I'm sorry, but when the big names and the players who inspire me move away from bolt-on, I will then consider it. If it's good enough for Geddy, Steve, Norm Stockton and countless more, its good enough for me.
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.
I'm sorry, but when the big names and the players who inspire me move away from bolt-on, I will then consider it. If it's good enough for Geddy, Steve, Norm Stockton and countless more, its good enough for me.
The advantage is that they tend to be WAY harder to repair if neck issues develop.
First off... What you were trying to say was the point is MOOT, not mute.
Too bad the shape is just...weird.
I find a Fender Jazz body weird...very clunky and huge!
Are there any companies that make a neck-through jazz style bass?
OMG, I mistyped something, the horror of it all.
![]()
sustain has never been a factor.
evidently for your own experience. Now, try to be in a jazz combo playing a slow ballad "in two" and tell me that the sustain factor is not into the equation!!! Not that you cannot play a ballad with a short sustained axe, but sustain sometimes IS definitely a much welcomed factor!!!
![]()
georgestrings said:I own a couple of neck thru's, a couple of set necks, and a handful of bolt ons, and once it's run thru an amp, I really don't notice much of a difference between any of them that can't be made up thru EQing - YMMV, though...
I've always heard the "what if the neck goes bad" argument in support of bolt-ons, but in over 30 years of playing, I've replaced exactly zero necks, so I guess that isn't much of an issue *for me*...
- georgestrings