• 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 freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

THIS IS WHY FENDER IS HERE TO STAY

No, all it says is they were first to market with a newish type of product and to gain acceptance, and they became the generic name of that product type. It's no different to tissues being commonly called a Kleenex, or a vacuum cleaner being called a Hoover, or...

If Gibson had gotten there a few years before Leo did, then the generic term would likely be Gibson bass today.
If the history was primarily a matter of brand recognition, as you have suggested, then a much higher fraction of the studio players would have used alternate brands. The studio players are ruthless about choosing tone first, brand second. The fact is that there simply isn't a presence of Gibson basses in mainstream recorded product for literally decades after Gibson and others had introduced their basses. Brand recognition simply does not explain the historical record.

Another way to put it is: watch Woodstock and do the math. And Woodstock doesn't even include the handful of studio players who created the vast majority of the recorded literature.

Aside from all of that, it is perfectly ok and appropriate for a player to choose otherwise. Most of my handful of instruments are non-Fender. And, there is an undeniable brand recognition thing with Fender; which is why I choose to take Fender on the headstock (usually a parts bass I constructed) to auditions. But, that brand recognition is grounded in performance characteristics, not just name recognition. There is a difference.

TL;DR, carry on.
 
The trope about how they appeared on so many recordings is kind of silly, people played what they had, or what they could afford, and Fenders were decently playable and affordable.
If the history was primarily a matter of brand recognition, as you have suggested, then a much higher fraction of the studio players would have used alternate brands.
That choice was often dictated by studio producers. I chalk it up to laziness. It was just easier to tell a bass player to bring a Fender Precision that it was to actually learn how to mix a bass the player might have preferred.
 
Studio engineers are supposed to be... "sound people", right? I mean, if you went in with a warlock with a P pickup that sounded as sweet as a fresh 60's P, would they tell you to go away and come back with a "real" precision?
Same thing with auditions, as well. If you SOUND right, what's the problem?

Answer would be, some people still hear with their eyes, it seems, and their eyes are apparently accustomed to the classic P. Anything other than that is sacrilegious and shall be burnt to the stake.
 
Polka, dixieland, roots blues, bebop, Dylan-ish singer songwriter, surf pop etc etc are nowadays very or fairly niche genres, from a general awareness as well as economical perspective. They were once huge, but have faded, not to really pick up again.

Even the biggest musical geniouses from the past, Mozart, Beethoven, Händel and so on are niche music today.
Likely true from a record sales perspective.

But, record sales do not reflect the performance environment within which most of us are active. I think that is where the art form is somewhat disconnecting. Mozart and Beethoven may generate niche sales; but the performance of their works is hardly a niche activity; a rather glaring dichotomy.

And I can guarantee that if you form a cover band over here in the US playing strictly current top record sales material, you won't be getting many gigs in any local scene I've ever played in.

Things do change. But, Mozart and Beethoven aren't going away any time soon, even if you want it so.

Also, it is important to recognize that much of the current pop record market share is controlled by business interests, who actually avoid musicians, because you have to pay them. The music business has always viewed musicians as cost liabilities and has long sought to disconnect from reliance on them. Sadly, current tech and marketplace stupidity have combined to enable such business practices.
 
Last edited:
When I turn on the radio to « current » music, I hear very little bass guitar. It's all synths now, that produce the low end.

It seems pretty clear to me that the electric bass guitar did not survive.

I love playing it. And others of my generation too. But I doubt that it will survive many other generations. It will become a quaint curiosity to most people, like the upright bass.

And what will be Fender's role a few generations from now? Probably not much.

And you know what, it's ok. I enjoy this instrument now. Others will enjoy other instruments later. Things don't last forever. And it's probably better that way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AlexanderB
It is what it is; and I can understand why many bass players look elsewhere. But, I will tell you this: when I go to auditions, I have Fender on the headstock.

3b4e55ae-cfd3-47d6-8095-5358d592bb07-jpeg.jpg


Hmm. When I see Hipshot, Delano's, multiple string trees, 5 strings and 4 knobs, I definitely don't think Fender.
 
Of course Fender is here to stay. Over the last 60 years they've done everything they could think of to alienate their customer base, and everyone's still beating a path to their door. They have remained the standard for most bass players (TB is a drop in the bass playing ocean). I have owned a Precision since 1969, but haven't gigged one for over 25 years (they lost me in the 90's when I wanted a 5 string bass and had to look elsewhere), but I have always been a Fender fan.

Fender's brand recognition and user loyalty is so strong they could probably announce that Covid19 was engineered and accidentally escaped from their laboratory in Fullerton, and they'd be forgiven!!
 
To each their own...I'm not a Fender "Fan boy" but don't disparage those who are. As a matter of fact, when I was younger, I went out of my way to not play what "everyone else" did. Later in life I owned a few Fenders and they were fine basses. I now own an Alembic Persuader and a Dave Pushic Custom...they simply suit my needs better. Once again...to each their own.
 
  • Like
Reactions: El_Charro
If the history was primarily a matter of brand recognition, as you have suggested, then a much higher fraction of the studio players would have used alternate brands.
Bollocks. Unless you're a marketable name with a signature style/tone you're being employed you play what they want you to. Do you really think if Larry Carlton had come up with a sweet line in a SD session, but Becker and Fagen hated the tone on a Strat, that he wouldn't have repeated it on a LP if that's what his employers wanted?

The studio players are ruthless about choosing tone first, brand second.
See above. Musicians want to eat and based on long experience, most people hear with their eyes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: El_Charro
If you took away the the Strat, Tele, P and J, Fender wouldn't even be a pimple on the music scene. THAT'S why they are the leaders.

My theory is that the Strat, Tele, P and J, create unique sonic signatures that are subliminally ingrained in listeners' subconscious and is associated with the music they love ...so there's that weighting on peoples' preferences, IMO.

I was a P person for a long time, I've owned 14 of them (I think) in my life, still have four, almost never play them. When I DO play a four these days, (here's my other theory): Ps produce a curve on the low frequencies that's not needed (maybe not as pleasant) with modern amps and speakers as it was with older gear.

I mostly play G&L 5s now and any Fender 5 I've picked up (and I owned an Am Deluxe J for a while) did not have a feel or sound that I really liked.
 
  • Like
Reactions: El_Charro and 31HZ
Fender seriously needs to work on the 5 string offerings.
Agreed. Some flexibility in neck width and string spacing would be good. The neck on my 5 string American Deluxe Precision was way too wide.
But to stay on topic, I see lots of young players still playing Fenders these days. Whatever people here may think, they're still being bought by people who weren't alive when Fender first made their name.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: yakmastermax
Likely true from a record sales perspective.

But, record sales do not reflect the performance environment within which most of us are active. I think that is where the art form is somewhat disconnecting. Mozart and Beethoven may generate niche sales; but the performance of their works is hardly a niche activity; a rather glaring dichotomy.

And I can guarantee that if you form a cover band over here in the US playing strictly current top record sales material, you won't be getting many gigs in any local scene I've ever played in.

Things do change. But, Mozart and Beethoven aren't going away any time soon, even if you want it so.

Also, it is important to recognize that much of the current pop record market share is controlled by business interests, who actually avoid musicians, because you have to pay them. The music business has always viewed musicians as cost liabilities and has long sought to disconnect from reliance on them. Sadly, current tech and marketplace stupidity have combined to enable such business practices.

You did not go all the way in the comparison! While classical music offers seats for 10 or more violinists and handfuls of violas and cellos, it is hardly so that violins are sold in huge amounts. In fact, I have ser that there are problemd to find skilled musicians on national level, for the top orchestras.
How many accordions, upright basses, banjos, quality harmonicas, bassoons etc are sold? Still, they have been key instruments in the MAJOR genres for decades or centuries. Today, the volumes are very low. I predict the guitars and basses will see a similar decline.
 
  • Like
Reactions: El_Charro