What if Fender named the Precision differently back in 57?

[EmaTheMirror]

Yet another useless "what if" thread to waste some time and guess in hindsight

Besides the J/P iconic status as a duo, we can say that the P has a true "iconic" status-quo, and also comes up to most people's minds as "the bass that started it all".

Yet, when we picture said bass, we mostly refer to the 57 split-coil P version, which was quite objectively a fairly different instrument in its third iteration (with the 54 in between): besides ergonomics, the electronics were different and in a slightly different spot, the hardware was different (the 4-saddle bridge and stringing method was a major change for things to come too) and the visuals changed quite a bit too, with a tactile impact given by the different pickguard/control plate, rounder horn contour and a different headstock.

Probably not quite as different as a 57 P vs J, but some might even argue that.

So, my thoughts were: if Leo Fender decided to brand the new bass in 57 as a different model (say, the "Noiseless" bass ) just like he later did with the J, would we still perceive the split-coil as the iconic bass it is nowadays? Would it rather be the 51/54 version instead? Granted, the "new" P replaced the previous different design and didn't join it as a second option like the J did, I'm aware of that.

I know this thread is a time waster, but I am really wondering if marketing had a substantial role in writing the history of electric bass in its early days. What do you think?

 

[satjhmo]

I'd imagine that by 1957 the Precision was starting to gain traction (apparently it took a while to get going, being unique at launch) so it wouldn't have made sense to change the name. And since the steam bass was still popular at the time, the "Precision" element of it was still relevant.

If the name had changed, then I'm sure there's a debate to be had about value opportunity, asset retention and investments etc but that sure isn't for me .

 

[chris_b]

If Leo had named the first bass the QXP44, That's what we'd all be calling it. It was a game changer with any name on the headstock.

 

[Bassmike62]

If Leo had named the first bass the QXP44, That's what we'd all be calling it. It was a game changer with any name on the headstock.

This^^.
Names don't matter as much as innovative ideas. Leo got it right.

 

[Warpeg]

My understanding is that folks generally just referred to Precision Basses as "Fender Basses" back then. I'm not sure that any different name on the headstock would have mattered.

 

[Groove Doctor]

The Fender GameChanger Bass.

Or Fender ThirdTimeLucky Bass.

 

[EmaTheMirror]

Lol

I think my main useless question/doubt was quite different, by the way:

What would be the legacy and current perception of the single coil P and its popularity, had the split coil been an add-on marketed differently than a Precision?

 

[G On Bass]

Besides the J/P iconic status as a duo, we can say that the P has a true "iconic" status-quo, and also comes up to most people's minds as "the bass that started it all".

I would say it was the bass that changed it all, not necessarily started it all. It was the first successfully mass-produced bass, though not the first electric one.

 

[NigeJ]

The Fender Accurate......

 

[bassdude51]

Yeah, I kind of wondered about that also. When Fender went from the single coil to the split coil pickup, perhaps the name should have been changed too.

Very simply to Precision Bass II. (Roman numerals for number 2.)

 

[EmaTheMirror]

Yeah, I kind of wondered about that also. When Fender went from the single coil to the split coil pickup, perhaps the name should have been changed too.

Very simply to Precision Bass II. (Roman numerals for number 2.)

Well, yeah... Thinking of it, the Telecaster and Stratocaster were named differently and were both produced at the same time. I was wondering if the 51P and 57P would be regarded similarly nowadays, perhaps with a reverse popularity with the 51 more celebrated, had it happened for the bass guitar too.

The fact that it didn't actually has its points and makes sense, if you consider the novelty, the fact that Leo thought of it as an upgrade rather than a "deluxe" version and the bass was a good decade behind the 6 string counterpart and basically referred to as The Fender Bass. So, yes, not quite there for diversification.

And thinking of it, Leo's spirit was rather innovative and forward thinking, paradoxically speaking - at least compared to the actual status of Fender as a company.

 

[SurferJoe46]

Yet another useless "what if" thread to waste some time and guess in hindsight

Besides the J/P iconic status as a duo, we can say that the P has a true "iconic" status-quo, and also comes up to most people's minds as "the bass that started it all".

Yet, when we picture said bass, we mostly refer to the 57 split-coil P version, which was quite objectively a fairly different instrument in its third iteration (with the 54 in between): besides ergonomics, the electronics were different and in a slightly different spot, the hardware was different (the 4-saddle bridge and stringing method was a major change for things to come too) and the visuals changed quite a bit too, with a tactile impact given by the different pickguard/control plate, rounder horn contour and a different headstock.

Probably not quite as different as a 57 P vs J, but some might even argue that.

So, my thoughts were: if Leo Fender decided to brand the new bass in 57 as a different model (say, the "Noiseless" bass ) just like he later did with the J, would we still perceive the split-coil as the iconic bass it is nowadays? Would it rather be the 51/54 version instead? Granted, the "new" P replaced the previous different design and didn't join it as a second option like the J did, I'm aware of that.

I know this thread is a time waster, but I am really wondering if marketing had a substantial role in writing the history of electric bass in its early days. What do you think?

"Accu Sonic" had been tossed around because of the frets taking the guesswork out of fretless uprights I guess.

Leo was concerned about marketing, but less so of his passion for engineering and practicality.

 

[gln1955]

The Bassocaster

 

[satjhmo]

I would say it was the bass that changed it all, not necessarily started it all. It was the first successfully mass-produced bass, though not the first electric one.

Interesting, which was the first electric solid-body bass? I assume something from Dobro or Hofner.

 

[chadds]

The “Before G&L Musicman”.

The “Tort.”

 

[brianrost]

 

[G On Bass]

Interesting, which was the first electric solid-body bass? I assume something from Dobro or Hofner.

Apparently Audiovox in the 1930s.

 

[Pilgrim]

When Leo invented the P-bass, there was no commercial precedent. Therefore, there was no competitive name or naming practice.

He could have called it Bob, and today's we'd call it the B-bass.

 

[lowendrv]

If Leo had named the first bass the QXP44, That's what we'd all be calling it. It was a game changer with any name on the headstock.

Yeah , remember there was a time any electric bass was called a Fender Bass . Fender or not . Leo changed things .

 

[Juststanley]

What IF a frog had wings?

 

[iiipopes]

My understanding is that folks generally just referred to Precision Basses as "Fender Basses" back then. I'm not sure that any different name on the headstock would have mattered.

Yes. In high school jazz band in the late 70's, several of the older charts in our library were labeled for "Fender Bass," instead of just "Bass," indicating the composer wanted the electric instrument, not a double bass.