Most versatile type of Jazz bass

[DougD]

This is my point. There's the "lays in the mix well", warmer
sound of the 60's Alder/Rosewood, or the more in your face,
grindy, articulation of the 70's Ash/Maple Jazz.
Can you make one bass do both things well, or is it always a
compromise so that (as many have stated) you need one of
each?

Yes you can, but you would need help from a pedal or something. I personally wouldn't spend money buying 2 Jazz basses when I could use eq or a pedal to get what I need. I'd rather get two basses that are totaly different in looks and sound, but that's just me

 

[metron]

I am not looking for an argument but there has been lots of discussion on this topic and your opinion is certainly not universally accepted. There is a Roger Sadowsky interview floating around where he states that he believes the fingerboard is the largest contributor, while others have varying opinions.

I would however agree "OWN BOTH"

Are you sure Rogers comments are in the same context of what I am trying to say? The moved bridge pickup defines the 70s jazz sound, not ash and maple woods.

Sure woods play a factor but are not even remotely the defining tonal factor over the pickups, their location, and the electronics. There can be no doubt in my mind that a P bass tone is defined by a spilt coil, a Stingray by its humbucker, a Ric 4003 by its high gain plus furry neck pickup, an L2000 by 2 MFDs. Wood (especially the fingerboard) alters the timbre of what is already there. Or are we talking about different things?

 

[peterpalmieri]

The moved bridge pickup defines the 70s jazz sound, not ash and maple woods.

Not only would I not agree with this statement but you say it as if it is a fact for which you have data to support it.

This debate has gone on many times over already and I have no plans on doing it again.

 

[B String]

Not only would I not agree with this statement but you say it as if it is a fact for which you have data to support it.

This debate has gone on many times over already and I have no plans on doing it again.

My feeling is that all these elements play a part in the overall
sound of the bass. Some parts play a larger part in the
equation than others. And this brings me back to my original
point. (really)

Is there a combination of all these different parts that could
make the ultimate "versatile" Jazz bass? The elements that
people agree on. For instance... Fender just released their idea
of the "ultimate" Jazz bass, with the most popular features
from the 60's to the present. The 50th anniversary Jazz.

 

[ProfGumby]

Really? No other opinions from a group like this?

I agree with butchblack. After you get past the jazz bass part of the equation, it is all just preference as to what the player is looking for. I have 5 jazz basses and love them all. Each is slightly different than the rest and I find the strings make more of a difference than body wood or necks. Pickups make a difference too, but again, it is all what you, the player is looking for.

 

[peterpalmieri]

Is there a combination of all these different parts that could make the ultimate "versatile" Jazz bass?

I would say NO based on the fact that everyone has different preferences.

 

[B String]

I would say NO based on the fact that everyone has different preferences.

Without agreement of any kind about era, wood, fingerboard,
pickups or electronics, I might have to agree with you.
However, its not the answer I expected to get.

 

[TonyP-]

Not only would I not agree with this statement but you say it as if it is a fact for which you have data to support it.

This debate has gone on many times over already and I have no plans on doing it again.

I have to agree

I currently own 6 Js and have done some serious A/-ingB with a 77 J and my 79 along with several reissues. I believe the wood has more to do with it then 70s bridge pickup selection.

This opinion (although I don't want to speak for him) is shared by one of the boutique builders out there as well.

However its just a healthy discussion and less of possible debate IMHO.

 

[metron]

Not only would I not agree with this statement but you say it as if it is a fact for which you have data to support it.

This debate has gone on many times over already and I have no plans on doing it again.

I thought it was a fact. Cool Im not going to get into it. I suppose thats why I missed the TB debates about the apparent fact that wood is primarily what makes a jazz bass sound like a jazz bass. Are these debates the same ones where people say if you take a jazz bass of any type and plop in a spilt coil precision pup it will still sound pretty much like a jazz bass?

Sorry for the OT tangent I am just trying to understand.

 

[peterpalmieri]

Without agreement of any kind about era, wood, fingerboard,
pickups or electronics, I might have to agree with you.
However, its not the answer I expected to get.

I think many would agree the elements of a good jazz bass include a maple neck, offset body, passive tone control and single coil picks in one of the two traditional positions.

 

[Xavier Zed]

I'm still searching for a P/J setup for this reason. Bought a P Lyte, swapped out the pups for SDs, but still thinking of building a Warmoth.

If you are looking for a proper P/J try the Tony Franklin Fretted and be amazed. And on topic, I have Fender Jazz that I run thru a Tech 21 sans amp and I could cover everything under the sun with it.

 

[t0t0m]

Sadowsky NYC JJ5 is bad a**...(in a good meaning of course)
I owned a NYC PJ5 and amazed how versatile the bass was...very light indeed.

I've heard an LEJ is also a healthy choice for jazz bass in steroids type of things.

 

[honest abe]

My STR CS-5 is the most versatile Jazz bass I've ever owned. I've owned, Lakland, Sadowsky, Fender, Suhr, Lull, Fodera NYC, and probably a few I can't remember. It has pickups in the 60's position with maple neck and fboard. The body is made of ash with koa accents. I personally believe that the versatility in a bass comes from the hands and the pickup position (as in bridge, middle, neck, and combinations). It has true STR singles and an Aguilar 3 band preamp with tone control and active/passive switch. As an audio engineer by trade I think too much emphasis is placed on eq rather than true tone. EQ is a good tool if not overused. I always think of eq as medicine and not candy. Only use it if you have to.

 

[peterpalmieri]

Assuming a traditional 60s alder/rosewood and late 70s ash/ maple define the two extremes in these designs there are a few basses that combine these in interesting ways.

1. Early 70s - alder/maple with 70s spacing.
2. ash/maple 60s spacing - popular among Sadowsky owners see the Kjung clips.

These are all fairly popular choices among the flavors of jazz basses. In these time and in many cases the traditional 60s basses are strung with nickels while the 70s basses are strung with stainless steel strings. Changing this formula has a fairly significant effect as well.

In any case I don't believe there is a concensus among what people consider the most versatile, since versatility is relative to genres and playing styles of each player. As I stated early I like the option of both a 60s and 70s style. Thankfully I don't have to own just one.

 

[peterpalmieri]

I thought it was a fact. Cool Im not going to get into it. I suppose thats why I missed the TB debates about the apparent fact that wood is primarily what makes a jazz bass sound like a jazz bass. Are these debates the same ones where people say if you take a jazz bass of any type and plop in a spilt coil precision pup it will still sound pretty much like a jazz bass?

Sorry for the OT tangent I am just trying to understand.

All of the variations contribute to the difference in tone, including pickup spacing, type of pickup, strings, fingerboard and body wood. All else being standard jazz bass, same player, same rig.

You can achieve different tonal fingerprints by combining them in different ways. In addition to the wide difference in strings, pickups and preamps. Each piece of wood sounds different so it's quite possible to get a 60s spec'd bass that has a very bright rosewood board, combine that with a set of high beams and you might possibly have a bass that has a very agressive 70s tone. On the other hand you could possibly find a 70s spec'd bass with an ultra light ash body that sounds very mellow, when you combine that with a set of nickels or flat wounds you may end up with something that doesn't sound very late 70s.

If you check out some of the boutique jazz bass threads (Sadowsky, Alleva Coppolo, Lull, F bass, etc...) you will find other TBers deep in conversation about how these different elements contribute to a tone that is pleasing to them. And sometimes a specific formula does not yield the expected results for any number of reasons.

I'd also suggest listening to Kjungs youtube clips which give a good representation of 60's, early and late 70s as well as the Sadowsky which is ash/maple 60s spacing....

 

[metron]

Even after listening to those youtube clips I still cant get behind the idea that the wood, even the neck, is the dominant factor in the timbre of a jazz bass over the placement of the pickups. Wood definitely makes a diffference but its the relocation of the bridge pickup that changed the jazz bass tone for the 70s. Is what my ears tell me.

 

[bigntasty]

Reggie Hamilton signature model.

P/J
Active / Passive
Drop Tuner on the E String

 

[DougD]

Assuming a traditional 60s alder/rosewood and late 70s ash/ maple define the two extremes in these designs there are a few basses that combine these in interesting ways.

1. Early 70s - alder/maple with 70s spacing.
2. ash/maple 60s spacing - popular among Sadowsky owners see the Kjung clips.

These are all fairly popular choices among the flavors of jazz basses. In these time and in many cases the traditional 60s basses are strung with nickels while the 70s basses are strung with stainless steel strings. Changing this formula has a fairly significant effect as well.

In any case I don't believe there is a concensus among what people consider the most versatile, since versatility is relative to genres and playing styles of each player. As I stated early I like the option of both a 60s and 70s style. Thankfully I don't have to own just one.

+1, But don't forget Fender also made an 70's Ash body bound n blocked Maple/Rosewood necked Jazz that was pretty hot too
I still say that you'll get more versatility from a passive 60's jazz due to the less aggressive nature of the pickup spacing and alder/maple/rosewood combo. But if you throw on a set of SS strings and an active preamp, it would be hard to tell the difference between the two (in a live band situation) IMHO It really is a mute point though, because any Jazz bass will sit well in nearly ALL musical situations, that's why they are so popular If you really want versatility go with a P/J or the ultimate tone monster J/P/J ala Stew Ham

 

[peterpalmieri]

I had intentionally not specifically answered the original question hoping to further the discussion.

I will asnwer now:

If I can only own 1 jazz bass I'd most likely narrow down the specs to an Ash/Maple, 60s spacing with single coils, and an active preamp.

 

[REAPER52]

I think the new Fender 08-09-10 Jazz passives will do anything your capable of doing. and i also believe in fretless it will give you even more flexability. I still dont see the active vrs passive being a big deal - if you have a good amp -you can dial in your sound ,so i go passive. For me a Fender Jazz Std Fretless will do alot more then i will ever be able to do.