New Gibson Basses. Quite breakinf news.

[dadagoboi]

I don't want a modern day reissue of an early sixties bass to be an exact replica - that is so archaic it's laughable. I want it to have an intonateable bridge that doesn't tip forward, I want it to have tuners that don't break my arm when I turn them and I don't want an original mudbucker. I have enough old EB-2s, thank you. I want something sensibly refined and bettered just like I would expect the reissue of a Jag E Type to have an airbag these days, to hell whether that is faithful or not, it just makes sense and saves lives. I come from an engineering country - it's ok to modernize and develop things, we build our economy on it, not on the sale of Kuckucksuhren from the Black Forest that look and work just like two hundred years ago. They are just for American and Asian tourists. Vorsprung durch Technik, liebe Amerikaner!

Nobody I knew ever referred to an EB-0 or -3 as an "EB" unless he was an anointed know-it-all and even then people would have asked him what he meant. Everyone - including me - referred to them as those "SG shape Gibson basses". The term EB is utterly meaning- and descriptionless by itself, it can refer to a "Beatles bass" (EB or EB-1), to an LP Junior (early EB-0), to various SG shaped basses (EB-0, EB-3, EB-4, EB-6 second version, EB-Z, the original name of the SG-Z), but not even all of them (the SB-family, SG-Z, SG RI and SG Standard), to a smaller hollowbody (EB-2, EB-6 first version) or to larger hollowbodies from the nineties (EB-650, EB-750).  EB is a bland abbreviation of electric bass and while SG stands for solid guitar the shape of "an SG" has left a firm imprint in everyone's mind. And if people really need a description you can always say "the guitar the guy in the schoolboy uniform from AC/DC plays!". Try asking someone to tell you the shape of "an EB".

For the record: I don't have an issue with the reissue policy of Fender, they do niche models for the most curious tastes and that is ok in my book. As if Kurt Kobain had ever given a shit whether his Jagmaster (or whatever) was original or not. I detect some vintage elitism on these sacred pages! Get over it, they are tools from another age, nothing less and nothing more. And in fifty years from now people will be holding their breath when they see a current Warwick ("from the age when wood was still allowed for guitar building").

I seem to have touched a nerve.  What is this forum besides a collection of elitisms?

[Dave W]

I seem to have touched a nerve.  What is this forum besides a collection of elitisms?

Fender offers vintage reissues and modern versions, and without changing the name. Gibson could offer both, as they do with guitars. I just don't expect it from them.

[uwe]

I'm a completist, not an elitist!!!   Perhaps  a complelitist?   I don't even consider myself a vintage bass collector, I collect basses like Noah collected animals for the ark.



As we all know, he took a pair of cockroaches with him as well. That's me.   They're part of creation after all.

And I've never subscribed to the notion that vintage guitars are somehow always better or more worthy. I'm with Blackmore on that: "They made good and bad guitars then and now." I collect Gibson's new stuff with the same fervor - if not more - than their old stuff (and through the decades their level of sloppiness has remained reassuringly constant!). If you REALLY want to flatter me as a bassist tell me that I get a good sound out of a 400 buck Epi and not out of one of my 5.000+ Dollars sixties Birds which always have me thinking "they better sound great, they sure cost enough".

I've said it before: Give me a time machine back to 68 and a modern TBird, a modern Stingray, a modern Ric and a modern Fender, and I would wipe the floor soundwise with what was current back then. People would want to see my "secret gear" from miles around and fall to their knees if they heard my Roger Waters P in comparison to a sixties one.

An old bass that still works and is in good shape is something to behold for the history it holds and the care that went into its upkeep, and you should play it by all means, but it's not automatically a better instrument than its modern day companions.

[uwe]

The G3 was the best sounding bass they ever made...a re-issue of that would be awesome.

That is maybe taking it a bit far, but if you want a bass that is zingy, snappy, responsive, full of attack, yet still retains bass ooomph the G-3 doesn't have to hide. It offers Jazz Bass flexibility with P Bass grit.

[patman]

I'm with Uwe, in that I want a new instrument to have all the modern creature comforts...I've had a few "vintage" instruments, but I generally prefer a modern (but old-school style) instrument, where everything works "right", even if it was made in Korea.  I still don't like active electronics to this day...

[uwe]

Neither do I. I always ask myself "what is wrong with me that I don't like active electronics?"  , everybody else seems to if you leaf through the bass mags and look at the hi-end boutique fodder in them. I certainly used to: For much of the eighties I played either a Kramer with active EMGs  (the darn guitarist talked me into it, I was young and I had the money ...) or a Kubicki Factor, both essentially hi-fi'sh bass sounds. The one exception I can think of that I still like today is the Wal Mk 1 electronics, that sounds just like no other, idiosyncratic, yet natural, but then as Wals don't come in passive I have no idea how a passive Wal would sound. Possibly even better.

That said, if Gibson brought out an active SG Standard (how much treble can you tickle out of a short scale bass, somehow shorties never seem to get the active treatment?) or TBird I'd be naturally curious. I've heard Bartolini and Seymour Duncan Bass Lines active electronics that actually sound well and not overdone.

[patman]

Regarding the G-3, you can always roll off some high end, if you have too much, but if the pickups don't reproduce it in the first place (as in a mudbucker), you're out of luck.

That's why I always liked real crisp sounding basses.

[uwe]

The G-3 is sharp, but it has balls, that is what I like about it. A Stingray is sharp too, but its balls come from a 9 volt battery.

[Dave W]

I don't like or dislike active preamps. They're just another tone shaping tool. Either they sound good or they don't, depends on the particular maker.

The G-3 is sharp, but it has balls, that is what I like about it. A Stingray is sharp too, but its balls come from a 9 volt battery.

A preamp can't add something that's not there. MM pickups have relatively low output, they're designed to work with a preamp, but set flat, they have plenty of low end on their own.

[TBird1958]

Herr Moderator I think you're working at least in part the "Half Noah" principle, 1 of everything.

[uwe]

Never forgetting the Eleventh Commandment written on the wall in fiery lettering:

Thou shalt not collect for fins!!!

I'll now go to a rehearsal, taking my little pelham blue Kalamazooomph KB-1 with me. Ever since it got the Hipshot Supertone (worth more than the rest of the bass!   ), it has wonderfully low buzzfree (not that you would really hear fret buzz with a mudbucker) action. It will have to compete with a zebra wood GoW TBird, a Peavey T-40 and a Greg Rupp boutique Telecaster bass - active/passive Basslines electronics in a mock Stingray look pup.

[TBird1958]

Never forgetting the Eleventh Commandment written on the wall in fiery lettering:

Thou shalt not collect for fins!!!

Just one reason I'll be paddling around the lake of fire in my little aluminum canoe 

You can't fool me, you have more than a few examples of this!

[Pilgrim]

I thought the 11th commandment was "Thou shalt not waste good beer."

Maybe that's a Coug thing.   

[TBird1958]

All alcohol is a "coug thing"   

[patman]

My mother used to say the only mortal sin was to waste beer.