The Last Bass Outpost
Main Forums => The Bass Zone => Topic started by: nofi on February 23, 2010, 01:41:08 PM
-
somebody riddle me this. why the big dollars for what in many cases is not very original. sadowsky, valenti and lakland come to mind. basically a fenderish bass body and neck with electrics and hardware anyone can buy. same holds true for tele and strat clones i have seen. just curious about this process and the prices. i now see why ritters have their place.
-
To have something that looks wacky and melted, that looks like a fancy table?
Seems to me many R&B players have no issues spending like $5k+ on a wacky 5-6 string made out of 50 different exotic woods and
with tons of knobs and preamps etc,
Just to achieve a extremely muddy generic tone...
-
To me, I enjoy the "personal touches" the luthier can give the instrument. They've spent time studying the original models and have found ways to improve upon Leo's already great designs. With Sadowsky, and ultimately Valenti since he worked for Roger, you get upgraded active electronics that were pioneered by Marcus Miller. I'm not saying that all of those things excite me, but I can understand why they are wanted in the market.
-
It's for that last 5% in tone that makes the difference between a good and a great bass. I'm old enough to remember when vintage Fenders and Gibsons were not particularly desirable except for the quality of Pre-70's versus then-current or recent vintage models. Then, some people started discovering that the instruments that were made well enough to have lasted 20 or 30 years also sounded superior. Also about that time Alembic, who had been around awhile, really took off in popularity because as amps of poorer and poorer quality became the norm, onboard active tonal shaping became almost a necessity.
So on one front, there were the copyists trying to replicate the close tolerances, neck shapes and finish compositions of the coveted vintage instruments, and on the other, active circuits went crazy. Sometimes the two overlapped, and in general, the market has not been kind to innovation past accepted "norm;" see Steinberger and Kubiki for examples of that. Since the market and tonal preferences dictate a fairly narrow spectrum of "popular," most upmarket innovation has gone into refining, rather than redefining, the state of the art. US makers are definitely far more conservative than their foreign (Dingwall is Canadian- so not just European) counterparts, probably as a reflection of our relative social/cultural conservatism.
-
Funny that this topic has come up. Having owned several high-end basses, I'm now at the exact opposite end of the spectrum. The extra dollars for those boutique basses only ever gave me a modicum of tone-shaping ability ..... certainly not enough to justify their price-tags. My '96 MIA Jazz Deluxe does everything a Sadowsky does.
On another note, I was doing a multi-band gig about a month ago and one of those acts was a country band. Really good band, two female vocalists, the bassist was equipped with an "F" bass (min. $3.5K out the door). While watching them set up and get ready, I was thinking how much I was looking forward to hearing him play and get a sampling of his bass tone. Completely disappointing. Thin, nasaly, wobbly tone, top end like a glass cutter. My Squier Jazz Vibe series (yes, I said Squier) absolutely killed. Simple, focussed tone with a ton of proven possibilities all at your fingertips. Can't go wrong.
...... my days of coffee-table basses are over.
-
I think it's for the aesthetics of the instrument...and if you can afford that, then more power to you.
Personally, I am not interested in paying for those aesthetics - I'm perfectly happy with production line instruments that can be adjusted to play well.
If (as Psycho Bass Guy asserts) there is as much as a 5% improvement in sound at the top end, I'm comfortable in the knowledge that I'm not - nor will I ever be - a good enough bass player to reach the 95% level where that 5% could make any audible difference.
-
In some cases, it's the idea of owning such a bass. An old accounting teacher said it this way - A Porsche is not 5 times the automobile that a Triumph is, but the idea of owning one is why they are priced that way.
-
I think boutique basses have a place if they an own identity - like Alembic, Wal or even the much derided Ritter basses. But what escapes me is the trend of the last decade to recreate two bass icons - P and J - over and over again. A boutique J or P is just an exoensive replica to me, not the real thing. I'd stick with the Fender product anytime, imperfections welcome.
-
I do have a boutique Thunderbird.
Not your usual hippiesandwich or Fender clone tho similar.
Is better than an original? In some ways yes, in some ways no.
My bass was made just for me, virtually a sig model ( I'm not good enough really ;)) and there's a lot be said for the care and level of quality that went into my bass, I'm quite happy with it and very proud to own it.
Of course I love my Gibsons, probably more than the Lull a '76 suits me just fine, Thank you ;D
-
To me the Lull is not a replica - but a bass with TB looks and a very conspicious TBird design departure: no neck-thru construction. That is to me like building a neck thru P. I would understand more why someone would want that (as it is not offered by Fender) than the umpteenth bolt-on replica of a P. The bolt-on neck makes the Lull more of a Fenderbird to me, which is ok as you can only build Fenderbirds yourself or get them from boutiques.
No, wait for it, in reality a Lull is more like a very expensive Epi TBird!!!! (Ducking ... - can spike heel boots be aimed and thrown at great distances?)
-
I know where you live...................... ;)
The boot would hurt much more because it'd be attached to my foot.
-
No, wait for it, in reality a Lull is more like a very expensive Epi TBird!!!!
You forgot to add "with a girlier neck" Uwe! :P
-
A strange thing is that people buy a Sadowsky or Lakland cos they want a Fender, but 'better'. And they still use all the materials Fender uses... Why not a neck-through P or something. Or other tonewoods for bodies. Tha can be interesting.
Well, I'm a bit guilty of going towards boutique by buying a Warwick Buzzard and wanting a Stryker from the same brand. But that's more the Entwistle link and the glorious discount I get:D
-
The bolt-on neck makes the Lull more of a Fenderbird to me, which is ok as you can only build Fenderbirds yourself or get them from boutiques.
No, wait for it, in reality a Lull is more like a very expensive Epi TBird!!!!
Nothing wrong with that. Only for bass snobs.
The Fender clone part I understand as its the most acceptable bass period to 90% of the market. It makes it possible for anyone to build basses and for them to sell easier.
The Hippie sandwich bass I understand the love as well - Its all about the craft of wood working in its highest form, not to be a touring bass, but an artistic statement you can play & enjoy rather than put a book on. If you can afford it more power to you.
I also agree with Uwe that a builder to be unique, needs to develop their own pickups, like Leo did after Fender. Rickenbacker, Wal & Alembic included. Slapping P & J pickups are just glorified Fenders.
-
I remember reading a post on a bass forum somewhere, the guy said he went to an audition with a big Ampeg rig and a Wal. The guitarist looks at the Ampeg and the Wal, then says: "I suppose you spent so much money on the rig, you couldn't afford a Fender."
-
I remember reading a post on a bass forum somewhere, the guy said he went to an audition with a big Ampeg rig and a Wal. The guitarist looks at the Ampeg and the Wal, then says: "I suppose you spent so much money on the rig, you couldn't afford a Fender."
I find it almost inconceivable that anyone could be so clueless.
-
Some guys either don't know or forget that Leo Fender wasn't intrested in making musical instruments he was intrested in making tools for musicians, he wasn't a musician himself his intrest was function and form. While I wouldn't buy a boutique myself a least there are some builders who try not to rip off a Fender design.
-
A strange thing is that people buy a Sadowsky or Lakland cos they want a Fender, but 'better'. And they still use all the materials Fender uses... Why not a neck-through P or something. Or other tonewoods for bodies. Tha can be interesting.
I played a fretless US made Schecter fretless Precision copy with a solid rosewood neck and a walnut body. It was amazing!
...but on Lakland and Sadowsky versus Fender. I have only played one Fender that even comes close to the build and play quality of the aforementioned boutiques, my Fender 60th Diamond Anniversary Jazz (not the current red thing). That doesn't mean I'll pay their prices, though.
-
nofi's original question was about "not very original" basses generally based on Fenders. Talking about Alembics, Wals, or other boutique basses is fine but it has nothing to do with what he's asking.
The way I see it, Roger Sadowsky and others looked at the original Fender designs said "I can do better than that." And they've found buyers who agree. Nothing more to it than that. Most of these builders are not hand cutting bodies, they're putting together carefully selected components, some of them their own designs, and making products for people who want something that even a CS Fender can't offer them. Maybe it's the pickups, neck radius, preamp or any number of factors. May not appeal to you but it does appeal to some.
Nobody's "ripping off" Leo. These designs are not protectable, any patents on them expired decades ago and fortunately the USPTO rejected Fender's attempt to trademark the shapes.
-
I've always held the opinion that getting a Lull or Sadowsky was like getting vintage quality, vintage sound, and a guaranteed original instrument for the money. The craftsmanship in the newer guitars is what you pay for, and you don't have to guess if you're paying for some cleverly disguised parts bass that isn't all vintage or legit.
-
nofi's original question was about "not very original" basses generally based on Fenders. Talking about Alembics, Wals, or other boutique basses is fine but it has nothing to do with what he's asking.
Darn! I was going to talk about my Alembic but I'll wait for another time...
Sadowskys and the like never bothered me. There's something about the timeless designs that Leo Fender came up with, so why not tweak it?
-
I have to say a lot of people think very conservative. I know lots of stories of pro-musicians who gig with hored guns. They only want bass players with a Fender. Why? Bacause it's recognizable I guess.. Recognizable, safe, always good. Same with studios. They can always dial in a good sound with a Fender, but what happens if you bring an EB3? I guess a lot of people just aren't open to new sounds.
-
For us leftys it makes sense to get a bass custom made, especially if it's inspired by Gibson, since lefty Gibsons are so very rare.
I've been thinking about gettin' a lefty Thunderbird from Mike Lull but now ain't the time.
Love that checkerboard paint job he did for Jeff Ament!
I've also thot about makin' a Fenderbird by combining a Gibson T-bird body with a lefty Fender neck!!
Sure would be nice to have all the basses you want!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ain't that right, Uwe? 8)
The exotic woods are gorgeous. LOVE that purpleheart wood & what some luthiers have done with it.
-
I think part of it to is everyone has a Fender so some people want something different yet similar to whjat they know & like.
No bass is better than another.
-
From some points of view, what I'm doing to my T'bird is "boutiquing..."
Gold hardware, "alien" (to type) pups, fancy veneer top, oddball wiring...
Works for me...
I plan to buy a bunch of bits to make a Jazz this year, and do a gold-sparkle fin - 50 years... I'll do it in my spare time... :P
-
Fender-worship is drilled into people's heads when they pick up bass. I heard it one million times (and still do): "when people say "bass" they mean Fender bass!" On two occasions my Thunderbird purchase was met with a "why don't you trade it in and get a P-bass?", despite the T-bird body shape being a relic of the past in many ways as well. Part of it is ancestor worship (the cyclical process of heroes being told the same line, buying a P-bass, and then cutting a record with it) and part of it is the fear of being different that everyone here has mentioned. Personally, I'm just tired of seeing Fender and Fender-esque basses everywhere. Same for Strats and Teles. They're not bad instruments by any stretch and they've earned their place in the pantheon of instruments, but it's like chinese water torture. over and over again. twang from the left, thud from the right. When I play a show I'm tickled pink just to see someone play a non-Fender bass of any kind.
Part of this is just because we, as musicians, actually care about someone's guitar, or amp, or effect pedal, when no one in the general populace does in the least (as long as it looks "cool" and not "too weird").
I find it almost inconceivable that anyone could be so clueless.
Well now, it was a guitarist. They only know other people are in the band when someone is out of key, out of time, or their beer disappears.
-
I have owned several US Laklands. The one I still own is a mahogany short scale Decade (the bass in my avatar). It's totally unique in feel and tonal range and a monster in every way. I've never had more fun playing bass. It's a lifer for sure. The other two were both passive Joe Osborn jazzes which of course are Fender clones. For me it was all about the neck feel and playability of these basses. No Fender i have ever played has come remotely close to feel and quality of these necks. I'd still own one of them, it had something extra, but I have an almost 15 yr old dog who needed some high dollar vet care this winter so I had to sell it. I'm sure there are magic Fenders out there too. But every US Lakland I have played had an incredible neck. And that makes the cost worth it for me. But the ss Decade is the only one I ordered and paid full price for. The two JOs were both used so somewhat more affordable.
-
Fender-worship is drilled into people's heads when they pick up bass. I heard it one million times (and still do): "when people say "bass" they mean Fender bass!" On two occasions my Thunderbird purchase was met with a "why don't you trade it in and get a P-bass?", despite the T-bird body shape being a relic of the past in many ways as well. Part of it is ancestor worship (the cyclical process of heroes being told the same line, buying a P-bass, and then cutting a record with it) and part of it is the fear of being different that everyone here has mentioned. Personally, I'm just tired of seeing Fender and Fender-esque basses everywhere. Same for Strats and Teles. They're not bad instruments by any stretch and they've earned their place in the pantheon of instruments, but it's like chinese water torture. over and over again. twang from the left, thud from the right. When I play a show I'm tickled pink just to see someone play a non-Fender bass of any kind.
I can't agree. I've never had Fender worship directed at me. Yes, there are incompetent engineers and sound guys who aren't capable of dealing with anything different, but I've found that most musicians and production & sound people will listen to what you play and not demand a certain instrument.
On the flip side, I'm never critical of anyone for playing something common.
-
To have something that looks wacky and melted, that looks like a fancy table?
Seems to me many R&B players have no issues spending like $5k+ on a wacky 5-6 string made out of 50 different exotic woods and
with tons of knobs and preamps etc,
Just to achieve a extremely muddy generic tone...
(http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y247/lowend1/superfly.jpg)
(http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y247/lowend1/superfly2.jpg)
-
I have to say a lot of people think very conservative. I know lots of stories of pro-musicians who gig with hored guns. They only want bass players with a Fender. Why? Bacause it's recognizable I guess.. Recognizable, safe, always good. Same with studios. They can always dial in a good sound with a Fender, but what happens if you bring an EB3? I guess a lot of people just aren't open to new sounds.
That exact thing happened to me a year and a half ago. The engineer asked if I would play a Fender he had there instead. In fact, he just assumed I would do it when he asked. I told him I didn't want to and stuck with the Gibson throughout the entire recording session.
-
That exact thing happened to me a year and a half ago. The engineer asked if I would play a Fender he had there instead. In fact, he just assumed I would do it when he asked. I told him I didn't want to and stuck with the Gibson throughout the entire recording session.
Engineers (live sound guys, roadies, guitar players) have a preference for specific gear because it makes their job easier. I know one guy who insists that there is no need for amplifiers onstage (or anywhere else) because PA systems and recording gear have gotten past "all that". Fightin' words. He was visibly repulsed when I mentioned using an SVT... miked no less. The P-Bass has a comfort zone that covers a large spectrum of popular music and sits nicely in a mix. Fine. Unless of course, your music was created around the sound of an EB-0, or a Rick, or a Thunderbird. So whenever I go a-recording, I bring the bass I need - plus a Fender of some ilk. At least it's MY Fender.
-
Engineers (live sound guys, roadies, guitar players) have a preference for specific gear because it makes their job easier. I know one guy who insists that there is no need for amplifiers onstage (or anywhere else) because PA systems and recording gear have gotten past "all that". Fightin' words. He was visibly repulsed when I mentioned using an SVT... miked no less.
http://bassoutpost.com/index.php?topic=3502.msg53465#msg53465