Bash the new Gibson Bass!!!

[uwe]

That would require actual R&D, not just pulling hardware and electronics off the shelf.  Way too expensive when you have FireTurd  projects to fund...it seems to me Gibson is trying to sell basses to guitards who dabble and can't (won't?) adapt to the longer scale that brings out the best in the instrument...IMO

Short scale is a tried and trusted tradition with Gibson all through the fifties, sixties and early seventies. Until the advent of the Ripper/Grabber/G-3 family all Gibson models were short scale with the exception of the poor-selling TBirds and the L-versions of certain EBs i.e. the 400 or 450 versions of the SB line.

[dadagoboi]

Short scale is a tried and trusted tradition with Gibson all through the fifties, sixties and early seventies. Until the advent of the Ripper/Grabber/G-3 family all Gibson models were short scale with the exception of the poor-selling TBirds and the L-versions of certain EBs i.e. the 400 or 450 versions of the SB line.

As I said, IMO...does this mean Gibson should draw a line in the sand and stop with the development of the only marginally better intonating 3 point (trust me on this) and the TB+ pup?

To me this would be the equivalent of Volvo using all the previous generation mechanicals under a new skin.  They worked pretty well so why bother improving?

[Pilgrim]

Why are you guys so vintage-correct obsessive? When I buy a car of a certain model I expect it to carry the spirit of the original that was first in line, but I don't expect it to be a slavish replica.

Agreed.  I find discussions about whether the PG cover is bent at the same angle as the original and whether it was chrome or nickel to be tiring. 

[Chaser001]

People complain about there not being enough high-quality short scale basses out there and even complain about strings for a short scale sometimes being hard to find.  Gibson comes out with two interesting short scale basses and somehow gets criticized for it. 

[nofi]

i think there must be plenty of short scale basses. the last time i remember seeing one being used wae ab eb2 around 1974.

[TBird1958]

People complain about there not being enough high-quality short scale basses out there and even complain about strings for a short scale sometimes being hard to find.  Gibson comes out with two interesting short scale basses and somehow gets criticized for it.  

And I'd agree..............Last time the big F brought out a new body shape was?
And what kind of success would it meet with from their fans?

Even tho there isn't a Gibson dealer worth a S%^& here in Seattle I can always purchase thru a dealer with a know return policy i.e. Sweetwater, Sam Ash or, as Uwe did, Wildwood Guitars.

[uwe]

As I said, IMO...does this mean Gibson should draw a line in the sand and stop with the development of the only marginally better intonating 3 point (trust me on this) and the TB+ pup?

To me this would be the equivalent of Volvo using all the previous generation mechanicals under a new skin.  They worked pretty well so why bother improving?

I like the visuals and the tonality of a three-point plus - similar to the Ric one - no other bass bridge looks like it. But that shouldn't keep Gibson from trying something new on say the TB IV-X and bring out a TBird with monorail bridges and Lace pups, two additional frets and a deeper cutaway. But I bet that the second they would do that the moanin' and groanin' would commence here why a 64 TBird II is sooooooooo much better.

[uwe]

And I'd agree..............Last time the big F brought out a new body shape was?
And what kind of success would it meet with from their fans?

No further comment:



And I even liked that shape and thought it daring and new. The Fender world did not, however.

[TBird1958]

It put the "F" in Fugly!


They're just as pigeonholed by their fans.

[Dave W]

Why are you guys so vintage-correct obsessive? When I buy a car of a certain model I expect it to carry the spirit of the original that was first in line, but I don't expect it to be a slavish replica. Progress and learning from mistakes, fashion elements etc are all good things, I don't want my new Volvo V 70

...

to be the same car the Volvo 850 (before it was renamed V 70)

...

was twenty years ago. It's ok if it still has some similarity, but times move on. Today's Levis 501 is not the 501 of the fifties either.

In my book the current TB IV, the SG RI, the Ripper II and Grabber II and now this little Junior are all contemporary (= very gently modified and modernized) versions of old classics. The ultimate test to prove I'm right - bearing in mind that this is the forum of scientific evidence: You could take any one of them, time-tunnel back into a late sixties/early seventies rehearsal room and no one would not recognize them as what they are, people would perhaps marvel  at some "cool new features", but they wouldn't exactly think that you were an alien from the future bringing along new gadgets.  

And for the record: Gibson has never claimed this new Junior to be a faithful reissue, instead what they have said is this:

"The Les Paul Junior DC Bass is the axe for you! By

blending

several elements of traditional Gibson design,

derived

from the slab-bodied Les Paul Junior guitar and the original 1960 EB-0 bass,

among others,

this new model from Gibson USA ..."

It's a new model in a retro look, nothing wrong with that.

Correct, they haven't said it's a faithful reissue. That's beside the point. I don't see anyone here knocking it for not having a mudbucker or a bar bridge, do you? No one's expecting a regular production model to be a historical reissue. But if you're going to do a retro look, at least have the good sense to use one of your own retro body shapes, not some bastardized version of them. Do it right or don't do it at all.

It would be possible to design an all new bass for today's market that still had some Gibson qualities. But as Carlo said, that would require actual R&D.

Your Volvo comparison doesn't follow here, IMO.

At least Fender has learned form their mistakes. You won't see another Boner Bass.

[Dave W]

People complain about there not being enough high-quality short scale basses out there and even complain about strings for a short scale sometimes being hard to find.  Gibson comes out with two interesting short scale basses and somehow gets criticized for it. 

Who's complaining? In the real world outside bass forums, short scales are a very small market segment. They stopped selling well 40 years ago, that's why Gibson and others stopped making them. If people were demanding higher end short scale basses, Gibson's SG Bass would be selling like hotcakes.

Most retail stores carry very few or no short scale strings because they hardly ever sell. That's why you have to go to bass specialty stores or online string specialists to find them.

[uwe]

Why doesn't the Volvo comparison fit? Like a bass it is a combination of tool and enjoyment. I drive a car to get from A to B, but I chose the 300 hp version because I enjoy the fun of good torque and the strongest hifi they offer because I like to listen music loud. I play bass because I need to emit low notes, but I could do that with any decent bass, I chose Gibson because they appeal to my underdog taste and have such variety. Yes, the bass is even more for fun, but in reality I wouldn't even need a car to go to work as public transportation would take me to Frankfurt within an unbeatable nine minutes. So the Volvo is sheer luxury.

The Bicentennials were just as far or possibly even more a step from the 60ies Birds than the 87 reissues were from the Bicentennials. A Slothead EB-0 is structurally and visually farther removed from a 63 EB-0 than an SG RI is. Changes in the past are all accepted here as symbols of an era, but if Gibson brings out a Junior today it has to look exactly like a 61 model. That is - with all due respect, my dear brethren -incoherent as it presupposes that changes today are bad, but changes back in the day weren't. Explain the difference to me or is nostalgia your one and only argument? 

But my main point is: You could have played that new Junior on the Woodstock stage and no one would have pointed his finger at you and yelled "Oooops, non-period-correct bass, you must be from the future, off the stage with you!".

[TBird1958]

But my main point is: You could have played that new Junior on the Woodstock stage and no one would have pointed his finger at you and yelled "Oooops, non-period-correct bass, you must be from the future, off the stage with you!".

That 7ender or a Wankwick might 

[Chaser001]

Who's complaining? In the real world outside bass forums, short scales are a very small market segment. They stopped selling well 40 years ago, that's why Gibson and others stopped making them. If people were demanding higher end short scale basses, Gibson's SG Bass would be selling like hotcakes.

Most retail stores carry very few or no short scale strings because they hardly ever sell. That's why you have to go to bass specialty stores or online string specialists to find them.

I do have somewhat of a fondness for short scales and have sometimes felt a little out of place because of that.  But it's not like I have to have a short scale.  What I've discovered is that there are more people than I realized who are very devoted to short scales and it seems to mean a great deal to them.  There was a time when I was more devoted to them, but not so much anymore, so my views on the topic are ambivalent. 

[Pilgrim]

I'm a big fan of short scales, and I also agree that Fender stays with a pretty darn safe set of body shapes.  Of course, they sell very well, so that isn't necessarily a dumb thing for Fender to do!

I didn't mean that I thought Gibson's effort in this new bass is unworthy - just overpriced.