• 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 freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Why set-in neck solid body basses aren't popular?

Alvaro Martín Gómez A.

TalkBass' resident Bongo + cowbell player
Nov 10, 2000
6,935
155
59
Bucaramanga, Colombia, South A
That's my impression, at least, and of course I may be wrong. Most of the times I keep reading about bolt-on and neck-thru instruments and hardly hear about set-in neck basses (and of course I've never seen in person/played one, so that strengthens my perception). Assuming that I'm right, do those instruments have well-known disadvantages, or is it just a marketing issue? Just curious. Thank you in advance! :)
 
Thats a good question. Its mainly a gibson thing, and gibson basses arent SUPER popular. I think bolt ons are better for slap, and ive heard the same thing from other bassists, but im not sure that the lack of sustain could help this. Glue in necks are more prone to problems than neck through or bolt ons from what ive seen working on guitars, but ive not worked on enough set neck basses to really think one way or the other.
 
I find that set necks and neck-thru-body basses generally have a tone that doesn't give you as much punch the way a bolt-on does. Plus they tend to have a more even response up and down the neck, and I don't like that either. I've owned a few set-neck and neck-thru basses (still do) and they sound great, but I prefer the sound of my bolt-ons over them.
 
it's harder and more expensive to do (mass produced anyway)

With a set neck you need to make a more complex pocket and glue the neck, which takes time and you better set it right. A neck thru is just one piece of wood slap some wings on, presto.

a bolt on is very forgiving (although a good bolt on should be equal to a set neck) you can shim it, take it on & off to get it right. Most cheaper basses are bolt ons.

None are truly better than the others sound wise. It's all what you like
 
I think it's mostly a matter of bolt-on necks being used by the more popular brands. I was once suspicious of bolt-ons and my first decent bass was a Carvin neck-through.

But now my various set-necks and through-necks are gone, replaced by Fenders.

It's the overall feel, and sound, you're buying, not some feature that appears to be "better".

Prior to Fender, very few guitars used bolt-on necks, and I remember they were disdained by the Gibson guys, but Leo made 'em work. Anyhow, the trend in guitars (Taylor for example) is to use bolt-on necks that resemble the traditional set-necks.

They are easier to manufacture, easier to adjust, and easier to replace, and at this point in history bolt-on construction is pretty mature technology.

And, before the advent of CNC machines, set-necks required a lot more expensive hand work by artisans.

Another way of looking at it is that set-necks are offered by Gibson, who has a long history of sticking a long-scale neck on a guitar and calling it a bass (not exactly cutting-edge R&D, ya know, but a lot of people like 'em) and Rickenbacker, who have stuck with a bass that doesn't have a sound that the majority of bass players are looking for. Through-necks tend to come from companies that are not as popular, or enormously more expensive (Carvin and Alembic spring to mind).

Blame it all on Leo for figuring out a reliable, inexpensive way to attach a neck.:D
 
Could it be that the manufacturing process is harder with a set neck?

Bolt-on: You have a neck, and you have a body. Just bolt them together. Easy

Neckthrough: You have a long neck, then you glue on some wings. Even easier.

Set neck : You tell me. Easy, hard?
 
Sorry to disagree with the chap who said Ricks have a tone most folks don't want. Macca used flats, and Chris and Geddy used rounds. Those tones are miles apart. And what that tells me is, I can get any tone between also! Most folks who buy Ricks are fans and therefore the emulate those tones. This does not mean they are the only ones available on a Rick!!!
 
No offense intended, but if "most folks wanted a Rick" they'd have 'em. They don't, and that says nothing about whether Ricks are good or bad, just relative popularity.

Around here, I haven't seen a Rickenbacker bass since 1984, and never saw one before that. As I remember, it was a good enough sounding bass, but maybe the looks or price scares people off.

They won't pay a premium to get something that doesn't sound like what they are used to, IMHO.

I personally admire Ric for keeping their production low and their quality high. I once had a 1967 366/12 g**tar, and it still had a finish like glass. VERY nice axe...BUT it didn't really have a useful sound. Maybe if I had been in a Byrds cover band I could have used it more.:D
 
Maybe it has to do with the fact that my Ric is a 4000 (only has the bridge pickup, no stereo output business: just volume and tone pots), or that I didn't get it because I wanted to sound like Geddy or Chris, but I've never thought my Ric has an exorbitantly different sound than the J's and P's of the world. With new roundwounds and the tone knob maxed, I get a growly tone much like a J, and with the tone knob completly cut (with worn-in strings especially) I get a nice round P-ish thump.

So as far as a Ric having a sound few want, I don't know about that... but I hardily have any experience with 4001's or 4003's.

And as far as what most folks want, the vast majority of bass playing fellows who have seen my Ric have expressed a wide array of emotions, ranging from peaked interest to lustful rage :D
 

Latest posts