Peoples’ Criticisms of Classic Player JM

[Debaser]

If the Jazzmaster is perfect the way it is then why do things like Mastery Bridge and the Stay-Trem exist? I have read in thread after thread on this site of people complaining about the problem with the original bridge as well as the vibrato and time and time again the answer is for these people to spend another $300 to make a $2k guitar playable. Seems rather odd to me. Someone posted in a response to an earlier thread about the CP that the original JM were designed the way they were for a specific reason and it should not be changed. I would just like to say what Leo Fender originally designed the original JM for turned out to be a complete failure. It was musicians and bands playing types of music that Leo Fender never designed it for that has kept it going. Why is it perfectly okay for you to fix these design flaws by spending an extra $300 but it’s not okay for Fender to try and fix these problems?

If the Tele is perfect as it is, why are there six saddle bridges and new pickups? If the Strat is perfect as it is, why do we have a boutique parts market at all? Aftermarket bridges exist to address issues, and offer options for mass produced products that often aren't geared toward specific wants/needs. A big company won't bottleneck production simply to obtain a booteek bridge on every model. If they did, they'd charge you extra for it (Fender CS?). Leo made things simply and efficiently for the masses, a person during those early times who wanted 'perfection' would of bought a hand-made archtop. Same today, buy a cheap Fender or get a Bilt, Jennings, etc.

Also, the guitar playing paradigms have shifted over time, and it's not just for the offsets or because of them. Players bent the electric guitar to their will, not the other way around. Failure? Offsets are a success, the underdog story. We know Leo didn't play, and I could not care less about Jazzmasters successfully playing jazz--I don't like guitar stereotypes in the first place. The name is the only misguided effort, but also the quirk of Fender--ol Leo could never imagine what his guitars would do over the decades. Certainly all the names were stuck in the era they were created in: Tele--new fangled television, Strat--stratosphere jet age, jazz--avant garde bop, --Jaguar--uh, um..Mustang--wylde stallions, I dunno.

If one wants to be pragmatic about it, then one has the option of avoiding Fender offsets altogether. If one likes the aesthetics, buying custom is an option. DIY also up in that mix. Guitar players are a conservative bunch, and finicky as hell. Put an offset guitar out with a 7.25" radius--complaints. 9.5" ---complaints. TOM bridge ---pitchforks. One can't win it seems with such spec focused folks. No harm in any of this, of course. Fender the profit making company has to both offer the vintage based offset (AVs, AOs) and also appeal to those consumers who want stop tails and humbuckers. The online forum has a way of amplifying every little guitar nuance and exaggerates every factor of playing outside of actual playing. So yeah, it's been overblown.

Bottom line here is that Fender doesn't owe anyone an over engineered Mastery bridge solution. Some people don't want that. As for addressing the offset issues, Fender has made multiple efforts to do exactly that. AVs are gone, but when they were last around they had an angle neck pocket--the only thing needed in my opinion, because I get along with the stock bridge, especially after they started slotting the bridge height screws to prevent self leveling.

[601210]

Leo made things simply and efficiently for the masses, a person during those early times who wanted 'perfection' would of bought a hand-made archtop.

This is a great point. Fender's big contribution to the instrument world wasn't the electric guitar per se -- there have already been several designs of electric guitars prior -- but modularity and ease of production.

No single guitar design will ever come out of the factory perfect for each and every player, but the great thing about Fenders is that you have options for pretty much all the parameters -- you even have options for how much or how little options you want.

[Danley]

I just bought another new AVRI bridge for a Squier - bridge is tight/solid as a rock and the saddles don’t rattle/can’t even be pried loose with my fingers. Installed, rocks, says in tune. Construction on these is down pat. Couldn’t think of needing a TOM or Mastery.

Again, not that a TOM can’t be acceptable (fine on my American Special) but I’ve had more trouble dealing with saddle/wire rattle on TOMs than I have on even poorer quality MIJ Jaguar bridges. Mastery has its own issues per many threads here. Still glad people like the CP, they’re good guitars overall.

[hwestman]

I agree that there originally was quite a bit of flak from talibans/purists having a hard time accepting that a company and customers had the audacity to change the JM/Jag concept and generally minding their own businesses. And getting pretty worked up about it.

Not unlike their Rickenbacker brethren who have been known to throw accusations of blasphemy onto those discussing the possibility of improving on the holy grail of guitars.

But lately I haven’t seen any of that.

I have a CP Jaguar that’s the best playing Jag I have ever played, especially after upgrading the bridge to a Halon.

Maybe not overly crazy about the pickups though... but the jury is still out regarding them.