Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The BASS Place' started by E5RSY, Feb 24, 2018.
Simple question: Why is it so big???
To mount the mutes that used come on these things?
First thing that came into my head was that the basic shape of the plate might be the same as those of the Mustang Guitar and the Jaguar Guitar (which would simplify overall production) but that isn't the case: though all are large, each is a slightly different shape.
The plate isn't heavy enough to counter balance neck dive, so I doubt that was the intent.
Maybe it was largely an aesthetic decision: since the Mustang Bass pups are so tiny, a big chrome plate adds bling to an otherwise plain Jane appearance.
That's the possible explanation that occurred to me, offhand, but it could easily be off the mark.
There seems to be an excessive number of screws in it, too.
"There seems to be an excessive number of screws in it, too."
Totally outrageous: I suggest we organize a boycott!
Solid idea, but I'm afraid we're too late.
Never Mind, I didn’t pay attention to “bass” in the questions
The Mustang Bass was Leo's last Fender basss - and a sumof all he had learnt...
The P or JB 63+ string mutes were too simple (not individual enough).
The mutes on the JB 60-63 were too expensive / complicated...
The Mustang mutes were simple, individual and cheap!!!
The P until 1957 had body thru...
The basses from 57 on had bridge fixing.
MAYBE he liked the body thru but was not satisfied with the angle (better on 57+).
The Mustang Bass had body thru but with a much better angle than the 51-57...
That's (to my mind) why the Mustang bridge looks as-is...
(and why it has a kind of "P" pickup)
"MAYBE he liked the body thru but was not satisfied with the angle (better on 57+)."
Maybe he used string through on the Mustang because it was a short-scale and adding distance between the bridge and the string ball-end retainers meant that longer-scale strings would be easier to install, giving the owner more string options.
That's just a guess, since I didn't play bass back then so don't remember what was available in terms of bass strings at that time.
You may be on to something. Even true "short-scale" strings on my Bronco with its top-loader bridge result in the cloth windings laying in the saddle slots. I have to take a boxcutter blade and shave the thread off in order to get metal-to-metal contact between the strings and saddle. I really wish it were a string-through design, instead.
There were certainly other short-scale basses around back during the 1960s: Epiphone Rivoli, Guild Starfire, Danelectro and Hofner "Beatle" bass to name just four. But, as I said, I can't recall what string availability was like at that time. I know that most present-day short-scale sets are too short for the Guild Starfire.
That's due to the string length BEHIND the bridge saddles:
The Eastwood Classic 4, the Chowny CHB-1 and pretty much any SS bass the has the strings that go pass the saddles [except maybe a Hofner] will require longer than SS string lengths in most cases.
This has led to a good deal of confusion (which, of course could've easily been avoided had the confused people done some simple measuring) about the Starfire Bass's scale length. I wish I had a nickel for every time I've heard somebody characterize their Starfire as a "medium-scale" bass just because they had tried to restring it with a short-scale string set and found it to be too short.
Yep, I discovered that when I restrung my Gretsch White Falcon bass. It’s a standard 34” scale, but the bridge is set about 5 inches from the edge of the bass, so it requires “extra long scale” strings.
But it’s not an “extra long scale” bass.
It also feels substantially longer when playing it, than a Pbass, Jazz bass or whatever.