Neck ”depth”

[Guest]

1 minute ago, mario_buoninfante said:

 

Ah ok got it.

Pretentious/offensive/provocative/troll mode ON, uh?

Your second post is based on fried air.

And your first one is just provocative in the most boring way possible.

Have fun

If fun is the right word

 

 

Just stating the obvious pal. Don’t shoot the messenger. 

[dclaassen]

Mods, do we controls against trolling? Asking for a friend…:)

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, dclaassen said:

Mods, do we controls against trolling? Asking for a friend…:)

Feeling threatened are we? 

Just sad to once again witness the “knowledge of the masses” in action.

A tad disappointing, really. 
Would have been interesting to hear something with substance. 

Edited February 10, 2023 by Basso

[Dad3353]

 No expertise here, just some reflections on necks of differing girth. Violins..? Banjos..?, Guitars, even..? Mandolin..? Double bass..? Cello..?, Electric bass..? All of these and more are to be played in approximately similar fashion by the Human Hand. I doubt that any one could lay claim to being the 'magic bullet' for optimal playing, at whatever speed, in whatever genre. I suspect (with no figures to back it up; just a hunch...) that each of these types of instrument have each a range of 'optimum', depending on fashion, luthier's preference, Buyer's preference, price point and other criteria. If there was just 'one way', all would have the same profile; t'is not so. Where is the 'right' and where is the 'wrong' (as defined by whom..?)..? I would advance that there is no 'absolute' answer. It's a debating point, certainly, but with what possible outcome or conclusion..? The dogs bark; the caravan passes. 

Edited February 10, 2023 by Dad3353

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, Dad3353 said:

 No expertise here, just some reflections on necks of differing girth. Violins..? Banjos..?, Guitars, even..? Mandolin..? Double bass..? Cello..?, Electric bass..? All of these and more are to be played in approximately similar fashion by the Human Hand. I doubt that any one could lay claim to being the 'magic bullet' for optimal playing, at whatever speed, in whatever genre. I suspect (with no figures to back it up; just a hunch...) that each of these types of instrument have each a range of 'optimum', depending on fashion, luthier's preference, Buyer's preference, price point and other criteria. If there was just 'one way', all would have the same profile; t'is not so. Where is the 'right' and where is the 'wrong' (as defined by whom..?)..? I would advance that there is no 'absolute' answer. It's a debating point, certainly, but with what possible outcome or conclusion..? The dogs bark; the caravan passes. 

Fair enough. But just to clarify: Playing a major scale with sixteenth-notes on an upright in a lower position at 160bpm is NOT the same as playing an equal scale on a mandolin. 

 

[Dad3353]

6 minutes ago, Basso said:

Fair enough. But just to clarify: Playing a major scale with sixteenth-notes on an upright in a lower position at 160bpm is NOT the same as playing an equal scale on a mandolin. 

 

 

Nor the same as paradiddles on a snare drum (I'm a drummer...); what has that to do with the price of fish..? Some folk play 'fast' on whatever they're playing 'fast' on. Most folks never pay 'fast', ever. There's just no benchmark, nor science, behind any of this. The World has its flaws and foibles; live with it and celebrate the diversity. There are much more important and deeper proble...

 

Ooo look, a bee..!

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, Dad3353 said:

 

Nor the same as paradiddles on a snare drum (I'm a drummer...); what has that to do with the price of fish..? Some folk play 'fast' on whatever they're playing 'fast' on. Most folks never pay 'fast', ever. There's just no benchmark, nor science, behind any of this. The World has its flaws and foibles; live with it and celebrate the diversity. There are much more important and deeper proble...

 

Ooo look, a bee..!

“All of these and more are to be played in approximately similar fashion by the Human Hand”

 

-“No”

 

“Live with it and celebrate the diversity”

 

Logical suicide. RIP.

Edited February 10, 2023 by Basso

[Dad3353]

[Richard R]

Oddly enough,  most of us on BassChat come for a chat about basses.

There are frequent robust discussions, and occasional arguments, but seldom rudeness.  This seems to be largely one person shouting and not attempting to back up their position with further reasoned evidence. Shame, as there probably is a valid point somewhere.

 

History tells us that persistent rudenes results in the rest of the members unfollowing the thread and ignoring any further posts from the shouter, who probably goes over to TalkBass where they seem to like that style. 

 

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Richard R said:

Oddly enough,  most of us on BassChat come for a chat about basses.

There are frequent robust discussions, and occasional arguments, but seldom rudeness.  This seems to be largely one person shouting and not attempting to back up their position with further reasoned evidence. Shame, as there probably is a valid point somewhere.

 

History tells us that persistent rudenes results in the rest of the members unfollowing the thread and ignoring any further posts from the shouter, who probably goes over to TalkBass where they seem to like that style. 

 

Please read the whole thread. 

Edited February 10, 2023 by Basso

[Guest]

Just now, Basso said:

 

Edited February 10, 2023 by Basso

[Waddo Soqable]

^^Talkbass.. Nooo.. You say some simple aparrently harmless thing there and Bosh.. you get banned, feckin lunatics... 🤣

[Richard R]

17 minutes ago, Basso said:

Please read the whole thread. 

I did.

And your perfunctory response and assumption that I didn't is precisely the reason I won't bother reading any more.

[Gwilym]

What's the point of this thread. You seem to have started a discussion, but apparently can't handle that others have different opinions to you.

On topic: I don't think there's one neck profile that can promote good or bad technique. Where is the evidence that it does or does not?

Individuals may find different neck profiles more comfortable than others.

I can move between various neck profiles of 4 / 5 string necks. It takes all of 5mins to adjust to the different feel, the "technique" doesn't change.

The earth is flat by the way.

[dmccombe7]

I could understand the OP's argument if we all had the same size hands but surely differing hand sizes will mean different angles around the neck and therefore different finger height above the frets.

Initially it did make me think more about this and had me wondering if perhaps there was a better way to play but my 45 yrs of personal experience and preference tells me its not so.

Playing my 6 string bass and keeping my thumb on back and centre of the neck i find my fingers far closer to the fretboard than with my Jazz bass.

For me that kind of negates the argument and different basses have naturally different hand positioning keeping in mind i have small hands.

I have to admit i am finding this thread intriguing and wonder what the conclusion will be before the mods close it down of course because of its aggressive tones.

Dave 

 

Edited February 10, 2023 by dmccombe7

[itu]

1 hour ago, Gwilym said:

The earth is flat by the way.

My hands are different than yours, my reach is different than yours. I still may - or not - like your bass' neck.

 

You are lying. I have two abyssinians.

[nilorius]

Decide yourself.

[Doctor J]

When I'm on speed, everything is fast.

[Paolo85]

Even setting aside preferences, to me it does not make sense the idea that if one compares necks that differ in depth by normally some 1-3 mm and hands that differ in lenght and shape by more than that, one can argue that "bigger is better" in absolute terms. Besides, I am sure one can achieve "correct" technique on a violin..

 

I tried to think of my own experience. I would indeed agree that I do not find shallow necks "faster". In fact, I would agree that with shallow necks I tend to bend my fingers less, which puts them in a more relaxed position and makes it more likely that I won't play with the tip of my finger (note: I tend to, I don't have to, nothing in them prevents bending my fingers).

 

So while I certainly do not find deeper necks slower, I notice that my thumb gets tired earlier. Looking into it I believe the reason is that, the deeper the neck, the more the "base" of the thumb (metacarpal, according to google) is necessarely more perpendicular to the forharm. That is just a geometrical necessity, assuming the position of the other fingers is the same and that the tumb rests on the neck in the same place. Hence, the thumb makes more of its work through muscles. Again, to me this looks like basic phisics. If you push it to the opposite extreme, and assume an implausible situation with the metacarpal parallel to the foreharm with a straight thumb, and perpendicular to the fretboard, there would be almost no hand muscles involved, much of the resistance would come from the bones. Because of that, especially given my background of tendinitis at the thumb, I can definitely say that a deep neck would not be my optimal neck for sustained fast playing. 

 

On a similar note: as I am experimenting a bit with learning some funk stuff (I have no background with it) I find that I am constantly using barre-like fretting to play notes on different strings and the same fret in sequence. Because of that, my fingers are obviously often straight. Moreover, my fingers are mostly flat on the fretboard most of the time when I slap as I cannot mute with the plucking hand's thumb. Judging by videos on youtube, this is quite common and maybe not wrong for the style? If there is a need to keep fingers straight a lot of the time to play in a certain style, then I would think the faster neck for that style would be a neck that allows to keep that "incorrect" position with minimal strain

 

Edit: just thought of Rocco Prestia. I doubt one can play his music with "correct" hand position as he's muting all the time

 

 

Edited February 11, 2023 by Paolo85

[Rich]

On 08/02/2023 at 15:40, Basso said:

There’s nothing “fast” about a slim or shallow neck.
The myth must die! 
 

Discuss 

Looking back through the last four pages, I can only conclude that when you said "discuss" what you actually meant was "agree with me or else".

[Munurmunuh]

52 minutes ago, Paolo85 said:

I certainly do not find deeper necks slower, I notice that my thumb gets tired earlier

 

And for me, vice versa. My thumb finds it tiresome having to press inward, in search of the back of the neck. On a thick neck, it simply rests, naturally. It misses the lovely deep neck of my BB424. 

 

If all attempted to extrapolate universal truths from the singular examples of ourselves.....

 

[Guest]

🥱

 

…comparisons to other instruments, arguments about “everybodys right to an opinion”, hurt egos, preferences, speculations, whataboutism and threats.

I gave several reasons to why a BASS neck with depth is preferable for proper playing technique and therefore; faster than a slimmer one as an opposite to the common misconception slim neck=fast.
So far I haven’t read a single argument against my theory which is quite remarkable frankly. 

 

What you’re supposed to refute is the following statement:

 

“…fatter necks actually are better suited for proper playing technique (thumb in the middle of the neck, playing with tip of curved fingers). The distance from the pushing fingers gets smaller to the string and the hand gets a better grip or “strength” thanks to a more solid contact to the actual neck. Less “air playing” equals less distance, more strength, less movement with the resulting increased control…thin necks are not “faster” or “smoother” or “better” for anyone but someone with REALLY small hands aka: children”. 
 

Good luck.

Edited February 11, 2023 by Basso

[Dad3353]

OK, you've had your laugh; now it's time for ...

 

[Paolo85]

34 minutes ago, Ricky Rioli said:

 

And for me, vice versa. My thumb finds it tiresome having to press inward, in search of the back of the neck. On a thick neck, it simply rests, naturally. It misses the lovely deep neck of my BB424. 

 

If all attempted to extrapolate universal truths from the singular examples of ourselves.....

 

 

Fair enough I guess/imagine that the issue with me is that the muscles around my thumb are rather weak and vulnerable, so there is no such thing as "resting" them. But there are so many factor involved that I did not mean to say that shallower necks are "better" full stop. As it happens btw, of my 4 basses only one has has a shallow neck. It has tapes on, medium action, and I never play fast on it!

[Paolo85]

47 minutes ago, Basso said:

 

 

…

 

What you’re suppose tu refute is the following statement:

 

“…fatter necks actually are better suited for proper playing technique (thumb in the middle of the neck, playing with tip of curved fingers). The distance from the pushing fingers gets smaller to the string and the hand gets a better grip or “strength” thanks to a more solid contact to the actual neck. Less “air playing” equals less distance, more strength, less movement with the resulting increased control.
Believe me: thin necks are not “faster” or “smoother” or “better” for anyone but someone with REALLY small hands aka: children”. 
 

 

"fatter necks actually are better suited for proper playing technique (thumb in the middle of the neck, playing with tip of curved fingers). "<-- this is just the main statement, no argument in here to refute

 

" "The distance from the pushing fingers gets smaller to the string" <-- here we get into the argument. And maybe ehe reason nobody "refuted" is because it is not very clear. There is also the possibility that it does not make sense. If you have the thumb in the middle of the neck (the tip of the thumb, obviously), and the other fingers bent, this doed not per se determine a distance between fingers and string. That distance is adjusted by changing the angle between the thumb and the neck. Which in turn liks to many other variables includings the ergonomics of the bass, strap length, and lenght of the person's arm.

 

"and the hand gets a better grip or “strength” thanks to a more solid contact to the actual neck." <-- that should probably need to be rephrased at the very least. If you look at hand position as thought in music schools (at least my old music school) the only things in contact with the neck are the tip of the fingers. What does "solid" mean?

 

"Less “air playing” equals less distance, more strength, less movement with the resulting increased control." <-- you may find yourself playing air with a shallow neck, but whether you keep the tip of your fingers constantly at a fraction of a mm from the strings or you lift them by a few cm any time tou release from a note has nothing to do with the neck depth

"Believe me: thin necks are not “faster” or “smoother” or “better” for anyone but someone with REALLY small hands aka: children”." <-- this seems like a pure provocation but in fact you are implicitly saying there is a direct relation between hand size and comfortable neck depth. Do you have a range in mind for the size of the hand of people that should stop liking a shallow neck? As we are st it, what do you mean by shallow? And deep? Is 5cm deep fast?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edit. Yes I know, do not feed the trolls. Weirdly I enjoy doing this stuff!

Edited February 11, 2023 by Paolo85