The Bass Industry

[PocketGroove82]

Well, I just lazily spent 2 hours running down the 93 pages of "bass" auctions on ebay and for some reason I couldn't get something BP has said on a GuitarCenter video clip outta my head. He said something along the lines of,

we can't seem to push this industry past 1959.

I know I've prob. quoted him wrong, but the point is that really the electric bass industry seems to revolve around designs from the 50s through the 70s.
Also, I guess we can toss in the 5string design from the 80s(?), and the 6 and so on. But aside from the use of more strings and modern, different varieties of materials, most products are based off the classic j bass, p bass, stringray humbucker template (however they choose to mix and match them).

I was just wondering if maybe people would like to share their thoughts/feelings on why they agree/disagree with this observation.

I guess it's not really a bad thing, since other much older instrument (ie. violin) industries reached the pinacle of their art hundreds of years ago, and have yet to really move forward. And the electic bass is such a young thing compaired to everything else.

Anyways, I'll stop rambling and I look forward to hearing some thoughts!

 

[kompressaur]

I agree to a point but in general bass players are a lot more open minded and bass makers are more able to take risks than skinny stringers.warwick,wal,status,pedulla and the Bongo et al would find it harder gaining acceptance with guitarists imo.active electronics,multi strings,graphite necks,multi laminate thru-neck construction,headless necks and other details are accepted in the bass world.too many guitarists seem not prepared to see beyond a strat/les paul shape which is a pity.
just my tuppence worth
Komp

 

[strummer]

I think it has more to do with us, the bass players, not warming to the innovations that has come later.
It is true that the vast majority of basses today are based on designs from the 50's, but imho that is because we tend to buy that.

There have been advancements by guys like ned steinberger, geoff gould and others, but the big numbers are still in P/J country.

Myself have always liked high tech stuff, but the prices tend to be high enough so that I can't buy them.

The only really successful advancements of bass design post-J I can think of are active pick ups/electronics, the Bongo and the spector that became the wa*wick streamer. There are of course others, but I can't think of any others that have made it into big-sellers.

 

[adouglas]

I think it has a lot to do with fashion, actually.

Few of us really don't give a rip how we look or what others think of us.

So our heroes play J basses (or whatever), and sometime during our most impressionable years we get it in our heads that J basses are cool. This is reinforced by those who know more than we do because they went through the same thing.

Kids at that age where you get your first guitar are very driven by image, much less so by substance. That's why Squiers are so popular. It looks just like a Strat, so it must be just as good as a Strat, right?

Then there's peer pressure. With so many people having these fixed ideas about what looks cool, you get situations like that in the "So..." thread where the bass player buys a Bongo and his bandmates think he's an idiot for doing so.

 

[dlb1001]

The materials aspect probably will continue to evolve but the basic shapes and pickups may not. I mean, a Lull and Sadowsky, visually, don't look that different and still use the same pickup design that Leo originally came up with. Alembic was one of the first to start fooling around with laminated necks and bodies but those things are so expensive that you have to take out a second to afford one!
I guess another difference between bass players and guitar players are effects; for bassists, they're to fool around with but for guitarists, it is essential for them to achieve their sound.

 

[jbiscuti]

I remember reading a rant by Ken Parker a few years ago where he basically blasted guitar players for not being more like bass players - he was saying that bass players are willing to try anything to get the sound or feel they need, whether it be fanned frets or multi-laminate bodies, active preamps, etc.

I think the extent that bass players are "stuck in 1959" compared to guitar players being stuck in the same era is almost nonexistent.

 

[Big Poppa]

I said that the instrument industry is stuck in the mud...I still stand by it. The Bongo was supposed to be a mariage of renewable materials that we would dial in the resonance and feature the new electronics. If I had to live of the bongo for the first two or three years I would be asking you if you wanted your burger super sized.

Bassists are more open to change but it is still a narow world out there.

It would help if the really big makers of guitars and basses thought a new model was something other than a new color or county of orgin. Just about all of the3 forward progress has come on the backs of the small and determined makers and their failure rate is so big..... The market kills the innovators.

 

[Bill]

I like bass designs from all periods. I love the classic look of certain basses, and I love the modern look of other basses.

Of course, I'm also a fiddle player, so I have a deep respect for the design of the violin. As was said earlier, the violin was created around the mid-1500s, and the design was almost identical to modern violins. I have no desire to see that changed!

 

[adouglas]

It would help if the really big makers of guitars and basses thought a new model was something other than a new color or county of orgin. Just about all of the3 forward progress has come on the backs of the small and determined makers and their failure rate is so big..... The market kills the innovators.

That's why I think that EBMM is such a great company. There's a really intelligent mix of mainstream and innovation that serves to keep the company going, yet allows envelope-pushing and special projects.

So many small builders come up with a radical idea and then bet the farm on it. That way lies failure. You have to have a product that appeals to the masses in order to pay the bills.

 

[silverburst]

I think the bass industry is stuck in a rut, but mostly because of the big manufacturers. Ned Steinberger came up with great ideas and built great guitars and basses, but after Gibson bought him out, they lost focus of the customers, and possibly intentionally mismanaged the marketing of the products until the company was dead.

On the other hand, I think that the members of this forum are more the exception than the rule, as far as the collection of basses and the willingness to try something new and diversify their sound and playing. It seems that many other bass players just want one bass, and just use it as a tool instead of appreciating it for its diversity or its value in design or aesthetics. As an example, I think that Philip Kubicki was quite revolutionary with the design of the Factor basses, and BP as well with the Bongo, but you rarely see them used.

If there is no demand for something different, than manufacturers are not going to go to alot of trouble to innovate and stick their necks out.

My .02 worth.

 

[Disquieter]

there's always bc rich....



I bet 50 cents the sterling 5 string is going to be shaped like a warlock...

and come with a coffin case...


and it'll probably have a decal of a spider on it. and maybe iron cross inlays.

 

[Chris C]

I suppose...

I suppose that I'm among the "problems." I have nothing against innovation and new designs, but my attitude is: if it's not broken... then there's nothing really to fix.

I suppose that the "logical" evolution of the bass designs of the fifties is a software-based synthesizer . Nowadays they can sound like any bass out there (and a lot more). And with a few keystrokes, I can program them to play pretty much anything. So much more efficient and versitile. But, really, "traditional me" would rather do it on a "real" bass rather than on my computer.

Really... it's JUST a bass . And I just haven't seen any real innovations with sound over my lifetime (at least no quantum leap). Sure, there have been a lot of new looks... but, I just like the "old" look. And sure, there are a few newer looks that I like, but none any more than the Stingray and moldy old j-bass.

So, it's not that I resist new ideas... it's just that I haven't seen any that really appeal to me that much. Just give me a 'Ray and I'm fine. No resistance to new things... just apathy.

 

[boston asphalt2]

Nowadays they can sound like any bass out there (and a lot more). And with a few keystrokes, I can program them to play pretty much anything. So much more efficient and versitile. But, really, "traditional me" would rather do it on a "real" bass rather than on my computer.

I would tend to disagree with this statement. I dont think you will ever get a computer to sound like the real thing. Its a case of too much technology and not enough individuality. Sure, the computer can do great things, but I dont think you will ever be able to fool anyone with a snythesized bass and ahve them say "wow, that is a killer Xbrand bass"

 

[Chris C]

I would tend to disagree with this statement. I dont think you will ever get a computer to sound like the real thing. Its a case of too much technology and not enough individuality. Sure, the computer can do great things, but I dont think you will ever be able to fool anyone with a snythesized bass and ahve them say "wow, that is a killer Xbrand bass"

Actually... maybe you should say that you couldn't fool any "musician," or "bassist." To this I would agree.

But you know, Mr. General Q. Public generally isn't going to hear or know the difference between a washtub bass and a bass clarinet. Many of them don't even know that a bass exists--it's just a guitar. The programmers and remixers are pretty crafty... and of course, they know that non-musicians don't really catch things like that. A synth line, to the masses out there can sound like a live bass line. For instance, the Seinfeld thing--how many non-musicians have you told that it is not a real bass?

I'm certainly not dissing basses here! I'm just pointing out that for many composers, remixers, and songwriters, the synth is a great step forward. They don't have to deal with (or pay) us cranky musicians. For us bassists, of course, it's not progress or innovation at all--it's a nuisance.

 

[boston asphalt2]

Actually... maybe you should say that you couldn't fool any "musician," or "bassist." To this I would agree.

But you know, Mr. General Q. Public generally isn't going to hear or know the difference between a washtub bass and a bass clarinet. Many of them don't even know that a bass exists--it's just a guitar. The programmers and remixers are pretty crafty... and of course, they know that non-musicians don't really catch things like that. A synth line, to the masses out there can sound like a live bass line. For instance, the Seinfeld thing--how many non-musicians have you told that it is not a real bass?

I'm certainly not dissing basses here! I'm just pointing out that for many composers, remixers, and songwriters, the synth is a great step forward. They don't have to deal with (or pay) us cranky musicians. For us bassists, of course, it's not progress or innovation at all--it's a nuisance.

ahh, to that I can agree

 

[bovinehost]

For instance, the Seinfeld thing--how many non-musicians have you told that it is not a real bass?

I've seen a fair number of BASSISTS ask how to get that sound.

Scary.

 

[Big Poppa]

I suppose that I'm among the "problems." I have nothing against innovation and new designs, but my attitude is: if it's not broken... then there's nothing really to fix.

I suppose that the "logical" evolution of the bass designs of the fifties is a software-based synthesizer . Nowadays they can sound like any bass out there (and a lot more). And with a few keystrokes, I can program them to play pretty much anything. So much more efficient and versitile. But, really, "traditional me" would rather do it on a "real" bass rather than on my computer.

Really... it's JUST a bass . And I just haven't seen any real innovations with sound over my lifetime (at least no quantum leap). Sure, there have been a lot of new looks... but, I just like the "old" look. And sure, there are a few newer looks that I like, but none any more than the Stingray and moldy old j-bass.

So, it's not that I resist new ideas... it's just that I haven't seen any that really appeal to me that much. Just give me a 'Ray and I'm fine. No resistance to new things... just apathy.

and a car is a car and a television is a teleevision lets stop all thoughts of forward motion....

 

[WillPlay4Food]

I don't know, there's still innovation happening in the bass industry. Carey Nordstrand made some beautiful single cut designs. Jerzy Drozd also puts out some beautiful works of art as well as Jenns Ritter.

If I had the cash I'd get a tricked out custom Jerzy Drozd bass. I think they're the bee's knees.

But since I have to live in reality-land and keep my family fed, I'm more than happy with my two EBMM basses (although my 4HH Bongo gets 99.9% playtime and my passive SUB5 picks up the decimal dust of playing time). I love my Bongo and every time I play it, it reminds me why I love it so much.

I do hope to pick up a new EBMM in '07. Guess I have to wait and see what NAMM offers up next month.

 

[Chris C]

Another point...

I don't know, there's still innovation happening in the bass industry. Carey Nordstrand made some beautiful single cut designs. Jerzy Drozd also puts out some beautiful works of art as well as Jenns Ritter.

If I had the cash I'd get a tricked out custom Jerzy Drozd bass. I think they're the bee's knees.

But since I have to live in reality-land and keep my family fed, I'm more than happy with my two EBMM basses (although my 4HH Bongo gets 99.9% playtime and my passive SUB5 picks up the decimal dust of playing time). I love my Bongo and every time I play it, it reminds me why I love it so much.

I do hope to pick up a new EBMM in '07. Guess I have to wait and see what NAMM offers up next month.

Another point and I'll shut up. (please do, sez everyone) We can talk about two different sorts of "improvement" or "innovation."

First there is the cosmetic or aesthetic progression. Really, that has been happening since the beginning. for the most part, it doesn't seem to catch on very well (which brings us full circle to the original post). There have been various manufacturers that I would consider different enough to qualify in this category (Dr*zd, as you mention), T*bias was quite sleek and striking at first (then came 50,000 copies), St***berger, etc...

Then (and this is more of what I was talking about in earlier posts) there is the more technically oriented stuff. There has been a fair amount of this over the years. But, really, as BP has said, it's the same basic magnetic-pickup and bass as it was in '51 (refined, of course, but basically the same). What new idea's there have been have met with a lukewarm reception (I would argue for the most part, because they just weren't that much of an improvement over the old design): things like L*ghtw*ve optical pickups (Had 'em in a Z*n bass--okay, but I prefer the sound of magnetic pickup), The 2-Tek [or was it 2-Tec?] bridge (I liked them, but apparantly not many others did--they went under), then we have composite or graphite necks (they have their fans, but many find them "sterile." I like them--I've had Z*n and M**ulus, but here I am back to the primitive wood neck bass at this point), the list could go on. But... most of it has been rejected.

So here I am with my SR4, SR5, and Sterling. (right now just SR4's). Call me a caveman, but I just haven't heard a bass that sounds (or looks) better to me. And until I do, I'll stick with them... lots of them! Oh sure, I've had plenty of $3500 coffee table basses. They're pretty, they sound good, they look cool, they play great... but... I have a Stringray right now, and I've sold all of those coffee tables. Will I ever get another? Who knows. But, I think I can safely say that the Stingray (and j-bass to a lesser extent) sounds the way I want it to. For me, there is no need to change (other than a case of "hey, that's cool--me wants it).

 

[Caca de Kick]

I do fall under the same catagory as Chris C...if it ain't broke don't fix it. Probably mostly because I was a classically trained musician on several other instruments before I chose electric bass. So I've seen that string, precussion, wind and horn instruments have not changed in centuries, so why does the electric bass have to change? Its still plays it's role in music like other instruments do.
And I also agree with him in that basses really have not changed in that they are still magnetic-coil pickup, and are still basically the same physicals size. The only true innovation I have seen is the optical pickup. Everything else to me has merely been asthetic body looks.