jonsmith

I was surprised you were thinking of selling it, so nice to see you're keeping it. I'm a confirmed Rick user, but I'm loving my USA GL Jazz. It feels good and the more I use it, the more I realise how much better it is than the Japanese one (which I still think was great at around £600 or whatever it was). The sound is significantly superior too.

[quote name='tauzero' timestamp='1442155264' post='2864725'] I don't think anyone said they don't care about their sound. My personal feeling is that I do care about my sound but I don't care if that sound isn't the same as the sound on the original record. [/quote] Reading some of the comments in the thread, some felt that there was no need to strive for good sound in the pub, because the audience wouldn't notice anyway. This seems a little contemptuous to me, but if it's a justification for not taking the gear you believe will deliver the best sound, then to me that reads as not being that fussed about how you sound. If we all do care about our sound, then the original question is answered - we discuss what gear we might use in the pub and take the best equipment we have available because we want to achieve the best sound possible, whatever our budget might be. Of course best might not be most expensive, but there is still a decision being made out of a desire to give the best one can. It was suggested that this wasn't required down the pub.

Yes, the tone is probably best heard in a band context. I enjoyed the playing, even if there were a few sloppy bits. Actually, most of these isolated bass parts from all sorts of highly regarded bass players seem to have timing errors and all sorts of clicks, pops and squeaks. It makes me feel a lot better about my own parts when I hear them in isolation. I think it's these little imperfections that help give a recording energy and keep it exciting. With a rhythm section like The Who, there are certainly plenty of them. However, there's no doubt that they manage to convey a lot of energy and excitement.

[quote name='TimR' timestamp='1441965295' post='2863276'] I think the thread got derailed very early on with lots of righteous indignation. This is the bit that quite interests me in the original post and hasn't really been answered. "So what compels us to still talk about what instruments and backline we need to play the crow & fiddle on a gloomy Saturday evening?" [/quote] I think collectively we kind of did answer that in a convoluted, drawn out and ocassionally touchy way. Most of us care about our performance. Although it seems that some of us don't care about our sound - a concept I'm still trying to get to grips with - some of us do and want to get the best results with what is available to us. Better gear doesn't neccessarily mean more expensive gear either, but the right gear for us as individuals, given playing styles, budgets etc. Some of us think the audience doesn't notice, some of us think they do (although maybe not always knowing exactly why) & some of us think we play better with better gear, for both physical and psychological reasons. Some of us like to be prepared for possible problems, some of us don't think it matters for pub gigs. Different viewpoints create discussion.

[quote name='MiltyG565' timestamp='1441415366' post='2858797'] Why? A friend's band once played Sandstorm by Darude in their 4-piece rock band. It wasn't a faithful reproduction, as they simply couldn't make a faithful reproduction, but it sounded great how they did it, and everyone loved it. Isn't there something to be said for sometimes saying "We can't do it how's it's meant to be done, so we're just going to do it our way"? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6120QOlsfU [/quote] You're missing my point. If something sounds better with certain instruments and you have those instruments, then why shouldn't you use them? This could even be with a cover where a deliberate choice has been made to change instrumentation from what was on the original recording. If you don't have access to those instruments, then obviously you can't make that choice and you use what you have - that's not something I would criticise anyone for and I'm not saying that it couldn't sound good. But if we as a band have agreed that a certain part sounds better on acoustic and the guitarist has access to an acoustic, I'd expect them to use it. Why wouldn't someone use what they believe are the correct tools for the song when they have them available? Why is that a bad thing to do?

[quote name='MiltyG565' timestamp='1441407923' post='2858773'] Sure, but then there are people who bring two and three basses to a gig in the pub so they get "the right tone" for a few songs in the setlist, which I find a bit perplexing. [/quote] Again, this might not matter to most of the audience, but if it matters to the performer then why should some attention to detail be criticised? I quite often take two basses to a gig. I mainly do this in case I break a string (I'm sometimes a bit heavy handed), but often I have a clear vision of how my bass should sound for a particular song, so I'll take advantage of the fact I have a choice and pick the most appropriate one. The audience might not know why I have chosen that instrument, but they might appreciate that the song sounds good. I'd be a bit miffed if a keyboard player insisted on playing a piano part on a Hammond organ, or a guitarist played an acoustic part on a Les Paul through a cranked Marshall stack. It's about having the correct tools for the job and if I do, why shouldn't I use them? Last year, I was playing in a band that one minute was playing a Stranglers song, the next a reggae track. In both cases, the bass was quite dominant. Some choice of tone was essential to pulling that off correctly and I'd argue that all but the most musically ignorant audience members would have noticed if I had swapped the tones around.

[quote name='MiltyG565' timestamp='1441313907' post='2857922'] I find this "I sound great, therefore I play better" attitude quite hard to understand. I consider sounding great to be relative to the people you are playing with, not relative to other basses. When musicians are on the same wavelength with each other, they sound great. It wouldn't matter if you had the most expensive bass in the world or not, a great jam is a great jam. I've never seen something that sounded musically pleasing and thought "It would be better if he stuck on a set of flat wounds, but never mind", and I doubt many people have. So why do we get so precious about what we use? I just feel that it's much more fleeting and in the moment than that, and generally, tonality matters very little to most. [/quote] Of course sounding great is made up of various components, some performance related (as individuals and collectively) and the actual sound (tone & timbre of the instruments and their relative levels in the mix). The thing is, bad sound on stage can be distracting, good sound is liberating. It frees you up to concentrate on the performance. If I really know my parts & so does everyone else then I can just get on with enjoying the moment. If my bass sounds like a goose farting in the fog, it's not going to coax the best performance from me. That's without considering that most (although not all) pricier instruments tend to feel better, due to materials, construction and finishing quality. They tend to be easier to play.

Some of my gear is quite expensive, one or two items are really quite cheap. As a few people have said, the audience does benefit from the expensive gear as most of it feels better and sounds better to me, which means I enjoy playing more and give a better performance. In my opinion it does also sound better and it becomes easier to give the audience a more pleasing overall sound (I think they do notice this, even if they don't always know why). Although I play better with a decent sound, I can cope with poorer sound, but I have worked with a few guitarists who went to pieces if their sound wasn't right - good players besides that too. Having said that, we live in a time where budget equipment is available at not massively higher prices than when I was starting out over 30 years ago. The difference now is that most of this budget equipment plays and sounds passable now - perhaps with a few rough edges - compared to back then when most of it was painful to play and often to listen to as well. When asked to go to the US last year I picked up a Squier P as I was worried that the airline might crush one of my 'decent' basses. As it turned out, this cheap bass was easy to play and sounded just fine for the music I was playing and by the end of the trip I was thinking I'd be upset if it got damaged too. It wouldn't be the first bass I'd pick up, but it still sees regular use at multi-band events with crowded stages where I don't want to risk something more expensive. I don't think there's any such thing as an unjustifiable purchase - if I can hear or feel something that attracts me to that instrument then I'm afraid that's all that matters and the purchase is entirely justified. Business sense doesn't enter into it, otherwise I wouldn't even be in a band in the first place.

Thanks. Wouldn't surprise me if over 100 have found their way to BCers. I really liked the look of that Jazz as well. I really have no need for it though (or any room), so I must resist temptation if it appears again.

I've had to play the original 3 within the past year and I'd quite happily not play them ever again. However I accept that I'm there to entertain & that happy punters mean a happy venue owner. This means money, beer & repeat bookings, so I grit my teeth and get on with it. I do find that I derive a lot of pleasure from a big crowd of people dancing and singing along to stuff I'm playing and all three of those songs have provoked that sort of response regularly. I scored quite highly on mrtcat's list too, I'm afraid.

Black acoustic bass arrived today as a backup for my Washburn acoustic. A couple of slight flaws in the finish on the headstock and a slight ding right at the end of the neck where it meets the soundhole. Nothing that I probably wouldn't have done myself within a few weeks! No playability issues at all - frets all seated correctly and no unusual buzzing. At full price this is probably not a bad bass and at this price, a bargain.

During the time when Geddy Lee was recording with Wal basses (Power Windows through to Roll the Bones), he did take them on tour.

It's all I've used (bar one acoustic gig) since I brought mine back from Canada a month ago. It actually seems to sound better with every gig. I much prefer the neck to the Japanese one and the tone is definitely superior too. Puzzled by the incorrect tools in the case - I was actually wondering if there had been a tool mixup in the shop, but it would seem not.

I have both the CIJ and the new US model. I still think the CIJ represented great value for money, but the US one just seems a little more solid somehow. The neck is a bit thicker, but I found the CIJ almost too thin at the nut end & I'm enjoying this neck more. I'd say the pickups are better on the US too - definitely closer to the tone of Geddy Lee. Apparently there have been supply problems with Badass bridges, hence the 'GL Sig' bridge. However I'd say the bridge is as good as the BAII, although strangely none of the supplied allen keys fit the saddle height adjustment screws. My one slight gripe would be the reverse tuners, which take a bit of getting used to (although I also have these on one of my Ricks). I played it for quite a while in the shop before I bought it, although I was pretty sure I was going to buy it as soon as I played it. Besides an acoustic gig, it's the only bass I've played since I got it, which might be 'new bass syndrome', but I am very happy with it.

Last year, one of my bands was booked to play a festival in Kent. A couple of the other bands failed to show and the organiser said we could play a longer set if we desired, so as we actually prefer longer sets, we said 'no problem'. 'Might as well get your gear on stage now then' he said. So we did. We asked the sound engineer if/when he wanted to soundcheck us. He said 'now would be fine'. There was music coming from the PA and a guy lurking at the back with a laptop and a couple of decks. As we'd been given the OK to soundcheck, we assumed this was a DJ playing stuff between bands. We did a bit of a line check and the music over the PA continued. One of the tracks had a bassline from a Clash song, so I played along for a bit. The guy at the laptop had vanished by this time and the soundman pronounced himself ready to check with a song. At this point, the guy with the laptop stormed back on to the stage and started berating us for stomping all over his set. Embarrassed, we immediately vacated the stage and watched his set from the audience.

[quote name='Cosmo Valdemar' timestamp='1438860947' post='2838110'] I think Billy is more than up to the job. He's a previous member of Yes of course so he knows the material, and can manage the harmonies too. He was also great friends with the great man so to me he seems like the natural choice. Have a look at this - Billy on bass with Alan White and Tony Kaye: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8xkonlAu8Y[/media] [/quote] Yes, I really do think Billy's up to the job and he was Chris's choice to dep for him while he was undergoing treatment. He had regular dialogue with Chris in preparation for the tour with Toto. He's already part of the Yes family & a long time friend and supporter of Chris. He understands the music and can probably do a reasonable job on the BVs too. As can be seen in the video clip, he's capable of playing the parts well - OK, he's not Chris, but nothing seemed out of place or made me wince. I think he's an ideal choice if Yes want to continue (which it seems they do). I don't think Yes need someone to go off on a tangent to Chris's parts. I coped with Tony Levin on the ABWH stuff, but I though Jeff Berlin was an uncomfortable square peg in a round hole. Much as I like Geddy Lee, he'd never do it and if he did, I think he'd put too much of his own stamp on the parts (and despite the influence, their styles are different).

There are two mics with the 6. The XY and a mid-side capsule. There's also a foam mic cover that has its own space in the case. I'll put a photo up later to illustrate. If you just want reasonably good rehearsal recordings, I think the 4n would probably do you, unless you are prepared to mic each instrument separately. I used to use the XY to pick up the instruments that could project well in the room (guitars, bass, drums) and run a feed from the desk into the other two inputs for keys and vocals (just to give a little extra clarity).

Yes. They sounded good, although they went "furry" quicker than I thought they would. Mind you, I put them on just before I did a rare fairly big run of acoustic gigs last year, so they got a lot of use in a relatively short space of time.

[quote name='The Funk' timestamp='1438166284' post='2832164'] Great looking twin twin necks! Would be great to see you in a band with someone else using the second one at the same time! [/quote] Good idea! Actually, when he joined the band, our guitarist was supposed to be joining as the bass player, so maybe it will happen...Spinal Tap or not!

I've got a song I could really use that fretted/fretless in. I used to use these quite a bit (and one day hope to bring them out of retirement). Yes, I've been forced to play Xanadu (not that I took a lot of persuading). I used them quite a bit playing prog stuff and expect to use them again at some point with my originals band.

One thing I forgot to mention. Although the 6 is only slightly bigger when assembled, because it comes with different mic attachments, the case is more than twice the size. The 4 is a lot more portable (and easier to lose ) as it's one complete item that has a case only slightly larger than itself.

The H6 allows 6 simultaneous tracks, the H4n allows 4. I got some great results with the 4, if only it hadn't hidden itself away for 8 months...

I bought one a few months ago, when I became convinced that I'd lost my H4N (which of course turned up a few days later). The screen is better and the menu a bit more 'thought out'. The battery life also seems significantly longer. I'm not noticing a big difference in sound quality, although I'd imagine it's easier to get a good quality rehearsal recording with 6 tracks at once. If you've already got the H4N, I'm not sure the H6 is significantly better to justify buying it as a replacement, but if you have neither, I'd say it's a bit more versatile and worth getting if you'd like 6 individual tracks.

I bought a Tech 21 Leeds pedal from Gillento a few weeks ago. Pedal was in great condition and transaction was smooth. I would not hesitate to buy from again.

There's an Eventide harmoniser on the bass on this track. I read this years ago in an article about recording that album. Chris also used the Mutron as mentioned above (seen this confirmed in an interview). Edited, because I think the Mutron plays a big part in the sound!