Glad I could be of assistance.
See above. I gave your bass a new nickname. I think I DID improve something.
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.
Popular basses you hate??
- Thread starter Spectordave
- Start date
- Status
Glad I could be of assistance.
See above. I gave your bass a new nickname. I think I DID improve something.
Not hate, but doan wanna play 'em: Any Gibson but a Ripper.
Not sure if it's popular, I have never played a Burns Bison, but based on seeing one, I would be afraid of losing an eye
while playing it:
Not sure if it's popular, I have never played a Burns Bison, but based on seeing one, I would be afraid of losing an eye
while playing it:As a Gibby player at least part of the time, I'm curious - why is the Ripper excluded from your ban?
Simple answer: It's the only Gibson I've played that had the same punch as a Fender P-bass. There was more to it than that, but I just don't like the typical Gibson bottom end of the EB3 and EB0. The Ripper gave me a bit more bottom than a P-bass but still retained the punch. I didn't care for the Grabber or the RD models.When I got my Ripper in 1975, it replaced the P I'd been playing for 10 years except for a brief time on a Ric 4001.
The simple fact that it was built in such a way that it could be mass produced with minimal effort, was inovative all on it's own.
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed][Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
Other than both being made of solid wood, and having a similar headstock and six strings... not too much in common IMO.
Show me a guitar from 1954 or earlier with a bridge that has anywhere near the amount of adjustability as the original Stratocaster bridge, and/or ergonomic body contours.
Now tell me with a straight fact that Leo Fender wasn't an inovator.
Fender's innovations primarily centered around ease and economy of mass-production rather than ultimate quality. More to the point, the design compromises needed to build the cheap assembly-line instruments of half-century ago have been obsolete for decades with the advent of modern fabrication techniques, not to mention the proliferation of state-of-the-art handmade instruments.
The EBG has seen so many important refinements and innovations since Fender's day that I'm constantly amazed that so many players remain loyal to these dated icons. Leo may have been an innovator, but the play-it-safe corporation that bears his name is anything but. If automobile consumers were equally trapped in the past, we'd still be chugging around in the Edsels from Leo's era.
Link Removed
I found a bass I hate:
"The Minarik Inferno is the most scientifically advanced electric guitar ever built. This flagship design features custom tone chamber engineering throughout the entire body even into the flame tongues. Every design feature on this body shape has a purpose. Increased mass on the left side of the body accent low frequencies and reduced mass on the right side increase the voice-like high frequencies. Each individual flame tongue was designed to produce a certain frequency response giving the Minarik Inferno the most balanced and widest tone spectrum unmatched by any other guitar on the market today."
Try to count the buzzwords.
"The Minarik Inferno is the most scientifically advanced electric guitar ever built. This flagship design features custom tone chamber engineering throughout the entire body even into the flame tongues. Every design feature on this body shape has a purpose. Increased mass on the left side of the body accent low frequencies and reduced mass on the right side increase the voice-like high frequencies. Each individual flame tongue was designed to produce a certain frequency response giving the Minarik Inferno the most balanced and widest tone spectrum unmatched by any other guitar on the market today."
Try to count the buzzwords.
Interesting that you glossed over both examples I gave. Neither of which were easier to manufacture than the existing designs at the time, nor existed on any other production instrument in 1954.
Mabe you dislike of Fenders is clouding your vision a bit.
Any bass that I can not afford 
Seriously, Hate is a bit strong for wood and steel. I do however have a strong dislike for the design of Steinbergers (What was Geddy thinking!?)
Seriously, Hate is a bit strong for wood and steel. I do however have a strong dislike for the design of Steinbergers (What was Geddy thinking!?)
Hate? Nah. I can't think of one bass that doesn't serve a purpose to someone. Sure, I have my preferences, but if someone else is happy playing a bass that isn't for me, then I'm happy for them.
I personally don't like P-J bass setups all that much. This is probably because I tend to play up toward the neck and move my right hand down towards the bridge when I want more 'bite', and on both Jazz basses and P-J's that bridge pickup is sometimes just in the way.
This from a guy who's been playing Jazz basses for 25 years but just got a P-bass copy which is getting more gig time..
This from a guy who's been playing Jazz basses for 25 years but just got a P-bass copy which is getting more gig time..
Fender, Gibson, Rickenbacker... I dislike them.
Some of the lowest quality standards I've ever heard praised.
In fact those brands have never produced an instrument that I've sat down with and either by tone or feel have been unable to stop myself from saying "wow". Unless that "wow" was preceding "this sucks"
Some of the lowest quality standards I've ever heard praised.
In fact those brands have never produced an instrument that I've sat down with and either by tone or feel have been unable to stop myself from saying "wow". Unless that "wow" was preceding "this sucks"
- Status
