Wolverinebass

I think that bass looks magnificent. Dare I ask for what it's specs are and what the damage was?

A 4x12 would be insane. I'd be up for that!!

Did anyone notice they couldn't even spell Entwistle's name right? Just as well he was only in it for 20 seconds. Entwhistle indeed. Tools.

[quote name='noelk27' timestamp='1342918170' post='1742827'] His tenure with The Who correspondent with a time Townshend was writing by numbers, but you can't blame Jones for being with The Who at a time when The Who had gotten stale as a creative force. As for Moon, even if he'd not died, Townshend was likely to replace him. Moon had been forced to redo and redo his parts on "By Numbers" and, even more so, "Who Are You", and had to endure the indignity of having Jones redo those parts he couldn't cope with. Sure, the flair, the energy, and the power, that characterised Moon's playing had come to represent erratic timing, unconstructed fills, and chaotic solos. After Townshend had used Jones on "Tommy" the writing was on the wall. [/quote] What? When did Kenney Jones play/record with the Who before 1979 if you discount the Tommy soundtrack album? That can't be true.Unless of course I've misunderstood what you meant by that. There certainly wasn't anything on Tommy that Moon couldn't cope with otherwise Live at Leeds would have sounded crap wouldn't it? The Who by Numbers stuff was down to Glyn Johns taking away half his kit to get him to simplify his playing. As for Who Are You, they made an album with a simpler rythmic feel to appeal to American audiences which prohibited him from playing. At all. Listen to the drums on 905. They're horrible. It's so far removed from his style is it any wonder he couldn't cope aside from the fact that he was an alcoholic mess by then? Ultimately, Jones and Moon is an apples and oranges comparison. Moon's drumming is a force of nature. Jones' is 1,2,3 (hit snare). Simplicity itself and not necessarily in a good way. The Moon era Who stuff would have sounded worse with Jones playing on it and the Jones era Who stuff it wouldn't have made any difference who played drums on it as the material was rubbish, so in that respect he did get a bum deal.

I tend to agree that Status have become uncool. The never ending Kingbass with minimal tweaks (seemingly one every 2-3 years) has done it for me. 8 models which are minimally different and all the differences are options anyway. Build a new all graphite B1 (buzzard derivative) or I'm not interested. Whilst Mark King seems to have kept them in work for the last decade, it's got to stop soon doesn't it? Let's face it, Level 42 aren't nor were they ever cool after 1985. I would imagine Rickenbacker are getting into the uncool territory with their relentless pursuit of people trying to sell copies. I wonder how much goodwill has been lost on this site because of that. This is of course aside from the fact that their instruments are badly designed and trading on reputation. At least, in my opinion. They're £600 basses, not £1700 basses. I tend to find Fenders a bit meh, but then again I don't like passive basses so I'm biased.

[quote name='Dom in Somerset' timestamp='1342684940' post='1739093'] [/quote] I never knew John Hartson played bass....

To those saying that it's not the Stones without Bill. It's a fair point. However, how many of the same people would say that Ronnie Wood should get booted in favour of Mick Taylor who played on their more successful albums and (as admitted by Jagger) was/is a much better player. I bet not many. Personally I think Wyman is awful, but then again The Stones aren't a bass led band and with 2 guitars the opportunities for "noodling" aren't that great. Everyone always goes on about the bassline from Miss You. Wyman has been trading on that for the last 30 years, but you could argue he never really got a chance to shine so to speak especially when other people in the band would play bass if he wasn't about. In the case of Miss You, it's the best thing about a very mediocre song. I'd have no interest in paying £135 for a ticket just so that they could play for 80 minutes as they did at Hampden a few years ago. Good luck with that. Had I actually been alive, I'd much rather have seen them in 1972.

This is [i]well[/i] taking the piss. I'm sorry, If I paid almost £700 for something if it got sent in a box that looked like it'd been pulled from a tramp's bottom and the shop fed me some line of BS, I'd imagine I'd be asking for at least a 15% refund or I'd be contacting the manufacturer or head distributor. Good luck with continuing to stock Hartke products after that Guitar Guitar. It's not just the lie you're getting fed it's also, just say for example that you don't like it after a few months, you can't sell it as saying you have the original box/manual and all that can you? Just a point. I can only speak from experience that although I've never been to the Epsom one, I was in the one in Glasgow about 6 months ago and they were absolute tools of the first order and actually took umbridge at the fact I wanted to try a bass that was (shock/horror!!) more than £800!!

[quote name='Mr. Foxen' timestamp='1341834017' post='1724697'] Peavey IPR and pedal. Think there is loads of space in the IPR too could probably get the circuit in there if its in the right places for pots to go on the front. [/quote] Quite right sir. The chasis of the IPR is almost totally empty. It really is quite frightening when you look inside. Why they ever needed the 2u chasis is a mystery to me unless it was to implement cooling better through the front grill. But seriously, $2500 for that? Are they mental or something? Who in their right mind is going to pay that for what is in effect a £150 pedal and a £300 class D amp? Good luck with that one Tech 21.

I thought Markbass amps were somewhat souless. Just my thought on it. As for the cabs. Hmmm. I wanted something small and light as I'm only 5foot9 and about 9 stone. This I feel is "how they get you." I should have followed my instincts and got some new Trace Elliot cabs instead which although heavier, would have been cheaper. I'm still in two minds as to whether to flog them. My reasons are simple. I've wrestled for months with trying to find a setting that would allow those damn piezo tweeters not to tear my face off at high volumes. If some of you think that they're harsh with a 4 string, try playing it with a 12 or an 8. In the end, I've turned them off. Even with them off the insane amount of attack noise you get from the speakers is quite remarkable and I think possibly an acquired taste. At low volumes they sound much more "buttery" which depending on your viewpoint is a good or a bad thing. However, the voicing of them is a problem. I feel that there is a distinct 200Hz wodge there which I don't like as I feel that this portion of sound is just "flab." Also seemingly everything between 300 and 800Hz seems somewhat muffled. I've tried this with different basses/amps and settings. I can get rid of it, but I'd rather have the sound out of my cab being a bit closer to what goes in. Anyone who says that the MB cabs produce a "DI like" sound is deluded. It doesn't sound anything like it. At more than £550 a pop for even the cheapest cabs I think they're not worth it.

I tend to have mine as low as humanly possible, which on the buzzard is less than 1mm. After this I find I can't play an instrument properly that's got anything that even remotely resembles a high action.

From playing one of them, I wouldn't even pay £100 quid for one. Awful, awful basses.

I tend to agree with Doctor J. If you really want a good non-reverse Thunderbird, get a Cataldo. Reasonably pricey, but they look (and sound) very good. Plus you know that they're not filled with second rate pots and need a new nut or whatever. I'm pretty sure that there's a gent who's posted a thread in build diaries about his Cataldo being built. Might be worth investigating.

I'm doing 2 bands at the moment and I'm alternating between all 4 basses in my sig. In one I'm exclusively using the 8 string and the Hamer Chaparral with the odd toe into 4 string if the song needs it or it's impossible to play with those 2 for generalistic sound reasons. That project is kind of progressive rock with some electronica twists. In the other, I'm alternating between the buzzard and my alembic. Since the material sounds somewhat like Cream or Live at Leeds I need to be able to use the fluidity that a 4 string offers for the "random jam" sections rather than the out and out brutality and harmonic denseness of the 8 or the 12. I do have a 5th bass which I don't play. It's a white Fenix by Young Chang with a soapbar in the musicman position which is the only passive instrument I own or ever will own. It's what I learned on and it's a stupidly short scale bass with 24 frets. I think it's about a 28 inch scale. Some may argue it's "Japcrap" (or "korean crap" if one were to split hairs) but it does hold some sentimental value for me. On the other hand I doubt I'd get that much for it if I ever tried to flog it.

Finally proof that guitarists are not 10 a penny. They're 7/8ths of a penny.

Without meaning to get a cheap laugh, when I read the list of stuff, when it said "military rations" and "survival gear" where was the gig? Chechnya?

I'm crying with laughter at this. It's kind of true, but I've never felt the need to jump about onstage. I'm mainly afraid if I did so I might have someone's eye out with the buzzard's headstock....

Thanks for the replies chaps. I fancy trying one as I like the sound. The one I tried was a mate's and it was from the early 80's I think and was passive. I'm not up for a "trophy" bass, just something that sounds a bit different to what I've got. Had you all said that it'd sound distinctly similar to an Alembic based on experience I wouldn't bother as I don't have 2 instruments that sound the same. I don't see the point. I'm not sure if as you say Chris b, the feel of them (or any instrument) to play is irrelevant. I wouldn't buy a Rickenbacker because I found the few I've tried to have insanely wide necks and it just put me off. Naturally of course I know what you mean though. If you want a specific sound, you just adapt your playing style a bit. I've had to do that when switching from 4 string to 8 string a bit, but not much. 12 string took a very different approach entirely. On the other hand it wasn't like they were insanely difficult to play in the first place. Depends what you want I suppose. It was merely a thought from myself and it's worth saying that I said maybe getting something for my 40th. That's not for another 7 years. Maybe I might be able to afford something decent by then!! Ha!! You are certainly right though Chris b I need to try a couple to think about it. I've only got almost a decade.... Thanks again chaps.

For those of you that have played both, is this an apples and oranges comparison? I've only played a very old Wal which was passive, so I hated it. However, what I'm asking is, how comparable are they? Both have filter circuits of some description, 24 frets generally and are active. I must admit to really wanting to try a newish MkII Wal (with a view to maybe treating myself at some far off juncture - possibly my 40th) and see how it sounds in comparison to my Stanley Clarke. More bite? More versatile EQ? Wide neck? Wal's website has absolutely no info on say nut width, neck radius, stuff that I could at least say when I read it "ooh, that's going to be chunky" or not as the case may be. What I mean is I appreciate it's a custom shop per se, but for a standard model, what's standard? The lack of price list does concern me a bit. Whilst for example Fodera are stupidly expensive at least they say how much their basses actually are. So, opinions chaps on what you think the plus/minus points are in comparison for Alembics or Wals. All info gratefully received.

[quote name='Machines' timestamp='1179590018' post='2324'] Personally I think it's too many when you have 2 basses that sound the same. [/quote] This is exactly what I think. What's the point of duplication? That's why all the basses in my sig don't sound anything like each other.

[quote name='fretmeister' timestamp='1334159566' post='1611821'] Wooly mess? What cab were you using? I find my LH500 to be wonderfully clear! [/quote] I was using my own cabs as in my sig which I tend to run with the tweeters full on. I used it with my Buzzard and Hamer 12 string. The amp was a total pile of poop. I couldn't get anything detailed or usable out of it at all. Now consider what I've just said. The Buzzard could well be described as being "lean bottomed" in terms of sound. It's probably the most brutal 4 string bass I've ever played. I might have been playing in a sludge band. I couldn't get rid of the 60Hz and 250Hz crap. I then tried the Hamer which is so amazingly brutal you could level buildings with it. Well even that got turned into mush. On each occasion when I tried to sort it out it literally went scooped and very, very wiry. I wondered if it was just me and went to my mate's rehearsals. He was using an 8 string with a couple of ampeg cabs. It was actually even worse. I don't know why anyone would ever use them (aside from them being cheap) especially if you want articulation. If you want a passive type Motown sound, this is your beast as it has amazing headroom. For me though, I just didn't like it.

This is just getting stupid. Dean Guitars..... STOP. IT. This has totally got out of control here. If you want an Entwistle type bass you can either get an Alembic Spyder 2nd hand (or seriously mod an exploiter), sell your house and try and get a 2nd hand Status Buzzard (not the Warwick version as it's pants) or if you're more of the "non-reverse Thunderbird" bod get one from Cataldo Basses. I don't think that John ever would have played something like this. Maybe he'll be "the new Dimebag" and will have ludicrous amounts of basses passed off as "what he would have wanted" even though he's been dead for almost a decade. On the other hand, whilst those at Status were right royally screwed over by the Warwick thing, it's not like they're not making tons trotting out a new Kingbass every year with supernaturally minimal tweaks. That's not to say that I don't like Kingbasses, I just wonder why do they need 8 different models when all the options are available anyway? They never ever replaced the buzzard with anything at all which is a pity. I remember talking to Rob Green and he said it was something he wanted to do. That was 4 years ago. I doubt it'll ever happen. It is exploitation of the basest (pardon the pun) possible order. Dean should be ashamed.

This would be great. I'd certainly like to meet some of the people without their avatars!!

I must admit I hated the LH series heads. I had a shot of one of my mates LH1000 and just thought it turned everything into a wooly mess. Selling an amp as powerful as that with no "flat" setting? Er, no. Which is why I'm so glad I didn't wait the 4 years for the Kilo as it's got that same FMV tonestack in it which can't be defeated. Come on!! Sort it out Larry!!

I would imagine it would have to be the Warwick Hellborg rig. Whilst I thought it was great when I tried one, it's just so stupidly expensive as to defy belief. £1300 just for the preamp?!! Okay, I'd possibly pay that to get the Fractal Axe stuff as that really is all singing/all dancing stuff and depending on your viewpoint possibly worth it more than just a single amp/preamp.