Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
You have some reading to do around here. They do, and have, in the past.
And I also stated blatantly that there are exceptions. And I also said that these things are true in my experience (here and elsewhere).
And Mommy knows how to cut my PBJs with a smiley face so I'm never leaving here.
If a utilitarian object fulfills the need it was conceived for why should it change, unless to adapt to changes in why it was created in the first place. Seen any photos of forty niners at work? What did their shovels look like? Except for handle length and grip adaptations that improve the performance of a particular blade style, nothing has changed. There are specialized shovels, a military entrenching tool comes to mind, but they serve a very narrow segment of shovel users and in fact are a compromise between efficiency and portability. In short, a shovel like object for a specific job that a regular shovel can outperform but is too cumbersome to be carried in a combat situation.
Over the years i’ve seen shovels used as a canvas by folk artists, and I’ve seen redesigned shovels done for the sake of redesign. These new designs sell, but mostly to folks with no real understanding of a shovels true purpose, and they never last for long before the next “latest and greatest” redesign shows up for a while, where it will be ignored by experienced shovelers until sales lag to the point the latest and greatest becomes the most recent addition to the ash heap of poor design for the sake of change.
Where these flash in the pan designs usually wind up is in the hands of shovelers who are not content to simply repeatedly move small quantities of stuff from one place to another more quickly than can be done by hand. They feel compelled to have a tool that stands out from the crowd, usually motivated by a desire to attract attention to themselves by using a tool different, and obviously more advanced, as evidenced by the up to the minute modern design of their tool.
Over the years i’ve seen shovels used as a canvas by folk artists, and I’ve seen redesigned shovels done for the sake of redesign. These new designs sell, but mostly to folks with no real understanding of a shovels true purpose, and they never last for long before the next “latest and greatest” redesign shows up for a while, where it will be ignored by experienced shovelers until sales lag to the point the latest and greatest becomes the most recent addition to the ash heap of poor design for the sake of change.
Where these flash in the pan designs usually wind up is in the hands of shovelers who are not content to simply repeatedly move small quantities of stuff from one place to another more quickly than can be done by hand. They feel compelled to have a tool that stands out from the crowd, usually motivated by a desire to attract attention to themselves by using a tool different, and obviously more advanced, as evidenced by the up to the minute modern design of their tool.
What’s funny about the Dimension is by the time I warmed up wanting to buy one they were discontinued. And now used prices for MIA Deluxe Dimension are crazy.
Should, coulda, woulda
other companies have been doing this for years - remaking a classic. Why should Fender waste time and money?
The Dimension bass never failed because of the headstock, it failed because of the pickguard.
IMO.
IMO.
Fender has made too deep an impression in the music industry to change. The iconic headstock design is stuck in the brain of everyone of us who loves Hendrix, Stevie ray Vaughan, Jaco, Marcus Miller and on and on. Why change the best selling design ever made? I love the Fender Heartfield, prophecy and a few other odd 2+2 or 2+3 fender designs but they never sold well enough.
I just wish more builders would stop copying Fenders design and putting a different headstock on it. It is one thing to borrow from a design and another to straight up copy. But it is a testament to how Fender is the champion of Bass and guitar design.
I just wish more builders would stop copying Fenders design and putting a different headstock on it. It is one thing to borrow from a design and another to straight up copy. But it is a testament to how Fender is the champion of Bass and guitar design.
I feel exactly the same way.
To think I could've bought one for that short period of time when used ones were actually selling for less than the original new price...damn!
I haven't read through the whole thread, so consider this a +1 of points made.
Fender owns other brands like Jackson, whose Spectra line is a direct competition with Ibanez' Soundgear line (which is the first thing people think of when it comes to sleek-lined, modern-spec'd basses). From my gigging and show-attending experience, Soundgears are almost as ubiquitous as Fenders. (And given my personal preferences, I'm more likely to rock a Soundgear than a P-bass because that's more my taste).
So if you buy one of those Jackson Spectras, you're still speaking with your wallet to Fender. Fender is still getting some of your money if you buy a Jackson. If enough Jackson Spectras sell, maybe Fender will look at that brand with a little more care than just another column on their ledger if it's giving them a noticeable profit. And in terms of "modern spec" Fenders with sleek lines, 24 frets, active electronics... going for a Jackson be the best we can get.
ASIDE: I do like the specs of Jackson Spectras and would be open to trying one, were I in the market for a bass (my bass needs are currently met). The top-of-the-line Spectra specs out similarly to an Ibanez Soundgear Premium and a lower price, and even comes stock with components I'd usually mod into other basses I buy. But aren't Jackson Spectras and Ibanez Soundgears all made in the Core-Tek Factory? If so, then, well, a portion of my money's getting funneled there anyway.
Fender owns other brands like Jackson, whose Spectra line is a direct competition with Ibanez' Soundgear line (which is the first thing people think of when it comes to sleek-lined, modern-spec'd basses). From my gigging and show-attending experience, Soundgears are almost as ubiquitous as Fenders. (And given my personal preferences, I'm more likely to rock a Soundgear than a P-bass because that's more my taste).
So if you buy one of those Jackson Spectras, you're still speaking with your wallet to Fender. Fender is still getting some of your money if you buy a Jackson. If enough Jackson Spectras sell, maybe Fender will look at that brand with a little more care than just another column on their ledger if it's giving them a noticeable profit. And in terms of "modern spec" Fenders with sleek lines, 24 frets, active electronics... going for a Jackson be the best we can get.
ASIDE: I do like the specs of Jackson Spectras and would be open to trying one, were I in the market for a bass (my bass needs are currently met). The top-of-the-line Spectra specs out similarly to an Ibanez Soundgear Premium and a lower price, and even comes stock with components I'd usually mod into other basses I buy. But aren't Jackson Spectras and Ibanez Soundgears all made in the Core-Tek Factory? If so, then, well, a portion of my money's getting funneled there anyway.
Last edited:
Let's please stop with the broad brushing of entire generations here and elsewhere. At this point it's starting to reek of trolling.
this is not exactly a "new" POV, but it's 'freshly' posted: "fenders are way over-priced for what they are!"i don't see me getting excited one way or another. i like FSOs because of the myriad choices in replacement parts and pieces. many of my axes look like a fender product, but they're not, so: i've saved money while having equal-to-better instruments. if ibanez had the same replacement parts paradise = some of my axes would look more like ibbys.
re: the "boomer" side bar:
- "generalizing" can be used to make certain points.
- generalizing can be thoughtless/rude/ignorant (it depends!).
- i.e., all "boomers" arent "curmudgeonly."
- most folks
would be lucky to be as hip as some boomers.- when the boomers are all dead = the youngsters that had previously protested the loudest (about boomers) will be the ones 'most fit' to take their place!
+1 for correct usage of the expression, btw.
It WAS interesting. I played a couple...they weren't bad. But I figured that for just a little bit more, I could go around the corner from that store and get a similar bass built but to my specs.
