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.
Has anyone gone fenderless??
- Thread starter Hevy T
- Start date
Is it possible to create this thread title with any other brand name other than Fender?
Didn't think so. Haters gonna hate.
Didn't think so. Haters gonna hate.
Nothing to do with hate. I know its crazy, but some people just ain't into Fenders.
I have owned a Fender Jaguar and a Squier Deluxe Jazz V. The only reason I sold my Jaguar was because I just can't get used to playing 4-strings anymore. If it were a 5-string, I would have kept it but only because I like that specific model of Fender. I like it because of the looks, and options it has. However, I am not a big fan of the run-of-the-mill maple, alder, ash sandwiches out there. I wish my MusicMan Bongo were made out of exotic woods but it isn't. However, it's the only one I have made an exception for. After playing Warwick basses, it's hard for me to turn away from the rich sound, tone, density, quality, and sustain of the exotic Warwick woods such as bubinga, wenge, ovangkol, etc. Fender will always be much lower on my priority list.
Ric5
Inactive
- Jan 29, 2008
- 29,772
- 30,452
- Disclosures
- I like 5, 8, 10, and 12 string basses
I have owned over 50 basses. Many were jazz and p-basses. Only one was a real Fender, and that one had a bum neck.
I had an MIM p and j at one point. They really didn't do it for me. I've sure the Japanese and American fenders are great, but I don't particularly want one.
scotch
It's not rocket science!
- Nov 12, 2006
- 6,944
- 2,081
- 51
- Disclosures
- Please see Profile for Endorsement disclosures
When I first started playing over 20 years ago I wanted anything BUT a Fender! I played for about 4 years & did just fine without a single Fender bass. ....Then I transitioned to being a full-time professional bassist. I needed a Fender. Or two. And fast! Not only because of producer/engineer/employer demand - but because I finally 'got it'.
Out of the 16 basses I'm fortunate to own, 5 of them are Fender's and one Fender-clone type bass. These easily do 90% of the work in my arsenal that pays the bills. (Primarily 3 basses: a Fender '57 reissue Precision, a Fender '62 reissue Jazz and my custom built Senn P-style set up with flatwounds.)
You don't "have" top have a Fender to be a full-time professional (making the majority of your income from playing bass let's say) - but it sure helps!
Out of the 16 basses I'm fortunate to own, 5 of them are Fender's and one Fender-clone type bass. These easily do 90% of the work in my arsenal that pays the bills. (Primarily 3 basses: a Fender '57 reissue Precision, a Fender '62 reissue Jazz and my custom built Senn P-style set up with flatwounds.)
You don't "have" top have a Fender to be a full-time professional (making the majority of your income from playing bass let's say) - but it sure helps!
I hear you man.
Same mentality here, but lately I have been liking the Lakland copies more. Have you tried out any of these?
I was quite happy with my Hwy-1 Jazz for a few years. It definitely did the job. But when I played the G&Ls, I couldnt go back. Now it's a L2500 for me.
I had other brands, then a Fender. I wasn't all that impressed, so I sold it and now stick to other brands. Just better bang for the buck IMHO. Plus, I play all 5 string, and those ain't exactly Fender's clain to fame...
But I'd love to have a 65 P bass....
But I'd love to have a 65 P bass....
I'm curious on how being a professional player requires a Fender.
Is it because a lot of soundmen and audio techs use the same dialed in formula figured out in the 1960's for the Fender basses as opposed to adjusting sound for the instruments presented? In the 200+ shows and 10 recording sessions I did before I made the huge mistake of giving up live music performance that sure seemed to be the case. A bassist for another local band we played with had just put some brand new strings on his bass (I can't remember the type, as this was over 10 years ago, it may have been a Peavey Millenium) in preparation for a show. During initial soundchecks, the board operator told the guy to get some cooking oil from the kitchen and slather up the strings so his bass sounded more like a bass... in other words, more like a Fender. He refused and instead of cutting the highs and mids he just buried the guys bass in the mix. Damn shame, as the guy is a hell of a bassist.
I've constantly watched for Fender basses on TV shows and live performances, at concerts, and the like... and more often than not the bassist does not have a Fender, or even a Fender clone. Usually the ones with Fenders are more often than not pop acts, ones that require a non-specific thumpy, thuddy tone.
So, is this is some sort of traditionalist B.S.? Because other than that, I just don't see the point in this. Fenders were the first real mass-production bass guitar (The Serenaders/Audiovox bass guitars made in the 1930's and on were more of a boutique instrument) and managed to take off right when studio recording was really exploding in the 50's and 60's. Now, your mileage may vary, but every single audio guy I've seen and worked with immediately dials in a tone for the bass even before the check, may twist one freaking knob, and then its off to the other instruments (including the 3-4 weeks spent checking the drums).
Now as I'm getting back into this music thing, I see not a damn thing has changed.
Is it because a lot of soundmen and audio techs use the same dialed in formula figured out in the 1960's for the Fender basses as opposed to adjusting sound for the instruments presented? In the 200+ shows and 10 recording sessions I did before I made the huge mistake of giving up live music performance that sure seemed to be the case. A bassist for another local band we played with had just put some brand new strings on his bass (I can't remember the type, as this was over 10 years ago, it may have been a Peavey Millenium) in preparation for a show. During initial soundchecks, the board operator told the guy to get some cooking oil from the kitchen and slather up the strings so his bass sounded more like a bass... in other words, more like a Fender. He refused and instead of cutting the highs and mids he just buried the guys bass in the mix. Damn shame, as the guy is a hell of a bassist.
I've constantly watched for Fender basses on TV shows and live performances, at concerts, and the like... and more often than not the bassist does not have a Fender, or even a Fender clone. Usually the ones with Fenders are more often than not pop acts, ones that require a non-specific thumpy, thuddy tone.
So, is this is some sort of traditionalist B.S.? Because other than that, I just don't see the point in this. Fenders were the first real mass-production bass guitar (The Serenaders/Audiovox bass guitars made in the 1930's and on were more of a boutique instrument) and managed to take off right when studio recording was really exploding in the 50's and 60's. Now, your mileage may vary, but every single audio guy I've seen and worked with immediately dials in a tone for the bass even before the check, may twist one freaking knob, and then its off to the other instruments (including the 3-4 weeks spent checking the drums).
Now as I'm getting back into this music thing, I see not a damn thing has changed.
Well first off, you need to chiiillll a little.
I have done national TV with Modulus basses and recorded with them as well. There is no Fender only rule, but you have to understand the mindset.
And yes you are right, every audio guy basically has bass how he wants it because it is a biatch to mix. Tons of engineers and mixers struggle with bass. So it's not that they don't care, they just don't have all day to make you sound great. You need to come prepared and give them a killer tone. That's your job if you are a pro.
Anyway, in that framework, you still have plenty of room to dial your tone in. Usually they are high passing your lows so its not a flab fest down low and low passing so it's not a clickety clack squeek exhibition up high.
The reason Fenders are so loved in the studio is because they mix so well. Live is a different beast. You can use about anything really if you are a good player.
In the studio if you are a good player you will always get to use your bass. Now if the engineer loves your tone and feel you are going to get called back for more work. Everyone likes more work.
It probably sucks to wear a suit to your day job like everyone else but if you are getting paid and hired, you probably are going to do it right?
The main thing here is that Fenders are PASSIVE basses. And in rock music, passive basses give the engineer more control over the tone. In R&B and hip hop, active can be rather awesome. There are no hard rules, but if you have a great PASSIVE bass and want to be a session player, you probably will get more work then some guy with a chip on his shoulder and an average active bass that hisses like a snake when you boost the treble pot.
Nothing against you, but 200 shows is nothing bro. I do that in a good year. Don't have attitude after so little play time. It does not bode well for your mindset. You will always encounter dbaggery in the music biz. The true pro knows how to diffuse and prevent those situations, and laugh it off if it still happens.
Depends...if you've got a name like Stanley Clarke or Victor Wooten and the FU money to turn down gigs that aren't to your liking, you can play anything you want. If you're in a band where the folks who pay you like your non-Fenders, or if you're the person who pays everyone, you can play anything you want.
But there are some musicians and producers who love Fenders and nothing else will do for them, and the only way you will get those gigs is to have a Fender or two. You can refuse on the basis of righteous indignation, and that is well within your rights to refuse, but you will not get the gig.
Yes, that is what most bassists who don't like Fenders think...everyone else is incompetent but them.
Right, because Jaco was thumpy and thuddy, along with Dave Hope from Kansas, Mike Dirnt from Green Day, Reggie Hamilton, Tony Franklin, Linley Marthe, Geddy Lee, and a whole host of others who use Fenders and don't sound thumpy or thuddy. Oh, and Marcus Miller, who is the antithesis of thumpy and thuddy. If someone plays a Fender and it sounds thumpy or thuddy, it is by choice.
You must work with some really lame soundmen, then.
Yes, I have worked with lame soundmen. Let's just make sure we're both in agreement with that.
And that goes along with the whole "thinks everyones incompetent but them" deal. I don't believe the soundmen were completely incompetent, I think that they just don't give a crap about basses and figure if it doesn't sound like a Fender then the bassist is wrong for it. That's prejudicial more than incompetency.
Mike Dirnt hasn't had good tone since the mid 90's, right after he replaced his Musicman with a Fender. Geddy's tone is good, but I do prefer his work with the Wals and Ricks... but then again, that's Geddy. You list the 1% who can play what they want (Stanley Clarke, Victor Wooten) and then list the 1% who can manage to break out of the "Warm" zone with a Fender... basically, you just gave me a bunch of outliers that don't really prove a damn thing. Fender basses are known for their muddy tone, that's what makes them Fenders.
Oh, "Warm" tone. Excuse me.
Maybe its the constancy of this thing. Maybe I'm even a little miffed that people actually believe that if you can't get a sound you like out of a Fender you should give up playing bass entirely. I don't know.
And that goes along with the whole "thinks everyones incompetent but them" deal. I don't believe the soundmen were completely incompetent, I think that they just don't give a crap about basses and figure if it doesn't sound like a Fender then the bassist is wrong for it. That's prejudicial more than incompetency.
Mike Dirnt hasn't had good tone since the mid 90's, right after he replaced his Musicman with a Fender. Geddy's tone is good, but I do prefer his work with the Wals and Ricks... but then again, that's Geddy. You list the 1% who can play what they want (Stanley Clarke, Victor Wooten) and then list the 1% who can manage to break out of the "Warm" zone with a Fender... basically, you just gave me a bunch of outliers that don't really prove a damn thing. Fender basses are known for their muddy tone, that's what makes them Fenders.
Oh, "Warm" tone. Excuse me.
Maybe its the constancy of this thing. Maybe I'm even a little miffed that people actually believe that if you can't get a sound you like out of a Fender you should give up playing bass entirely. I don't know.
Yeah, for sure. But not all of them...most soundmen I work with are great.
Mike Dirnt has never used a MusicMan that I've ever seen. Only Fenders or Gibsons, mostly Fenders in the studio.
If they can do it, anyone can do it. If you can't, don't blame the bass. Outliers...LOL!
I know...that's exactly what it is. People who believe that are just as wrong as people who say all you can get out of Fenders are thud and mud.
However, I firmly believe that you should be able to get a good sound out of ANY bass that works. Might not always be your ideal, but if someone hands you a bass that works and you can't at least get a workable and usable sound out of it, I ain't blaming the bass. Even the worst sounding basses I ever played I could EQ into something usable.
I'm sorry, I just don't get the muddy thing. My Geddy Lee is far from muddy. I have actually tried to tone it down a bit.
We've all worked with less than adequate sound people. I'm hoping you have also worked with knowledgable sound people as those are wonderful gigs.
We've all worked with less than adequate sound people. I'm hoping you have also worked with knowledgable sound people as those are wonderful gigs.
scotch
It's not rocket science!
- Nov 12, 2006
- 6,944
- 2,081
- 51
- Disclosures
- Please see Profile for Endorsement disclosures
I have played Laklands, yes! Great instruments for sure & pretty much Fenderish. They are popular with a handful of guys here in Nashville, some who respect entirely! I haven't played one that I "had to have" yet though. Great stuff, I just already have the Fender type tones covered by Fenders.
Sadowsky, Valenti, and countless other Fender-clone type basses are great too. It's always important to compare apples to apples though (as in don't compare a $600 Fender production instrument to a $2,300 Sadowsky).
Mike Dirnt used a Musicman. He also used a Jackson. Listen to Green Days stuff pre-Insomniac. That is not a Fender.
And yes, if Geddy Lee can make a Fender J sound great, then maybe anyone can. Of course, most people won't be able to, no matter how much they practice. There's a reason that these guys are tops and it was 90% practice and 10% some other variable, possibly genetic "other". Les Claypools sound is nigh impossible to copy, Tim Commeford had a sound that was completely unique, for instance. I can get more of a brassy tone out of a Fender than most other people I know, but it has to do with my attack and physical capabilities moreso than I know what I'm doing with knobs. On the other hand, sometimes the tone I produce is a little too much attack.
That being said, I prefer the woodsy tones of my setup and the fact that I have the ability to create a Fender-esque thump if I so desire (plucking over the frets instead of the pups), but it's not my only option.
And yes, if Geddy Lee can make a Fender J sound great, then maybe anyone can. Of course, most people won't be able to, no matter how much they practice. There's a reason that these guys are tops and it was 90% practice and 10% some other variable, possibly genetic "other". Les Claypools sound is nigh impossible to copy, Tim Commeford had a sound that was completely unique, for instance. I can get more of a brassy tone out of a Fender than most other people I know, but it has to do with my attack and physical capabilities moreso than I know what I'm doing with knobs. On the other hand, sometimes the tone I produce is a little too much attack.
That being said, I prefer the woodsy tones of my setup and the fact that I have the ability to create a Fender-esque thump if I so desire (plucking over the frets instead of the pups), but it's not my only option.
Yes, I agree with you there. I sold my Fender Jazz to a producer down here and have been contemplating replacing it with a Lakland jazz which is why I ask. I do a ton of session work so I am pretty picky on tone as you probably are as well.
If the Nashville session guys are rocking Laklands then I feel like they are going to catch on in other studios too.Sometimes it just takes enough good players to roll through there with something killer and similar to a Fender J or P to open up minds a little.
scotch
It's not rocket science!
- Nov 12, 2006
- 6,944
- 2,081
- 51
- Disclosures
- Please see Profile for Endorsement disclosures
Yikes! Somebody is pissed off!
I can only share my own experience (which just happens to virtually match the vast majority of my colleagues). Sounds like you've had some bad experiences - that happens to everybody. Making music is one thing - doing it as a business is another & yes there are compromises involved when you go there. Still, while I fought the whole 'have to have a Fender thing' on principle from the get-go, I quickly realized that there was something to it & all the folks I was working with that had, I dunno, decades more experience than me knew what they were talking about.
Traditionalist b.s.? Nah - time-tested 7 timeless reality.
