How innovative can a bass guitar really be, while staying a bass guitar?
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.
Kiesel's lack of bass evolution
- Thread starter tercesyrev
- Start date
SHHHHHHHHHHHUUUUUSSSSSHHHHHH!!!!!!!!
They'll hear you over in the pedal forums.
2020 is enough of a dumpster fire.........we don't need another s**tstorm from those guys.
buldog5151bass
Kibble, milkbones, and P Basses. And redheads.
I'm guessing this is a "humorous" riff on the Fender thread.
From someone who plays funk and doesn't get into to much modern music, I love my Kiesels. Best of both worlds for me. Modern stylings, incredibly comfortable, lightweight, Hipshot hardware and rock stable necks. I've fallen in love with multiscale. Even for standard tuning.
- Aug 25, 2004
- 940
- 1,342
- Disclosures
- Builder: Martin Keith Guitars
From a manufacturer's perspective: innovation is not always an easy way to remain solvent.
I have seen many brands lead with very innovative, unique models, and then introduce more "standard"-seeming models
(usually a variant on a J-bass) as a way to stay afloat.
The fact is that many (most?) players' needs are well-met by relatively normal basses.
This is confirmed by the response I've seen many times when some custom manufacturer puts out what is essentially a J-bass, and folks get really excited about it.
As a manufacturer, one is sort of obliged to cater to the wider market if you want to keep your lights on and your employees paid.
"Innovation" is not necessarily a profitable business model - and some of the most innovative companies in our sector have proven this point.
Relative to the baseline normal, Kiesel is doing some pretty adventurous work - fan frets, headless, multi-color dyes etc.
It may not "feel" like innovation, but it is when you compare it to the basic J-bass that still holds primary position as the "standard" for many.
Also - at the production level, it is fairly innovative to offer this level of customization for what are essentially factory-built instruments.
Carvin was ahead of the curve on this for a couple of decades - the fact that you could build up options "a la carte" and get a USA instrument
for around $1k was actually quite amazing, especially considering that the guitars were very good (except for the well-documented truss rod issues).
I have seen many brands lead with very innovative, unique models, and then introduce more "standard"-seeming models
(usually a variant on a J-bass) as a way to stay afloat.
The fact is that many (most?) players' needs are well-met by relatively normal basses.
This is confirmed by the response I've seen many times when some custom manufacturer puts out what is essentially a J-bass, and folks get really excited about it.
As a manufacturer, one is sort of obliged to cater to the wider market if you want to keep your lights on and your employees paid.
"Innovation" is not necessarily a profitable business model - and some of the most innovative companies in our sector have proven this point.
Relative to the baseline normal, Kiesel is doing some pretty adventurous work - fan frets, headless, multi-color dyes etc.
It may not "feel" like innovation, but it is when you compare it to the basic J-bass that still holds primary position as the "standard" for many.
Also - at the production level, it is fairly innovative to offer this level of customization for what are essentially factory-built instruments.
Carvin was ahead of the curve on this for a couple of decades - the fact that you could build up options "a la carte" and get a USA instrument
for around $1k was actually quite amazing, especially considering that the guitars were very good (except for the well-documented truss rod issues).
They now have at least one bass (the headless Vader model) that can be ordered at 30" scale for no extra charge. It will be interesting to see if they decide to expand those offerings.
Your first sentence, the four word question, seems to sum it up lol
Once, back in the day when they had a store in Hollywood (maybe 2004?), I saw a 4/8 doubleneck they'd built. It was pretty cool but I did not have time to play it.
John
This. They've come up with new models (the Osiris last year), they were one of the first to do multiscale offering in 4 all the way up to 7 strings. They pretty much started the bevel trend like on the Vanquish. Practically every manufacturer copies their finishes (Have you seen the aquaburst on the new MM?). The Vader is a neck through design that's what, 5 years old? Comes in 4 thru 6 string versions including short scale.
Last edited:
How many neck through models do you really need- for my money I'd take bolt ons any day- snappier and punchier.
They've been touting, and demoing, they're headless 30" short scale 6 string bass model for a while now...
tell me exactly how that isn't super leading edge?? How many other basses like it exist?
I threw this together with top tier options, but the same bass without the esoteric finishes could be had for half this much and sound/play the same and still look amazing.
They also have fanned fret options.
tell me exactly how that isn't super leading edge?? How many other basses like it exist?
I threw this together with top tier options, but the same bass without the esoteric finishes could be had for half this much and sound/play the same and still look amazing.
They also have fanned fret options.
A lack of evolution can also be a clue that they are doing something right? Like they don't have any problems selling their current designs. If buyers like what they do, why would they introduce new designs?
Many bassists feel the opposite way, myself included. Keisel has a TON of bolt on models, and several neck through models - I've been frustrated actually when looking at their main lines to see how many are bolt on, when I far prefer neck through.
So I don't get your point. They make many more bolt on models than neck through. So you should be happy.
Not obvious at all. I prefer to take people's words at face value. I certainly prefer others give me that due credit when reading my words.
If that was intended to be a parody, it was lacking in exaggeration and anything remotely sarcastic to tip off the readers.
So I actually would think it's legit.
Incorrect, sir.
They make exactly the same very high quality instruments that they've made for decades. It was the 1970s or so when they were making kits that weren't particularly great... and THAT was a very different company from the carvin custom order basses that became the norm in the 90s and onward (I'm vaguely recalling years here, so might be a little bit off).
There is nothing that could have been improved in the carvin icon that I own (I've owned 2, actually), versus the keisel version.
All they did is take the family name and use it for the guitar/bass brand now, and in doing so managed to remove amps and PA systems etc from the former "carvin" catalog.
They just want to focus on their rather shockingly amazing top teir instruments.
IIRC, the "new" Carvin, now, is a brand of cheap chinese-built music gadgets... oddly.
Your recollection and opinion of pre-Kiesel instruments differs from mine. That's fine. I like the Kiesel instruments that are coming out now since they've shed the baggage that was holding the guitar / bass segment back.
