The Last Bass Outpost
Gear Discussion Forums => Fender Basses => Topic started by: eb2 on January 15, 2010, 11:20:57 AM
-
Amusing if not confused.
http://www.fender.com/products/search.php?partno=0195000809&EDID=KECT0K4-T0K-S8TWM-FQIC-930-v1
-
When I saw the title I thought, "Thing? What the heck is that supposed to mean". Then I clicked on the link... Thing is right! I wanted to like it because I'm partial to matching headstock Fenders, but that bass doesn't know what decade it wants to come from. It seems to me a 50th anniversary Jazz bass should have been like its original ancestor. I can see why the P didn't follow that pattern (the design had changed enough that the general market wouldn't have recognized it), but the original Jazz is still being copied to this day (OK, active electronics are part of many of those, but the platform is the same). Missed opportunity IMHO.
-
At the very least, I thought they could have made them a glitzy gold sparkle, like that '64 I posted some time back; similar theming to the silver ones they had for the 25th (one of the engineers I worked with at BA brought back an anniversary Strat - flew out on staff travel just to get one at US prices), I mean, what's red gotta do with a fiftieth...?
-
Amusing if not confused.
Channeling Al Capp?
I'd call it ridiculous. A bass born with an identity crisis.
-
i like fenders but this thing is deranged. looks like stunt gibson would pull. ;)
-
I think it is a nice idea to do stealth updates, like carbon fiber in the neck. No one can see that really. But the tuners out of whack with the decal, the neck out of whack with the pup placement, the bridge, the thumb rest, etc. Too much confusion, I can't can't get no relief! It looks like an early 1968 reissue, kind of. I feel like they are using up parts.
-
I don't care what features came in what decade - absolutely could NOT care less. All I care about is what I like to see in a bass. IMO Fender is under no obligation to reproduce any "era". Further, they specifically state: "...it boasts design touches from several periods in Jazz Bass history...". They're absolutely clear about that. Tuners not agreeing with the decal??? Pickups not agreeing with the neck???? Oh please, give me a break - the bass is correct for what it is - the 50th anniversary model.
Here's what I see and what I care about:
Color-matching headstock? Check!
Inlays? Check!
Bridge and pickup covers? Check!
Tugbar? Check!
As far as I'm concerned, it's not confused, it's lovely! All it needs is binding on the neck and every one of my likes would be covered.
(As usual, opinion always available on request.)
-
I don't care what features came in what decade - absolutely could NOT care less. All I care about is what I like to see in a bass. IMO Fender is under no obligation to reproduce any "era". Further, they specifically state: "...it boasts design touches from several periods in Jazz Bass history...". They're absolutely clear about that. Tuners not agreeing with the decal??? Pickups not agreeing with the neck???? Oh please, give me a break - the bass is correct for what it is - the 50th anniversary model.
Color-matching headstock? Check!
Inlays? Check!
Bridge and pickup covers? Check!
Tugbar? Check!
As far as I'm concerned, it's not confused, it's lovely! All it needs is binding on the neck and every one of my likes would be covered.
(As usual, opinion always available on request.)
The thumbrest is nice, I've never been a fan of inlays and matching headstocks, and the covers just get in the way.
Agreed that they have no obligation to do a faithful reissue. Still, this looks like someone with no design sense threw it together.
Reminds me of a Johnny Cash song.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIuo0KIqD_E
-
I share their lack of design sense...if I built my own, it would be essentially identical to that one.
I always liked that Johnny Cash song!
-
I don't know for sure but I saw on another forum that they're using the Jaguar neck (blocks but no binding). If that's the case, it rings true that they're just using up spare parts. ;D
-
True enough, they are under no obligation to make an aniversary edition some kind of reissue. However, I have liked every reissue I've gotten my hands on, guitars and basses alike. I know I haven't played every reissue that they've done, but I've played a bunch of them and I think it's been a really good formula. Again , I've liked them all, some more than others, but still liked them all. This thing may be a great bass, and it probably is, but it comes off as pretty much a Ho, and if I'm in the market for a Ho I'll have one built with all the hot rod Ho stuff I can find and not be concerned with the name on the headstock.
Rick
-
(hmm... I've been tempted to get some spare bits, copy wise, and build one - could always do my own in a nice sparkly gold fin and call it "FIFTY" instead of "FENDER" on the head - even matches my age - have to be fretless, though)
-
The MSRP is $2799, street price will probably be about $2K. For that, IMO you could buy a better bass from a small builder and have some change to spare.
-
I think what Fender has done here is fine. They have put together features of the Jazz bass that all make total sense. You can always remove the finger rests and bridge guard. I do not think they are using Jaguar necks as that neck profile is not a Jazz feature (it is a very differnet actually).
I just saw a new Fender Japan bass which is actually a Jazz bass with a pickup in the neck position. Really nice actually, not a new idea but a first for a production piece. Really quiet electronics, passive and MIJ quality. This is not like the ones they produced in the 80's with the black necks, weird plastic creamy finihes and somewhat questionable electronics.
-
The MSRP is $2799, street price will probably be about $2K. For that, IMO you could buy a better bass from a small builder and have some change to spare.
I agree!
To me, it looks like a nice $600 bass. But then, that's about the most ANY bass is worth to me.
-
The MSRP is $2799, street price will probably be about $2K.
:o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o (add another 2,779 more...)
-
http://www.themusiczoo.com/blog/2010/50-years-of-the-fender-jazz-bass/
Fender's own marketing blurb seems to insinuate that the Jazz outsold the P or came close? I'm genuuinely surprised, I thought there were far more Ps out there.
Uwe
-
Up until the late 70's early 80's the P was king. I would not be surprised if the J out sold the P these days.
-
The conventional wisdom is that the J has outsold the P for years by a good bit. I don't know if Fender has ever acknowledged this. I think about the greater number of premium J type basses and the greater choice in aftermarket J pickups.
-
If you think of the premium brand Jazz copies out there it would make sense that that's the more popular model of the two. I know Lakland does both but the Sadowskys, Foderas, etc. seem to cater more to Jazz Bass fans, don't they?
-
If you think of the premium brand Jazz copies out there it would make sense that that's the more popular model of the two. I know Lakland does both but the Sadowskys, Foderas, etc. seem to cater more to Jazz Bass fans, don't they?
Sure seems like it to me. Maybe the balance of the J and its narrower neck (often copied) are reasons?
-
The P was king into the mid 80s, when the post-jaco vibe got entrenched. I would say there was period in the mid to late 70s when it was hipper than hip to take a Jazz neck and stick it onto a P body. But the switch over to Jazz being preferred started in that late 70s period, where people were snapping up early Jazz basses. A good marker was that in 1983/84 at a vintage show in NYC you could have bought a stack knob refin for $1800, and a custom color 67 for $700. A pre-cbs P would have been in the grand area, and a 57/58 would be close to the $1500 mark or more. I have fairly accurate memories of that as I was buying at that show and came real close to buying the stack knob. Within a couple of years those prices were a sweet dream.
-
You live and learn. I prefer the Jazz myself, in a world of humbuckers a sweet and pure singlecoil is nice. I also like the shaping better and the whole bass is more of an instrument than the "slab of wood" P bass (which has a different charm, I know).
-
I remember lusting after a black matching headstock '62 J at 'Guitars R Us' on Sunset Blvd in 1986 or so. I think it was $1900 or so and I distinctly remember thinking that was a crazy amount for an old bass, nice or not. Even at 21 I was a dumb kid... I guess now I'm a dumb old (er) guy. :mrgreen:
-
I still think Js look like melted Ps. :p
I've got J pickups in my Ps!!
-
It's a nice looking bass though I rather have dots with binding than blocks, but in any case I wouldn't pay $2000 for it.
-
If I were to build a J to suit me, it would be like the 62 Am Vintage RI except I like a flatter fretboard radius. No blocks, binding or matching headstock, thank you very much.
-
I remember lusting after a black matching headstock '62 J at 'Guitars R Us' on Sunset Blvd in 1986 or so. I think it was $1900 or so and I distinctly remember thinking that was a crazy amount for an old bass, nice or not. Even at 21 I was a dumb kid... I guess now I'm a dumb old (er) guy. :mrgreen:
Ray's Heart Of Texas Music had a mint Oly White '66 Jazz with dots and binding back in 1983 and was asking 1k for it. I also saw Keith Ferguson's '55 Precision bass marked at $1400, a '59 gold guard slab Precision that had been refinished CAR for $600 and a checkerboard bound crushed marker 4001 for $450. Those were the days.
I bought a '68 Telecaster Bass from Ray's for $400 around a year later.
-
i'm P all the way. i think they sound better. feel better, hang better and look better. J's hang funny and the necks are too thin.and the knobs are too close together(same prob. w/ Strats)pups are fine,though not my favorite. i think i could get down with the Jaguar bass.but it's got so many switches?
-
i'm P all the way. i think they sound better. feel better, hang better and look better. J's hang funny and the necks are too thin.
That's funny, I'm the total opposite! A P bass looks really strange on me for some reason, but a J works. I don't currently own any Fenders.
-
Even at 2K it's too much for me! I'd just as soon pick up a Geddy Lee and be done with and spend a whole lot less.
Still, I'm with SK8 - I'm in the P camp and just can't really get into J's - and I've tried too ;)
-
I love my J but that 50th ann bass is less than appealing to me. I find standard Jazz pups to be too anemic sounding although I do like the way they sit and the necks (bound/inlays/high mass bridge please).
I kinda have to (almost reluctantly) agree that it does seem like Fender put this thing together the way they have so that they can still sell an original 60's reissue.
-
i like fenders but this is too pimped out for my liking. i don't like binding, blocks, matching headstock, chrome bridge and pick up covers, or red paint. my ideal fender would be a sunburst p bass with rosewood board and tord guard. not too exciting but what the heck.
-
I can understand Candy Apple Red, it was Leo Fender's favorite custom color and matchiing headstocks were common on custom color Fenders.
I like the way it looks except for the lack of binding on the neck, IMO if a Jazz has blocks it should be bound.
I would have liked to have seen the neck with binding and dots instead, this would have been a nice homage to the early era Jazzes (they changed to blocks mid '66).
It's probably best they didn't go with a stack knob config as those have never been overwhelmingly popular with players.
All-in-all I like it but I think that if they wanted to capture the "Jazz bass through the years" vibe then they missed it.
-
I don't care what features came in what decade - absolutely could NOT care less. All I care about is what I like to see in a bass. IMO Fender is under no obligation to reproduce any "era". Further, they specifically state: "...it boasts design touches from several periods in Jazz Bass history...". They're absolutely clear about that. Tuners not agreeing with the decal??? Pickups not agreeing with the neck???? Oh please, give me a break - the bass is correct for what it is - the 50th anniversary model.
Here's what I see and what I care about:
Color-matching headstock? Check!
Inlays? Check!
Bridge and pickup covers? Check!
Tugbar? Check!
As far as I'm concerned, it's not confused, it's lovely! All it needs is binding on the neck and every one of my likes would be covered.
(As usual, opinion always available on request.)
Of course, Fender can do whatever they want, but if they're calling it a 50th Anniversary Jazz Bass, logic dictates that it should have some features of an original '60 J-Bass. Block inlays, (mid '66-'82-ish) binding, (Dec.'65-ish-'82-ish) thumbrest on top. ('74/'75-'82-ish) The chrome covers are common to all Jazz Basses form '60 through about '82, so that hardly counts. The matching headstock's cool and definitely vintage-like, but in fact custom color JBs before mid '62 (about the same time round lam 'boards appear) or so usually don't have one. So where's the beef? Nothing representaive of a '60 Jazz Bass. I have no problem with the bass itself, only what it's being represented as. Call it a "vintage amalgam Jazz Bass", whatever, but the 50th Ann. moniker is misleading and could've been applied to a bass closer to what the name implies.
For whatever it's worth, I started out (bought my first one in new '75) as a P-Bass guy, but after a year got my 1st Jazz and never really went back. Lover everthing about them, the shape, the narrow neck, the sound. Had a lot of gorgeous Pre-CBS Precisions over the years, (which I stupidly didn't keep) but for me, the J-Bass is the s**t. I need 2 pickups, kinda lost without 2.
I can always tell a Precision, Rickenbacker, or Gibson EB on record, Jazzes are a little harder to pick out. Which is why they fit any style of music, I guess...a Jazz is like club soda, it goes with everything!
As Greg Lake said in Guitar Player back in '74, the Fender Jazz Bass is one of the best basses in existence. (And he was playing a Gibson Ripper at the time he said that!) Still pretty true today...
-
As Greg Lake said in Guitar Player back in '74, the Fender Jazz Bass is one of the best basses in existence. (And he was playing a Gibson Ripper at the time he said that!) Still pretty true today...
Lake said that but was playing a what? ;)
-
Of course, Fender can do whatever they want, but if they're calling it a 50th Anniversary Jazz Bass, logic dictates that it should have some features of an original '60 J-Bass.
I cheerfully and respectfully differ. As far as I'm concerned, an anniversary bass can be the chance to pile on a bunch of good stuff from various years in order to make something different. That's why I offered my list of favorites.
-
Lake said that but was playing a what? ;)
A Gibson Ripper. (L9-S). He was one of the first, if not the first endorser of those basses. But that's a topic for the Gibson bass forum, right?
Lake played a late '60s or early '70s Jazz Bass prior to this, black with a tortoise 'guard with a black block inlay maple neck.
-
I cheerfully and respectfully differ. As far as I'm concerned, an anniversary bass can be the chance to pile on a bunch of good stuff from various years in order to make something different. That's why I offered my list of favorites.
Obviously, Fender agrees with you!
-
i like fenders but this is too pimped out for my liking. i don't like binding, blocks, matching headstock, chrome bridge and pick up covers, or red paint. my ideal fender would be a sunburst p bass with rosewood board and tord guard. not too exciting but what the heck.
Sounds like my 70 ;D However, it's got a maple neck on it now. The original is a rosewood and I've been thinking about seeing if I can get it straightened out and refretted.
I've been playing this one a lot lately. My lead player loves it and doesn't care for the dry sound of my 51. I like 'em both ;).
I never considered myself a traditionalist but I grew up looking at sunburst Precisions with tort guards and the bridge and pickup covers removed . It's pretty much stuck in my head that this is how it's supposed to be :P
Rick
-
I never considered myself a traditionalist but I grew up looking at sunburst Precisions with tort guards and the bridge and pickup covers removed . It's pretty much stuck in my head that this is how it's supposed to be :P
Rick
When I think of a P, I think of one in Olympia White with a tort PG and covers. That's how my '63 P started life, but I had it re-painted by an auto body shop around 1972.
(http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j306/apowell1/Electric%20Basses/P-bass.jpg)
(http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j306/apowell1/Electric%20Basses/P3120045.jpg)
I admit I have a fondness for the P over the J..but I have one of each.
-
I'm with Pilgrim on this ......
-
I am too. But get that 70s neck off of there!
-
A Gibson Ripper. (L9-S). He was one of the first, if not the first endorser of those basses. But that's a topic for the Gibson bass forum, right?
Lake played a late '60s or early '70s Jazz Bass prior to this, black with a tortoise 'guard with a black block inlay maple neck.
I saw Greg Lake several times and he was always playing a Hagstrom :)
Rick
-
Lake with his Jazz in all it's glory!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfISkpibSCY
-
I am too. But get that 70s neck off of there!
Donations to buy an appropriate 60's neck will be cheerfully and gratefully received. The truss rod broke in the original neck two days before a major gig around 1971 and I had to have the neck replaced FAST. Back then, it was just a bass...no reason to worry about the old neck. I'm not interested in laying out the coin for an original replacement, as I'm not hung up on having it "all original", which it can never be again anyway.
Now the whole thing is "vintage" coz I've become an old fart. If you keep your stuff long enough, most of it becomes "vintage".
-
70's neck or not I love that bass Pilgrim.
That finish with the tort guard = awesome!