wazz Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 Whats the reason for the single cut bass? Does it add to the tone, playability, stabilty or is it just aesthetics? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bass_ferret Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 FIIK! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wil Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 (edited) [quote name='bass_ferret' post='53423' date='Aug 31 2007, 03:33 PM']FIIK![/quote] ??? All asthetics, really. Some may say there is more neck to body contact, but I doubt it makes any difference to tone. Single cut guitars like the Les Paul have been around years, so why not have single cut basses too? Edited August 31, 2007 by Wil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bass_ferret Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 f***ed if I know. Single cut Les Paul basses have also been around for years and I suppose even a T-bird could be described as a single cut. They dont usually join around the 12th fret though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alpha-Dave Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 (edited) I suppose I should add that my SCs are there purely for the aesthetic value. A technical difference that's mentioned on Jon Shuker's web site is that the truss rods on his SCs only go down to the 12th fret (shorter than normal then) because after that the neck is held rigidly to the body, so isn't needed. If that's a pro or even a con I've no idea. SCs tend to polarise people: like marmite! I also should mention that it can be quite odd to play an SC at first if you're used to having your thumb over the top of the neck on the higher frets. It requites a change in how you position it, but it's not bad. There are also semi-SCs where there is a branch from the body that connects into the neck so at the highest position you could still get your thumb through the hole. I've never tried one, but I think it could be really good (fixed playing position without having to look) or really bad (you get your thumb tangled up as you want to move back down the neck). Edited August 31, 2007 by Alpha-Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wil Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 [quote name='bass_ferret' post='53436' date='Aug 31 2007, 03:48 PM']f***ed if I know.[/quote] Ah ha! I was totally stumped by that one! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacDaddy Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 because so much more of the kneck is joined to the body, this helps increase sustain and affects the tonal characteristics. OSIH. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dood Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 Aesthetics yes, maybe some give a little bit more strength to the neck/body join, but as for improved tone? pffft! I'd very much doubt the human ear could hear the difference.. 2 planks of wood would sound far more different to each other than the having a single or double cut difference. I reckon it just looks pretty.. nuffink else. Well, actually, not having an upper horn stuck in your side is a bonus (if you play the bass a bit higher like me.) The flatter back of the singlecut is far more comfy. If you have nice rounded edges as well, you're snug as the proverbial bug! *finds excuse to post more pics* [url="http://www.danveall.co.uk/Shuker7Page.htm"]http://www.danveall.co.uk/Shuker7Page.htm[/url] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bass_ferret Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 Any excuse.......................... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Funk Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 With some basses I do find myself thinking "why even bother having a upper horn there?". I think the singlecuts can look neater. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ARGH Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 I think it looks nice! Singlecuts have a vibe of 'standoutness' in a world awash with Fenderesque doublecuts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
velvetkevorkian Posted September 1, 2007 Share Posted September 1, 2007 Why not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bass_ferret Posted September 1, 2007 Share Posted September 1, 2007 Well if you are a sloppy thumb over kind of player like me it would get in the way. Is it being different for the sake of it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichBowman Posted September 1, 2007 Share Posted September 1, 2007 (edited) I like the aesthetics of a single-cut (pretty useful, that, seeing as I own one!) - To be honest I don't know if there's any real benefit in sound/ playability terms over the regular shapes. I decided to go for a SC as I reasoned it would be the only custom that I'd have made (certainly for a long time, any way!) so why not go the whole hog and have something really bespoke to me. It gets lots of good comments while I'm out and about - Possibly far more than my actual playing! :-) Rich Edited September 1, 2007 by RichBowman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dood Posted September 1, 2007 Share Posted September 1, 2007 [quote name='bass_ferret' post='53498' date='Aug 31 2007, 04:58 PM']Any excuse..........................[/quote] i know.. i need reigns sometimes! ;o) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gazm Posted September 1, 2007 Share Posted September 1, 2007 (edited) I think they look horrible, and I like Marmite! Edited September 1, 2007 by Gazm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alpha-Dave Posted September 1, 2007 Share Posted September 1, 2007 I think they look great and I hate Marmite! Poll? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gizmo Posted September 1, 2007 Share Posted September 1, 2007 I love um so much so that i built two for myself a 6 and a 4 both headless for some ppl thats a combinded multiple of evil's hehe Id say it mostly aesthetics but maybe a teeny little bit more sustain Everyone to there own i guess but it would sure be a boaring world (aesthetically and tonealy) if we all played sunburst jazz'ers 4's (not that theres anything wrong with jazzer's) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dub_junkie Posted September 1, 2007 Share Posted September 1, 2007 because they're the height of cool DJ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdwardHimself Posted September 1, 2007 Share Posted September 1, 2007 this is the thing. i don't mind "classic" single cuts like dub_junkie's G&Ls or a les paul/esp eclipse bass but i really think that the massive bloody things that go up to the 12th fret are just ridiculous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dood Posted September 1, 2007 Share Posted September 1, 2007 It never ceases to surprise me that the lack of an 'upper horn' provokes such a marmite reaction!! I don't think I've ever seen a 'well, they're ok I suppose' reply! lol lol! Most enjoyable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreeneKing Posted September 1, 2007 Share Posted September 1, 2007 (edited) I would go a bit further. [b][size=7]Upper Horn basses - Why?[/size][/b] Given that your thumb doesn't go over the neck what's its purpose other than putting the strap button in the right place, so why not have it going all the way down to the neck? Apologies for the bigger than intended font Edited September 1, 2007 by GreeneKing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alpha-Dave Posted September 1, 2007 Share Posted September 1, 2007 Jeez, there's no need to shout! Following a similar line of thought: why do people assume that what Leo first designed, P&J (I believe his aims were low cost and good functionality) was the pinnacle of evolution from the start, and any changes are bad? For a low-cost instrument he did very well, but he certainly didn't go all out: IMHO the neck-plate and huge heel block are more of an impediment to higher fret playing than an SC, but I very much doubt that was his aim anyway! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dood Posted September 1, 2007 Share Posted September 1, 2007 [quote name='Alpha-Dave' post='53925' date='Sep 1 2007, 05:55 PM']IMHO the neck-plate and huge heel block are more of an impediment to higher fret playing than an SC,[/quote] yes, there are plenty of other things that will provoke a reaction from me than the addition of an extra li'l square of wood at the top of the bass body!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdwardHimself Posted September 1, 2007 Share Posted September 1, 2007 [quote name='Alpha-Dave' post='53925' date='Sep 1 2007, 05:55 PM']Jeez, there's no need to shout! Following a similar line of thought: why do people assume that what Leo first designed, P&J (I believe his aims were low cost and good functionality) was the pinnacle of evolution from the start, and any changes are bad? For a low-cost instrument he did very well, but he certainly didn't go all out: IMHO the neck-plate and huge heel block are more of an impediment to higher fret playing than an SC, but I very much doubt that was his aim anyway![/quote] let's not forget the fact that he made them 1 semitone short of a 4 octave range. And he made a 5 string with 15 frets, that also really makes you wonder what he was thinking. The point is tho i don't mind modern basses, infact i prefer 5 strings to 4, it's just that i really hate SCs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.gif.9ad672bb8b84505709f76b39c8c256ec.gif)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.