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.
The Lightwave system on the Zons was great for getting a traditional "singy" fretless vibe. Where it left me cold was in getting anything approach a magnetic pickup's ability to punch and hit hard and quick. As long as that's not a requirement they're cool IMO IME. That's why I dug my Legacy Standard fretless 5 so much (with Barts and Polyfusion preamp)... it did what the Lightwave did and so much more. A monster bass. It could sing and punch like a synth.
, another step-forward in design...its so quick and easy to change double ball strings compared to standard strings), and again, mass manufacturing would make the strings cheaper (I actually use Status Hotwire double-ball stings, and they really aren't that much more expensive, even considering their limited production). Given larger mass production, I would imagine it may even be cheaper to produce double-ball strings, since there wouldn't be a need for the extra silk covering on the "head" end, and the strings would be shorter, saving material (though those savings may be off-set by the actual ball end...who knows, just hypothesizing here). 
. I did ask Bud Lecompte if he could do a headless design on it, but alas, the expense was prohibitive to me given the extra design work involved for him. (go figure 
)But that's not the point. History has proven that humans will create their art with whatever tools they have at their disposal, choosing one over another for who knows what reason, and the resulting expression is no better or worse because of the tool. It's the artist that makes the difference.I don't know, I figure painters must have been pretty excited when the paint-brush came along. And how about that bass guitar, and roundwounds, and onboard EQ, and extended-range basses, and amplifiers, and... well, I guess you might see where I'm going with this.
That's cool. Perhaps for you as an artist, you find inspiration in the tool that has a positive effect on what you do. That's nothing unusual, but if you credit the tool for the music you make with it, I think you are selling yourself short. Just be glad you've found your medium for expression.
Better or worse? Maybe not, but more effective and true to the artist's intentions? I would have to say yes. Different tools allow different artists to do different things. Sounds like the old "tone is all in the fingers" argument resurfacing...
That's a different argument than the one some are making in this thread, which is that synthetic necks are just "better and there is no arguing that".Better or worse? Maybe not, but more effective and true to the artist's intentions? I would have to say yes. Different tools allow different artists to do different things. Sounds like the old "tone is all in the fingers" argument resurfacing...
You weren't playing it right
In all seriousness, no bass can do everything. Actually the Zon with Lightwave can sound like a lot of different things depending on how you attack it. I even have slapped it on funk tunes to great effect (even though I suck at slap). The only thing it really lacks is the initial bite/attack and I find that more of a frets vs. fretless thing rather than pickup systems. And I could *never* get a neutral tone out of any fretless with a magnetic pickup - they always seemed to rather monochromatic to me.
Of course maybe I wasn't playing it right
)
Wow, a thread about 2 people having a problem with one company's 20 year old product that was fixed and replaced. Amazing that everyone who owns a CG necked bass hasn't thrown theirs in the garbage based on this overwhelming evidence that CG is a flawed material and has less structural integrity than wood. (sorry, I'm looking for the sarcasm font in my operating system but can't find it). Hmmm, I wonder how many companies that produce wood necked basses would replace that neck 20 years after the fact if it warped.
Theory vs. practice. I'm not sure where we're going with this, but I'll take a stab at it. I've never said that CG is the end all an be all of basses. Please go back and read ALL of my post instead of just the last one. Can we get pass that yet? Tell ya what, I'll try explaining one more time, and hopefully make it clear what I'm saying:
I'll give you that any manufacturer of a product is going to screw up, even if they consistently produce great products. CG can have problems if not used or constructed properly (gee, so can titanium). Its a COMPOSITE material that requires correct construction technique, just as the moisture content of wood needs to be correct, and paint be mixed in proper proportion, and the carbon and iron content of steel must be in correct balance, etc. etc. CG not the perfect material for bass construction (nothing is, given the disparate qualities and requirements of so many people), and at NO point did I ever say it was. It still doesn't negate its particular advantages, and physical properties of the the material over wood. So let me amend my statement...CG is a stronger, more stable, and consistent material than wood, if constructed properly in the manufacturing process (there make ya happy?). I'm not saying anything about someone's preference for sound qualities from the material.
Also let me add, that I'm referring to physical properties of wood and CG in THIS universe...there may be alternate universes I am not aware of, where physical properties are reversed or different...maybe they use wood for construction of jet airplane parts instead of CG in that universe, who knows? (still can't find that sarcasm font, so I'll just use this;
While at the same time that CG is stronger and more stable than wood (with all the other caveats just stated...I sure hope someone doesn't JUST read that sentence) it is also a material that can be suitably used tonally for bass construction, at least in the opinion of the thousands of people who bought them and the very well known luthiers who produce them (well, in this universe anyway).
I'll state my original point regarding CG again in a different way. Whenever there is a post about CG, there is always a contingent of "bashers" who always give the same old song and dance about it being an unsuitable material for bass construction, because FOR THEM, they don't like it and usually their reasoning is based on erroneous reasons and inexperience. (please note I said usually, NOT always, not everyone, not 100% of the people that have tried them....this isn't an all or nothing statement)
Have I made myself clear enough yet? I hope so, because this horse is well dead enough for me.
The problems with grub screws holding standard strings would most likely have disappeared, as most would have gone with double ball strings (which is, IMO
When it comes down to it, the problems that you're stating about headless design have less to do with the concept, and more to do with execution.
It is undoubtedly well executed in Status basses, but Status is a custom boutique builder, thus the expense is prohibitive for the buyers at large, and therefore we're back to square one.
If you haven't tried a Status though, I'd highly recommend having a go at one. If small and lightweight isn't your thing (though Rob Green does make the ultralight and small Streamline), there are many models and different body styles, materials, and electronic configurations to choose from...and the execution and quality is on par with any custom builder out there.
I actually owned a Steinie at one point, but got rid of it for much the same reasons you gave for not owning one...then I discovered Status. Doubt I'll ever get rid of my Kingbass, though its not the end all and be all of basses for me either. I've got a custom Lecompte on order because I wanted a fretless with a wooden neck, so see I'm really not a CG only nutjob after all
): I addressed it in my earlier post, but let me clarify; Status basses (and Steinbergers) are designed to use double ball strings (that's what I use on my Status). Which are another step ahead of standard strings (IMO...debate it if you want). The grub screws are there as an option. Of course, if someone were to use standard strings, they'd simply have to cut the strings correctly and the problem is solved. So yeah, the issue has been resolved...and more than 20 years ago (my Series 2000 was over 20 years old and designed to use double-ball strings), so I don't get your point. Please clarify.
But once you're used to them, there's nothing like a headless CG bass. The balance and playability is second to none & if you're lucky enough to find the perfect bass for you, you'll never look back.
