Ok, this is a really tough one to ask without trolling or breaking the rules, but I'll try anyway.
First, I'm not going to call out a specific bass or even manufacturer. I'm also not going to try and make anyone change their mind about anything. Regarding taste there is no argument.
I've never been a woody bass guy, although I do admit I appreciate some classic looking basses. It seems to me that over the first 50 or so years of bass history that wooden basses that display wood surfaces have all conformed to a general aesthetic that most people would find appealing, be it on an instrument, a piece of furniture, or a piece of art. Walnut? You bet. Quilted, flamed, or spalted maple? Sure.
However, just in the last year or so I've noticed an abundance of basses made with wood grains and colors that I can only classify as hideously ugly. I'm no arborist but when I see them I start thinking about Dutch Elm disease and other such maladies. The grains are pocked with imperfections and warts, and the colors look ashen, moldy, or otherwise flat-out unhealthy.
I don't think there is any debate that there is a new trend in woods. We never saw basses like this before.
My question is this: does anyone also see these new wood offerings as hideous the same way I do, or am I somehow the exception? Is the ugliness part of the appeal? Are these "anti-coffee-table" basses? Or do these new choices have genuine appeal to folks?
Don't get me wrong, there are still plenty of fine, attractive wood basses being made. It's just the new stuff made with woods the likes of which we haven't previously seen that I honestly don't understand. I've never heard anything but nice things said about them, which is good manners that I respect. It's just left me wondering if I have a rare gene or something when it comes to this subject.
First, I'm not going to call out a specific bass or even manufacturer. I'm also not going to try and make anyone change their mind about anything. Regarding taste there is no argument.
I've never been a woody bass guy, although I do admit I appreciate some classic looking basses. It seems to me that over the first 50 or so years of bass history that wooden basses that display wood surfaces have all conformed to a general aesthetic that most people would find appealing, be it on an instrument, a piece of furniture, or a piece of art. Walnut? You bet. Quilted, flamed, or spalted maple? Sure.
However, just in the last year or so I've noticed an abundance of basses made with wood grains and colors that I can only classify as hideously ugly. I'm no arborist but when I see them I start thinking about Dutch Elm disease and other such maladies. The grains are pocked with imperfections and warts, and the colors look ashen, moldy, or otherwise flat-out unhealthy.
I don't think there is any debate that there is a new trend in woods. We never saw basses like this before.
My question is this: does anyone also see these new wood offerings as hideous the same way I do, or am I somehow the exception? Is the ugliness part of the appeal? Are these "anti-coffee-table" basses? Or do these new choices have genuine appeal to folks?
Don't get me wrong, there are still plenty of fine, attractive wood basses being made. It's just the new stuff made with woods the likes of which we haven't previously seen that I honestly don't understand. I've never heard anything but nice things said about them, which is good manners that I respect. It's just left me wondering if I have a rare gene or something when it comes to this subject.
