The reason Fenders became so popular...

[Telebass]

[size=3][font="Comic Sans MS"][i]"While Gibson brochures pictured men who looked like your dad, wearing business suits and playing elegant jazz instruments, Fender literature pictured guys who looked like you, playing rocketship guitars and hanging out at the beach with suntanned blondes. Take your pick."
Tom Wheeler, 'The Stratocaster Chronicles'[/i][/font][/size]

Says it all, really!

[Lozz196]

[quote name='Telebass' post='921218' date='Aug 11 2010, 06:05 AM'][size=3][font="Comic Sans MS"][i]"While Gibson brochures pictured men who looked like your dad, wearing business suits and playing elegant jazz instruments, Fender literature pictured guys who looked like you, playing rocketship guitars and hanging out at the beach with suntanned blondes. Take your pick."
Tom Wheeler, 'The Stratocaster Chronicles'[/i][/font][/size]

Says it all, really![/quote]
Certainly does!

For some reason, I always expect Gibsons to be kept in pristine condition, whereas Fenders I assume will show some battle scars, and have a few tales of life on the road. Cool is always a bit ragged around the edges.

[Shaggy]

[quote name='Lozz196' post='921229' date='Aug 11 2010, 07:35 AM']Certainly does!

For some reason, I always expect Gibsons to be kept in pristine condition, whereas Fenders I assume will show some battle scars, and have a few tales of life on the road. Cool is always a bit ragged around the edges.[/quote]

My '58 EB-2 - definately not pristine!

Certainly true through that marketing was a key part of Fender's success - Gibson could have learned some lessons when lauching the less trad Explorer and Flying V in the late 50's, but obviously didn't - they flopped

[Big_Stu]

[quote name='Lozz196' post='921229' date='Aug 11 2010, 07:35 AM']Certainly does!

For some reason, I always expect Gibsons to be kept in pristine condition, whereas Fenders I assume will show some battle scars, and have a few tales of life on the road.[/quote]

That's because way back when, before the corporations got involved, Gibsons were made by craftsmen, Fenders were made by machines for cheaper production & easy repair. It's a natural progression for Fenders to go over to China or Korea to be made by a cheap labour force on machines, while Gibsons craftsmen die out & top dollar is charged by the few that can be bothered to train up to the job. Those that don't knock out the run of the mill Gibsons with flaws, then buyers say they are over-priced.

I don't much like Fenders, can you tell? Only because they're too common, too every-day. If they float your boat then fine, but I really don't get the "other" forums that show endless lists of near identical Fenders & they drool over them like they're some grail.

[Chris2112]

I think Ibanez had the best marketing of any guitar company, during the 1980's. Everyone who was someone had or would have an Ibanez...Vai, Satch, Gambale, Holdsworth, Lane etc etc...

they are the guitars of the 1980's and beyond!

[Krysbass]

[quote name='Big_Stu' post='921277' date='Aug 11 2010, 08:46 AM']I don't much like Fenders, can you tell? Only because they're too common, too every-day. If they float your boat then fine, but I really don't get the "other" forums that show endless lists of near identical Fenders & they drool over them like they're some grail.[/quote]

+1

[ahpook]

[quote name='Lozz196' post='921229' date='Aug 11 2010, 07:35 AM']Certainly does!

For some reason, I always expect Gibsons to be kept in pristine condition, whereas Fenders I assume will show some battle scars, and have a few tales of life on the road. Cool is always a bit ragged around the edges.[/quote]

that's cos a damaged gibson doesn't have a headstock

[Tech]

[quote name='ahpook' post='921570' date='Aug 11 2010, 01:24 PM']that's cos a damaged gibson doesn't have a headstock [/quote]

Sad but true! have seen it happen twice.

surely jackson should get some marketing points for the use of jenna jameson?

[Lord Sausage]

I Think Gibson and Fender have more class than other guitars as they are original. They are like The Beatles and The Stones. Everything that came after was because of them. I don't think we'll ever get to the point where say an old vintage Ibanez or Jackson, whatever, will be viewed with the nostalgia and awe that is given to Fender or Gibson.

[teen t-shirt]

[quote name='Big_Stu' post='921277' date='Aug 11 2010, 08:46 AM']That's because way back when, before the corporations got involved, Gibsons were made by craftsmen, Fenders were made by machines for cheaper production & easy repair. It's a natural progression for Fenders to go over to China or Korea to be made by a cheap labour force on machines, while Gibsons craftsmen die out & top dollar is charged by the few that can be bothered to train up to the job. Those that don't knock out the run of the mill Gibsons with flaws, then buyers say they are over-priced.

I don't much like Fenders, can you tell? Only because they're too common, too every-day. If they float your boat then fine, but I really don't get the "other" forums that show endless lists of near identical Fenders & they drool over them like they're some grail.[/quote]

+1000000000000 to that mans point of view because it pretty much matches my own, i can't stand seeing or playing run of the mill fenders, now something like my Squier 5 string Precision special with jazz pick ups, thats one that you wont see much of and really floats my boat....

but thats just me people opinions vary and its up to them what floats their boat it just sinks mine...

[basshead56]

To me, the Fender catalogue has always been something of beauty and nostalgia, whereas any of the Gibson ads I´ve seen look boring.
Going back to the late 50´s/early 60´s I´m sure pictures of beach parties and surfers holding Strats and P Basses (modern/contemporary designs in keeping with the style of cars etc of the time) were much more appealing to younger generations of musicians than Gibsons ads, showing old blueshawks sitting down noodling on old archtops.
And yes, Fender using more machinery, standardised parts and mass production (in different countries) is key to their success story. I think up untill a few years ago, Gibson could command premium prices because of their pedigree-expensive, carefully handcrafted instruments, but they can no longer do so as they too have had to get with the times and begin using more modern building techniques and more cost effective materals etc.It is a shame that Gibson quality has taken such a dive in the last few years, but that is the way of the world.
I still think that without Fender or Gibson, the world would be a far less interesting place!

Edited August 11, 2010 by basshead56

[Sibob]

[quote name='Big_Stu' post='921277' date='Aug 11 2010, 08:46 AM']That's because way back when, before the corporations got involved, Gibsons were made by craftsmen, Fenders were made by machines for cheaper production & easy repair. It's a natural progression for Fenders to go over to China or Korea to be made by a cheap labour force on machines, while Gibsons craftsmen die out & top dollar is charged by the few that can be bothered to train up to the job. Those that don't knock out the run of the mill Gibsons with flaws, then buyers say they are over-priced.

I don't much like Fenders, can you tell? Only because they're too common, too every-day. If they float your boat then fine, but I really don't get the "other" forums that show endless lists of near identical Fenders & they drool over them like they're some grail.[/quote]

What a bizarre read!
You're suggesting that all fenders pre '65 were made on massive factory production lines?.....what mass-manufacturing technology existed back then in your world? lol. Obviously whilst master craftsmen were holed up in tiny sheds with nowt but rudimentary tools for Gibson?

I jest obviously

See a good instrument isn't simply about craftsmanship (as whoever designed Gibson headstock joints is well aware ).
The fact that you mention that Fenders are "easy to repair", regardless of how they're built, is going to appeal to working musicians!.....back then even more so than now!. Players back then didn't have 10 basses to choose from for a gig...they had one, and a backup if they had a major label deal lol.
From a bass point of view, Fenders sounded good, were solid, versatile, looked the part!
Gibson's were a bit niche, generally sounded muddy (mudbucker EB-0's anyone). Oh and the Les Paul basses were neck heavy!

But hey, if they float your boat!

Si

[Big_Stu]

[quote name='Lord Sausage' post='921877' date='Aug 11 2010, 07:04 PM']I Think Gibson and Fender have more class than other guitars as they are original. They are like The Beatles and The Stones. Everything that came after was because of them. I don't think we'll ever get to the point where say an old vintage Ibanez or Jackson, whatever, will be viewed with the nostalgia and awe that is given to Fender or Gibson.[/quote]


But, but, but ...... what about the re-issue classic vintage Tokai Les Pauls, weren't they worth the money?

[Big_Stu]

[quote name='Sibob' post='921903' date='Aug 11 2010, 07:34 PM']You're suggesting that all fenders pre '65 were made on massive factory production lines?.....what mass-manufacturing technology existed back then in your world? lol.[/quote]


Oh none obviously, as Henry Ford would have attested 43 years previously!

Edited August 11, 2010 by Big_Stu

[risingson]

Ahh screw the haters, I love Fender, they're the one of the reasons I love coming back to my bass time and time again. Each to their own of course, I see this turning into a Fender love/hate thread

[Sibob]

[quote name='Big_Stu' post='921971' date='Aug 11 2010, 08:18 PM']Oh none obviously, as Henry Ford would have attested 43 years previously![/quote]

Repectfully, I think you'll find that there were more people involved in Ford and Fender's early efforts than machines

Si

[Gust0o]

Sorry, I'm here for the screwing?

[skankdelvar]

Coming back to the original post - Fender's marketing was indeed outstanding for its time and as good, if not better than some of the big names like Ford, GM, GE, Coca Cola. Certainly better than Gibson's efforts - then or now.

Fender's marketing was mostly down to the late Don Randall. Prior to his involvement, Fender's promo stuff looked pretty much like anyone else's. Blotchy mono product shot, dull serif type face, turgid copy. Dreadful.

Randall was a classic marketeer and his campaigns were models of understanding one's market.

[Mr. Foxen]

[quote name='Sibob' post='922206' date='Aug 12 2010, 12:29 AM']Repectfully, I think you'll find that there were more people involved in Ford and Fender's early efforts than machines

Si[/quote]

Doesn't make it not mass production. Fenders had all the routes on the face of the body because it meant less turning the body over. Ease of manufacture was the engineering priority once function had been satisfied. The charm was in the unbreakable plankness of them, not delicate sophistication and crafting with love.

[Cat Burrito]

There are brands of bass that aren't to my tastes but I prefer to not comment rather than point out that I'm not a fan of certain gear. It's just negative.

For the record I think Fender's gear just looks classic & timeless

[evilLordJuju]

In the fifties and early sixties Gibson had a very different view of guitars than Fender. They were essentially aiming at two different markets.

As already stated, Gibson employed craftsmen, making very fine jazz guitars. The Les Paul trio bassist played an upright, and Gibson bought Epiphone partially to get the tooling to make upright basses. Because that's what jazz bassists played. Gibson did make some lesser instruments, but the main focus was on [u]very[/u] fine instruments for very good musicians. Tal Farlow, Trini Lopez etc etc didn't throw their guitars about, so fragility was not an issue. Gibson's 50s and 60s carved top hollowbodies are a million miles above anything that Fender could make, or have ever made. Gibson spent most of the next twenty years trying to make guitars that were cleaner than clean sounding, and basses that sounded like uprights.

Fender designed instruments to be assembled by largely untrained staff and played by less accomplished musicians. Or at least not the same elder jazz musicians that Gibson was aiming at.

Today, Gibsons old catalogues do look very staid, but would Gibson have sold all those incredibly expensive Byrdlands etc if they advertised to teenagers? Gibson clearly didn't predict the number of teenagers who would be buying guitars over the next few years, but they were having so much trouble keeping up with orders that I don't think it would have made any difference anyway.

Check these two links for a bunch of old Fender and Gibson adverts
[url="http://www.vintageguitars.org.uk/advertisements/Gibson"]http://www.vintageguitars.org.uk/advertisements/Gibson[/url]
[url="http://www.vintageguitars.org.uk/advertisements/Fender"]http://www.vintageguitars.org.uk/advertisements/Fender[/url]

[chris_b]

Fender basses were used in all the studios because they had the right sound and if all players used the same bass the engineers could dial in the bass in 10 seconds. This was in the days of 3 takes and you're out!

With most of the popular and successful records coming out with the Fender sound no bass player was going to buy anything else. The ball had started rolling and hasn't stopped yet!

[EdwardHimself]

[quote name='Shaggy' post='921270' date='Aug 11 2010, 08:38 AM']My '58 EB-2 - definately not pristine!

Certainly true through that marketing was a key part of Fender's success - Gibson could have learned some lessons when lauching the less trad Explorer and Flying V in the late 50's, but obviously didn't - they flopped[/quote]

+1. The explorer looked futuristic in the 1980s which is when it gained it's real popularity, it's hard to believe it was designed in 1959. If gibson had tried marketing more radical guitars instead of just solid/semi solid versions of their old 1920s/30s guitars then they no doubt would have captured a whole new market. Yes, they might have alienated a few of the jazz purists which i'm sure is what they were worried about but at the end of the day that would have easily been dwarfed by the number of new people buying their guitars. But i suppose that's just hindsight now lolz.

Nice bass btw.

[EdwardHimself]

[quote name='BurritoBass' post='922239' date='Aug 12 2010, 03:43 AM']There are brands of bass that aren't to my tastes but I prefer to not comment rather than point out that I'm not a fan of certain gear. It's just negative.

For the record I think Fender's gear just looks classic & timeless[/quote]

+1 to this as well. Unless it is a thread specifically asking for your opinions on a particular brand, why bother posting that you don't like it? I don't much like Tommy K but i don't go posting it everywhere!

[guzzibass]

[quote name='chris_b' post='923137' date='Aug 12 2010, 08:13 PM']Fender basses were used in all the studios because they had the right sound and if all players used the same bass the engineers could dial in the bass in 10 seconds. This was in the days of 3 takes and you're out!

With most of the popular and successful records coming out with the Fender sound no bass player was going to buy anything else. The ball had started rolling and hasn't stopped yet![/quote]


....the crux of the issue....they do what it says on the tin.......