Original Jazz Bass Control Plate
MegaSwing
(the ones used through 1962 that are having a resurgence). Each
pickup has its own tone control. Sonically I find this setup to be
superior in flexibility to what has become the traditional layout of
two volume controls and a master tone. I'm so sold on it, I am
considering converting my other Jazz-type instruments to this array.
It just works better.
Years ago, I had a long-term loan of a Fender Jazz whose controls were
wired: master volume, master tone, pickups blend, and I thought even
IT was better than the traditional setup.
I am wondering why Fender would decide on such a comparatively limited
control array. All I can think is that it musta been cheaper to
procure,
Edward G.
Baltimore, MD
Benj
> I am wondering why Fender would decide on such a comparatively limited
> control array. All I can think is that it musta been cheaper to
> procure,
Well, yeah it's cheaper but not THAT much cheaper! The big reason is
that in a passive bass these more elaborate wirings do not work well.
For example, the Vol/vol Tone/tone thing has problems that the two
tone controls short together when volumes are max and the volumes
interact with the tone controls. Similarly vol/blend controls tend to
not work well with passive basses leading to tone changes and reduced
output. All of these setups work easily with an active bass which is
usually where you see them.
Derek Tearne
> I am wondering why Fender would decide on such a comparatively limited
> control array. All I can think is that it musta been cheaper to
> procure,
That's Fender for you. Almost everything about the design of the Fender
bass, from the shape of the neck to the lack of shielding in the
electronics cavity is about cost saving.
A wiring scheme that didn't hum, and was more useable, would cost a
fractional amount more per unit - but Fender - and as a consequence any
company who believed themselves to be competing directly with Fender -
have been short changing us for decades.
Some of their cost saving efforts, such as the simple neck design that
can be made from a smaller slab of wood and without an additional glued
joint - turn out to be better than the more expensive traditional method
- but others - such as not cutting a small route in the body to
facilitate truss rod adjustement are reducing functionality to save a
trivial amount.
--- Derek
--
Derek Tearne - de...@url.co.nz
Vitamin S - improvisation from Aotearoa/New Zealand
http://www.vitamin-s.co.nz/
MegaSwing
The original array I have seems to work great, with the vol/tone, vol/
tone setup. And it's all passive. I hope it is destined to be
trouble-free, because it really does sound better than the traditional
J-Bass control array.
Edward G.
Baltimore, MD
Tim
> MegaSwing <MegaSw...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > I am wondering why Fender would decide on such a comparatively limited
> > control array. All I can think is that it musta been cheaper to
> > procure,
>
> That's Fender for you. Almost everything about the design of the Fender
> bass, from the shape of the neck to the lack of shielding in the
> electronics cavity is about cost saving.
>
> A wiring scheme that didn't hum, and was more useable, would cost a
> fractional amount more per unit - but Fender - and as a consequence any
> company who believed themselves to be competing directly with Fender -
> have been short changing us for decades.
not only so, but it's a classic fender jazz bass design. I mean, what
purist Fender J bass connoisseur could stand to have their beloved
instrument not hummmmm from the factory?
Blasphemy!
js
stated playing (probably because I was playing a P Bass). But as I got
older, I realized what a MASSIVE tone suck they were.
As for why they went VVT as opposed to VT VT, I think it was cost (stacked
concentric pots are not cheap) Plus the fact that they figured most people
would play with both PU full on, if only to avoid the searing buzz...
"Benj" <bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
news:cc1bc6d1-10e4-4142...@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
Jim Carr
> I remember being very enamored with the "detente" control when I first
> stated playing (probably because I was playing a P Bass). But as I got
> older, I realized what a MASSIVE tone suck they were.
>
> As for why they went VVT as opposed to VT VT, I think it was cost (stacked
> concentric pots are not cheap) Plus the fact that they figured most people
> would play with both PU full on, if only to avoid the searing buzz...
When I visited Fender headquarters and asked the guy in charge of basses
about concentric pots, he said that they found that most people just
didn't like them.
MegaSwing
> I remember being very enamored with the "detente" control when I first
> stated playing (probably because I was playing a P Bass). But as I got
> older, I realized what a MASSIVE tone suck they were.
>
> As for why they went VVT as opposed to VT VT, I think it was cost (stacked
> concentric pots are not cheap) Plus the fact that they figured most people
> would play with both PU full on, if only to avoid the searing buzz...
>
Each pickup having its own tone control it the big benefit. Even if
you play the pickups full on, being able to tweak the tone of one
pickup or the other is huge. The variations in tone you can get that
way are ear-opening, particularly on a passive instrument. I'm just
lovng it.
Edward G.
Baltimore, MD
MegaSwing
Another reason why the market-driven solution ain't necessarily the
most enlightened one.
Edward G.
Baltimore, MD
dusto...@mac.com
Massive tone suck? Well, yeah, having re-wired my Jazz long ago to
V,V, MV, it had a lot more um, *tone*, almost more like a Jack Bruce
(modded) EB3 when run wide open and hammered.
I went back to stock because I wanted control of treble bite-- yup,
"just like Goldilocks", not too little, not too much, but just right
<g>! Controlling tone just on the amp didn't make it for me, and I
gave it the old college try, for sure, because that vol's-only "open"
tone is very nice indeed.
This was what, 1974 and we didn't know about shielding. And yeah, I
ran both V's almost all the way up, matching like you had to, and
adjusted the tone knob for "the edge of crunch" attack, putting it
where I liked it best, after optimizing amp settings.
The sad thing is, although I haven't modded my 1971 Jbass any further
since it is now "vintage" <g>, a well-shielded, noise-free 3-knob Jazz
has a pretty wide choice of voices, once you don't have to match the
vol's so you can hear them (ha ha). Which I have sampled while
ignoring the searing buzz, at home where no one else had to listen. A
useful layout, short of the mark in execution.
The stacked knob original is undoubtedly a cool bass being, which I
would love to get acquainted with. ("why we need lots of basses", for
the voices!)
However, I can also see where that setup would be complicated and
somewhat "error prone" in operation on stage. I wouldn't be surprised
if that were one reason, way back in 1960 when Leo & Co. might have
still been listening to Fender customers, that the stacked knob setup
went away-- "great on the bench" but not the easiest to keep on top of
in the field. Just supposing there, and Wiki says that the 3-knob
actually began in '61, with both models produced simultaneously until
'62. The buying market spoke?
The "solution" obviously is to buy a nice MIM Jazz and shield it,
since those don't have collector value (yet, boys and girls!) or maybe
buy two of them and have shielded 3-knob and 2-knob iterations at the
ready.
Both of them with a nice, neat rout on the front of the body for free
and easy access to the truss rod adjuster*. Please.
These mods are just picking up the ball from where Fender's production
rush left it, if you want to look at it that way.
(Rant Warning!!!)
*Forgive me, please, one more time: Taking the neck off is bad.
You break the adhesive neck-to-body union (listen to the crack when
you take a well-seated neck out)-- that's not helping tone or sustain!
You lose a little something in the body wood every time those mounting
screws go out, and then back in. Then one day they don't tighten.
Whoops! Toothpick time? No thanks!
You risk chipping body finish around the neck pocket or under the
number plate, or even chipping the wood out on the end grain in the
neck pocket. I've seen a few divots taken there.
You can't get as good an adjustment, or, more important sometimes,
anything near as fast-- "dismount time", plus it takes at least a
little more time for strings and neck to "settle in" after a dismount
for tuning as well as adjustment. Not something I want to deal with or
even think about as the first set commences <g>. IME, "neck on"
adjustments are over and done with pretty quickly.
If there is any advantage to "neck off", I can't think of one (but I'm
open to discussion and correction).
"Cosmetics"? give me a break! I mean, really. Not even if you're one
who keeps the ashtrays on and wipes your bass shiny clean between
sets <g>. Color or black out the rout, if need be.
"Collector value"? The one possible exception I can see: the "closet
queen" Collector Special Virgin Edition. "Never been played and must
never be played!!!"
Otherwise, see "hallmark" immed. below.
In my very humble but correct opinion: 1) a neat rout, first and
foremost, is a hallmark of a professional instrument, played (in well-
tuned condition) by a professional, and 2) shows a potential buyer
(perish the day of selling!) that indeed, this neck may and most
likely might not have been taken out and put back in many times--
maybe twice a year, seasonally, for ten years, so 20 times? 30? OW!
think about it! And further, perhaps (or probably), this neck was
looked after-- that is, not allowed to "take a set" for a prolonged
period of time with an extreme bow in it. In contrast to some closet
queens, ahem.
(Rant concludes and thank you) --D-y
MegaSwing
wrote:
Rant accepted.
Removing the neck from a bass is akin to taking the cylinder head off
an engine. It's never quite as virginal again, even if it was
necessary to do. Taking it off out of mere curiosity is just inviting
issues, tweaking the nose of fate. It's a gestalt thing.
This used custom bass I just got has a really nice Warmoth neck. The
truss rod adjustment is accessible only by removal of the neck.
Removing the neck is inevitable. My dilemma is easy to break down:
the neck is in near-perfect adjustment, but not totally perfect
adjustment (relief is off by a hair's breadth). Do I roll with it as
it is, which is better than 99% of the basses I ever handle? Or do I
satisfy my anality and make it perfect, to gain a practical difference
that is likely to be marginal? It already plays and sounds terrific.
(Side note: I'm not this anal about anything except music gear and
photo equipment.)
It's my first bass where I ever had to do this, and I'm not thrilled
about it. Another weird note is that the neck screws are moderately
torqued off (something I discovered after I ruined a shirt with the
residual burrs the first time I played it out. I have since ground
those away with a Dremel). So who knows what evils lurk within?
Edward G.
(Vacillating in)
Baltimore, MD
dusto...@mac.com
You didn't 'splain why you can't get at the adjuster.
If there's a tad too much relief, I have stored such a bass (well, the
way I store them all) standing up, peghead facing the wall, so the
leaning force is put on the face of the peghead. Sort of like braces
on the teeth <g>, not much force maybe but applied over time.
--D-y
MegaSwing
>
> You didn't 'splain why you can't get at the adjuster.
> If there's a tad too much relief, I have stored such a bass (well, the
> way I store them all) standing up, peghead facing the wall, so the
> leaning force is put on the face of the peghead. Sort of like braces
> on the teeth <g>, not much force maybe but applied over time.
> --D-y
The adjuster is located at the bottom of the neck and simply not
visible because of the fretboard overhang that gives two additonal
frets.
Edward G.
Baltimore, MD
dusto...@mac.com
> The adjuster is located at the bottom of the neck and simply not
> visible because of the fretboard overhang that gives two additonal
> frets.
Yo, I had forgotten about that feature.
Note, I suggested a "rout", not a ditch <g>.
Um, use those frets much, Edward?
(I didn't say that)
--D-y
MegaSwing
Only when I'm testing the instrument, never to play a song. Just
another good idea that is functionally useless.
Edward G.
Baltimore, MD
dusto...@mac.com
And, you say, they "hang over" the end of the neck... ?
And obscure the adj. nut?
And you don't use them... ?
(Whistles softly into the air, kinda shuffles his feet around, looks
up a the sky, maybe hums a little tune...)
Well, maybe you'll use them someday, and they'll be important...
--D-y
Derek Tearne
> This was what, 1974 and we didn't know about shielding.
'We' might not have known, but Fender should have known - after all he
was a radio engineer and, well, Gibson's were *always* properly shielded
- as were other contemporary brands - so there really wasn't much
excuse.
> The sad thing is, although I haven't modded my 1971 Jbass any further
> since it is now "vintage" <g>,
So, shielding a 'vintage' Fender to make it work properly as an
instrument reduces its value?
That's just insane.
Jim Carr
Lots of "enlightened" people run businesses into the ground.
--
Write a wise saying and your name will live forever.
- Anonymous
dusto...@mac.com
dusto...@mac.com
WHOOPS.
Try again, apologies for errant finger twitch.
> dustoyev...@mac.com <dustoyev...@mac.com> wrote:
> > This was what, 1974 and we didn't know about shielding.
>
> 'We' might not have known, but Fender should have known - after all he
> was a radio engineer and, well, Gibson's were *always* properly shielded
> - as were other contemporary brands - so there really wasn't much
> excuse.
Yes, and what's worse is (was), we little people labored under the
impression that this was "proper", "the way it was supposed to be",
etc. etc.
BTW, Gibsons had humbucker PUPs, mostly, not shielding. I don't
remember, for instance, any cavity shielding in my old Melody Maker
guitar, which was single-pole PUP, not a 'bucker design.
But yeah, Gibson "won" that one, pretty much hands down.
> > The sad thing is, although I haven't modded my 1971 Jbass any further
> > since it is now "vintage" <g>,
>
> So, shielding a 'vintage' Fender to make it work properly as an
> instrument reduces its value?
> That's just insane.
I've long gotten over worrying about the collector market, which in
most cases prizes originality and pristine condition above all-- and
why not?
Aside from "famous owner provenance", if you were collecting, which
would you want-- a complete, undamaged and pristine example of
*anything* (proper, expected patina one exception), of some beat up,
if complete "original"?
Maybe the Custom Shop "factory worn" basses will throw a curve into
that equation <g>.
I say "gotten over" as a high school Class of '67 grayhair who saw
multithousanddollar collector Fenders sell for $100 back in the day--
maybe equivalent to $500 or $600 in today money.
Did I ever tell you about the all-original, 100% stock, with case, L-
series 'burst Strat I bought for $100 and sold a few years later for
$175, glad to make a little money on the deal? Hell, I let it go
cheap, it was worth $250 or maybe $275 in '74 when I let it go...
Let it go, take advantage if possible, is all I can say. Find a nice
Mexi Fender, they seem to be very good and very consistent, play it or
mod it or keep it, whatever. Hey-- find a rare bird for what you can
afford? Well, at least we've learned not to dig holes and refinish,
right? The market is what it is, it's not gonna change. --D-ky
Derek Tearne
> BTW, Gibsons had humbucker PUPs, mostly, not shielding. I don't
> remember, for instance, any cavity shielding in my old Melody Maker
> guitar, which was single-pole PUP, not a 'bucker design.
> But yeah, Gibson "won" that one, pretty much hands down.
Yes, Gibsons had Humbucker pickups - but Fender P pickups are also
humbucking pickups in all but name <tm>.
That's not the whole story though. Gibsons also used shielded cables
throughout, and encased the electronics in an actual metal box.
eg.
http://guitarsandgear.sweetwater.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/08-cavit
y-w-shield-300x225.jpg
Although, bizarrely, the guy modifying this les paul appears to be
intending to throw the shielding can away.
Anyway, Fender had no excuse.
Cost cutting to make an affordable instrument is a good thing, but
sacrificing function for something as cheap as a bit of metal foil is
insane - it's not like they didn't understand - there is a tiny piece of
inadequate metal foil on the back of the scratch plate - they just
needed about four times more and they'd still be cheaper than the Gibson
full metal cannister approach.
MegaSwing
Being able to sell 'em better than you make 'em is a proven formula
for success.
The road to hell has lots of cool venues on it, but it's still the
road to hell.
Edward G.
Baltimore, MD
dusto...@mac.com
> dustoyev...@mac.com <dustoyev...@mac.com> wrote:
> > BTW, Gibsons had humbucker PUPs, mostly, not shielding. I don't
> > remember, for instance, any cavity shielding in my old Melody Maker
> > guitar, which was single-pole PUP, not a 'bucker design.
> > But yeah, Gibson "won" that one, pretty much hands down.
>
> Yes, Gibsons had Humbucker pickups - but Fender P pickups are also
> humbucking pickups in all but name <tm>.
>
> That's not the whole story though. Gibsons also used shielded cables
> throughout, and encased the electronics in an actual metal box.
>
> y-w-shield-300x225.jpg
>
> Although, bizarrely, the guy modifying this les paul appears to be
> intending to throw the shielding can away.
>
> Anyway, Fender had no excuse.
>
> Cost cutting to make an affordable instrument is a good thing, but
> sacrificing function for something as cheap as a bit of metal foil is
> insane - it's not like they didn't understand - there is a tiny piece of
> inadequate metal foil on the back of the scratch plate - they just
> needed about four times more and they'd still be cheaper than the Gibson
> full metal cannister approach.
>
> --- Derek
>
> --
> Derek Tearne - de...@url.co.nz
> Vitamin S - improvisation from Aotearoa/New Zealandhttp://www.vitamin-s.co.nz/
Yes on the shielded wire, but my EB2 and EBO are/were not "canned".
Conductive paint could have been used, too, by Fender.
No, no "excuse" except (just sayin') maybe a near-superstion belief in
"Fender sound" that was changed by the slightest alteration.
Like, having to use cloth-insulated bell wire for connections between
pups, controls, jacks.
I could imagine some people could hear real differences depending on
exactly what was changed. Maybe even having a grounded enclosure made
of "whatever".
Not a little of this is "not wanting to sound like a Gibson" at least
when it came to basses <g>.
--D-y
js
and today people would be arguing that the "Alpo" shits sound much better
than the "Dog Chow" shits.
My original point is that I think Fender did their cost cutting by ASSUMING
what people would do with their instruments (i.e. leave both PUs on to avoid
the single coil buzz, thereby "negating" the need for shielding), rather
than building an instrument around what people are ACTUALLY doing with it,
as other builders have done.
<dusto...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:8769ff66-2d98-4db9...@m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
dusto...@mac.com
> I think they could have replaced the pickups with big lumps of dog turds,
> and today people would be arguing that the "Alpo" shits sound much better
> than the "Dog Chow" shits.
No doubt some truth there <g>.
> My original point is that I think Fender did their cost cutting by ASSUMING
> what people would do with their instruments (i.e. leave both PUs on to avoid
> the single coil buzz, thereby "negating" the need for shielding), rather
> than building an instrument around what people are ACTUALLY doing with it,
> as other builders have done.
Too bad Leo isn't around to write a "tell all". One thing I have read
is that Leo spent some time working out wire routing and general
layout on his amps, with copycats finding out later that they couldn't
just do it any way they wanted. Meaning, Leo was not insensitive to
noise.
One thing for sure, I think: no one knew what Jimi was planning on
"doing with it" <g>.
(Always loved the line "Then you will never hear surf music again",
sung by the guy playing maybe the most "surf" guitar ever)
--D-y
MegaSwing
> I think they could have replaced the pickups with big lumps of dog turds,
> and today people would be arguing that the "Alpo" shits sound much better
> than the "Dog Chow" shits.
>
What, no love for Ken-L-Ration?
Edward G.
Baltimore, MD
PS,
You're preaching to the choir here, John. Vintage-Fender worship
drives me batty to behold it. Makes me want to worship P.T. Barnum
instead.
Gary Rosen
"js" <not...@nothing.com> wrote in message
news:heemcd$lbm$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>I think they could have replaced the pickups with big lumps of dog turds,
> and today people would be arguing that the "Alpo" shits sound much better
> than the "Dog Chow" shits.
I disagree with this. A lot of people make that claim that Fenders are
popular just because they are Fenders but I think that despite the
well-documented shortcomings (e. g. shielding) that ol' Leo had
some real insight and/or intuition into the sound that people really
wanted. Fenders may not be the "best" but after nearly 60 years
they are still the reference to which nearly everything else is compared.
The original models (P and J bases, Strat and Tele guitars) are
still very popular with nearly the same design. And Leo put out
very well-regarded stuff in his later ventures Music Man and
G&L. A lot of stuff that seemed unassailable at that time has
come a cropper (e. g. General Motors) so the fact that Fender
still survives and prospers means something.
- Gary Rosen
dusto...@mac.com
> "js" <noth...@nothing.com> wrote in message
I think John might have been referencing "assembly quality".
I have a couple of early G&L's, a 1000 and 2000 that have a rep for
being able to cop "Fender". Well, I have a couple of 70's Fenders (J
and P basses). Yup, G&L's get close. Not exact. So, Alpo it is <g>
when only Alpo will do. Or is that doo-doo?
--D-y
MegaSwing
> "js" <noth...@nothing.com> wrote in message
The Fender essence is pretty damned immutable if you ask me. The
differences --"improvements", if you will-- between Leo's essential
structural designs and later competitors are largely matters of style
and occasionally workmanship. It is nearly impossible to improve upon
the basic Fender platform in terms of balance, ergonomics, and
serviceability. The relentlessly Spartan, practical nature of the
thing is amazing.
The electronics and hardware on vintage Fenders are a whole other
matter; where everybody goes crazy and becomes irrational, I think, as
if pots, pickups, wires, and screws made 50 years ago could be
fundamentally better than modern ones made of the same metal and
plastic. Here is where my eyes glaze over, and I start practicing new
songs.
Fender wasn't making tail fins and then selling them as jewelry and
status. He was making hammers and shovels and selling them as work
tools, which is what they still are, more than anything else they have
become. This is also why Fender survives and prospers while GM got
its lunch eaten by companies that did a better job making and selling
products with clear practical benefits.
Edward G.
Baltimore, MD
RichL
> "js" <not...@nothing.com> wrote in message
> news:heemcd$lbm$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> I think they could have replaced the pickups with big lumps of dog
>> turds, and today people would be arguing that the "Alpo" shits sound
>> much better than the "Dog Chow" shits.
>
> I disagree with this. A lot of people make that claim that Fenders
> are popular just because they are Fenders but I think that despite the
> well-documented shortcomings (e. g. shielding) that ol' Leo had
> some real insight and/or intuition into the sound that people really
> wanted. Fenders may not be the "best" but after nearly 60 years
> they are still the reference to which nearly everything else is
> compared.
Dead spots on the neck, anyone?
Gary Rosen
"RichL" <rple...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:sdudne-InfEfL5HW...@supernews.com...
I had that problem when I first started playing but have had it
very little since I switched to flatwound/"ground round" strings.
- Gary Rosen
Gary Rosen
<dusto...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:edb19e88-40d4-4355...@h2g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 23, 11:57 pm, "Gary Rosen" <garymro...@comcast.net> wrote:
> "js" <noth...@nothing.com> wrote in message
>
> news:heemcd$lbm$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> >I think they could have replaced the pickups with big lumps of dog turds,
> > and today people would be arguing that the "Alpo" shits sound much
> > better
> > than the "Dog Chow" shits.
>
> I disagree with this. A lot of people make that claim that Fenders are
> popular just because they are Fenders but I think that despite the
> well-documented shortcomings (e. g. shielding) that ol' Leo had
> some real insight and/or intuition into the sound that people really
> wanted. Fenders may not be the "best" but after nearly 60 years
> they are still the reference to which nearly everything else is compared.
> The original models (P and J bases, Strat and Tele guitars) are
> still very popular with nearly the same design. And Leo put out
> very well-regarded stuff in his later ventures Music Man and
> G&L. A lot of stuff that seemed unassailable at that time has
> come a cropper (e. g. General Motors) so the fact that Fender
> still survives and prospers means something.
I think John might have been referencing "assembly quality".
-------------------------------------------------------------
No, he talked about replacing the pickups.
- Gary Rosen
Gary Rosen
"MegaSwing" <Mega...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:da0db2c2-e45a-43a6...@o13g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
That's a different thing, I think - unless I misinterpreted John and
he was just referring to vintage mania as opposed to the essential
Fender sound. Actually, I have a '63 P-bass that sounds incredible.
But I also have a 2001 Squire that is quite serviceable for most of
the gigs I play. The difference in sound is not commensurate with
the difference in value (paid $160 for the Squire, the '63 is
probably worth $3-4k). Also I think the difference is in the
wood and neck construction, not electronics/hardware.
- Gary Rosen
MegaSwing
> "MegaSwing" <MegaSw...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
I, too, have a Squier, a modded Affinity Jazz 4. It's a candidate to
be the one I take to the grave; it is such a great sleeper. The only
differences I can suss out between it and regular Fenders is the neck
is a little thinner from front to back and the edges of its fretboard
are slightly sharper. With the new pickups, bridge, and tuners I
dropped in, the thing cuts like a chainsaw. There is nothing
substandard about its wood or its assembly. It's just plain jane
alder, maple, and rosewood, held together firmly with four long
screws, same as it ever was. And I (or you) could make another one
just like it this afternoon. The main reasons to pay more for a
vintage instrument are for its investment value and the pride of
ownership, which are intangibles. The only unique thing is the age of
it. I would love to own a 1961 Corvette in Panama Yellow and white,
but it wouldn't be for its awesome performance.
Edward G.
Baltimore, MD
Brent
--
Best regards,
B.
"Gary Rosen" <garym...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:heigr9$f9i$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
RichL
Hmmm, I wouldn't think string type would have much to do with it. Maybe
the flat/ground strings are just duller to begin with an additional
dulling caused by "dead spots" simply isn't as noticeable with them?
I haven't played a Fender bass for years (I have an Ibanez and a Ric,
ground rounds on both) so maybe modern Fenders aren't as susceptible as
the ones I played earlier.
Les Cargill
Mine don't got none, anyone?
--
Les Cargill
Gary Rosen
I don't have dead spot problems on any of my 6 Fenders which range
in vintage from 1963 to 2005.
- Gary Rosen
Gary Rosen
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
One theory I have is that Fender has always had inconsistent quality,
but that over the years the bad ones get "culled" from the herd (tossed,
reworked, cannibalized for parts etc.) so the older survivors have better
average quality. Still does not explain the value gap which of course
is collector's value. I was lucky to get my '63 a few years back for
a reasonable price, not much above a new one at the time.
- Gary Rosen
dusto...@mac.com
> One theory I have is that Fender has always had inconsistent quality,
> but that over the years the bad ones get "culled" from the herd (tossed,
> reworked, cannibalized for parts etc.) so the older survivors have better
> average quality.
Not saying that doesn't happen. For instance, with the bum pups my '62
had in it. The neck was twisted, ski sloped, and yeah, back when that
bass was still "worth" maybe $250, it got cannibalized once I "traded
it in" (sold to buy something that worked). But rather than "blame"
Fender for some basses being much better players than others, I think
it's the wood. Some neck wood is more stable than other neck wood, and
some body wood has better tone. I've seen a couple of examples of that
over the years, where you knew a Fender bass was going to sound and
play "special" before you plugged it in--one those, FWIW, a 70's Pbass
and another a Custom Shop 57 Pbass that was made year or maybe two
ago.
> Still does not explain the value gap which of course
> is collector's value. I was lucky to get my '63 a few years back for
> a reasonable price, not much above a new one at the time.
Collector value, sure. But don't you think you enjoy the "vintage"
aspect while you're using it, too?
I've owned or used a few vintage Fender basses and there is a "cool"
there (I know, not for everyone) that IMHO is a cornerstone of the
value those old Fenders have in the market.
I mean, if not for those good-sounding vintage Fenders, and the
"special" ones, even more so, who would care about an old wreck of a
solidbody guitar? --D-y
Gary Rosen
<dusto...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:a4ad4403-9665-4d70...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure there is a certain mystique about having a "pre-CBS" Fender.
But honestly when I bought it I wasn't expecting much. I had the
same skepicism about vintage basses and happened to stumble
on a good deal; I figured if it was nothing special I could at least
sell it for no loss. I took it to a gig and after playing about
half the first song I said to myself "this is the sound I've been
trying to get ever since I started playing bass". I haven't played
enough other "vintage" basses to know if it's because it's vintage
or because it just happens to be a great sounding bass.
I did a gig once with a local drummer, a really good player with
significant touring credentials, and he commented on how good
my bass sounded. I said, "well you know it's a '63" and he said
no, he heard other old Fenders that didn't sound that good.
Maybe it *is* all in the fingers :^) :^) :^).
- Gary Rosen
dusto...@mac.com
> Sure there is a certain mystique about having a "pre-CBS" Fender.
> But honestly when I bought it I wasn't expecting much.
Conversely, I expected the world when I bought that '62-- in 1971, for
$175, pretty much top dollar for a refin. It started out red.
As a master of time and space, I would have that bass new. Too bad
about the MoT/S thing, you know? But, it still would have twisted and
ski-sloped, and the pups were thin and weak, at least by the time I
got it, when it was only 9 or 10 years old <g>.
> I had the
> same skepicism about vintage basses and happened to stumble
> on a good deal; I figured if it was nothing special I could at least
> sell it for no loss. I took it to a gig and after playing about
> half the first song I said to myself "this is the sound I've been
> trying to get ever since I started playing bass". I haven't played
> enough other "vintage" basses to know if it's because it's vintage
> or because it just happens to be a great sounding bass.
"Great sounding vintage bass" <g>
> I did a gig once with a local drummer, a really good player with
> significant touring credentials, and he commented on how good
> my bass sounded. I said, "well you know it's a '63" and he said
> no, he heard other old Fenders that didn't sound that good.
> Maybe it *is* all in the fingers :^) :^) :^).
"Good basses are where you find them". Some are talkers and most
aren't, IME. Lots of "good, very good" out there, and some that are
just dead. Like that '62 I had. Repeating, I think it's luck of the
draw IRT wood with maybe a little "production tolerances factor"
thrown into the mix.
I knew a guy back in the day who had Pbass ser. #158. Not only was it
a talker-- a shouter <g>-- but when you picked it up you could feel
his soul in there, and you didn't play like your normal self. Um,
yeah, better. And I'm not the only one who felt that.
BTW, that new Custom Shop bass that stood out from the crowd on a wall
of new basses, and a certain '62 Reissue Pbass I played in the guitar
store in '82 or 83, were "new, green" and in my limited experience
(grand total of two new basses so far <g>) would improve maybe one
giant step over the next year or so in sound, and also in neck
stability-- taking and holding truss rod adjustment. The Custom Shop
was wrelicked, pre-beat-to-shit and I really really really (really)
don't like that but if I were looking and had the bux, I would have
snapped it up before someone else did. Because "there it was" and the
only improvement would have been running it past the Hooligan Room
when it was new and pretty.
Maybe I could have sent it back to Fender for a factory re-fin.
Something that nice deserves to shine, you know?
Whatever. It's still all in the fingers...
--D-y