JeezyMcNuggles
Inactive
- Feb 23, 2018
- 14,723
- 20,970
- Disclosures
- I suck, but nobody really notices
If fender dropped a headless, neck through, $$ bass, that looked like a battle axe, and weighed 7 lbs, everybody would still choose a p
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.
Fender's lack of bass evolution
- Thread starter lucas303
- Start date
My opinion is that Fender stopped being "Fender" 55 years ago when Leo sold to CBS, at least as far as bass guitar evolution is concerned. It seems that most bassists really don't want much in the way of change made to a bass with the Fender logo on the headstock and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that, you really can't fix what's not broken.
That being said, I feel that the "Fender" bass most certainly continued to evolve, initially with the MusicMan Stingray once the Fender non-compete clause expired and culminating at G&L with the L2000. To me it's more a matter of following the man and not his namesake, though he did tend to employ his initials (i.e. CLF Research and G&L).
However, I thoroughly enjoy what Fender has done in regards to bass amplification. I personally couldn't be more impressed with the Bassman Pro amps and cabs and the Rumble series has a huge following as well.
I guess I'm not surprised that a company that has more or less only been selling the same two bass models for the last half century isn't that invested in innovation.
That being said, I feel that the "Fender" bass most certainly continued to evolve, initially with the MusicMan Stingray once the Fender non-compete clause expired and culminating at G&L with the L2000. To me it's more a matter of following the man and not his namesake, though he did tend to employ his initials (i.e. CLF Research and G&L).
However, I thoroughly enjoy what Fender has done in regards to bass amplification. I personally couldn't be more impressed with the Bassman Pro amps and cabs and the Rumble series has a huge following as well.
I guess I'm not surprised that a company that has more or less only been selling the same two bass models for the last half century isn't that invested in innovation.
Last edited:
Why does Apple sell the same phone year after year while increasing their prices and offering less features?
Sheeple will sheep. People want the F decal and the assurance that they used their money to ge a "good" reputable name bass. The fact that it's 60 year old technology priced offensively high just because it's made in a specific country using a specific last name and pulls on the sentimental or patriotic strings seems to fly over their heads.
Sheeple will sheep. People want the F decal and the assurance that they used their money to ge a "good" reputable name bass. The fact that it's 60 year old technology priced offensively high just because it's made in a specific country using a specific last name and pulls on the sentimental or patriotic strings seems to fly over their heads.
I would love to own a 2030GF. My point was more that a 4003 would probably flop as a bolt-on. Maybe not but I think most people expect a 4003 to be a neck-thru. Just like most people expect a P-Bass to be a bolt-on.There were quite a few bolt-neck Rick models, actually. Not as popular as their neck-throughs, obviously, but there are many who do like them. The one I owned (2030GF) was the most aggressive (in a good way) Rick bass I've owned.
So, I am not the only one to have noticed this anomaly, eh?
How about a spruce top on an innovative bass?
View attachment 4084693
I personally would buy a P-J Fender Neck-Thru if it had Maple Wings, Had active EMG's and was priced around $1600. But Fender probably won't build one for me. That's not because they refuse to evolve, it's because it would cost them a small fortune to produce it.
HA HA! Too funny! Maybe call EBMM and ask them how many neck through Stingrays people actually bought and paid for. Not stores - CUSTOMERS. I would be shocked if it was more than 100.
I think people read into everything too much, nowadays. For example, let them offer the same design that has been unarguably the most successful one in electric bass and has an incredibly storied history to add to it's assurance of usefulness. The moment it becomes tired, the market will reflect. That's about the end of it. Let Fender worry about it.
Ironically, neither Gibson nor Fender really innovated in a successful way since the early 60s.
SIRI, CANCEL REMINDER FOR 12:01 AM.
Why mess with perfection? If Fender designs are so stale why does everyone copy them? Gibson is in the same boat (guitar wise)
The price won't happen, but the FCS will make that bass for you. Guessing a price north of $5K, based on a couple of quotes I got for basses I was considering.
Oh, wait. You said neck-through; make that north of $7K, probably.
Yes, they have, as a significant number of threads on TB will testify. It usually comes down to:
'Fender are stuck in the past'
'When Fender do new designs, no-one buys them'
'I want Fender to make this particular thing that is available from a bunch of other brands'
'Most people who buy Fender want the old designs'
'I like Fenders the way they are'
/thread
Perhaps they're stale...and perhaps there's an a solid cohort of bass players who are resistent to change.
What Fender and Gibson need to avoid is becoming the Harley Davidson of the musical instrument world. In less than 2 decades, Harley went from being so incredibly popular that you paid a premium and waited for one, to now being viewed as something for old people.
Body shape could be improved. Could go with a different pickup design.
Don't confuse getting it "right" with inertia. There's no freaking way that Fender optimized the ergonomics of the bass guitar straight out of the gate.
Fender reminds me a lot of another classic American brand - Harley Davidson. They're both similar in that they are prisoners to their iconic history. In other words, they can innovate a bit, but only so far. Their customer expect a certain form and function (e.g. P bass, Jazz bass, Strat, Tele, etc.). If they stray too far from the customer expectations, they will likely be rejected. Even stranger, customers are willing to pay the custom shop extra money, not to make something that is the latest and greatest, but instead to make something, by hand, the way they used to in the old days. I think that their mod shop is probably a really good idea. Otherwise, they seem to make a lot of different versions of the same thing - sometimes they teach us geography, sometimes they show us how an artist has modified one of their instruments. Still, it's better to be Fender and have a built in fanbase and brand equity than to be without it.
They didn't.
The current-ish version of the Pbass is the third version. Most of the changes made to the second version were ergonomic. But it only took them 3-4 years to optimize those, and they've been selling steadily during the 66 years since.
Again, I'm not sure they need to change much.
