Brad Johnson:
Always glad to hear a contrary.
You haven't irritated me yet. The only thing you do is highlight what you believe.
Yes, of course. And as your tagline says, as always, I may be wrong.
I see gigantic gaping holes in your logic and that seems to irritate YOU.
An interesting statement, since you presume I will be irritated before you even attempt to find holes in the logic. But I'm certainly interested in your views.
I haven't talked to you in a while and for some reason you brought me up.
I brought you up because of several points you made on this thread already, which I thought were noteworthy...
So quartz is the most accurate way to build a watch?
IF accuracy is defined as number of seconds of error per year, yes. There are more accurate ways to do it, of course, but difficult to build into wristwatches with current technology. I confidently expect that within a few years, accuracy within a second per century will be cheaply available in Timex watches.
Define excellent construction, excellent woods, hardware, electronics? What does that have to do with building as good a bass as can be built?
OK, I'll make the claim that the best bass is a combination of the best skills using the best materials. I'll add that I respect the consensus of the best players, and I'll respect the consensus (among the buying public) of who ARE the best players. If you respect something different, let us know, OK?
Would you consider paint a visual thing?
Yes.
How would you do a blindfold test on sunbursts? Do esthetics have no value?
I think they have value, along with many other qualities. Are you in the business of selling the prettiest bases? My blindfold test was admittedly limited - in eliminating reputation and status value from the evaluation, it unfortunately eliminated beauty. Yet I agree that sheer physical beauty is important. Indeed, this entire site rests to an important degree on how envious we are of another's good fortune based on
looks alone. Nothing else is available to us.
Have you ever "felt" a difference in a bass while holding it? Do all necks feels the same.
This was an essential part of my blindfold test. I've played quite a few basses I thought felt great but the sound wasn't there (for example, Ibanez), or that the sound was great but the feel was awful (in my case, G&L).
This raises a point I'd hoped you, with all your experience, would have discussed. In
Bass Guitar for Dummies, Patrick Pfeiffer says that for $2500, you'd damn well better be playing a comfortable bass. Yes, I suppose if you chose it yourself, you'd find it comfortable. Yet I doubt there are many who would find a top-of-the-line Warwick and MTD BOTH comfortable. Or an Ibanez and a G&L.
And this illustrates the point I made - that above the price point where you're looking at both outstanding skills and outstanding materials, feel is a matter of preference. Regardless of asking price, you'll find a bass that feels wonderful to some and clumsy to others.
What you apparently will never understand is that no matter how much you want to make this about laundry lists, thinking that as long as you check off every box an excellent bass will pop out, it's just plain naive. Some luthiers "get it" better than others. Most builders know that there is no particular level that can reached that will make people at that level equals. Everybody's got their something, there are a ton of intangibles and you simply don't want to deal with that fact.
OK, so what you seem to be saying here is that there is an *absolute good* that basses can aspire to. If you are making this argument, then I reject it. There's no such thing.
If you are arguing that some really good luthiers are better than most at assessing what particular customers prefer and can build basses to match those preferences, then I agree. Some of them are that good.
And I'm still as far from irritated as you can imagine... in fact I'm LOL.
You may be LOL, but your reading comprehension may be lacking. Or alternatively, my explanations may be inadequate. Most basses, even at the high end, are not built to pander to the idiosyncratic preferences of any individual. I doubt any custom lutheirs are going to sell instruments they themselves consider poor (for reasons of sound, materials, craftsmanship, or pique).
Hey, I know you're convinced that regardless of the quality of ALL the materials, a great bass requires the hands-on blessing of a Master Builder, who injects soul and magic into the dumb materials. I think you're largely right about this. I think, out here in the mundane real world, there's a price point below which this doesn't happen. Above this price point, nearly (NOT always) every bass is superb. I may not really like it, YOU may not really like it, but someone whose taste is no less informed WILL like it.
But I think there's a lot of subjectivity involved, a lot of personal preference for sound and feel. My blindfold experiment is intended to illustrate exactly what you're saying - "there are a ton of intangibles". My point is that these intangibles are NOT a factor of the brand name or the price. They're a function of *personal preference* for actual sounds, looks and feels.
So I'll say it again: For any given musician, one top-quality bass is better than another. The customer's preference important than the luthier's.
Some luthiers "get it" better than others.
And if we take a vote, after a blindfold test, there will be very little agreement as to who these are. You, and the rest of the hopeless gear snobs here, can't distinguish reputation from physical instrument. No, there's no checklist that can possibly guarantee a world-class bass. Nor is there a panel of self-appointed conoisseurs who can *decree* a world-class bass. Intead, we all arm ourselves with our budgets, and we head out to maximize our utility. There is a hazy, rough-and-ready relationship between beween sound-and-playability and price, which fades out around (IMO) $2500. Above that, if you think Jens Ritter "gets it" and I think Brian Ristola "gets it", so what?
