Why 70s Fenders Sucked

[Jim C]

The article was a great read and sheds a lot of light on how things were poorly handled at the time.
Whether or not you love your 70s/80s Fender, it's not the point. Read the article, it's very interesting.

This is what I had remembered; the early 80's to mid 80's basses were much worse than the 70's.
I don't remember Fender building consistently high quality until about the 90's

 

[Brad Johnson]

Oddly enough, I was at a shop in the city getting my sons horn fixed, it was one of those older places...been there for 100 years, small, cluttered and looks half pawn shop They had 3 70's fenders there on consignment, one hanging on the wall, two in bags buried in a corner. All had hugely bowed necks and didn't play or sound any better than a newer lower end model Fender. As much as I wanted that rare pawn shop find...I had to pass.

 

[TonyP-]

Thank You for sharing...
Great story...Its funny, that pierod might have been the worst yet it is still my favorite.

 

[Mister Boh]

Quality control is really important. The stuff Fender has been putting out for the last 2 (or more, I just haven't experienced) years is really excellent.

Not that 70s Fenders sucked necessarily, but maybe just that there were was a considerable number that shouldn't have left the factory.

 

[el_Bajo_Verde]

I'm guessing this thread will just turn into a "but my 70's Fender is the best bass ever made" thread.

 

[Brad Johnson]

One of my favorite recurring subjects is how bad seventies Fenders are/were. I started playing in the 70's when "common knowledge" was that anything past pre-CBS was crap. Except it wasn't in the experience of myself and a lot of other bassists, particularly those interested in Jazz basses.

Pre-CBS basses typically didn't sound like 70's Jazzes. At all.

QC players freaked out about neck pocket gap. oh the pain. The actual effect on the sound and playability was what?

Weight was an automatic demerit... except for people who weren't bothered by it.

I smiled at the bowed necks comment earlier in the thread because it highlighted a huge issue that may not be as prevalent now as it was in the seventies: setup, while clearly not permanent, was a huge issue for most bassists because we didn't know what the hell we were doing when it came to it. Trussrods were an absolute mystery... you turned them in one of three directions in small increments, put the bass in the living room near a mayonnaise jar and left it for a day (or two?) and checked it for some sort of movement. Lather, rinse, repeat . If you had the stones to actually try it you might break your bass.

I took my 68 Jazz to a tech in the 80's, the first and only time I did it. I wanted my action lower. A week later, the bass was done... and the action was higher. Because he said that was factory spec. I really started to dig into Guitar Player magazine, read Dan Erlewine columns and educated myself on how my instrument works and it really paid off. Suddenly basses that "sucked" didn't. And the basses didn't change.

It is the rare exception that I find an older Fender Jazz that has actual real issues that aren't easily addressed. I actually like doing a full setup and bringing one up to snuff. No, I couldn't care less about a neck gap, the necks I've dealt with don't move and I've yet to hear a gap. I had no problem with the finishes which were far more durable than earlier stuff. I can play heavier basses so that's another non-issue. One man's trash...

I agree on the 80's basses, when IIRC Fender was trying different stuff like putting the Kubicki package in Jazz basses. I don't really remember build quality issues, just didn't care for the straying from what killed in the 70's. A lot of people are extremely happy with 70's Jazzes including myself.

 

[jim nolte]

This is what I had remembered; the early 80's to mid 80's basses were much worse than the 70's.
I don't remember Fender building consistently high quality until about the 90's

Yeah, I bought a either '82 or '83 P bass sight unseen from Guitar Center that was on sale for $399.00, maybe even $299.00, US made. Total piece of crap, it was a maple board/natural finish. The neck was the thinnest , front to back, of any bass I've played with a sharp edge up and down on both sides, it didn't feel like any P bass that I had played. The bridge saddle screws were loose and all 4 strings would go flat within a hour of playing, had to wrap dental floss around them, the pick up was so wobbly I couldn't use it for a thumb rest, it felt like it could fall out of the body at any moment. I traded it for a Ibanez Blazer which just killed it, it felt more like a Fender than the Fender did.

 

[REV]

I've posted this here before but I'll post it again. I played with a guy a few years back who had a '57 Strat. He paid a lot of money for it. It was a dog. He also had a Strat made by Performance guitar that sounded great. He would always play the '57 and it was horrible. At one point he even admitted that the Performance was a better guitar than the '57 but it was hard for him because he had so much money in the '57. As someone here has already said, every era has good instruments and bad. The old Fenders aren't good just because they are old.

 

[Bottom 4]

I'm an original owner of a 76 P bass. It's always the one I go to and there are plenty of choices... I don't recall the last time she's needed a set up. I NEVER touch the neck... it's so sweet!

 

[MtManiac]

I'm guessing this thread will just turn into a "but my 70's Fender is the best bass ever made" thread.

So far it's been all "but 70s Fenders suck!" NB, I don't own a 70s Fender nor have I ever. Just not sure I understand this whole phenomena of hating an entire decade. Steely Dan's catalog, Iron Maiden's, and Pink FLoyd's were recorded using 70s Fenders.

 

[gln1955]

Good read. Makes me wonder what it would be like now if Fender had gone under.

My guess would be that Fujigen would have bought the Fender name and kept making them. Fender would be a Japanese company making consistently high quality traditional Fender designs with modern features as well as successful new models.

 

[baileyboy]

My '74 begs to differ.

 

[jamro217]

Isn't the title of this thread enough to get you a warning? Oh, yeah, it's not under "effects". I guess I'll just pick up my natural, maple B neck '76 P bass (that I wouldn't trade for anything) and be on my way.

 

[Mvilmany]

I disliked the heavy weight, thick & icky poly finishes that were done poorly,and the shoddy craftsmanship all around.

 

[Son of Wobble]

I disliked the heavy weight, thick & icky poly finishes that were done poorly,and the shoddy craftsmanship all around.

Other than that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln?

 

[SouthLatitude]

Interesting to read that Fender had to buy back vintage examples of its own product in order to regain the insights needed to craft the reissues. Further proof, I suppose, of how the company had really lost its way through the various ownership changes.

Once you lose an industry, you lose the craftsmanship, the cultural and institutional knowledge. Tough to start all over again.

 

[bassliner50]

I must weigh in. My experience with 70's Precisions is limited to the one '78 that you can see to the left in my avatar. Of my 7 P's, that is the only one whose pickup I did not have to replace in order to get a satisfying tone and response . Also its huge baseball bat like neck never needs a setup, season after season, decade after decade. I still play it to death. Bought it used in '90 for $450 with OHSC. I would never part with it. Believe what you want, but I can tell you, that '78 has been perfect for decades. Still all original, strung with Dean Markley Blue Steel Strings.

 

[dbsfgyd1]

70s Fender basses weren't all bad. New ones and ones from 1959 aren't all good.

I have played plenty of awful 70s Fender basses. But, I also habe a standing bid in om a 1978 Jazz black and maple. What I mean by that is I have told the guy if he ever sells I want first crsck at it. I don't really like jazz basses. I don't really play 4 strings all that much. But this one plays and sounds THAT good.

I did a lot of recording work on a borrowed '77 PB. It was awesome. The same bass 20 years later sounded like crap. Is it in a state of decomposition? I dunno.

I truly don't think age is better, or when something is built is a good basis for buying an instrument. You play it. Does it sound good? Does the voice fit what and who you are likely to play it with? Is it a good value? Three yesses, and you got yourself a winner. When it was made has no relevance IMO.

 

[GretschWretch]

I've posted this here before but I'll post it again. I played with a guy a few years back who had a '57 Strat. He paid a lot of money for it. It was a dog. He also had a Strat made by Performance guitar that sounded great. He would always play the '57 and it was horrible. At one point he even admitted that the Performance was a better guitar than the '57 but it was hard for him because he had so much money in the '57. As someone here has already said, every era has good instruments and bad. The old Fenders aren't good just because they are old.

And every price point also has good instruments and bad.

 

[Val Tremola]

Oh I had some good ones and some dogs. The dogs, usually '77-'79: Heavy, huge neck-pocket gaps, everything has been already said. The good ones, early '70s and showing tons of mojo- played a lot because they were good. Usually smelled like cigarettes. I love the reissues though, due to their consistency. Yes, there is also a range between good and great examples but NO dogs.