Your prettiest bass

[WI Short Scaler]

Sorry, but music is auditory, not visual.

So why are you still on this thread? You could tell from the title that you don't agree so why remain to keep dropping "downer" posts about it?

It would be like stopping on someone's NBD thread just to tell them what you don't like about it. Just move on maybe? There's plenty of other topics to chime in on.

 

[BobDeRosa]

So why are you still on this thread? You could tell from the title that you don't agree so why remain to keep dropping "downer" posts about it?

It would be like stopping on someone's NBD thread just to tell them what you don't like about it. Just move on maybe? There's plenty of other topics to chime in on.

Who are you to tell me how I should be behaving? Why don't you just move on, maybe?

 

[jid]

Back on topic… this one is one of my prettiest:

 

[Outshined91]

Back on topic… this one is one of my prettiest:

That upper horn cut is unique... and gorgeous! Plus the grain on the fretboard is superb. What wood is it?

 

[jid]

Black and white ebony board on a walnut top. Hand picked on that Clement. I really wanted this kind of fretboard with that body type.

that bass is under 8lbs also!

 

[JIO]

Excellent. I did similar on this one about 10 years ago:

View attachment 4382474

A friend really, really, really wanted it so I finally relented and sold it to him (cheap!) and he ended up turning it around about six months later... Which I sort of expected as he's always flipping gear (not for profit but looking for something else).

Still I have the tone and look well covered with this which is one of my other prettiest basses - 1964:

View attachment 4382475

(and I also have a pink paisley P with t-bird pickups as well - so no hard feelings on that other one.)

What vintage is the Inverness J-bird?

 

[JIO]

It's auditory FIRST, absolutely - but in terms of professional performance, it's both. Not a binary choice. Humans are visual creatures and plenty of audience members "hear with their eyes".
Album cover art has certainly been able to impact album success and band 'image' is clearly a thing (more in some genres than others).

 

[shade_1313]

All I know is that I've been playing in public for more than two decades and the only comment I've ever received about the appearance of any instrument is when I played a BSX electric upright and a woman told me is was a work of art. Yes, a band's image or brand is clearly a thing. That's why I play upright in an acoustic rock group even though the music we cover was originally recorded with a P bass -- the upright has become part of our brand. But "pretty" has never ever been a factor in instrument selection.

Okay, so you do you. It’s pretty screwed up to make judgements about someone else’s motivations and commitment to music if they choose to have an instrument that looks aesthetically appealing. If I were presented with two identical instruments, which both played well and had a sound I want to use to make music, and one was plain as can be while the other was something that has a high visual appeal to me, and I can afford to pay for either, I’m picking the pretty one, making as good music as I can, and to hell with what someone with a super-utilitarian mindset has to think about it.

 

[Dynacord]

What vintage is the Inverness J-bird?

That was sort of a chopping block mutt. It was an '86 MIJ "60s" Jazz I got for about $200. I put in the 2-tek bridge (something I would not repeat) and refinished it (neck and body) in nitro - color was Fender Blue Ice Metallic but with yellowed clear so it looked essentially the same as Inverness. Put on US reissue reverse Klusons. Added the t-bird pickups later - had a set of late 70's original US Jazz Bass pickups in it previous to that. It was a nice bass but the 2-tek added a lot of weight and I had a local luthier do the routing for the pickups (as I don't the equipment or space here - nor access to Dan Ransom...) and was never happy with how sloppily that was done.

 

[Passinwind]

I know I'm in the minority on this, but bass players are friggin' weird. Do surgeons ever think about their prettiest scalpel? Carpenters about their prettiest hammer? It's a tool, just use it!

My bandmates are just tools too. Oh...wait.

 

[BobDeRosa]

Okay, so you do you. It’s pretty screwed up to make judgements about someone else’s motivations and commitment to music if they choose to have an instrument that looks aesthetically appealing. If I were presented with two identical instruments, which both played well and had a sound I want to use to make music, and one was plain as can be while the other was something that has a high visual appeal to me, and I can afford to pay for either, I’m picking the pretty one, making as good music as I can, and to hell with what someone with a super-utilitarian mindset has to think about it.

You're entitled to your opinion as I'm entitled to mine.

 

[JIO]

All I know is that I've been playing in public for more than two decades and the only comment I've ever received about the appearance of any instrument is when I played a BSX electric upright and a woman told me is was a work of art. Yes, a band's image or brand is clearly a thing. That's why I play upright in an acoustic rock group even though the music we cover was originally recorded with a P bass -- the upright has become part of our brand. But "pretty" has never ever been a factor in instrument selection.

I guess what you are saying is that for you personally, the concept of 'pretty' isn't something you entertain as far as your personal choice of instruments. No problem. To each their own.

But for many players professional or otherwise - any bass can be pretty in sound and looks and both can be part of the mix

 

[shade_1313]

You're entitled to your opinion as I'm entitled to mine.

Yeah, that Victor Wooten guy, he sure must not take music seriously, with his aesthetically appealing yin-yang bass. /sarcasm

 

[JIO]

That was sort of a chopping block mutt. It was an '86 MIJ "60s" Jazz I got for about $200. I put in the 2-tek bridge (something I would not repeat) and refinished it (neck and body) in nitro - color was Fender Blue Ice Metallic but with yellowed clear so it looked essentially the same as Inverness. Put on US reissue reverse Klusons. Added the t-bird pickups later - had a set of late 70's original US Jazz Bass pickups in it previous to that. It was a nice bass but the 2-tek added a lot of weight and I had a local luthier do the routing for the pickups (as I don't the equipment or space here - nor access to Dan Ransom...) and was never happy with how sloppily that was done.

I've always wondered about those 2-tek bridges...

 

[Spectre Gunner]

"Form Follows Function"

The Kubicki ExFactor was designed with function and ergonomics first and foremost. I think the result was a very good looking bass. While the ExFactor has some history with Fender it looks nothing like your traditional Fender bass. Phillip Kubicki ended up with one of the best looking original bass designs out there.

 

[BobDeRosa]

I guess what you are saying is that for you personally, the concept of 'pretty' isn't something you entertain as far as your personal choice of instruments. No problem. To each their own.

But for many players professional or otherwise - any bass can be pretty in sound and looks and both can be part of the mix

I'm in perfect agreement.

 

[JIO]

View attachment 4382653
"Form Follows Function". The Kubicki ExFactor was designed with function and ergonomics first and foremost. I think the result was a very good looking bass. While the ExFactor has some history with Fender it's looks nothing like your traditional Fender bass. Phillip Kubicki ended up with one of the best looking original bass designs out there.

An excellent tool can look good too and that's what this thread is about.

Nice (pretty!) pic! As a Kubicki Ex-Factor owner/player - I totally agree. I always liked a white one - had a black '86, and a '91 sonic blue FCS/Kubicki. As for now this is my Factorbird fretless, which I guess can be considered 'pretty'...

 

[SlinkyMonkey]

Absolutely, but a post about a "prettiest bass" makes me think making music might not be the OP's first priority.

What does posting a thread have to do with "priority"?

If someone talks about "the prettiest bass" all day without actually making music, your comment may have some merit. But what if this is just bass players having a fun conversation about their tools at their leisure?

I think human brains are sophisticated enough to have one priority and doing some other stuff as well. You don't have to devote your every breathing moment to it just to prove that it's your priority. (Even if it's not, so what?)

 

[Dynacord]

I've always wondered about those 2-tek bridges...

Well, youth and chasing 'upgrades'.... They are very well made but obviously non-reversible installation and really adds weight (metal is heavier than wood - who knew?!) But then I now see most 'upgrades' as lateral movements ('different' not necessarily 'better') and even a Fender bent bridge can sustain for 4 bars - don't think I've ever really needed more than that - and I've come to kind of prefer their character anyway. YMMV, et al.

 

[bigjames]

A couple more shots of my Fbass AC6...