1. Please take 30 seconds to register your free account to remove most ads, post topics, make friends, earn reward points at our store, and more!  
    TalkBass.com has been uniting the low end since 1998.  Join us! :)

why not a G&L bass instead of stingray???????

Discussion in 'Basses [BG]' started by rooster, Dec 14, 2000.

  1. rooster


    Jun 10, 2000
    upstate new york
    just a thought !!!!

    iv'e read alot of posts.does anybody like G&L basses or are they just not played.i have a stingray anniversary model i thought it was the most kick ass bass there was then i tried a G&L asat bass wow !!!what diversity but this thing is heavy.its swamp ash and its one big hunk of wood.i hear people talking on hear about the jazz /stingray and many other basses.but this bass to me seems to be able to sound like many of these basses people are talking about.why are they overlooked or is it just me.

    remember as always--rock till ya drop.
  2. They're not overlooked by me! I own three, although I favour the L-2000 over the ASAT (same electronics, different body). The L series basses are extremely versatile and like all G&L's are made really well.

    I use an SB-2 for classic passive Fender type tones while I use my L-2000 and L-2500 for the times I need a bit more versatility.

    IMO they are the pinnacle of Leo Fender's work and do deserve more attention.
  3. barroso


    Aug 16, 2000
    i fear that is the same old story. marketing drives our society and the most used and respected basses are the ones with more advertisment pages and the ones you could find in the shops. so every guy knows ibanez or musicman but ignore rickenbacker or G&L. you could find musicman everywhere and not the same we can say about G&L. nothing against musicman, but i prefer G&L and i'm planning to buy a sb1 or a lb 100 to have the old precision tone. and G&L is a lot cheaper than musicman!
  4. brianrost

    brianrost Gold Supporting Member

    Apr 26, 2000
    Boston, Taxachusetts
    I own an L-2500 and used to own an L-1000.

    To me G&L was just the next step in Leo Fender's bass evolution. I felt the pickups and bridge were distinct improvements and the ability to have 2-band PASSIVE tone controls was a work of genius as far as I'm concerned.

    The StingRay was not always revered as it is today, in the mid eighties ten years after it was introduced you couldn't give them away. Then along came Flea and Ernie Ball's marketing forces.

    Better yet, ask why any one still buys Fenders when both the MusicMan and G&L designs were "improvements". Answer: because some peple like them.
  5. I owned a beautiful sunburst ASAT bass for about 6 months, but sold it because I didn't love the electronics. YES, it was an exceptionally versatile bass, and if one were banished to a desert island with just one bass (shudder!), the G&L would be tough to beat. However, its Stingray sound wasn't EXACTLY a Stingray sound, its P-bass sound wasn't EXACTLY a P-bass sound, etc. . . so as a "for fun" player, I generally found myself reaching for my actual Fender, for example, when I wanted that sound.

    Also, I always thought its pickups were far too "hot" -- much louder that those in any other bass I've ever owned.

    Still, if you play a variety of gigs and only want to carry one bass, the G&L would probably have to beat out the Stingray.
  6. craigb

    craigb G&L churnmeister Supporting Member

    Some people like 'em and some don't. Just like anything else.

    There are a number of G&L supporters/promoters here (including me) and I've seen a number of other people who don't like them. They aren't very common so most people haven't had a chance to try one in person. I also haven't seen many "big name" bassists that use G&Ls. Fenders are ubiquitous and Stingrays are very popular. Both Fender and Musicman basses are available at every Guitar Center and lots of mail-order places. G&Ls are a lot harder to come by. My only local dealer had one L-2500 on the wall and that's it.

    I've seen some people call the L-2000/ASAT "characterless" because they don't have a single signature sound. I personally love my L-2000 because I can always find a sound I like regardless of what my ears are doing on any given day. I kind of agree that I don't get "exactly" the signature sounds of other basses but that's OK for me. I get sounds that I like and that's good enough for me.

    The pickups are way hot - in passive mode it's got more signal than some active basses I've had in the past. I've read that some ash-bodied G&Ls can be quite heavy. My alder-bodied L-2000 and maple-bodied (an educated guess at the body wood) SB-1 are not "heavy" basses.

    I owned a Stingray (EB) and an Am Deluxe Fender P and moved on to the L-2000. All three were great basses with solid construction, great feel and good tones. But for my money I like the L-2000 (with standard width neck, not the #6) best.
  7. Brianrost made a good point...... G&L basses are more evolved..... my L-2500 rocks.....I bought mine instead of the stingray because the stingray could only sound like a stingray the G&L has several personalities.......

    .......if you groove it,they will come.........
  8. boogiebass


    Aug 16, 2000
    In general, I prefer my '99 Blueburst L2500 to my '99 'Ray5 but the G&L is considerably heavier (it's only real drawback). Both are great basses, IMO.
  9. I loved the look of my G and L (incredible clear blue color and wonderful piece of swamp ash). However, in series mode, there was TERRIBLE hum, even with normal lighting. Just couldn't stand it. If it wouldn't have had that problem, I'd probably still own it. It was beautiful.

    I loved my StingRay 5 too. Gutsy and ballsy sound that sat great in the mix. I sold it to purchase my one and only bass...an MTD 535, which is amazing. But I still miss the StingRay.

Share This Page