The Evolution of Bass Guitar Technology and Beyond...

[mongo2]

the bass itself played good, was built well, and sounded okay acoustically, but it weighed alot.

We must've gotten basses from opposite ends of the QC spectrum, mine not only weighed a lot but the neck wasn't in good shape with fret ends that were roughly finished, several high frets, and fret sprout (sprout could have happened post QC and could happen to any bass but it was what I'd call extreme on this one so to me it speaks to the quality of the neck woods). The nut was also in need of work.

Other than that it was just fine.

 

[Duplo42]

Regarding recording technology and bass sound - IMO, modern bass recordings that sound really good are Jamiroquai first two albums, Gomez first few records and Ben Folds Five first couple

 

[Tmoney865]

Best Bass for Metal is an off topic question.

The answer in the end is....the one that inspires your playing.

 

[Bryan R. Tyler]

Best Bass for Metal is an off topic question.

The answer in the end is....the one that inspires your playing.

That's just a (bad) joke around here that arose from new players asking that question almost weekly.

 

[aborgman]

my question is, does the electric bass really have to 'evolve' any further?

Yes.

Even if those evolutions end up being dead ends, and never enter into main stream bass manufacture - yes.

have the violin, trumpet, saxophone, flute, tympani, cymbal, grand piano, cello, clarinet, etc. evolved any further?

Absolutely.

See - Stroh Violins, electronic violins, carbon fiber violins, slide trumpets, rotary valve trumpets, Stuart and Sons 102 key pianos, etc, etc, etc.

 

[aborgman]

What technological advance has improved upon the fiddles made in Brescia and Cremona 300 years ago?

Extended fingerboard to allow access to higher notes.

Increased fingerboard tilt to increase volume.

Neck lengthened by ~1cm to accommodate tuning pitch changes.

Increase in bass bar diameter to deal with higher string tensions.

Most of your famous old violins like Amati's and Stradivarius that are still in use have had the necks replaced/lengthened as well as other significant modifications.

 

[aborgman]

then give us an example, because i think that you're nuts. just try and cop any one of those bass tones. IMO, that's as good as it gets.

Anything that could be done when those recording were made can still be done.

Many things which couldn't be done when those recording were made can now be done.

 

[aborgman]

But wood basses will probably always be at the top of desireability for most musicians. Composites may show advantages, but it'll be hard to pry the wood out of some of our hands!

Yeah, just like $5,000+ split bamboo fly rods are for the elite fly fishing community.

 

[aborgman]

Evolution doesn't mean "better." It just means different enough popular enough to stay around.

No, it just plain means change over time. Even if an evolution is completely unsuccessful, it's still evolution.

 

[Rickett Customs]

Here's my hangup with the lighwave system, frequency response at it's peak is only to 1k, the highs are supplied by their "ice tone" piezo circuit. The lightwave itself is not capable of the more higher frequencies alone, which tells me that there's room for improvement for becoming a standalone, like a magnetic pickup. Of course there are many good points to this system as well (sustain for example), but I will always get hung up on downsides. At this time it utilizes an "oem" battery, unlike a typical 9v, so getting a replacement could be troublesome. Adjusting the intonation takes some practice (it'll be much different than a "non" lightwave bass).

More or less, it'll definately take some time to get fitted into mainstream (No retro fit available, due to the extra circuit board routes needed to house it). it's still a pretty "closed source" piece of hardware, not available to all.....yet.

 

[Bryan R. Tyler]

No, it just plain means change over time. Even if an evolution is completely unsuccessful, it's still evolution.

No- evolution can't be assigned to singular unsuccessful changes. That would be mutation. Evolution implies success, as a series of mutations or recombinations needs to find itself present in future generations in order for something to be considered evolved. The evolved species may die out, but the process that evolved it was still successful. While it does mean there was somewhat lasting success in alteration, it does not mean future-proof.

 

[nostatic]

The concept of mutation is widely applicable at TB. Evolution? Umm...err...

 

[aborgman]

No- evolution can't be assigned to singular unsuccessful changes.

Sure it can, as long as those changes are passed through at least one generation. Unless you want to consider the mere fact that it is passed on as "successful".

Evolution - any process of change over time.

Any mutation which is passed on - whether it be helpful, harmful, or indifferent (which is where most mutations fall) is evolution.

The evolved species may die out, but the process that evolved it was still successful.

This seems to imply a direction to evolution, an idea that evolution implies "more successful" or "more complex"... but what a lot of lay folks may refer to as "de-evolution" is a just evolution moving toward lower complexity.

 

[Bryan R. Tyler]

Sure it can, as long as those changes are passed through at least one generation. Unless you want to consider the mere fact that it is passed on as "successful".

There's nothing "mere" about it- if a population does not obtain these new characteristics, then evolution has not occurred. Either evolution occurs or it does not- if it does, then it is successful.

Evolution - any process of change over time.

Any mutation which is passed on - whether it be helpful, harmful, or indifferent (which is where most mutations fall) is evolution.

That would be a gross oversimplification that does not accurately define what it is- sounds like the Websters For Kids version It also does not acknowledge that the term applies to populations, not individuals or isolated incidents. If a man is born with a 6th finger and his son gets a 6th finger, but no one else in their population or gene line gets it, the human species in that area has not evolved- that is mutation/anomaly.

This seems to imply a direction to evolution, an idea that evolution implies "more successful" or "more complex"... but what a lot of lay folks may refer to as "de-evolution" is a just evolution moving toward lower complexity.

I'm certainly not implying it- while the evolution may be successful, the changes may not "superior" in any fashion.

 

[aborgman]

There's nothing "mere" about it- if a population does not obtain these new characteristics, then evolution has not occurred. Either evolution occurs or it does not- if it does, then it is successful.

This seems to be pinning the term "evolution" to the construct of biological evolution.

The term predates biological evolution by hundreds of years, and Darwin himself didn't use it (but once) preferring "descent with modification" due to the previous uses of the word carrying an implication of progress.

Evolution in the biological sense requires a lot of things that "evolution" in the non-biological sense does not... In fact one of the earliest (1660s) senses of the word was "growth to maturity and development of an individual living thing"

That would be a gross oversimplification that does not accurately define what it is- sounds like the Websters For Kids version It also does not acknowledge that the term applies to populations, not individuals or isolated incidents. If a man is born with a 6th finger and his son gets a 6th finger, but no one else in their population or gene line gets it, the human species in that area has not evolved- that is mutation/anomaly.

The human species in the area has not, the individual child has.

I'm certainly not implying it- while the evolution may be successful, the changes may not "superior" in any fashion.

It may even be the opposite of superior - it may reduce lifespans and breeding success.

 

[Bryan R. Tyler]

This seems to be pinning the term "evolution" to the construct of biological evolution.

The term predates biological evolution by hundreds of years, and Darwin himself didn't use it (but once) preferring "descent with modification" due to the previous uses of the word carrying an implication of progress.

Evolution in the biological sense requires a lot of things that "evolution" in the non-biological sense does not... In fact one of the earliest (1660s) senses of the word was "growth to maturity and development of an individual living thing"

The OP is using it the biological fashion if you look at how he's speaking of basses the way one speaks of a species.

The human species in the area has not, the individual child has.

No, he hasn't. Unless it becomes a trait of the population, then he simply has a genetic mutation. If one of the other adults in that region had birthed him, then he would not have had the extra digit. That's why saying evolution means any change that is passed on is an inaccurate way to define it. Genetic anomalies can be passes on but will likely never lead to evolution.

Similar to someone can build a couple sequential series of basses with unicorn carving on them. The idea may pass on to other basses by the same builder, but no evolution would occur in that species subset because no other builder would want to put something so stupid on their basses

 

[NecroticImbecil]

Evolution vs Creationism

Have basses gradually improved, leading to the current pinnacle which is Basslab, which will carry on to spawn the future generations of basses

Or

Did basses spring fully developed from the Mind and Word of Leo, no further alterations necessary?

Regardless of what Science tells us, there are many who believe the latter. Who is closer to the truth? Perhaps in a hundred years humanity will have an answer, if it remembers the question.

 

[Tmoney865]

Well,

Evolution requires an addition to the DNA Strand.

This is why only technology, thought, and understanding can evolve, for DNA comes from DNA that is finite and none can be added that was not there before in some way. DNA is closed source.

BG Tech evolves because Ideas driving Tech are added. It is an open source

So the idea here is to look for the Tech that will take the Bass into the Future, and as open source as the instrument is, the Tech that will exist in its most evolved and enduring forms, which might make it to mass production...but nevertheless endure.

 

[Tmoney865]

From what Fernando Villareal, former G&L Luthier told me about working with Leo....

it was always evolving

 

[plangentmusic]

Over the years, I've seen a lot of thisngs come -- and a lot of things go.

Each time, there are people who think: THIS will change everything. But very quickly the fad grows tiresome. Most people go back to what has worked in the past.

These days, I don't keep up on all the changes. Weird composites, wacky fret design, this and that and the other thing. I really do;t even want to know about it. I see it as all ways of reinventing the wheel. I like my wheels round. They work better that way.

Every great bass sound has already been created. It's not like anyone i sitting around saying "If only...." Well, some do. But I get the feeling they're the type that'll never be satisfied.