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.
Upright basses tend to be plenty expensive as is, throwing in figured woods would seem to be a little too expensive. Plus, the size of an upright would severly restrict lumber choices.
Acoustic instruments in general tend to be restricted to certain tonewoods. Burled and spalted woods generally aren't stable enough for acoustic use. This is not an issue on electric instruments.
Some of these crazy tops are actually from a
Very nice. Will it have the volume knob on the bridge like a Rob Allen? Love the clean and simple look of that on a bass like that.
You missed my point entirely with your condescending lecture on common knowledge. A re-read with some thoughtful reflection may be in order.![]()
![]()
I'm condescending? Seriously?
DB players don't have the options, thus no real details to fuss over. I suggest you report my posts to mods before calling me condescending.
"Play what you want how you want & quit arggerin !"O.K, I'll spell it out.
My point was not about wood or grain or materials. It was about where our focus is. Is it on music, learning music, or aesthetics that are basically meaningless musically.
Just a point for reflection. I have never run to the moderators to tattle on someone because they said something I disagree with, and if there is something worthy of their intervention in this discussion, I am sure they will make us aware of that.
You missed my point, plain and simple,and lectured me on basic facts any experienced bass player would know. I viewed it as condescending, and your further reply hasn't done anything to dispel that belief.

"Play what you want how you want & quit arggerin !"
*very tongue-in-cheek... Not trying to be an ass*
Body shape has a lot more to do with whether I find a bass ugly or appealing than the specific kind of wood grain showing.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.
Call me crazy, I am used to it, but I find it hard to believe that anyone would find fault with this flamed and spalted maple. It's a nitro finish on a mahogany body with tort binding. Paul Slagle of EchoPark did this nasty deed on my forthcoming hollow Jazz:
View attachment 813800
View attachment 813802
But I also realize that for whatever reason - there will always be a few that find it offensive, or simply don't like it, or are not attracted to it. You aren't going to hurt my feelings.
That is what makes the world go round here on the TB. One person's jewel is another person's yawn - and that is how it should be. What a boring world if we all loved the same things.
Why did you view it as condescending?O.K, I'll spell it out.
My point was not about wood or grain or materials. It was about where our focus is. Is it on music, learning music, or aesthetics that are basically meaningless musically.
Just a point for reflection. I have never run to the moderators to tattle on someone because they said something I disagree with, and if there is something worthy of their intervention in this discussion, I am sure they will make us aware of that.
You missed my point, plain and simple,and lectured me on basic facts any experienced bass player would know. I viewed it as condescending, and your further reply hasn't done anything to dispel that belief.
Not a fan of spalted wood myself, often looks like what it is, fungal decay...
Beyond looks, one issue I have had in the past with burled wood is the uneven expansion and contraction of the wood cracking the finish. I once owned a very expensive bass (+$8500) from a builder who's name starts with an F and ends with an A. The top of the bass was a crazy piece of burled redwood. The bass had to be refinished because the burl cracked the clear coat on the front of the bass. I was told by the maker this was happening because the different densities of the burl was resulting in different amounts of expansion and contraction with in the wood, which in turn caused the cracking of the clear coat. The clear coat would crack along the borders of different patterns in the burl.