Jean Baudin 11 String Conklin "Lava" : 56k No Way

[DDDorian]

To me this guy has a lot of valid points. We all know about the skepticism held by a lot of people about seven-string guitars; imagine how much greater that would be for an eleven or twelve-string bass? This Garry Goodman kid seems to have dedicated many years and quite possibly an absurd amount of money to designing, building and troubleshooting these instruments and developing the technique to use them to their potential, all the while being questioned, ridiculed, mocked and passed off as an anomaly. Suddenly, some random guy, largely through gimmickry, is being given $10000+ instruments and invited to teach master classes without having to deal with any of the hassles Garry has. While I can understand why Jean might be declared "unworthy" of an extended-range bass, I personally think that's a bit harsh. The fact that Nuclear Rabbit are terrible is evidence of his unworthiness, not the fact that he doesn't exploit the instrument to its full potential.

Hmm... might add to this later. Probably not though.

 

[Drew]

I thought we were going to drop this. If you really want answers to your questions, I will take time to answer them. This is my last post on this thread until then. So much for voicing my opinion on a forum.
If you don't understand what I am saying on these posts and think I am just picking on Jean , you are misguided.

But at the same time, Gary, if you can re-read everything you've said about the guy and NOT think that, whatever else you're saying, you're also taking every opportunity to cut into one of your peers, then you're missing something here too.

As far as opinions go, if you read the Forum Rules, one word that pops up over and over again is "consideration." The last couple pages of this thread haven't been about whether or not you're right that Jean really doesn't need an 11-string bass for what he's doing, but rather about how you're saying it - there's a world of difference between "That's a beautiful bass, but I don't see the point of buying an 11-string when you only use about seven of those strings" and "Jean has three 11-string basses, and he still hasn't even shown what he can do with one of them. Don't you love his tasteful use of the low-C as a thumb rest?"

It's not your opinion that's at issue here, but rather your manner of expressing it.

 

[distressed_romeo]

That's been the problem with this whole thread, which is a shame, as a lot of the points everyone's made have been quite interesting...

Actually, all this talk about the 'need' for extended-range instruments gives me an idea for a new thread...

 

[All_¥our_Bass]

Is it just me or does anyone else think the lower strings having a much thinner section over the bridge creates a weak spot, buggers intonation and won't give the same tone as a full thickness string?

Oh, and I don't know how he affords them all, but I do know that his "hideous claw" bass was a gift from a fan.

Actually the man who owns all those basses hangs out on talkbass

http://www.talkbass.com/forum/showthread.php?t=212098

 

[knuckle_head]

Is it just me or does anyone else think the lower strings having a much thinner section over the bridge creates a weak spot, buggers intonation and won't give the same tone as a full thickness string?

That is pretty much the point...

By having a narrower gauge across the saddle you enhance upper harmonics and better define the low notes, strange as that sounds. Hearing even a standard 40 Hz E with no supporting harmonics is almost indistinguishable as a note to alot of people.

The thinner the gauge across the saddle the more harmonic content will be presented, down to having bare core run across it. Personally I don't much care for bare core strings as it has too much upper harmonics for my taste.

YMMV

Skip

 

[All_¥our_Bass]

I think they were saying they thought it would sound worse than a full thicker string at the bridge, not knowing this.