Why are there so many copies of Fender basses?

[Doctor J]

No comma

[The Dark Lord]

This has been very interesting. I asked the question and I have learned some stuff from this thread.

It appears that “super Js and Ps” which are de facto design replicas of Fenders are actually okay with the BC community by-and-large.

Probably down to the fact that they are the developments of the Fender basses that Fender failed to do – and they are really good. At least I suppose they must be as they can often command a significant premium.

And also, it appears that the consensus is that Leo got it so spot on from the off, that others have found it difficult to improve or even deviate on the basis of the formula. Hats off to Rickenbacker, Ned Steinberger, Gibson, Music Man and the very short list of others who have created their own designs – but to be honest, they are all niche sellers by comparison. Anyone trying to make a new design has their work cut out to try to carve one of those niches. So nobody really bothers.

It’s a bit of a shame – as all markets need innovators .

Personally, I guess the answer for me will be to actually buy one and play it for a while and see what I think. I’d have to go for one without one of the trademark pickguards though, as I couldn’t go that far. I should ask for recommendations, but that’s another thread for another day.

[Doctor J]

I would consider the likes of Sadowsky, Bacchus, etc as refinements of the original design, rather than replicas. They exist because they have (arguably) improved what were stunningly good designs to begin with, continued the evolution of the instrument in keeping with advances in technology, whereas the company currently manufacturing basses under the Fender name have only sought to refine their manufacturing process to churn out greater numbers based on the original design also (and rehashes and mishmashes of other vintage designs), but I put it to you, do you think Leo Fender would have approved that shocking and lazy route under the scratchplate of the American Jazz bass for example? I wouldn't think so, personally. Leo Fender went on to embrace active tecnhnology with Musicman and then design arguably his finest bass in the G&L L2000. The Fender brand currently is a backwards looking money making machine, whereas the original Fender ideal was innovation and revolution (and money making).

I see Fender these days like a tribute band who somehow came to posess the brand name, who repeatedly regurgitate the old hits wearing the old clothes. The ones derided in this thread are actually the ones who've tried to do something contemporary while still embracing the classic template and it is they, not Fender, who are closer to what Leo was about.

[mckendrick]

Original, regurgitation, replica, copy, rip-off, whatever.... until the human shape changes drastically no-one is going to come up with a more ergonomic body shape for an electric bass guitar than Fender did.

And if it ain't broke....

[BigRedX]

[quote name='icastle' timestamp='1320329643' post='1425379']
I've tried out some 'other shape' basses over the years and I think the reality is that Leo Fender hit the nail on the head with the ergonomics of his body shape and the development of it too far from the original is going to lose that .
[/quote]
I think the apparent "comfort" of the Fender body shapes is mainly down to familiarity. Up until recently most bass players started off on something cheap that was derived from the Fender designs and because they had no other point of reference, they accepted it for what it was and got used to it. Then when they could afford something that said Fender on the headstock it would be a significant improvement.

Because I spent almost 30 years playing basses that had almost nothing in common with the Fender designs, when I did finally buy one and got to play it for more than 30 minutes in the music shop I found that the shape really didn't suit me at all and in some respects it was quite awkward and uncomfortable to play.

[EssentialTension]

[quote name='mercuryl' timestamp='1320350902' post='1425800']
... it appears that the consensus is that Leo got it so spot on from the off ...
[/quote]
I don't think one has to believe that Leo got it exactly right, only that he did get it right enough to corner the relevant market. Once the Fender bass is in that market position it becomes THE bass - sound, looks, feel, reliability - that is the standard for most people and this is true whether it says Fender, Lakland, or Sadowsky etc on the headstock. There are Fender basses made by Fender but also Fender basses made by other companies and I don't myself see it as copying, it's just about making a standard kind of bass.

If you don't like them or feel comfortable with them then, fair enough , be like BRX and buy a GUS or whatever suits you.

[skelf]

[quote name='Johnston' timestamp='1320334533' post='1425477']

If you were to put the same gear into Adler/Ash P or J bodies do you think it would have been a different ending?
[/quote]


Pretty sure I would have sold them. Ask again in 6 months and I will have an answer for sure.

[skelf]

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1320353143' post='1425839']
I think the apparent "comfort" of the Fender body shapes is mainly down to familiarity. Up until recently most bass players started off on something cheap that was derived from the Fender designs and because they had no other point of reference, they accepted it for what it was and got used to it. Then when they could afford something that said Fender on the headstock it would be a significant improvement.

Because I spent almost 30 years playing basses that had almost nothing in common with the Fender designs, when I did finally buy one and got to play it for more than 30 minutes in the music shop I found that the shape really didn't suit me at all and in some respects it was quite awkward and uncomfortable to play.
[/quote]


I am the same having never owed a Fender and to be honest I have never wanted to. When I did get round to trying one having played other basses for years I found them a huge let down in just about every way. I find the P Bass in particular very uncomfortable on the strap and sitting down the J bass less so.

Edited November 3, 2011 by skelf

[merello]

I had a 70s Fender and hated the lack of even sound from across the strings and it's general wooliness. Got rid and used a Hohner Steinberger for 5 years without a problem. Hardly tuned it! I do accept that recently they have really upped their game though.

[merello]

On a similar point, I bought some of the 1st Nike fitba boots to arrive on these shores. They burst after 3 games and I swore never again.

[Grand Wazoo]

[quote name='bass_by_name' timestamp='1320404090' post='1426312']
I think the point the OP has missed is that many of these basses may look superficially like Fender, but if you put the two side by side they are significantly different. Many of them have 24 frets as opposed to Fender's 20 and have much smaller bodies as a result. The original rise of the Super J was because Fender fell so far behind the times in regard to better pups, active eq, better bridges etc and that created the market.
[/quote]

I half agree with you in the fact that what we know as Super J's or Super P's are an expansion in terms of modern technology evolved from the main theme, however we have to appreciate that the Super J's represent the intention and not necessarily the need to improve on the Jazz or Precision designs becase when you really look at a decent 60 or 70 Precision or Jazzbass, you realize that the bent bit of tin and one split pickup is all you need to get that killer sound. Fitting badass bridges and hot pickups / preamps / more frets, does not necessarily improve on the greatness of the basic item as intended by Leo, and adding all these aftermarket bits, is often like fitting a roof rack on a Rolls Royce, i.e. uncool

[Grand Wazoo]

[quote name='bass_by_name' timestamp='1320405962' post='1426346']
And what does that make fanned frets?
[/quote]

As I've said it all comes under the heading of experimenting, i.e. the work of a designer who intends to expolit a different direction from the original, but since we were talking about Fender, and why there are so many copies, this is because the original design provides a platform for others to try new things. However, the question remains, "is there a need to actually improve on a decent Fender?"

Edited November 4, 2011 by Grand Wazoo

[Ou7shined]

[quote name='Grand Wazoo' timestamp='1320406286' post='1426352']... "is there a need to actually improve on a decent Fender?"
[/quote]
Where are you going to find one of them? jk

[BigRedX]

[quote name='Grand Wazoo' timestamp='1320406286' post='1426352']
However, the question remains, "is there a need to actually improve on a decent Fender?"
[/quote]
Yes. If you like the basic concept, there are an number of design compromises that made perfect economic sense back in the 50s, but less so now that production methods have improved.

IMO there is room for improvement in any design.

[Mog]

Whats a super P? Surely if such a thing exists it defeats the purpose or at least the touted purpose of P users worldwide.

[Ou7shined]

[quote name='Mog' timestamp='1320665858' post='1429509']
Whats a super P? Surely if such a thing exists it defeats the purpose or at least the touted purpose of P users worldwide.
[/quote]
Well it would have to have more than 21 frets for a start.

[chris_b]

[quote name='Mog' timestamp='1320665858' post='1429509']
....Whats a super P? Surely if such a thing exists it defeats the purpose or at least the touted purpose of P users worldwide....
[/quote]
[size=4][font=Arial][color="#000000"]50 years ago Fender basses were as good as they could be. Recording, amps and the music didn’t require any more than what they were, but things changed, so it was natural to see changes in basses, even Fenders. [/color][/font][/size][font=Arial][size=2] [/size][/font]
[size=4][font=Arial] [/font][/size][font=Arial][size=2][/size][/font]
[size=4][font=Arial][color="#000000"]Unfortunately Fender wasn’t very interested in making the changes that customers wanted so others started making super "Fenders" and thank god they did. Lull, Lakland, Nordstrand, Sadowsky and all the others are fantastic instruments way better than the accountants at Fender could ever dream of. [/color][/font][/size]

[Mog]

[quote name='chris_b' timestamp='1320668838' post='1429606']
[size=4][font=Arial][color=#000000]50 years ago Fender basses were as good as they could be. Recording, amps and the music didn’t require any more than what they were, but things changed, so it was natural to see changes in basses, even Fenders. [/color][/font][/size]

[size=4][font=Arial][color=#000000]Unfortunately Fender wasn’t very interested in making the changes that customers wanted so others started making super "Fenders" and thank god they did. Lull, Lakland, Nordstrand, Sadowsky and all the others are fantastic instruments way better than the accountants at Fender could ever dream of. [/color][/font][/size]
[/quote]

[quote name='bass_by_name' timestamp='1320670588' post='1429651']
Some would argue that the Musicman Stingray was the original Super P. Apart from that, there are not so many but off the top of my head the Lakland Duck Dunn and Bob Glaub, Celider and Mike Lull.
[/quote]

Aye, I think Tyler also do a P.
My point though is that one of the main reasons for owning a P is its simplicity. Does what it says on the tin. These improved models does what it could do but not what they should do.

[12stringbassist]

My standard reply is that I wish other manufacturers had the wit, imagination and enough ideas
not to just use old Fender designs. There are endless other shapes they could dream up, but no -
another P bass or Jazz bass design turns up every few weeks. Pointless.

If I want a Pbass shaped bass, it will be a Fender (or even a Squier).
Anything else is just a copy, whether it's more expensive or not, and doesn't really interest me at all.

Edited November 7, 2011 by 12stringbassist

[Ou7shined]

[quote name='12stringbassist' timestamp='1320685340' post='1429991']
My standard reply is that I wish other manufacturers had the wit, imagination and enough ideas
not to just use old Fender designs. There are endless other shapes they could dream up, but no -
another P bass or Jazz bass design turns up every few weeks. Pointless.

If I want a Pbass shaped bass, it will be a Fender (or even a Squier).
Anything else is just a copy, whether it's more expensive or not, and doesn't really interest me at all.

...
[/quote]
But as was pointed out earlier, Fenders (and Squiers) are just copies too. It just so happens that the company currently making them bought the rights to reproduce them before anyone else did.

[Jack]

I'm auditioning for bands at the moment, and I always take the Fender P. It's just more accepted, and a P or a J is ESSENTIAL if you want to do session or sideman work. So, assuming that you have to own a Precision or a Jazz (which, IMO is wrong but there you go) this way you have a choice.

Your alternative would have 90% of the bass playing world on fenders, this way we have a choice of Fenderesque instruments from different manufacturers.

[Mog]

[quote name='Jack' timestamp='1320767190' post='1431117']
I'm auditioning for bands at the moment, and I always take the Fender P. It's just more accepted, and a[color=#FF0000] P or a J is ESSENTIAL if you want to do session or sideman work. So[/color], assuming that you have to own a Precision or a Jazz (which, IMO is wrong but there you go) this way you have a choice.

Your alternative would have 90% of the bass playing world on fenders, this way we have a choice of Fenderesque instruments from different manufacturers.
[/quote]

P or J or P or J type?
I've never turned up to a studio or session gig with a Fender bass. Most of the time I used a cheap Yamaha BBG5 and got nothing but good words from engineers. Most of the session musicians I know use Sadowskys or Custom builds. One in particular has an original 60's jazz and wouldnt dream of using it in a studio setting.

[Wolverinebass]

[quote name='skelf' timestamp='1320332904' post='1425444']
Selling original designs is hard work. I have tried to design things that are of the beaten track. I have seen numerous posts on various forums say how ugly,stupid, don't see the point, any number of other disparaging remarks about my designs. Fortunately I have found enough people or they have found me to make a business out of this. But if I wanted to sell a lot of basses I would build copies because that is what the majority want to buy. I am working on a production Jazz type bass for that very reason.

I tried producing an entry level hand made bass with better hardware pre-amp etc than a Fender for a lot less than an American Fender but not Fender shaped. I have given up because I can't sell them.
[/quote]

I find that a tragedy. Nothing like a slap in the face for original thinking. As someone who doesn't do Fenders at all, I suppose I'm a bit biased. The only thing I have that is remotely Fender shaped is the Hamer 12 string. The joke here is that Hamer is owned by Fender and because of that and the apparrent "similarities" between the Hamer and Fender's own products you cannot buy one in the UK. You can only get them in the US. When did Fender ever make a 12?!!

Ultimately people go for what they think works. Whether it be a P or J. If you want upgrades, fine and there's nothing wrong with giving people what they want. It's not like the headstock says Fender does it and it's been sold down the local market as genuine is it?

[Jack]

[quote name='Mog' timestamp='1320838661' post='1432013']
P or J or P or J type?
I've never turned up to a studio or session gig with a Fender bass. Most of the time I used a cheap Yamaha BBG5 and got nothing but good words from engineers. Most of the session musicians I know use Sadowskys or Custom builds. One in particular has an original 60's jazz and wouldnt dream of using it in a studio setting.
[/quote]


That's the point I was making (albeit not very well!). You really need a P or J type bass, and if Fender doesn't do it for you then this way we have options.

[LawrenceH]

IMO, just a theory re the looks
Fender P, J and MMSR shapes all utilise curves with constant or smoothly altering radii. The more radical designs like the BC Richs, ACGs, have irregular progressions and more abrupt transitions to their shape. I'm not saying that's bad, but it probably gives them less universal appeal that is less resistant to changing fashions. Humans tend to like smooth curves and certain types of symmetry. It's not the only thing we like, but it tends to be quite ergonomic in a guitar/bass - I prefer not accidentally stabbing myself with my bass so a Fender-esque shape is good.

As for the sound, a lot of visually unusual custom instruments nonetheless sound to me like a generic custom instrument...smooth, even output with a broad and well-balanced frequency range...but for those same (useful) reasons, lacking in a bit of character compared to a Fender or MM.