Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
Basses that changed history
Re: Basses that changed history
On May 10, 12:57 am, "js" <nothing AT nothing DOT com> wrote:
> I'll give it a go:
>
> Your argument is a lot like saying every mass-produced car is riding the
> coattails of the Ford Model T. That was the originator for sure, but lots of
> cars have "changed history" since then, AND were not clones or knockoffs of
> the Model T (Jeeps for example).
>
> From a phenomenological standpoint, most things we call a "car" have 4
> wheels and an internal combustion engine.This similarity doesn't mean that
> they are "knockoffs" of each other, but that these things are intrinsic to
> something called an "automobile" as opposed to a motorcycle or whatever.
>
> In the same way, a "Bass" produces semi-percussive musical tones in a
> certain pitch range that provide the low end frequencies for a piece of
> music - be it electric, upright, keyboard, tuba, etc. In that sense, the
> method used to produce the tone is not as important.
>
> In practical terms, it all depends on how much of a purist you want to be;
> how far back you want to go. I mean, you could say that the P Bass is no big
> deal, because it has 4 strings, and the same range and role as an upright
> bass - frets being merely a minor modification that has nothing to do with
> its function in the band. And the upright is of course a knock off of the
> Viola da Gamba, which DID have frets... and so on.
>
> Last, it seems like you're assuming the P Bass was "revolutionary" because
> it appeared on so many records, when in fact it's the recordings themselves
> that made the P Bass sound popular.
>
> What if the P Bass had flopped? Would it still be revolutionary?
>
> Gibson sure had a lot of their own "revolutionary" ideas about bass design;
> they made a lot of basses; they even had well known "revolutionary" artists
> use them (Jack Bruce for example). Yet they never came close to even a
> fraction of the P Bass' popularity. Does that mean they are LESS
> revolutionary? Or just not as well known?
>
> In other words, since the Les Paul came before the Strat, wouldn't the LP
> Bass be "more revolutionary" than the P Bass?
>
> I Remember something Jimmy said years ago in here in a "P Bass is the
> greatest blah blah" discussion. He said something like "if you could only
> own ONE bass, it should be a PBass, simply because that is the sound that
> live and studio engineers know how to dial in, and you can always be
> guaranteed a good sounding session or gig". I'd say this is very true. I'd
> also add that in the recording world, "hit" producers tend to "steal" their
> next hit from the sound of the current crop.
>
> Beyond the practical reasons, I'd say the P Bass became insanely popular
> because it originally appeared on some hit records whose sound was copied by
> other producers, and so on - which eventually became "standard" bass sound
> that every producer/engineer looked for on a session, and so on.
>
> In that sense, The very fact that guys were able to carve out a distinctive
> sound using NON-Ps is in ITSELF "revolutionary".
>
> Speaking of which, I haven't even touched on the instrument/player/sound
> connection, but I will say this:
>
> Stanley Clarke used a "Fender Bass" in the early days of Return To Forever.
> The story goes that after a gig, he was approached by an Alembic rep who
> told him that his playing was great but his sound sucked, and gave him an
> Alembic bass. And the rest as they say, is history...
>
> Stanley plays "Fender Bass" on the RTF "Hymn of the Seventh Galaxy" album.
> Listen to that, and tell me if it would have been possible to make the
> "School Days" record with that bass sound. I'm not saying it's bad, But can
> you imagine him being able to bang out "School Days" with it?
>
> "SotR" <fli...@ssm,com > wrote in message
>
> news:du6Vj.24$qH4.4@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc,com ...
>
> > It's my opinion that the only bass that really qualifies for your topic
> as
> > stated is the Pbass. Everything else are just descendants that rode it's
> > wake or coat tails if you will.
> > The others listed may have "made" history but did they really "change"
> > history? I think it was individual players that did the changing after
> the
> > electric bass was invented, which was the Precision. Steady improvement
> took
> > place but name one other bass that did to music what the Pbass did.
> > Let's say the Rick had never been invented, does that mean there would
> be
> > no Chris Squire or Geddy Lee? Would Paul's bass lines suck with out
> Hofner?
> > Would Victor Wooten have not come to the public eye with out Fodera?
> Stanley
> > Clarke gone unnoticed with out Alembic? etc. etc. No F'in way. Everything
> > they do, they could do on a Pbass because of their talent and skill. All
> > these basses have a distinct sound and character BUT, as we all know, the
> > magic is in the player.
> > As for some of the others mentioned. Steinberger? how many people do you
> > see playing them? They were a flash in the pan that has held on because
> it's
> > essentially a high quality instrument. They may have an enduring legacy of
> > causing the industry to explore space age materials. But honestly Ovation
> > did that years ago with their plastic :"lyrachord" bowls, which we learn
> > they stole from Helicopter blades lol.
> > I'm interested to hear everyone's thoughts on my assessment.
>
> > SotR
Well, this is kind of a pointless but interesting thread. I HAVE to
give a shout out to John S. for using the term "phenomenological"!
Haven't heard that one since my freshman Philosophy class at ol'
Slippery Rock U.
There are several interpretations of the term, but generally it is
known as the theory of the appearances fundamental to all empirical
knowledge. Way to go, John!
Mark
On May 10, 12:57 am, "js" <nothing AT nothing DOT com> wrote:
> I'll give it a go:
>
> Your argument is a lot like saying every mass-produced car is riding the
> coattails of the Ford Model T. That was the originator for sure, but lots of
> cars have "changed history" since then, AND were not clones or knockoffs of
> the Model T (Jeeps for example).
>
> From a phenomenological standpoint, most things we call a "car" have 4
> wheels and an internal combustion engine.This similarity doesn't mean that
> they are "knockoffs" of each other, but that these things are intrinsic to
> something called an "automobile" as opposed to a motorcycle or whatever.
>
> In the same way, a "Bass" produces semi-percussive musical tones in a
> certain pitch range that provide the low end frequencies for a piece of
> music - be it electric, upright, keyboard, tuba, etc. In that sense, the
> method used to produce the tone is not as important.
>
> In practical terms, it all depends on how much of a purist you want to be;
> how far back you want to go. I mean, you could say that the P Bass is no big
> deal, because it has 4 strings, and the same range and role as an upright
> bass - frets being merely a minor modification that has nothing to do with
> its function in the band. And the upright is of course a knock off of the
> Viola da Gamba, which DID have frets... and so on.
>
> Last, it seems like you're assuming the P Bass was "revolutionary" because
> it appeared on so many records, when in fact it's the recordings themselves
> that made the P Bass sound popular.
>
> What if the P Bass had flopped? Would it still be revolutionary?
>
> Gibson sure had a lot of their own "revolutionary" ideas about bass design;
> they made a lot of basses; they even had well known "revolutionary" artists
> use them (Jack Bruce for example). Yet they never came close to even a
> fraction of the P Bass' popularity. Does that mean they are LESS
> revolutionary? Or just not as well known?
>
> In other words, since the Les Paul came before the Strat, wouldn't the LP
> Bass be "more revolutionary" than the P Bass?
>
> I Remember something Jimmy said years ago in here in a "P Bass is the
> greatest blah blah" discussion. He said something like "if you could only
> own ONE bass, it should be a PBass, simply because that is the sound that
> live and studio engineers know how to dial in, and you can always be
> guaranteed a good sounding session or gig". I'd say this is very true. I'd
> also add that in the recording world, "hit" producers tend to "steal" their
> next hit from the sound of the current crop.
>
> Beyond the practical reasons, I'd say the P Bass became insanely popular
> because it originally appeared on some hit records whose sound was copied by
> other producers, and so on - which eventually became "standard" bass sound
> that every producer/engineer looked for on a session, and so on.
>
> In that sense, The very fact that guys were able to carve out a distinctive
> sound using NON-Ps is in ITSELF "revolutionary".
>
> Speaking of which, I haven't even touched on the instrument/player/sound
> connection, but I will say this:
>
> Stanley Clarke used a "Fender Bass" in the early days of Return To Forever.
> The story goes that after a gig, he was approached by an Alembic rep who
> told him that his playing was great but his sound sucked, and gave him an
> Alembic bass. And the rest as they say, is history...
>
> Stanley plays "Fender Bass" on the RTF "Hymn of the Seventh Galaxy" album.
> Listen to that, and tell me if it would have been possible to make the
> "School Days" record with that bass sound. I'm not saying it's bad, But can
> you imagine him being able to bang out "School Days" with it?
>
> "SotR" <fli...@ssm,com > wrote in message
>
> news:du6Vj.24$qH4.4@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc,com ...
>
> > It's my opinion that the only bass that really qualifies for your topic
> as
> > stated is the Pbass. Everything else are just descendants that rode it's
> > wake or coat tails if you will.
> > The others listed may have "made" history but did they really "change"
> > history? I think it was individual players that did the changing after
> the
> > electric bass was invented, which was the Precision. Steady improvement
> took
> > place but name one other bass that did to music what the Pbass did.
> > Let's say the Rick had never been invented, does that mean there would
> be
> > no Chris Squire or Geddy Lee? Would Paul's bass lines suck with out
> Hofner?
> > Would Victor Wooten have not come to the public eye with out Fodera?
> Stanley
> > Clarke gone unnoticed with out Alembic? etc. etc. No F'in way. Everything
> > they do, they could do on a Pbass because of their talent and skill. All
> > these basses have a distinct sound and character BUT, as we all know, the
> > magic is in the player.
> > As for some of the others mentioned. Steinberger? how many people do you
> > see playing them? They were a flash in the pan that has held on because
> it's
> > essentially a high quality instrument. They may have an enduring legacy of
> > causing the industry to explore space age materials. But honestly Ovation
> > did that years ago with their plastic :"lyrachord" bowls, which we learn
> > they stole from Helicopter blades lol.
> > I'm interested to hear everyone's thoughts on my assessment.
>
> > SotR
Well, this is kind of a pointless but interesting thread. I HAVE to
give a shout out to John S. for using the term "phenomenological"!
Haven't heard that one since my freshman Philosophy class at ol'
Slippery Rock U.
There are several interpretations of the term, but generally it is
known as the theory of the appearances fundamental to all empirical
knowledge. Way to go, John!
Mark
Re: Basses that changed history
Hey, I gotta use that Philosophy degree somehow...
"Mark" <mdennis2@comcast,net > wrote in message
news:bee7976f-20f4-491b-8ba1-6d5a46672f56@34g2000hsh.googlegroups,com ...
On May 10, 12:57 am, "js" <nothing AT nothing DOT com> wrote:
> I'll give it a go:
>
> Your argument is a lot like saying every mass-produced car is riding the
> coattails of the Ford Model T. That was the originator for sure, but lots
of
> cars have "changed history" since then, AND were not clones or knockoffs
of
> the Model T (Jeeps for example).
>
> From a phenomenological standpoint, most things we call a "car" have 4
> wheels and an internal combustion engine.This similarity doesn't mean that
> they are "knockoffs" of each other, but that these things are intrinsic to
> something called an "automobile" as opposed to a motorcycle or whatever.
>
> In the same way, a "Bass" produces semi-percussive musical tones in a
> certain pitch range that provide the low end frequencies for a piece of
> music - be it electric, upright, keyboard, tuba, etc. In that sense, the
> method used to produce the tone is not as important.
>
> In practical terms, it all depends on how much of a purist you want to be;
> how far back you want to go. I mean, you could say that the P Bass is no
big
> deal, because it has 4 strings, and the same range and role as an upright
> bass - frets being merely a minor modification that has nothing to do with
> its function in the band. And the upright is of course a knock off of the
> Viola da Gamba, which DID have frets... and so on.
>
> Last, it seems like you're assuming the P Bass was "revolutionary" because
> it appeared on so many records, when in fact it's the recordings
themselves
> that made the P Bass sound popular.
>
> What if the P Bass had flopped? Would it still be revolutionary?
>
> Gibson sure had a lot of their own "revolutionary" ideas about bass
design;
> they made a lot of basses; they even had well known "revolutionary"
artists
> use them (Jack Bruce for example). Yet they never came close to even a
> fraction of the P Bass' popularity. Does that mean they are LESS
> revolutionary? Or just not as well known?
>
> In other words, since the Les Paul came before the Strat, wouldn't the LP
> Bass be "more revolutionary" than the P Bass?
>
> I Remember something Jimmy said years ago in here in a "P Bass is the
> greatest blah blah" discussion. He said something like "if you could only
> own ONE bass, it should be a PBass, simply because that is the sound that
> live and studio engineers know how to dial in, and you can always be
> guaranteed a good sounding session or gig". I'd say this is very true. I'd
> also add that in the recording world, "hit" producers tend to "steal"
their
> next hit from the sound of the current crop.
>
> Beyond the practical reasons, I'd say the P Bass became insanely popular
> because it originally appeared on some hit records whose sound was copied
by
> other producers, and so on - which eventually became "standard" bass sound
> that every producer/engineer looked for on a session, and so on.
>
> In that sense, The very fact that guys were able to carve out a
distinctive
> sound using NON-Ps is in ITSELF "revolutionary".
>
> Speaking of which, I haven't even touched on the instrument/player/sound
> connection, but I will say this:
>
> Stanley Clarke used a "Fender Bass" in the early days of Return To
Forever.
> The story goes that after a gig, he was approached by an Alembic rep who
> told him that his playing was great but his sound sucked, and gave him an
> Alembic bass. And the rest as they say, is history...
>
> Stanley plays "Fender Bass" on the RTF "Hymn of the Seventh Galaxy" album.
> Listen to that, and tell me if it would have been possible to make the
> "School Days" record with that bass sound. I'm not saying it's bad, But
can
> you imagine him being able to bang out "School Days" with it?
>
> "SotR" <fli...@ssm,com > wrote in message
>
> news:du6Vj.24$qH4.4@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc,com ...
>
> > It's my opinion that the only bass that really qualifies for your topic
> as
> > stated is the Pbass. Everything else are just descendants that rode it's
> > wake or coat tails if you will.
> > The others listed may have "made" history but did they really "change"
> > history? I think it was individual players that did the changing after
> the
> > electric bass was invented, which was the Precision. Steady improvement
> took
> > place but name one other bass that did to music what the Pbass did.
> > Let's say the Rick had never been invented, does that mean there would
> be
> > no Chris Squire or Geddy Lee? Would Paul's bass lines suck with out
> Hofner?
> > Would Victor Wooten have not come to the public eye with out Fodera?
> Stanley
> > Clarke gone unnoticed with out Alembic? etc. etc. No F'in way.
Everything
> > they do, they could do on a Pbass because of their talent and skill. All
> > these basses have a distinct sound and character BUT, as we all know,
the
> > magic is in the player.
> > As for some of the others mentioned. Steinberger? how many people do you
> > see playing them? They were a flash in the pan that has held on because
> it's
> > essentially a high quality instrument. They may have an enduring legacy
of
> > causing the industry to explore space age materials. But honestly
Ovation
> > did that years ago with their plastic :"lyrachord" bowls, which we learn
> > they stole from Helicopter blades lol.
> > I'm interested to hear everyone's thoughts on my assessment.
>
> > SotR
Well, this is kind of a pointless but interesting thread. I HAVE to
give a shout out to John S. for using the term "phenomenological"!
Haven't heard that one since my freshman Philosophy class at ol'
Slippery Rock U.
There are several interpretations of the term, but generally it is
known as the theory of the appearances fundamental to all empirical
knowledge. Way to go, John!
Mark
Hey, I gotta use that Philosophy degree somehow...
"Mark" <mdennis2@comcast,net > wrote in message
news:bee7976f-20f4-491b-8ba1-6d5a46672f56@34g2000hsh.googlegroups,com ...
On May 10, 12:57 am, "js" <nothing AT nothing DOT com> wrote:
> I'll give it a go:
>
> Your argument is a lot like saying every mass-produced car is riding the
> coattails of the Ford Model T. That was the originator for sure, but lots
of
> cars have "changed history" since then, AND were not clones or knockoffs
of
> the Model T (Jeeps for example).
>
> From a phenomenological standpoint, most things we call a "car" have 4
> wheels and an internal combustion engine.This similarity doesn't mean that
> they are "knockoffs" of each other, but that these things are intrinsic to
> something called an "automobile" as opposed to a motorcycle or whatever.
>
> In the same way, a "Bass" produces semi-percussive musical tones in a
> certain pitch range that provide the low end frequencies for a piece of
> music - be it electric, upright, keyboard, tuba, etc. In that sense, the
> method used to produce the tone is not as important.
>
> In practical terms, it all depends on how much of a purist you want to be;
> how far back you want to go. I mean, you could say that the P Bass is no
big
> deal, because it has 4 strings, and the same range and role as an upright
> bass - frets being merely a minor modification that has nothing to do with
> its function in the band. And the upright is of course a knock off of the
> Viola da Gamba, which DID have frets... and so on.
>
> Last, it seems like you're assuming the P Bass was "revolutionary" because
> it appeared on so many records, when in fact it's the recordings
themselves
> that made the P Bass sound popular.
>
> What if the P Bass had flopped? Would it still be revolutionary?
>
> Gibson sure had a lot of their own "revolutionary" ideas about bass
design;
> they made a lot of basses; they even had well known "revolutionary"
artists
> use them (Jack Bruce for example). Yet they never came close to even a
> fraction of the P Bass' popularity. Does that mean they are LESS
> revolutionary? Or just not as well known?
>
> In other words, since the Les Paul came before the Strat, wouldn't the LP
> Bass be "more revolutionary" than the P Bass?
>
> I Remember something Jimmy said years ago in here in a "P Bass is the
> greatest blah blah" discussion. He said something like "if you could only
> own ONE bass, it should be a PBass, simply because that is the sound that
> live and studio engineers know how to dial in, and you can always be
> guaranteed a good sounding session or gig". I'd say this is very true. I'd
> also add that in the recording world, "hit" producers tend to "steal"
their
> next hit from the sound of the current crop.
>
> Beyond the practical reasons, I'd say the P Bass became insanely popular
> because it originally appeared on some hit records whose sound was copied
by
> other producers, and so on - which eventually became "standard" bass sound
> that every producer/engineer looked for on a session, and so on.
>
> In that sense, The very fact that guys were able to carve out a
distinctive
> sound using NON-Ps is in ITSELF "revolutionary".
>
> Speaking of which, I haven't even touched on the instrument/player/sound
> connection, but I will say this:
>
> Stanley Clarke used a "Fender Bass" in the early days of Return To
Forever.
> The story goes that after a gig, he was approached by an Alembic rep who
> told him that his playing was great but his sound sucked, and gave him an
> Alembic bass. And the rest as they say, is history...
>
> Stanley plays "Fender Bass" on the RTF "Hymn of the Seventh Galaxy" album.
> Listen to that, and tell me if it would have been possible to make the
> "School Days" record with that bass sound. I'm not saying it's bad, But
can
> you imagine him being able to bang out "School Days" with it?
>
> "SotR" <fli...@ssm,com > wrote in message
>
> news:du6Vj.24$qH4.4@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc,com ...
>
> > It's my opinion that the only bass that really qualifies for your topic
> as
> > stated is the Pbass. Everything else are just descendants that rode it's
> > wake or coat tails if you will.
> > The others listed may have "made" history but did they really "change"
> > history? I think it was individual players that did the changing after
> the
> > electric bass was invented, which was the Precision. Steady improvement
> took
> > place but name one other bass that did to music what the Pbass did.
> > Let's say the Rick had never been invented, does that mean there would
> be
> > no Chris Squire or Geddy Lee? Would Paul's bass lines suck with out
> Hofner?
> > Would Victor Wooten have not come to the public eye with out Fodera?
> Stanley
> > Clarke gone unnoticed with out Alembic? etc. etc. No F'in way.
Everything
> > they do, they could do on a Pbass because of their talent and skill. All
> > these basses have a distinct sound and character BUT, as we all know,
the
> > magic is in the player.
> > As for some of the others mentioned. Steinberger? how many people do you
> > see playing them? They were a flash in the pan that has held on because
> it's
> > essentially a high quality instrument. They may have an enduring legacy
of
> > causing the industry to explore space age materials. But honestly
Ovation
> > did that years ago with their plastic :"lyrachord" bowls, which we learn
> > they stole from Helicopter blades lol.
> > I'm interested to hear everyone's thoughts on my assessment.
>
> > SotR
Well, this is kind of a pointless but interesting thread. I HAVE to
give a shout out to John S. for using the term "phenomenological"!
Haven't heard that one since my freshman Philosophy class at ol'
Slippery Rock U.
There are several interpretations of the term, but generally it is
known as the theory of the appearances fundamental to all empirical
knowledge. Way to go, John!
Mark
Re: Basses that changed history
"js" <nothing AT nothing DOT com> wrote in message news:48252bc6
> Last, it seems like you're assuming the P Bass was "revolutionary" because
> it appeared on so many records, when in fact it's the recordings
> themselves
> that made the P Bass sound popular.
>
> What if the P Bass had flopped? Would it still be revolutionary?
>
> Gibson sure had a lot of their own "revolutionary" ideas about bass
> design;
> they made a lot of basses; they even had well known "revolutionary"
> artists
> use them (Jack Bruce for example). Yet they never came close to even a
> fraction of the P Bass' popularity. Does that mean they are LESS
> revolutionary? Or just not as well known?
Some people have the idea that the P-bass just "lucked"
into popularity, but I strongly disagree. It's endurance
over 5 decades is proof that Leo Fender had something
going when he came up with this design.
But I agree with John's point that there were "revolutions"
after the P-bass, namely the proliferation in the 70s and
80s of non-P sounding basses (though it's worth noting
that they were "rebelling" against the now-standard
P-bass sound). The difference is that I don't think there
was any single bass that represented these changes the
way the P-bass symbolized electric bass in the 50s and
60s.
- Gary Rosen
"js" <nothing AT nothing DOT com> wrote in message news:48252bc6
> Last, it seems like you're assuming the P Bass was "revolutionary" because
> it appeared on so many records, when in fact it's the recordings
> themselves
> that made the P Bass sound popular.
>
> What if the P Bass had flopped? Would it still be revolutionary?
>
> Gibson sure had a lot of their own "revolutionary" ideas about bass
> design;
> they made a lot of basses; they even had well known "revolutionary"
> artists
> use them (Jack Bruce for example). Yet they never came close to even a
> fraction of the P Bass' popularity. Does that mean they are LESS
> revolutionary? Or just not as well known?
Some people have the idea that the P-bass just "lucked"
into popularity, but I strongly disagree. It's endurance
over 5 decades is proof that Leo Fender had something
going when he came up with this design.
But I agree with John's point that there were "revolutions"
after the P-bass, namely the proliferation in the 70s and
80s of non-P sounding basses (though it's worth noting
that they were "rebelling" against the now-standard
P-bass sound). The difference is that I don't think there
was any single bass that represented these changes the
way the P-bass symbolized electric bass in the 50s and
60s.
- Gary Rosen
Re: Basses that changed history
I don't think the PBass necessarily "lucked" into anything; I think it just
happened to be the quietest, simplest to record and easiest to mix of any
electric bass out there at the time. As hits were made using it, it's use on
recordings spread, and so on.
I mean, Paul McCartney had arguably THE most famous bass and bass sound in
history - yet Hofner is not the most popular bass in the world today, and
even those who imitate Sir Paul rarely do it on a Hofner (unless they're in
a Beatles tribute band). I'm sorry to all the Beatle worshipers, but Hofners
just plain suck IMO - they're noisy, the neck is like a pencil, and they
sound like a cigar box bass. They also have a rather muddy bottom end
compared to a P.
I just think there were a lot more practical considerations to using the P
in the studio besides being the "first" electric bass (which it really
wasn't). When better ideas came along (active electronics, low B for
example) players and engineers switched to them.
And for once, I'm just playing Devil's Advocate. I don't really have an
opinion either way, other than to bust up the "All revolutionary basses are
P basses" syllogism. Damn, there I go again...
"Gary Rosen" <garymrosen@comcast,net > wrote in message
news:rIidnfuedr--a7jVnZ2dnUVZ_t_inZ2d@comcast,com ...
>
> "js" <nothing AT nothing DOT com> wrote in message news:48252bc6
>
> > Last, it seems like you're assuming the P Bass was "revolutionary"
because
> > it appeared on so many records, when in fact it's the recordings
> > themselves
> > that made the P Bass sound popular.
> >
> > What if the P Bass had flopped? Would it still be revolutionary?
> >
> > Gibson sure had a lot of their own "revolutionary" ideas about bass
> > design;
> > they made a lot of basses; they even had well known "revolutionary"
> > artists
> > use them (Jack Bruce for example). Yet they never came close to even a
> > fraction of the P Bass' popularity. Does that mean they are LESS
> > revolutionary? Or just not as well known?
>
> Some people have the idea that the P-bass just "lucked"
> into popularity, but I strongly disagree. It's endurance
> over 5 decades is proof that Leo Fender had something
> going when he came up with this design.
>
> But I agree with John's point that there were "revolutions"
> after the P-bass, namely the proliferation in the 70s and
> 80s of non-P sounding basses (though it's worth noting
> that they were "rebelling" against the now-standard
> P-bass sound). The difference is that I don't think there
> was any single bass that represented these changes the
> way the P-bass symbolized electric bass in the 50s and
> 60s.
>
> - Gary Rosen
>
>
I don't think the PBass necessarily "lucked" into anything; I think it just
happened to be the quietest, simplest to record and easiest to mix of any
electric bass out there at the time. As hits were made using it, it's use on
recordings spread, and so on.
I mean, Paul McCartney had arguably THE most famous bass and bass sound in
history - yet Hofner is not the most popular bass in the world today, and
even those who imitate Sir Paul rarely do it on a Hofner (unless they're in
a Beatles tribute band). I'm sorry to all the Beatle worshipers, but Hofners
just plain suck IMO - they're noisy, the neck is like a pencil, and they
sound like a cigar box bass. They also have a rather muddy bottom end
compared to a P.
I just think there were a lot more practical considerations to using the P
in the studio besides being the "first" electric bass (which it really
wasn't). When better ideas came along (active electronics, low B for
example) players and engineers switched to them.
And for once, I'm just playing Devil's Advocate. I don't really have an
opinion either way, other than to bust up the "All revolutionary basses are
P basses" syllogism. Damn, there I go again...
"Gary Rosen" <garymrosen@comcast,net > wrote in message
news:rIidnfuedr--a7jVnZ2dnUVZ_t_inZ2d@comcast,com ...
>
> "js" <nothing AT nothing DOT com> wrote in message news:48252bc6
>
> > Last, it seems like you're assuming the P Bass was "revolutionary"
because
> > it appeared on so many records, when in fact it's the recordings
> > themselves
> > that made the P Bass sound popular.
> >
> > What if the P Bass had flopped? Would it still be revolutionary?
> >
> > Gibson sure had a lot of their own "revolutionary" ideas about bass
> > design;
> > they made a lot of basses; they even had well known "revolutionary"
> > artists
> > use them (Jack Bruce for example). Yet they never came close to even a
> > fraction of the P Bass' popularity. Does that mean they are LESS
> > revolutionary? Or just not as well known?
>
> Some people have the idea that the P-bass just "lucked"
> into popularity, but I strongly disagree. It's endurance
> over 5 decades is proof that Leo Fender had something
> going when he came up with this design.
>
> But I agree with John's point that there were "revolutions"
> after the P-bass, namely the proliferation in the 70s and
> 80s of non-P sounding basses (though it's worth noting
> that they were "rebelling" against the now-standard
> P-bass sound). The difference is that I don't think there
> was any single bass that represented these changes the
> way the P-bass symbolized electric bass in the 50s and
> 60s.
>
> - Gary Rosen
>
>
Re: Basses that changed history
On May 12, 4:06 am, "js" <nothing AT nothing DOT com> wrote:
> I mean, Paul McCartney had arguably THE most famous bass and bass sound in
> history - yet Hofner is not the most popular bass in the world today, and
> even those who imitate Sir Paul rarely do it on a Hofner (unless they're in
> a Beatles tribute band). I'm sorry to all the Beatle worshipers, but Hofners
> just plain suck IMO - they're noisy, the neck is like a pencil, and they
> sound like a cigar box bass. They also have a rather muddy bottom end
> compared to a P.
Word.
AFAIK Sir Paul used the Hofner because it was the only standard bass
he could play as lefty.
On May 12, 4:06 am, "js" <nothing AT nothing DOT com> wrote:
> I mean, Paul McCartney had arguably THE most famous bass and bass sound in
> history - yet Hofner is not the most popular bass in the world today, and
> even those who imitate Sir Paul rarely do it on a Hofner (unless they're in
> a Beatles tribute band). I'm sorry to all the Beatle worshipers, but Hofners
> just plain suck IMO - they're noisy, the neck is like a pencil, and they
> sound like a cigar box bass. They also have a rather muddy bottom end
> compared to a P.
Word.
AFAIK Sir Paul used the Hofner because it was the only standard bass
he could play as lefty.
Re: Basses that changed history
Javier González Nicolini <jagonzal@gmail,com > wrote:
> AFAIK Sir Paul used the Hofner because it was the only standard bass
> he could play as lefty.
It was the cheapest available bass that could be played lefty.
He moved onto better instruments fairly quickly but not before the
look of the hofner 'beatle' bass got entrenched in peoples eyes.
He still plays a hofner on stage, mostly because people expect to see
that bass.
--- Derek
--
Derek Tearne - derek@url.co.nz
Many Hands - Trans Cultural Music from Aotearoa/New Zealand
http :// www .manyhands.co.nz/
Javier González Nicolini <jagonzal@gmail,com > wrote:
> AFAIK Sir Paul used the Hofner because it was the only standard bass
> he could play as lefty.
It was the cheapest available bass that could be played lefty.
He moved onto better instruments fairly quickly but not before the
look of the hofner 'beatle' bass got entrenched in peoples eyes.
He still plays a hofner on stage, mostly because people expect to see
that bass.
--- Derek
--
Derek Tearne - derek@url.co.nz
Many Hands - Trans Cultural Music from Aotearoa/New Zealand
http :// www .manyhands.co.nz/
Re: Basses that changed history
Derek Tearne wrote:
> Javier González Nicolini <jagonzal@gmail,com > wrote:
>
>> AFAIK Sir Paul used the Hofner because it was the only standard bass
>> he could play as lefty.
>
> It was the cheapest available bass that could be played lefty.
>
> He moved onto better instruments fairly quickly but not before the
> look of the hofner 'beatle' bass got entrenched in peoples eyes.
>
> He still plays a hofner on stage, mostly because people expect to see
> that bass.
Yeh, like someone as accomplished as Sir Paul is concerned with image.
Derek Tearne wrote:
> Javier González Nicolini <jagonzal@gmail,com > wrote:
>
>> AFAIK Sir Paul used the Hofner because it was the only standard bass
>> he could play as lefty.
>
> It was the cheapest available bass that could be played lefty.
>
> He moved onto better instruments fairly quickly but not before the
> look of the hofner 'beatle' bass got entrenched in peoples eyes.
>
> He still plays a hofner on stage, mostly because people expect to see
> that bass.
Yeh, like someone as accomplished as Sir Paul is concerned with image.
Re: Basses that changed history
> > Javier Gonz=EF=BF=BDlez Nicolini <jagon...@gmail,com > wrote:
>
> >> AFAIK Sir Paul used the Hofner because it was the only standard bass
> >> he could play as lefty.
Actually, Paul custom ordered his first Hofner. He chose it because
it was affordable and was available left handed by special order.
> > It was the cheapest available bass that could be played lefty.
>
> > He moved onto better instruments fairly quickly but not before the
> > _look_ of the hofner 'beatle' bass got entrenched in peoples eyes. =EF=
=BF=BD
He moved on to a Ric after they gave him a 4001S. This became his
main bass for years but he still used both of his Hofners on occasion,
as well as a Jazz bass given to him by Fender in 1968.
> > He still plays a hofner on stage, mostly because people expect to see
> > that bass. =EF=BF=BD
He still plays THE Hofner, the same one he's used since 1963 given to
him by Selmer, the UK dealer for Hofner, just as they were hitting it
big in England. This is the second one he owned and the most
famous.
He plays it because he likes the light weight and easy neck, not for
image. He said he fell in love with it again after Elvis Costello
convinced him to take it out of storage to use on Elvis' "Spike" album
in 1988. He also used a Wal 5 string live (and in studio) for a few
years, as well as a Yamaha and a Kay - so image wasn't a factor.
> > Javier Gonz=EF=BF=BDlez Nicolini <jagon...@gmail,com > wrote:
>
> >> AFAIK Sir Paul used the Hofner because it was the only standard bass
> >> he could play as lefty.
Actually, Paul custom ordered his first Hofner. He chose it because
it was affordable and was available left handed by special order.
> > It was the cheapest available bass that could be played lefty.
>
> > He moved onto better instruments fairly quickly but not before the
> > _look_ of the hofner 'beatle' bass got entrenched in peoples eyes. =EF=
=BF=BD
He moved on to a Ric after they gave him a 4001S. This became his
main bass for years but he still used both of his Hofners on occasion,
as well as a Jazz bass given to him by Fender in 1968.
> > He still plays a hofner on stage, mostly because people expect to see
> > that bass. =EF=BF=BD
He still plays THE Hofner, the same one he's used since 1963 given to
him by Selmer, the UK dealer for Hofner, just as they were hitting it
big in England. This is the second one he owned and the most
famous.
He plays it because he likes the light weight and easy neck, not for
image. He said he fell in love with it again after Elvis Costello
convinced him to take it out of storage to use on Elvis' "Spike" album
in 1988. He also used a Wal 5 string live (and in studio) for a few
years, as well as a Yamaha and a Kay - so image wasn't a factor.
Re: Basses that changed history
Axtman wrote:
> I was thinking about this and have a short listing of innovations that
> changed the course of basses or bass playing.
>
> In sort of chronological order:
>
> Fender Precision Bass: The "first" electric bass
>
<snip>
>
> So what does the future hold for basses?
>
>
>
Fender Precision Bass: The "first" electric bass
:)
--
Les Cargill
Axtman wrote:
> I was thinking about this and have a short listing of innovations that
> changed the course of basses or bass playing.
>
> In sort of chronological order:
>
> Fender Precision Bass: The "first" electric bass
>
<snip>
>
> So what does the future hold for basses?
>
>
>
Fender Precision Bass: The "first" electric bass
:)
--
Les Cargill
Re: Basses that changed history
Axtman <daxtATpacifierDOTcom> wrote:
> I was thinking about this and have a short listing of innovations that
> changed the course of basses or bass playing.
>
> In sort of chronological order:
>
> Fender Precision Bass: The "first" electric bass
>
> Rickenbacker basses: This bass is not limited to the bottom
>
> Fretless basses: Just the opposite of why a "precision" bass was
> invented.
>
> Active electronics: Improved fidelity
>
> 5 string basses: E is not longer the bottom
>
> Multi string basses: 8 or 12 for a fuller sound.
>
> Steinberger: Launched headless basses
>
> Electric Upright basses: Combo upright and electric
>
> So what does the future hold for basses?
The real pioneer:
http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bass_guitar
In the 1930s, inventor Paul Tutmarc from Seattle, Washington, developed
the first guitar-style electric bass instrument that was fretted and
designed to be held and played horizontally. The 1935 sales catalogue
for Tutmarc's company, Audiovox, featured his "electronic bass fiddle,"
a four stringed, solid bodied, fretted electric bass guitar with a
30˝-inch scale length. The change to a "guitar" form made the instrument
easier to hold and transport, and the addition of guitar-style frets
enabled bassists to play in tune more easily and made the new electric
bass easier to learn. However, Tutmarc's inventions never caught the
public imagination, and little further development of the instrument
took place until the 1950s.
Axtman <daxtATpacifierDOTcom> wrote:
> I was thinking about this and have a short listing of innovations that
> changed the course of basses or bass playing.
>
> In sort of chronological order:
>
> Fender Precision Bass: The "first" electric bass
>
> Rickenbacker basses: This bass is not limited to the bottom
>
> Fretless basses: Just the opposite of why a "precision" bass was
> invented.
>
> Active electronics: Improved fidelity
>
> 5 string basses: E is not longer the bottom
>
> Multi string basses: 8 or 12 for a fuller sound.
>
> Steinberger: Launched headless basses
>
> Electric Upright basses: Combo upright and electric
>
> So what does the future hold for basses?
The real pioneer:
http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bass_guitar
In the 1930s, inventor Paul Tutmarc from Seattle, Washington, developed
the first guitar-style electric bass instrument that was fretted and
designed to be held and played horizontally. The 1935 sales catalogue
for Tutmarc's company, Audiovox, featured his "electronic bass fiddle,"
a four stringed, solid bodied, fretted electric bass guitar with a
30˝-inch scale length. The change to a "guitar" form made the instrument
easier to hold and transport, and the addition of guitar-style frets
enabled bassists to play in tune more easily and made the new electric
bass easier to learn. However, Tutmarc's inventions never caught the
public imagination, and little further development of the instrument
took place until the 1950s.
Re: Basses that changed history
Axtman <daxtATpacifierDOTcom> wrote:
> I was thinking about this and have a short listing of innovations that
> changed the course of basses or bass playing.
>
> In sort of chronological order:
That's the craziest form of chronological order I've ever seen.
You have electric upright basses last, as though they are recent
innovations when in fact they've been around since the 1930's and other
things in the wrong places ...
Here goes, a better chronology.
1920's - Gibson Mandobass - a large fretted mandolin - played vertically
like an upright bass.
1930's - Regal and Dobro make large (nearly upright bass sized) acoustic
fretted guitar shaped instruments - both were intended to be played
upright.
In the late 1930's Gibson built two large fretted solid electric guitar
shaped instruments - similar to the Regal and Dobro these were intended
to be played vertically.
Vega, Regal, Rickenbacker and others market electric upright basses -
the rickenbacker one plugged into the amplifier via the and pin!
1936 - Paul Tutmarc of Seattle marketed the first solid bodied fretted
electric bass guitar designed to be played horizontally - the scale
length was around 30" (similar to later Gibson guitars).
1940's - nothing of note apparently happened bass wise.
1950's
1951: Fender Precision bass - the first successful mass market electric
bass guitar.
1957: Rickenbacker - first neck through bass guitar (I don't understand
your 'not limited to the bottom' comment).
1960's: Fretless basses - It's a toss up between Bill Wyman and
Rickenbacker (apparently they had a fretless available from 1960, but I
haven't seen an actual catalogue or scan thereof) - the first absolutely
verifiable commercial fretless bass is the Ampeg AUB-1 in 1966. Fender
brought the fretless precision to market in 1970.
Roundwound strings!!!! Rotosound started making these in 1963.
1967: 8 string (paired octave string course) basses - Hagstrom made the
first.
1970's: Active Electronics - several companies including Alembic and Wal
started making active basses in the early 1970's
1974: Chapman stick
1975/6: 6 and 5 string basses with low B.
1979: Steinberger and Status independantly develop headless graphite
neck basses (Steinberger was first to market with a distinctive
minimalist instrument).
1980's:
First production 12 strings (triple course with two octave strings).
Ashbory bass - a tiny electric bass with rubber strings.
7 string single course bass.
1990's: Range extended down to Low F# and eventually low C#
2000's: 13 string single course Low C# to really high C#
What's next? I can't really imagine there's anywhere else to go that
still counts as 'bass' - and personally I think anything over 7 single
course strings is really a different class of instrument altogether and
shouldn't really be called a 'bass' anymore.
--- Derek
--
Derek Tearne - derek@url.co.nz
Many Hands - Trans Cultural Music from Aotearoa/New Zealand
http :// www .manyhands.co.nz/
Axtman <daxtATpacifierDOTcom> wrote:
> I was thinking about this and have a short listing of innovations that
> changed the course of basses or bass playing.
>
> In sort of chronological order:
That's the craziest form of chronological order I've ever seen.
You have electric upright basses last, as though they are recent
innovations when in fact they've been around since the 1930's and other
things in the wrong places ...
Here goes, a better chronology.
1920's - Gibson Mandobass - a large fretted mandolin - played vertically
like an upright bass.
1930's - Regal and Dobro make large (nearly upright bass sized) acoustic
fretted guitar shaped instruments - both were intended to be played
upright.
In the late 1930's Gibson built two large fretted solid electric guitar
shaped instruments - similar to the Regal and Dobro these were intended
to be played vertically.
Vega, Regal, Rickenbacker and others market electric upright basses -
the rickenbacker one plugged into the amplifier via the and pin!
1936 - Paul Tutmarc of Seattle marketed the first solid bodied fretted
electric bass guitar designed to be played horizontally - the scale
length was around 30" (similar to later Gibson guitars).
1940's - nothing of note apparently happened bass wise.
1950's
1951: Fender Precision bass - the first successful mass market electric
bass guitar.
1957: Rickenbacker - first neck through bass guitar (I don't understand
your 'not limited to the bottom' comment).
1960's: Fretless basses - It's a toss up between Bill Wyman and
Rickenbacker (apparently they had a fretless available from 1960, but I
haven't seen an actual catalogue or scan thereof) - the first absolutely
verifiable commercial fretless bass is the Ampeg AUB-1 in 1966. Fender
brought the fretless precision to market in 1970.
Roundwound strings!!!! Rotosound started making these in 1963.
1967: 8 string (paired octave string course) basses - Hagstrom made the
first.
1970's: Active Electronics - several companies including Alembic and Wal
started making active basses in the early 1970's
1974: Chapman stick
1975/6: 6 and 5 string basses with low B.
1979: Steinberger and Status independantly develop headless graphite
neck basses (Steinberger was first to market with a distinctive
minimalist instrument).
1980's:
First production 12 strings (triple course with two octave strings).
Ashbory bass - a tiny electric bass with rubber strings.
7 string single course bass.
1990's: Range extended down to Low F# and eventually low C#
2000's: 13 string single course Low C# to really high C#
What's next? I can't really imagine there's anywhere else to go that
still counts as 'bass' - and personally I think anything over 7 single
course strings is really a different class of instrument altogether and
shouldn't really be called a 'bass' anymore.
--- Derek
--
Derek Tearne - derek@url.co.nz
Many Hands - Trans Cultural Music from Aotearoa/New Zealand
http :// www .manyhands.co.nz/
Re: Basses that changed history
Derek Tearne wrote:
> That's the craziest form of chronological order I've ever seen.
Will you please get off your ass and assemble all this knowledge into
one document?
Derek Tearne wrote:
> That's the craziest form of chronological order I've ever seen.
Will you please get off your ass and assemble all this knowledge into
one document?
Re: Basses that changed history
I forgot...
1972: Ernie Ball Earthwood bass acoustic guitar.
--- Derek
--
Derek Tearne - derek@url.co.nz
Many Hands - Trans Cultural Music from Aotearoa/New Zealand
http :// www .manyhands.co.nz/
I forgot...
1972: Ernie Ball Earthwood bass acoustic guitar.
--- Derek
--
Derek Tearne - derek@url.co.nz
Many Hands - Trans Cultural Music from Aotearoa/New Zealand
http :// www .manyhands.co.nz/
Re: Basses that changed history
"Derek Tearne" <derek@url.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1igqg8y.12fxbyq1ms5qwtN%derek@url.co.nz...
>
> 1970's: Active Electronics - several companies including Alembic and Wal
> started making active basses in the early 1970's
I think it makes sense to insert people in this timeline along with
instruments. I wonder how much longer it would've taken for us to have
active electronics (and real amp & PA systems) if it hadn't been for the
Grateful Dead throwing ideas & money at development. That's where Alembic
was born. Before that, there were basses that either sounded like they were
being heard through a mattress, or occasional instruments whose
representation of clarity was sorta not really was it was supposed to be.
Rickenbacker....maybe, but not exactly.
"Derek Tearne" <derek@url.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1igqg8y.12fxbyq1ms5qwtN%derek@url.co.nz...
>
> 1970's: Active Electronics - several companies including Alembic and Wal
> started making active basses in the early 1970's
I think it makes sense to insert people in this timeline along with
instruments. I wonder how much longer it would've taken for us to have
active electronics (and real amp & PA systems) if it hadn't been for the
Grateful Dead throwing ideas & money at development. That's where Alembic
was born. Before that, there were basses that either sounded like they were
being heard through a mattress, or occasional instruments whose
representation of clarity was sorta not really was it was supposed to be.
Rickenbacker....maybe, but not exactly.
Re: Basses that changed history
JoeSpareBedroom <dishborealis@yahoo,com > wrote:
> "Derek Tearne" <derek@url.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:1igqg8y.12fxbyq1ms5qwtN%derek@url.co.nz...
>
> >
> > 1970's: Active Electronics - several companies including Alembic and Wal
> > started making active basses in the early 1970's
>
> I think it makes sense to insert people in this timeline along with
> instruments.
I don't think so, for several reasons. Instrument technology is clearly
defined and usually has a well stated or discoverable start date. When
individuals and bespoke innovations are involved this is often far less
clear. For example, no one knows when Bill Wyman took the frets out of
his cheap japanese bass and made the first fretless. It's sometime
between 1959 and 1963 but Bill can't remember and no one else was paying
attention. Either way, sometime between 1960 and 1966 enough people
must have been pulling frets out of their basses that both Rickenbacker
and Ampeg were making production models.
Also, whenever individual players come into the mix people start
assigning more importance to their favourite player than is necessarily
justified - or worse a legend has built up about such and such a player
being responsible for 'X' where they really weren't.
Take active electronics - you've already invoked the grateful dead as
being pivotal - and yet alembics own history states that the first
alembic electronics and pickups went into David Crosby's 12 string
guitar. Even at that, there were plenty of guitars with on board
electronics, usually effects, from the 1960's - so
Even where an individual player or person was responsible for a given
innovation the answer to 'how much longer would we have had to wait
for...' is often 'not long'.
It's interesting to note how many of the innovations above were being
nutted out by several people at the same time. Anthony Jackson and
Jimmy Johnson both had instruments built with B strings within a year of
each other - Anthony Jackson had a 6 string with wide string spacings
built and Jimmy Johnson a 5 string. So that was going to happen in the
mid 70's regardless.
Similarly, steinberger and status were working on headless designs at
roughly the same time - so we'd have seen those appear in the 80's
regardless.
In the early 70's several companies and electronics genii were putting
active electronics in their basses - whether this was independent
evolution from the 60's guitars with on-board electronics or from
hearing about the alembic basses is probably impossible to discover.
Even the invention of the bass guitar itself happened at least twice
independantly - I feel fairly sure it would have happened again if Leo
Fender hadn't come up with his design - although that would have been a
radically different version of history...
Really, the only bass that radically changed history was the 1951 Fender
Precision. Everything else pretty much follows on from that. If Paul
Tutmarc's bass had had the same success everything would have followed
on from that in much the same way - although probably not at the same
relative rate as some innovations required other technology.
Amplification is important also. The early electric bass instruments
failed partly, I think, because they would not have sounded that great
through the amplifiers of the day. On the hendrix experience project
website they have recordings of some of these early basses - and the
tutmarc bass sounds fine - recorded through a modern amp. In fact, if
you click on the tutmarc bass followed by the precision the tutmarc bass
sounds more 'modern'.
http :// www .empsfm.org/exhibitions/index.asp?categoryID=129&ccID=132
Click on the 'launch timeline' link - requires flash.
The 12 string bass though, is probably down to Tom Peterson from Cheap
Trick - it's different enough that it wouldn't just occur through
logical progression.
--- Derek
--
Derek Tearne - derek@url.co.nz
Many Hands - Trans Cultural Music from Aotearoa/New Zealand
http :// www .manyhands.co.nz/
JoeSpareBedroom <dishborealis@yahoo,com > wrote:
> "Derek Tearne" <derek@url.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:1igqg8y.12fxbyq1ms5qwtN%derek@url.co.nz...
>
> >
> > 1970's: Active Electronics - several companies including Alembic and Wal
> > started making active basses in the early 1970's
>
> I think it makes sense to insert people in this timeline along with
> instruments.
I don't think so, for several reasons. Instrument technology is clearly
defined and usually has a well stated or discoverable start date. When
individuals and bespoke innovations are involved this is often far less
clear. For example, no one knows when Bill Wyman took the frets out of
his cheap japanese bass and made the first fretless. It's sometime
between 1959 and 1963 but Bill can't remember and no one else was paying
attention. Either way, sometime between 1960 and 1966 enough people
must have been pulling frets out of their basses that both Rickenbacker
and Ampeg were making production models.
Also, whenever individual players come into the mix people start
assigning more importance to their favourite player than is necessarily
justified - or worse a legend has built up about such and such a player
being responsible for 'X' where they really weren't.
Take active electronics - you've already invoked the grateful dead as
being pivotal - and yet alembics own history states that the first
alembic electronics and pickups went into David Crosby's 12 string
guitar. Even at that, there were plenty of guitars with on board
electronics, usually effects, from the 1960's - so
Even where an individual player or person was responsible for a given
innovation the answer to 'how much longer would we have had to wait
for...' is often 'not long'.
It's interesting to note how many of the innovations above were being
nutted out by several people at the same time. Anthony Jackson and
Jimmy Johnson both had instruments built with B strings within a year of
each other - Anthony Jackson had a 6 string with wide string spacings
built and Jimmy Johnson a 5 string. So that was going to happen in the
mid 70's regardless.
Similarly, steinberger and status were working on headless designs at
roughly the same time - so we'd have seen those appear in the 80's
regardless.
In the early 70's several companies and electronics genii were putting
active electronics in their basses - whether this was independent
evolution from the 60's guitars with on-board electronics or from
hearing about the alembic basses is probably impossible to discover.
Even the invention of the bass guitar itself happened at least twice
independantly - I feel fairly sure it would have happened again if Leo
Fender hadn't come up with his design - although that would have been a
radically different version of history...
Really, the only bass that radically changed history was the 1951 Fender
Precision. Everything else pretty much follows on from that. If Paul
Tutmarc's bass had had the same success everything would have followed
on from that in much the same way - although probably not at the same
relative rate as some innovations required other technology.
Amplification is important also. The early electric bass instruments
failed partly, I think, because they would not have sounded that great
through the amplifiers of the day. On the hendrix experience project
website they have recordings of some of these early basses - and the
tutmarc bass sounds fine - recorded through a modern amp. In fact, if
you click on the tutmarc bass followed by the precision the tutmarc bass
sounds more 'modern'.
http :// www .empsfm.org/exhibitions/index.asp?categoryID=129&ccID=132
Click on the 'launch timeline' link - requires flash.
The 12 string bass though, is probably down to Tom Peterson from Cheap
Trick - it's different enough that it wouldn't just occur through
logical progression.
--- Derek
--
Derek Tearne - derek@url.co.nz
Many Hands - Trans Cultural Music from Aotearoa/New Zealand
http :// www .manyhands.co.nz/
