Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

ilan wrote: There are multi-string basses with a massive string pull and a heel-less design. Like this Ibanez 7-string bass:

Personally - I don't see the need for 7 strings. on a guitar, let alone a bass!!!!

Now if Ric offered a three string bass, with say 7 frets - perfect!!!

GT

vulcan_creedler wrote: Personally - I don't see the need for 7 strings. on a guitar, let alone a bass!!!!

That's not my bass, just a pic I found on the web, to illustrate a point. I don't get multi-string basses either. All my basses are 4-stringers.

vulcan_creedler wrote: Now if Ric offered a three string bass, with say 7 frets - perfect!!!

Upright bass virtuosos Dragonetti and Bottesini both played 3-string basses (A-D-G), with neck heels at about where an 8th fret would be.

ilan wrote:Upright bass virtuosos Dragonetti and Bottesini both played 3-string basses (A-D-G), with neck heels at about where an 8th fret would be.[/img]

Since you obviously read the Wikipedia page on double basses, then you would appreciate that this was the most common configuration of basses up until the 1870's or so. I know from personal experience that many fine older instruments were "updated" to four strings as that became the more popularly accepted form of the instrument. In fact, one friend, who is a scholar in this field, told me the his personal preference is for an instrument modified like this as it almost guarantees it's an older instrument of some quality.

True. This was because at the time, string technology could not produce low E strings with enough definition. Once a quality E string could be produced, most (I believe almost all) 3-string basses were converted to modern 4 strings. Such conversion is not a trivial thing of just modifying the headstock, nut, bridge and tailpiece. More string tension on the top requires strengthening, but too much of that means dampening the top.

ilan wrote:True. This was because at the time, string technology could not produce low E strings with enough definition. Once a quality E string could be produced, most (I believe almost all) 3-string basses were converted to modern 4 strings. Such conversion is not a trivial thing of just modifying the headstock, nut, bridge and tailpiece. More string tension on the top requires strengthening, but too much of that means dampening the top.

This may all be true also but it's my understanding that composers began producing scores that required the extra range of the four string bass, even before they were generally available. This was also true with regard to the Octobass, which I'm sure I've previously posted about.



Several composers were writing notes that no instrument had yet played . . .

johnhall wrote: Several composers were writing notes that no instrument had yet played . . .

So they played an octave above the written note? I'm used to that. I play in a big band and sometimes I'm given the tuba part to double. Tuba, unlike bass, is not a transposition instrument (bass is - we play an octave below the written notes) plus it can go almost an octave below 4-string bass, down to low F. So I have to transpose on the go. Trumpet players do that all the time but in the opposite direction.

ilan wrote:That's very interesting, Jim, thanks. Never thought of it this way. I should research more into this effect.

So in heel-less neck-thru's, I should expect a Ship Mast Syndrome? There are multi-string basses with a massive string pull and a heel-less design. Like this Ibanez 7-string bass:

That neck is constructed out of many laminations. This add a lot to the rigidity.

Though I would guess the current 4003, with its laminated quartersawn neck, could loose the heel. But that would require a redesign of the neck pickup cavity.

I don't the heel but I wouldn't complain if they shimmed some off of the 4003's like the 4004's.