you?????
Click to expand...
I've never played an RD, Victory or Les Paul, and as I said, my friend (whose opinion I trust) said his Grabber sounded terrific. I've only played various "SG" and "335" styled (EB series) basses and a borrowed Thunderbird, all of which, yes, sounded very muddy.

BTW, every non-"mudbucker" clip and photo you posted has a bassist playing with a pick. I'm not a pick player, and as such, I won't get the clarity and attack that a pick player will. I'm sure the Gibsons I played would have probably sounded better with a pick.
 
#71
Chris2112 said:
Why do I hate Gibson basses?

They are hideously ugly.

They play terribly.

The are ridiculously overpriced.

They are poorly made.

They sound absolutely terrible.

I abhor the Gibson brand.
Click to expand...

My God - so much ill-informed prejudice, epitomised by this egregious contribution!

Lighten up, Chris 2112 - opinion is one thing, bilious nonsense of this sort contributes nothing to a sensible debate.
 
#75
Gibson has never made an "icon" bass like the Jazz, Stingray, Precision, Stanley Clarke alembics or Hofner Beetle. A bass that you really identified with a particular sound.

Their early efforts (the EB solids) were mostly produced in short scales which severely limited the recorded sound quality. It's not that they were all bad, it's just that most of the ones you heard were bad.

Gibson has used mahogany for a neck material on many of its bass models. Mahogany while stable enough for shorter scale guitar necks, is not stable enough for a longer scale higher tension bass neck.

The Mahogany necks combined with large headstocks did a lot of tumbling on stages in the 60-70's, the result was almost always a crack were the headstock joined the neck.

Gibson rarely promoted their basses and almost never secured name player endorsement deals for them.

When gibson did produce a good bass, they weren't ascetically pleasing to a wide variety of players. Basses like the Thunderbird, RD Artist, and Ripper fall into this category.

Early gibson basses were well made, but pretty limited to one sound or style and weren't mid-range heavy enough to cut through mixes.

Gibson has made some good basses throughout their history, the Les Paul Recording, Ripper, G-3, EB Hollow bodies, RD Artist, and the Thunderbird all work well for certain situations. But considering their long and storied history, the fact that their basses are just an afterthought or footnote, is an embarrassment. I also feel many bass players resent Gibson's destruction of one of the best bass companies ever Tobias. It's bad enough Gibson's own efforts were mediocre. But to purchase one of the finest custom basses ever and run the company in the ground was inexcusable.
 
#77
I've had 2 Thunderbirds. A 76 and now a 2001. The 76 had SOME neck dive, but nothing I considered a problem. The 01 has NO neck dive at all. It weighs less than every Fender and now Lakland P bass I've ever owned. And neither T-Bird has sounded muddy at all, either with a pick or my fingers.

So far I've never played a muddy Gibson bass, but then I've never tried a 60's EB bass. I've owned a ton of basses from Fenders to Spectors and the Thunderbird is still my favorite. Does that make it the best one in the world? No, but its the one for me.
 
#79
I've owned 3 EB0s, 1 EB3, 1 EB2, 1 EB2D, 3 TBirds, 1 RD Artist, 1 Explorer, 1 Melody Maker, and 1 Grabber. The Mahogony Bodied basses tend to be a bit darker sounding and the pre 70 EB solids with the bucker right on the neck could be downright muddy. Necks ranged from Baseball bat to Very thin. Loved the tone of the EB2s but could be a bit prone to feedback at high volume. The RD Artist with a maple body had a great tone but weighed a TON! TBirtds, Explorer and Artist were nice basses but I didn't care much for the ergonomics, just not that comfotable to play. The grabber was light and sounded great(still don't know why I sold that bass). I really like Gibson Basses I just don't own one at the moment.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back