What Puts You Off?

[bassaussie]

On 12/08/2020 at 20:52, stewblack said:

For me it's the headstock shape, it can utterly ruin an otherwise beautiful machine. There are combinations of colours (black body and plate, maple board) which don't appeal but that's more than one thing.

100% this.

The one I always think of is Tyler guitars and basses. Apparently they're insanely good instruments, but the headstocks really spoil them for me.

[Quilly]

45 minutes ago, bassaussie said:

100% this.

The one I always think of is Tyler guitars and basses. Apparently they're insanely good instruments, but the headstocks really spoil them for me.

My Sandberg Cal (Gen 1) has a huge headstock and I much prefer the Gen2 headstock. Great bass otherwise.  

[molan]

23 hours ago, hiram.k.hackenbacker said:

That nice one is a Monarch (I think). The other one isn’t. That’s about the sum of my knowledge on that one as all I’ve ever had are Monarch’s. @molan would probably one of the better people to ask.

The extended B used to be an option on 5 string basses. I think the only model that came with it as standard (and not changeable) was the Lincoln Goines Signature.

There's been loads of debate about whether it makes any difference whatsoever. The general view seems to be that it cannot affect either the direct tension or tone of a B string. Extending the string longer, either behind the headstock or through the body, makes no difference to tone (despite all the people who claim they can 'hear' a difference on through-body stringing).

However, there is some physics that say the longer the string is, beyond the nut, the more likely it is that you might be able to 'feel' a slight looseness in flexibility of that string. To be honest I think this would only be the case if you were extending by way more than few centimeters on an Extended B bass though!

Whenever questioned the guys at Fodera would always say that 'the customer is always right' - if someone requests something & it can be done they will build it for them. They will offer advice if they think something is really silly though. I did once have a conversation with Joey Lauricella and he said that in early days they received some strange requests and Vinny would say, this'll never sound good. They said that they only ever once built something that a customer absolutely insisted on that they knew wouldn't work. Customer refused to change his spec so they built it. As soon as he went to play it he said "this sounds really bad". The Fodera guys shrugged their shoulders and kinda said "we told you this". They then told the guy what needed to be changed and, if I remember correctly, they built him another that actually did sound right

[Quilly]

I really dont like the look of the Lakland Skyline body at all. It looks like a bass that ate too many pork pies.  G&L basses in general i think look very dull and uninteresting...too may pick ups , too may dials and knobs. Great playing and sounding basses I'm sure.  

[Quilly]

2 hours ago, Lfalex v1.1 said:

The Attitude. Generally polarises opinion..

[Baloney Balderdash]

19 hours ago, paul_5 said:

Agree completely. 🤮

My own pet hates are ‘Buzzard’ basses -

 

and basses with more knobs than strings; if you exceed this number then you’re an audio engineer first and bass player second.

seriously, get stacked knobs and do it tastefully!

Wouh, apart from the finish, which admittedly is quite awful, I love the design of that bass.

So much I wouldn't even mind the horrible baby blue cheesy 80's paintbrush poster finish.

If only it came as a short scale bass and that I would actually be able to afford it I wouldn't think twice about getting one (though a reverse P in the neck position and a normal P in the bridge position seems to have made more sense to me).

Edited August 14, 2020 by Baloney Balderdash

[BigRedX]

1 hour ago, molan said:

However, there is some physics that say the longer the string is, beyond the nut, the more likely it is that you might be able to 'feel' a slight looseness in flexibility of that string. To be honest I think this would only be the case if you were extending by way more than few centimeters on an Extended B bass though!

IME most low B-strings could do with being a bit less flexible if anything.

[Woodinblack]

5 hours ago, Quilly said:

Even though they received a great review from Ed Friedland, the bass whisperer, and I nearly bought one, I just couldn't get over that head stock. Unlike others on this thread I kinda like telebass headstocks, at least they're a classic design but that below is just ugh!  

I think they've since been discontinued, I mean who wants to buy a copy of a fender bass for the same price as a fender but with an ugly headstock? 🤷‍♂️

That really depends on whether you think that that headstock is uglier than a fender headstock, I guess its what you are used to. Would pick that in a heartbeat over the tele headstock - its about as ugly as a normal fender headstock. 

[molan]

1 hour ago, BigRedX said:

IME most low B-strings could do with being a bit less flexible if anything.

I agree!

[Lozz196]

A few years back it would have been slim neck profile, now I can’t get enough of those boot-lace Jazz necks. Funny old game.

[Quilly]

2 hours ago, Lozz196 said:

A few years back it would have been slim neck profile, now I can’t get enough of those boot-lace Jazz necks. Funny old game.

I’m the total opposite, would pick a baseball bat neck now any day 

[Ghost_Bass]

#3 - Headstock shape, reverse headstock and especialy tuner placement( Hate 5 in line tunners, 4+1 looks better on classic headstocks. Hate 2+3 tunners, 3+2 makes more sense on a modern headstock);

#2 - Rosewood fretboards in white basses (or any bass for that mather);

#1 - Anything with a Fender decal in the headstock...

 

I'll go ahead and tie myself to that post over that big pile of wood in that square...

[Krysbass]

This is a tough one because I’m a fussy sod so there must be a good half-dozen things that would put me off a bass.

Best I can do is narrow that down to the two biggest deal-breakers for me which are any sort of pick-guard and maple or other light coloured fretboards.

Just those two probably rule out a good 50% of the basses out there.🙄

[durhamboy]

On 14/08/2020 at 04:55, Richard R said:

I have fallen about laughing at this thread, absolutely wonderful. 

If you want to understand why Basschat is such a great place,  imagine the flame wars, foul language and trolling that would erupt if you asked this question on that other forum over in the US... 🙂

True. In comparison to here on Basschat, humor and a general live and let live approach seems to be less obvious at the other place. Not that there aren't plenty of helpful and courteous folks there, just seems like things can get very serious very quickly and there's a percentage who seem pretty intolerant of any view other than their own. (Maybe it's just a fundamental difference between cultures and what to us seems at times confrontational, isn't to folks over there?)

  

[uk_lefty]

Hmmm... 

Models I want not being available left handed annoys me a lot but also saves me a lot of money. 

Mixing different hardware colours, so chrome Bridge and gold tuners is a big no. Recently pondered buying a black bass that had some gold hardware, thought I could replace the chrome bits with gold but it had silver blocks on a rosewood board, just looked wrong. General cheap rubbish hardware is an annoyance, just seems to be a cost cutting measure on a lot of basses selling for less than a grand. 

Bad relic jobs. By this I mean every single instrument looks the same and the relic just isn't realistic. Or it looks like it got washed up on the rocks at Flamborough Head. A relic on a modern instrument is just wrong. Good quality relic and genuine wear are OK in my book though. 

Warwick making basses that have maple necks just isn't right. To me a Warwick has to have a bubinga body, ovangkol neck and wenge board. Nothing else will do. Their maple bodies look quite nice though, I'll give them that, the one I had was a stunner. 

Bad flame or quilted maple tops. They can look stunning. They can mainly look dreadful on cheaper instruments. They always look like something from the late 80s / early 90s and not in a good way. 

 

 

[binky_bass]

Photoflame finishes. Because its just a lie! 

Also, those awful cheap guitars with a massive image of a skull and cross bones or graveyard or other some such 'gothy' picture plastered all over the body. All sorts of no. 

[Richard R]

I actually dislike four-in-line elephant-ear tuners, and the typical Fender-ish headstock shape. When I first started looking for a bass to buy I would see all them all hanging on the rack is shops and thought most of them looked like thin d*cks with bulbous kn*bs on the end. 

Now of course  I realise that if I'm playing then the biggest kn*b is the one holding the bass, but I'm still not a fan of that headstock shape.

[S.F.Sorrow]

I'm not a huge fan of relic basses in general but I understand why people like them. However, the one thing that REALLY puts me off is a poor/inconsistent relic job. When it looks fake rather than naturally worn. I also don't understand the concept of a heavily reliced body with a pristine neck. Or a battery compartment on a bass that has been reliced to look like it's from the 1950s.

But it's a fine line. If someone takes a chisel to their bass to deliberately make it look ugly rather than going for the "authentic relic" look I'm ok with it.

[Quilly]

3 hours ago, durhamboy said:

True. In comparison to here on Basschat, humor and a general live and let live approach seems to be less obvious at the other place. Not that there aren't plenty of helpful and courteous folks there, just seems like things can get very serious very quickly and there's a percentage who seem pretty intolerant of any view other than their own. (Maybe it's just a fundamental difference between cultures and what to us seems at times confrontational, isn't to folks over there?)

  

It’s because bass players are the least precious members of the band 😂

[Quilly]

43 minutes ago, S.F.Sorrow said:

I'm not a huge fan of relic basses in general but I understand why people like them. However, the one thing that REALLY puts me off is a poor/inconsistent relic job. When it looks fake rather than naturally worn. I also don't understand the concept of a heavily reliced body with a pristine neck. Or a battery compartment on a bass that has been reliced to look like it's from the 1950s.

But it's a fine line. If someone takes a chisel to their bass to deliberately make it look ugly rather than going for the "authentic relic" look I'm ok with it.

I agree , I think the best examples are the fender Pino precision bass and the sandberg Roquefort soft aged bass (I love these) they just wouldn’t look as good brand new. I’m not a fan of heavy relics just enough for the bass to feel “played in”

[Quilly]

Stupid pickup covers like those found on vintage fenders and current rickenbackers that make the bass almost unplayable. Why 🤷‍♂️.

[Quilly]

2 hours ago, uk_lefty said:

Hmmm... 

Models I want not being available left handed annoys me a lot but also saves me a lot of money. 

Mixing different hardware colours, so chrome Bridge and gold tuners is a big no. Recently pondered buying a black bass that had some gold hardware, thought I could replace the chrome bits with gold but it had silver blocks on a rosewood board, just looked wrong. General cheap rubbish hardware is an annoyance, just seems to be a cost cutting measure on a lot of basses selling for less than a grand. 

Bad relic jobs. By this I mean every single instrument looks the same and the relic just isn't realistic. Or it looks like it got washed up on the rocks at Flamborough Head. A relic on a modern instrument is just wrong. Good quality relic and genuine wear are OK in my book though. 

Warwick making basses that have maple necks just isn't right. To me a Warwick has to have a bubinga body, ovangkol neck and wenge board. Nothing else will do. Their maple bodies look quite nice though, I'll give them that, the one I had was a stunner. 

Bad flame or quilted maple tops. They can look stunning. They can mainly look dreadful on cheaper instruments. They always look like something from the late 80s / early 90s and not in a good way. 

 

 

I disagree with the Warwick bit. I really like that Adam Clayton p bass they do. To me it’s their nicest looking bass...each to their own tho .

[Lfalex v1.1]

3 hours ago, uk_lefty said:

 Warwick making basses that have maple necks just isn't right. To me a Warwick has to have a bubinga body, ovangkol neck and wenge board. Nothing else will do. Their maple bodies look quite nice though, I'll give them that, the one I had was a stunner. 

 

That's very specific! 

I think Warwicks should just be "Woody"!

[uk_lefty]

59 minutes ago, Lfalex v1.1 said:

That's very specific! 

I think Warwicks should just be "Woody"!

I think this is why Warwick run a successful global guitar company and I don't. 

[Quilly]

2 hours ago, Lfalex v1.1 said:

That's very specific! 

I think Warwicks should just be "Woody"!

Oh I dunno , there’s a lot to be said for tinny also