Why so many different Fender P-Bass models?

[mikeswals]

Go to the grocery store- look at the coffee section- the pasta sauce section-

But the coffees and pastas selections in the grocery stores are all made by different companies. In this case, this bass is just by one company.

 

[Treadstone71]

In terms of offering limited choices, I guess the Apple of bass making is Rickenbacker. They pretty much offer one bass (variants of the 4000 model)...

But I think if any guitar company was actually run like Apple, we'd have much better and cheaper instruments today. Assuming one could draw parallels between computer and guitar industries, the P bass is effectively a mainframe computer... Like mainframes, they are the child of the 50s. The mainframe, however, gave way to mini computers, then PC, then laptop, and finally smartphone. Your phone today is more powerful than a mainframe 50 years ago, but costs hundreds of dollars, not millions. Fender P-bass, however, is essentially the same thing as 50 years ago, and costs about the same (adjusting for inflation, see Invalid Link Removedand Invalid Link Removed).

So if Fender was like Apple, we actually might need to use different cables depending on build year, yes. However, not "just because", but arguably because new cables and connectors would be better, and would work with different onboard electronics (maybe like the 5 pin connector cables you sometimes see with Alembic), or maybe the amps on the other end would be better.

But more importantly, I think we'd see bigger and more important innovations than we do... The kind of jump that Leo brought us with the electric bass (and the new business model with it)... since then, the real innovation arguably mostly went towards keyboard/synth bass and computer processing. The electric bass in general, and Fender Precision in particular, have not really evolved much... what we got was a variety of colors, woods, and shapes. Electronics have evolved a bit, but use the same principles as 50 years ago. The biggest innovation, arguably, is moving the production overseas, thus greatly reducing cost, but not so much quality. A Squier P-bass may not be as good as Fender, but it's not that much worse either.

You can't compare mass production of computer components to guitar making. Much like any sort of wood work, it's an art. An art that must be respected as requiring time, mastery, and effort.

Mass production of guitars exists, yes, but quality suffers. For reference, play one production line Squier Affinity versus a masterbuilt Custom Shop'er.

 

[GregC]

In terms of offering limited choices, I guess the Apple of bass making is Rickenbacker. They pretty much offer one bass (variants of the 4000 model)...

But I think if any guitar company was actually run like Apple, we'd have much better and cheaper instruments today. Assuming one could draw parallels between computer and guitar industries, the P bass is effectively a mainframe computer... Like mainframes, they are the child of the 50s. The mainframe, however, gave way to mini computers, then PC, then laptop, and finally smartphone. Your phone today is more powerful than a mainframe 50 years ago, but costs hundreds of dollars, not millions. Fender P-bass, however, is essentially the same thing as 50 years ago, and costs about the same (adjusting for inflation, see Invalid Link Removedand Invalid Link Removed).

So if Fender was like Apple, we actually might need to use different cables depending on build year, yes. However, not "just because", but arguably because new cables and connectors would be better, and would work with different onboard electronics (maybe like the 5 pin connector cables you sometimes see with Alembic), or maybe the amps on the other end would be better.

But more importantly, I think we'd see bigger and more important innovations than we do... The kind of jump that Leo brought us with the electric bass (and the new business model with it)... since then, the real innovation arguably mostly went towards keyboard/synth bass and computer processing. The electric bass in general, and Fender Precision in particular, have not really evolved much... what we got was a variety of colors, woods, and shapes. Electronics have evolved a bit, but use the same principles as 50 years ago. The biggest innovation, arguably, is moving the production overseas, thus greatly reducing cost, but not so much quality. A Squier P-bass may not be as good as Fender, but it's not that much worse either.

Better? Maybe. Cheaper? Haha, no way.

 

[jcbrown]

Sales. Period. Not that that's a bad thing. They are a business. But, they want to offer something for every price point, from a $200 Squire to an $8,000 master built. Beyond each price point, consumers want a few choices (color, wood, fretboard)...so take each price point and multiply by three, and you've got your choice of 50, or whatever. I think it's cool...no matter your budget, you can get something that is fun for you to play.

Cars are kinda the same way...Honda Pilot v. Acura MDX...same basic vehicle, different prices, options, colors, etc.

That's my take...

 

[sikamikanico]

You can't compare mass production of computer components to guitar making. Much like any sort of wood work, it's an art. An art that must be respected as requiring time, mastery, and effort.

Mass production of guitars exists, yes, but quality suffers. For reference, play one production line Squier Affinity versus a masterbuilt Custom Shop'er.

True, it's not fair to compare computer/electronics industry to guitar making. However, I think the key problem is the market (volume in demand, customer expectations etc..), not so much the build process and technical issues. I'm sure double-bass luthiers complained when Fender introduced the P-bass, how such a mass-produced instrument surly cannot match the quality and craftsmanship of their uprights. And, in some ways, it was true... but the Fender bass had other unique qualities, such as mobility and loudness. And, over time, Fender (or electric bass in general) won.

Similarly, one could see a mainframe computer from 50 years ago (or even today!) being "art", as it required time, mastery and effort. Or perhaps a gamer's PC, with carefully selected components and fine-tuned for maximum performance. An iPhone cannot compare to either on those terms, but it's clearly a winner in the market.

 

[peledog]

It's like having 47 dfferent versions of a Toyota Corolla every year!

 

[bongostealth]

Because apparently P-basses sell. "Why?" is completely beyond me.

For all the different variations of P-bass and Jazz basses, why in the world does Fender not make at least a 5-string version of their Jaguar jazz bass???? Why???? (I'm not talking about the Squier Jaguar bass, which has a 5-string P/J version) Again... beyond me. Fender just makes no sense to me sometimes. But they do make P-basses!

Now let my lynching at the hands of Fender freaks begin!!

 

[PortlandBass77]

I think the better question is, why HASN'T Fender offered a P bass with a tort pickguard and a tort FRETBOARD ?

 

[Lownote38]

So many Precision Basses to choose from brand new, and yet they don't make even one that I would want. I have a 68 Precision bass and I love that one. They don't make one even remotely like it. The reissues don't quite get it, and they reissue years that don't make any sense to me. They don't seem to know their own customer bass at all these days.

 

[buldog5151bass]

Quantity over quality. I still believe that if they went down to:
Squier
MIM
MIA
Custom Shop

And got rid of all the signature models, they could offer better quality at better prices. But that ain't gonna happen.

 

[Son of Wobble]

So many Precision Basses to choose from brand new, and yet they don't make even one that I would want. I have a 68 Precision bass and I love that one. They don't make one even remotely like it. The reissues don't quite get it, and they reissue years that don't make any sense to me. They don't seem to know their own customer bass at all these days.

I suspect we'll see Fender offer up 1968 reissues in about three years, specifically in 2018. Fifty year olds will be buying themselves milestone "birth basses" that year.
Whether they will be any match for their predecessors is another story entirely, granted; but I think Fender DO know their audience, and work it pretty well. After all, guitars are hardly a "growth industry," so their ultimate task and challenge is to get preexisting consumers to buy multiples of what they already have.

 

[Treadstone71]

Similarly, one could see a mainframe computer from 50 years ago (or even today!) being "art", as it required time, mastery and effort. Or perhaps a gamer's PC, with carefully selected components and fine-tuned for maximum performance. An iPhone cannot compare to either on those terms, but it's clearly a winner in the market.

Deep down, I think we agree on the fundamentals. My core point was that you can't compare modern computer construction to guitar making because there's a quality uniformity to the plastics and metal involved in construction of computer components. Wood doesn't have the luxury of being uniform in the same fashion.

 

[Son of Wobble]

So many Precision Basses to choose from brand new, and yet they don't make even one that I would want. I have a 68 Precision bass and I love that one. They don't make one even remotely like it. The reissues don't quite get it, and they reissue years that don't make any sense to me. They don't seem to know their own customer bass at all these days.

...Btw I agree that a 1968 reissue is a sexy idea. And I also agree that the "years" Fender has heretofore revisited via reissues has seemed arbitrary. The 1962 reissues, for instance, were supposedly arrived at because the year 1962, when tested, elicited more neutral or pleasant memories than, say, '63 (the year Kennedy was shot).

 

[Lownote38]

I suspect we'll see Fender offer up 1968 reissues in about three years, specifically in 2018. Fifty year olds will be buying themselves milestone "birth basses" that year.
Whether they will be any match for their predecessors is another story entirely, granted; but I think Fender DO know their audience, and work it pretty well. After all, guitars are hardly a "growth industry," so their ultimate task and challenge is to get preexisting consumers to buy multiples of what they already have.

They'll have to choose which 68 they reissue. For the first 3 months they were oddly unique. Oval tuners, 67 headstock logo and still had the threaded saddle bridge. Then, they changed the tuners, logo and bridge to the 69 style. They won't get it right. Look at the MIJ 66 Mustang Bass reissue. I guess they never bothered to get neck measurements from a real 66, or put the right tuners on it.

 

[lowfreqgeek]

A P-bass is a P-bass. I don't really care who's name or what "model" name is on it - if it's a good bass that meets my needs (sound, aesthetics, playability), I'll play it and ignore all the rest of the useless marketing hype.

 

[Son of Wobble]

They'll have to choose which 68 they reissue. For the first 3 months they were oddly unique. Oval tuners, 67 headstock logo and still had the threaded saddle bridge. Then, they changed the tuners, log and bridge to the 69 style. They won't get it right. Look at the MIJ 66 Mustang Bass reissue. I guess they never bothered to get neck measurements from a real 66, or put the right tuners on it.

I agree, they always seem to cock up one little thing on the reissues. Gibson has done this too -- a guitar as simple as the SG Junior, say, which has nothing to it, and yet the reissue slightly alters the knob orientation. Why on earth can't they get it right??! I suspect the answer is because they are reserving the right for next time, when they will brag, "This reissue is the closest yet!" It's a racket, I tell ya!

 

[seedokebass]

The real question is after owning 10 P's (still have two that I'll never sell) why do I keep wanting more?!

 

[40Hz]

You can't compare mass production of computer components to guitar making. Much like any sort of wood work, it's an art. An art that must be respected as requiring time, mastery, and effort.

Mass production of guitars exists, yes, but quality suffers. For reference, play one production line Squier Affinity versus a masterbuilt Custom Shop'er.

The quality of CNC machined woodworking almost invariably trumps the quality and precision of handwork on several critical points in guitar building. So while I hear what you're saying, I think you're painting with an overly broad brush.

What hasn't been successfully 'mass produced' is a good setup. That's where the human element continues to shine although that may not remain always the case. Already the PLEK fret system has shown it's at least as good if not a demonstratively better way to handle fret installation and leveling than hand work. So much so that many boutique and custom builders are either buying into it or contracting out to someone with a PLEK system.

What I look for when it comes to guitar building is mixing and matching approaches to get the best of both worlds. Use machinery and automation where it yields superior results. And use the human hand where it makes a difference.

Maybe that's not as romantic as the sound of "old world craftsmanship" to some ears. But I'm more a pragmatist that doesn't much care how it gets done. All I'm interested in is the finished result.

YMMV.

 

[-Asdfgh-]

But the coffees and pastas selections in the grocery stores are all made by different companies. In this case, this bass is just by one company.

Heinz: 57 varieties covers your Telecaster, Precision, Jazz, Strat, but you get low fat, low salt, extra whatever variations of each...

 

[-Asdfgh-]

Because apparently P-basses sell. "Why?" is completely beyond me.

For all the different variations of P-bass and Jazz basses, why in the world can Fender not make at least a 5-string version of their Jaguar jazz bass???? Why???? Again... beyond me. Fender just makes no sense to me sometimes. But they do make P-basses!

Now let my lynching at the hands of Fender freaks begin!!

I am pretty sure there is at least a 5 string Squier Jag