I like my '79 P bass as much as my '97 jazz. The seventies models IMHO were the last of the good ones before CBS Fender started making more instruments out of the country. Many of us seen this as a cheaper made product for higher profit sales, thus tarnishing Fender's reputation. When CBS sold Fender in the mid nineties, the new management decided to redesign the P-Bass and Jazz not radically but with improved refinements. My '97 American standard Jazz bass is testament to Fender's commitment to it's heritage. Sure it isn't a '62 version, but I love the playability and tone and feel of the bass and to me it is reminiscent of a '65 Jazz bass I almost owned.
I'm not crazy about the extended line of Fender's like the deluxe, artist's series, relic's etc. and I Don't care to see the lower end models made in other countries, but Fender has the right to produce their products as they see the need by giving consumers a wide variety to choose from. On the flip side, this is what makes American made instruments retain and increase in value.
Well, your history is off. CBS sold Fender to FMIC in 1985. The company that bought Fender was a consortium of then-current Fender executives headed by Bill Schultz, several prominent musicians (Tommy Tedesco, the studio guitarist was one), and financial backers. The point is that Bill Schultz et. al. were the ones CBS hired around 1979 to turn the company around. They were the ones responsible for the Vintage Series, designing real bass amps instead of stripped down guitar amps, etc.
And Fender started using Japanese made instruments in the early '80s to meet price competition from very very well made instruments by Ibanez (Fuji-Gen-Gaki made both the Ibanez and the original MIJ Squiers), Yamaha, etc. The early Squiers were very well made instruments at an attractive price point that US made instruments couldn't reach for the most part.
When CBS sold Fender to FMIC in '85, the sale did NOT include any real estate. It was only a sale of the rights, patents, copyrights, WIP (works in progress), and some machinery. So, for the first couple of years of FMIC's existence, they had to rely on off-shore manufacturing as they built a new factory and started building instruments. The focus in the late '80s was getting Fender guitars going because they would sell a LOT more guitars than basses.
The plethora of models is due to the company's desire to cover all ranges. In the past Fender would have ceded the beginner market to other companies (while the Musicmaster was decent, it was expensive compared to some other options at the time). Now they want to have their name, logo, and designs available to all levels. Plus they don't see why Schecter, Lakland, Sadowsky, Ibanez, etc. should give the customers what they want while FMIC sits still. If people want an good reproduction of a 1975 Jazz bass, and others want a 5-string Precision, and others want a Jazz bass with a beefier bridge and active electronics, why can't they get it with a Fender name?
And I stand by my assertion that the mid to late '70s were NOT the best. While the did indeed make a lot of great instruments then, the ratio of Great to medicore was too far into the mediocre side. That's the very reason Ibanez, Yamaha, etc. were so succesful. They were building instruments that were as good or better assembled than the "industry leader". It wasn't just price, but the instruments CBS/Fender was turning out before 1981 were too often merely average, but priced as the best.
Again, if you're looking for an instrument to play, then judge each one as an individual instrument and ignore who made it where or when. If you're looking to invest for some relatively dubious "collector" value, then again (given the fraud in the market) judge each one individually.
John
