I personally agree with you, but I don't find myself able to tell the difference between the sounds of woods (based on the clips posted on this forum). In that, I actually find it a tad unfortunate that the price of the Brute doesn't justify using a "non-budget" wood, just on principle. There are enough people who seem to be prejudiced in this that it could make a difference in sales.
Whether nato or basswood, I have seen no suggestion that these are selected in bass building for tonal properties. It doesn't make much sense, to me, to be happy or somehow proud because a bass is made of nato instead of basswood.They are both selected primarily for their low cost. From what I can see, nato use in electric basses is largely limited to a small number of no-name, bottom-of-the-barrel models and the Ibanez Gio. Basswood is similarly used mostly in low-end basses and some nominal mid-range basses. Squire, Epiphone and other offshore builds manage to use maple, ash and alder in some models, even sub-$300 models.
Great to see the discussion on these basses.
I have no doubt that that there are some people who will exclude a bass because of it's body wood. As someone firmly entrenched in the "wood matters" camp, that still wouldn't make me not consider something simply because of it's body wood. Frankly I don't find that to be at all warranted. I think that's a pretty polite way of putting it.
If someone really has a hangup about body wood, be it Nato, Basswood, whatever, they should probably not buy a Brute or any other bass with that wood. That bias won't be based on experiencing "that" wood on a Brute so again, I wouldn't find it warranted. That IMO is their loss. Youcan't please everybody.
As far as why the wood(s) used on the Brutes was selected, it was simple. I've been involved with this since it's inception and the wood that was finally used was selected based on a long prototyping process, the original hand built by Kevin, the final version selected based on what he received back from the factory. If the wood didn't impress us as it did, it simply wouldn't have been used. So the primary reason for wood choice on the Brutes was not price because as you already appear to know, the quantity of wood used on the bass wouldn't have cost much either way, it was sound and the next consideration was weight and balance. So this is no suggestion, it's why the woods were selected.
If we could've achieved the tone we wanted with a 5 lb. bass that wood would've been what was used. What was arrived at was a bass that we felt was not heavy, that sounded agressive, sustained and played like something Kevin would put his name on. It had to represent what Brubakers are about, at a more affordable price.
Unfortunately there has been so much confusion about the woods at this point I'm not even sure what wood was used. Early on I was told it was Nato, which supposedly was similar in appearance to Maple. The Brutes exhibited tonal qualities similar to what I've expereinced with some Maple Brubakers so it made sense. I'm pretty sure Ash wasn't on the table because of how many people have issues with weight with the type of Ash that works best with Brubakers. Light Ash wasn't an option due to tonal reasons. I'm happy witht he wood, whatever it may happen to be, that was ultimately selected. The same process is in place for the singlecut... woods will be prototyped and that which meets the sonic goals, with weight as a consideration, will likely be what's chosen. Kevin's not going to come up short on that end to try to save relatively little money in the build process. It makes no sense especially if you have any pride in what you offer.
I personally don't have a problem with whatever woods were used as long as they were acquired responsibly and in good supply. I know this post doesn't clear up the wood mystery, we can only go by what we were told short of sending a bass into a lab for analysis. Still pretty confident that for most potential customers the results are what really matters.
