• 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 the love (by some) for thin necks?

#101
stringthrough said:
> They are frequently more prone to shifting as environments change
> They contribute less to tone compared to their thick-necked relatives
> Thin-neck basses give the impression that their action is higher when compared to thick-necked basses having the same string relief
> Having owned thin and thick-necked basses I don’t find thin-necked basses easier to play (I have average-sized hands)
Click to expand...

I would say "DEPENDS" to all the three affirmatives.

1- Quality and density of the wood, and reinforcements such as graphite bars

2 - Quality of manufacturing/workingmanship

3 - Setup and personal preference.

I have a VERY thin 5-string bass with 18mm string spacing and by far it's my favorite for long-hour playing and slapping.

upload_2023-2-5_1-11-0.jpeg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jefenator, dkelley and Jxff
#102
Not having read all the replies, personally for me, a fretless build I did a few years back had a carve that was uncomfortably thin in my hands. Agreeing with some you some what but finding it the most stable neck in the bunch, w/ high tension flats strangley. I do prefer more booty in the neck though
 
  • Like
Reactions: dkelley
#103
As a reasonably large-handed player, I find the larger the neck, the more comfortable it is to play.

  • I started on a jazz bass nearly forty years ago, but when it comes to four-string, the standard jazz-neck width (38mm?) is too narrow for me these days. The 44-45mm neck on the Yamaha BB2000 or '59 P is about right.
  • Dare I say it, but the most comfortable necks for me to play are attached to my two TRB sixes; the TRB6P and the TRB6II. The latter is a tad thinner than the former, which is a tiny bit chunkier. Both are supremely playable and in combination with correct technique enhance my left-hand flexibility, helping to keep the arthritis in check.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nashrakh
#104
I get where the OP is coming from. My reason for preferring thin necks is more medical than anything else. I have neuropathy in my finger tips that makes playing guitar painful. I thought switching to bass with thicker strings would be less painful. I tried a bunch of basses at GC and settled on a Squier Jaguar short scale. The thin neck made it less painful to play. The short scale had less string tension as well. After a few years the neuropathy lessened and I moved on to full scale basses. I loved that Jag bass, but the neck was so thin, I thought it was only a matter of time before the neck failed, so I sold it. I tried a thick necked Vintera P bass at GC a few years back, but it just didn't feel good. My fav is a 7 1/4 radius Jazz neck. The radius and the thin neck combined make playing the bass more enjoyable. For guitar, I stick to a short scale Jaguarillo and a 3/4 size Duo Sonic. I still play a Les Paul, but the neuropathy kicks in quicker.
 
#105
stringthrough said:
> They are frequently more prone to shifting as environments change
> They contribute less to tone compared to their thick-necked relatives
> Thin-neck basses give the impression that their action is higher when compared to thick-necked basses having the same string relief
> Having owned thin and thick-necked basses I don’t find thin-necked basses easier to play (I have average-sized hands)
Click to expand...

1) this has to do more neck construction than anything else, and has not been my experience. actually the neck that gave me the most issues was a thicker neck.

2) if that’s true at all, it is an extremely minuscule amount that even the most trained ear would not be able to hear in a solo setting, much less a band setting. to
let this be a driving factor when choosing a neck is absolutely absurd.

3) this just makes no sense

4) personal preference. I have average hands and love thinner necks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dkelley and Semi Actuated
#107
stringthrough said:
> They are frequently more prone to shifting as environments change
> They contribute less to tone compared to their thick-necked relatives
> Thin-neck basses give the impression that their action is higher when compared to thick-necked basses having the same string relief
> Having owned thin and thick-necked basses I don’t find thin-necked basses easier to play (I have average-sized hands)
Click to expand...
I completely disagree about several of your points:
- my thin necked basses have astounding tone, and the tone comes as much from a well selected and well cut and well shaped neck if it is thin or if it is thick, since either way it is the most dominant resonant part of the instrument that is holding the string tension. I would argue that a thin neck contributes more to the tone than a thick one does. Maple necks are bright, thin or thick. mahogany is darker, thin or thick. wild generalization, but you get the point. 7 piece walnut maple ebony neck - rigid regardless of thickness, and amazing tone. Just as an example. my ibanez guitar with a 7 piece mostly maple neck sounds incredible.... it's a tone machine, and has an extremely thin neck. Same with my peavey grind, very thin, neck through, some kind of exotic dark wood and multi piece laminate neck... and doesn't move at all with weather and sounds incredible even unplugged.
- there is zero "impression" of a higher action on my thin necked basses and guitars, compared to my thick necked basses (which I no longer own) or my thick necked guitars (I own two along with my thin necked guitars). Low action is low action, and the thickness of the neck is irrelevant. Why would that make any difference?
- They CAN be prone to shifting as environment changes, yes. Depends on the design... my ibanez guitar necks do NOT shift with environment (5 piece, I believe). My 3 piece ibanez bass neck DOES shift, but it's a cheap model. My Peavey bass and my home made bass with thin necks do not shift - like, AT ALL. But then they are both six strins. My carvin 5 string neck through does not shift at all either, and has a thin neck. I used to own a fender P bass with a fairly hefty thick neck that changed with weather also.
- I find thin necked basses much easier to play, and guitars, althogh that matters most with wider necks and I don't have particularly large hands (I'm 5'7"). So maybe that is why it helps me more, but also find that my various physical health issues I find thin necks more comfy (similar symptoms to arthritis, at times)
 
Last edited:
#110
groooooove said:
the resistance to humidity changes alone are reason enough to go as thick as you can handle.

funny how thin is always associated with "speed."

yet the speediest player of them all, billy sheehan, has one of literal thickest necks on the market.

i still, after all these years, can't see how "thin" and "fast" got associated..
Click to expand...

thin is associated with speed because most speed guitarists prefer a very thin neck. there aren't enough speed bassists overall to come up with much of an average result indication of what is better for bass. But Billy, while he's fast, he's not really faster than lots of other pro for-hire bassists (myself included)... just gutsier and showier and more inventive and has that great 3 finger right hand guitar technique that most bassists don't have. So he's not doing anything that particularly relies upon a thin neck to become playable, where as many very fast guitar techniques to utilize a thin neck to let the hands do things that aren't really possible with a thicker neck.
 
#111
RichterScale said:
I like a neck that flops around like a wet noodle and has terrible tone. That's why I prefer skinny necks.
The down side is there's less neck dive with a skinnier neck and I love me some neck dive.
It's too bad they can't make a floppy neck with bad tone that's both skinny and too heavy.
Click to expand...
I think Clapton's Blackie original guitar neck was described that way by him before he retired it, after too many years of hard use. Maybe there is a bass equivalent out there!? :-D
 
#112
groooooove said:
the resistance to humidity changes alone are reason enough to go as thick as you can handle.

funny how thin is always associated with "speed."

yet the speediest player of them all, billy sheehan, has one of literal thickest necks on the market.

i still, after all these years, can't see how "thin" and "fast" got associated..
Click to expand...

Have you ever taken a look at Billy Sheehans's fingers? IRRC he's 6'3'', I'm 6'1''....so he's a scant two inches taller than me, but I swear looking at his left hand each of his fingers are two inches longer than the same finger on my left hand.

If I had fingers as long as his I would probably want a really thick-necked bass too.
 
#113
stringthrough said:
> They are frequently more prone to shifting as environments change
> They contribute less to tone compared to their thick-necked relatives
> Thin-neck basses give the impression that their action is higher when compared to thick-necked basses having the same string relief
> Having owned thin and thick-necked basses I don’t find thin-necked basses easier to play (I have average-sized hands)
Click to expand...

I can't say I agree with your first three bullet points. Obviously, I can't argue your personal preference.

>Right now, I have five (relatively) thin-necked basses. I have two SRs, an RGB, and two Epiphone basses. The RGB has a different profile. I don't know if we're counting that measurement as "thicker". I'm talking about lowest string---->highest string. I have had no more neck warp on those than on my other instruments (I also own guitars) and I live in an area which hell on guitars.

In the summer, it's humid as all get-out and in the winter (even with all the snow we get) it's bone dry.

>I think "contributing to tone" is kind of subjective, but I reach for my Epiphone AccuBass before I reach for my Fender P-Bass.

>If anything, the action on my thin-necked basses seem to be lower than the action on my P-Bass (except for my Epiphone Jazz bass clone which I keep a little higher for slap).
 
Last edited:
#115
stringthrough said:
> They are frequently more prone to shifting as environments change
> They contribute less to tone compared to their thick-necked relatives
> Thin-neck basses give the impression that their action is higher when compared to thick-necked basses having the same string relief
> Having owned thin and thick-necked basses I don’t find thin-necked basses easier to play (I have average-sized hands)
Click to expand...
I've owned not only thin (width at nut) but slim neck (front to back of neck) basses since 1966. Both have been passive Jazz Basses. The first was my 1965 Jazz that I bought in 1966 and the second is the bass I'm using now, which is a 1982 maple-necked Jazz that I bought in 1985 specifically because it has the same neck measurements as my 1965 did (60's slim C-shape with 7.25" radius).

• I've never had a neck twist on me nor even have a problem with one. They have been very stable and rarely need any adjustment.

• Tone is a combination of a lot of things including the woods used for the body and the neck as well as the electronics used. I don't need my necks to be chunky to get a good sound. I absolutely love the tone of my Jazz Basses. My 1982 jazz has a slightly brighter sound than my '65 did ('65 was stolen in 1976), and has significantly better sustain. I attribute the brighter sound a bit to the all maple neck, but mostly to the 70's era pickup spacing (4" center to center), which puts the bridge pickup closer to the bridge. I attribute the sustain to the all-maple neck and prefer the sound of my '82 to that of my '65.

• I use a low action and a light touch because I can control my dynamics more easily with that. Don't really care what it "looks like" to someone else, just how it suits my playing.

• I find the thin and slim necks far easier to play than the wide and fat necks. Tried a 1966 Jazz when those came out and it had a thin neck like Jazz basses up until then had, but it was a deep U-shape that pretty much made it unplayable for me, especially when I tried to play something above the 12th fret. Tried a cool pattern used in a song called the Tighten Up by Archie Bell and the Drells, where the bass plays its pattern starting on the octave F# on the E string (14th Fret). I had no chance of playing that riff on that '66 Jazz. I handed it back to the sales person to hang up on his wall and thanked God that I had 1965 Jazz instead.

I have never enjoyed playing P-bass necks either because they are so chunky. Then my Grandson got a Squier p-bass with P/J pickups for Christmas and I could comfortably play it. Was still the same width at the nut, but it was a slim neck, not a chunky one. I also have a 5-string that is 1.78" wide at the nut, but its a slim neck, almost as slim as my Jazz. Although it has a really flat radius (12") I still find it comfortable to play. So for me, I think the problem with playability is necks that are too fat, not necessarily just wider.

I also should mention that I not only played my '65 Jazz through high school and some college, I also toured with a nightclub group for 3-years in the early 70's, playing 5-nights a week, 50-weeks a year. So I got real used to playing with that thin, fast, neck. I spent almost 10-years after my '65 was stolen, looking for a Jazz with that same slim neck. Every Jazz I found was fatter and then they changed to a 9.5" radius (currently Fender's standard radius) that made them even more uncomfortable for me to play. So, I'm very prejudiced towards the thin, slim, and fast necks.
 
#118
stringthrough said:
> They are frequently more prone to shifting as environments change
> They contribute less to tone compared to their thick-necked relatives
> Thin-neck basses give the impression that their action is higher when compared to thick-necked basses having the same string relief
> Having owned thin and thick-necked basses I don’t find thin-necked basses easier to play (I have average-sized hands)
Click to expand...

My thinnest electric and bass necks are nicely reinforced. Little to no shifting. Also, best to control humidity regardless of neck thickness.

I once had an acoustic neck shaved down from bigger than any Gibson or Martin to a Taylor-ish neck shape. The old saddle was chewed up and it was replaced. The tone was actually better. This was likely due to the new saddle. Otherwise, it wasn't dramatically different. The impact on tone should be significantly less on electric guitars and basses.

I have the lowest possible action on everything. I can't say that neck thickness makes them easier or harder to play.

I find them easier to play. I have small hands.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back