tegs07

Mercedes Benz - Janis Joplin

Bands that share royalties seem to have far more longevity and remain friends with less acrimonious breakups and expensive court cases. The Cure, U2, The Strangers are a few I can think of. I think it’s important to recognise the individuals input in terms of what they contribute musically as well as off stage. Morrisey for example maybe a gifted lyricist but I can imagine him being an insufferable tw@t in real life. In the early life of a band I can’t imagine him going out of the way to build an audience by being approachable to fans or venue staff and promoters. Before any success comes these things really matter. In the case of The Doors Jim Morrison must have been a nightmare to work with towards the end but the band always seemed to work with him and remain supportive.

The Stealer - Free

Descending - The black crowes

Hanging garden- The Cure

I post here and think wood selection has an influence on how a bass sounds. How much of an influence and whether it even matters is another issue. When people mentioned tonewood the first things that I generally think of are grain and weight.

The Grudge - Tool sorry that’s all that came to mind with Morrissey

Sexual healing - Marvin Gaye

Angry chair - Alice in chains

I’m fairly sure Chuck Garric’s main bass is a 70’s Fender P. There would be nothing wrong with a well set up Epiphone Vintage Pro though. I keep getting an urge to buy one but really have no need for one.

Long tall sally - Little Richard

Why? I’m interested in the range of opinions on here. Personally I think every incremental improvement on an instrument from wood choice to a great finish makes a fine instrument and is worth the additional cost even if that extra cost doesn’t really make a difference to how good the instrument plays or sounds after a certain price point. I don’t really mind if brands use marketing or signature models to make fairly pointless variations of the same thing. I don’t mind if a luthier incorporates a bit of wood from a Pirate ship and says it invokes a sense of adventure and a mystical nautical tone. Whatever works for you. However it clearly annoys some people.

Nothing of the sort. I’m trying to work out what opinions there are on here regarding inexpensive vs top end instruments. I’m particularly interested in views from people that that really dislike big brands and get all het up by the claims of top luthiers.

Edit: Is the pendulum now swinging in favour of better materials and attention to detail makes a better bass?

The US ones go to town on the necks too. They are really very good.

I can’t speak for 5 strings but the jump between an Indonesian SUB and a Ray34 is fairly substantial. The next hop to an Ernie Ball less so. Can’t comment on wood choice in terms of tone but my US made Ray is definitely pretty.

You must be one bloody amazing whistler …

I echo the comments already made it’s a catchy tune. What you need now is some Netflix series to feature it and it will get massive.

Jaco is certainly technically accomplished but I have never heard any window cleaners humming weather report songs whilst going about their work.

So would you say your in the camp that incremental improvements from trusted manufacturers known for their use of decent materials and attention to detail are worth the extra outlay. £400 may get a perfectly usable bass that would do the job for which it is intended but the additional attention to detail and finesse are missing? Edit: For what it’s worth my feeling is that each change to a bass whether wood choice, electrics, pickups, strings used etc will have a slight impact on the sound of the instrument but after a certain price point it doesn’t make any sense other than on an aesthetic level or in terms of how desirable the instrument is which is where marketing starts to get very important.

Hi yes there is a thread here about it but wanted to move the debate away from Fender as it immediately gets the usual Fender are overpriced dross and Adam Clayton plays bass like a donkey type comments. If endorsement and materials used are not relevant should we all really just get a Cort?

To make my position clear I just think instruments are beautiful things and I am a sucker for good packaging so would happily pay more even though I know it’s basically pointless.

There have been a couple of interesting threads (to me) recently about instruments, their construction, marketing and value. Some points such as the materials the instrument is made from (tonewood - or to give it a less contentious name simply wood commonly used by luthiers) seem to incite foaming at the mouth. The other element for contentious debate is value and what is required for a company to achieve that value (marketing). I think most people would agree that technology, a cheaper manufacturing base and production workflow has improved to such an extent that no working musician really needs to spend more than £400 on an instrument. If we get rid of marketing costs behind a brand this would probably drop to nearer the £200 mark. Does this seem a reasonable conclusion? If so why do we pay more, particularly if we are in the camp that dismisses any tangible benefits of wood choice and other similar incremental upgrades and also dislikes brands and the marketing and endorsement required to build those brands?

My take on this is most of these cars are bought by podgy middle aged blokes who take their kids to school and drive to the office. There may be some scientific basis but it’s a load of expensive smoke and mirrors for most of those that pay for it. The same is most likely true for most purchases of high end instruments. The same podgy middle aged blokes are probably buying and playing them. This is all perfectly fine but I like to think that the people behind the design and build of the cars and instruments may just be striving to produce the very best they can even if the improvements are just small and largely inconsequential for most people and their real requirements. I certainly don’t think they are just charlatans.

I think there is a world of difference between acknowledging someone’s contribution to music history and saying they are a god. Rickenbacker and Gibson got there first by making a bass that was smaller, lighter and louder and opening up more musical possibilities. However they were slower to build and expensive. It wasn’t until 1951 with the Precision bass that Fender managed to make this a cheaper and easier process to mass produce. Rock and roll and punk, metal and many other genres have frequently been a working class movement and it’s no surprise that cheap instruments were required. So thanks Leo. Music changed radically in the 20 years from 1951 to 1971 and the world changed with it. I like to think there is some a link between this.