Are bolt on neck joints rubbish?!

[neepheid]

4 minutes ago, 4000 said:

Unsurprisingly, I was just about to post exactly the same thing! 
 

Most of my favourite players, in most of my favourite bands, use the entire fretboard. Why wouldn’t you? 

 

Speaking personally, because I don't like to or want to, nor is it applicable to what I am playing or what I would want to play. Principally because I don't like how basses sound the higher they go.

 

Everyone else is, of course, free to play their basses in whichever way they choose. 

[Boodang]

1 hour ago, neepheid said:

Bolt on neck joints - they really don't bother me.  I'm sorry they bother you to the degree where you advocate their banning.  Please don't ban half my basses!

 

They've got a stupid name, I'll give you that.  No bolts involved, even if you do one of those mods with threaded inserts and machine screws, because although a machine screw can function as a bolt it's not being used that way in this context (no nut - tightened against opposing thread).

 

Whether or not they're responsible for a directly attributable change in the tone of a bass, I'm not touching that one.  Over such things holy wars are fought and never really won.

So, I've been going through the recesses of my mind to see if I can locate the reason why I have the correct (!) attitude towards bolt on necks and think I've come up with a culprit.... John Makepeace. MakePeace is a furniture maker par excellence, his stuff looks like it's grown into being rather than been made. I think if he saw two pieces of wood screwed together he'd cry!

He had a place called Parnham House in Dorset which I used to visit when I went down to see my parents and you could see all the furniture that had been commissioned (back in the 70s a table from him was about £40k!)... they were works of art.

Now I'm not say a guitar should be made in the Makepeace tradition as no one would afford them, but they should be made in such a way as to not make him cry in disbelief!!

[BigRedX]

I personally don't like instruments with bolt-on necks. They always seem cheap to me as when I was starting out apart from Fender, all the other bolt-on necked instruments were nasty, virtually unplayable tat from the far east (yes I have discovered plenty of other "quality" bolt-on neck instruments since, but back in the 70s this was the perception).

 

And yes it's a cost-cutting exercise but then again Jim Burns was able to design and build budget heel-less set neck instruments in 1960 in the form of the Burns Sonic guitars and basses, so there no reason not to do it.

[Maude]

On 06/03/2022 at 01:44, leftybassman392 said:

Call me a hard-bitten old fart cynic, but I feel a 'tonewood' thread coming on, so I'm going to bow out.

 

Have a good one guys.

 

 

 

You, er, wouldn't happen to have this week's winning lottery numbers as well by any chance. 

😁

[EssentialTension]

9 minutes ago, Boodang said:

So, I've been going through the recesses of my mind to see if I can locate the reason why I have the correct (!) attitude towards bolt on necks and think I've come up with a culprit.... John Makepeace. MakePeace is a furniture maker par excellence, his stuff looks like it's grown into being rather than been made. I think if he saw two pieces of wood screwed together he'd cry!

He had a place called Parnham House in Dorset which I used to visit when I went down to see my parents and you could see all the furniture that had been commissioned (back in the 70s a table from him was about £40k!)... they were works of art.

Now I'm not say a guitar should be made in the Makepeace tradition as no one would afford them, but they should be made in such a way as to not make him cry in disbelief!!

I'm crying in disbelief at £40K for a table.

[4000]

37 minutes ago, neepheid said:

 

Speaking personally, because I don't like to or want to, nor is it applicable to what I am playing or what I would want to play. Principally because I don't like how basses sound the higher they go.

 

Everyone else is, of course, free to play their basses in whichever way they choose. 

The reason I’ve always gravitated towards Rics is because I love how they sound the higher up they go. Most other basses, not so much. 
 

But still, I just find that baffling, although obviously it’s your choice. 

[Boodang]

48 minutes ago, EssentialTension said:

I'm crying in disbelief at £40K for a table.

Yeah, gobsmackingly expensive!! You see his stuff and think, ooh nice I wonder how much that is. Answer is, you could have a table or a house to put it in but not both.

[Tokalo]

I occasionally find myself up at the 14th/15th fret, but only because I have to play a high B or C. I have an aversion to touching thin G strings - the A string just feels more bassy.

 

(It also justifies the time spent getting intonation right 🏆😉)

[Greg Edwards69]

On 05/03/2022 at 19:49, Reggaebass said:

My jazz elite has the cutaway fo easier access to the upper frets, it’s not much use to me as I don’t venture up the dusty end  😁

 

Yamaha came up with variation on this for the Attitude basses. Mr Sheehan certainly doesn't seem to have issues reaching the high notes.

That said, personally, I don't find heel construction to be the main hinderance to upper fret access. It's the low cutout that usually determines how high I can play comfortably.

 

[SumOne]

I assume the main disadvantage of neck-through is the cost, vs benefit, given that the benefits are marginal and costs tend to be a fair bit higher.

 

The main benefit seems to be improved access to those top frets. I very rarely venture past the 15th fret though so that's not an issue for me. Another benefit is they look good. 

 

Tone differences, I don't know. Isn't a potential disadvantage of neck-through that you are using the same wood for the neck and a big part of the body - at the risk of going into tonewood discussions, some people think certain woods are better suited for the neck while others are better suited for the body. 

 

Another possible disadvantage is if you damage one part like the headstock - it must be pretty tricky to replace on a neck-through, rather than just getting new neck/headstock.

[EssentialTension]

6 minutes ago, SumOne said:

... Another possible disadvantage is if you damage one part like the headstock - it must be pretty tricky to replace on a neck-through, rather than just getting new neck/headstock.

If you drop a Fender down a flight of stairs it might need a new neck but chances are it won't need a new neck and might even still be in tune.

[yorks5stringer]

I thought the reason Fender designed bolt-on necks was so they could put vital construction information in the neck pocket thus ensuring early versions were worth lots of money as the dates and signatures did not fade away or be counterfeited.

Edited March 7, 2022 by yorks5stringer

[Boodang]

4 minutes ago, EssentialTension said:

If you drop a Fender down a flight of stairs it might need a new neck but chances are it won't need a new neck and might even still be in tune.

In 40 years of playing I've never broken a neck, and although such a thing could happen I've never chosen a bass based on how easy it would be to repair.

[EssentialTension]

9 minutes ago, Boodang said:

In 40 years of playing I've never broken a neck, and although such a thing could happen I've never chosen a bass based on how easy it would be to repair.

 

In 50 years of playing I've never broken a neck and nor have I ever been hindered by a bolt-on.

[SumOne]

You'd have to be going some to break a Bass neck but I've seen a few Basses with a crack in the headstock running from the tuner (perhaps having been dropped on it), and a few with pretty deep gouges in the neck, and some people decide to do things like put a thinner neck on or swop for a fretless neck. None of that would factor much as reasons for me not getting neck-through but they do seem to be potential disadvantages.

[Woodinblack]

I am sure there are gibsons with neck breaks - I think it is par for the course for early gibsons to have those, I doubt the basses fared better as it wasn't the neck that was an issue itself.

[EssentialTension]

2 minutes ago, Woodinblack said:

I am sure there are gibsons with neck breaks - I think it is par for the course for early gibsons to have those, I doubt the basses fared better as it wasn't the neck that was an issue itself.

I believe Gibson/Epiphone neck breaks are usually in the nut region.

 

My son snapped his Epiphone Casino headstock at the nut but £80 repair and it was better than ever.

[tegs07]

6 hours ago, Boodang said:

So, whilst the 19th fret is not that hard to get to, try doing an exercise out of Janek Gwizdala's book Chordal Harmony with a bolt on and see how you get on. 

I’m struggling with Play for Today by The Cure so I think it’s fair to say I am unlikely to be be buying or attempting to play anything by Janek Gwizdala. I do have to venture to the 15th fret though which is pretty adventurous for me!

Edited March 7, 2022 by tegs07

[Woodinblack]

9 minutes ago, EssentialTension said:

I believe Gibson/Epiphone neck breaks are usually in the nut region.

 

Indeed. Inadequate volute, but can't replace it with a different style because people didn't like the look.

 

 

[yorks5stringer]

1 minute ago, Woodinblack said:

 

Indeed. Inadequate volute, but can't replace it with a different style because people didn't like the look.

 

 

and never to be confused with a soup....

[Boodang]

14 minutes ago, EssentialTension said:

I believe Gibson/Epiphone neck breaks are usually in the nut region.

 

My son snapped his Epiphone Casino headstock at the nut but £80 repair and it was better than ever.

An angled headstock is going to be more susceptible than a level one. As it happens I'm having a bass made with a particularly thin jazz neck (36.5 mm nut) and although I didn't want an inline 4 headstock we've kept it level as an angled version would make it a bit vulnerable.

[Boodang]

42 minutes ago, EssentialTension said:

 

.... nor have I ever been hindered by a bolt-on.

Ah, but are you playing a half diminished b9 b13 at the 24th fret?!!!

[Reggaebass]

1 hour ago, yorks5stringer said:

I thought the reason Fender designed bolt-on necks was so they could put vital construction information in the neck pocket thus ensuring early versions were worth lots of money as the dates and signatures did not fade away or be counterfeited.

Wasn’t it also so the customer could choose which neck they wanted with which body so they were interchangeable, I also read something about if a part got damaged they didn’t have to scrap the whole bass 

[EssentialTension]

5 hours ago, Boodang said:

Ah, but are you playing a half diminished b9 b13 at the 24th fret?!!!

 

Not often at all and never at the 24th fret because I dont have one.

 

If memory serves, that's a six-note chord, which I could arpeggiate anywhere on my four string neck, if required.

 

For example in first inversion: E-G-Bb-D-F-C = Em7b5b9b13

Edited March 7, 2022 by EssentialTension
It's not first inversion!

[StickyDBRmf]

Some days I can figure out how to post a photo some days I can't Emmett Chapman has all the frets available before the pickup shows up. And I got a Danelectro Longhorn w/ 24 fret neck access bolt on for about a dollar fifty. Bolt on. Oh, and those lipstick pickups.