Who agrees?

[AndyW83]

fenders just dont do it for me....dont get me wrong there are some extremely nice and extremely high qaulity fenders out there....but they just dont do it for me....never have ...never will

 

[jcburn]

I have to admit loving the sound of those three basses and they are fairly instantly recognisable. I think my favourite bass sound for music I listen to is Steve Harris' passive '72ish P Bass before he used to mod them with SD pickups. Big, bold, and nasty (Killers album is probably the best example of this tone).
Having said that my two current basses that supply me with the exact tones I have ever wanted are a US Fender Deluxe J 5 and a 1990 Warwick Streamer. Both you could argue dont quite fit in to the statement made in the opening thread but I always get comments from sound guys/bandmates that they both sound incredible and never have trouble dialling in the sound I want.

 

[Debased]

Lol, RondoTroll.

I can see where you're coming from, but I really don't think SX's are all that great.

"Rondo?"

I'm not "trolling." I'm offering an honest, on-topic answer to the OP's question. He didn't say "honk if you love Fender!" He asked for opinions.

I don't think Fenders have anything remotely resembling "beautiful depth," nor do I think that the "notes always shine through the mix." I find the typical Fender tone harmonically dead, dynamically choked-off and over-compressed, generic, muddy, and generally lackluster and uninteresting. It just sounds tired and dated to me.

I don't think SX basses are all that great either, but not only are they practically indistinguishable from Fender in tone and build quality, they actually sound better according to JimmyM's '79 Fender P vs '07 SX P [blind] audio shootout poll: TB'ers preferred the cheap import clone SX (239 votes) to the sacred cow Fender (108 votes), and that says a lot more about Fender's value, quality, and tone than I can.

I'm genuinely curious as to what your opinion of Sadowsky instruments is.

Sadowsky and the other cloners have done their best to turn a pig's ear into a silk purse, but IMO, refining a dated, optimized-for-the-assembly-line design will never be more than a superficial makeover.

Invalid Link Removed

You still have the same quick-and-dirty scooped headstock with its reliance on afterthought stringtrees; the same crude minimally-contoured slab body (usually topped with the same cheap plastic facade); and the same bulky neck heel and lousy upper-register access. All of these design compromises and shortcuts were there for one reason: quick, cheap mass production. Carrying them over into $3K+ boutique instruments makes no sense beyond pandering to iconic fashion.

but true. those are hard points to argue with objectively. Great post.
That being said, I prefer the sound of passive basses, active basses dont sound bad, just not as good as a good passive to my ears. So I guess some of the progress that has been made is lost on me, lol.

Thanks.

I like passive basses too, but passive isn't synonymous with Fender or "vintage." I have a passive neck-through fretless F-bass five-string with single-coils that sounds great. Unlike the Fenders I've played, it's ergonomic, lightweight, well-balanced, and has excellent range and upper register access, and the tone is articulate, extended, growly and organic, with none of the mud, noise, dead spots, or lack of sustain that plague Fenders.

Bah, there are enough Fender purists who routinely dismiss my gear and Debased's gear as crap. Still, very funny that people bash non-Fenders as gospel and a shot at Fender's flaws is somehow different than bashing boutique gear.

Thanks, Spade. That's not the first time you've watched my back.

 

[fullrangebass]

I have to agree with Debased over his comments, He is objective and spot on (just as spade 2you is)

I've played more than 100 Fender basses (for more than 2min, that is) and many more high-end/boutique ones. My taste goes for the high-end stuff

 

[rodl2005]

There HAS been PLENTY of bass sounds comin from a TOTALLY different direction - synth basses, keys bass, etc..etc.... So I tink there ARE plenty of diffeerent bass sounds out there, while I STILL agree we probly HAVE become 'used' to the 'Fender Bass sound' from the 60's etc.... but PLEBTY of bassists even then used lotsa other intruments...so

I'm gonna agree w/ the Mr Turner. Love 'em... but then there ARE SO MANY other makers out there...........................

 

[fullrangebass]

but true. those are hard points to argue with objectively. Great post.
That being said, I prefer the sound of passive basses, active basses dont sound bad, just not as good as a good passive to my ears. So I guess some of the progress that has been made is lost on me, lol.

I feel that Villex pickups (for example) are really by far different in design and in tone deliverance, compared with other Fender's pickups designs, so I feel that the statement is an omission of what passive designs have achieved over Leo's time. Passive still improves

No offense to you edubb, just stating something relatively forgotten or overlooked

 

[Ryan Mohr]

Interesting thoughts, some stuff that I hadn't considered.

Also, Fender Jazz and Precision Basses can be broadened to Jazz or Precision stylized basses from Sadowsky, Lakland, Lull, Alleva Coppolo, Celinder, and Valenti. However, Music Man is Music Man, there aren't hardly any copies.

 

[spade2you]

Hmmmm, I was off on my prediction of Debased's views on the Sadowsky and "jazz on steroids" basses. I know some bassists go for image only or are entirely against conventional/safe image, but I could care less whose name is on the headstock as long as my (outrageous) demands are satisfied.

Back when I was in a band (oy, I miss those days), playing for 3-4 hours at a time made ergonomics take much more priority than image. Good tone and ergonomics aren't mutually exclusive.

It is interesting how musicians resist change while they're willing to adapt to other new technologies. I mean, who is complaining that computers no longer come with a 3.5" floppy disc? Should the bassist serve the bass or should the bass serve the bassist?

 

[Famous Shamus]

with this statement. Its a matter of the industry being built around the fender sound when there were few if any options. Then engineers forcing people to show up with fenders because THEY were familiar with them. That doesnt mean it was the best, just the most familiar. That sound to many is like an old pair of shoes, comfortable as can be. The fact that people actually think they CHOOSE to prefer the fender sound is what amazes me. Its like payola when people payed to have their songs played heavily in the rotation. Why?, because eventually folks would say "you know what?, I like that song!". As if it was their idea alone to come to that conclusion.

To take the conversation even deeper, one has to wonder how much influence these instruments had on the actual songwriting process.

These three instruments have distinct sounds or "flavors" if you will. The particular sound or "flavor" can have a huge impact on what is created in the mind of the artist, because of what they hear in their head. Leo's creations may have had further reaching effects than what you may have imagined. Haven't you ever picked up a bass, started playing, and find yourself playing a certain song or style of music because of the instruments sound? It just seems "right" for that particular sound..now extrapolate that to the creative process where music is concerned

Music tends to build on what comes before it...hence the comfort thing.

Jeez its way to early in the morning to use my brain this way. There's a doctoral thesis in here somewhere

-John

 

[WoodyG3]

I don't think Fenders have anything remotely resembling "beautiful depth," nor do I think that the "notes always shine through the mix." I find the typical Fender tone harmonically dead, dynamically choked-off and over-compressed, generic, muddy, and generally lackluster and uninteresting. It just sounds tired and dated to me.

LOL. Dang, man, I wish you wouldn't hold back. Tell us what you think, man!

I guess the problem I have with the quote is that there are so many kinds of music, and while I love Fenders and the sound they make, I also like Stanley on his Alembic. I like Levin on the Stick. I like Willie Dixon on upright. This is from a guy who uses Jazz Basses almost exclusively. They fit the music I play, but there is a whole world of other music out there! And it sounds GOOD.

 

[spade2you]

LOL. Dang, man, I wish you wouldn't hold back. Tell us what you think, man!

I guess the problem I have with the quote is that there are so many kinds of music, and while I love Fenders and the sound they make, I also like Stanley on his Alembic. I like Levin on the Stick. I like Willie Dixon on upright. This is from a guy who uses Jazz Basses almost exclusively. They fit the music I play, but there is a whole world of other music out there! And it sounds GOOD.

Regardless of the brand and sound, I think it's important and downright cool when you match the right bass tone with the context of music. While pop music is looking to produce something quickly with minimal effort, it's easy to mix the bass into an oblivion that's about as flavorless as Bud Light. I know Bud Light sells, but that doesn't mean it's good.

Sometimes it's common sense to match the tone to a given song. The sonic characteristics of uprights, Rob Allen basses, and the fine sonic nuances of a fretless are often lost in something like death metal. Slapping on something with active soap bars probably isn't gonna be appropriate in an acoustic singer/songwriter tune. Recording with the "big 3" will generally be safe, but safe can be boring. I mean, I'll assume most of us no longer ride a bike with training wheels, right?

Kinda reminds me about something Zappa was talking about in regards to record execs back in the day. They took chances to see what would sell, now they only focus on what they're pretty sure will sell high volumes.

 

[Bass Viking]

Sadowsky and the other cloners have done their best to turn a pig's ear into a silk purse, but IMO, refining a dated, optimized-for-the-assembly-line design will never be more than a superficial makeover.

You still have the same quick-and-dirty scooped headstock with its reliance on afterthought stringtrees; the same crude minimally-contoured slab body (usually topped with the same cheap plastic facade); and the same bulky neck heel and lousy upper-register access. All of these design compromises and shortcuts were there for one reason: quick, cheap mass production. Carrying them over into $3K+ boutique instruments makes no sense beyond pandering to iconic fashion.

In fairness to Sadowsky, he has made improvements that are more than skin deep. Lighter instruments, superior fretwork, and he has also addressed the hump issue that occurs on the upper portion of the fingerboard on Fenders. You can get a Sad with a a beautiful top and no pickguard. I also like that the string tree on my 5 string M5-24 goes across all of the strings.

I've enjoyed looking at Sadowsky pics for a long time but I didn't buy one because I thought being a Fender fan was a prerequisite (Fender was never my first choice). Now I know differently.

 

[mongo2]

I don't think Fenders have anything remotely resembling "beautiful depth," nor do I think that the "notes always shine through the mix." I find the typical Fender tone harmonically dead, dynamically choked-off and over-compressed, generic, muddy, and generally lackluster and uninteresting. It just sounds tired and dated to me.

Nice rant.

 

[Bass Viking]

I find the typical Fender tone harmonically dead, dynamically choked-off and over-compressed, generic, muddy, and generally lackluster and uninteresting. It just sounds tired and dated to me.

If you're talking about that thumpy, muted, no-sustain P bass tone then I would have to agree.

 

[madmachinist]

"A recent example of this is Gibson bringing back the Grabber. I bought one new back in 75. I can't believe they ressurected what was never that great a bass. "


yikes! i worked in a music store from "80-'85 , and we had
a few Grabbers, Rippers , Grippers , and Marauders...even
a les paul "recording" bass w/ xlr's and low impedance pickups.

gibson was grasping w/ it's new "victory" bass ... NOBODY
wanted that stuff ! it didn't just sound bland , but it looked
too wacky . even the new-wavers/punkers i knew would
rather be caught dead w/ a peavey T-20 than the gibsons.

there's been a comeback of the gibson EB's , but if you can
remember back to the '70s , unless you had an SVT or
a custom power amp/ cabinet setup .... they sounded like
turds - dull toneless thudding through that peavey or fender
bassman or sunn .

jack bruce made it work....but...he could probably make any
bass sound great!

 

[Ryan Mohr]

So what about an Alleva Coppolo? Would he same faults of the Fender bass hold true for you guys?

 

[king_biscuit]

I agree 100%, and so do my 4 Jazzes, 2 Precisions, and 3 Stingrays!

 

[Honk'n_down-low]

I love my Fenders - they have a classic sound. Another Brush to paint the musical canvass with. My Spectors kill when it comes to a full, thick, present, - sitting fat in the Mix sound. They are just more Hifi and present - and sound great. Certain songs sound more authentic with a P or a J to some degree.

There are just so many good basses and other variables that effect the tone of any instrument - I can't say one is the be all end all.

I grew up on Fenders and love them - but I am totally open to more modern sounding instruments. I really want to try a Sadowsky or some of the other Fender Style high end Basses as I think they bring the best of both world to bear. Right now my Spector is making me smile - in a year it may be something else

 

[stuntbass77]

I think the push today is really hard for a modern hifi sound. I found myself caught up in the talk and purchased quite a few modern sounding basses. I have found one thing to be true for me and that is too hifi and your standing so far out of the mix its distracting. Some might find this good; but I feel that is not considering the over all sound of the music. I went back to fender after about 15 years away from anything like fender. I am most inspired by playing my jazz bass. It took 15 yrs. to finally just listen and decide what "I" liked and not what I was supposed to like. Hard to believe Leo nailed it right out the box; but he did. I didnt want to believe it but its true. I feel really bad for these young cat's still saving for these high priced custom fender copies when you can dig thought 10 fender's and find one thats nearly as good; I said nearly. What happens when someone steals that 5 thousand dollar bass that took you 3 years to buy. I hope you didnt build your tone around just that bass. Fender's are generic; I am not. I am my sound so bring on the crappy basses.

 

[GregC]

I don't think SX basses are all that great either, but not only are they practically indistinguishable from Fender in tone and build quality, they actually sound better according to JimmyM's '79 Fender P vs '07 SX P [blind] audio shootout poll: TB'ers preferred the cheap import clone SX (239 votes) to the sacred cow Fender (108 votes), and that says a lot more about Fender's value, quality, and tone than I can.

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.