Custom Jazz and P Basses - Consensus?

[BigRedX]

[quote name='thodrik' timestamp='1377084709' post='2183090']
Nothing really. If I am paying for a £4000 boutique EB3 though I think I would want a neck-through design just for the sake of it. Generally I prefer bolt-on construction though as if something goes wrong with the neck, you can just replace it.
[/quote]

IMO the usual arguments for a bolt-on neck come over as a solution is search of a problem.

I've never seen a bass or guitar with a neck damaged so badly that repair by a good luthier wasn't an option, that didn't also have extensive and often worse damage to the body.

Edited August 21, 2013 by BigRedX

[thodrik]

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1377085262' post='2183097']
IMO the usual arguments for a bolt-on neck come over as a solution is search of a problem.

I've never seen a bass or guitar with a neck damaged so badly that repair by a good luthier wasn't an option, that didn't also have extensive and often worse damage to the body.
[/quote]

I have seen some messed up necks with neck warp. It isn't exactly a mythical situation. You might also have the situation where the body is wrecked but the neck is fine (ie a guitar who throws a guitar in the air and it lands body first). Or you want to try something like a Fenderbird or switching the neck for something else (Precision neck of Jazz body etc). With a set neck as well, changing the neck angle is a complicated process, while the certain models of Gibsons with set necks have been known to be fragile (not factual, but it is a perception). All that leads me to personally consider bolt-ons to offer the least amount of hassle, although I don't really think there should be inherent advantages on one design or the other on a well-constructed bass.

[Ziphoblat]

The original designs did have their flaws, but Fender have improved upon many of them by now anyway. You can't really say that one instrument is "objectively" better than another. Music is a very subjective thing. That's why some people lug around great big heavy fridges and valve amps despite their being louder, smaller, lighter and more efficient rigs available for less money. On paper they win hands down; in practice? It depends on what the individual wants to hear when he plays. Fender get a lot of schtick, usually by people comparing them to instruments twice their price. There aren't many companies who offer an American made instrument with top quality hardware and electronics in a top-quality hardcase for the money that Fender do (indeed many of these companies Fender are often compared to charge what Fender do for an American instrument in a hard case for an Asian one chucked in a rubbish gig bag).

My go-to bass is a Warwick Corvette. Very modern; 24 frets, extremely open-sounding pick-ups, active EQ, fancy woods etc. But for playing anything a bit more classic, it just can't compare to my Fender. You can't really improve on that sound for playing that kind of music because that's the sound that was on that music; it's that simple. Around the Fender price point I really don't think there's any much out there that can do that as well as a Fender can. And sometimes there are times where you just need something a bit more modern. I think spending a fortune to get a boutique builder to build you a hybrid modern take on a classic design wouldn't cut it for me. You'd probably end up with an instrument that can manage a good approximation of a modern sound or a classic sound, but nail neither. Personally I'd rather spend half the budget on a Fender, and half on something a bit more modern. But each to his own.

[Musicman20]

[quote name='Ziphoblat' timestamp='1377129224' post='2183880']
The original designs did have their flaws, but Fender have improved upon many of them by now anyway. You can't really say that one instrument is "objectively" better than another. Music is a very subjective thing. That's why some people lug around great big heavy fridges and valve amps despite their being louder, smaller, lighter and more efficient rigs available for less money. On paper they win hands down; in practice? It depends on what the individual wants to hear when he plays. Fender get a lot of schtick, usually by people comparing them to instruments twice their price. There aren't many companies who offer an American made instrument with top quality hardware and electronics in a top-quality hardcase for the money that Fender do (indeed many of these companies Fender are often compared to charge what Fender do for an American instrument in a hard case for an Asian one chucked in a rubbish gig bag).

My go-to bass is a Warwick Corvette. Very modern; 24 frets, extremely open-sounding pick-ups, active EQ, fancy woods etc. But for playing anything a bit more classic, it just can't compare to my Fender. You can't really improve on that sound for playing that kind of music because that's the sound that was on that music; it's that simple. Around the Fender price point I really don't think there's any much out there that can do that as well as a Fender can. And sometimes there are times where you just need something a bit more modern. I think spending a fortune to get a boutique builder to build you a hybrid modern take on a classic design wouldn't cut it for me. You'd probably end up with an instrument that can manage a good approximation of a modern sound or a classic sound, but nail neither. Personally I'd rather spend half the budget on a Fender, and half on something a bit more modern. But each to his own.
[/quote]

Pretty much my thoughts. The only issue is the whole 'Fender 5 string' issue, but I've yet to play the latest Jazz 5'ers, and they might be pretty good.

I agree, especially on basses like Lakland. I've seen some recent examples and they have cut corners quite a lot. A new one had really rough unsanded/untreated wood on the headstock edges. The pickup routing was pretty bad. Then you don't even get a bag, never mind a case.

A high end manufacturer charging £1500+ needs to supply a quality bespoke case. End of.