Fodera - what are they thinking?

[Woodinblack]

3 hours ago, The59Sound said:

Fodera's - for people with more money than sense.

If I drive a Ferrari, does that make me Schumacher? Thought not! 

I don't think that makes any sense at all. To me that is ugly, so I wouldn't get it. I have no doubt that it plays better than anything I have, but I can live with that because ugly trumps it to me. But ugly is entirely subjective, and if it is beautiful to you then it is, regardless of anyone elses opinion, and if it is objectively good then it really is.

Money is a relative thing, depends what it is worth to you. This is certainly less than a ford fiesta, and if you don't drive but you make money playing the bass, then it would make perfect sense whereas someone buying a ford fiesta would have more money than sense. 

In fact, this is probably cheaper than a lot of vintage fenders that wouldn't be a fraction of the bass that this would be, so everyones sense is in a different place.

[fiatcoupe432]

20 hours ago, Woodinblack said:

No, its not just you, that is a mess. As is that headstock and that string retainer and hole for the truss rod. 

I am sure it is a lovely guitar and fantastic to play, and I am sure it is very well thought out, but it really doesn't look like it.

I ve always only liked vintage fenders and nothing else ...

then after several years i managed to buy my first pedulla and i ve discovered a new love for handmade basses ....

soon i ve forgot about old fender and moved to boutique basses and never looked back ... 

i hated the way all those basses looked to modern to futuristic but then you play one and you start appriciate all the manual job , the details , the playability , the sound the way the neck fills the way you pluck the string change etc and soon you start to think why you hated it so much before 

i always tought that elrick were  ugly and i hated the headstock !

since i had one it changed my mind andsoon forgot about the headstock

what i mean is you need to spend time with a instrument to appriciate ir real beauty !!!

[Chris2112]

5 hours ago, The59Sound said:

Fodera's - for people with more money than sense.

If I drive a Ferrari, does that make me Schumacher? Thought not! 

This sort of jealousy makes me cringe.

[skidder652003]

46 minutes ago, Chris2112 said:

This sort of jealousy makes me cringe.

I don't really think its jealousy, just an opinion I agree with, I think they're stunning but overpriced for what they are, and the resale values are I believe, quite poor. But hey each to their own..

[Belka]

I actually much prefer the front mounted jack socket to side mounted. Having played a lot of Foderas however, I have noticed a few things that I think could be improved. Maybe some other Fodera owners will (dis)agree with me.

1. The Fodera bridge. It's solid and works well but if the grub screws holding up the saddles aren't at exactly equal height teh saddles will rattle - not had this with Hipshots, etc.

2. Very minor thing but the truss rod tool is quite thin. If the truss rod is a bit stiff the allen key/truss rod adjustment tool will flex quite a bit before the truss rod shifts and it makes turning it less precise.

3. Agree about the knobs. At the prices they charge and considering the otherwise flawless aesthetics of their basses, they could at least offer metal knobs matching the bridge/tuner finishes as standard. I think the layouts are fine though.

4. The Pope preamp, despite being very musical, is a bit noisy when compared to others (others in my case being the EMG preamp, Bartolini NTMB, MusicMan preamp). It's not a make or break thing but I think Mike should look into reducing the hiss coming out of it.  

Otherwise I can't really say anything negative about them. 

[Cato]

I doubt I'll ever own a Fodera or Ritter, but I think it would be a poorer world if these 'Rolls Royce' type instruments didn't exist.

 

[Woodinblack]

3 hours ago, fiatcoupe432 said:

i hated the way all those basses looked to modern to futuristic but then you play one and you start appriciate all the manual job , the details , the playability , the sound the way the neck fills the way you pluck the string change etc and soon you start to think why you hated it so much before 

i always tought that elrick were  ugly and i hated the headstock !

since i had one it changed my mind andsoon forgot about the headstock

what i mean is you need to spend time with a instrument to appriciate ir real beauty !!!

Oh yes,  I know what you mean, but that doesn't look modern and futuristic. It looks like it wasn't thought about as a whole.

If you look at most custom basses you will see the sort of thing that means that it has been thought about, has been cared about, the way the knobs arc round in the shape of the body, the way the neck blends into the body, the way the strings go to the machine head from the nut. This doesn't show that.

I know ultimately you can come to love anything, but somethings are out of lust and some out of sympathy!

 

[Sibob]

36 minutes ago, Woodinblack said:

Oh yes,  I know what you mean, but that doesn't look modern and futuristic. It looks like it wasn't thought about as a whole.

If you look at most custom basses you will see the sort of thing that means that it has been thought about, has been cared about, the way the knobs arc round in the shape of the body, the way the neck blends into the body, the way the strings go to the machine head from the nut. This doesn't show that.

I know ultimately you can come to love anything, but somethings are out of lust and some out of sympathy!

 

You're suggesting that any custom bass that is bolt-on, knobs in a straight line and has a string tree has't been thought through??

lol

Si

[drTStingray]

I think some of us need to get past the idea that if a bass doesn't resemble a well known design from 1957 or 1960 it's in some way odd. I had this obsession in the late 60s and early 70s despite many of my favourite bassists of the time playing such oddities as Gibson EB3s and the Art Deco hinted Rickenbacker. 

We just should not be questioning what Anthony Jackson wants his signature bass to be in my mind - it's got nothing to do with anyone but him - if some of us don't like the bass (I'm one of them) then tough - they clearly make it because some people want to buy a replica.

As for Hiram's Fodera, it looks totally inocuous to me - I'm sure it sounds great (stunning in expert hands no doubt) - I just don't get people's objection to other people's basses - if you don't like it then fine but it seems to me to be crass, if not rude in the extreme to be moaning about it and almost inviting people to justify why they've had the audacity to buy it. 

I have to say I find Fender basses in sunburst as boring as bland boiled potatoes, and when coupled with a tort scratch plate, an eyesore. But would I post such views generally - and least of all in a thread where someone's referring to selling one on the forum - I personally think its totally out of order 😕 but then I've become a grumpy old git like that singer from the Who!!! 

[Woodinblack]

9 hours ago, Sibob said:

You're suggesting that any custom bass that is bolt-on, knobs in a straight line and has a string tree has't been thought through??

Huh? Of course not.

I am not sure why you mentioned bolt on, I never mentioned that - there are some lovely bolt ons such as the Alpher or the Ritters

I think if it had the knobs in a straight line, that would be fine, it would appear the designer wanted them in a straight line. No, it is the fact they appear almost randomly positioned, its the string tree that changes the break angle, its the headstock that unbalances the look of the body (ie, doesn't follow the same lines, such as curves vs square). 

Its not a question of a design I like or a design I don't like (I like the shape of the body),  it is no specific part of it is necessarily bad (although I find some of it unattractive, but that is subjective), its a question of an overall design that doesn't appear to hang together.

Edited June 6, 2018 by Woodinblack

[The59Sound]

15 hours ago, Chris2112 said:

This sort of jealousy makes me cringe.

Jealousy? Way off the mark, sunshine. 

[Sibob]

4 hours ago, Woodinblack said:

Huh? Of course not.

I am not sure why you mentioned bolt on, I never mentioned that - there are some lovely bolt ons such as the Alpher or the Ritters

I think if it had the knobs in a straight line, that would be fine, it would appear the designer wanted them in a straight line. No, it is the fact they appear almost randomly positioned, its the string tree that changes the break angle, its the headstock that unbalances the look of the body (ie, doesn't follow the same lines, such as curves vs square). 

Its not a question of a design I like or a design I don't like (I like the shape of the body),  it is no specific part of it is necessarily bad (although I find some of it unattractive, but that is subjective), its a question of an overall design that doesn't appear to hang together.

With regards to bolt on, it's simply because you suggested that a well thought out design needs to have the neck flowing into the body (such as neck-through or set-neck), I don't think anyone has described a Fender neck join as 'flowing into the body', yet it will have been thought about an incredible amount from an engineering point of view (as Leo was). So ultimately we have a difference between what you deem to be aesthetically pleasing, and whether something has been thought about.

With regards to the Fodera, everything would have been thought about to the Nth degree. Having owned one previously (although not this model), I found the layout to be ergonomic and intuitive, and can only image that the above is also true.
I actually don't see an issue with it, but I see patterns in groups of things, as opposed to needing an overall uniformed pattern. For example I don't care how the switches are distanced from the EQ, but as long as the EQ is intuitively placed and spaced, then the switches are well placed/spaced in relation to each other etc.

Again, it's simply a difference between what is aesthetically pleasing to you vs whether it's been thought out.....the two aren't mutually exclusive. The headstock shape vs the body shape, that's just the Fodera aesthetic, I don't think it looks weird or unbalanced, but you don't like it. Does that mean 'it hasn't been thought about' or is 'random', no, of course not  .

Ultimately, I just think you've been a bit blunt with your point, but it does ultimately boil down to it being totally subjective, same as everything on here.....which is fine, but unfair to accuse any builder of this pedigree of simply 'not thinking about it'.

Si

Edited June 6, 2018 by Sibob

[plangentmusic]

Aesthetics are subjective. Personally, I find the Fodera shape looks a little awkward, or in the least, not "sleek."  I would also think for my money I'd get a finish on the body.   As it is, the body will start to show wear quickly, and not in the cool way like a nitro finish Precision.

As for neck-throughs -- I don't see what makes there's any more special than bolt-ons because, in general, neck-throughs sound and feel inferior.  Yes, I know, they require more work and therefore cost more and therefore should be better. But it's been my experience that neck-throughs play stiffer, have too much sustain (to the point where the notes run into each other) and lack punch.  As to why that is and to what degree can be debated, but it seems rather consistent.  

So maybe the fact that they have to pay someone to screw the necks on by hand is the reason they cost six thousand dollars more than they should. 

 

[Belka]

10 minutes ago, plangentmusic said:

Aesthetics are subjective. Personally, I find the Fodera shape looks a little awkward, or in the least, not "sleek."  I would also think for my money I'd get a finish on the body.   As it is, the body will start to show wear quickly, and not in the cool way like a nitro finish Precision.

As for neck-throughs -- I don't see what makes there's any more special than bolt-ons because, in general, neck-throughs sound and feel inferior.  Yes, I know, they require more work and therefore cost more and therefore should be better. But it's been my experience that neck-throughs play stiffer, have too much sustain (to the point where the notes run into each other) and lack punch.  As to why that is and to what degree can be debated, but it seems rather consistent.  

So maybe the fact that they have to pay someone to screw the necks on by hand is the reason they cost six thousand dollars more than they should. 

 

I guess your first point is subjective, so fine. But with all due respect, your point about neck-through vs. bolt-on is not accurate. The whole 'bolt-ons have more punch' and 'neck-throughs have more sustain' is a misconception that came about because Fender basses, with a scale length and positioning of pickups that gave them a lot of punch, happened to be bolt-on. Early neck-through basses, such as Rickenbackers, Alembics, and Gibson (ok, I know they're technically set-neck but some people might not get the difference) had very different electronics and in some cases scale length that didn't give that punchy Fender sound. The sustain thing probably came about because in the '70s early custom builders like Alembic, who typically made neck-throughs, also incorporated things like brass nuts, heavy brass bridges (Badass) and roundwound strings as standard.

Where I do agree with you is that neck-throughs are not better than bolt-on, although equally, nor are they worse. Here, it's subjective again - there are different pluses/minuses of both. Bolt-on necks are easily replaceable. Neck-throughs typically give better access to the upper frets. People's needs/preferences here vary. 

For what it's worth Fodera did an experiment. They made basses identical in every respect apart from the neck joint. So, a bolt-on, a neck-through, and a set-neck. The differences in sound were so small as to make the type of neck joint almost irrelevant. 

[plangentmusic]

That may be true but  the comparison holds true , all things being equal, except that one is bolt on and the other neck through.  I recently did that with a Ibanez Prestige.  With no prejudice, was ready to get the neck though, but when I played the slightly less expensive bolt on version,  (same wood, same shape, same pups) it  simply had more punch. 

Edited June 6, 2018 by plangentmusic

[Woodinblack]

5 hours ago, Sibob said:

With regards to bolt on, it's simply because you suggested that a well thought out design needs to have the neck flowing into the body (such as neck-through or set-neck), I don't think anyone has described a Fender neck join as 'flowing into the body', yet it will have been thought about an incredible amount from an engineering point of view (as Leo was). So ultimately we have a difference between what you deem to be aesthetically pleasing, and whether something has been thought about.

I was talking about the design flowing into the body. I am not a particular fender fan, but the neck of say a jazz bass looks like it is made by the same people as the body of a jazz bass, it has the same curves and style, so although it doesn't literally flow, the design continues, or flows between the body and the neck.

Sorry, I guess that could have been clearer

I suppose you could say it is subjective in the way of things, but it is, like all the points I am making, consistency. It is like the cars round here where you get a vauxhall nova with a massive fin at the back - it doesn't look like part of the whole, it looks like someone designed the neck and someone else designed the body.

This in itself is not uncommon, there are a few cars around that are similar (ie, from the manufacturers), when you wonder if the person who designed the front was the person who designed the back. 

I am not saying it is not a good bass, I am sure it is, and I am sure someone wanted it that way. It just doesn't gell for me, unlike most custom basses, that really look like someone though about the whole thing.

 

5 hours ago, Sibob said:

Again, it's simply a difference between what is aesthetically pleasing to you vs whether it's been thought out.....the two aren't mutually exclusive. The headstock shape vs the body shape, that's just the Fodera aesthetic, I don't think it looks weird or unbalanced, but you don't like it. Does that mean 'it hasn't been thought about' or is 'random', no, of course not  .

Ultimately, I just think you've been a bit blunt with your point, but it does ultimately boil down to it being totally subjective, same as everything on here.....which is fine, but unfair to accuse any builder of this pedigree of simply 'not thinking about it'.

Please, if you are going to use quotes don't put words into my mouth. I at no point said 'it hasn't been thought about' or that it was random', I have absolutely no doubt that it has been thought about, obviously it has, they are highly regarded makers and I am sure, as I have said, they are very fantastic basses. I said that it 'looked like it hadn't been thought about', which is a very different thing.

If you don't mind things being different and that contrast between one part and another part of the thing, then it is successful, and maybe that is the purpose of the design, of what they wanted, in which case that is fully successful. We all want different things and the designer of that bass presumably had something specific in mind, which I am sure they came to.

As to whether it is unfair, I am not sure what that means, my opinion is of no more relevance than anyone else, and the only opinion that matters is of people who would be buying a bass like that, but what would be unfair would be to accuse me of saying something I have never said.

 

 

[Auslander]

Hi, the "on top" input jack is just like "standard" Fodera does on his basses but on ordering the bass is a spec that the cuustomer can decided on (on top or side input jack). AJ use the on top version because when he use palm muted technique he take the bass 60/70 degrees angled bass with headstock up and this impossible with xlr side input hole because it can touch the legs...

Electronic hole cover can be done with all essences by Fodera and they usually do in plastic but can do with matched backwood or other woods...

The price of a Fodera custom bass is because they can do a bass with personal specs for every customer all over the world in 5/7 months from the ordering. 30/32/33/34/35/36 inch scale, right or left handed, with or without headstock, fretted or fretless 4/5/6/7 strings, various pickup brand, great various wood combinations and every single detail is done at its best. Fodera basses has the best confort, ergonomic playbility possible....

I've had the chance to take this bass. It's one of the most expensive ever done by Fodera and i've take it from the first owner. It sounds like no other bass and its specs are simple but the structure is very hard to do...

[Hellzero]

I agree with everything you wrote, especially the fact that they are "fast". For the record, I've ordered my new Leduc U-Basse 6 strings fretless a month ago and I'll have to wait ... 2 years, but Christophe is working totally alone and to me he's the best European luthier and in the top 3 worldwide.

[Aidan63]

On ‎07‎/‎07‎/‎2018 at 12:41, hiram.k.hackenbacker said:

I’ll just leave these here 😀

 

Hope it works out for you, but to me that headstock set up just looks wrong,  top two strings great routing, middle string tight bend at the nut and then the low string reverse wound onto tuner weird, so is the tuner reversed or do you have to live with it going the opposite way to the others ?

I think Warwick headstocks always look wrong too, tight angles on middle strings at nut

[bubinga5]

On 16/06/2018 at 11:01, Hellzero said:

I agree with everything you wrote, especially the fact that they are "fast". For the record, I've ordered my new Leduc U-Basse 6 strings fretless a month ago and I'll have to wait ... 2 years, but Christophe is working totally alone and to me he's the best European luthier and in the top 3 worldwide.

Wow 2 years. I don't think I could sit at the window waiting for the courier for that long. 

[LukeFRC]

On 06/06/2018 at 07:38, Woodinblack said:

Huh? Of course not.

I am not sure why you mentioned bolt on, I never mentioned that - there are some lovely bolt ons such as the Alpher or the Ritters

I think if it had the knobs in a straight line, that would be fine, it would appear the designer wanted them in a straight line. No, it is the fact they appear almost randomly positioned, its the string tree that changes the break angle, its the headstock that unbalances the look of the body (ie, doesn't follow the same lines, such as curves vs square). 

Its not a question of a design I like or a design I don't like (I like the shape of the body),  it is no specific part of it is necessarily bad (although I find some of it unattractive, but that is subjective), its a question of an overall design that doesn't appear to hang together.

I think there is a certain utilitarian feature to the design - I actually like that about them. Either that or homages to Yamaha musician models? 

One of my favourite things about classic Warwick are that there’s no fancy wood tops for cosmetic reasons. Problem is most people going to a custom builder seem to want fancy wood bling