BigRedX

What about David Essex in "That'll Be The Day" and "Stardust"?

Your almost certainly going to be technically a better player than me, and I've managed to persuade people play music with me on stage and in the studio for over 40 years now. The thing you need to remember is that at a gig any mistakes are over in less then a second, and unless you bring the whole song to a grinding halt within 30 seconds of it starting no-one in the audience is likely to notice.

I think (as others have said) the OP needs to ask themselves what exactly do they want out of playing bass/music? If you're not enjoying being in this band, maybe you should leave and let someone who is more tolerant of all the less fun parts of gigging take your place. IMO unless playing music is a major source of your income, you should only do it because you like it. Sometimes that does mean accepting that not every aspect of music or being in a band is fun, and often you will need to put up with the boring bits to be able to do the bits that you actually want to, whether that is playing a song over and over again to be able to nail a particularly tricky section, or travelling for hours to get to gigs. It's difficult to give specific advice in cases like this because everyone and their musical situation is different, and what is acceptable and works for one person is complete inappropriate for another. Maybe for the OP if you weren't in this band, what would you be doing and would you be enjoying it more?

If it is easy, check the status of the memory back-up battery. I've had several devices of similar vintage die over the last 10 years due to the battery running down. With a bit of luck the battery will be easily replaceable and not directly soldered onto the main board in some relatively inaccessible place (I'm looking at you Peavey).

Bass, Line6 Helix Floor, 3U Rack case containing the computer and interface for running the backing, Stand for the rack case on stage, Bag of leads and bits, And for the smaller gigs or when I am unsure of the quality of the foldback an RCF745 powered cab. For big gigs, if I wasn't also in charge of the backing, I'd just take the bass and the Helix.

That looks like the front door is open and the recipient's foot on the right.

The only thing I'd say about the module in the OP is that the sounds don't appear to be editable, so unless you you find enough of them usable as they are, you may well be disappointed.

By your initial definition, I don't play bass as I use a 5-string in one band and a Bass VI in my other. Where do you place post-punk "bass" players like Peter Hook and others who rarely venture below what could be done on a drop-D tuned guitar yet choose to play a bass rather than a guitar? What about all those down-tuned metal bands with their 7 and 8-string guitars? What about bands where the keyboards or some other instrument (not bass guitar) takes to low register parts?

But these changes are edits or a change in feel. You don't get he orchestra completely re-writing the second violin part on a whim

The way that I look at it, no matter how poor the amp I am playing through is, it's still better than playing an electric bass with no amp.

The thing with recorded "rock" music, is that's its almost never performed entirely from a pre-composed score, in the way that classical music or a musical is. Often significant portions of a recording will have been improvised in the studio, and the version that ends up being released is just the combination of notes that the musician(s) played on one particular take. Fills and passing notes in particular may have been different every time the part was played, and if the person who "wrote" the part played it differently every time who's to say the version that appears on the released recording is any more definitive then any of the takes that didn't make it because something else was deemed to be sufficiently wrong? And what of parts that have been composited together from multiple takes? Either because the musicians didn't have the technical skills to play the whole song consistently in a single take, or because the musicians and/or the producer decided that they'd like to mix and match the part from various different versions, which can sometimes result in a great sounding part but which is far beyond the average musician's ability to play as a single continuous piece. A prime example of this is Fripp's guitar parts on the Heroes album which are stitched together from multiple unconnected takes at the whim of producer Brian Eno. And then consider the differences between the "definitive" studio version and what the band actually play when they perform the song live. Parts will often change to make them easier to play consistently (especially for musicians who also sing), or because without all the intricacies and overdubs of the studio version compromises need to be made in order for the song to have the same impact when played with just 3 or 4 live instruments. Check out the differences in the bass line on Thin Lizzy's "The Boys are Back in Town" between the studio and live album versions. Which one is the "right" version? This is why I always find threads like this perplexing. Much of the time for baselines in particular the minutiae of the part are totally random. I don't play in covers bands any more, but when I did, my philosophy was always that if I couldn't make out what was going on with a bass in particular section, so long as I played something in tune and in time that was in keeping with the "spirit" of the rest of the part it would be more than fine.

If you can hear the part well enough to be able to work out the tab is wrong then you should be able to work out the right thing just by listening. If you still can't get it exactly, then it probably doesn't matter. Play something that fits with the other instruments and no-one except the bassist who played to part on the original recording will know. And is @Rich has demonstrated notation is easy to follow. You don't need to be able to sight read if you are going to learn the parts, so take your time and work it out one note at a time.

If you need to ask for other people's opinions on a public forum where the rest of your band can potentially see what you have written, then you probably need to go.

I buy the basses I want. So long as I can afford them the price is irrelevant. I've spent anywhere between £35.00 (second hand Futurama III Bass in 1982) and just under £3k (Custom-order Sei Offset Flamboyant Fretless Bass in 2008)

Unless you are the songwriter, arranger or producer, as a musician you should fit around the music. Musicians with a "signature sound" will have been picked specifically for that sound by the songwriter/arranger/producer.

No one tone is the BEST. Sometimes you need the sound or round-wounds and sometimes you need the sounds of flats. You use what the music dictates. A good bassist will know that.

Haven't you already got a pre-amp in your amp?

Even more heavily modified than the one I used to own. And that is saying something. Replaced nut, fingerboard (top), scratch plate, bridge, electronics (may use some of the original components). Missing one Tri-Sonic pickup, bridge cover, the original finish which would have probably been red (with a black burst on the back of the neck) and the Burns logos from the head and body. Strangely enough it still has the original machine heads which I had to replace on mine due to the fact they wouldn't hold the string tension under standard tuning. I really liked mine, but IMO the main USP was the sound of both pickups together which wired them in series (something you can't do on this example).

I would have thought that the compression algorithms used by YouTube would have rendered this test useless.

Is there any reason to have space for photos on the Basschat server? I've nearly always used an external host for any photos I thought worthy of posting on here. I've occasionally used the Basschat space for photos that I know are for ephemeral threads, and I try and clear them out on a regular basis. I've just checked my profile and there were about 30 currently on there which I have now deleted. I know in the grand scheme of things my 500/200GB of space is all but irrelevant, but feel free to remove my quota completely to free up space and I'll stick to using externally hosted images.

No notifications for me either. I wonder if it is linked to the server running out of space? I've also had two posts stall on the "saving" stage and although they have appeared in the thread, neither have turned up in my list of posts and reactions in my user profile.

It would have been less than a tenth of that price new back in the 70s and even then you were being robbed.

I knew I'd forgotten something! Also I've found that unless you can hear the audio quality deteriorating due to oxide build-up on the heads, don't bother trying to record each track separately. Do a whole side in a single pass and then chop the audio up into individual tracks in Logic.

When I last did this (which was for a retrospective CD compilation of my first band's recordings for a US indie label) I found that apart from a couple of tracks that had been recorded with weird EQ peaks that required taming, simply reducing the digitised files from 24 bit to 16 bit was all that was needed. Anything that wasn't correcting an obvious audio error on the original recording made them sound worse to my ears. There wasn't even a lot of level balancing between tracks required since the original tapes had already been recorded hot and tape saturation had taken care of the usual mastering compression.

Personally I wouldn't touch that cassette player in the Amazon link with a bargepole and certainly not let it anywhere near the only existing copy of a tape I was trying to digitise. Some extra things I forgot to mention yesterday: Digitise your tapes without any audio compression (.wav or .aiff files formats) and record at 24 bit. IME when you then reduce the bit depth to 16 bit it significantly reduces the amount of background noise and tape hiss. If the tapes were made in the early 80s the NR will either be Dolby B or C (Dolby S wasn't available until 1989). As I said in my previous post, you will probably get away without using any NR or playback for Dolby B tapes, in fact it may restore some top end frequencies that have been lost over the years, and if you need to compensate for the missing NR a bit of corrective EQ will be more than adequate. However trying to play back a Dolby C encoded tape without the correct noise reduction switched on will result in a harsher and sibilant sound which no amount of corrective EQ will fix.