tegs07

I can’t speak for 5 strings but the jump between an Indonesian SUB and a Ray34 is fairly substantial. The next hop to an Ernie Ball less so. Can’t comment on wood choice in terms of tone but my US made Ray is definitely pretty.

You must be one bloody amazing whistler …

I echo the comments already made it’s a catchy tune. What you need now is some Netflix series to feature it and it will get massive.

Jaco is certainly technically accomplished but I have never heard any window cleaners humming weather report songs whilst going about their work.

So would you say your in the camp that incremental improvements from trusted manufacturers known for their use of decent materials and attention to detail are worth the extra outlay. £400 may get a perfectly usable bass that would do the job for which it is intended but the additional attention to detail and finesse are missing? Edit: For what it’s worth my feeling is that each change to a bass whether wood choice, electrics, pickups, strings used etc will have a slight impact on the sound of the instrument but after a certain price point it doesn’t make any sense other than on an aesthetic level or in terms of how desirable the instrument is which is where marketing starts to get very important.

Hi yes there is a thread here about it but wanted to move the debate away from Fender as it immediately gets the usual Fender are overpriced dross and Adam Clayton plays bass like a donkey type comments. If endorsement and materials used are not relevant should we all really just get a Cort?

To make my position clear I just think instruments are beautiful things and I am a sucker for good packaging so would happily pay more even though I know it’s basically pointless.

There have been a couple of interesting threads (to me) recently about instruments, their construction, marketing and value. Some points such as the materials the instrument is made from (tonewood - or to give it a less contentious name simply wood commonly used by luthiers) seem to incite foaming at the mouth. The other element for contentious debate is value and what is required for a company to achieve that value (marketing). I think most people would agree that technology, a cheaper manufacturing base and production workflow has improved to such an extent that no working musician really needs to spend more than £400 on an instrument. If we get rid of marketing costs behind a brand this would probably drop to nearer the £200 mark. Does this seem a reasonable conclusion? If so why do we pay more, particularly if we are in the camp that dismisses any tangible benefits of wood choice and other similar incremental upgrades and also dislikes brands and the marketing and endorsement required to build those brands?

My take on this is most of these cars are bought by podgy middle aged blokes who take their kids to school and drive to the office. There may be some scientific basis but it’s a load of expensive smoke and mirrors for most of those that pay for it. The same is most likely true for most purchases of high end instruments. The same podgy middle aged blokes are probably buying and playing them. This is all perfectly fine but I like to think that the people behind the design and build of the cars and instruments may just be striving to produce the very best they can even if the improvements are just small and largely inconsequential for most people and their real requirements. I certainly don’t think they are just charlatans.

I think there is a world of difference between acknowledging someone’s contribution to music history and saying they are a god. Rickenbacker and Gibson got there first by making a bass that was smaller, lighter and louder and opening up more musical possibilities. However they were slower to build and expensive. It wasn’t until 1951 with the Precision bass that Fender managed to make this a cheaper and easier process to mass produce. Rock and roll and punk, metal and many other genres have frequently been a working class movement and it’s no surprise that cheap instruments were required. So thanks Leo. Music changed radically in the 20 years from 1951 to 1971 and the world changed with it. I like to think there is some a link between this.

Cigarettes and coffee - Otis Redding

Sweet dreams - Eurythmics

Agree with this. He also figured out a way to mass produce instruments and make them affordable. There are many sociological arguments why this is a bad thing but without Mr Fender and Mr Ford music would never have been so accessible and so varied in such a short time span.

Down on the corner - Creedence (CR)

I get people don’t like the extravagant marketing flim flam but it’s no worse than all the marketing drivel that goes with expensive perfume or performance cars. Ceramic brakes, expensive custom paint jobs etc. I’m sure if Lewis Hamilton had the vehicle it may be worth the outlay but most punters wouldn’t have a clue.

Wood is certainly expensive these days. Overall though Ash or Basswood are fairly reasonably priced. The top luthiers I suspect charge more for their time and experience than the materials used.

Possibly all of the above. Some luthiers will also not rely on volume sales and will be motivated by the best they can build. Ultimately there is no universal truth and most of us will just all filter information to match what we already believe.

Looks like he is giving a salute to Satan too. He’s a wild one that Whittaker.

Good Vibrations - The Beach Boys

Just to merge the two topics and play devils advocate. Is there a possibility that top luthiers are also artists and choose their materials according to their own tastes, experience and skill, including the wood as they know what they are trying to achieve. The audience are probably just teenage dorks and middle aged duffers talking twaddle on the internet?

Can I kick it - A tribe called Quest

Just like heaven- The Cure

Problem is the high street is typically rammed with large chain stores who also don’t care, treat their indifferent staff like commodities and are hopelessly inefficient, have nothing in stock, take ages to order anything and can only deliver it on the only day your not available.

True. When the next generation of engines were not so reliable I went Japanese. Buying something you know isn’t very good just to remain loyal to a brand is definitely cult like, irrational behaviour on that we agree.

I went through a stage of only driving VW cars. I couldn’t care less about VW as a brand the decision was based purely on past experience. They were well made, reliable and not too expensive for parts and servicing. I don’t get the cult like fanboy approach but do get why people gravitate to the familiar if they have had positive previous experiences.