Rants

jz63.com      MAIN      MY GEAR      DIY MODIFICATIONS      LINKS      RANTS

Although many people may get the impression that I dislike the Fender® brand basses since I keep bringing them up in my rants, nothing could be further from the truth. I have been an avid fan of Fenders for decades and see Leo's designs as extremely beautiful in both form and function. It's just that I separate myself from the herd of worshippers when it comes to elevating Fender instruments to the level of magical icons.

<

"You get what you pay for."

     What a waste of space... such drivel! Since I frequent mainly bass related sites and forums I usually hear these words uttered in response, or as an aside, to a tech question that involves an inexpensive bass or one with a lesser known brand name that needs to be repaired or have a part replaced. As if expensive basses aren't subject to damage or abuse. And usually the person uttering these words would be an absolutely incompetent instrument technician because he/she has no real working experience with bass setup much less lutherie and appears to have the attitude that the person with the most expensive equipment is inevitably endowed with the most knowledge.

Many times you can find these people responding to posts in other ways. Just recently I read a comment on one of the bass forums I frequent explaining to many of us unfortunate fools why Alembic pickups are supposedly worth $850, a price far greater than highly respected Duncans, Fralins, Nordstrands and others. The response was to a comment someone made indicating that charging $850 for pickups is crazy. Here is a quote:
"I've been to the Alembic "factory," if you will. The machine that winds the pickups was custom designed and made by Ron Wickersham; all of their pickups are made one at a time on this machine. All of the pickups are encased in epoxy after being wound, one at a time. The materials are of the highest quality (to include the copper wire). The machine itself is encased to eliminate any dust, dirt, or foreign matter getting on either it or the pickups.

When you say crazy, there's a reason. It's called excellence."

First of all, so what if Mr. Wickersham designed and made his own winding machine. I don't mean any disrespect to the obviously impressive feats and talent exhibited by this man but whether a pickup is wound by hand while holding it between one's toes or by someone using a specially designed mega-dollar gold plated winder that also doubles as a wet bar and HiFi entertainment center doesn't matter. The end result is what matters, either the winding is done correctly or not. As for the comment "The materials are of the highest quality (to include the copper wire)"... can we say ludicrous? The author obviously has no idea what these materials are, what sets them apart from the components used by other manufacturers and I'm willing to bet he has no idea how a pickup works or what is involved in making one. His comment reminds me of those eBay auctions for gaudy third-world plastic resin figurines that are hyped up with sentences like "made of the highest grade poly-resin as used by the Indonesian space program" or "made with the utmost care to the highest standards by the finest artisans the Galapagos islands has to offer". A lot of words with no viable content.

And finally the part that really has me rolling...
"The machine itself is encased to eliminate any dust, dirt, or foreign matter getting on either it or the pickups".
Well that should serve as a valuable piece of advice to the other pickup manufacturers... move your damn operations out of the barns and horse stalls into something more appropriate and dust-free ferkrisakes! I'm sick of paying $200 for lint encrusted Nordstrands! ;-)

So would I be justified in stating that I can charge a premium price for my pickups because:
"I use 42.5 AWG Formvar (NEMA NW15C) coated wire, rare earth (neodymium) magnets, handcut my own bobbins from graphite sheeting, wind each pickup by hand (on a special winder I designed and built from expensive unobtanium) while sipping Chateau Haut Brion Pessac-Lognan 1982 (upwards of $500 a bottle). To keep the pickup dust free I wind it under a steady flow of flatulence expelled by an Egyptian belly-dancer who follows a strict vegan diet. That's the reason my pickups will set you back $2,300... because quality has it's price."

Sorry... I think I went on a tangent... are you even still with me?
Anyway, my main point (from what I've learned through personal experience) is that the statement "you get what you pay for" only applies to prostitutes. The price of an item isn't necessarily an indication of it's quality or true worth... we should have learned that from the results of investigations into US defense department spending and from the Cadillac Cimarron that was shat out of the factories and onto the American showrooms during the 80's. Alternatively just because something is inexpensive doesn't mean it's junk.
back to top

 

"I can hear the difference between a bone and plastic nut."

     Uh-huh... and I can hear the difference in tone between a red and blue bass. Does that sound like a bold statement? It should because it's just as ludicrous as the one about the nut. I'm going to try and keep this short and sweet... aw hell, we all know I'm full of piss and vinegar. I've heard many bassists claim that they can hear the difference in tone of the various woods used in body construction, whether a fretted fingerboard is maple or rosewood, whether a bass is fitted with a bone or cheap plastic nut.. etc. During more than 20 years of cynicism and unwavering impudence I've challenged many people in music stores to prove these sorts of claims.

One of the boldest statements I've challenged is the one about the nut which I heard from a guy trying to impress his friends. He would pick a bass from the wall rack, inspect it, play it and claim to hear a difference in sound according to the type of nut that was fitted and would then ridicule his friends for their honesty in not being able to hear the difference. I challenged him to guess the nut material used on two different basses without being able to view either of them. The first two times I played open strings and the guy wasn't able to guess that both basses had graphite nuts... he guessed plastic for one and bone for the other. I then gave him two more chances however whithout him knowing I played the same ones again but this time played only fingered notes, essentially the composition of the nut no longer mattered because the vibrating strings were anchored by my finger and fret instead of the nut which was rendered inoperable. This time he guessed graphite and plastic. Needless to say his claimed ability to discern nut material by sound was nothing but wishful thinking.

I also challenged an individual who claimed to be able to hear the difference in tone woods used in body construction. He arrogantly cited the various characteristics and tonal properties of the various woods commonly used in bass body construction. To substantiate these claims he would demonstrate these properties using various basses in the music store that had the body constructed of the wood he was lecturing about. Most of these basses did have their unique sound but since a bass' sound is dependant upon many different factors in varying and sometimes subtle degrees, then how can this guy disregard the neck, bridge, pickups, pots and strings used and claim the differences were all body wood related? Finally we got down to brass tacks... without him being able to see what bass I was playing he had to distinguish which wood was used for the body. Out of 5 basses he was able to guess the one bass that was made of basswood... a very inexpensive model with questionable construction quality.

Another very ludicrous claim has to do with the type of wood used for the fingerboard. At least several times a week I hear or read somebody mention what the differences in tones are between maple, rosewood and ebony fingerboards. To a certain degree I think some people may be able to decipher the sound of an ebony vs maple fingerboard, but not on a fretted instrument. To this day I have yet to find even one person able to take "the blind challenge" and correctly determine the wood used with any regularity. In most cases people can't even hear the difference between a fretless with a maple or rosewood fingerboard.

So the next time you read about the properties of nut materials, tone woods, brand of bridge, etc. and how they affect the sound, embrace the knowledge and how the properties of each component may contribute to the overall sound of an instrument. But also keep in mind that a bass' "voice" isn't determined by just one single component.

"If you're unable to determine the materials that were used in a bass' construction according to just it's sound, then your ears aren't as sensitive as you claim."
back to top

 

"My Fender Jazz Deluxe has graphite reinforcement rods in the neck..."

     Big deal. Basically all it boils down to is gimikery and marketing hype because if they truly were necessary, then the vintage Fenders of the 50's, 60's and 70's (not to mention budget basses of the 60's like Tiescos, Kawais and Kingstons) that weren't fitted with these rods would have warped necks. But they don't unless they were severly abused and neglected.

As for the validity of a common claim that these rods help stablize the neck in response to atmospheric changes... if it ain't a pure graphite or carbon composite neck like a Modulus or an old Steinberger, then the neck is still mostly subject to the the wood's reactionary tendencies to temperature and humidity.
Lastly, these reinforcement rods obviously don't stiffen the neck to any valid degree either because truss rods are still employed to counteract the pull of the strings and adjust action.

So why, exactly, are these graphite rods such a great thing? According to the Fender literature the rods were added to assure consistent relief along the length of the neck. Granted, that would be a viable reason for their use in this day of mass production where wood selection may be limited due to availabilty or cost. But quite frankly, I haven't seen the need for these rods in anything but the lowest quality level of basses... and I mean scraping the bottom of the sludge barrel level of quality.
back to top

 

"Yea... the SX is a good beginner's bass but I want something of pro quality (like a MIJ or MIA Fender)."

     TEAM International Music Company LTD, the Chinese parent company of SX (makers of guitars, basses and small percussion instruments), make very affordable and solid instruments. As with most companies in foreign lands that employ workers at low wages, consistancey and quality control is often the real problem rather than an overall lack of quality. I've read a few negative reviews about SX basses but an overwhelmingly greater number of rave reviews. One issue that really gives the SX company a bad rep is what I feel to be bad marketing here in the USA. They are an absurdly inexpensive bass so they are immediately pigeon-holed as "cheap" or "inferior". To top it off, as of December 2006 they are an online order item exclusively so "John Q. Public" has no way of going to a showroom to try one out. This deters most experienced bassists from even considering an SX, so who is the most likely customer? Beginners or parents of budding bassists who can't afford to plonk down a big wad of green or don't want to spend a lot of money on what may merely be a fleeting interest. Is this so bad? Not really if it weren't for the fact that most beginners or their parents do not know how to properly set up a bass and this is probably the worst offense, from a marketing standpoint, the distributor or the company itself can allow. Upon arrival not one of my SX basses were even remotely close to having the action set at a reasonable height nor was the intonation even playing the right sport nevermind being in the ball-park. A poorly set up bass can lead to frustration and an awful playing experience and this results as nothing but bad press for the instrument. Marketing is very crucial to a product's image and it's success. If SX basses appeared in showrooms, properly set up and ready to play and were given a higher price tag, I think they would be more successful. I've done several side by side comparisons of my j-basses with their big name counterparts and I can honestly say that they compare favorably to their $700 brand name peers.

From my personal experience I've noticed two things, that the j-basses I have ordered over a span of a few years show constant improvements and well, they really are a fantastic value.

So is the SX a good beginner's bass? I'd have to say as it's marketed now, no... not unless the beginner knew that the bass will need a proper set up. Even then I would steer the beginner towards a new Squire Vintage Modified Jazz bass from a music store because he/she would then also benefit from a real live human for support and service. However it is an astonishingly great value for the knowledgable player who knows his/her way around a bass and doesn't care about impressing others with a brand name.


**UPDATE*** - More than a half year after buying my last SX I am still very impressed with the instrument. On many occassions I have gone into a music store, played their MIA Fender Jazz basses and come home smiling because after a little bit of finish and fret work, I wouldn't want to trade my SX for any other modern Fender. In fact some of the MIA's were of such questionable fit and finish that I thought maybe a MIM was mistagged so I had to double check the serial numbers. Surprisingly they did indeed begin with a "Z"... is Fender slipping again? Yea, I know that statement will burn a lot of MIA owners but get over it... it's my own personal point of view and you shouldn't get bent out of shape about it. Just write me off as a heretic and go on enjoying your bass.
back to top

 

"I use "Brand-X" strings... they're awesome! "

     How many times have you asked fellow board members or actual skin & flesh peers their opinion about a certain brand or type of product and all you get is the above nonsense? Surely if a person can form an opinion about something, he/she would have at least one reason as to how they came to this conclusion which can then be relayed to another person.

Please, if I ask for your opinion have the courtesy to treat me as a person of at least moderate intelligence who is capable of making a decision based on valid input. Although it's difficult to accurately describe the tonal characteristics of a certain brand of string by using adjectives such as "mellow", "growly", "burpy", "clangy" etc. which can be ambiguous or interpreted differently, at least try to give an accurate description of what it sounds like to you. "RotoSound RS88s sound like my grandfather's ass a few hours after a Mexican meal" is somewhat more helpful than "DR Black Beauties kick ass... rock on playa!".
back to top

 

"My cheap bass won't stay in tune!"

     In most cases this is a result of sloppy tolerances between the worm gear and cog of inexpensive and even moderately priced tuners. You can either dump a huge wad of cash on some very high quality tuners or learn to tune up. I'm still amazed at how many people will tune down from a sharp. Only by tuning up do you preload the tuner's cog. If the cog isn't preloaded by the worm gear then there's nothing to prevent it from turning due to the tension of the string thereby causing the string to go out of tune.

So get in the habit of tuning each string from below the targeted note. If you go sharp on the note then slacken the string and try tuning it up again.

Oh, as an aside, it seems that some people have very little common sense concerning why a bass may go out of tune. I can't tell you how many times I've heard someone complain about how they put their bass in it's case or gig bag and the next time they take it out, they have to retune it. Or how their bass went out of tune when they bumped the headstock against the wall or their drummer's cymbals. C'mon... really? Think about it.
back to top

 

"Jaco was the first to defret his bass..."

     Although I'm a Jacophile I feel I should give credit where it is due. Yes Jaco may have been the first to defret and then epoxy the fingerboard and use roundwound strings, but Bill Wyman gets the credit for the first defretted bass. As a member of "The Cliftons", Bill bought a "Tuxedo" bass for �8, reshaped the body and pulled out the frets with the intention of replacing them. However he liked the sound so much he left the bass fretless. Bill continued to play this "homebrew" bass, even after joining the RollingStones, until he bought a Framus hollowbody bass which was to become his main bass for several years.
(Click here for a pic of of Bill with his Tuxedo bass.)
back to top

 

"The relic process also improves the tone and playability..."

     A quote from the 'net... one of many concerning the topic of relics:
"The color of the body is simular to the butterscotch Fender used, but it got a HEAVY relic treatment by Bill Nash, so it looks very old. Some people might think it's stupid to pay someone to ding-up your new guitar, but it adds character to the guitar, and now I don't have to worry about adding any dings to it myself. The relic process also improves the tone and playability, as you can read about in the Tonequest article about Bill Nash."

     OK... I'm not going to try and argue against the playability factor because not everyone likes paint, poly, nitro or any other type of finish on a bass' neck. So yes, relicing CAN (not to be confused with WILL) improve playability. It's one of the reasons I stripped off the "vintage" tint polyurethane finish from my hot-rodded SXs. But to state that prematurely wearing off the finish, gouging, banging up and generally abusing the instrument to give it "character" and improve it's sound is a little crazy if not overly romanticized. If a new finish truly is so detrimental to the tone of a bass then isn't it in the musician's best interest to buy a naturally or unfinished bass in the first place? But then again, a new bass or one in apparently like-new condition doesn't have the same affect as an old beat up one. A shiny bass doesn't make you look like a cool, road weary musician... one who has spent decades on the road playing gig after gig be it in stanky smokey gin joints or sold out stadiums in Megalopolis. And I think that's the basis of this relicing fad. It's all about wanting to portray a certain image and trying to impress people you don't even know and trying to justify that mindset without having to admit to it... how pathetic.

As far as adding "character", some things can't be replicated convincingly, if at all... just like SX's "vintage tint" poly coated necks which look "about as authentic as Jessica Simpson's spray-on tan" (thanks for that quote, Greg Olwell). I don't think I'm alone in thinking that the majority of relicing treatments are poorly done and all too obvious.
back to top

 

"My favorite strings..."

     Surprise! For once I'm here to rave about something rather than go off on some "crusty ole carmudgeon" type rant! I'm an avid user of flatwound strings for two major reasons:

  • I hate finger noise and I tend to hear it all too clearly when recording with roundwound strings.
  • I love the silky smooth feel of most flats
Notice that I wrote MOST flats. My experiences have been limited to GHS Brite Flats, RotoSound RS77 and RS88, Fender 9050 (flats) and 9120 (tapewound rounds, less finger noise than naked rounds) and D'Addario Chromes... the GHS Brite Flats were the ones I liked the least. These are my impressions of each string:
  • GHS Brite Flats - dull grey in appearance which is no big deal but they were a pretty high tension string with a sticky feel. What I mean with "sticky" is that the edges of the ribbons felt sharp so my fingers wouldn't glide smoothly along the surface. This did improve after several weeks of playing as the strings got gunked up with dirt and finger grease. Right out of the package the E strings always felt like an oddball... they felt and sounded lifeless in comparison to the A, D & G strings. Despite their name I never found these strings to be very bright at all... just run of the mill flat average.
  • Fender 9050 flats - decent strings at an inexpensive price. All four strings felt smooth and consistant but sounded rather typical for flats. I guess they're great strings for that old MoTown sound but I prefer something a little livlier.
  • Fender 9120 tapewound - yes i know they're roundwounds, not flatwounds but since I was looking for a smooth feeling string with a little more brightness than a typical flatwound string I decided to give these a try... several times. I loved the black look of these strings on my all black Ibanez SR400 fretless and even liked the sound. My only complaint with these strings has to do with the tape. It feels nice and slick but tended to shift along the length of the string. After a few weeks of playing the tape had shifted enough to be out of winding phase with the roundwound wire so the strings started looking and feeling like a double-helix DNA strand. This inconsistancy and added girth in some spots meant I had to raise the bridge saddles for extra clearance to prevent fingerboard buzzing and just felt awkward when sliding my fingers up and down the strings. After this happened to the first set, I thought maybe I just got unlucky the first time around so I bought another couple of sets. These also suffered the same fate as the first so I removed the tape winding on all sets and gave them to a friend who likes roundwounds. They were very promising strings but fell short of being a fave.
  • RotoSound RS88 TruBass tapewound - super smooth low tension (yet thick gauged) strings. These are probably the dullest strings I have ever played but not in a bad way. RS88s are stellar sounding for that old school R&B, MoTown and 60s rock sound... they boom with authority and then quickly die. Don't expect sustain or harmonics from these babies... instead rejoice in the fact that these are probably the closest you can come to having a true "upright-strung-with-hill-billy-weedwhacker-strings" sound that you can get with a solid body horizontal bass sporting electro-magnetic transducers.
  • RotoSound RS77 Jazz Flats - a fairly high tension string, not super smooth but smoother than the GHS Brite Flats. These strings sound a little livlier than the Fender 9050s with good sustain for flatwound strings. They also do a good job of ringing out harmonics. They are my second favorite string to use on my fretted and fretless basses.
  • D'Addario Chromes (ECB84) - light gauge and medium tension strings with a high shine and super slick feel. These strings are my absolute favorite to play. They are consistent, don't have the clanky harshness of steel or even nickel roundwounds yet they have a welcome level of brightness and livliness not present in any other flatwound I've played. On a fretted bass these strings are convincing for slapping and on fretless they can growl and sing harmonics to satisfy most any Jacophile. Truly amazing strings!!

 

"The ATK is a decent StingRay copy..."

     Errr...rrrriiiiigggghhhhht. Ok then, and the StingRay is a decent Fender Precision copy. Let's take a look at the obvious "similarities" between the ATK and StingRay. Both have a huge pickup in the sweet-spot and both have an on-board EQ/preamp. Whew!! Almost so identical they may as well be conjoined, huh?!! How about the superficial features that sets the ATK apart from the StingRay:

  • the ATK has a 3 coil pickup with a 3-way coil tapping/selector switch, whereas the original SR has a 2 coil pickup when the ATK was first introduced
  • the ATK has an angled 2+2 tuning head, the SR has a 3+1 flat head
  • the ATKs bridge plate extends beyond and surrounds the pickup, not so with the SR's
  • the ATK has a different body shape than that of the SR
     I think I made my point. The ATK is a unique bass in it's own right and wasn't created to mimic anything else on the market. Unfortunately it is highly overlooked and often doesn't get the credit it deserves as a fully functional, high quality workhorse. Actually I was wrong in suggesting that the ATK and StingRay have only two similarities. The third is that both basses (as with the Peavy T40) were a unique and fresh offering during a time when the market was predominantly swamped with lame copies and cookie-cutter reissues of classics.
back to top

 

"Adding spacers between the bridge and end of the string increases string tension..."

     Unfortunately this isn't true. I don't know how or where this idea originated and why it is accepted and perpetuated even by "pros" (see my next rant) but it's not based on fact or any valid theory. I wonder if it was assumption that was made as a result of casually observing the differences between say, for example, a Fender Jazz and a Fender Mustang. The string tension of a Jazz bass is greater than that of a Mustang given identical strings and tuning. The casual observer may attribute the difference in string tension to the length of the strings... the Mustang's strings would be about 4" shorter than that of the Jazz. In actuality the scale length is the reason for the difference. I'm sure most of you know what scale length is but for those of you who don't, it's the distance between the last points of string contact between the nut and bridge saddle. A Jazz has an approximate scale length of 34" whereas the Mustang's is 30". Don't have a short scale bass to observe the difference in string tension? Just take whatever bass you have and get the "E" string in tune as you normally would. Note the tension of the string when you pick, pluck, strum or slap it. Now fret the "E" string on the 5th fret but tune it back down to an "E" from an "A". Now once again pick, pluck, strum or slap it and you'll notice a dramatic difference in string tension. The string's tuning, string gauge, materials and construction methods of course remain constant. What has changed is the scale length, the string's contact points are now closer than the previous 34" and as a result the tension has changed in order for the the string to still play an "E". And if you'll also note, the string's length has remained the same yet the tension has been reduced. So why do some "pros" perpetuate the length/tension myth?
back to top

 

"Joey Basspro says..."

     A professional bass player is one who makes a living by playing the bass. A bass pro can be an "unknown" possessing amazing skills and knowledge pertaining to music theory. Or he/she may just barely know how to play the bass and can't even read TAB much less a single note yet be famous and a member of a well known band. In most cases a professional bassplayer falls in between these extremes. All this means is that the pro knows how to use a bass, an instrument, a tool to make a living. Their status as a pro does not mean they have the understanding of how this tool works, how to maintain it or what makes one better than another. So I don't care if Joey Basspro says that the MysponsorBass® is better than the Didntgivemesquatbass®... that clamping an Uncle Fester Weightomatic® to the head of my bass will remove fingerboard deadspots... that adding a Golden Gate Monstrobridge® will give my bass such sustain that I can hit a note and not have to play the rest of a set. I won't automatically assume Joey knows what he's talking about when the topic concerns bass guitars just because he has something in common with a knowledgable bass luthier. Basically it's for the same reason I won't ask my proctologist to fill my cavity.
back to top

 

"But a Wishbass doesn't even have a truss rod!..."

     No shit, Sherlock... neither do upright basses. You know why? Because they were built with stout enough necks to withstand the pull of the strings nor are they affected by humidity changes so they do not deflect and a truss rod isn't at all necessary. And if a truss rod isn't necessary, then there isn't any superfluous metal involved which may adversely affect or color the organic tone of the instrument. In addition to the structural and tonal advantages of Steve Wishnevsky's necks they also are ergonomically sound. A thicker neck allows the musician to play with a more relaxed grip which can reduce the likelihood of cramping thereby allowing him/her to play for a greater length of time. In other words, Steve's simple approach to neck design and manufacture has far more advantages than any other bass manufactuer's or luthier's instrument. His basses don't rely on metal, carbon/graphite composites or other gimmicks to compensate for what is essentially a rudimentary flaw in neck design.

Another complaint people have regarding the Wishbass is the lack of a "modern" adjustable bridge. Again, people's perception of what "should be" isn't based on logic, it's based on marketing strategies developed for the glossies by manufacturers and the precedent set by the original Precision bass which served as the benchmark for most modern bass designs. However nothing comes close to the tonal qualities of a simple block style bridge as employed on the simplest WishBass, some of Les Godfrey's basses, and some Carl Thompson basses:

Sure, setting string height with a block bridge is more involved than with an adjustable metal bridge but when a bass is built stout and stable, action is a "set and forget" proposition since climate changes and string tension only have a minute, if any, affect on it. I have several neck through basses that I made using red oak, which is extremely stiff and strong, that do not employ truss-rods or adjustable bridges yet they are extremely stable and don't need adjustments no matter what the season.

As for the fit and finish of the typical Wishbass, yes they are very primitive with respects to finish. But I've played a few and the last one I just recently held was Wishbass #399, a 4 string fretless with a "Lobe" body made of bonded strips of various wood species. I found it at my local Music-Go-Round and it was "modified" by it's previous owner(s). Structurally the bass was absolutely amazing. It was as solid and stout as a fine piece of furniture... I did not want to put it down because it was such a tactile pleasure to hold. However in it's present state it was not playable because the previous owner fit it with individual bridge pieces and most of the hardware was missing. In itself fitting a metal bridge wasn't too bad a thing to do (I acknowledge the fact that most people prefer metal bridges) but the pieces were set so far back to cover the original string through body holes that to set intonation couldn't be set in order to make the 34" scale fretmarkers usable. This brings me to yet another peeve I have regarding many complaints about the Wishbass. It seems that a lot of Wishbasses are subjected to "upgrades" and modifications by previous owners who are completely inept as luthiers. Their incompetence is then judged and wrongfully attributed to Steve by successive owners of the now defiled bass. I read one bassist's complaint about a Wishbass in which he stated that he got a splinter from the neck and he thought the bass was completely unplayable. Needless to say he was not the first owner of the bass and of course I question his skill and abilities as a bassist because I'm far from being a good musician yet I am able to play almost any bass I get my hands on.

Is Steve a master luthier? That can be argued. Are his basses examples of the finest and exacting craftsmanship available? No. Wishbasses are far from perfect and exhibit many inconsistancies that could easily be corrected had Steve used tools such as routing jigs and drilling templates or measured instead of eyeballed certain things. However along with being a luthier he's also a folk artist. He has a right to be as creative and "imperfect" as he wants to be. In my eyes he's the Howard Finster of the bass world. Anyone could definitely scrutinize his works as I could with even $10,000 "cream of the crop" boutique basses but that would just be an indication of missing the point and judging the instrument beyond it's intended scope. What it boils down to is that Steve offers musicians a very basic and functional work of folk art that is the most stable, reliable and organic sounding electric bass on the market... a paintbrush for musicians at a price less than a mass produced MIM Fender. So if you can dig Steve's concept, then get your hands on a Wishbass otherwise you'd be better off buying something else.
But to ridicule him according to one's own ignorant and narrow minded interpretation of how a bass should be made or what it's supposed to look like is idiotic.
back to top

 

"Hey! Look what I won on eBay!"

     Think again. As it turns out you were just the person willing to pay the most money for the item. That doesn't sound like winning to me.
back to top