thumperbob 2002

I have a Peavey 210 tx you could have had for like £40. Had it for years- could probably survive an atomic bomb. Weighs as much as my Hartke 4 x 10!

Bought a Rothwell Compressor from Harry- great comms- great pedal exactly as described- superfast delivery- top guy!!

Yeah I suppose in the past it was all about volume. Now the tech is so much better the audience can actually hear what a bass player should sound like. Would have loved the gear I have now-then. Brilliant for a pro player now, in every way, gear, communication over social networks. Having an iPod would have changed my life!

Loved larry and loved Ellie Goulding. Nothing wrong with her voice at all. Her voice is very stylised - seemingly weak - but not really. Great band too. Inventive.

Interesting post this. I have had loads of rigs - from what used to be described as compact ( rediculously heavy trace combo ) to what was described as normal ( ampeg v4b and 2 x15 cab "where are you playing, wembley?'" people used to say. Never really got into effects too much - had the odd pedal to two I admit. After going through loads of changes - Marshall vba and 4 x 12 ( what a rig ) settled on a markbass / Schroeder rig. Now use a hartke lh1000 and 4 x 10. Bit old school but together with my pedalboard this rig will do everything. Loud enough for anywhere and fantastic tone. Miles lighter than the average rig I have used. However I do agree with dood - the sound is in your fingers - but you have to get this to the audience. When I was pro I couldn't give a monkeys about my tone and It was all about convenience. Now it's about fun, tone and musical chops- but not in that order.

[quote name='TimR' timestamp='1352999694' post='1870368'] That's not quite right as we're all better than each other at a lots of different things. It's when you don't give people respect because they are not as good as you. Strive to be the best and celebrate when you are the best but remember you weren't always, and won't always be, the best. [/quote] Wasn't this thread about mustang Sally.

[quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1352988245' post='1870188'] So there must be a niche for bands that play Mustang Sally then? [/quote] Absolutely.

[quote name='TimR' timestamp='1352984758' post='1870114'] So you have only ever played 35 songs in your life? How long are your gigs? That's only two hours of material at a push! The point is; the band has played hundreds of songs. We've still got charts for them all and if we needed to we could play any one of them. The reason that we have a set list of 50 terrific songs that we play on a regular basis is because they're terrific. You find that out only by trial and error. Songs one band can pull off others can't, turn up to a pub gig full of a certain age group and try to get them going with Lady Gaga and you'll get into problems. If you can afford to chose which gigs to do then it's different, but if you're in the market for functions you will struggle. Mustang sally has 3 chords and 5 noes of the pentatonic scale. It's hardly taking up valuable space in your brain or learning time. Dismissing a song that the audience request and like because of snobbery is up to the individual band but no one is getting bookings turned down because Mustang Sally is on their setlist and the audience don't like it. If they were no one would play it. [/quote] The songs I have done in the past- since 1976 probably run into the thousands. My point was I have seen bands- and depped for them - that have a set list of hundreds of songs to choose from and I also have been in bands where the set list has been really thought out well, even thought there have only been 30 odd. There is always a difference between the quality of the bands that know what they are doing, that people actually want to go see- compared to bands that are there for punters amusement- who will cater for some drunk guy asking for whatever. These sorts of band try to cover all basses so to speak. Dismissing a song is not really down to musical snobbery at all- I just think that to be a successful cover band you have to be different and have your own niche- and that may not include easy songs that any band could do in their sleep ( however popular )

[quote name='TimR' timestamp='1352979545' post='1870006'] Quite frankly, you don't know what you are talking about. It's ONE song in hundreds of songs we play. If a band were to play a 10minute extended mix several times during their set you might have a case. Get a grip man! [/quote] I think he knows what he's talking about. In my experience it is better to have a terrific set of a maximum of 35 songs than hundreds. There is a difference between having a so so set of many than a brilliant set of a few.

Its just that really the audience are not dancing and singing along to the band- but to the song itself- might as well put on a record- Chain reaction?? As seashell said- If you havent done it learn it properly- the Wilson Pickett version- and play away. There will be a different reaction to Freebird- but my point was why cant bands do songs that would have the same audience reaction whilst still being interesting for both band and punters? Suggestions please...

Its so easy to do songs that have "always worked"- like Mustang for example- it takes no imagination or thought whatsoever to put this in the set. I think that musicians themselves are quite frightened of doing anything new- as in " we might die a death doing that one"- this makes most soul bands sets very very similar for example. I particularly hate the " we have always done things like that and its always gone down well" train of thought and wish musicians would try to be less lazy with their set choices and push the envelope somewhat. If I am at a do and the band goes into Mustang Sally, sugar pie,Midnight hour I am not impressed at all. I think we treat the normal audience as being quite thick sometimes and I would love to see a band do songs no-one else does. This is one of the reasons I am setting up another band- mainly for my enjoyment in doing some " out there" songs.Nothing wrong with Mustang really its just that its been done to death and I would love for someone to come on this thread and tell me its not boring to play. Lifes too short.

[quote name='chaypup' timestamp='1352902488' post='1869113'] Do I Do with all the fills is a good finger workout. Although when I see Nate Watts play it it doesn't look like he's moving his fingers at all! [/quote] Good one pal- yeah!

We do Mustang Sally as the band is simply too lazy and scared to do anything that requires a little bit of imagination.... Goes down well but the difficulty with numbers like this is that they make everyone lazy, especially the band. My problem with my present soul band is that they are so conservative its untrue. To make it more interesting for myself I try to put different licks in, false harmonics, double stops etc. The audience wouldnt know by that time of night.

Wow!! This is one of those where, say in 10yrs you wake up in a sweat realising what you did that particular day. Cursed for life.

My hands killing me! Just sorted come on come over and what us hip for the new band I'm setting up. But harder to play than my normal jamerson covers. Definitely more than one finger needed. My normal band soul patrol are well established now and it's so easy its intrue so i thought I would set up another band doing more challenging funky stuff. Got a great bunch if musicians. Just aiming to do one gig per month solely for enjoyment. Really looking forward to it. The aim is to do stuff that noone round here does. Any song suggestions?