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.
The basic flaw in the p-bass
- Thread starter Ric5
- Start date
wow,this is a ******** thread...if p basses are so junky why do all the other brands try to clone it or make their own version of it,i would like to know also why you see so many other basses on craigslist or on here for sale other than P basses,there are even more jazz basses for sale than P basses...
No one is saying P basses are junky. NO ONE SAID THAT!
If someone says there is a flaw with P basses that is their opinion and they have that right just like you have the right to believe they are flawless. I personally think the flaw that P basses have is the fanatics who refuse to believe that they aren't the epitome of perfection.
Regarding the Entwistle reference: while John was a very fine bass player, he had some rather unique approaches to the instrument which would not make him necessarily a great reference point.
In one of many discussions with Mica Wickersham, she told me that John required them to set the action so low that the instrument was virtually unplayable by everyone at Alembic. They literally could not figure out how he played it. Translate that to a P, and anyone who has spent much time on a P will know you won't get a lot out of it. P's generally respond best with somewhat high action and strong playing. Just sayin. We all have different styles; and just because some high profile cat makes some statement does not mean it is so.
In one of many discussions with Mica Wickersham, she told me that John required them to set the action so low that the instrument was virtually unplayable by everyone at Alembic. They literally could not figure out how he played it. Translate that to a P, and anyone who has spent much time on a P will know you won't get a lot out of it. P's generally respond best with somewhat high action and strong playing. Just sayin. We all have different styles; and just because some high profile cat makes some statement does not mean it is so.
Yea I normally leave passive tone knobs cranked up. Played a p bass through the 80s. Great bass. Responsive. Loved it. Miss it
but didn't he use a Ric 4005 on Tommy and a gibson Thunderbird on Quadrophenia? i don't think either of those records were the P bass, although he did use the Frankenstein P on the Tommy live shows.
Ya, at least the Basses forum. Personally, I couldn't care less what Entwistle thought of the Precision. I'm not Entwistle. Sure did like his tone when he used them, though.To me it's very interesting that Entwistle said that, for the following reason: I have once removed the treble control from the circuit on a P bass by de-soldering the potentiometer wires completely. When I had to sell it, I re-connected it to the circuit, but I probably soldered the wires in a wrong way, because the effect was exactly the one described by Entwistle: When I turned up the treble, the low end thinned out. It was a 100% real effect, not psychoacoustics, or the amp, or whatever. So just maybe Etwistle had a P bass that had been tampered with and the treble control was wrongly connected to the circuit and nobody thought to check it.
There are two pics here that show Entwistle with a sunburst Fender P-bass during the Tommy sessions.
Yes, Thunderbirds and Fenderbirds for Quadrophenia
Funny that he said this, seems he was just fickle by his own admission:
"From about the time of the Who’s next album I used a cross between a Gibson Thunderbird and a Precision. I had it made for me with a Fender neck and the Thunderbird body, with Gibson bridge and fittings. Now I’m back to Precisions, but I’m happy with anything really, as long as it’s long-scale."
"…by ‘Quadrophenia’ and Who By Numbers I was playing Gibson Thunderbirds. I felt I was getting stuck in a rut, using all the treble. So I changed to Sunn Coliseum power amps and a German preamp called a Stramp, and took up with the Thunderbirds. Eventually I found that I had developed a new playing style, then discovered Alembic basses and went back to playing with treble. I go backwards and forwards like that all the time."
Think this is a fair assumption. He used Ps exclusively for a great while then wanted more bottom and moved on to find it. The way he expressed himself is what is being taken as gospel, and perhaps is not so literal a critique of the P as people make it out. Listen to his later tone and think how it again changes and its pretty clear he was a morphing tone shifter.
My favorite Entwistle tones are his fairly clean early live sound mid '60s on Precisions, and his great live tones on Live At Leeds and Quadrophenia.
Yes, Js and Rics do have more bottom end than passive Ps, simply due to the PUP placement. Whether those extra lows translate to a useful addition is up to the other instruments, strings, technique, amplification, EQ, etc.
Personally I love the low mid kick of a P and find it plenty deep and full for rock music, but I prefer the natural deeper lows of a passive J for reggae, for example, where I still rely on low mids for the meat of the sound and not excessive lows, which are really not necessary or even desirable to me. Synth like lows are just boring and not where the meat lies to my ears.
Anyway, the OP is trolling hard, and a few of his later remarks border on the silly, like flats being used to make up for some unspecified flaw. The reason flats and Ps get so much love is that they sound so freaking good together, with many of the qualities of an upright bass, and a tone that slots in many mixes beautifully without getting in the way of other instruments. A properly EQed P actually can sound a lot fatter in a mix than soloed, one of it's almost magical seeming properties. Why would you dig up such a comment anyway, with little or no personal experience? In many ways it is probably only relevant to The Ox's own desires at a given point in time and a live scenario that most of us never experience (old fashioned PAs in huge stadiums). The subtext to many of the OPs threads always seems to be that Rics are somehow better. It's like an illness where one's own choices can only be validated by trashing the preferences of others- it's BORING. besides, can you really take someone seriously who describes the tone of a P based on one experience of a borrowed instrument as: 'just a lot of midrange plunky noise and clicks and fret buzz.'? It's so silly it doesn't even deserve debunking. Personally I'd work on my technique if all I could get from a P with flats was clicks and fret buzz, after looking at the amp settings or the PA EQ. Maybe he's just a plunker.
I'm another flats with tone rolled open all the way lovers, though I play with rounds in my cover band with the tone open all the way or only slightly rolled off, preferring to knock some highs off at the amp or board for a livelier richer tone. Except on recordings, a P with the tone rolled heavily off just sounds lifeless and muddy to me most of the time, but it's all personal taste in the end.
Yes, Js and Rics do have more bottom end than passive Ps, simply due to the PUP placement. Whether those extra lows translate to a useful addition is up to the other instruments, strings, technique, amplification, EQ, etc.
Personally I love the low mid kick of a P and find it plenty deep and full for rock music, but I prefer the natural deeper lows of a passive J for reggae, for example, where I still rely on low mids for the meat of the sound and not excessive lows, which are really not necessary or even desirable to me. Synth like lows are just boring and not where the meat lies to my ears.
Anyway, the OP is trolling hard, and a few of his later remarks border on the silly, like flats being used to make up for some unspecified flaw. The reason flats and Ps get so much love is that they sound so freaking good together, with many of the qualities of an upright bass, and a tone that slots in many mixes beautifully without getting in the way of other instruments. A properly EQed P actually can sound a lot fatter in a mix than soloed, one of it's almost magical seeming properties. Why would you dig up such a comment anyway, with little or no personal experience? In many ways it is probably only relevant to The Ox's own desires at a given point in time and a live scenario that most of us never experience (old fashioned PAs in huge stadiums). The subtext to many of the OPs threads always seems to be that Rics are somehow better. It's like an illness where one's own choices can only be validated by trashing the preferences of others- it's BORING. besides, can you really take someone seriously who describes the tone of a P based on one experience of a borrowed instrument as: 'just a lot of midrange plunky noise and clicks and fret buzz.'? It's so silly it doesn't even deserve debunking. Personally I'd work on my technique if all I could get from a P with flats was clicks and fret buzz, after looking at the amp settings or the PA EQ. Maybe he's just a plunker.
I'm another flats with tone rolled open all the way lovers, though I play with rounds in my cover band with the tone open all the way or only slightly rolled off, preferring to knock some highs off at the amp or board for a livelier richer tone. Except on recordings, a P with the tone rolled heavily off just sounds lifeless and muddy to me most of the time, but it's all personal taste in the end.
You, Sir, should grow some thicker skin. The original statement is simply silly. Entwistle, like all other humans (myself included), said some silly things. Pointing this out is not a dis of his sacred soul
There's a difference between a flaw and a sound or tone you don't personally like. I could say that every bass that is not a P-bass has a major flaw -- it does not sound as good as a P-bass. 
I guess I'm one of the lucky ones ,there are many who change out p pups and such to get their P bass to sound like my 61...
There have times where I would find myself to be in agreement with you. But not all pickups accentuate it to a disagreeable degree.
I guess I'm one of the lucky ones ,there are many who change out p pups and such to get their P bass to sound like my 61...
Does your '61 sound closer to a '59, or a '62?
