Ok, ok, you caught me, you ghastly posse! I herewith admit to having bought the second SG-Z, the cherry one, after the first one which was ebony for (clenches teeth ...) the ... variance ... in ... fin. But I felt guilty about it! Now get your own life!!!
The SG-Z bass has both pups farther to the bridge than any other Gibson bass known to man. Farther back than an LPB. Add to that how the pups are "Z-Pick Ups", not TB Plus pups and you have an explanation for the limp, deballed sound which is neither here nor there. Imagine a Jazz Bass with the forward pup dialed down halfway and without any maple neck snap or bolt-on attack. One of my SG-Zs now features a mudbucker in neck position (there is plenty room) and while it now has ample lows, the lows are mushier than on any shortscale archaic EB from the sixties. It has to do with the neck I think which is way too slim. People gripe about fat necks, well, most girls here do, but I think a fat neck has as much or perhaps even more influence on the good sound of a bass as/than a fat body does.
So is a modern-sounding long scale SG bass with balls an impossibility then? No, I have one, courtesy of Herr Carlston's compulsive buying urge (and then not being around to play the darn thing as he criss-crosses the US of A). George bequeathed me a one off long-scale SG bass (Gibson product, but not Custom Shop) and that does the trick. But it varies from the SG-Z as follows (and very considerably):
- TB-Plus pups,
- neck pup closer to the neck,
- fat LPB-sized neck,
- fat SG body, way fatter than any seventies maple neck SG, let's not even speak of the SG-Z body which has slim sixties dimensions,
- three point bridge (as opposed to the Schaller roller bridge of the SG-Z).
But the real reason is of course the one-off model's chrome hardware as opposed to the drab black hardware look of the SG-Z. Hardware finish influences sound, even Dave says so.
Uwe
