Gibson try again for the nth time

[Twincam]

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1476364700' post='3153669']


Really? Only the Classic-IV PRO is anywhere near close to the [i][b]current[/b][/i] Gibson version of the Thunderbird, the others are all different construction (bolt-on necks) and different woods, hardware and electronics. Even then the current Gibson Thunderbird has little in common with the original from the 60s other than the basic shape.
[/quote]

Yeah that's what I said the Classic version. And I know the others are not.

[Clint]

I love Gibson Basses and never understand why people complain about them... i usually find its people that haven't tried them and in the end its horses for courses! That said, I draw the line with the new EB 2017.... I saw one a few days ago hanging next to a Tobais and apart from the head stock they were identical! Not impressed.

I like to see them reissue the Les Paul Signature bass along with The Ripper/Grabbers and work with them. They are too quick to stop producing models.

[prowla]

The Thunderbird is a cool bass.
The EB ones were elevated because a couple of decent musicians had them.
Did they do an Explorer bass, or was that only Hamer & suchlike?
Grabbers, Rippers, etc. are not things I would aspire to.
The LP is one of the world's defining guitars, but as a bass it just doesn't work.
I'm sure they could come up with something decent if they wanted to, but the ones above look like their Asian suppliers got some of the parts mixed up and they had to assemble them anyway to meed a deadline.

[prowla]

And another thing: the 5-string basses with a 4+1 headstock - why do companies do that?

[stingrayPete1977]

Saves reaching so far for the G tuner, reduces the string length beyond the nut considerably and often makes for a straight string lye from the nut to the machine head, also it allows for a standard length hard case. There's 4 reasons for a start

[Sibob]

[quote name='prowla' timestamp='1487526769' post='3240468']
And another thing: the 5-string basses with a 4+1 headstock - why do companies do that?
[/quote]

I much prefer 4-1 to 5 in a row

Si

[prowla]

[quote name='Sibob' timestamp='1487530232' post='3240512']
I much prefer 4-1 to 5 in a row

Si
[/quote]
Well, perhaps, especially since my arms aren't that long!

But it just looks like the 5th string is a lazy afterthought, like they went "We'll just put the extra on the other side on it's own; nobody'll mind!"; 3+2 is more balanced.

[dmccombe7]

Have to say i kinda like that Gibson bass and if priced circa £800 i'd certainly give it a try if looking at basses in that style.
You could say there were better basses with same shape but then again why do people by Fenders when there are so many other "better" basses of that shape.
The Gibson name is still a good selling point.

Of course if it fealt like a plank of wood and sounded crap then that's a different story.
On looks alone i would certainly put it on my list of maybe's and one worth a try.

Dave

[stingrayPete1977]

The other reason some basses have 4+1 is that Musicman forgot to copyright 4+1 unlike 3+1

[Painy]

Am I the only person that actually likes the look of a 4+1 headstock?

[URL=http://s38.photobucket.com/user/Richard_Pain/media/Mobile%20Uploads/IMAG0590_1_zps4y1nxrac.jpg.html][IMG]http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e113/Richard_Pain/Mobile%20Uploads/IMAG0590_1_zps4y1nxrac.jpg[/IMG][/URL]

Does depend on the style of headstock though.
3+2 obviously looks better on more symmetrical headstocks like Warwick, Spector and Ibanez SR etc. but I've seen a couple of Maruszczyk basses with more of a Fender style headstock in a 3+2 and to my eyes it just looked weird.
Maybe it's just me though .

[Woodinblack]

I specifically asked for my Maruszczyk in 3+2, as 4+1 looks really ugly to my eyes, like an afterthought and they suddenly remembered they needed another tuner.

[stingrayPete1977]

[quote name='Painy' timestamp='1487539187' post='3240664']
Am I the only person that actually likes the look of a 4+1 headstock?

[URL=http://s38.photobucket.com/user/Richard_Pain/media/Mobile%20Uploads/IMAG0590_1_zps4y1nxrac.jpg.html][IMG]http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e113/Richard_Pain/Mobile%20Uploads/IMAG0590_1_zps4y1nxrac.jpg[/IMG][/URL]

Does depend on the style of headstock though.
3+2 obviously looks better on more symmetrical headstocks like Warwick, Spector and Ibanez SR etc. but I've seen a couple of Maruszczyk basses with more of a Fender style headstock in a 3+2 and to my eyes it just looked weird.
Maybe it's just me though .
[/quote]

[URL=http://s997.photobucket.com/user/stingraypete/media/Mobile%20Uploads/2014-11/20141102_103353_zpsagwfsjcd.jpg.html][IMG]http://i997.photobucket.com/albums/af100/stingraypete/Mobile%20Uploads/2014-11/20141102_103353_zpsagwfsjcd.jpg[/IMG][/URL]

Put it there brother

[Painy]

[URL=http://s38.photobucket.com/user/Richard_Pain/media/stuff/FB_IMG_1487106883311_zpsbiwsjuii.jpg.html][IMG]http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e113/Richard_Pain/stuff/FB_IMG_1487106883311_zpsbiwsjuii.jpg[/IMG][/URL]

[scrumpymike]

As someone who gigged Gibson basses for decades, what really does my head in about the current generation of Gibson management is that they've inherited an iconic brand and pissed it up against a wall (at least the bass side of things). In business terms, that's a very clumsy thing to do and as an ex-marketing guy I find it completely unfathomable. They've squandered a heritage that most companies could only dream of.

[chris_b]

I don't know. Fender get slagged off for sticking with the same 4 designs and Gibson get slagged off for coming up with something different.

If these basses sounded good enough I'd play one.

Hanging around my neck they wouldn't look generic, boring, horrid, zzzzzzzzz or weird. I've got enough of that to spare whatever bass I'm playing.

[prowla]

[quote name='chris_b' timestamp='1487547191' post='3240735']
I don't know. Fender get slagged off for sticking with the same 4 designs and Gibson get slagged off for coming up with something different.

If these basses sounded good enough I'd play one.

Hanging around my neck they wouldn't look generic, boring, horrid, zzzzzzzzz or weird. I've got enough of that to spare whatever bass I'm playing.
[/quote]
The issue with these new Gibbos is that they look a bit generic; I'm sure they could come up with a good design if they really wanted to.
I mean, if they didn't have "Gibson" on them, would anybody have given them a second look?

Edited February 20, 2017 by prowla

[markdavid]

I think these look kind of generic, I think what Gibson should do instead of cranking out these uninspired looking designs is to introduce more affordable versions of there more traditional offerings (epiphone doesnt count) as these are the designs that people seem to like but the price range of these puts them out of a lot of peoples budget, for example last time I checked a Gibson Thunderbird was around the 1.6k price range, for that reason it is unlikely that i will ever own one but if there was a version that they made that was around the £800 mark then I could very well justify owning one

[neepheid]

Fallow years ahead for Gibson bass fans. You get spells like this sometimes - they've been in a monumental bass huff since the relatively productive 2014 resulted in a massive "so what?" from the world's bass players for the nth time.

[chris_b]

[quote name='prowla' timestamp='1487575984' post='3240775']
The issue with these new Gibbos is that they look a bit generic;
[/quote]

I would imagine the first instruction to the designers was, "This can't look anything like a Fender". That's one hand tied behind their backs right there. The next was probably, "This can't look like anything we already designed". That's the other hand tied! The designers were probably pointed in the direction of "safe". This is a first step in a comeback for Gibson. The next bass will probably be a better one.

I'm no Gibson fan and my instructions to the designers would have been, "Take the most popular bass we have ever made and come up with a great version 2". It's a first step, but this design makes me think that Gibson are competing with Asian made basses in the US. I would expect Americans to lap them up. That looks like a good starting point for Gibson, but what do I know.

Both Fender and Gibson have been (and maybe still are) on the verge of bankruptcy so have to make big moves to stay in business. Neither seem to have been very bold or adventurous with their new models, but if these basses play well and sound good then people will accept the looks. GAK have them in stock for £844. That's not a bad price for a USA made instrument, and the deluxe version will probably make more people happy.

[LewisK1975]

I actually think the 2017 EB bass looks good, and it certainly has a decent spec. I guess it's really quite difficult for Gibson in the Bass market, Fender have essentially flooded the market over the years with their price ranges through from Squier affinity to Custom shop, all for what's visually the same design. Which means, pretty much anyone can have a Bass which[i] looks like [/i]the one their hero uses.

I mean, from a distance, who could really tell a Black/rosewood Squier Precision from a Black/rosewood custom shop Fender, especially if they covered the headstock?

YMMV!

[stingrayPete1977]

A lot of people say brands like Gibson and Ricky should do what fender have with the Squier ranges yet Fender are so in debt that it's amazing they are still in production at all.

[markdavid]

[quote name='stingrayPete1977' timestamp='1487596089' post='3240997']
A lot of people say brands like Gibson and Ricky should do what fender have with the Squier ranges yet Fender are so in debt that it's amazing they are still in production at all.
[/quote] Wow I had no idea Fender were so much in debt, seems strange considering how popular their products are , literally everyone I know that plays bass or guitar has a Fender, knowing this I am glad that the majority of my bass purchases have been Fender made (basses,strings,straps) , I may not be the biggest spender but it is nice to know that I have supported them in some way however small

[LewisK1975]

[quote name='markdavid' timestamp='1487597779' post='3241020']
Wow I had no idea Fender were so much in debt, seems strange considering how popular their products are , literally everyone I know that plays bass or guitar has a Fender, knowing this I am glad that the majority of my bass purchases have been Fender made (basses,strings,straps) , I may not be the biggest spender but it is nice to know that I have supported them in some way however small
[/quote]

Yep, wholeheartedly agree with this. Fender have their haters, and like all manufacturing companies, have had their problems, but I think we'd all be sorry to see them gone.

[BigRedX]

[quote name='markdavid' timestamp='1487597779' post='3241020']
Wow I had no idea Fender were so much in debt, seems strange considering how popular their products are , literally everyone I know that plays bass or guitar has a Fender, knowing this I am glad that the majority of my bass purchases have been Fender made (basses,strings,straps) , I may not be the biggest spender but it is nice to know that I have supported them in some way however small
[/quote]

But looking at it another way, it could be said that you purchases have helped them to buy up and run down far more interesting competing brands such as SWR and Genz-Benz...

[prowla]

[quote name='chris_b' timestamp='1487587609' post='3240874']
I would imagine the first instruction to the designers was, "This can't look anything like a Fender". That's one hand tied behind their backs right there. The next was probably, "This can't look like anything we already designed". That's the other hand tied! The designers were probably pointed in the direction of "safe". This is a first step in a comeback for Gibson. The next bass will probably be a better one.

I'm no Gibson fan and my instructions to the designers would have been, "Take the most popular bass we have ever made and come up with a great version 2". It's a first step, but this design makes me think that Gibson are competing with Asian made basses in the US. I would expect Americans to lap them up. That looks like a good starting point for Gibson, but what do I know.

Both Fender and Gibson have been (and maybe still are) on the verge of bankruptcy so have to make big moves to stay in business. Neither seem to have been very bold or adventurous with their new models, but if these basses play well and sound good then people will accept the looks. GAK have them in stock for £844. That's not a bad price for a USA made instrument, and the deluxe version will probably make more people happy.
[/quote]
I just have to believe that they could have drawn on their heritage and come up with something classy and new, but which is also identifiable as their brand.

Instead what they've done is plonk a couple of mismatched parts together and produce something which looks like a T-bird neck on a Peavey bass body with tweaked Music Man pickups.

They might turn out to be decent quality, but I doubt that those models will turn out to be on many people's wish lists.