neepheid

Have done it before with people I have decided are trustworthy. Randoms can do one.

[quote name='AndyTravis' timestamp='1475430021' post='3145849'] I keep on coming back to these. They're not that bad you know - I'd have one. [/quote] Maybe they're doing something right - they don't need has-beens like me who still wish it was the 70s or 80s and hanker after RDs and Rippers, as we're clearly in the minority anyway and have been so for some time now. I am as obsolete as the basses I own and desire

[quote name='BassApprentice' timestamp='1475272056' post='3144712'] How long ago was this? Also which guitar shop? I'm in the market for a 5 string G&L and would be great to try one before hand! Didn't think many places in Scotland would carry G&L [/quote] Wal not for sale in the window? Sounds like Ayr Guitar to me. Kenny's in Glasgow has been known to have Tributes (I got my Tribute SB-2 there).

I thought I'd preempt the barrage of abuse Gibson appear to be trying again to make basses. Once again, they have not seen fit to come up with anything resembling a model name, it's the 2017 New EB bass. Available in 4 and 5 string varieties (and lefties, I read somewhere), in the oh-so-exciting choice of natural or vintage sunburst. Set neck, swamp ash/maple/rosewood, EB humbuckers, blah blah blah Here are some pics before you die of boredom: Me personally, I'm finding it difficult to get excited about it. They look to me like most other generic "modern" styled basses (save for the headstock, which appears to be carried across from the NR Thunderbird) and they appear not to have implemented the coil split this time which was one of the things that made the EB (2013-14) interesting. Keen pricing for a USA made bass, I guess (with caveats - unfilled ash "satin" finish (which I can't say I'm a fan of) and gig bag, not hard case), but I think I'd rather set fire to £400 than buy one of these new - it'll be more spectacular and have a similar monetary effect. So I'm still looking for that post 1973 basket-case EB-3L to restore then (or another G-3, I miss mine), because I just don't care enough about this one to bother, it just doesn't grab me. It's just not very Gibson-y. Yes it has a set neck and a Gibson-y headstock but from the head down, it's just ... OK. Just OK is never a word I would use to describe the Gibson basses of the past - there's always been something distinctive, noteworthy or downright bonkers about them - from the Moog electronics in an RD Artist to the three layer body sandwich of a Money/latter Les Paul Double Cut to the sidewinder pickups and passive mid control of a Ripper to the distinctive body shape of any Thunderbird. I suppose I'm expected to be grateful they're making any basses at all. Trouble is it's starting to feel like giving them a medal for remembering to breathe. OK Basschat, I'm done, I just remembered to breathe in time, go me! Over to you. Send medals.

Not had the pleasure of trying one of these high end BBs, but I have owned a BB300, BB350F, BB450 and BB614. Still got the 350F. All great basses, all had a good sound and ergonomics. At some point I'd like to get an older neck thru BB. The one I fancy is the BB1200s - don't really care about bridge pickups that much

Funny G&L story - was sound checking at a gig recently with my Tribute SB-2. Sound guy asks for bass and bloomin well gets it - "is that an active bass?" he asks in a slightly confused voice. That made me smile as I told him it wasn't Not always unknown either. Was setting up for a gig a while back (again it was the SB-2) and the sound guy was on stage too wrestling with cables. He sees my bass and says to me "Ahh, a G&L - the thinking man's Fender" - made me chuckle!

[quote name='molan' timestamp='1474705158' post='3139919'] I don't think Ed Roman's famous rant about G&L build quality helped their reputation much. "I hereby rescind any positive recommendations I have made regarding G&L instruments. I hereby will no longer recommend the G&L product to my customers. And I will buy back any G&L guitar that was purchased from me within a two year period for full price paid" He was always something of a maverick but was one of the biggest names in US guitar retailing and offering to buy back any G&L he'd sold was a pretty big knock. I must admit that we tried stocking them for a while at BassGear and they were very slow moving so we delisted them. [/quote] Sounds like a blowhard with a chip on his shoulder to me. The truth usually lies somewhere between the extremes of this guy on one side and slavish fanbois who will stomp on you (in the Internet words sense) if you dare say anything negative about the motherbrand on the other - EBMM forum springs to mind

Hmm, nearly always had a G&L in the stable. First a Tribute L-2000, then at various times a Tribute M-2000, an El Toro, and currently have a Tribute SB-2. Trips to Glasgow can be expensive sometimes when you discover that the Tribute SB-2 is available in white and that the neck isn't as super skinny as you suspected They're our secret. The Fight Club of basses, sorry for breaking the first two rules there!

That really is bad, especially from someone who charges money for such things. I'm a complete amateur and I managed to fit a battery box to my Yamaha SBV500 without butchering the thing. My battery box screwed into the bottom of the hole though - maybe one like I used might rectify the situation?

[quote name='Conan' timestamp='1473848738' post='3133517'] Yet you have posted TWICE in the thread! That's a new level of apathy... [/quote] Have a third post - I may not have any strong feelings about the question in the poll, but I've always got time for you

Can we have an "I don't care" option instead?

[quote name='stingrayPete1977' timestamp='1473799610' post='3133290'] My introduction to bass was via an Avon SG copy bass of some sort, it was awful (imo ) ok it was a copy but I've found the things I disliked the most about it were all present on the real ones, I bought a Peavey Foundation in 1993 and it was a revelation and my playing improved hugely,I've never looked back. [/quote] Sounds grim to be sure. I think we're lucky in this day and age that all but the most comically inexpensive basses are more often than not, well built, reliable and playable instruments.

I don't think that opinions should be presented as fact. It's the difference between saying: "Fender P basses are boring" And "I think/in my opinion Fender P basses are boring" I'll go for the second form because other people have feelings and their own contrasting (and deeply held) opinions. I think it's just good manners rather than some sort of PC gone mad type thing. But feel free to disagree, of course!

Can the poll have an "oh no, not this again" option?

[quote name='Meddle' timestamp='1473713475' post='3132557'] I find it hard to describe my thoughts about Gibson basses (and a good many other things) without sounding negative. This isn't my intention here at all. I think at some point you have to be a bit objective. Gibson basses have a tendency to be harder to play than Fenders, and a good number of them are harder to EQ in a band setting, especially if you are used to the tone of Fender basses. It takes less work to get a good tone out of a P bass, which is ultimately probably why so many folk use them. A lot of famous Gibson bass players jumped ship to other builders; Glenn Cornick, Jack Bruce, Andy Fraser, Trevor Bolder, John Entwistle. When these gigging bassists were presented with alternative instruments they jumped ship; a simple fact. I don't say this to denigrate Gibson basses, simply to demonstrate the tastes of musicians that used Gibson instruments back in the day. I would love an EB-3 with a slotted headstock, and RD Artist bass, a Polaris white Thunderbird II, a natural finish EB-2 and even an EB-1, but none of them would be my desert island bass. I have nothing but respect for those that do make these basses work in a live and recording setting, but ultimately I find that good Fender (and Fender style basses) tend to get 'out the way' when you play them, whereas with Gibson it seems like they never actually asked a bassist 'does this work?' before implementing a design. [/quote] What I'm getting at is that a few of your points would be more palatable if you prefixed them with "in my opinion". I don't find GIbsons any more difficult to play than Fenders - in fact, I am not keen on the ergonomics of a Jazz neck, and it makes me make more mistakes, completely flying in the face of logic telling me that a skinnier neck ought to be more efficient - economy of movement and whatnot - and that goes for Thunderbird too with its skinny neck (but not the non-reverse, it's chunkier). The "hard work" which you seem to find is so worth it for the tone you can find. For what it's worth, I've found Gibsons shod with TB+ pickups to be amongst the easiest to drop into a live situation with no EQ fettling at all. But I guess that makes me a weirdo, lucky, or some kind of idiot savant I am under no illusions and there's no need to question my objectivity - Gibson are about as far from perfect as a bass manufacturer can get - a contrary bunch, they can be innovative in one heartbeat and boneheadedly stupid in another. I love and despise them in about equal measure. There are Gibson basses I wouldn't touch with a barge pole (EB-1, EB-2, most Thunderbirds, short scales for quick examples). But the bottom line is that playing the Gibson basses I do like ticks the boxes for me - I can play what I want to play, sound how I want to sound and look how I want to look. I can deal with weight, and I would like to contend that many Gibson designs (and there have been many) are more balanced than you're making out. I'm not saying it's right for anyone apart from me, I just feel that people focus far too much on the negative traits of a couple of the most popular designs and extrapolate that out to the whole bunch. It's just a bit unfair, that's all, and if you think that's a viewpoint which stems from blind fanboi-ism then you've really got me all wrong.

Ahh, the simple truth always appears at some point

[quote name='christhammer666' timestamp='1473531156' post='3131063'] I like the thunderbird bass range but even then they have the flimsy 3 point bridge thing.You are defo not alone [/quote] Ahh, the three point bridge. Recalcitrant, awkward, inflexible, frustrating and doggedly determined not to die it may be, but flimsy is not a word I would use to describe it. I don't care for it either, and I'm a fan of the brand. If you want a Thunderbird with a different bridge, grab a 2015 model with the EB pickups and Babicz bridge. Or get a Hipshot Supertone/Babicz replacement and stick that on whichever Thunderbird you like. Given that there are direct replacements available, I hardly think it's fair to discount an entire manufacturer's output just because you don't like the stock bridge. Some people think the Fender BBOT is a POS but there are many replacement options out there so it's really (and quite rightly) a non issue, but that logic doesn't seem to carry across to Gibson.

Why do you have to "get it"? I don't get why people get fizzy knickers about Fenders, but I don't let it hold me back.

[quote name='ambient' timestamp='1472929240' post='3125447'] Tbh I was only vaguely aware that Gibson built basses [/quote] Have I not been posting enough?

£25 - 6 beers down the pub? Stay out of the pub for a weekend, job done?

My kind of publication for sure

We're in it. Electric bass has only been a thing for mere decades, we're all still pioneers.

[quote name='Funky Dunky' timestamp='1472569071' post='3122197'] Ah. I have an Android phone. [/quote] It's available on Android too

I have bought the vast majority of my basses at distance and it isn't just dumb luck that I haven't been scammed in the process. A liberal application of common sense laced with a possibly unhealthy amount of cynicism has worked well for me thus far.