My thoughts....

[sharkbait130]

The great white shark has been around basically unchanged for a couple of hundred thousand years. It hasn't had to change because it is pretty much the perfect eating machine.
My P bass has only been around since 1957. It is also pretty much the perfect eating machine.
If it works and it ain't broke , there's really no reason to fix it.
Please see me in a thousand years and we can re hash this argument.

 

[danosix]

Exactly right. The entry level to having decent stuff and having at the very least competent equipment is far more within reach now than it ever was, and of higher quality too.

I totally agree with your agreeing with me!

 

[danosix]

What about the lightwave basses?

Well, definitely a new technology, but they didn't exactly take over.

 

[raventepes]

Can someone please spell out the difference between these basses:
- a 1958 Fender P-Bass
- a 2014 Fender Am Deluxe P-Bass
- a $14k 2014 Fodera.

Cheers

- a 1958 Fender P-Bass - Great for the time, many would argue that it's still great today. Classic design.

- a 2014 Fender Am Deluxe P-Bass - Added Jazz pickup at the bridge, active electronics, higher build standards, the parts have been more refined and are better quality/ more stable.

- a $14k 2014 Fodera. - One of the ultimate build standards, Non-Fender soapbar pickups (usually), usually employ active electronics, highly figured and non-painted tops, a million controls for control freaks.

 

[AMJBASS]

Well having watched this thread, and other threads, I have come to the following conclusion:

- there has been practically no MATERIAL evolution of internet trolling since about the 90's.

The depth of this conversation certainly supports that proposal.

^

 

[awilkie84]

Well, the basses people use are about the same now as then - wood, pickups, and strings. Darwin seems to be winning here, and in this case, "natural selection" serves to keep the instrument from evolving. The lightwave optical pickup, piezo pickups, fanned frets, graphite necks, composite bodies, etc. are more like mutants than the next step in the evolution of the instrument.

IMO, there is one "evolutionary" step in the electric bass since the 60's: active electronics.

It's not really natural selection. It's commercial viability & aesthetics. These are the same things hindering our entire advancement as a species, or our sciences. Money has become a bigger player than it should have any right to be and advancement slips to the wayside because of the search for profits.

 

[MovingPitchers]

Honestly, though, what is there to improve or upgrade about the Precision Bass? Honestly. Fling some ideas at me. How do you improve something that is perfect to begin with?

 

[Pilgrim]

I'm relieved to hear that my '63 P hasn't become outdated.

 

[SanDiegoHarry]

Yeah that guy came looking for an argument. I can't believe I got trolled again.

I saw it a mile away - but I spend a lot of time on tech forums where we see these guys all the time. I just don't have time, energy or interest to argue something so subjective.

 

[malthumb]

Having watched this forum, and other forums, I have come to the following conclusion:

- there has been practically no MATERIAL evolution in basses since about the 60's.

The depth of conversations over the internet support this proposal.

I would disagree, for 2-1/2 reasons. Focusing on your term MATERIALLY....

1. Active electronics came to be in the early 70s. In addition to providing a whole new tonal palette, active electronics has probably enabled the market for inexpensive, yet competent low cost basses. Manufacturers who might not be able to deliver high quality sound with a wood formula can do it with an electronic formula (the best can utilize both)
2. Playable 5-string basses came along in the mid to late 70s, popularized in the 90s

The 1/2..... Lightweight components, particularly tuners.

Peace,

James

 

[TripleDouble]

Innovation is overrated anyway. Why not perfect what already is, as many have, rather than reinvent the wheel for no reason at all.

 

[awilkie84]

I would disagree, for 2-1/2 reasons. Focusing on your term MATERIALLY....

1. Active electronics came to be in the early 70s. In addition to providing a whole new tonal palette, active electronics has probably enabled the market for inexpensive, yet competent low cost basses. Manufacturers who might not be able to deliver high quality sound with a wood formula can do it with an electronic formula (the best can utilize both)
2. Playable 5-string basses came along in the mid to late 70s, popularized in the 90s

The 1/2..... Lightweight components, particularly tuners.

Peace,

James

I'd think lightweight woods is a bigger deal than tuners. By taking advantage of advancements in kiln drying processes, more companies are able to buy quality light woods at lower prices & make mass produced reasonable weight instruments available more consistently.

 

[packhowitzer]

Chris Wolstenholme is at least trying to think outside the box, but I don't know how revolutionary the materials are... also this might be deviating from what a bass really is...
Chris

 

[JimmyM]

I always get a laugh out of the people on here who say, "Technology has moved on from 60 years ago." Like being an old technology means it sucks...just a really stupid thing to say if you ask me. And they almost always compare it to a technology that's been around for like 30-40 years and they act like it's new. Seriously now!

 

[Maxdusty]

Violins have been around for much longer - the best ones, the Strads are still being played and they're from the 18th Century!
Innovation often doesn't equate to better sound, a bass sound is well...a bass sound. Often technological advances try to mimic this and fail miserably. This isn't a car or a tv we're talking about.

AND if you're disillusioned with any of your older basses , the 1960s and 1970s Fender basses you may possibly have, please send them to me. I can pay shipping and gladly help you get rid of your primitive instruments.

 

[Low town]

I saw it a mile away - but I spend a lot of time on tech forums where we see these guys all the time. I just don't have time, energy or interest to argue something so subjective.

Well, there has been quite a passionate discussion about it - I don't think the comment qualifies as a troll.

 

[nostatic]

Can someone please spell out the difference between these basses:
- a 1958 Fender P-Bass
- a 2014 Fender Am Deluxe P-Bass
- a $14k 2014 Fodera.

Cheers

Between the first two, mostly the amount of automation in the production methods. The last one (Fodera) in fact is the most "old school" of the three, though it is a bit schizophrenic. There is more hands-on work for the Fodera than the Fenders, as well as Pleking and high-end active electronics.

Also, the '58 is passive, the AmDlx has two pickups and a preamp and arguably has a much broader set of tone options.

The Fodera could be almost anything - a half dozen possible body shapes, neck dimensions, electronics, etc. So there isn't much of a point to your point. But a buddy (and sick player) just got a pair of these from Fodera (one fretted, one fretless) - notice anything different from the Fender? (note - not him holding the bass)

 

[jwr]

Wouldn't a 1958 P Bass cost around 10k or more? Just sayin...

 

[OldDirtyBassist]

How much more complex is your TV and how often does it go wrong? Do you need a passive TV? An onboard preamp is a long way from complex electronics.



Is there any reason why EQ should sound different depending on whether it's located in your bass or in your amp?

You shouldn't be playing your equalization. You should be playing your bass.

 

[SteveV74]

If it aint broke.......