• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Why are people obsessed with weight??

#581
GregDunn said:
What I love about this forum is the surprising number of people who seem to think "hey, this doesn't matter to me so by extension it shouldn't matter to anyone; and if it does, they're somehow deficient." :D

I just discussed this with a group of musicians at my show yesterday; we all play different basses because of our individual preferences and physical limitations. I don't make the mistake of assuming that any one of them is a less capable player than I am just because we aren't identical cookie-cutter personalities. ;) Rock what you like and be happy that you have the choice!
Click to expand...

It's not really surprising to me... it just shows a lack of thought outside your own bubble. Sadly it's pretty common even in real life.

One of my favorites is when I get asked what I think about a particular bass (ofttimes someone's dream bass). I usually find something nice to say about it even if I don't care for it and then I'll give an honest assessment based on my experience with the bass followed by saying it doesn't make it a bad bass, just one I personally don't care for.. Quite often I'll get asked why I don't like the bass(es) in question and sometimes I'll ask what I consider the obvious...

"Why should I?"
:bassist:
 
#582
Dark Horse said:
That's a ridiculous assertion. Weight concerns CAN be related to a physical condition...they also CAN be related to a preference in tone, wood choice, etc.. Someone who prefers the sound of Paulownia bodied basses is very likely to have extremely light basses. Pine is often light, swamp ash as well. Those who prefer the sound of chambered basses will likely also have/prefer light weight basses.

It's amazing how many people on here assume that "their way" is the only "correct way".

I like light basses. I'm also 6'3" and 235#. That's pretty damn far from a "girly man".
Click to expand...

I believe the OP was asking why people are sometimes obsessed over weight before tone or sound, meaning people don't take sound into account when looking at the weight sometimes (sorry, having a hard time explaining over the internet)


bassybill said:
Pfffft. Flatwounds are for sissies. Get some calluses on those fingers, ya big girl.
Click to expand...

Obviously never played with FWs. My index and middle are killing me from flats.
 
#584
spade2you said:
Perhaps focused low end as opposed to pure low end is more of what you look for.

I know you like your hardwoods, but have you ever tried a Brubaker with a tone block vs. entire body?
Click to expand...

I prefer pure low end and I get to focus it when I play. I regularly get a very focused sound by controlling the strings, other times I just cut them loose. Can't do that to the same extent with tapewounds:D

Yes, I've played several Brubakers with tone blocks. It may be coincidental but as long as I didn't directly compare them to my basses they were great. The same is true of several other brands of basses. Get them both in the same setting and go head to head and that's where the fun starts. It's a friendly competition kind of thing and so far...
:bassist:

If I found basses I liked more that's what I'd play. It's really as simple as that. I'd love to find something that exceeded my main basses.
 
#585
One thing I haven't really seen mentioned is the effect of how you play on the sound you end up with. Lots of basses can sound fine played fingerstyle but then exhibit tonal qualities that you either dig or don't when played with a pick or for me, slapped. Many basses, even Swamp Ash which I mentioned, can sound fine fingerstyle but when I play a percussive style the sound is just not where I want it to be. Strangely enough, I've found that to be a good test for amplification too.
 
#587
Someone mentioned that it must be a shame to be limited (by weight) in terms of choice of basses. I agree! My brother has a 72 Jazz that he offered me since he has quit playing and it is killing me, but I can't accept it. It's just too damned heavy. Even playing sitting, that thing'll bore into your thighs.

Yes, is it a shame to have limitations. I envy you young and/or healthy bass players out there, but - hey, no need to call the rest of us sissies 'cause we got old or hurt (or both). Just play, brother. That's why we're all signed up to TB, right? Cause we all like bass-ically the same thing. The wimps are the guys that quit playing, not us.

Remember that, younguns, tough isn't hefting a man-sized bass around your neck when you're 20. Tough is draggin' your ass off the sofa when you're 50, loading up your gear and heading out to a gig when it'd be SO much easier to just sit and watch Idol with a tub of ice cream and a spoon. Give us some credit here!
 
#590
OOZMAN said:
I believe the OP was asking why people are sometimes obsessed over weight before tone or sound, meaning people don't take sound into account when looking at the weight sometimes (sorry, having a hard time explaining over the internet)
Click to expand...

I wasn't responding to the OP...I was responding to the poster that I quoted (that's why I quoted him !). He stated that the reason that people liked lightweight basses was because of their "physical condition"... to which I replied that "that CAN be a reason, but also might not be".
 
#591
Brad Johnson said:
One thing I haven't really seen mentioned is the effect of how you play on the sound you end up with. Lots of basses can sound fine played fingerstyle but then exhibit tonal qualities that you either dig or don't when played with a pick or for me, slapped. Many basses, even Swamp Ash which I mentioned, can sound fine fingerstyle but when I play a percussive style the sound is just not where I want it to be. Strangely enough, I've found that to be a good test for amplification too.
Click to expand...

+1
My bass is fantastic when picked, but my anus can make better slapping sounds.
 
#593
Remguy said:
Someone mentioned that it must be a shame to be limited (by weight) in terms of choice of basses. I agree! My brother has a 72 Jazz that he offered me since he has quit playing and it is killing me, but I can't accept it. It's just too damned heavy. Even playing sitting, that thing'll bore into your thighs.

Yes, is it a shame to have limitations. I envy you young and/or healthy bass players out there, but - hey, no need to call the rest of us sissies 'cause we got old or hurt (or both). Just play, brother. That's why we're all signed up to TB, right? Cause we all like bass-ically the same thing. The wimps are the guys that quit playing, not us.

Remember that, younguns, tough isn't hefting a man-sized bass around your neck when you're 20. Tough is draggin' your ass off the sofa when you're 50, loading up your gear and heading out to a gig when it'd be SO much easier to just sit and watch Idol with a tub of ice cream and a spoon. Give us some credit here!
Click to expand...

You might notice many of us aren't calling anyone sissies.:D

Besides, it usually a introspective comment outwardly manifesting itself.
;)
 
#595
Brad, clearly this thread started off with the assertion that people who liked or needed lightweight basses were wusses. I'm firing back, so when they're all 50 they can come and tell me if I was right or wrong. Of course I'll be roughly one hundred, so they'll have to say it pretty damn loud. And probably over and over again. But I think we're all smiles on this one, eh?
 
#599
Brad Johnson said:
Yes, I've played several Brubakers with tone blocks. It may be coincidental but as long as I didn't directly compare them to my basses they were great. The same is true of several other brands of basses. Get them both in the same setting and go head to head and that's where the fun starts. It's a friendly competition kind of thing and so far...
:bassist:
Click to expand...

Interesting. Oddly enough, I recently got a bass with a lighter center block than the body wings. I went with a butternut core, but heard a few gripes about less durability, so I went with conventional swamp ash for the wings, which is light enough anyway. With the fingerboard being acrylized maple, I thought the butternut core would take a little edge off the big picture.
 
#600
spade2you said:
Interesting. Oddly enough, I recently got a bass with a lighter center block than the body wings. I went with a butternut core, but heard a few gripes about less durability, so I went with conventional swamp ash for the wings, which is light enough anyway. With the fingerboard being acrylized maple, I thought the butternut core would take a little edge off the big picture.
Click to expand...

How did it work out? Are you talking about durability with a non-protective finish?

I stay away from that (multiple wood core bodies) because it throws an even bigger element of unknowedness(;)) into the equation. I know people who'll say go for a tone block for the general sound, get different wings to alter "that" sound to whatever degree, get a top wood to alter "that" sound again to an unknown degree... and hope for the best. It's extremely rare (if ever) I grab a Swamp Ash bass and it makes me hear Northern Ash. But go with multiple woods and I really have no idea what to expect. If weight is the reason I'd go for chambering first. As a line item in a tone recipe, multi wood bodies aren't on my radar.
:cool:
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back