Who agrees?

[pickles]

Think about it- I compared Fender to Bud and McD's because their function and station in their respective fields in our culture is nearly identical. I've yet to hear anyone disprove that. But where did I ever say that McDonalds or Bud was bad?

I didn't bother trying to refute this because it is so far off the mark. Fender style basses have been and continue to be used on the vast majority of the very best and most cutting edge recordings made on the planet through the last 5 or 6 decades. They have absolutely nothing in common with McDonald's and Bud.

 

[SteveC]

If you are the first to do something, you set the standard. I think my Modulus sounded pretty damn good in the studio, and my producer didn't care that it wasn't a Fender product.

If Modulus (or any other bass) was the first one invented/used, I think we'd be having a different conversation.

Leo was first, so his are the best.

I don't totally agree.

 

[Bryan R. Tyler]

What albums Fenders are used on has little to do with it- I'm sure Bud get consumed by most of the same folks making those albums The point is their station in society. How their overall commonality and liking from the vast majority of the populus has no bearing on whether people should assume they are good. You're letting your appreciation of the brand get in the way of seeing how it works as a symbol in our society and its standing and visibility/commonality, which directly relates it to McDonalds, Nike, etc. That doesn't make it bad or any less valid a product, but people's emotions are getting in the way of seeing that. A Fender sounds good in the mix...if you like the sound of a Fender in that mix. If you don't, then it doesn't. Just because more people like it, it doesn't mean it will benefit making creative music. Just as I wouldn't want to use my Elrick in a tune that would benefit from a P with flats sound.

 

[Brad Johnson]

Most would disagree with your claims about the different in build quality between a $1000+ Fender and an SX. I wonder how much hands-on experience you actually have comparing the two.

As for Jimmy's audio shootout, it was fun, but it doesn't say much about Fender's value and quality (or even tone) to me--most voters undoubtedly listened to those clips through crappy computer speakers which likely favor a brighter sound. Such speakers don't remotely resemble the $5k+ audiophile towers you must use to suss out all that "articulate, extended, growly and organic" tone that Fenders supposedly lack.

+1

No offense but the only thing Jimmy's shootout proved was that people could vote in a poll. It was fun but that's about all.

You can't play a bass with an audio file.

 

[stingray56funk]

I agree completely with Paul Turner's quote. Just putting my vote in.

 

[spade2you]

What albums Fenders are used on has little to do with it- I'm sure Bud get consumed by most of the same folks making those albums The point is their station in society. How their overall commonality and liking from the vast majority of the populus has no bearing on whether people should assume they are good. You're letting your appreciation of the brand get in the way of seeing how it works as a symbol in our society and its standing and visibility/commonality, which directly relates it to McDonalds, Nike, etc. That doesn't make it bad or any less valid a product, but people's emotions are getting in the way of seeing that. A Fender sounds good in the mix...if you like the sound of a Fender in that mix. If you don't, then it doesn't. Just because more people like it, it doesn't mean it will benefit making creative music. Just as I wouldn't want to use my Elrick in a tune that would benefit from a P with flats sound.

Nike is another great example of the comercialism and popularity. Go to a gym and you won't find many who don't use Nike, especially the Nike shoes with the shocks in the heel. Now find a dedicated runner, especially a distance runner and you might not find anyone using them.

 

[Brad Johnson]

Perhaps comparing Fender and Wal-Mart might seem to cheapen Fender a little more than deserved, McDonald's and Bud Light are accurate comparisons since the general population thinks that Fender is the best (and McDonald's is a cheese burger) because that's what they've been told for years and have forgotten everything outside of modern media persuasions.

I could see the comparison if the general population of bass players played Fender like the general population eats McDonalds. And a large number of accomplished bass gourmets did too.

 

[Brad Johnson]

Leo's basses weren't the first (no real need to go into that history lesson, is there?) and I guess what some people don't want to acknowledge is that many people simply like the sounds they produce.

I went out of my way not to use Fenders for years. Even though as I went through many boutique and non-boutique basses, Fenders usually still sounded great to me. I get the feeling from this thread that some actually think that if you like something, it's because it's familiar. Not because it's simply good.


People also seem to spend a lot of time dwelling on what they don't like about Leo's instruments. Oh well.

 

[Krügmeister]

I also JUST purchased my FIRST fender after over 20+ years of bass playing and I couldn't be happier.. sounds great and is fun to play... since I'm not familiar with playing them I can be the first to assure you that I think they make an outstanding product.

 

[NickyBass]

A little friendly debate is cool and all, but sometimes, I think we take ourselves way too seriously. I'm all for finding the right gear and exploring new tonal territory--both sonically and theoretically--but this is such a trivial argument. The thread should really be titled 'Who cares?' I respect the $h!# out of Paul Turner, but I don't really care what he plays. I'm glad he's happy, and I'm glad he's making music for us all to enjoy.

At this point, I'm digging the tone of my 4 string P bass. In the past, and in the future I have enjoyed (will enjoy) other tones. Neither a person, nor a musician, is defined by their instrument choice--though some like to think so. They'd be wrong.

 

[spade2you]

People also seem to spend a lot of time dwelling on what they don't like about Leo's instruments.

And if these complaints lead to a decrease in sales to a significant market share, they might look at fixing 'em. Until then, other builders will continue to specialize in selling what other guys want/need.

 

[JimmyM]

+1

No offense but the only thing Jimmy's shootout proved was that people could vote in a poll. It was fun but that's about all.

You can't play a bass with an audio file.

I disagree completely...it proved that a $100 bass could absolutely sound as good, and sometimes better, than a way more expensive bass. However, you're right in some respects...it says nothing about build quality, other than the pickup. And I'll be the first to admit that there's no comparison in the build quality of an SX and an American Fender, even a CBS Fender. The Fender was much easier to play, had better fretwork, and I think it had more harmonic content as well. But somehow I think the SX sounded better.

Bottom line...who cares? Play what you want, like what you play, and everyone should quit busting balls over what someone else plays.

 

[elBandito]

I'm sorry, but it did not "PROVE" anything. It was an unscientific poll, which may reveal what people 'prefer', but does not prpvide any information on how one is better or why. People simply pointed out which they 'think' sounds better'. Nothing was really revealed. It did not show why people prefered the SX or by how much the SX was considered better than the fender. It's also pointless to compare opinions that of a newbie player whose only bass is an SX, with a veteran player, who is used to playing high end instruments. Everything is subjective and nothing is scientific about it.

I disagree completely...it proved that a $100 bass could absolutely sound as good, and sometimes better, than a way more expensive bass. However, you're right in some respects...it says nothing about build quality, other than the pickup. And I'll be the first to admit that there's no comparison in the build quality of an SX and an American Fender, even a CBS Fender. The Fender was much easier to play, had better fretwork, and I think it had more harmonic content as well. But somehow I think the SX sounded better.

Bottom line...who cares? Play what you want, like what you play, and everyone should quit busting balls over what someone else plays.

 

[spade2you]

I'm sorry, but it did not "PROVE" anything. It was an unscientific poll, which may reveal what people 'prefer', but does not prpvide any information on how one is better or why. People simply pointed out which they 'think' sounds better'. Nothing was really revealed. It did not show why people prefered the SX or by how much the SX was considered better than the fender. It's also pointless to compare opinions that of a newbie player whose only bass is an SX, with a veteran player, who is used to playing high end instruments. Everything is subjective and nothing is scientific about it.

Even if it were randomized and double blinded (and other bio stats buzz words), it's hard for a tone test to not be subjective.

 

[JimmyM]

I'm sorry, but it did not "PROVE" anything. It was an unscientific poll, which may reveal what people 'prefer', but does not prpvide any information on how one is better or why. People simply pointed out which they 'think' sounds better'. Nothing was really revealed. It did not show why people prefered the SX or by how much the SX was considered better than the fender. It's also pointless to compare opinions that of a newbie player whose only bass is an SX, with a veteran player, who is used to playing high end instruments. Everything is subjective and nothing is scientific about it.

Yeah? So what? All I set out to prove with it was that a $100 bass could compete tonally with any bass out there. And I did. Sorry I didn't make a bunch of meaningless pie charts and graphs to "prove" it.

 

[bobunit]

Yeah? So what? All I set out to prove with it was that a $100 bass could compete tonally with any bass out there. And I did. Sorry I didn't make a bunch of meaningless pie charts and graphs to "prove" it.

Mmm... pie.

 

[JimmyM]

(blinking) Was it all a dream?!?!?!

 

[Bass Viking]

Bottom line...who cares? Play what you want, like what you play, and everyone should quit busting balls over what someone else plays.

+1. That's why I bristle when I see "everyone needs a Fender" comments (like earlier in this thread). This applies to any brand, although I've only heard this blanket statement nonsense coming from Fender advocates. There are plenty of legit basses out there for differents needs and tastes.

 

[Coeball]

Also, what's this nonsense about innovation? I don't want innovation. I want to know I'm getting a piece of gear that does what I need it to do. I don't care if it was designed yesterday or 100 years ago. The upright bass was designed centuries ago and has changed little over time. You don't see people complaining that their 200 year old upright basses aren't innovative enough.

The upright has gone through subtle changes over the years to make it louder and generally better playing. To compare as well an established instrument as the upright to the relatively new eletric bass is unfair. Fender breeds a kind of complaceny that there is nothing more that needs to go into electric bass construction, that they have "cracked it".

 

[JimmyM]

+1. That's why I bristle when I see "everyone needs a Fender" comments (like earlier in this thread). This applies to any brand, although I've only heard this blanket statement nonsense coming from Fender advocates. There are plenty of legit basses out there for differents needs and tastes.

Agreed wholeheartedly...except for one little thing...

If you plan on being a bassist for hire, like if you're a studio musician or you do a lot of gigs for a lot of different bandleaders, I think you do need to have a Fender or two in your collection. Doesn't have to be a really expensive one, nor do you have to bring it wherever you play, nor does it mean you can't be a studio musician or a pickup musician for hire without one. But somewhere along the line, the vast majority of studio bassists/pickup musicians will be asked to play a Fender at some point. It's happened to me several times over the years. Now you can dig your feet in and refuse, but if you do, then you risk not getting called again unless you totally kick ass. Me, I don't need that kind of pressure

OTOH, I also think that people in the work-for-hire situation should also own a more modern style bass, a 5-string, and maybe even a fretless as well, so it's not like I'm playing favorites with Fender.