Why do people not like Ken Smith basses.

[Webtroll]

I had a Burner 5 string (J pickups) for a while and it played and sounded great, but it wasn't very good for rock & roll and metal, not like my Precision with EMGs was. Good bass but I do not regret selling it, would not be adverse to trying another but I would not buy another Burner unless it had a significantly different character than the one I played. No hate, much respect, they're just not for me.

 

[zortation]

I believe you across the board. But I'm not finished building my toolbox, even though I've slowly been working on it for 25 years now; So I'm still actively looking up potential purchases, and I don't want to have three basses from the same builder sitting in my music room. I don't get to go to NAMM, I don't know a bunch of luthiers personally, and I'm not willing to make a purchasing decision based solely on TB opinions. I also find that too many magazines are too busy trying to keep advertisers happy to give a real, hard-hitting review of anything, and most importantly, I don't live in a city with an exquisite selection of high-end basses. So a manufacturer's website is usually my first stop, post-TB.

We no longer live in a world where a website doesn't matter. A *lot* of people use bass makers' websites to get info. Look, if there was only one Ken Smith or Mike Tobias-level maker, things would be different. Today, we have so many totally top-notch basses to choose from that if I don't like the pointy butt of a Smith or an Alembic's body, I'm not taking a dive by opting for another über bass.

I don't see a good (not necessarily flashy or overly slick) site as a flourish on top of a great product; I see it as my first serious interface with that product's maker when I'm exploring a possible new bass.

Then you think about how many people bought a bass solely from looking at a website and you can see the results on the "for sale: bass guitars" forum...

 

[roadkill2309]

Then you think about how many people bought a bass solely from looking at a website and you can see the results on the "for sale: bass guitars" forum...

Also very true.

 

[David A. Egeler]

Maybe I just have brain damage but my Ken Smith " Black Tiger Elite 5 "really plays itself by tapping the fingers on my left hand, and the BRS-J is actually a very nice jazz bass. As far as ugly, well I'm not the best looking guy around so I dress well !

 

[afzoomie67]

I know it's not a straight up Ken Smith bass, but don't the KSD basses have some QC issues? And by some, I mean a lot?

 

[Mulebagger]

I had the chance to play a friend's 6 string I believe it was a Chuck Rainey model. The sound was that classic Smith sound that I hear in my head when I think of his basses. I didn't like the ergonomics of the bass. I like the feel of a Jbass and this was the opposite of what I was used to. I took it on a couple gigs and my left hand tired quickly near the first position. Because of the upper horn length first position also felt rather far away. It was a very nice bass, just not for me.

 

[Dan B]

Like I said, I don't play websites so I honestly couldn't care less. If the builder is making a great product a sweet website won't change that. It won't help if I don't like the product either.

Just different priorities. Then again I've never been the usual TB consumerist... never really saw the point. People here get attached to lots of things that in the long run don't really matter. A website is a complete non-factor as to whether or not I'm not going to "reward anyone with my money". That'll be up to the instrument and the builder's rep if there is one. I guess that's because I'm used to dealing with people and products from before websites existed.

First off, my post is written in the lens of someone who works with graphic design, and one of those things I do work with is web design. Albeit I didn't do much, I learned quite about it, so please, bear with me.

I don't know about you, but a website does for me matter if:
A: The manufacturer/luthier is still in business. Chances are, a website that looks like it was designed in 1995 probably WAS designed in 1995 and wasn't updated since then.

B: The manufacturer/luthier wants to make a good first impression.

Yes, I know Ken Smith makes a good bass (I have yet to try one myself; I have my thoughts of the man behind the bass but that's for another thread), but his website honestly looks poorly done. Let's dissect it:

First thing when I look at the website is the JPEG artifact laden picture of quilted maple, tiled to make it look like a drug induced nightmare from 1972. It's nauseating, and honestly if I keep staring at it longer my eyes hurt.

Second is the scrolling marquee of Ken Smith's strings. It's annoying and distracting; plus, if I want to click on the red hyperlink I have to go quickly because it's a pretty quick marquee. Also, shouldn't that message be under the "STRINGS" page, rather than the front of the website?

Third is the giant picture of two basses superimposed on an American flag. Now, I don't have a problem with the subject matter, but the way it was done leaves a lot to be desired. Again, I see JPEG artifacts in the stripes, and the red, white and blue text is a bit trite. And don't get me started on the headstock logo. I know these are Ken Smith basses; I don't need the logo to tell me that.

Scrolling down, I go to the Quick Jump menu. Now first off, this isn't necessary if all of these are within their respective menus under the Basses page, but I digress on that. What bothers me is the clashing background clipart of what looks like to be "outer space" and the red lettering. "Outer space" meaning, something similar to children's bedsheets of planets and UFOs. Again, it looks trite and out of date.

I could go on and on about the website, but point is, websites do make an impression. It gives me an idea on how the builder presents himself, and how organized his operations are. If the website I see is cluttered and out of date, I get worried. First, if he is out of business, and second, if he is disorganized. Not saying this is the case with Smith, but websites are important.

 

[AMJBASS]

Ken has strong opinions but I have always found him quick to respond, and incredibly helpful. I think he makes a great product, but of course they arent for everyone. I'd love another Smith. The 6 I had was one of the best basses Ive ever owned.

 

[Modulus1906]

First off, my post is written in the lens of someone who works with graphic design, and one of those things I do work with is web design. Albeit I didn't do much, I learned quite about it, so please, bear with me.

I don't know about you, but a website does for me matter if:
A: The manufacturer/luthier is still in business. Chances are, a website that looks like it was designed in 1995 probably WAS designed in 1995 and wasn't updated since then.

B: The manufacturer/luthier wants to make a good first impression.

Yes, I know Ken Smith makes a good bass (I have yet to try one myself; I have my thoughts of the man behind the bass but that's for another thread), but his website honestly looks poorly done. Let's dissect it:

First thing when I look at the website is the JPEG artifact laden picture of quilted maple, tiled to make it look like a drug induced nightmare from 1972. It's nauseating, and honestly if I keep staring at it longer my eyes hurt.

Second is the scrolling marquee of Ken Smith's strings. It's annoying and distracting; plus, if I want to click on the red hyperlink I have to go quickly because it's a pretty quick marquee. Also, shouldn't that message be under the "STRINGS" page, rather than the front of the website?

Third is the giant picture of two basses superimposed on an American flag. Now, I don't have a problem with the subject matter, but the way it was done leaves a lot to be desired. Again, I see JPEG artifacts in the stripes, and the red, white and blue text is a bit trite. And don't get me started on the headstock logo. I know these are Ken Smith basses; I don't need the logo to tell me that.

Scrolling down, I go to the Quick Jump menu. Now first off, this isn't necessary if all of these are within their respective menus under the Basses page, but I digress on that. What bothers me is the clashing background clipart of what looks like to be "outer space" and the red lettering. "Outer space" meaning, something similar to children's bedsheets of planets and UFOs. Again, it looks trite and out of date.

I could go on and on about the website, but point is, websites do make an impression. It gives me an idea on how the builder presents himself, and how organized his operations are. If the website I see is cluttered and out of date, I get worried. First, if he is out of business, and second, if he is disorganized. Not saying this is the case with Smith, but websites are important.

This whole post is foolish. His website may make an impression on you, but the quality of his basses, whether people like them or not, overrides any of that. You don't have to be abstract about whether his "website design skills" affect his bass-building. You have years worth of live examples of his real work which is what he gets paid to do. Have you been to the Bartolini website? Any questions about the quality of their products? Not from me. If you've ever talked to Ken, you'd realize that his website sorta resembles his "no frills" personality, so he gets an exemption from the "presentation" thing. His site is just quirky and not a big deal. If he tells you a bass will be ready in 4 months, it will be ready in 4 months, and I'll take that B4 a nice website.

 

[Hotblack]

Back in the mid '80's Summer NAMM was held in Chicago.
I was in my early 30"s . I wanted to play one of his basses.
This day he was prickly - he said " No, just buy one, you will love it " - he was concerned I might scratch the bass. I was put off by this, and for years I wanted nothing to do with Smith basses. My mistake..

You are very kind to use "prickly" as the adjective.

 

[Dan B]

This whole post is foolish. His website may make an impression on you, but the quality of his basses, whether people like them or not, overrides any of that. You don't have to be abstract about whether his "website design skills" affect his bass-building. You have years worth of live examples of his real work which is what he gets paid to do. Have you been to the Bartolini website? Any questions about the quality of their products? Not from me. If you've ever talked to Ken, you'd realize that his website sorta resembles his "no frills" personality, so he gets an exemption from the "presentation" thing. His site is just quirky and not a big deal. If he tells you a bass will be ready in 4 months, it will be ready in 4 months, and I'll take that B4 a nice website.

I guess we'll agree to disagree. As I said, he might make a great bass. The website is a complete mess and does not do any justice to his part. If he wants a no-frills website, he should have it done right. And no, the quality of the website DOES matter. The bass is one thing, but the presentation is another, and a poor presentation might make a great product look bad, and that is what I see with Smith's website.

 

[Kwesi]

His website is hilaribad but I personally wouldn't hold it against him. I mean, I've order basses from folks who don't even have websites so its not the worst thing in the world. It's actually pretty funny to look at every now and then. But, besides the fact that I'm not a fan of the Smith tone minus the 3 people I mentioned earlier, I wouldn't order a bass from Ken because he seems like a grade-A uncool dude. Like, spectacularly uncool. So uncool he's hot. Wait... No. Warm. That's better.

 

[Modulus1906]

I guess we'll agree to disagree. As I said, he might make a great bass. The website is a complete mess and does not do any justice to his part. If he wants a no-frills website, he should have it done right. And no, the quality of the website DOES matter. The bass is one thing, but the presentation is another, and a poor presentation might make a great product look bad, and that is what I see with Smith's website.

I might agree if we were talking about a startup builder. However, I just think he has built up enough goodwill so as to negate any concerns for his site. That's all I'm trying to say...

 

[Modulus1906]

His website is hilaribad but I personally wouldn't hold it against him. I mean, I've order basses from folks who don't even have websites so its not the worst thing in the world. It's actually pretty funny to look at every now and then. But, besides the fact that I'm not a fan of the Smith tone minus the 3 people I mentioned earlier, I wouldn't order a bass from Ken because he seems like a grade-A uncool dude. Like, spectacularly uncool. So uncool he's hot. Wait... No. Warm. That's better.

Like others here, I've talked to him numerous times and have never had a bad experience.

 

[Phil Smith]

I guess we'll agree to disagree. As I said, he might make a great bass. The website is a complete mess and does not do any justice to his part. If he wants a no-frills website, he should have it done right. And no, the quality of the website DOES matter. The bass is one thing, but the presentation is another, and a poor presentation might make a great product look bad, and that is what I see with Smith's website.

Brad Johnson nailed it with this gem: "I don't play websites" Seriously, I think the site is totally adequate to see what his basses look like and what the different models are and that's all the site needs to do. Stop listening and playing with your eyes.

 

[Dan B]

Brad Johnson nailed it with this gem: "I don't play websites" Seriously, I think the site is totally adequate to see what his basses look like and what the different models are and that's all the site needs to do. Stop listening and playing with your eyes.

Again, I reiterate, it is the presentation that counts. Hypothetically, say I were looking for a high end bass and I didn't know who Ken Smith was at the time, and I stumble upon his website. I honestly would look elsewhere.

It's 2012. We live in a world which revolves around the internet, be it for networking, work use, or in this case, gathering information, such as news, events, or in this case information about basses. It isn't hard to make a good website, and there are thousands of tutorials on how to do so. Why Ken Smith hasn't done it yet I have no clue. Surely it must not be hard to hire someone who can produce a nice, clean website for him.

And as for playing a Smith, well if I could find a 4 or a 5 around my area I would, but anything that isn't a Fender is rarer than hen's teeth over here, so I don't have the luxury of trying one out.

 

[pjmuck]

Quit knocking Ken and his basses! The man sends me a happy birthday greeting every year just for being a part of his website and a proud Smith owner. I don't see Fender doing that for me.

I own a CR4 (Chuck Rainey model). The build, aesthetics, and playability are second to none, IMO. I can do things on this bass I simply cannot do on other basses. So for me, playing-wise, it brings out the best of my technical abilities.

Tonally, however, they do have their own sound, and admittedly do not work for every situation. I brought mine down for my alternative rock band a few months ago, and it simply didn't meld with the rest of the band, as much as I had hoped it would. Once I strapped on the Rick, everyone breathed a sigh of relief. Nasally and mid rangey is how I'd describe the Smith, though you can dial out some of that if needed. But it just doesn't have that classic thick low end thump or attack you can get out of a P or Rick, and for rock settings it simply didn't work. I also find it a fairly ugly sounding bass when strings begin to deaden on it. It needs a fresh set of bright rounds, IMO, especially when slapping, though I'm up for experimenting with flats on it someday.

 

[Brad Johnson]

First off, my post is written in the lens of someone who works with graphic design, and one of those things I do work with is web design. Albeit I didn't do much, I learned quite about it, so please, bear with me.

I don't know about you, but a website does for me matter if:
A: The manufacturer/luthier is still in business. Chances are, a website that looks like it was designed in 1995 probably WAS designed in 1995 and wasn't updated since then.[/.quote]

Not really... an old website could simply mean the website is not as high a priority as building and maintaining the customer bass. they could indeed still very active in business.

B: The manufacturer/luthier wants to make a good first impression.

Yes, I know Ken Smith makes a good bass (I have yet to try one myself; I have my thoughts of the man behind the bass but that's for another thread), but his website honestly looks poorly done. Let's dissect it:

First thing when I look at the website is the JPEG artifact laden picture of quilted maple, tiled to make it look like a drug induced nightmare from 1972. It's nauseating, and honestly if I keep staring at it longer my eyes hurt.

Second is the scrolling marquee of Ken Smith's strings. It's annoying and distracting; plus, if I want to click on the red hyperlink I have to go quickly because it's a pretty quick marquee. Also, shouldn't that message be under the "STRINGS" page, rather than the front of the website?

Third is the giant picture of two basses superimposed on an American flag. Now, I don't have a problem with the subject matter, but the way it was done leaves a lot to be desired. Again, I see JPEG artifacts in the stripes, and the red, white and blue text is a bit trite. And don't get me started on the headstock logo. I know these are Ken Smith basses; I don't need the logo to tell me that.

Scrolling down, I go to the Quick Jump menu. Now first off, this isn't necessary if all of these are within their respective menus under the Basses page, but I digress on that. What bothers me is the clashing background clipart of what looks like to be "outer space" and the red lettering. "Outer space" meaning, something similar to children's bedsheets of planets and UFOs. Again, it looks trite and out of date.

I could go on and on about the website, but point is, websites do make an impression. It gives me an idea on how the builder presents himself, and how organized his operations are. If the website I see is cluttered and out of date, I get worried. First, if he is out of business, and second, if he is disorganized. Not saying this is the case with Smith, but websites are important.

Fortunately for Ken his customer bass doesn't seem to be driven by this stuff. And they're pretty loyal. You can't play a bass on the website and I don't think he sells direct. Contact a dealer, check with local owners, get your hands on one and decide. That's how I do it. I've never had a website lead me to a sale. Never. My interest was usually piqued elsewhere and I then contacted the builder for more info. Like the good old days.

But I understand that others don't see it that way. I'm lucky... I opt for hands on above anything else. IME if you're seriously considering something and a website alone can kill that, I seriously doubt you were serious. Just my opinion.

 

[Brad Johnson]

Brad Johnson nailed it with this gem: "I don't play websites" Seriously, I think the site is totally adequate to see what his basses look like and what the different models are and that's all the site needs to do. Stop listening and playing with your eyes.

I've seen so many great looking websites with what turned out to be disappointing (for me) basses they mean nothing at this point. It's basic marketing and I don't really need slick marketing... I need a really good product.

As such I don't get excited when I see pretty pictures. I'm way too skepitical to do that. And I don't obsess over visual stuff like many folks do... I'm not buying the site or investing in the sales structure.

I remember as a teenager I had a Polaroid photo taken in front of my uncle's dark blue Chevy station wagon from about twenty feet away. He used it for everything as a waterman, it was full of crap and dirty as hell all over...

and in the photo it looked like a new car. I haven't put much creedence into photography ever since.

 

[Dan B]

First off, my post is written in the lens of someone who works with graphic design, and one of those things I do work with is web design. Albeit I didn't do much, I learned quite about it, so please, bear with me.

I don't know about you, but a website does for me matter if:
A: The manufacturer/luthier is still in business. Chances are, a website that looks like it was designed in 1995 probably WAS designed in 1995 and wasn't updated since then.[/.quote]

Not really... an old website could simply mean the website is not as high a priority as building and maintaining the customer bass. they could indeed still very active in business.



Fortunately for Ken his customer bass doesn't seem to be driven by this stuff. And they're pretty loyal. You can't play a bass on the website and I don't think he sells direct. Contact a dealer, check with local owners, get your hands on one and decide. That's how I do it. I've never had a website lead me to a sale. Never.

But I understand that others don't see it that way. I'm lucky... I opt for hands on above anything else. IME if you're seriously considering something and a website can kill that, I seriously doubt you were serious. Just my opinion.

I'm not saying a website would make or break a purchase for me. I do also agree that trying the bass before buying it is also quite important. But a website to me does represent the company or business, and if the presentation isn't good, well, it will turn off people. Also, what if we were trying to find a list of dealers? I looked on the website and nope, nothing found. Sure, I can call the shop, but why not just have the information out there? And as for it not being higher on his priorities list, well, hire someone.

That is great that Ken has a devoted consumer base. Personally I have no opinion on the basses themselves aside from the fact they do look incredibly well built. I just think Smith needs a website to back up the work of his basses.