Luthiers’ Round Table

This Article Was Originally Published On: July 1st, 2014 #Issue 14

For this installation of Bass Gear Magazine’s Luthiers’ Round Table, I turn the reigns over to our good friend, Dan Lenard (of Luthiers Access Group) – whom I would like to acknowledge and thank once again for co-sponsoring our annual Luthiers Round Table GTG at the NAMM Show back in January. Once again, the Round Table Luthiers include (in alphabetical order) Sheldon Dingwall, Harry Fleishman, Vinny Fodera, Randall Wyn Fullmer, George Furlanetto, Mike Kinal, Kenneth Lawrence, Gerald Marleaux, Carey Nordstrand, Michael Pedulla, Roger Sadowsky, Pete Skjold, Michael Tobias, and Joe Zon. For this installment, Vinny is joined by Joey Lauricella and Jason DeSalvo in the crafting of the “Fodera response” to Dan’s questions.

Here are Dan’s questions for the luthiers:

DL – Take two basses, alike in every way, with the exception one is headed and one headless. Will they sound different? How and why?

Sheldon Dingwall – I have a theory, but it’s untested, so will back out of this one. 

Michael Tobias – I have not made a headless bass since 1991. We made two at Tobias before the shop was moved to Nashville. We used the Steinberger hardware. We used similar construction to the regular Tobias basses and the same pickups and electronics. I have not heard them in many years, so recollection will be off some. If I remember correctly, the headless had less dynamic range … not compressed, but just did not develop as much. The response was quick. The mass from the Steinberger bridge gave the bass a good burpy attack. The mass and the lack of peghead would have changed the way the bass worked. 

Carey Nordstrand – Since I haven’t built basses that are identical except for the fact one is headless, I can’t really answer this with much insight. But I have some general observations taking the differences into account as well as I can. The headless basses seem to be greatly affected by the necessary mass of the bridge. It’s a lot like putting a Badass on a bass. The tone gets more modern and wiry, with a firmer fundamental. I recently had an opportunity to hear a folk pop country track recorded with a headless five and then a vP4. The difference was striking. The HL had a very modern, muscular, and punchy sound that was very obvious in the track. I think a lot of bass players would probably have thought it was great, and really what we strive for in modern bass tone. The vP4, on the other hand, fit like a glove in the track in a very traditional manner – exactly what you’d expect. It was supportive and didn’t draw undue attention to itself. Were I a producer, I’d pick the vP4. The HL would have worked much better on a jazz or R&B tune – something where the bass is expected to play a bigger role.

Pete Skjold – I have made one headless bass, which was made for Hipshot (who made the hardware). It was a 4-string, and it seems to line up pretty close to what Mike Tobias has stated with his. I have made other 4-string basses that were very similar, in terms of the woods used; almost identical. There does seem to be a bit less resonance in certain frequencies and an emphasis in others, like the upper mids; slightly compressed. Since the bass was a 4-string, it worked quite well for rock, and for slapping, too, but it definitely had its own character. Not sure how this would translate to five and six-string basses, or basses with a different scale length. I have been doing a lot of experimenting with string length behind the nut and behind the saddle on various scale length, and there is a lot going on, there. One of the things that concerned me initially about a headless was that you lose some of that flexibility, because of the hardware. I theorize that this would have more to do with the difference in sound, even more than the lack of a headstock. Taking away the headstock is going to remove mass from the neck, and the whole instrument in general, so that will have an effect. Whether or not it can be discerned audibly would take further testing, which I have not done, so take my comments for what they are.

 Kenneth Lawrence – Well, I have never built a headless bass and can only offer conjecture, so like Sheldon, I, too, will have to take a pass. I would like to comment on Carey’s comment about the difference in the recorded sounds between the headless bass and his bass. I wholeheartedly agree that you can have a bass’ sound that is too focused and “fundamental heavy.” They stick out way too much in the mix (whether recorded or live), and to me, it spoils the sound. I remember hearing a 5-string Steinberger at a reggae gig, and even with that style of music, the bass was SO out front, it buried everything else. 

Gerald Marleaux – I am sure it is not easy for all of us to answer, as very few of us would have built one headed and one headless bass using the same wood construction. I started bass building with headless models in the ’80s, and since then, I have created about 170 headless basses (4, 5 and 6-strings; bolt-ons and neck-throughs). Generally, I have to say that all of my headless basses are faster in attack, and I´m sure it has to do with the shorter neck. A neck with a headstock needs more power and energy for response. Headless basses have less punch in the midrange, are less focused, and the bass frequencies are not as deep as headed ones. But with constructions and wood choice, we can compensate for these attributes.

Randall Fullmer – This one is easy. I have never made a headless bass. It would be fun to pretend that I know something about them, but I really don’t.

Harry Fleishman – I started building what I prefer to call “right-hand-tuning basses” in 1975.  International Musician described me as a pioneer of headless, but I think the idea had been tried in the past – if not on electric basses, certainly on other stringed instruments. This humble brag is only to point out how difficult it is to do something that hasn’t been done. If you don’t believe me, check out E. Edgren’s patent from 1900 that covers mulit-scale instruments, radiused fretboards, and gearless micrometer tuners! Oh, and there’s that Orpharian from the 17th century with fanned frets!

The early “headless” basses of mine were ultra minimalist, so the differences were as much the result of dramatic reduction in body mass as of being head-free. Over the years, I’ve decided that the original reason for going this direction – to shift the tuning machine weight from the head to allow an overall reduction of weight – is still the main reason for doing it. Once you start adding strings, even going to a five-string, the weight on the head gets out of balance. Newer lightweight machines help a lot. The secondary purpose in shifting the tuners to behind the bridge was to allow tuning while holding a note with the fretting hand. I found this really facilitated tuning while playing.

I have converted a couple of basses from headed to headless, but I didn’t do any real analysis of the changes. There were so many other changes at the same time that there was no real apples-to-apples comparison. That said, they worked well both ways, so I don’t feel that one is superior or inferior. The only clear improvement was the way the bass balanced with and without a strap. If I had to guess (which is all it could be), I’d say that the feel of the strings in the fretting hand might be a little lighter for headless, because of less string behind the nut, and the sustain might be a bit greater because of the extra mass at the body where the string ends – if, indeed, the tuning mechanism was more massive. The other factor that might affect tone would be the reduced flex at the headstock, coupled with the lowered mass at the string anchor point at the head. Again, only conjecture; but that is our game, isn’t it? As designers, not only builders, we strive to understand the effects of untried, untrue, ideas. However, again, we never have apples-to-apples comparisons.

Roger Sadowsky – Having never made a headless bass, I have to decline to answer on the grounds I might incriminate myself!

Mike Kinal – Around 1982, I was taken by the headless concept that Ned Steinberger was incorporating on his basses. So, I thought I would do a few instruments, aside from my regular model basses. The headless bass I built included a neck-through construction with a scaled-down body. What I found was the headless basses produced a quick response, but lacked the overtones and openness of the headed bass. The headstock on a bass, I feel, tends to act like a “mini” guitar body that gives the string some overtones as it breaks over the nut.

Joe Zon – We haven’t found any difference in sound between our headed and headless basses. The stiffness and rigidity of our necks plays a big role in the consistency of response and sustain in our instruments. I can, however, see how that would not hold true with a wood-neck instrument. From my experience in building wood-neck instruments, having a headstock, the size of that headstock (mass) and whether or not it is angled has a direct relationship to the sustain and tonal characteristics of the bass.

George Furlanetto – Having built both, similarly constructed, headless basses have a stiffer string feel, have more compression, much more focus and a thinner tone.

Vinny/Joey/Jason – They will absolutely sound differently. First off, they are no longer truly “alike in every way.” Any significant change to the design of an instrument – especially something as major as the difference between the design of a headless and “traditional” design – will impact the tone. Since we have never done this kind of experiment before, we cannot speak with true authority on the subject. That said, we have experimented with varying amounts of mass in our pegheads – both by altering their sizes and by varying the mass of the tuners that we use – and based on these experiments, we would assume that the “traditionally styled” instrument would have more sustain than the headless version.

DL – Semi-acoustic / chambered basses: explain why they sound different than solid bodies – in physics terms (not bass lingo terms). What is happening?

Sheldon Dingwall – It really depends on where the chambers are located. I’ve heard chambered bodies that sound really nasally, and some of our early prototypes lacked B string performance in a big way. Currently, we chamber on the both sides, plus as much as we can get away with in the center. Removing material lowers the mass of the body and makes it slightly more flexible. This affects the sustain and response, because the body absorbs and then releases vibration from the strings more than if the body was solid. Sustain is reduced slightly; the attack feels less immediate, especially when slapping; mids are reduced, but are slightly more complex – I interpret this as more peaks and nodes. A chambered bass may fill out a sparse mix better, but a solid will cut through a dense mix better.

Michael Tobias – I have made quite a few chambered basses, starting back in 1979. I was trying to change the response and experimenting quite a bit with the chambers. On the early basses, what I noticed was that the bass was more open and slightly less focused. Sustain was slightly less, too. The difference was similar to that between a Les Paul and a 335; rounder tone and less bite in the upper end. I think that still stands. I started making chambered basses again a few years ago. A friend was playing in a Brazilian band, and the leader wanted him to play an upright. He did not want to, so we built him a semi-hollow bass of softer woods, with a very hard fingerboard, strung it with black nylon strings and added a Ghost piezo to the Bartolini system. That seemed to satisfy everyone involved. The sound was similar to an upright plywood bass; very punchy and warm, not too much sustain. If you swap out the tapewound strings for round wounds, the voicing gets back into our regular MTD range. It is just warmer and smoother. The basses I have made this way vary in wood combinations. The response in general can be categorized the same way. Whatever the wood voice is, the chambers have a similar effect.

Carey Nordstrand – I have not made many chambered basses. My general perception is that they have a quality that is more akin to an acoustic guitar. More open in the mids, with less definition and punch. 

Pete Skjold – I have to agree with the basic points both Mike and Sheldon are making here. Here is what has happened to me with my basses, taking all that into consideration. For a very long time, I purposely stayed away from doing chambering or semi-acoustic bodies. I didn’t like what I heard from other makers (as a bass player, I like a solid body tone better) and what Sheldon and Mike have said so far confirm what I was hearing. I now offer a chambered model called the Catacomb. It is a much different from what most builders are doing right now. The only reason I considered it was that one of my artists, Damian Erskine, kept requesting a bigger, fuller, warmer tone. That wasn’t too hard to get, but he also wanted to keep all of the midrange intact. That was the main issue. Hollowing out the bass, as Sheldon stated, decreases the mass and totally changes the way the mids speak. You can end up with a very nasally tone, and that was what I wanted to avoid. After thinking about it for many months, I came up with a special chambering process that retains the mid focus and actually increases the sustain quite a bit. This is because the resonance gets recycled, due to the chambering method. I couldn’t  make the top and back vibrate like an acoustic instrument, but I could produce a sort of soundboard, internally, which resonates and vibrates with acoustic energy, so it doesn’t lose sustain and actually adds a bit to the attack when the note is initially plucked. Along with that, I made the body thicker, to keep the same mass as a solid body instrument, but make the sound more full. There are also the woods, pickups and the bridge material to take into consideration, as well. I used a very resonant core wood. I have done several of these, so far, and they all have similar response – except one I did where everything was done the same, except I left the center (soundboard) out. The customer expressly wanted that more “upright,” open sound in the midrange. That is what he got. One thing which I really think impacts the sound and makes it even more different from a chambered bass is a chambered bass with an f-hole in the top. To me, having a sealed top keeps more of the resonation going internally, therefore keeping the sustain going a bit longer. Adding an f-hole seems to really impact this, and therefore impact the midrange more, along with the sustain. I wonder if energy is escaping through the f-hole, since these are not actually acoustic instruments. I would be curious as to Sheldon and Mike’s thoughts on this, as I have very limited experience with f-holes on my basses, but I have played both Sheldon’s (with an f-hole) and Mike’s (without), so I am curious if they can confirm/clarify my thought on this.

Kenneth Lawrence – I have two models that I build that have hollow chambers. One that is primarily a fretless, bolt-on neck, double-cutaway with a wooden bridge (w/piezo saddles) and a wooden tailpiece. With that design, I’m after a more “upright” type of sound, so the common observation/comments from Sheldon, Mike and Pete hold true here about the slightly more pronounced mids. The design with the wooden bridge (ebony) and extended anchor length to the (again, ebony) tailpiece help bring back the attack and presence of the lower notes. Of course, the woods in the body/top do play a role, but I find these have a pretty consistent sound and a very musical sustain.

My other chambered design is a single-cut, glue-in that more often is fretted and has a traditional bridge. The length of my upper bout, the shape of the chambers, the bridge materials, the body and top woods involved, and especially the “heel plate” (a laminate placed between the neck and the body wood in the neck pocket; much like Fodera’s transition piece), all help me to strengthen the fundamental and balance the rest of the frequency range. One point: both of these designs employ sound holes, and since I haven’t built the same designs without the sound holes for comparison, I can’t comment on that (I will give that some serious thought though, Pete. Cheers!). Overall, though, the general consensus of a more “open,” “organic,” “airy,” “wood-y” sound is what I find I get from chambering a bass, and I find it very appealing.

Gerald Marleaux – To chamber or not is one parameter to consider when we create basses. It’s true that you will lose sustain and weight. I can´t say what happens, physically, but for sure the sound of solid basses comes closer to an acoustic timbre with chambering. Last year, I build a special 7-string bass for a friend. It was neck-through (only on low-string side; we open the neck on the high-string side), with a maple body and a spruce. The low-string body wing was hollow, like a violin, and the high-string body wing was solid. The idea was a mix of acoustic and solid instrument. I was really surprised how great this bass sound was: woody, warm, fast in attack, and amazing sustain – low strings sound like a grand piano, maybe of the mass from big neck.

It was totally different from all my older experiences with chambered or semi-acoustics.

Randall Fullmer – Seems to me that the hollow or chamber is like a speaker. If your top is arched, there will be more of a focus, more projection, than if it is flat. The bridge sitting on the wood is transferring the vibrations of the strings to the top. The chamber, especially with an f hole, is pushing air from the vibration of the top, back and sides and amplifies the sound. What I have found is that chambering opens the sound a bit and, for me, allows one to hear more of the wood in the tone. But if I have thick back, sides and top, the effect – even with f holes – isn’t going to add much volume to the instrument in fully acoustic mode. When the top is thinner and can act more like a membrane than a solid, then the volume picks up. I have made probably a dozen basses with chambers and several hollow-body regular guitars. I notice what everyone else has said. A bit less low bass. A bit less sustain. The mids are less solid and the instrument, overall, is less focused. On the plus side, I have gotten a pleasing, rounded, mellow tone where I really can hear the wood. As is usually the case, I have never A/B’d the instruments with a completely solid bass of the exact same materials to tell the differences in an absolute way.  

Harry Fleishman – My experience with chambering is really more of hollowing out under the bridge on ultra-light fretless basses to move their voice more to the upright tone. I have little experience with what most builders might call chambering. I do, however, really love building very lightweight basses, and chambers are one way to get there. Early on, I probably crippled a lot of bassists with massive instruments, thinking it was the way to big tone. Having built a solid ebony 6-string bass with right-hand tuning, I can attest to its huge sound and frightening sustain. The only problem was that its weight precluded most mortals from playing it. I built it for a weight lifter, who had no problem with the weight. I, on the other hand, couldn’t even play it sitting down without my leg losing feeling.

Lightweight basses have a very different kind of sustain: more lively, but less profound. They are very sensitive to their environment, and can gain sustain from careful placement of the amp – more like a guitar getting feedback, but in a simpler, subtler, more controlled way. I suspect, but have no evidence, that chambered basses may act in a similar manner. Surprisingly, while guitarists are embracing lightweight guitars for their feel and tone, fewer bassists seem to appreciate this benefit. Perhaps bass players are the wide receivers of music, willing to sacrifice themselves for their art, suffering the long-term problems associated with heavy basses.

I’m an anti-purist, preferring to get extra depth via EQ, and more sustain via compression, if I need it. That said, as usual, I build toward what I believe my customer wants, since I only have one at a time to deal with. When I design for other companies, I design what I think they will succeed with. Sometimes that turns out very wrong. Jackson customers were clearly not accepting a 5-pound bass that didn’t look “metal,” even if the goal of hiring me was to expand Jackson’s audience. 

Roger Sadowsky – I have only made chambered basses without sound holes. I began to chamber as a means of weight reduction about 15 years ago when I had trouble finding suppliers who could supply lighter-weight alder and ash. Since 1982, I have been advocating that the better a solid body instrument sounds acoustically, the better it sounds amplified. The feedback I have received since I began chambering confirms that many of my players agree with this. Obviously, there are many who still think a 10 to 11-pound bass sounds better than an 8-pound bass … and there are plenty of heavy basses available for them. But it is amazing how one pound can make a difference in playing a 2 to 3-hour gig.

I try to keep my solid body basses (my MetroLine) in the 8.5 to 9.5-pound range. My chambered NYC basses run from 7.5 to 8.5 pounds. I do not feel my lightest instruments suffer tonally compared to my heavier ones. In a nutshell, I feel my chambered instruments sound more open and resonant, with more character.

Mike Kinal – The big difference between the semi-acoustic and chambered bass are how the air is controlled or isolated. By chambering a solid body, you lock the air inside the instrument, which gives the sound of the note a softer tone, with less punch and focus. The semi-acoustic I’ve found takes that sound a little further, with more air movement creating a more upright tone – again, with less punch, sustain and focus.

Joe Zon – We have built chambered wood-body basses and semi-acoustic basses where the back and sides are composite, with a “floating” spruce or maple top; both types having composite necks. Randall gave a very good explanation as to what is going on, so I won’t delve any further. I will say, that despite our different neck construction and the aforementioned consistency we experience in our instruments due to those materials, we have had similar differences in tone between solid, chambered and semi-acoustic bodies, as found with their wood-neck counterparts. Chambering the bass can “open up” the acoustic side of the instrument a little bit, depending on how much chambering is done. Likewise, it can cause the voice to lose a little focus, in relation to a solid body, but not enough to be a detriment to the overall sound. With the semi-acoustic, having the sides and back made of a thin composite, the body acts like more of a speaker cabinet, causing the top vibrate in a way that provides greater volume, yet retaining more focus than a chambered body.

George Furlanetto – Chambered basses have a bigger tone, acoustically louder, less mids, and a quicker attack. This is due to a “box” vibrating more easily and quickly to string vibrations than a solid block of wood would.

Vinny/Joey/Jason – We are answering this with the assumption that the chambered bass is simply a solid body electric bass guitar that has had some internal body wood mass removed (i.e. it is chambered, and NOT a true hollow/acoustic instrument). Here at Fodera, we use this technique more for reducing weight than we do for altering tone. That said, by reducing the mass of the body, the resonant frequencies of the instrument do change. From a physics perspective, rather than sound waves passing unimpeded through a constant medium (i.e. wood), they end up being attenuated as they transfer their energy from wood to air and then back to wood again. We have noticed that this ends up making the bass response of an instrument with chambering sound ever-so-slightly boomier. The magnitude of this change in tone will vary depending on the density of the wood that was removed.

DL – Why / when should a player consider purchasing a custom bass vs. a mass-produced bass?

Sheldon Dingwall – When a player can’t find what they want in a mass-produced bass, it’s time to look into custom. 

Michael Tobias – I agree with Sheldon. When you can no longer find what you want from a mass-produced bass, you should look for a custom instrument.

Carey Nordstrand – I think buying a custom bass becomes a good idea when a player wants to have something that personally appeals to them, not only in terms of tone, but also mainly in terms of appearance and feel. Picking out woods and pickups and dimensional specs really gives a player the opportunity to tailor the bass specifically to their desires. Hopefully they really know what they want, because it can be expensive to not get it right.

Pete Skjold – I agree with Sheldon and Mike on this one, too. I will add though that it is important to find the right custom builder for you. Some builders have spent a career honing and refining a set design which may or may not be right for you. This is a very personal thing. I would start with these builders first, as the variables have probably been worked through and the builders beliefs and concepts have been realized in a final, tested product. If you feel you need something even more custom, then there are those builders who can do anything your heart desires, but if it is something they have never done before, you are both entering into unknown results. Main thing is to take your time and research potential builders. More so to find out what it is YOU need from a custom bass before you talk to a builder. Know what kind of music you will be playing with it. Know what type of technique you will be using on it. Know how much you’ll have to spend on it. Try as many as you can. Finally, trust your luthier to guide you through the process. This is how we make our livings, and one builder may get totally different results from similar materials because of the way we do other things. When you have determined all this, and production basses aren’t giving you all you want, then it is time for a custom bass.   

Kenneth Lawrence – This is one that we will most likely all agree on. I feel it’s important for a player to be somewhat developed before considering a custom instrument, so that the builder and the player can intelligently arrive at the best instrument for that player. An exception to that would be encountering a custom builder’s instrument that is already built and making a connection to that. Early on, I turned away brand new players because I didn’t feel confident to make all of the decisions for them. I didn’t think it was ethical then, and I still don’t. 

I also have that “old school” idea that you should have a fairly “funky” bass early on, so when you do get on a better instrument, that revelation is that much more profound. That was my experience, and when I did play on a better bass, the growth (and pure joy of playing) was pretty special. 

Gerald Marleaux – What we all do is to think about what we do. We think about different constructions, wood combinations, pickups and electronics, better playability, better ergonomics, etc, to get experience for building the best basses and to offer the best for our customers. What we all do is not only a product! When a customer holds a custom-made bass in his hand, I am sure he feels the different to mass production.

And the best is: if Michael Tobias builds a bass: swamp ash / maple, bolt-on, ebony fingerboard … and Michael Pedulla builds the same thing … both basses will sound and feel different.

It’s the WAY we each do it. So, we all can do the same thing, but the result will be always different. If the customer is ready to get a unique bass, he has to go custom!

Randall Fullmer – A custom bass is absolutely going to cost more money – and often a lot more money – than a production bass, so there should be a good reason or two or three to take the plunge. First off, is fit. I find a lot of players who have small hands, or short arms, or for whatever reason just have a hard time finding a bass that they feel ergonomically comfortable with. I make five scale lengths and quite a number of string spacings to do my best to accommodate. Secondly, if a player wants a truly unique bass, a one-of-a-kind shape or wood combination. Thirdly, if they find elements that they like, such as the tone from this bass, the neck on that bass, this one for the weight of it, and that one purely for looks. If you can truly articulate what you’re going for, there’s a chance to put it all together in one custom bass. A key to this, of course, is to come to the luthier with a well thought-out goal and examples of basses that accomplish aspects of what you’re looking for. And the final reason is that you’ve wanted a “custom something” your entire life, your 401K is burning a hole in your pocket, and your wife won’t let you buy a boat!!

Harry Fleishman – I agree with Sheldon’s answer to this, but would add that there are so many good basses available off the shelf – including basses from many on this panel – that very few players need a custom bass. That doesn’t mean they don’t want them. Lucky for those of us who design custom basses, they do want them.

A custom bass can inspire in many ways, from its aesthetics, feel, tone, vibe, to the potential for numerous strings, string spacings, scale lengths, pickup choices, weight or lack thereof, finishes, woods, bragging rights (oh yeah, bragging rights), and the incalculable value of working with a luthier to create a dream brought real. All that said, I’m always amazed and grateful when a musician takes the leap and trusts me to build their dream.

For many bassists, a custom bass means a greater attention to detail than an off-the-shelf bass can give. The article about the Fodera/Jackson bass was a great example of the best reasons for a custom bass. Fodera provided something unique, with a level of detail unimaginable to most musicians. Working so closely with Anthony Jackson, including his direct input, would only be possible on such a custom level.

When I started designing and building basses, I only made 5-string fretless, longer-scale instruments, though each was unique. There just weren’t many of those type instruments available, so if a bassist wanted that, they had to go custom. My start as a builder came because what I wanted was an electric upright, fretless, that I could wear and bow and move around with. If I hadn’t built it, I would have had to find a custom builder. Good luck with that in 1969!

Michael Pedulla – I would suggest that a player try good quality high-end basses when they are ready to explore their art with the ability and technique to see, feel and hear the differences.

Roger Sadowsky – One thing I do not do is make “custom basses.” I have always found that process too stressful for both me and the customer. There is the potential for a lot of unfulfilled expectations on both sides. What I do is have a line of models that I have designed and refined over the years and a menu of options, including wood choices. My clients come to me when they have reached the limits of what they can get from large companies, especially in regard to workmanship. I also strongly believe that a builder should have a “point of view.” I do not understand builders who offer any wood, pickup or preamp a customer wants. The builder should have a voice, feel and look that is an expression of who they are. I would say that everyone in this group has their own “point of view.”

Mike Kinal – A player would consider a custom bass over a mass-produced bass when he is searching for that special instrument that is right for his hands, ears and pocketbook.

Joe Zon – I don’t subscribe to the idea that a “custom bass” should be custom, in the sense that the player gets to choose all the materials and components for the bass desired. I feel that is a recipe for disaster, which with some players, can lead to endless tail chasing and result in a bass not sounding anywhere near what the player wants. To me, basses can be much like wine. As there are many different basses, there are many different wines. Let’s take a cabernet for example. When you open that bottle, you are enjoying the experience and craft of a vintner who knows the nuances of the terroir, the fruit and how to blend them in a way that the wine will exhibit the best characteristics of those elements. That same idea applies to the boutique basses we all in this article build.

What the bassist is paying for in a hand-crafted bass is our experience and talent of “blending” the various materials together in way that makes each of our instruments unique to the specific builder, just as each bottle of cabernet is unique to the vintner who blends it. That said, there isn’t a “better,” just “ different,” which provides the players, like the wine consumer, a wonderful array of quality choices.

You can’t get those same qualities and personal passion from a “cookie cutter” builder, and that is why a player should consider a hand-crafted bass. As to when they should purchase a hand-crafted bass, it depends on the player. A more discerning player is usually one of experience who can readily notice the difference straight away. However, the benefits to purchasing a hand-crafted or custom bass early in one’s playing career are that you get a life-long investment in a bass that you can “grow” into as your playing style matures and the experience of a builder who will craft an instrument that will become your personal sonic fingerprint.

George Furlanetto – When a player decides they need something specific that a commercially made bass cannot provide, that would be the time to seek out a custom instrument. This could be cosmetic, special construction to accommodate any physical limitations (size, weight or scale lengths) or specific tone. At this point, some “homework” will be required by the player to find a luthier whose instruments (and values) appeal to them. Playing a lot of instruments from different builders will determine what is and isn’t desired. The final step would be direct discussions with the luthier to help determine the direction of the build. The player can refer to basses that were tried in the past to describe the preferred tones. An experienced luthier can guide the player in design, wood selection and electronic choices from the verbal descriptions they have given.

Vinny/Joey/Jason – Our answer to this question would be completely different for different kinds of players – there is no “one size fits all” way of answering this. Consider the question from the point of view of a thirteen-year-old player contemplating their first bass purchase, compared to that of a seasoned veteran who is a composer of his/her own music and/or a professional performer – the answer will be very, very different. On its most general level, however, the degree to which someone requires an instrument, or a relationship with a company, that varies from what is typically available in the mass-produced space should be the determining factor. That said, some of the less immediately apparent reasons for working with a custom builder that we would like to highlight are:

1. When purchasing an instrument from a well-managed custom builder, you are, first and foremost, entering into a long-term relationship with someone that is going to work to understand your needs and aspirations as a player and develop an instrument that is (hopefully) perfect for you. At Fodera, we spend just as much time, money and effort building the human relationships with our players as we do building instruments. You simply cannot get that when buying a mass-produced bass.
2. Oftentimes, purchasing an instrument made by a top custom builder can actually be less expensive in the long-run than cycling though multiple, successive mass-produced instruments in the search for “the one.” As custom builders, we offer virtually limitless combinations of options (woods, scale length, string spacing, body shape, neck shape, pickups, electronics, set-up, etc.) that help to ensure that the first bass we end up building for a customer has a very high probability of being “the one.” In the very rare case where we don’t get it right the first time, because of our focus on building long-term relationships, we will either modify or replace the custom instrument at no additional cost to the customer.
3. It’s a lot of fun. Working through the process of building an instrument designed completely around your needs and wants (as opposed to trying to conform to a set of one-size fits all specs) can be incredibly rewarding an exciting in and of itself. It requires that we understand ourselves as players and people. It requires us to start to ask why we play the way we do, what we like and what we don’t like. It requires that we make choices, and then, we get to watch those choices get turned into an instrument that helps us to better express ourselves, literally before we even play the first note. And, from an artistic standpoint, a properly built custom instrument will become a lifelong companion that inspires our continued growth as artists by getting out of the way and allowing us to express ourselves more freely. A custom instrument – properly executed and developed as part of a relationship with the right builder – is not merely an object. It is part of our own journey as artists and people and, usually, a very rewarding one at that.