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 weaknesses?
- Thread starter RobCobain1994
- Start date
yeah, and said model-T would be as fast, reliable and fuel-efficient as any car you could buy today!
car analogies kinda don't work with guitars.
80% of talkbass is people worrying about what someone else is doing or using. And the working musicians and older people are just as guilty. They're just better at convincing themselves that they're "helping" or "telling it like it is."
as far as the comparison to Harley Davidson goes...
Harley started building bikes the year the airplane flew; fender has been around half as long.
I have owned a few Harleys-the new ones are bulletproof and reliable as all get out.
they are an innovative company-when they introduced the softail suspension in 84- everyone else copied them. everyone chases them. when they introduced the V rod traditionalists hated it; me too. -but it is rocket of a bike and is a technological marvel.
if they built S****y bikes I would not ride them. one of the best fuel injection systems are used on their bikes as well. they are made of metal throughout save for one or two pieces of plastic.
with fender, they built some classics but they have a lot of issues like people say; how is it that fender doesn't build a decent acoustic guitar to compete with taylor or martin?
they don't innovate like Harley does. I don't care if fender comes out next year with the "American Dixieland Southern Vintage Deluxe Special"-chances are, it will be the same fender they always made.
when you can pick up a squire for 25% the cost that is nearly the same instrument, why would you fork over more? this I think hurts them more than anything.
OTOH-American fenders have really decent resale value.
having said all that...I have nothing against fender-I would own one if I found one that appealed to me.
the player of the bass is where the magic is.
Harley started building bikes the year the airplane flew; fender has been around half as long.
I have owned a few Harleys-the new ones are bulletproof and reliable as all get out.
they are an innovative company-when they introduced the softail suspension in 84- everyone else copied them. everyone chases them. when they introduced the V rod traditionalists hated it; me too. -but it is rocket of a bike and is a technological marvel.
if they built S****y bikes I would not ride them. one of the best fuel injection systems are used on their bikes as well. they are made of metal throughout save for one or two pieces of plastic.
with fender, they built some classics but they have a lot of issues like people say; how is it that fender doesn't build a decent acoustic guitar to compete with taylor or martin?
they don't innovate like Harley does. I don't care if fender comes out next year with the "American Dixieland Southern Vintage Deluxe Special"-chances are, it will be the same fender they always made.
when you can pick up a squire for 25% the cost that is nearly the same instrument, why would you fork over more? this I think hurts them more than anything.
OTOH-American fenders have really decent resale value.
having said all that...I have nothing against fender-I would own one if I found one that appealed to me.
the player of the bass is where the magic is.
They are not crappy in the least. You may not like them, but that doesn't make them crappy.The only thing they undeniably are is: simple.
That, in itself, is all it takes for some people to see a need for improvement, and others to see it as pointless.
They are simple, and they do function, on a very basic level. Each section is a cut off bolt with two holes drilled in it, mounted on a couple of screws. There's tons of room for improvement, as some manufacturers have done: just look at Musicman, G&L (both Leo Fender improvements) or Badass.
Fender has put new bridges on some of their models, which I see as a good thing. The only reason I could see for Fender to stick with the old bridges would be on the reissue basseswhich stays true to the old design. Otherwise, I think they should go with a newer design... just my opinion, of course.
Attachments
take a moment to realize how many basses and guitars for that matter Leo created....and be happy that he did!! nobody will ever come close!! .....everything is basically designed after a Fender!! They have it all!! the look, the sound, the Vibe! i will play them until the end.....
I have owned/currently own many post 2010 fender american basses, and im 100% sure Pleking wouldnt do anything but make the instrument more marketable to those who think its a substitute for a proper fret job. I own Laklands too, and they play beautifully due to the Plek job, but not more than any of my Fenders...
The Carvin idea is great, even if it was just a 10% markup they would make a killing from people like me who would pay just for an extra paint job or control config.
Lack of total dynamic articulation. It's a lot to ask from such a large company to make a bass sound even from lowest E to highest G.
Too few color options. Gloss. Heavier gloss. And clear gloss...
Getting what you pay for. Playing a Squier (by Fender) CV Pbass versus an MIA Fender Pbass sidebyside, it's alarmingly close in quality. A few differences being tight pockets, nut material, and rout quality. For $350 vs $1250, it's too little difference.
Too few color options. Gloss. Heavier gloss. And clear gloss...
Getting what you pay for. Playing a Squier (by Fender) CV Pbass versus an MIA Fender Pbass sidebyside, it's alarmingly close in quality. A few differences being tight pockets, nut material, and rout quality. For $350 vs $1250, it's too little difference.
Look at Fender's sales volume. They are doing pretty well in my opinion. The complaints so far are either nitpicking or funny.
Looking at the profiles of a lot of the posters in this thread, many folks harping on Fender don't own a Fender bass. That speaks volumes about the validity of some of the complaints.
Hopkins
Commercial User
For something to be obsolete it has to be rendered useless by a better product. There is no evidence of this happening. I have worked on hundreds of P bass electronics with out having to remove the strings. You can slide the pick guard between the neck and strings, flip it over and you have access to the pots. The straight headstock is stronger than a tilt back headstock, and there is absolutely no disadvantage in using a string retainer. Ive had dead spots on tilt back neck through basses, they are not a Fender design flaw, but a physics problem that can be present in any bass.
Guys, guys, this string is not about Fender guitars and basses. It is also not about complaints. And, it most certainly is not about Leo. The OP asked what weaknesses The Company has. The Company is not the product, and it has not had anything to do with Leo for 50 years, and every company has weaknesses. Through the 90's, GM was making many times more money every year than Fender has made through its entire existence, and a decade later they were in bankruptcy. The market changes, the competition changes, everything changes, and identifying a company's strengths and weaknesses is how a company prepares itself for that changing environment.
Actually, if you take a look at the survey (there's a link on his 1st post), a significant number of the questions relate to Fender products...
