Wikipedia

Talk:Bass guitar

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jaberwocky6669 (talk | contribs) at 14:50, 8 November 2005 (→C.F. Martin bass guitar). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Latest comment: 19 years ago by Light current in topic C.F. Martin bass guitar
Learn more about this page

We seem to have both bass guitar and electric bass, which are (strictly speaking) different things but (obviously) overlap heavily. They may need to be merged, or at least refer to each other. --rbrwr

Subcontra Bass

I saw this yesterday. I don't think it's all that common, there might be perhaps two companies that produce them, so perhaps an example or a player would be appropriate?

Inspiration

Inspired by the creation of the electric guitar, almost all classical instrumentalists experimented with attaching pickups to their instruments.

Today's bass and bass player alike is more complicated and expressive than the basses of yesteryear. Companies such as Warwick, Fodera, Ernie Ball, Yamaha, and Alembic have helped to take Leo Fender's original dream and idea to new levels.

The modern bass player has a wide range of choices when choosing an instrument, for example:

  • How many strings (and what tuning)? Leo Fender's classic design had four strings, tuned E, A , D, G (with the fundamental of the E string vibrating at 41 Hz). Modern variants include:
    • Five strings (normally B, E, A, D, G but sometimes E, A, D, G, C)
    • Six strings (B, E, A, D, G, C)
    • More than six strings!
    • double and triple courses of strings (eg, a 12 string bass might be Eee Aaa Ddd Ggg, with standard pitch strings supported by two strings an octave higher)
    • Tenor bass - A, D, G, C
    • Piccolo bass - e, a, d, g (an octave higher than standard tuning - standard bass tuning is *two* octaves below standard guitar tuning, contrary to the addition made to this section of the article)
    • Any other tuning, including mechanisms such as hipshot detuners that allow changes during the course of one song.
  • Pickups - the earliest basses had a single split passive magnetic pickup. Modern choices include:
    • Active or passive (active circuits use a battery to boost the signal)
    • Pickup type
    • Pickup position (near the bridge or further towards the neck for a fatter sound)
    • More than one pickup, giving more tonal variation
    • Non-magnetic systems, eg. piezos or the innovative new Lightwave systems (these allow the bassist to use non-metallic strings)
  • Body shape and colour
    • A wide range of coloured finishes or exploiting the amazing variety of natural wood forms
    • Different body shapes (affecting weight, balance and aesthetics)
    • Headed and headless (with tuning done at the bridge) designs
  • Frets

Add in the factors of amplification and effects units and it's easy to see why some bassists suffer from what is known as GAS (gear acquisition syndrome) ;-)

Anything in the above that isn't already included in bass guitar needs to be merged in. Tannin 23:42 Apr 8, 2003 (UTC)

I think that's most of the stuff merged in. I've included the list above as a good way of presenting a range of options and enhanced the lists at the end of the page with a selection of the material presented therein (expanding the list of players and adding a list of manufacturers).
It would be good to have the links from those lists filled in to indicate what each has contributed to the design and playing styles of the instrument.
Basswulf 10:48 Apr 9, 2003 (UTC)

I think the 'playing styles' section could do with a bit of rewriting. I've moved the section on 'Acoustic Bass Guitars' as they are another form of the instrument rather then forcing a particular playing style. However, there's some other assertions that need tidying up (picks only used for playing fast? speed a hallmark of modern playing?)... I might do it sometime but if someone else fancies taking a stab at it...

--Basswulf 14:45 Apr 25, 2003 (UTC)

Bass guitar vs Electric bass

Latest comment: 20 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

As I've noted in the article, this article is currently about electric bass, not about all bass guitars.

I've started an article on acoustic bass guitar. Strictly speaking, perhaps most of this article should be moved to electric bass, and bass guitar become a more general page? I'm still pondering this.

Arguments I see for it staying as is are that that the electric bass was most commonly called a "bass guitar" for the whole second half of the 20th century. It's arguably still current usage, and appears on many album credits.

Arguments for changing are that the inventor of the precision bass, which is the ancestor of all modern bass guitars both acoustic and electric, never used or approved of the term "bass guitar". This is becoming more relevant with time, Leo's contemporaries didn't care what he thought nearly as much as the next generation do. Also, acoustic, fretless and acoustic fretless (and semi-fretted) instruments are becoming more common, and this is producing a change too. There's even a tendency (not new) to regard calling an electric bass a "bass guitar" as a sign of ignorance. Most manufacturers, especially in the higher price brackets, avoid the term "bass guitar". In view of all this, some might find the current article structure confusing.

I think we need to acknowledge both usages, which the current structure does well, so I'm not in a hurry to change it. Other thoughts? Andrewa 20:49, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)

How about an overarching page called Bass (instrument). This could contain general information about a wide range of instruments - guitar family, violin family, electric and acoustic variations, fretted and fretless, and even other 'bass' instruments such as tuba - and help explain some of the overlap between them.
It is confusing though - I'd rather have a simple page called, perhaps misleadingly, bass guitar than a plethora of unrelated pages that give inconsistent information on facets of the overall subject. FWIW, as a musician I think of myself as a bassist, never as a bass guitarist... Basswulf 09:02, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I like the idea of a Bass (instrument) article. There's a mention in the musical comedy "The Music Man" of "the one and only bass, and I oompahd up and down the square" and I've never understood exactly which instrument this means but brass players all seem to know. What to call the electric bass has been controversial since the 60s and possibly before but it didn't concern me then. I've changed my usage over the years, you'll have noticed I now call it an "electric bass guitar" not just "electric bass" as I used to out of respect for Leo. This is because nowadys there's another instrument that we need to call an "acoustic bass guitar" to distinguish it from a string bass (and nice edit to that article, just BTW, much clearer). (As another aside, when I have recorded using the Eston pictured, some ears I respect have mistaken its tone for that of a string bass. Just a bit limited in volume, and no pickup. Mikes up well and needs to be for any venue above about 40 people.)
There's another thing... by and large, I don't think working musicians care what it's called so long as it's clear what is meant. It's mainly some of the keen (non-playing) music fans who like to be pedantic, and always has been. But we need to cater for them too IMO. Andrewa 19:59, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Well, I've gone and set the page up. Pop over to bass (instrument) and see what you think. I would like to see it being used when talking about bass in a context where that role may be filled by more than one form of bass instrument. Basswulf 12:05, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I wasn't keen on the changes made to the page yesterday - they removed the neutrally worded, balanced historical picture and replaced it with trendy bass-speak. Fine for a home page but not, I think, quite the tone for the Wikipedia. Basswulf 11:30, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Bass guitar vs Electric bass revisited

I never realised that people felt so strongly about not using the G-word when describing a bass. I tend not to, but I can't say I never have. Interestingly, this page says that the bass developed from the viola da gamba, whereas aon that page it states that the the v da g has its roots in the guitar and the rebec. If both these statements are true then squabbling about nomenclature is a tad silly. Paul Tracy 14:04, 5 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

  • {This comment undermines the purpose of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia or accurate on-line reference. Using this logic we may as well call everything with strings a guitar. The violin could be a chin guitar, the cello a leg guitar, a mandolin a baby guitar, a banjo a velum guitar, a piano a hammer guitar... - Southern Bassist}
    • No it doesn't undermine the purpose of anything. The world will not end. I play bass, but I don't get offended or insulted if someone refers to the bass with the frets that I hold across the body as a "bass guitar" any more that if they call my double bass a "stand-up bass". Usage is very important in the evolution of language. Paul Tracy

I am not sure where the end of the world came into it, nor being offended or insulted if someone mis-labels something because they use a term based on a common misconception. Like you, I am not offended if my double bass is referred to as a "stand-up", "upright", "acoustic" or "doghouse" bass or even "bull fiddle". However, I would be stunned (note: not offended) if someone referred to it as a type of guitar. I still have not heard any convincing argument for an electric version, whether it be stand-up, upright, stick, or horizontal fretted or fretless, to be called a guitar when the purpose, function, voice, playing style and discipline are not those of a guitar.

"purpose, function, voice, [...] and discipline"? That's the same ball game to me! What differs between the bass guitar and the double bass is the construction, design, look, origin, the people that build it, playing technique..... Minuteman 15:16, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article rightfully acknowledges popular usage. My argument is that an encyclopedia's purpose is to provide an accurate reference to access facts. If Wikipedia is to go down the path of presenting a popular misnomer as a fact to the exclusion of the correct terminology, then it should remove the "free encyclopedia" description and call itself a "glossary of modern slang". Is it an insurmountable problem to recognise the term "bass guitar" as a popular misnomer and to refer to the instrument by its correct name? - Southern Bassist

You yet have to explain - with valid arguments - why "bass guitar" is a misnomer for a "bass guitar" (not for a double bass).Minuteman 15:20, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree, it seems that a lot of bassplayers are just alergic to the word 'guitar'. All you have to do is take an electric guitar, remove two strings, extend it a bit, and detune the 4 remaining strings by one octave and you have a bass-guitar.

  • {Wrong. A bass is two octaves below a guitar, but by convention the music is written on the staff one octave higher. Perhaps you have described a baritone 4 string guitar? - Southern Bassist}
A bass is one octave below a guitar; the low E on each (assuming a 4-string bass) are 41.2 and 82.4Hz respectively. Guitar music is not written on the stave at pitch either.Paul Tracy
{I stand corrected on the pitch issue! - Southern Bassist}

The fact that you might have something against the six string instrument changes nothing.

  • {Or the fact that the protagonists for bass-guitar have something against the bass changes nothing - Southern Bassist}

I think a lot of bassplayers that are so touchy about the g-word are a lot of times people who are still afraid not to be recognised as a sepatarate group from guitar-players. Maybe a lot of them are old people who come from an age when bass guitar players still had to fight for recognition and acceptance.

  • {The arrogance behind that last statement! Musicians - young and old - who have studied double bass as their first instrument and never guitar simply regard people as ignorant if they label a someone a guitarist just because they pick up an electric bass and continue doing what they have always done. It has nothing to do with being touchy about the g-word or fighting for acceptance or recognition - there is a world wide shortage of trained bassists putting them in demand. Acceptance or recognition is a given. This is about accuracy in an encyclopedia! Sometimes in ensembles there is not even a guitar in the band. Or is it assumed the bass had to fight for recognition separating it from all other instruments such as an electric fiddle or banjo, or piano and singer? - Southern Bassist}
True or not, the ignorance about double basses and bass guitars is irrelevant for the discussion "bass guitar" vs. "bass".Minuteman 15:10, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'd say those days are over, almost everybody who knows something about music knows that bassguitar and guitar are two totally different instruments with different functions, different disciplines etc. (the same as with a violin and a contrabass) But they are related instruments. Arguing otherwise is the kind of discussion wikipedia doesn't need IMHO.

  • {Fortunately you recognise the differences in your statement, but in this forum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - you don't want accuracy? Arguing for popular ignorance is the kind of discussion of discussion wikipedia doesn't need IMHO - Southern Bassist}

I tend to use 'electric bass' as well, but in a lot of languages it is just not clear what you mean if you say this. --Vunzmstr 11:19, 10 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

  • {example please! Why don't you just call it a bass? How is the qualifier "electric" confusing? - Southern Bassist. 6 June 2005}
In the English language: An electric bass could mean any electrified bass instrument: electric bass guitar, electric double bass...
I'd say Vunzmstr is trying to improve the naming accuracy. A bass could be: a tuba, a low voice, the Basso voice range. Bass guitars and guitars simply have more in common than the bass guitar and the double bass, which belongs to the violin family, while the (electric) bass/bass guitar does not. Note the first (commercially successful) bass guitar: it was built by Leo Fender, not by Stradivarius!

Differences between bass guitar and double bass:

  • playing technique: one may use a bow for the double bass
  • design: the bass guitar is a direct derivative of the guitar (both electric and acoustic), while the double bass was derived from the violoncello
  • octave: the bass guitar is one octave lower than the guitar, the double bass an extra octave lower
  • Minuteman - I speak English as my native language, and have never been confused by the term electric bass. Also, Minuteman should note that upright, fretted, 6 string acoustic upright basses date to the early 16th century (and probably earlier). So the current six string fretted form of a guitar was originally on a double bass more than 500 years ago! Up to that time the probable ancestors to the guitar - the lute, vihuela, gittern and Arabic al ud were very different instruments. The Catalan instrument of the late 15th century that may be the first guitar was a four course instrument. The five course guitar appeared in the 16th century - still very different to the basses of the time. The independant evolution of the instruments continues to this day, even though one may borrow design features from the other. Minuteman needs to back up his claims such as "the bass guitar is a direct derivative of the guitar" with facts that anyone can independantly verify. My research backs up the Paul Tutmarc origin of the electric bass (derived from the double bass). - Ozbass

BTW - a surviving example of Paul Tutmarc Studios' 1935-'36 electric bass is in the Experience Music Project museum along with an advertisement proclaiming it an "Audiovox Electric Bass Fiddle" Nota Bene not a guitar! The Audiovox Electric Guitar also featured in the same advertisement is a different instrument - Ozbass

Add to this that the number of electrified bass instruments may increase in the near future, further reducing the clarity of "electric bass". IMHO an encyclopedia should be clear and properly categorised. Electric bass instead of (electric) bass guitar does not meet that standard. Minuteman 15:10, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

{Hi Minuteman, Your comments above suggest to me you have not understood the double bass / standup bass example made by Paul and that I am arguing that "bass guitar" is a misnomer for an electric bass. Correct me if I am wrong in that I suspect you are not a bassist, and please don't take offense if I am mistaken. You have made a number of comments that I cannot agree with and some factual errors.

  • This is completely irrelevant. See Ad hominem and Appeal to authority. Minuteman 11:56, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I am asking you to understand the example and I am stating an opinion. Hardly ad hominem. - SB

Please research the history and origins of what is the electric bass, also called by the popular misnomer "bass guitar". It was inspired by and designed as an amplifiable alternative to the double bass for bass players - not derived from a guitar for guitarists wishing to transpose to a lower octave.

  • Another Ad hominem. This does not change the fact that the bass guitar (whether electric or not) shares a common design with the guitar, not with the double bass. Following your line of reasoning, a double bass is a tuba, because it is an alternative for it. Minuteman 11:56, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Again, facts of the origin of the electric bass are not ad hominem. Common design attributes apply to a wide range of instruments. I did not suggest a double bass was an amplifiiable alternative to a tuba. I do not understand when it was agreed that a string bass (acoustic or electric) became an accepted alternative to a brass instrument. - SB.

Referring to your comment - "construction, design, look, origin, the people that build it, playing technique....." The name 'electric bass' is from the people who were the originators. We agree on the the first commercially successful design by Leonidas Clarence Fender on the electronics and his team crafting the body and neck. This was and has always been called by Fender an "electric bass". For example, this label is clearly on the headstock of my Fender Jazz electric bass. It definitely does not say "Jazz Bass Guitar". Electric bass is how other manufacturers referred to these instruments as well.

  • Then you must also agree on the fact that Fender was a guitar builder, not a double bass builder. He opened a new market. His electric bass guitar was marketed for bassists, not guitarists, because of the function of the instrument (I think we agree on this). So it's not surprising he called it a bass, not a guitar. Minuteman 11:56, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Fender made many instruments, not just guitars. And I agree he made basses for bassists, and guitars for guitarists! Fender did not open a new market, but he successfully capitalised on an expanding market. - SB

There is an alternative expression that has fallen from fashion. I have heard bassists, sound engineers and record producers that may fall into the "old people" class described by Vunzmstr (a generation before me BTW) sometimes called the electric bass a "Fender bass" to distinguish it from the double basses when called on to lay down a track. Note: Back then, the musician was always a bass player or bassist, not a bass guitarist. I have heard of, but never experienced first hand, a musician being labelled a "Fender bassist".

With regards to the look, do you consider the Hofner 500/1 electric bass (and its imitators) to look like a guitar? And Ned Steinberger's headless, graphite bass instrument that could swivel at any angle? Taking this "look" argument further true electric guitars can be only those in the Gibson ES hollow body / archtop style, or an acoustic fitted with a pickup. I expect you would agree the evolution in form and design does not change the function, purpose and voice in the case of guitars, so why a different case for basses?

  • This is a very good example of confusion due to the misnomer. The title of the page and instrument's description are all from Hofner. The manufacturer refers to a bass - only the guitar seller's sales speak calls it a bass-guitar in his red font insert. - SB

Some playing techniques of slap and pluck may further distinguish the bass from guitar, although there are many techniques of picking common to a wide range of instruments. I have yet to see chords strummed on six string basses as one would a guitar, or a line up of "bass guitar, rhythm bass guitar strumming chords and lead bass guitar doing a scorching solo". Mind you, there is a scene in the comedy Spinal Tap of 3 basses being played that comes close - just not the strumming on six strings.

The bowing argument does not help your case. Did Jimmy Page turn his Gibson Les Paul Deluxe into a violin when he used a bow, and magically back into an electric guitar when he put down the violin bow and started strumming and picking again?

  • Neither does a saw become a violin when it is bowed. Nonetheless, it does not change the fact that a bass (guitar) is not meant to be played using a bow, while the double bass (originally) is, and is usually played either with or without bow. Minuteman 11:56, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't think a saw is a stringed instrument derived from the viole or guitar families. So we now agree the bowing argument is irrelevant - SB

Stradivarius did not make solid body electric violins either, or those electric instruments bowed or plucked and fashioned as a frame of a violin. Are they therefore a type of guitar when played pizzicato or strummed, or when played at the elbow or hip as they sometimes are instead of under the chin? I have seen a performance in which a violin strummed what is usually the rhythm guitar part as rock accompaniment. Never for a moment did I think to call it a guitar. The playing technique argument is just a distraction to the origin, discipline, voice and function.

There are electric basses that can be bowed. There are also innovative 12 string electric basses (4 courses of 3 strings each) that no-one in this discussion has touched upon. Would you argue that these are actually bass-mandolins because the term "electric bass" is unacceptable? They are certainly very different to 12 string guitars.

  • I hope you are aware that these are rare exceptions. I never said that every electric bass is a bass guitar.Minuteman 11:56, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Agreed. These examples are rare, but you have not explained which electric bass is not a bass-guitar. Either way, it does not change the truth to my argument. - SB

Convergent evolution in design which results in similarities in form does not make a bass a guitar, nor a guitar a bass. If you try using this argument in scientific classification and you will not last long at all.

  • Does this mean you do not agree with Charles Darwin and Carolus Linnaeus? Anyway, I explained earlier, based on several arguments (not just form), why a bass guitar may be called a bass guitar. Similarly, the bass balalaika is also a balalaika, and the guitarron (a type of bass guitar) is also a guitar.Minuteman 11:56, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Note I said convergent evolution. This refers to form. Citing Darwin and Linnaeus strengthens my argument! Particularly the convention of acceptance of precedence in correct classification. Your arguments are more Lamarckian in nature. Guitarron? Which guitarron? Argentinian? Mexican? Six strings, usually different tuning to a guitar, strings plucked in pairs? The guitarron's lineage may be more closely aligned to the guitar, and I would accept the guitarron as a member of the guitar family, but why are you now applying the misnomer bass-guitar to that instrument as well? It already has a name - guitarron! Nevertheless, this is irrelevant to the history and lineage of the electric bass. -SB

BTW- I use the same electronic tuner for the double bass and electric bass - same octave.

With regard to the use of bass and electrified bass instruments generally, I agree clarity becomes more important. I think this also strengthens my point. Basso profundo voices, tubas, digital pianos, synthesisers and other keyboard options have never been confused in the electric bass / bass guitar discussion. Electric uprights and stick basses are not confusing terms....and the pick-up on my double bass has never lead to anyone calling it a bass guitar, even when played resting horizontally (for effect), and it could be classified a type of electric bass IMO. Continuing to refer to an electric bass by the term its originators used becomes more important in your "trying to improve the naming accuracy" and "an encyclopedia should be clear and properly categorised" scenario.

  • I repeat: I never said that an electric double bass is a bass guitar. I'm just arguing that the electric bass guitar and the electric double bass are much too different to place under the same label. Minuteman 11:56, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • This is the nub of the difference of opinions. It does not matter if an acoustic bass (upright, horizontal, fretted or fretless) is amplified, or if an electric bass is acoustic, semi-acoustic or solid body upright or horizontal. A bassist approaches these instruments as bass instruments. A guitarist doesn't. By your own admission you think a double bass and an electric bass are much too different. A bassist understands they are sibling instruments and not much different at all. This is why I think it is guitarists who can adapt quickly to an electric fretted bass more easily than to a double bass who want to call it a guitar. However, this is not the original name nor the original purpose. - SB

I have always referred to the instrument by the label given it by the designer.

  • This argument is not very strong, since marketeers are interested in selling their products, not in writing an encyplopedia. They knew they were going to sell their bass guitars to bassists, not to guitarists. Minuteman 11:56, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Are you suggesting that we use marketing terms made up by salesmen to re-label and re-classify musical instruments for an encyclopedia? You only have to look at the poor bass techniques of many who label themselves bass-guitarists and it is self-evident that electric basses were sold to guitarists. - SB

I know many other musicians that do likewise (especially trained bassists with experience from jazz, rock and country to orchestras). I am not spoiling for a fight here, but I honestly remain totally mystified as to why there is any support in favour of changing the name to a type of guitar when the guitar has such a different role. Popular misconception is not a good reason to get it wrong as a point of fact. By all means have the terms "bass guitar" and "bass guitarists" listed to cater for the less well-informed, that's what reference texts are for. But then re-direct the reader to the correct category for the facts. I know some musicians don't care and some may well label themselves "guitarist" like Anthony Jackson (a guitarist before moving to bass and designing a six string bass which he labelled a contra bass, and playing it seated as if it were a concert guitar), but there would be many bassists that must be mortified to have a so-called encyclopedia include them under the "bass guitarist" listing. Discounting the legacy and memory of the great jazz musician and inspirational bass player Jaco Pastorius by labelling him a type of guitarist is a tragedy. Go to the credits of other greats such as Bootsy Collins or Motown commentators talking of James Jamerson - they refer to the instrument as a bass and the musician a bass player. It is often my experience that it is non-musicians, music store sales assistants or self-taught bass players that have arrived at bass after learning guitar that push the terms "bass guitar" and "bass guitarists". Formally trained bass players who do not play guitar as a performance instrument never use these terms in my experience.

  • Bandwagon Fallacy applies to the popular adoption of the misnomer bass-guitar, not the continued use of the original term by trained bassists, professionals and scholars. The original term is a fact that anyone can verify - SB

Think of what guitarists' reaction would be to an encyclopedia changing the name of their instrument to, say, solidtop banjo. Why should bassists (or for that matter anyone on any subject) accept an encyclopedia getting it fundamentally wrong? Why shouldn't an encyclopedia use the name the foremost designer of the instrument gave it?

I prefer to call guitars "very short scale six string piccolo basses"!Dburgess 09:26, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

- LOL - I love it! - Ozbass

... and if you made it all this way through my rant, CONGRATULATIONS! I commend you on putting up with my opinions. Please give my arguments serious consideration and think twice before labelling someone a "bass guitarist" and their electronic stringed instrument a "bass guitar" - Southern Bassist}

  • The discussion is about the name for the instrument, not for the player. Minuteman 11:56, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Irrelevant, It does not make the argument any less true.-SB
  • In conclusion: I still agree with Vunzmstr that many (electric) basses are bass guitars, and that in these cases bass guitar is more clear and more specific. This does justice to the fact that some bass guitars are not electric basses (like the guitarron) and that some electric basses are not bass guitars (like the double bass), while being specific enough. An electric bass could mean any electrical bass instrument. Minuteman 11:56, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Can't it just be left as a guitarron? - SB


The heart of the problem is that there are people who are masters of the instrument in question who quite happily think of it as a bass guitar and others who refer to it as electric bass. Fortunately, by the magic of Wikipedia, both will bring you through to the article. Personally, I prefer the latter term but, as long as both work, I don't think it's the issue that Southern Bassist is making it out to be. Likewise, I call myself a bassist but I'm not bothered if someone else chooses to think of me as an electric bassist, bass player, or bass guitarist (all of which redirect to bassist). Also, have a look at the bass (instrument) page, which seeks to provide an overview of the whole category.
Just as a thought, I think we can all acknowledge it as a factual statement that there has been controversy about what to call the [INSERT FAVOURITE NAME HERE]. Rather than arguing here, perhaps that subject could be the subject of a related sub-page, so that any interested parties can review the different angles of the debate and make up their own minds without detracting from the main article? Basswulf 15:27, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think the first few paragraphs acknowledge that there are different opinions on what to call the "instrument with same register as a double bass but also having features in common with the guitar". Maybe there should be a separate section on nomenclature; personally I don't think so, and I'm certainly not going to write it. I don't think that the name of the thing is more important than the thing itself.
I also think that Southern Bassist argues well and would like to suggest that he log on and edit the page himself!Paul Tracy 22:12, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Drop Heads And Hipshots

Is a drop head the same thing as a hipshot detuner? It sounds like it might be. Andrewa 00:39, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It sounds like exactly the same thing. I can see that it might be worth mentioning but I'm going to have a go at improving the description... there are a lot more options to 'drop tuners' than just going down a tone (ask Michael "doubledetunersonallfourstrings" Manring!) Basswulf 10:37, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Yep... detuning options were already on the list. Therefore, I've dropped the 'drop head' section. Basswulf 10:39, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Hmmm... are you sure you haven't deleted content in doing this? "Hipshot" seems to be a brand of aftermarket machine head, and they may even have the market in these devices sewn up in the USA, but that's certainly not true in Australia. I'll see how your rewrite goes, but I think you should mention the term "drop head" somewhere as it's an important part of bass playing, internationally at least. Andrewa 21:20, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Ran out of patience on this, so I've had another go. The tuning you deleted is far more common than any of the other non-standard four string tunings and deserves its own line. Suggest a separate article or at least a section on detuners. Andrewa 21:27, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I think you've got a point about "Hipshot" being a brand name but I can't say I've heard the term "drop head" before. I'm based in the UK (not the US) but participate in several international discussion areas such as the Churchbass mailing list or Talkbass forum, both of which have a good sized contingent of antipodeans.
My impression of bass tuning is that once you get outside of (B)EADG(C) you reach territory where there is no standard. I would suggest a single bullet point for detuners, perhaps giving an example such as dropping an E string down to D and would definitely be in favour of a new page to explore the topic in more detail.
I'll wait a little while before making any changes to see your response. It would be good to co-operate on this to provide a breadth of information without making the main page too confusing. Basswulf 11:21, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Your last edit is probably pretty good. I can't find any local consensus on what else to call a detuner. "Drop head" and "drop key" both seem to be used, but are then denied by the very people who use them (including my original source!). So I'm now happy to stick with "detuner".
On the other hand, the D-E A D G tuning does seem to have some supporters... everyone I speak to says it's the original, normal and most common use of a detuner, which was my earlier impression too.
And I may be wrong about Hipshot not having the market sewn up here, they certainly have enormous respect among serious players, while there are unsourceable but persistent reports of problems with their rivals.
I apologise for being twitchy with you before. I'm very much a part-time bass player, drums is my normal seat. But I've had some hilarious comments from internet contacts (Wikipedians included) who play bass and seem to think this qualifies them to tell everyone else how to play. See the ABG page's history and scroll down to the comment that my Eston fretless "clearly has frets", I've been playing it for 20 years and I think I'd have noticed by now if it did. And some equally comical ones with Americans who think this qualifies them to tell everyone else how to live, see Talk:Gold album and compare to what the article now says.
So far as checking my sources against the Internet goes (WWW, email groups or usenet), this is another sore point. I'm thinking of writing a meta article on the tendency to make Google in particular and the WWW in general our sole primary source, eg to quote lack of Google hits as a reason for deletion on VfD. Have a look at [1] and scroll down to read "rm unknown academic" as justification for removing Henry Felsen for the second time in a few minutes, apparently for no reason other than this million-selling author only got 5 Google hits. This was also listed on VfD at the time, by the same guy, who remains completely unapologetic.
Contributors to the Internet remain a small and unrepresentative section of the population (both generally and of bass players). In general, they are also a well-educated lot compared to the general population, but this isn't always the case! I see a danger if Wikipedia simply distills what's already on the Web rather than checking other sources, and in that it's a lot more work to check other sources, I even think we should defer a little to people who do. Big topic. Andrewa 21:37, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I worked in a VIth Form College (16-19 year olds) from 1996-1999 and despaired at how many students seemed to think 'research this topic' meant 'copy and paste from MS Encarta', so I fully agree with what you're saying. I'm sure if I went back there now, Google would be the present synonym for 'research'! I think an article discussing this would be a good idea - maybe as an addition to the help pages (although I haven't looked there for a while now)? Basswulf 12:02, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I've deleted the reference to washtub bass. I don't think it belongs here but I have put a reference in on the bass instruments page, which I think is more appropriate. Basswulf 11:29, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Reference to Atlansia removed - someone tried putting a link to their website - http://www.cnet.ne.jp/atlansia/ - but failed to use the correct syntax.

I think the list of manufacturers could do with a bit of a workover. If it's just going to be an attempt to build a comprehensive list of bass builders, then that should probably be moved to a separate page. Instead, I think this page should only contain companies who've made a significant contribution, in the same way as we have a list of a few bassists (and comments summarising their contribution) and a link to the fuller list. Bass manufacturers anyone? Basswulf 09:21, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Precision basses vs Jazz basses

Basses are classed as precision basses or jazz basses. What's the difference between the two types? I know it has something to do with the pickups, but I'm not totally certain what is what. If any of you know this, please consider adding it to the article! Lemmus 21:59, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

P and J refer to pickup configurations based on the Fender Precision and Fender Jazz respectively. However, there are also plenty of other arrangements, some of which have become well established. I did think about adding to the bass page but I think it might clutter the article. Perhaps it belongs on the pickup page; I know that there are 'classic' pickup configurations for both guitar and bass which are named after the instruments on which they became popular. Basswulf 10:43, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

_________________________________________________________________________________


Precision basses vs Jazz basses

More than just pick-ups it's the neck as well (width and radius). They have a very different feel. The Fender Jazz Bass line has variations in it's electronic configurations.

Other luthiers who design and produce basses may have an objection to "Basses are classed as precision basses or jazz basses." There are many basses out there that do not conform to either of these two concepts. (Aussie bassist 28 Nov 2004)

C.F. Martin bass guitar

Latest comment: 19 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I have a C.F. Martin EB-18 bass guitar that I can't seem to find any information about! Is anyone out there familiar with this wonderful guitar? If so, then I would greatly appreciate anything you can tell me! =) Jaberwocky6669 05:25, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Try asking on an interactive forum, such as http://www.talkbass.com/ - that's probably a better source for finding out specific information about a given bass Basswulf 12:00, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Try this link http://www.harmony-central.com/Bass/Data4/Martin/EB-18-01.html By the way, I believe you are enquiring about a bass and not "this wonderful guitar". The the C.F. Martin EB model code probably refers to Electric Bass, not bass guitar!

I have a CF Martin EB 18 bass about 20 yr old. A great bass! Anyone know what they're worth? So Jabberwocky what do U want to know?It looks like this [2]

--Light current 23:55, 7 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Mines got: brass nut, Badass bridge, 1 off DiMarzio PU, Schaller M/C heads, thro piece solid construction (body wings are glued on to central core). One vol control, one tone control, switch for altering the pu wiring. (humbucking?)
Not sure what the strings are. Sound and feels fantastic- but its very heavy, hence I dont play it now. They came out in 1979 I believe. Got mine in about 1981. Its a collectors item worth about $600!--Light current 00:11, 8 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

I looked at those Ebay pictures. It might as well be my bass in those pics! We have the exact same bass. I got mine for x-mas about 7 years ago. It's the only bass I have since I'm not a hardcore bassist. I've been wondering how much they would go for on ebay or wherever. I also wonder if there are any famous musicians that have used the eb-18 before. I just really like this bass and am pretty lucky that I have one. True, most other players can criticize it all day long. I could go on forever. Jaberwocky6669 | ☎ 05:03, 8 November 2005 (UTC) Reply

  • THe only difference is that I have grover tuning heads. What is the model number stamped on the back of yours? Mine is: 2509. Unfortunately the varnish or veneer or whatever it is has thin cracks in it because I left it overnight in a friends attic lol. It lowers its worth but I'm not looking to part with it. Jaberwocky6669 | ☎ 05:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)Reply
Well its not the model number thats on the back (where the 'neck' enters the 'body')- its the serial number and mines 2948 so mine probably a bit later than yours. Jus had a look at the M/C heads again, and they have C.F.Martin stamped on them, but no other indication of a maker. I thought they were Schallers originally (but they could be Grovers- I wouldn't know).

Just as a matter of interest, I still have the Guarantee certificate with the model no (EB-18) and serial number printed on. That should be interesting for a collector!. BTW have you got the proper hard flight case for yours?--Light current 05:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Does the inside of the case remind you of 1970's furniture? lol The inside is really soft and a weird kind of burnt orange. I'm not sure if it is originial but it seems really sturdy. It is either orginial or it was custom made because the bass fits right into it even the odd shaped lizard looking head lol.

1967 design -> 1957?

Mistake?

In 1957, the pickup was changed to a single "split pickup" (staggered) design. The pickguard also underwent a radical change, as did the headstock.
This 1967 design has remained as the standard electric bass, and is still widely available. Another industry standard, the similar, but more highly-engineered Fender Jazz Bass, was introduced in 1960.

Shouldn't it be "1957 design"? Lawrence Lavigne 10:22, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

History

I have added a history section and replaced what was deleted two weeks ago. Ozbass

Mudvayne

I've deleted the part about the mudvayne bassist on the influential bassists section. It lacked basic grammar and spelling and was obviously just written by an over-zelous mudvayne fan.

Separate list for influential bassists?

I've added a link to the bassist page. Do you think we should do away with the list of bassists on this page and instead enhance the information on the bassist page (probably splitting the list on that page into three - bass guitar, double bass and those who play both)? That's what I'm leaning towards, although I'd like to hear some other opinions.

Basswulf 11:37 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)

You're completely right, the list is becoming an unruly 'list of everyone who's ever played electric bass' rather than a list of importantly notable/innovating bassists who should probably be located in an article about the history of the instrument. I'd be into chopping this down to, say, a carefully-selected five to eight musicians with very brief descriptions if you'd be interested porting unduplicated information from here to bassist (and subsequently doing whatever with that page). What do you think? --Drasil 06:33, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Basswulf. As for Drasils proposal: good idea too but i think everyone would anyway start adding their 'influential bassists' anyway. I think the article is fine with just the bassists mentioned throughout the text (Larry Graham at the piece about slapping etc.) Although I think that Jaco Pastorius should be mentioned in the piece about fretless (as much as i like Pino Palladino), because he really pioneered the fretless electric bass before Pino Palladino did. --Vunzmstr 09:46, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Isn't it about time to move the 'influential bassists' list to a separate page? If it continues like this, this list is pretty soon going to include every living bass player on earth. I don't think it contributes anything to the article anymore. Maybe i should be 'bold' about this, but since so many people contributed to that section of the article i thought it wise to investigate the general feelings about this over here first... --Vunzmstr 10:10, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Right, check out the above discussion about this that basswulf and I are having about this. (You might want to have a look at bassist, too.) --Drasil
Done. I think this page has plenty of content talking about the history of the bass guitar, with reference to how particular players have influenced that development. I've merged the list of influential players with the one on the Bassist page. Who's been influential on the instrument is inevitably a strongly POV discussion, which is why I think the list was getting so long and unwieldy. A list of people who are bassists, perhaps with a brief mention of their most famous bands (but not all of them!), is much more factual - Wikipedia is here to provide information, not free advertising or space for fanboys to talk up their heroes! Basswulf 11:57, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Right! --Vunzmstr 13:42, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Bassist is looking good so far. It's sort of unwieldy, but so are all the other 'list of' articles we've got floating about the wikiverse. I'm really glad you thought to put it in alphabetical order. (And I agree that contextual reference of the bassists within this article is the way to go.) --Drasil 04:52, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What about the list of 'influential manufacturers'? I favour the same treatment as the 'influential players' list. Firstly I am not sure about what an influential manufacturer is exactly, and secondly I think it is not a list of 'influential manufacturers' but of manufacturers in general. The article could very well just do with a reference to a list of manufacturers and with contextual reference to the most significant manufacturers. --Vunzmstr 12:53, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Zon Basses

Could someone here have a look at Zon Basses and tell me if the subject has any claim to notability? A quick google suggests no, but google is fickle for such things. Thanks. --W(t) 17:52, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)

I think Zon Guitars (the official name of the company) might be deserving of an entry - they're a fairly influential bass manufacturer. However, that article is short, misleading (Michael Manring is not their lead designer or only customer!) and inadequate as it stands! Basswulf 11:55, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I added some content about Zon. --Kenliu 8 July 2005 07:32 (UTC)

Strings and Tuning

Latest comment: 20 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I've been watching as this section gets bloated with more and more specific details. Recently, it seems to have become encumbered with lots of names of specific artists and is starting to sound less like an encylopedia article and more like a series of eulogies for X, Y and Z. I've substantially shortened the section, as well as adding notes on alternative tunings for open chords and extended range.

If you feel the need to illustrate and expand (although hopefully not with debateable statements like "X and Y are the only 11 string bassists as of August 2005") how about starting a separate article on Extended Range Basses. Otherwise someone who's unfamiliar with the subject may not realise that the majority of basses are four-stringed with a substantial number of five stringed instruments and increasingly small quantities as the number of strings increases. Basswulf 10:39, 12 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Good edit. It would bear mentioning that five and six string basses are the most common variations, :though. --Kenliu 14:04, 12 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
There was a long post on Village Pump (assistance) which probably belongs here, as follows:
----
I think that's a bit long for this page. However, I fully agree with the points that Garry Goodman made about POV. Hopefully, future visitors can be better informed about the contributions he and the other players have mentioned on their own dedicated pages. BTW, I've tried to indicate that five and six string basses are the most common extended range options by breaking the list into 5, 6 and 7+ options (and then the multiple courses of strings). I still think an Extended Range Basses page might be the way to go, although it should still be without unsubstantiated claims about this or that playing being the best, the first or the most prolific. Basswulf 11:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Priority on 7-, 9- and 11-string basses

encyclopedia or one reporter's opinion?

To anyone at Wikipedia,

I was told about this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bass_guitar , re:Strings and tuning

I don't know about you,but I find it to be a sad day when folks want to try and rewrite history with their version.


I don't know who wrote this article and where this writer got his/her information from , but it reads as an opinion and an advertisement as opposed to facts in an Encyclopedia.

The section in the article about" Strings and tuning" is somewhat "shaded' and excludes real,well know facts. I know Bill Dickens,I consider him a friend and a great bassist. However, is it a fact that he is the most prolific 7-string bass guitar session bassist? No. I had a 7-string bass guitar( widely accepted in the bass community as the very first one) custom made in 1987.It is documented.It wasn't until five years later that Conklin made 7 string basses commercially available.I have done hundreds of recording sessions with my 7 string bass since the 1980's.The contracts are on file at the Musician's Union.I have been playing 7 string bass longer than anyone.How does the writer know how many seesions Bill or I ,or any other 7-string bassist has done?

So this sentence: "

"The most prolific 7 string player is session man Bill "Buddah" Dickens. " is not accurate. Nothing against Bill,but it just is an opinion. How can anyone in their right mind make a statement like this?

Here is another example: "The 9 and 11 string basses are played by virtuoso Jean Baudin, best known for his work with metal band Nuclear Rabbit." Wrong

Bill Dickens may have been the first with a 9 string bass. Who is qualified to label Jean Baudin a "virtuoso"? As of today,none of his 11-strings (none of which are in his possesion yet) have strings on them yet. How can someone write that he is a virtuoso 11-string player? He really hasn't played one for any length of time. Jean is a nice guy and has some great concepts going on.There are many good 7-9 string players.Why not mention them? The word virtuoso does not proceed the othe player's names mentioned on this page,some of who are indeed virtuosos.

Please consider these well known facts:

The 11-string bass guitar was first built by Mike Adler in 2004 and,I own it and I am the first 11-string bass player. The first 7-string bass was a custom order made by me to Tobias guitars in winter 1986. There are many 9-string bass players, like Al Caldwell who plays for Vanessa Williams. Al also has an 11-string. I commisioned Adler Guitars to build the first single string,12-string bass with 92 notes ,7-1/2 octave range in 2003.It is the first of it's kind.It has a greater range than an 88 note piano.It was completed this year. Bassist Jauqo III-X conceived of a 17 hz low C# string and with S.I.T. strings,made it a reality. Jauqo is the first with the 3x5 15-string bass The original tuning of the 7-string bass is B-E-A-D-G-C-F. The original 6-string bass tuning was E-A-D-G-B-E Thanks to a new string I've developed ,the 4x3 12 string basses can now have 3 octaves. Why doesn't the writer of this article know this?


I have been playing bass for 40 years.When someone does a search on-line for extended range basses and "Wikipedia" pops up,they may read this article and actullay think it's all factual. It's not,it's incomplete,and very opinionated.I don't care if my name is mentioned in an encyclopedia,just facts. I attempted to edit it this,and found it was restored to how I found it. For example,I changed "The most prolific 7 string player is session man Bill "Buddah" Dickens. " to "A prolific 7 string player is session man Bill "Buddah" Dickens. "

What does it take replace opinion with fact on Wikipedia?

Thanks Garry Goodman ninestring@yahoo.com

  • Garry, it's a collaborative effort, and as such is only going to be as good as the collaborators' knowledge can make it. It would be good if you could rewrite the section yourself as you clearly know a great deal about it.
I agree with your point about people adding their opinions as fact, and there are many editors who spend a great deal of time trying to ensure that articles retain a neutral point of view. Replacing opinion with fact is always worthwhile. You could help with that too.
Paul Tracy|\talk

Contradictions

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Obvious Contradiction: "Other innovations by Alembic included the world’s first graphite neck bass and the first production 5 string bass with a low B string - both in 1976. / The first low B string on a bass appeared in 1975, when Fodera collaborated with Anthony Jackson to create a new six-string electric bass." Might want to get that fixed.

You might want to fix it ;-) ... I do have a feeling that you can read the history section and tell which kinds of bass the different authors own - for example, I bet whoever wrote the above has at least one Alembic in their collection! Has somebody got some authorative references to hand to knock the whole section into a slightly more neutral shape? Basswulf 10:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC)Reply


Playing Styles

Latest comment: 19 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I think that this section is getting unwieldy as people try to work the names of their own favourite bassists into the text. For example, we've ended up with a large paragraph about two-handed tapping. While it's certainly a valid playing style (and one I use myself) I think this is a disproportionate amount of space; I think the size is largely due to the attempt to shoehorn in the names of various people who use that approach from time to time.

I haven't got time to do anything about it today but I'd suggest removing all names from the section and referring instead to the list of bass guitarists. Any other thoughts on the matter? Basswulf 10:33, 10 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

I would vote against removing all the names. Although the section is a little wordy in its current state, I think it's a pretty good summary of playing styles and influential bassists who use(d) those styles. If I was learning about bass for the first time, I'd certainly want to see a summary like this instead of trying to filter through the huge list of bass guitarists. I don't think three sentences about two-handed tapping is too much, either. (I'd suggest getting rid of the bit about the Ebow, though).

FWIW, it is a little silly that a discussion of playing styles has a lot of verbiage about hand positioning and fancy tricks and not so much about harmony and bass line selection. I guess that sort of thing is more difficult to discuss in an encyclopedia article. --Kenliu 14:17, 12 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

My feeling is that most of the stuff about playing styles would be better moved over to the Wikibook about playing bass - that will give room to explain each technique in more detail and cite some suitable examples of each style:

 
The Wikibook Guitar has a page on the topic of: Bass Guitar
I feel the present version lauds individual players in a way that doesn't accurately reflect either them or their peers. For example, take "Chris Squire of Yes took the instrument one step further in the early 1970s, combining McCartney's melodicism with Entwistle's energy and employing an aggressive, overdriven tone that expanded even further the bass's role as rhythmic and harmonic foundation." I've no problem with the fact that he has a distinctive tone and has been widely influential but plenty of other bassists also did that (for example, Geddy Lee, who gets his namecheck in the next sentence for different achievements, could be described in the same terms).
The wikibook needs a lot of work so may some of the energy spent promoting individual players here could instead be diverted into making that a much more useful resource for someone learning the instrument? Basswulf 15:16, 12 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
Agreed, the description of influential players/styles needs to be rewritten to be a little more focused, but let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. I think information about playing styles and influential players has a broader audience than people who are just learning how to play the instrument, it also includes readers who just want to learn about the instrument itself. For example, if I want to learn about the drums I'm going to want to learn more than just what pieces make up a kit - I would want to learn to know about different drumming styles, and the best way to learn that is to listen to the players whose playing best represents those styles. I don't think it's about name-checking. The fact that some people want to include their favorite players in the article doesn't mean that the information isn't valuable.
Unfortunately, if you take a quick survey of the musical instruments represented on wikipedia, you'll notice that most of them have a link to a long list of players instead of listing a few very influential players. IMHO, this is a problem with wikipedia itself; the content tends to lean towards being too comprehensive rather than providing small, more usable articles. This does a disservice to the reader.
Anyway, there's really no reason why this kind of information can't be in both the wikipedia and the wikibook - again, they're for different audiences. --Kenliu 14:15, 17 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Etymology

Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This sentence -

The industry standard Fender Jazz and Precision basses have always been labelled "electric bass", as is the custom of the majority of musical instrument manufacturers.

is untrue. [3] [4]


I'm not sure about the accuracy of this one either:

The original electric bass (pronounced "base") was labelled a "bass fiddle" due to its design function as an alternative to the double bass.

I don't know if anyone ever referred to the original electric bass as a "bass fiddle" but I have heard old geezers in Louisiana and Tennessee refer to the double bass (acoustic) as a "bass fiddle" and a "bull fiddle". I don't know whether this usage predates the invention of the electric bass but it seems likely.

Paul Tracy|\talk 21:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

I've reinstated an earlier version that I think is clearer and more accurate. Basswulf 10:22, 3 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Effects

Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Just wondering if we should add in that a *lot* of metal and heavy rock bands use distorted bass - the article makes it sound like distorted or overdriven bass is unusual, whereas it's quite common in some genres Graphia 10:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Go for it! Basswulf 10:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)Reply


Picture of note locations

Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The current size of this picture is useless. If its not increased in size I will delete it.--Light current 01:05, 6 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

The image is a thumbnail linked to Image:Notesonbass.jpg, the original file has a horizontal rez of some 1400 px. I've changed the thumb size from 1000px (ridiculous and unsightly) to 550px (less so) per Wikipedia:Image use policy. --anetode¹ ² ³ 02:12, 6 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

OK Now I can see it and read it. I accept current size!--Light current 02:24, 6 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bass_guitar&oldid=27726068"