BigRedX

Same with the bass part. You'd be surprised by how many 60s and 70s songs there are where the foundation of the bass is the left hand of the piano or organ and the bass is noodling aimlessly away in the mid range. In these cases unless your band has a good keyboard player you almost always end up playing something that owns more to keyboards than the bass guitar part.

Unless those are frictionless bearings that solution is probably worse then a well cut graphite nut.

Apparently in "dark mode" the attachment tick box (user >my attachments) is difficult to see.

In that case you should raise the issue as a new post so that whoever is currently doing the development work sees it. Don't rely on them seeing it in this post.

The biggest improvement they could have made to the version in the OP would have been to bin the guitar part and play it on a synth like on the recording, after the vocals it's the most important thing in the arrangement. It's hardly a difficult part and even Mr Gilmour should have been able to manage it.

Given the circumstances that my band worked in at the time - practicing in the living room of my flat it would have taken us two to three days to put together something - after all the hard work of writing and arranging the song has already been done. Given the facilities that Gilmour et al would have had available, no problem. Also unless Kate Bush was a very last minute addition, I'm sure that they would have had more than a day to work something out.

There should be a checkbox to the right of each image. If you tick this, a "bin" icon should appear at the bottom of the screen. You can click this to delete the attachment(s) I've just tested this and it works both on my computer and phone.

No just a more sympathetic arrangement of the song that would still work with musicians playing live. It doesn't have to be backing tracks. The band I was in in 1987 (which is when this performance was recorded) could have made a far better go of the instrumental parts, and we didn't even have the big record label support that they musicians in the video had.

Just ordered a Launchkey 37. The only alternative that came close was the iRig Keys2 Pro, which is wider and therefore less suitable for my needs. Plus I've had a bad experience with IK Multimedia in the past so I was very reluctant to buy one of their products.

Sure everything SOUNDS decent, but then you'd expect that from a professionally recorded live video. However this arrangement is entirely lacking in all the things that make the original so captivating. And Dave Gilmour's guitar parts are terrible pastiche of the synths in the recorded version.

Just had another look at the OP. If your bass is short scale but needs longer strings for the additional length after the nut/bridge, ask for Newtone for a set based on their Axiom Bass VI strings but without the high B and E (although it might be quicker and still as cheap to just buy the Axiom set).

I might have been reading too much into it, but there were times in that video where Kate Bush's expression seemed to indicate that she wasn't at all happy with what was being done to her song. On the other hand she might just have been struggling to pitch some of the high notes due to poor monitoring...

And if your on a proper computer you can get there in a single move by clicking the triangle next to your user name at the top of the page and selecting attachments.

I'm sorry, but apart from the vocals this to me sounds like a nasty pub band cover, that steamrollers over the subtlety of the original recording.

Will that apply to speakers are taken out to gigs rather than just placed in the relative safety of your lounge?

It's an interesting idea very poorly executed. Like it or not people buy an instrument first and foremost with their eyes. If they don't like how it looks they are very unlikely to ever pick it up and find out how it plays or sounds. I'm very much a fan of instruments made out of different materials and in interesting shapes (after all I'm a Gus user), but this is just boring and needs the attention of someone with an eye for product design.

IIRC that was partly forced upon him due to Ernie Ball acquiring the rights to the 3+1 headstock design when they took over Music Man. They have certainly been very diligent in cracking down on other bass manufacturers who try and copy it.

Leo Fender obviously thought that his original bass headstock "design" was too big because he reduced it on the Stingray.

Price is irrelevant. If you really want a Wal then nothing else will do. If you think something else is a suitable replacement for a Wal then you probably don't actually want a Wal. The same goes for any bass or guitar that is not in the budget copy market.

Either that or you haven't expressed yourself very well. To me your post implies that you can directly compare various high-end basses. You can't at any level above that of the Fender copy market, it's all entirely subjective. The person in the market for a Jaydee (or any other high-end bass) is unlikely to also be in the market for a Wal, and if they are it will be for entirely different reasons.

But a Status or Jaydee is not a Wal. They are three completely different designs of bass with completely different strengths and weaknesses. I would never consider one a substitute for any of the others, and if I did I'd probably be just as well off with a Squier.

Netwone will do you a set to any scale length and any gauge.

Personally I don't like the look of stripy necks. They were vaguely interesting in the mid 70s when they were new, but now they are old hat and besides I'm not interested in having the construction of an instrument take over from aesthetics. Either hide them under a solid finish or of you want to see wood grain, disguise them so it's not obvious - make the laminations out wood that is the same colour, and then hide the through body parts under front and rear facings and have the core body wood wrap around the base of the instrument so it doesn't show at the end.

It's always been my option that the Fender bass headstocks are over-sized in relation to the instrument. The pegs on the machine heads don't need to be that big, it's still possible to tune up comfortably with something slightly larger than the typical guitar machine head peg. Like most of Mr Fender's "designs" it's far more clunky than necessary - probably so it was easy and cheap to make rather than being ergonomic and practical for the musician.

There's plenty of artists on there that I'd go and see if they were playing a small venue in Nottingham, but no one worth the effort of going to Glastonbury for.