CITES - worthy reading.

[NancyJohnson]

I was awake at 4.00am this morning and like you do, I fired up the my tablet and did some reading up on CITES (or Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna), or more specifically what it's impact will be on the manufacture, sale, import and export or musical instruments.  Remember too that CITES covers a whole gamut of species from Honey Badgers to Bubinga.  I read a few articles and it really is getting to be that there's a load of guff circulating about rosewood, it's use, it's historical use etc.  Getting my crystal ball out, I see a distant future where sellers will replace 70s lawsuit with pre-convention rosewood.

One of the shorter and more concise pieces was on the Music Radar site.  It's short enough to hold your interest and there's enough in there to make the enquiring mind do more research.

I suppose the thing that I find laughable to this day is the insistence that, away from the decorate stance, rosewood sounds better on fingerboards.  Yes, there's an obviously an argument that there will be an infinitesimally small difference in resonance from rosewood over other woods, but I'd wager that in a blind-test shoot-out* of fingerboards (on several basses) made of ebony, maple, rosewood, pao ferro, ironwood, aluminium, carbon fibre etc.  no one would be able to score 100%.

 

[Chownybass]

Some thoughts on this: 

There's more to it than sound. 

For a fretboard wood to work it helps to have certain qualities.

* It needs to have a pocket grain and not a linear grain - dense enough that it can hold frets.

* It needs to be hard.

* It needs to polish smooth (if it's not going to be laquered)

* ideally be naturally oily.

This means that you end up with about 3 practical fretboard woods.

* Rosewood

* Ebony

* Maple

So maple is of course blonde - and looks dirty when heavily used. Ebony is expensive. So rosewood was always a practical choice.

Yes - there are a fair number of other woods that you can use. But the cost of transporting them to where the factories are (generally in the east) is high and of course it's not very environmentally friendly.

We are looking at Laurel and Bhilwara (both of which grow locally in India where we manufacture our instruments)

Indian Rosewood is sustainably managed - so this new CITES change has been particularly hard on their industry. I believe work is afoot to exclude Indian Rosewood from inclusion in Appendix II 

 

 

[Lozz196]

33 minutes ago, NancyJohnson said:

I suppose the thing that I find laughable to this day is the insistence that, away from the decorate stance, rosewood sounds better on fingerboards.  Yes, there's an obviously an argument that there will be an infinitesimally small difference in resonance from rosewood over other woods, but I'd wager that in a blind-test shoot-out* of fingerboards (on several basses) made of ebony, maple, rosewood, pao ferro, ironwood, aluminium, carbon fibre etc.  no one would be able to score 100%.

 

We did a maple/rosewood shootout and whilst not getting people to guess which was which, the overwhelming fave on each category - Precision/Jazz/Ray etc - after playing one maple, one rosewood of the same bass was rosewood. We tried to keep as near as possible, but obviously strings/year of manufacture can all get in the way of pure objectivity but, even then, rosewood triumphed across the board (pardon the pun).

[Nicko]

I'm not quite clear on the rules, but as far as I can gather its OK to use sustainably sourced materials.  To be honest, adding £74 to the cost of a shipment simply mean that the import of individual instruments will cease and import of larger shipments will continue. 

I think the OP is correct that the tonal differences for fretboards is minute, and its reall a case of tradition and cosmetics. I have a number of guitars with maple boards and a couple with rosewood.  It doesn't bother me one way or the other.  My telecaster is maple and woud probably look better with rosewood but when I play it it doesn;t really impact the feel of the guitar.  On the other hand just how wrong would my  ES339 look with maple?

Edited February 2, 2018 by Nicko

[Chownybass]

2 minutes ago, Nicko said:

I'm not quite clear on the rules, but as far as I can gather its OK to use sustainably sourced materials.  To be honest, adding £74 to the cost of a shipment simply mean that the import of individual instruments will cease and import of larger shipments will continue. 

For a company like ours - the import into the UK isn't the problem. That import fee split across a big shipment of instruments is negligible - although it adds lead time and headache.

It's the sale of basses that knocks rosewood on the head. About 30-40% of our instruments head out of the country. With an individual re-export fee of £50 and the time to apply for a license for each bass - simply makes it commercial unviable. Ergo... no rosewood in the range.

[dmccombe7]

Have to admit that the basses i have with maple necks have a slightly more zingy sound from them. The Rosewood necks are a little more rounded in tone for me. Not all the same type or year of basses right enough but i've always thought maple necks just had a little more edge to them tonally.

Dave

[Nicko]

1 minute ago, Chownybass said:

For a company like ours - the import into the UK isn't the problem. That import fee split across a big shipment of instruments is negligible - although it adds lead time and headache.

It's the sale of basses that knocks rosewood on the head. About 30-40% of our instruments head out of the country. With an individual re-export fee of £50 and the time to apply for a license for each bass - simply makes it commercial unviable. Ergo... no rosewood in the range.

I'm assuming you are doing small sale mnufacture of bespoke instruments shipped individually?  I completely understand this sort of regulation puts you at a disabvantage compared to large scale producers.  It will be interesting to see whether things like Fender custom shop will withdraw the option of rosewood for the same reason,

[Hellzero]

Sorry, but if you don't hear the difference between ebony, rosewood and maple, it's about time to make an ear test as there are huge differences in tone. I know that most the musicians are almost deaf and only hear harmonics, but stop this please : it's not only a cosmetical difference, it's a tone difference.

At a time, for some personal reasons, I had two identical Leduc MP 6 strings fretless basses (neckthrough abd bubinga wings), but one had a pau ferro fingerboard and the other a Brazilian rosewood one : there was a BIG difference in tone between the two. Strangely I ended up keeping the pau ferro one that had more bite and high mids, which was what I was looking for at the time. In November, I bought another Leduc MP 6 strings fretless I was hunting for 10 years : quite similar in contruction but the wings (flamed maple top over ash with a mahogany veneer in between) and the fretboard which is Brazilian rosewood. Soundwise you get a more present fundamental, more low mids and less high mids, so a hugely growling and mwahing fretless.

I know I'm a bit harsh on this subject, but I'm really fed up with these comments. It's like saying that a carrot tastes the same as a cabbage.

[martthebass]

35 minutes ago, Hellzero said:

Sorry, but if you don't hear the difference between ebony, rosewood and maple, it's about time to make an ear test as there are huge differences in tone. I know that most the musicians are almost deaf and only hear harmonics, but stop this please : it's not only a cosmetical difference, it's a tone difference.

At a time, for some personal reasons, I had two identical Leduc MP 6 strings fretless basses (neckthrough abd bubinga wings), but one had a pau ferro fingerboard and the other a Brazilian rosewood one : there was a BIG difference in tone between the two. Strangely I ended up keeping the pau ferro one that had more bite and high mids, which was what I was looking for at the time. In November, I bought another Leduc MP 6 strings fretless I was hunting for 10 years : quite similar in contruction but the wings (flamed maple top over ash with a mahogany veneer in between) and the fretboard which is Brazilian rosewood. Soundwise you get a more present fundamental, more low mids and less high mids, so a hugely growling and mwahing fretless.

I know I'm a bit harsh on this subject, but I'm really fed up with these comments. It's like saying that a carrot tastes the same as a cabbage.

However, how certain can you be that the only difference between the 2 basses was the wood used on the board?  Did the pups have exactly the same number of winding, was the Cu purity exactly the same, were the strings the same, had the woods in the rest of the constructions been seasoned exactly the same and for the same period of time?  Lots of variables and potentially lots of unknowns.  As people frequently state on here, wood is a natural product and cannot be definitively specified in terms of it's physical, chemical and thermal properties.

Comparing anecdotes, I once did a 'shoot out' with a friend with nominally identical 3eq maple necked EB Stingray 4Hs (both on hybrid slinkies and both basses were early 2000s) and they sounded chalk and cheese on the same eq and amp settings.  Do I have an answer why?.........no.

[fretmeister]

It's really easy for us string instrument people to get all annoyed about it, but the guitar industry is relatively small compared to others.

I have no difficulty in trying to ensure the survival of the species so that means restrictions must apply to all.

You'd hope that a journalist, even a music one, would look at the bigger picture.

 

[Hellzero]

I think you don't know Christophe Leduc work, otherwise you wouldn't have asked : he is absolutely meticulous and a real luthier who tunes his woods...

They were identical basses made the same year (1990) with the same woods (except the fingerboard) coming from the exact same source and stocked for years in identical conditions. The pickups were exactly the same just like the strings, the lead, the theme played, the sitting position, the wire, the pots, the output jack, etc.  : identical twins but the fretboard.

For your MusicMan's, they don't tell the wood they use for the bodies, except hard or soft wood and they don't tell their supplier nor type of drying... And they are mass production basses which means the body could be in 5 glued parts ash when the other is a 1 part body poplar

If you admit that there's a difference between the type of copper (which I hugely agree) and the number of windings (again fully agreed), why not with the woods ?

If you have the time to watch this documentary, you'll learn a lot about lutherie, the real one, not these non sense mass products : 

 

[NancyJohnson]

3 hours ago, Lozz196 said:

We did a maple/rosewood shootout and whilst not getting people to guess which was which, the overwhelming fave on each category - Precision/Jazz/Ray etc - after playing one maple, one rosewood of the same bass was rosewood. We tried to keep as near as possible, but obviously strings/year of manufacture can all get in the way of pure objectivity but, even then, rosewood triumphed across the board (pardon the pun).

I'm assuming this was at a Bass Bash, but what were the control conditions?  I remember one of the cabinet shoot outs a couple of years ago, every cabinet was on display and Nick was wiring the speakers in front of everyone, so everyone knew what was being used.  When you were demonstrating basses, were you behind a curtain or anything so people couldn't see what you were playing? 

As a species, our objectivity is swayed by visual as well as aural input; one persons desired tone is not someone else's and if, for instance, someone loves 1960s Jazz basses, they will always love what it sounds like irrespective of what it sounds like.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of maple boards but that's just because I don't like the look of them, but that said, the sole bass I own with a maple board sounds pretty much the same as the ones I have with rosewood or ebony boards.  Strings, pickups, tone cap, outboard, pre/power stage, cabinets all have way more input on what the instrument sounds like than a 24x2" plank of rosewood.

[Grangur]

@NancyJohnson I was there for the shootout that @Lozz196 did, and it was, indeed behind a curtain.

Over all the basses, the ones with the Rosewood necks were all distinctively had more bite in the sound. The maple neck basses were all more thuddy.

I liked the maple necks, much to my surprise, as I've never owned one.

[chris_b]

I know there is a difference in the sound and resonance of different woods. IMO if you work in studios or close mic'ed environments then these differences will be noticeable and more important, but the nature of the gigs most of us play will reduce the benefits that different woods could bring to our sound. I'd guess that in the semi pro gigging world differences this small will not even be noticed by the majority.

If Roger Sadowsky, one of the pickiest guys around, can find acceptable alternatives to rosewood for his flagship models then the rest of us are going to be fine without rosewood..

[NancyJohnson]

6 minutes ago, Hellzero said:

I think you don't know Christophe Leduc work, otherwise you wouldn't have asked : he is absolutely meticulous and a real luthier who tunes his woods...

Mate, you're on a hiding to nothing here. I'd watched that film some time back and yes, it's interesting to see into the mind of a luthier, BUT irrespective of being meticulous, he's dealing with a natural product, the matter that he's drawing his wood from the same stock is meaningless, even if it all came from the same tree, while the DNA would be the same, it's still a natural product; it contains flaws and nuances that do not carry from plank to plank.  It's no more identical than two bananas in the same hand.

[Hellzero]

But they'll both taste like bananas, certainly with some difference in the taste, but you will be able to tell what they are by looking at them and eating them or even smelling them. It's exactly the same with woods or anything organic : there are the basic specifications by which you can identify them and then there are the oddities by which you can have some classification within the same species...

[Dad3353]

57 minutes ago, Hellzero said:

...For your MusicMan's, they don't tell the wood they use for the bodies, except hard or soft wood and they don't tell their supplier nor type of drying... And they are mass production basses which means the body could be in 5 glued parts ash when the other is a 1 part body poplar

If you admit that there's a difference between the type of copper (which I hugely agree) and the number of windings (again fully agreed), why not with the woods ?...

The way I read this, it would appear that you're suggesting (and therefore agreeing...) that, with mass-produced instruments, which most of us play, there is, indeed, no reliable way of telling from tone alone what the finger-board is made from, nor the body, nor which strings are used etc. It may be, in esoteric isolation, that expert ears can identify woods, and hone the instrument to the way required; not many players are concerned, I'd suggest. For an enormous chunk of the population of the planet, including a vast number of bass players of all persuasions, a bass is a bass is a bass; end of story. A light-coloured or darker neck is, I maintain, about as important as the material used for the strap. Leather, nylon, string..? Not such a big deal as all that.
Disclaimer: I'm a drummer; what would I know..? 

Edited February 2, 2018 by Dad3353

[Monkey Steve]

I can see the costs and hassle aspect making a difference for how we deal with an individual purchase. 

I may have mentioned it on another thread (I tend not tell my stories about CITIES a lot elsewhere), but a few months ago I was talking to someone who is a friend of the guy who makes Black Machine guitars, and he was discussing the change with him.  His guitars as so very, very expensive that he can get away with telling any overseas buyers (mainly from the US) that the cost of any guitar that includes rosewood includes a return flight for the buyer to come to London and pick up the guitar, so that it can be taken home using the "personal allowance" exemption rather than the business around certification and import and export licences.

I've seen one USA custom shops say that they're just not going to bother so if you're not in the US, don't even ask about rosewood.

I reckon that if it does create an issue following Brexit, at the higher end there will be a compromise where there will be bulk imports of US guitars to the EU, and then collections in person for the cost of an EasyJet ticket

[Grangur]

Isn't a lot of this "tonewood" discussion also, as @chris_b says, down to the situation you play in, and the tone you use?

@NancyJohnson plays in a band using a lot of distortion. NJ will disagree with me, I guess, but IMHO, in this situation a bass is a bass, is a bass. If, as I do, you play solo, no effects, analysing the tone and ring of every note, you're probably going to notice a lot more of the small differences in the character of the tone. 

Have to agree that wood from the same tree will resonate differently. The wood at the heart is more dense, than the younger wood at the outside. But I would expect different types of woods will have a more marked difference. But there are also, possibly similarities between some woods.

Doubt if the loss of rosewood will kill off music all together though. Light is still pretty useable these days, even if we don't use gas or oil any more.

[NancyJohnson]

24 minutes ago, Grangur said:

@NancyJohnson plays in a band using a lot of distortion. NJ will disagree with me, I guess, but IMHO, in this situation a bass is a bass, is a bass. If, as I do, you play solo, no effects, analysing the tone and ring of every note, you're probably going to notice a lot more of the small differences in the character of the tone.

I do have the ability to play clean as well, Rich!  It's amazing.  There's this control on my pre-amp that has the word 'GAIN' on it, just roll that knob back and the dirt disappears.  Who knew? 

[Nicko]

3 hours ago, Hellzero said:

Sorry, but if you don't hear the difference between ebony, rosewood and maple, it's about time to make an ear test as there are huge differences in tone. I know that most the musicians are almost deaf and only hear harmonics, but stop this please : it's not only a cosmetical difference, it's a tone difference.

At a time, for some personal reasons, I had two identical Leduc MP 6 strings fretless basses (neckthrough abd bubinga wings), but one had a pau ferro fingerboard and the other a Brazilian rosewood one : there was a BIG difference in tone between the two. Strangely I ended up keeping the pau ferro one that had more bite and high mids, which was what I was looking for at the time. In November, I bought another Leduc MP 6 strings fretless I was hunting for 10 years : quite similar in contruction but the wings (flamed maple top over ash with a mahogany veneer in between) and the fretboard which is Brazilian rosewood. Soundwise you get a more present fundamental, more low mids and less high mids, so a hugely growling and mwahing fretless.

I know I'm a bit harsh on this subject, but I'm really fed up with these comments. It's like saying that a carrot tastes the same as a cabbage.

I know I'm being not only deaf to the sound but also completely thick but on a fretted bass as opposed to a fretless the string vibrates between the fret (or nut) and the bridge.  How is the material of the fretboard relevant?  I can completely understand the difference a tonewood makes on the body, and how the construction overall impacts the sound but not the fretboard. 

[MrCrane]

52 minutes ago, Dad3353 said:

 For an enormous chunk of the population of the planet, including a vast number of bass players of all persuasions, a bass is a bass is a bass; end of story.

For an enormous chunk of the population of the planet, a bass is a guitar; end of story.

[Hellzero]

27 minutes ago, Dad3353 said:

The way I read this, it would appear that you're suggesting (and therefore agreeing...) that, with mass-produced instruments, which most of us play, there is, indeed, no reliable way of telling from tone alone what the finger-board is made from, nor the body, nor which strings are used etc. It may be, in esoteric isolation, that expert ears can identify woods, and hone the instrument to the way required; not many players are concerned, I'd suggest. For an enormous chunk of the population of the planet, including a vast number of bass players of all persuasions, a bass is a bass is a bass; end of story. A light-coloured or darker neck is, I maintain, about as important as the material used for the strap. Leather, nylon, string..? Not such a big deal as all that.
Disclaimer: I'm a drummer; what would I know..? 

You read it totally wrong indeed, you are interpreting as I never wrote that there is "no reliable way of telling from tone alone what the finger-board is made from, nor the body, nor which strings are used", I just mentioned the "issue"  with the body wood by MusicMan, but you are forgiven as you are a drummer. 

It's an endless debate, but there are clues in your post and others too : to most of the people a bass is a bass is a bass, period. A lot use tons of effects including distortion and compression.

I'm not pedant or patronising, but I play my instrument without any other effects than my fingers through the most transparent system possible including the on-board preamp when there is one and amplifier (combo) : this is what I want to hear, the notes I'm playing the way I'm playing them without any artifice. I even made an asked "conference" about the main basses and their differences in term of sound. I also explained how to set an amplifier to hear how your instrument really sounds so you can reproduce the same tone everywhere and that's quite easy to do.

But I think this CITES thread is going in the wrong direction and that it's another debate.

IMO, CITES has opened some minds to endangered species and to a new approach for making instruments, even if the makers are not the one endangering the species.

[Grangur]

11 minutes ago, Nicko said:

I know I'm being not only deaf to the sound but also completely thick but on a fretted bass as opposed to a fretless the string vibrates between the fret (or nut) and the bridge.  How is the material of the fretboard relevant?  I can completely understand the difference a tonewood makes on the body, and how the construction overall impacts the sound but not the fretboard. 

The body of a bass is pretty thick, it's also wide. I know I'm a wimp, but I've never succeeded in bending a body over my knee.

I have, however managed to bend a neck over my knee. On this basis, it's my personal theory that there's more chance that reverberations under the vibrations of the string will be greater in the neck than in the body.  Please do tell me I'm wrong. Always happy to learn.

[NancyJohnson]

1 hour ago, Hellzero said:

But I think this CITES thread is going in the wrong direction and that it's another debate.

 

Just to get back on track, I'm thinking of ordering another Mike Lull with a bradypus pygmaeus body, a brachylophus top and a honey badger fingerboard.