Nevermind... (Ping John Fertig!!!!!!!!!)

[chromium]

I'm still stuck at the thought of a Fertig Signature RD w/whammy and gizmo.  I'd buy one, and hell- so would probably two or three other people.  Bigger market than the Firebird X.

Think about it, Henry!  

[uwe]

Wow. The one that's not a TB Plus, they have made by someone else. That's some talented pickup design team they have.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLMSKRLAQjI&feature=related

Unfair. Boooh. Petty. Non-sensical. That is like saying if Volvo buys an excellent diesel engine from BMW because they don't make one themselves that shows how crap the Swedes Chinese are. Economies of scale, Herr Westheimer. Think of how many people in this forum of forums own a Ripper II and then think again whether the time of and money for Gibson's pup designers is not better spent on developing new LP pups.

[Dave W]

Volvo/BMW and Gibson/SD? Apples and oranges. Volvo already has a market. Gibson doesn't have a bass market to speak of, and they have no intention of trying.

Gibson has utter contempt for bassists. Look at everything they've done for guitarists in the way of historically accurate reissues and new products. When it comes to bassists, they can't even distinguish a bass from a baritone. The whole approach to these "reissues" and the EB11 shows that they couldn't care less about putting out a product that would actually build up their market and create a decent following. They just throw out a few crumbs and count on 300-400 people to buy them. It's designed to be self-defeating so they won't have to put any effort into it.

[uwe]

I admit to the inherent self defeat micro chip in their marketing. Gibson's last attempt at really attacking Fender was the Victory. After the Victory became the Loser (internal Nashville jargon, no joke) they resigned themselves to being a niche producer for the choice few, throwing things at the wall to see whether anything sticks for a while.

Historical faithfulness would not get them out of this rut though. The Fender P is not popular because you can still buy it as the, say, 57 model with exact historic specs, that is another niche market. It is popular because as a sound (as in good) concept it has been gently modernized over the decades, faithful reissues are just an icing on the marketing cake for a minority.

But a post-87 TB IV or a mid noughties SG Bass are gentle modernisations too, case in point: You could take both and walk into a 1965 rehearsal and no one would have thought you are from Mars with new gadgets for the earthlings.  Problem is how  people here in this forum don't want the modernized concept, but rather the original preserved in amber. Ironically, that in itself shows that most Gibson bassists are just nostalgics and want to be different from the crowd rather than having the optimal weapon of choice carefully re- and re-re-honed for current times.

If Gibson did the most faithful reproductions of their past work,  I have doubts whether with that they would carve a larger niche in the market than now. They'd sell probably less than a few hundred of every faithful model at best and would get nowhere nearer to displacing the Fenders and Warwicks of this world. I can forgive them that for that they don't set aside the pup design team for weeks to recraft old vintage bass pups, it would make the end product even more expensive and not help sell - unlike with guitars which even in their modernized versions benefit from the vintage image - the gently modernized one either.

Most of you guys don't buy modern Gibsons no matter how good or cheap they are. That is not what you are after.

[Highlander]

Bogus! He was a lefty and that's a righty Jag. Inaccurate! Heh. 

Nope... the kids'll never notice when they're posing in the mirror...

[Psycho Bass Guy]

Nope... the kids'll never notice when they're posing in the mirror...

Fender actually recently reissued the Jagstang, the combination Jaguar/Mustang that Cobain designed. It looks kind of clunky, but aside from some issues hitting the switches if you play hard, it's a nice oddwad and does deliver on the Nirvana sound. They never sold well, even in Nirvana's heyday. To put how poorly they sold in perspective, they were soundly lapped by the Gibson Nighthawk.

If Gibson did the most faithful reproductions of their past work,  I have doubts whether with that they would carve a larger niche in the market than now. They'd sell probably less than a few hundred of every faithful model at best and would get nowhere nearer to displacing the Fenders and Warwicks of this world. I can forgive them that for that they don't set aside the pup design team for weeks to recraft old vintage bass pups, it would make the end product even more expensive and not help sell - unlike with guitars which even in their modernized versions benefit from the vintage image - the gently modernized one either.

Most of you guys don't buy modern Gibsons no matter how good or cheap they are. That is not what you are after.

I have to disagree. While Gibson has been somewhat faithful with overall asthetic design, they have abandoned the very things that used to set their basses apart like the pickups and body wood combinations, not to mention build quality. The mudbucker alone has spawned at least five or six aftermarket approximations. Most Gibson basses you encounter in a music store (which is an insane rarity in and of itself) may look like their ancestors, but they sound pretty much like every other generic Fendproximation, and for basses that sit comfortably above the $1500 mark, that's wholly unacceptable unless you want to market yourself as an 'upmarket improvement' on a current Fender, ala Lakland, Sadowsky, etc.

The bass market is made up mostly of aging Baby Boomers who don't want the weight and kids who don't even know what tone is and usually can't afford it if they do, so Gibson's bass offerings are even less attractive to them. Why spend the money on a Les Paul Bass that has a somewhat aggressive sound when you can buy Asian made LP shapes with pickups of all kinds for a quarter of the cost? The same goes for the Thunderbird, EB Les Paul Jr, and SG bass; you can find roughly equal or even superior sounds for much less money. Add to that that Epi basses are generally equal or better quality to their upmarket brothers, and you have the perfect recipe for non-sales. At least with die hard vintage guys, the market is already defined. Gibson constantly bets against itself on basses and then acts surprised when the public agrees.

[SGD Lutherie]

Why does this bass have (Fender) Jazz bass pickups on it?     No one finds that odd? Gibson couldn't even make some RD pickup repros?

[Psycho Bass Guy]

Evidently the look of an RD was more important to them than the sound of an actual RD. That being the case, I want to know where the dent is.

[Basvarken]

Why does this bass have (Fender) Jazz bass pickups on it?     No one finds that odd? Gibson couldn't even make some RD pickup repros?

Errr... David, that's where most of the discussion in this thread is about. We all think that is odd.

[Barklessdog]

I did not think it was odd as the original standard had Jazz pickups in it. Ironic but if they put TB's in it that would actually be less authentic to the original standard. There is no way to recreate the RD Artist without making it an ultra expensive Firebird X thingy.

Although it would be cool to see what a modern electronic interpitation of the Artist might be going from the original concept.

[SGD Lutherie]

Errr... David, that's where most of the discussion in this thread is about. We all think that is odd.

Ah I see!  I think a lot of what Gibson does these days is odd, especially when it comes to basses!

Case in point, look at the neck pickup on the SG bass. What the heck where they thinking? They took two mini humbucker coils, and then made fake pole pieces mounted in a chunk of aluminum. This places the coils too far from the strings, because they out the T shaped blades in upside-down. Then they mounted the whole thing on a brass baseplate, and that and the aluminum kill off all the high end.

It would have been a simple thing to have made an updated sidewinder like the original, but they could have wound it to be clearer, if that was their intention.

[SGD Lutherie]

I did not think it was odd as the original standard had Jazz pickups in it. Ironic but if they put TB's in it that would actually be less authentic to the original standard. There is no way to recreate the RD Artist without making it an ultra expensive Firebird X thingy.

Although it would be cool to see what a modern electronic interpitation of the Artist might be going from the original concept.

The original Standard what? RD bass?  It had humbuckers.  http://www.flyguitars.com/gibson/bass/parts/pickup/#36 Why would Gibson use Fender pickups? (but then again Fender uses Gibson style humbuckers. Neither company has any integrity any more)

Or do you mean Novoselic's bass? All the photos of him I've seen he has the stock humbuckers in the bass.

As far as no way to reproduce it cheaply... I have to disagree here. Look at the reissue of the Ripper; Those are pretty elaborate reproductions made by Duncan. The RD pickups are a lot less elaborate. They are just humbuckers. They don't need the Moog electronics from the Artist series, but at least get some pickups that resemble the originals in looks and tone. The most expensive part is the injection molding for the cover, but Gibson has deep pockets, and that would be nothing to them. Think about it, they were selling a Zack Wylde signature Les Paul for $12,000 for a while! Sell one of those and you have your injection molding costs.

But if they are going to stick Jazz bass pickups on this they might as well stick on a Fender headstock. It's just tacky. They aren't even trying, and are doing minimal effort to make some instruments with parts on hand.

Regarding the Firebird X.... that thing is the ugliest guitar I've ever seen. Gibson is now the Microsoft of the guitar world. They have no taste and just want to make money while churning out mediocre overpriced crap. As long as they stick to the products that were developed before Henry was on board they do OK, but as in this example, they just don't seem to care to get it right. OK is good enough.

I mean think about it; every new Gibson bass that comes out is almost there, but not quite. Theres always some bonehead thing wrong with it.  OK, rant over! 

[PhilT]

There was a time when Jazz and Precision pickups were "Fender", but so many other makers use them now, they've just become generic standards. Following the IT analogy, Seymour Duncan could be the Intel of the guitar world, the only difference being they have some viable competition.

[uwe]

The original RD Standard came out in 1977, it had stacked humbuckers in a Jazz Bass look with a narrow field for more prominrnt treble attack and it wanted to sound like an ash/maple JB which was a popular sound concept at the time. And in my humble opinion the Standard sound is more timeless than the active Artist one. So Gibson have now cited the original rather than the by chance more popular, albeit less puristic Artist version. And again you guys complain that they are using narrow field pickups etc ... Gibson obviously can't do anything right for you. I believe the pups they now use make perfect sense if you want to follow the original's vein.

You can now all go home and cuddle your 9 volt batteries ... ! - )

[SGD Lutherie]

There was a time when Jazz and Precision pickups were "Fender", but so many other makers use them now, they've just become generic standards. Following the IT analogy, Seymour Duncan could be the Intel of the guitar world, the only difference being they have some viable competition.

Well they are still Fender designed pickups. It would have been a simple thing to have made a narrow soapbar like they used to have.  Think how wrong a Tbird or EB-3 would looks with P/J pickups! At least Gibson put the proper pickups in the Ripper reissue. They almost put the proper pickup in the Grabber reissue.

Duncan make great pickups, but they are all replacements for standard pickup form factors. Gibson created these original pickups, so why use replacements for a Fender bass?