There's a German luthier (I think he's German - his About page says 'United States') who shares excellent videos of his making on YouTube. His latest, a viol, has a 3 plank bent top. Interesting process to see.
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.
Double Bass Stinkbomb post about modern neck construction methods
- Thread starter mindwell
- Start date
- Status
That was actually a historical technique done on viols, too—some very desirable ones were made that way. However, there's always still some finish carving done after the pressing.
The pressed "carved" tops we're talking about in a bad way (not the experiments that GretschWretch up there mentioned, which like he said, also had finish carving happening) were always a hallmark of low quality instruments when you saw them, because there was no actual carving or graduation happening afterwards, just treating solid pieces of wood as though they were no different than plywood.
The pressed "carved" tops we're talking about in a bad way (not the experiments that GretschWretch up there mentioned, which like he said, also had finish carving happening) were always a hallmark of low quality instruments when you saw them, because there was no actual carving or graduation happening afterwards, just treating solid pieces of wood as though they were no different than plywood.
I've repaired a lot of cracks in the bellies of 'Speyer' branded Korean basses. The belly and back are steam pressed from solid plates. So the stresses are rather predictable, and eventually 2 out of 3 develops a crack above the bassbar-side f-hole. When dropped on the bridge, they crack from end to end along the bar. Some aren't bad sounding basses for the price they sold when the company was active. From the local buyer, now also out of business, I learned that Speyer had to give up years ago because even at $2,500 Canadian retail (maybe $1,400 cost to the stores) they couldn't compete with Chinese suppliers. Most didn't sound great, so the brand isn't really missed here.
Right - I have heard rumors of Cremona/Palatino using this 'pressed wood top' technique, as well as using 'pallet wood' for internal bracing... BUT, as this thread clearly illustrates, you can't believe all the anti-Chinese propaganda you read/watch/hear. (BTW, apparently MSG isn't bad for you?!?!?!)
I have since setup an older hybrid Cremona that sounded just as good as anything I've ever played. My prejudice had always considered Chinese basses in two categories; Shen and everything else. Now, in my old age and wisdom, I judge every bass (and person!) as an individual worthy of attention and respect.
I couldn't resist the temptation for drama and watched the new video from Upton. I feel like I could unpack a whole paragraph or two of my observations (psychological and business-wise), but I'll spare you all for the sake of 'tact', as I have nothing nice to say about how that was handled.
I'll throw in my take as a consumer. As a disclaimer, i own two Upton basses and have been very happy with them. At the same time, i have nothing bad to say about Shen basses whatsoever because i've never played one.
1. I have no problem with competing businesses critiquing or expressing honest opinions about each other's product in an effort to highlight their own value. I feel the market will take care of the rest, right or wrong.
2. Upton has been brutally honest about their opinion of chinese made basses in general over the years, so this is fairly on brand there. Personally i value that honesty even if it comes off as abrasive towards those brands at times.
3. Upton also tends to attempt to be highly transparent about what their basses are made of and their view on why they build them the way they do. I've valued this as a buyer and it contributes to why i bought from them more than once.
4. Out of curiosity, i checked the Shen distributor website to see if they mention the metal reinforcement in their necks. After all, if it's sound design then they would call it out as a feature. I found zero mention of that feature on the listing for the SB150. As a consumer, i can't help but wonder why.
Sorry, had to take my kick at the dead horse!
1. I have no problem with competing businesses critiquing or expressing honest opinions about each other's product in an effort to highlight their own value. I feel the market will take care of the rest, right or wrong.
2. Upton has been brutally honest about their opinion of chinese made basses in general over the years, so this is fairly on brand there. Personally i value that honesty even if it comes off as abrasive towards those brands at times.
3. Upton also tends to attempt to be highly transparent about what their basses are made of and their view on why they build them the way they do. I've valued this as a buyer and it contributes to why i bought from them more than once.
4. Out of curiosity, i checked the Shen distributor website to see if they mention the metal reinforcement in their necks. After all, if it's sound design then they would call it out as a feature. I found zero mention of that feature on the listing for the SB150. As a consumer, i can't help but wonder why.
Sorry, had to take my kick at the dead horse!
I've been following this thread from afar, so I figured I'll throw my hat into the ring.
Disclaimer: I've never owned any Shen or Upton instruments. I have played many Shens (usually friends' instruments), I've played a few Uptons, and I've generally had positive feelings towards both shops' basses. Also this is going to be quite a rant, so apologies in advance.
I think that as a company (warning: I do not have a business degree nor do I have any experience in running and marketing a business), trying to market your products as being better than someone else's feels kinda dirty to me. Maybe I'm just cynical, but the fact the original video came from the Upton company account (and not a place like an employee's personal account) and that they specifically named and shamed a maker for using a metal bar with screws as neck reinforcement puts a bad taste in my mouth because to me it reads as saying "you shouldn't buy these instruments, you should buy ours instead". This is off-putting to me for a couple reasons: a) to me it looks as a scare tactic because they're not going into detail about why what Shen (who is a direct competitor to Upton given that Upton's standard models and many of Shen's hybrid and carved basses occupy a similar price bracket) did is bad, they're relying on the "shock value" as being enough to drive a customer away from Shen; and b) it kinda makes me question what Upton's value proposition is because to me it feels like what they're saying is "you should buy our instruments because they're not that" rather than speaking about the merits of their own instruments: if the only value your instruments have is that it's not a Shen, then why should I spend the $900 extra to purchase an Upton Hybrid over a Shen SB150?
I do think that Shen should be more open about the neck reinforcement on their website; if they believe it to be a feature/advantage of their instruments why aren't they advertising it?
From what I could remember and from some further research, Upton used to be a Shen dealer until about 2014. I don't (and maybe none of us will) know the exact reason why they stopped being a dealer, but from videos that I recall seeing some years back it sounded like it might've been a fairly acrimonious falling-out. I don't know who is at fault or why the business relationship dissolved, but it does make both companies unreliable narrators when talking about the other's products in my opinion.
This is just my read on the situation, and I have been enjoying seeing others' feelings and responses to this.
Disclaimer: I've never owned any Shen or Upton instruments. I have played many Shens (usually friends' instruments), I've played a few Uptons, and I've generally had positive feelings towards both shops' basses. Also this is going to be quite a rant, so apologies in advance.
I personally have a really hard time with this. On the one hand, I do think we should critique makers/shops who are putting out junk, but on the other hand I feel like this can very easily veer into anti-Asian (particularly anti-Chinese) rhetoric, which frankly I have very little patience for. I don't want to deny that there are a lot of poorly-made instruments and bows made in China, but there is also equipment coming from China that is genuinely good, and to paint all Chinese-made instruments with a single brush upsets me because to me it's saying "x instrument is poor quality, and x is made in China, therefore Chinese instruments are poor quality", which I think is ignorant and reductive.
I think that as a company (warning: I do not have a business degree nor do I have any experience in running and marketing a business), trying to market your products as being better than someone else's feels kinda dirty to me. Maybe I'm just cynical, but the fact the original video came from the Upton company account (and not a place like an employee's personal account) and that they specifically named and shamed a maker for using a metal bar with screws as neck reinforcement puts a bad taste in my mouth because to me it reads as saying "you shouldn't buy these instruments, you should buy ours instead". This is off-putting to me for a couple reasons: a) to me it looks as a scare tactic because they're not going into detail about why what Shen (who is a direct competitor to Upton given that Upton's standard models and many of Shen's hybrid and carved basses occupy a similar price bracket) did is bad, they're relying on the "shock value" as being enough to drive a customer away from Shen; and b) it kinda makes me question what Upton's value proposition is because to me it feels like what they're saying is "you should buy our instruments because they're not that" rather than speaking about the merits of their own instruments: if the only value your instruments have is that it's not a Shen, then why should I spend the $900 extra to purchase an Upton Hybrid over a Shen SB150?
I do think that Shen should be more open about the neck reinforcement on their website; if they believe it to be a feature/advantage of their instruments why aren't they advertising it?
From what I could remember and from some further research, Upton used to be a Shen dealer until about 2014. I don't (and maybe none of us will) know the exact reason why they stopped being a dealer, but from videos that I recall seeing some years back it sounded like it might've been a fairly acrimonious falling-out. I don't know who is at fault or why the business relationship dissolved, but it does make both companies unreliable narrators when talking about the other's products in my opinion.
This is just my read on the situation, and I have been enjoying seeing others' feelings and responses to this.
Is it the mention of competitors by name that bothers you? Because the sentiment you reference is implicit (and sometimes explicit) in any sales pitch. In the dirty world of commerce, this seems like the high road.
Now if a company's marketing was strictly about how bad their competitors' products are, I would agree with you.
Last edited:
Yeah I think it's that in original video we're explicitly and prominently shown the Shen badge, then the reinforcement in the neck, and then being told that said reinforcement is bad without any other context. To me it comes off as a cheap shot at a competitor.
I am well aware that not all of Upton's marketing is like this, but this particular instance really didn't sit right with me.
Last edited:
I've been thinking about this thread a bit, and one thing keeps presenting itself over and over: We have these rules at Talkbass about posting respectfully, not discussing politics or religion, and very strict rules for commercial users that state that among other things, "Commercial Users may not comment on the products/services/character of competition (unless it is praise or recommendation). Doing so presents conflict-of-interest issues."
I think these are all really good rules, and that they make TB the place that it is. Granted, our little corner of the internet is far from perfect, but to me, as a person who forswore all mainstream social media in 2016 and never looked back, these rules and their enforcement by the volunteer moderators are what makes this place valuable and tenable to me. I don't think I am alone in this.
Yet here, with this thread, we have a new paradigm: Content produced on mainstream social media from one company alleging misconduct from a competitor is presented to our community for discussion. The problem with this is that the content was created under a different set of rules than we have here, yet we have two representatives of the companies in question participating here as well. After a lot of soul searching, I have come to the conclusion that allowing this sort of discussion is tantamount to enabling a sort of "proxy war" between the two companies in question; a war that our rules would not allow to happen between members of our site directly. So it seems wrong to allow this same paradigm to unfold because someone (presumably) unaffiliated with either company posts the content instead of the representatives of the companies themselves. It feels too much like politics; or maybe better said, it opens the door to political speculation about the real motives of the people posting these social media posts for discussion. And since that is something we can never really know, I think it's best to close this little chapter of a potential proxy war and just summarize what we have learned:
- Company A thinks reinforced double bass necks are ill advised.
- Company B thinks that they are a valuable method of neck stabilization.
- A number of luthiers and repairers report that company B's necks tend to be more stable than average.
- A few people disagree.
- Some people find company A's video distasteful.
- Some people think it's perfectly fine.
My own personal takeaways:
- I have no horse in this race. I play only New Standard LaScala basses, because they are what I have and have served me well. I hope to retire with the two I have, and as I have often said, anything they can't do should be blamed on the player rather than the bass.
- Many of my students, maybe 20 over the past several decades, have played Shen basses. I have seen a few great ones, a bunch of good/solid workhorse ones, but never a bad one. I have a university owned Shen SB100 in my office. It's a good bass. It has been played and commented positively upon by the likes of guest artists Eddie Gomez, Gene Perla, Lynn Seaton, and John Goldsby, the last of whom even recorded several trio albums on it.
- I have only played Upton basses for a few minutes at a time either at summer workshops I have taught where students bring one, or at the Upton booth at various ISB conventions. They seem like nice basses, but to pretend to make a judgment beyond that would be disingenuous, akin to assessing a new car I drove around the block for 10 minutes as being either a reliable workhorse or a clunker. Simply put, I just don't have enough experience with them to be able to weigh in with any authority.
So with that, I think it's best to close this thread and avoid any further "Company X posted this Stinkbomb video about Company Y....what does Talkbass think about this?" sort of controversy. In my humble opinion, we need to be the sort of place where we discuss things that fit under our particular terms of service - respectfully, and with due diligence.
So moving forward, it's fine to start a thread about "is it OK to reinforce double bass necks?", or "what does the term carved top really mean?", but not OK to post media from one company impugning the practices of another, especially when those companies are represented by real, live, human members of our community.
And with that, I think, it's time to close this chapter.
I think these are all really good rules, and that they make TB the place that it is. Granted, our little corner of the internet is far from perfect, but to me, as a person who forswore all mainstream social media in 2016 and never looked back, these rules and their enforcement by the volunteer moderators are what makes this place valuable and tenable to me. I don't think I am alone in this.
Yet here, with this thread, we have a new paradigm: Content produced on mainstream social media from one company alleging misconduct from a competitor is presented to our community for discussion. The problem with this is that the content was created under a different set of rules than we have here, yet we have two representatives of the companies in question participating here as well. After a lot of soul searching, I have come to the conclusion that allowing this sort of discussion is tantamount to enabling a sort of "proxy war" between the two companies in question; a war that our rules would not allow to happen between members of our site directly. So it seems wrong to allow this same paradigm to unfold because someone (presumably) unaffiliated with either company posts the content instead of the representatives of the companies themselves. It feels too much like politics; or maybe better said, it opens the door to political speculation about the real motives of the people posting these social media posts for discussion. And since that is something we can never really know, I think it's best to close this little chapter of a potential proxy war and just summarize what we have learned:
- Company A thinks reinforced double bass necks are ill advised.
- Company B thinks that they are a valuable method of neck stabilization.
- A number of luthiers and repairers report that company B's necks tend to be more stable than average.
- A few people disagree.
- Some people find company A's video distasteful.
- Some people think it's perfectly fine.
My own personal takeaways:
- I have no horse in this race. I play only New Standard LaScala basses, because they are what I have and have served me well. I hope to retire with the two I have, and as I have often said, anything they can't do should be blamed on the player rather than the bass.
- Many of my students, maybe 20 over the past several decades, have played Shen basses. I have seen a few great ones, a bunch of good/solid workhorse ones, but never a bad one. I have a university owned Shen SB100 in my office. It's a good bass. It has been played and commented positively upon by the likes of guest artists Eddie Gomez, Gene Perla, Lynn Seaton, and John Goldsby, the last of whom even recorded several trio albums on it.
- I have only played Upton basses for a few minutes at a time either at summer workshops I have taught where students bring one, or at the Upton booth at various ISB conventions. They seem like nice basses, but to pretend to make a judgment beyond that would be disingenuous, akin to assessing a new car I drove around the block for 10 minutes as being either a reliable workhorse or a clunker. Simply put, I just don't have enough experience with them to be able to weigh in with any authority.
So with that, I think it's best to close this thread and avoid any further "Company X posted this Stinkbomb video about Company Y....what does Talkbass think about this?" sort of controversy. In my humble opinion, we need to be the sort of place where we discuss things that fit under our particular terms of service - respectfully, and with due diligence.
So moving forward, it's fine to start a thread about "is it OK to reinforce double bass necks?", or "what does the term carved top really mean?", but not OK to post media from one company impugning the practices of another, especially when those companies are represented by real, live, human members of our community.
And with that, I think, it's time to close this chapter.
- Status
