I'm sort of curious about why more people don't like G&Ls. Everyone I've ever known who's owned them say they are terrific basses, but outside that few people even have an opinion.
Is it because people who don't know about the company think they are straight up Fender clones? Is it because they are basically Fenders without the name on it?
This has baffled me for a while now.
Thoughts?
that's a great question. I had an original one pup bass and it sounded great. I think Gary has the same one in pink?? Very little action back then, maybe a song or 2 at CBGB's when i put down my jazz/tele or Musician bass....
I now have an ASAT bass which again sounds great but i think in 10 years it has seen 1 gig. My 2 MM have seen alot more action and IMHO i think the G&L is a better instrument. The ASAT is a terrible neck diver but that is not the issue. I think at the end of the day when i go to reach for a fender or fender clone i just grab just that and not the g&l fender clone. ALso pickups are different than fender and MM in the way they work. i also have a 2500 tribute - 5 string asian made which is just ok...B string is very floppy
Quote from: jumbodbassman on June 30, 2011, 01:19:04 PM
that's a great question. I had an original one pup bass and it sounded great. I think Gary has the same one in pink??
Yup! I have a pink L-1000. It really is a nice bass. I think the G&L is the bass my old '64 Precision wishes it could have been. Very solid bass, and I like the pickup selector switch (split-coil, humbucker, humbucker w/bass boost). The bridge on the G&L is also a big plus. I lost a saddle screw from mine one night, and it never went out of tune. I found the screw on the floor of the club the next day.
I have a Tribute L-2000. It is my only sensible bass. MFD pickups are amazing. Do people really think that they're "basically Fenders"? Seriously?
I'm not a big fan of the MFD pickups, and I really don't like the headstocks. OTOH they're good basses (and guitars) and they certainly have their fans. They aren't Fender clones, at least most of them aren't, but the design is close enough to Fender that some people think of them that way.
BBE sort of missed the boat by not coming out with an import version soon enough. If you're going to have a US only instrument, it needs to be distinct enough to have its own market, like Rickenbacker, or be more of a custom shop instead of a factory. They waited way too long to come out with the Tribute series and haven't really been able to get much of a foothold.
One thing that gets me, though, is when G&L fans say that Leo felt G&L was his finest work. What the hell else was he supposed to say? That they weren't as good as the company he used to own?
Quote from: Dave W on June 30, 2011, 04:34:12 PM
I'm not a big fan of the MFD pickups, and I really don't like the headstocks. OTOH they're good basses (and guitars) and they certainly have their fans. They aren't Fender clones, at least most of them aren't, but the design is close enough to Fender that some people think of them that way.
BBE sort of missed the boat by not coming out with an import version soon enough. If you're going to have a US only instrument, it needs to be distinct enough to have its own market, like Rickenbacker, or be more of a custom shop instead of a factory. They waited way too long to come out with the Tribute series and haven't really been able to get much of a foothold.
One thing that gets me, though, is when G&L fans say that Leo felt G&L was his finest work. What the hell else was he supposed to say? That they weren't as good as the company he used to own?
I'm waiting on 1981 #2, hoping it's not as heavy as #1. Other than that I'm pretty sure it will be beautifully made and have a unique sound. The recent G&Ls I've played are top notch, including Tributes.
Yeah, it's too bad about the later headstock. Thanks, Ernie, I guess it wasn't enough to screw up the original StingRay. As far as Leo saying G&L was his best work, he may have thought so. Very powerful passive bass pickup with a wide tonal range, lockdown bridge and perfected (to him anyway) bullet truss rod/3 bolt neck. The ASAT bass is pretty embarrassing, IMO, due to its unFenderlike neck dive. If it was a good bass design Fender would not have designed a different body for the Precision.
I'm pretty sure Les Paul thought his low impedance final guitar design was the best thing he ever did, he played it until he died.
I've owned two L2000's, and I think their build quality is on par with EBMM, and the necks are absolutely great. However, as much as I'd like to, I can't bond with the MFD pickups - I find them far too harsh and bright, no matter how I EQ the bass, even with flats.
I like 'em. Never owned one but I've played a few. Not a fan of the ASATs although they are nice to look at but the L2000's are great to play. I like that sparkly snap from their pups.
Quote from: dadagoboi on June 30, 2011, 05:03:02 PM
Yeah, it's too bad about the later headstock. Thanks, Ernie, I guess it wasn't enough to screw up the original StingRay. As far as Leo saying G&L was his best work, he may have thought so. ... I'm pretty sure Les Paul thought his low impedance final guitar design was the best thing he ever did, he played it until he died.
What did Ernie have to do with G&L headstocks?
Leo may have thought it was his best work, but if he didn't, he couldn't have said so. Les Paul's situation was different, he didn't own the company.
FWIW, I like the "eye gouger" headstock. It's instantly recognisable as a G&L. I think the old ones look quite non-descript and boring.
Heh, we're all different. Ultimately it matters not one jot what everyone else thinks at the end of the day - if you have a G&L and you like it then good for you and keep on playing. If you have a G&L and you don't like it then you can always give it to me ;D
Quote from: Dave W on June 30, 2011, 09:38:02 PM
What did Ernie have to do with G&L headstocks?
Leo may have thought it was his best work, but if he didn't, he couldn't have said so. Les Paul's situation was different, he didn't own the company.
I'm wrong about MM and the headstock, G&L changed it when Fender threatened action for it's similarity to theirs or at least that seems to be the consensus. I
hope that's the reason for it.
Point taken, the chances of Leo not saying G&L was the high point of his career were pretty slim.
I liked the G&L basses I've had a chance to play in stores but have never pulled the trigger. no particular reason why, but I just haven't.
a guitar player I jam with regularly has an Interceptor which sounds really good. he can get just about any sounds imaginable out of it. I'm always a bit disappointed if he brings any of his other instruments.
G&L and Gibson have nearly identical bass marketing strategies. They differ in the fact that Gibson at least advertises its guitars. Much as I hate bright pickups and consider myself extremely picky about that, I have never found my 1997 L2500, ordered and bought new, to be that way, though I did NOT like the SIT strings it shipped with. I've always kept EB Slinky's on it. Interesting note: my bass was featured on their website for years as the color/fretboard combination I requested was not produced at all even though it was a stock option (blueburst w/ rosewood; they always paired maple with blueburst prior) which was why I had to order it, and it went on to be their most popular. My warranty card comments also appeared in a few of their magazine ads, too. IMO G&L's, at least for me, properly dealt with all the shortcomings of latter-day Fender and EBMM designs, but it's more a taste thing than any actual defect. I have a whole slew of Fenders that I would love to sound more like my G&L.
I had a transparent blue '86 L2K for a short while. Nice instrument, but I didn't care for the MFD's. I bought a lightly used Indonesian Tribute JB-2 specifically as a vehicle for a pair of Dark Stars and I like it a lot:
(http://i1101.photobucket.com/albums/g421/spiritbass/DarkStarJB-2.jpg)
It's been modified more since this pic. I put a chrome control plate on it, removed the tone pot so it's simply vol/vol and installed a redeemer circuit buffer with the output jack where the tone control was.
Quote from: Spiritbass on July 01, 2011, 07:41:20 AM
(http://i1101.photobucket.com/albums/g421/spiritbass/DarkStarJB-2.jpg)
..nice bass. I am probably one of the few here who is NOT a fan of the Guild/Darkstar sound, but that bass inrtigues me. I also have an L5500, but with EMG pickups and the BTC preamp, it's much more neutral in tonal character. I can see how the MFD's could be too bright for some people espeically in active mode, but just like all my other passive basses, I keep the treble rolled WAY back and the bass stays in passive. I would seriously love to build a parts bass with a pair of Thunderbuckers and MFD's and a seven-way switch.
I don't think the MFDs are too bright or harsh, the tone of the ones I've heard just don't particularly appeal to me. Nothing I can easily describe.
Never been a fan of the Bi-Sonic or Dark Star sound. Fans talk about their wide-range sound, fine for them but that's what I don't like. I don't want an even sound across a wide spectrum, that's boring as hell to me. Give me peaks and valleys!
Thanks Anthony. Two Thunderbuckers and two MFD's - WOW. Monstrous potential! My tone preferences are brighter than most, I think. I had a nice dual-DS set-neck LeCompte that was mostly mahogany. It eventually 'left the nest' because it was so much darker than the G&L. Live & learn...
Quote from: Spiritbass on July 01, 2011, 09:53:54 AM
Thanks Anthony. Two Thunderbuckers and two MFD's - WOW. Monstrous potential! My tone preferences are brighter than most, I think. I had a nice dual-DS set-neck LeCompte that was mostly mahogany. It eventually 'left the nest' because it was so much darker than the G&L. Live & learn...
I played a dual-DS LeCompte in Atlanta a little over a year ago that was incredible. I almost bought it. It beat the Manne Glenn Hughes bass by a landslide.
Just bought a Dark Star from Gary in large part because I've never heard one and am looking forward to what it sounds like. Until then I'll reserve judgement. I do like the sound of my '81 G&L and how it compares to my '76 'Ray. Can't comment much on later G&Ls. Not a fan of EBMM because they don't sound like the originals to me and I hate that tinker toy thing at the end of the neck. It reminds me of the one on my EKO Vox Phantom that just went round and round and did nothing, though I'm sure theirs works as it should.
There are a few references in this thread to 'thunderbuckers.' Since as far as I know I'm the one who coined the name I have to say this:
Thunderbuckers are designed and made by Steve Soar of ThunderBucker Ranch, TM pending. It is not a generic description of a pickup that fits a Thunderbird pick up route. Neither Lollar nor Lull call their pickups Thunderbucker, it would be nice to keep it that way. Those guys would probably not be happy having their products called by someone else's name either.
I might be overreacting but that wouldn't be a first. I have no financial interest in ThunderBucker pickups, just wanted them for my builds. I'm hoping DS's will be in production and I can use some of those too.
RE: my mention of "Thunderbuckers" DOES refer Steve's pickups. I would really love to see how they would interact with MFD's. I'm up for a move to another department at work which would mean a substantial raise in my pay. If I get it, after we finish paying for the cats, I have a proposal for you Carlo. In my comments about my Epi in another thread, I had a brain fart. I forgot RS called Fralin's T-Bird pickups "Bassbuckers," and that point is moot anyway since I bought the last pair they had made.
Quote from: Psycho Bass Guy on July 03, 2011, 10:56:29 PM
RE: my mention of "Thunderbuckers" DOES refer Steve's pickups. I would really love to see how they would interact with MFD's. I'm up for a move to another department at work which would mean a substantial raise in my pay. If I get it, after we finish paying for the cats, I have a proposal for you Carlo. In my comments about my Epi in another thread, I had a brain fart. I forgot RS called Fralin's T-Bird pickups "Bassbuckers," and that point is moot anyway since I bought the last pair they had made.
Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Finally got a decent pic with the "precision pickguard replacement" control plate. Gives it a bit of 'old school G&L' vibe:
(http://i1101.photobucket.com/albums/g421/spiritbass/P1120932.jpg)
That is one my-T-fine looking bass!
Thanks Pilgrim. It's also quite pleasurable to the fingers & ears. 8)
That looks realy nice!
Quote from: Spiritbass on October 31, 2011, 06:49:21 PM
Finally got a decent pic with the "precision pickguard replacement" control plate. Gives it a bit of 'old school G&L' vibe:
(http://i1101.photobucket.com/albums/g421/spiritbass/P1120932.jpg)
Mighty fine. lovin it alot !!!!!!!
They are a step above Carvin (which are not bad basses either)
I think they are good to very good basses, but the design does nothing for me, lookwise they are caught in a time warp, while EBMM has not just stuck with its iconic Stingray but tried new things such as the Bongo (which I like as a modern design) and the Albert Lee bass etc. G&Ls look like something Ibanez would build today if they had never gone past the lawsuit era. I like the ASAT, but then I'm a sucker for Tele-looking basses. But here really is no iconic model in their line, no 4001/3, no TBird, no J or P, no Stingray, they all look utalitarian too me. But even the Tributes sound great and give excellent value for money.
Quote from: uwe on November 25, 2011, 06:52:09 PM
... But here really is no iconic model in their line, no 4001/3, no TBird, no J or P, no Stingray, they all look utalitarian too me. ..
That's really it in a nutshell. You could point out how a Stingray is derived from a P, for example, but just about every bassist knows it's a Stingray and is not going to confuse it with a Fender product. No matter how much you may like any or all G&L models, none of them stand out as G&L's design.
I have always maintained the Sting Ray was derived from the Mustang. It was the last Leo Fender bass for Fender, and the styling and features were much more in sych with the Sting Ray.
G&Ls, when they came out, were pretty much passive MusicMan basses with Fenderish headstocks. They were made by the same people in the same place, but with lots of competitive bad blood. The L2000 was a Sabre, but more sucsessful. The L1000 was a Sting Ray, but less sucsessful. If you played a pre-EB Sting Ray, then you would have a rough idea of the feel and weight of an early G&L.
I would argue that the L2000 was an iconic model. It took off really well right away, and still is a respected bass. But the later models were not unique in any good way. The split neck truss rod was a novel idea. Still, I found over the years that any time I picked up one in a shop it was a well-set up and built bass. Kind of how Guilds used to be. So I guess that is simillar.
I sure don't see any styling similarities between the SR and Mustang bodies. The SR is similar a P with the lower body rounded, and so is the L2000. The touches like the 3+1 headstock, the pickguard shape and the big single p/u nearer the bridge are what set the SR apart in style, you know what it is even if you haven't heard it. IMHO the L2000 isn't different enough in style to set it apart from a Fender, even though soundwise it is different.
Agreed, they have always been well made, like Guild. And they have always struggled in the market like Guild used to do.
I agree that the SR is basically a P body shape. But consider the Mustang design "innovations" that Leo presumably thought to be progress beyond the 2nd version P - he has a bridge that incorporates mutes and larger footprint, the pickguard on the E string side is oval shaped, and the controls are in a separate plate (Jazz hangover). The pup was obviously a cheap P vibe. And the Mustang is kind of a squished P shape anyway. Those are all carried over to the Stingray. The big slug pup and 3/1 headstock were things he came up with later, and those would be the innovations that weren't style related. 3/1 supposedly was to deal with dead spots, and the pup and preamp were developed in the era. The SR pup layout is mimiced by the G&L stuff, and I would bet if the tuner layout hadn't been copyrighted for MM, he would have done that on G&L as well. All the Fender designed basses are simillar, but to me the Mustang was the missing link to the SR.
Quote from: eb2 on November 26, 2011, 11:57:44 PM
The L2000 was a Sabre, but more sucsessful. The L1000 was a Sting Ray, but less sucsessful. If you played a pre-EB Sting Ray, then you would have a rough idea of the feel and weight of an early G&L.
To be pedantic, I'd say that the L-1500 is the Stingray-a-like given where its pickup is located. The L-1000 had its pickup somewhere around the P position.
Love my post Fender Fenders. 76 'Ray, '81 L-1000 converted to a 2000, '81 L-1000 Fretless, 90s L-2500. The pickups are the real story. The SR, alnico/active and the G&L ceramic/passive/active are both extremely versatile and LOUD. The build quality has always been top notch, no mean feat in the mid '70s-80s USA. My only quibble is the weight and nipple headstock (my SR weighs 12 lbs). Great bass if you're buying, not so much selling.
Quote from: neepheid on November 28, 2011, 04:33:03 AM
To be pedantic, I'd say that the L-1500 is the Stingray-a-like given where its pickup is located. The L-1000 had its pickup somewhere around the P position.
If you want to be
really pedantic, the G&L Climax had the same placement as the Stingray. The L-1500's pickup is a little farther forward.
If you want to be suggestive of pedantic, the L-1000 and L-2000 were introduced at the onset of G&L and were made at the same time as the Sabre and SR. I believe they were made in the same factory at by the same people. The L-1500 and Climax were created years later.
As far as I'm concerned, a bass is essentially a neck and pickup(s). Anything after that is just icing. G&L got the basics right.
Oh dear, I hope I'm a better bass player than I am a pedant ;)
Quote from: eb2 on November 28, 2011, 08:06:43 AM
If you want to be suggestive of pedantic, the L-1000 and L-2000 were introduced at the onset of G&L and were made at the same time as the Sabre and SR. I believe they were made in the same factory at by the same people. The L-1500 and Climax were created years later.
IIRC, the Climax was a 90's product, while the L-1500 came out around 2005.
Quote from: uwe on November 25, 2011, 06:52:09 PM...and the Albert Lee bass etc.
The first time I saw the Albert Lee guitar, I thought of this bass I made in 1980. ;)
(http://www.david-schwab.com/images/Jetsonz_dirtclub2.jpg)
Now it looks like this:
(http://www.sgd-lutherie.com/images/mantaray.jpg)
Once upon a time, that was a '74 P bass with a maple neck.