BigRedX

G is for: Gus

F is for: FMW

E is for: Esh

D is for: Dingwall

C is for: Carl Thompson

B is for: Born To Rock F4B

A is for: Atlansia Pegasus 5ST

But the point I was trying to make is that IME the engineer is far more important than the equipment. I learnt this the hard way having spent a large amount of money and time building my home studio only to find that the weak link was very much me. Sure my recordings made with Logic, a 40 channel digital desk, big Tannoy monitors and a multitude of effects both hardware and software were technically better than the ones I had done on a 4-track portastudio, but not by a massive amount and they were still nowhere near what I was aiming for. This was very much brought home to me when with another band we used a very ordinary looking studio with what was technically an inferior system to the one I had at home, but the engineer was able to get a recording that sounded excellent in a fraction of the the time it would taken me to achieve something that merely sounded good.

Superb musicianship is IMO irrelevant if I'm not enjoying the actual music being played.

They must have essentially done for free (and then paid him to use it). I can't see any other reason why he would have picked Fender to make this bass when there are so many other luthiers out there who are already making something similar and doing a much better job of it.

Which kind of re-inforces the point that Fender should stick to what they are best at. Or at least do a lot more R&D before unleashing another bass that isn't a P or J on the public.

But is it actually better than your own basses? Personally I'd be worried about catching something off that - the areas around the bridge and pickups look especially minging, not to mentioned that massive fag burn on the headstock. You are probably absorbing tar and nicotine every time you touch the neck. 😉

Very much this.

Maybe if you were in Abbey Road, but I was thinking more along the lines of Sun or Chess, which were set up in a space the owners of the record companies had available. Also there wasn't really anything "premium" about the microphones used back then. They were just what was available at the time. It's only desire to carry on copying what has gone before that has made these devices anything special.

But in those cases the composer and the musicians involved when the pieces in question were written are now all dead. Certainly when I have been to see any modern classical pieces, there has either been some performance input from the composer as one of the musicians or as the conductor, or the piece has been performed by the ensemble that it specifically written for.

Question for covers bands - does your audience come specifically to see your band or do you play to whatever audience is already at the pub? My experience both as a musician and as an audience member is that the vast majority of the audience come with the venue rather than the band, and unless the live entertainment is particularly dire they will be there regardless of who is playing.

But remember that a lot of what are now considered classic recordings were done with minimal equipment - a space big enough to fit the musicians, a handful of microphones a plate reverb and some compression and that was it. IME a good mix engineer is worth far more than a bucket load of plug ins.

Publicising events too early can work against you too. My sister was excited to find that one of her favourite comedians was playing a venue close to her in a few months time and that there were still tickets available. However only when she turned up on the night and couldn't get did she discover that she was a year early for the gig!

Is it? Even he decided it needed changing in 1957. And again in 1976, and again in 1979...

The most important thing is that there is an engineer who is sympathetic to the genre of music and can understand what you are trying to achieve. As long as you are able to transfer the audio files you have created onto their system the equipment will be irrelevant.

It takes certain amount of skill to make a traditional and generally accepted design more ugly and think you've done something good.

Sorry, as the instruments are essentially Fender copies with a funny shaped headstock the reasons behind the construction are far more important. And I think it is important that manufacturers and luthiers explain the thinking behind the features on their instruments, and why they have stuck to traditional designs or why they have changed them. After all anyone with the appropriate tools can easily make a P or J copy. Their very essence is to be able to be made with simple machinery and relatively unskilled labour.

I much prefer the fretless playing on the second album which isn't by Pino (it certainly wasn't him when I saw them live).

TBH he's on the one track I don't like very much, and IMO doesn't add anything to it.

Personally I don't think there's anything wrong with the gear. Remember that even the most simple of modern recording set ups is technically vastly superior to the equipment that most classic recordings were made on - especially if you are not relying on an acoustic space to make your recording in. IMO there are two things at work here. 1. We all tend to be super-critical of recordings we have made ourselves, even when ultimately there's nothing really wrong with them. Also it's very difficult to judge a dance track at home when it needs to be played on a club system along side similar tracks that you think sound good. 2. It may be that like me you are simply not as good an engineer as you would like to be. It took me 20 years and several tens of thousands of pounds spent on equipment to realise that I was never going to be able to make recordings that sounded as good as the ones by my favourite artists. Are there any studios specialising in house music in your area? I'd take a couple of tracks to a commercial studio with a sympathetic engineer and do your mixes there and see if that makes any difference to the sound of your recordings.