P-T-P

My DJ4 had a J-Retro which was always on for me. Did have DR Extra .045s on there, as that's what's on my DJ5, but then went for LaBella flats which gave it a lovely thud. Ultimately though, DJ4 not for me, much prefer the "warmth and punch" of my DJ5 (Bartolini NTBT, for the record) to the "punch and punch you harder" of the DJ4.

[quote name='niceguyhomer' post='485540' date='May 12 2009, 07:29 AM']A very nice bloke who lives in a very nice part of the world. He sold me a very nice Sandberg and now my Sadowsky is getting dusty. A pleasure to deal with in every respect.[/quote] And with the proceeds, Phil bought my DJ4 and that was an equally pleasurable experience.

[quote name='EBS_freak' post='481755' date='May 7 2009, 11:25 AM']Hmm. Interesting - my fingers and brain tell me different. Just goes to show eh?! I defo know that the string spacing at the bridge is wider... whats the neck profile like on a Fender Jazz? Is it thicker than the Lakland? I'm not making any excuses for being wrong (which I guess I am by looking at the figures) but the Lakland string width to me defo felt wider![/quote] Haven't played a Fender Jazz 5 from the last couple of years, but not aware of any changes. The nut is a couple of mm wider on the Fenders but the Lakland neck is far more tapered as you say, so I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that by the 2nd or 3rd fret, the spacing on the Lakland is wider. We're probably both right and wrong in equal measure lol

[quote name='OutToPlayJazz' post='479399' date='May 4 2009, 09:20 PM']String spacing is pretty narrow on the Lakland 5's, especially the DJ5 & JO basses.[/quote] [quote name='EBS_freak' post='480126' date='May 5 2009, 05:23 PM']Really? I find the DJ to be quite large - and there is not a lot of taper on the neck so the string spacing at the nut is wide compared to a standard Fender jazz.[/quote] Pretty sure string spacing on all the Lakland 5s is 19mm at the bridge and they're all 35" scale and all have the same 46mm nut width. Spacing at the nut is tight compared to a Fender Jazz 5 but wider at the bridge.

[quote name='Shambo' post='426414' date='Mar 5 2009, 04:43 PM']I'VE GOT IT! U2 haters have actually got better taste in music than U2 have? No?[/quote] I imagine many of them think that lol

I use IEMs. Used Shure EC3s and when they were lost, used SCL3s. Tried EC2s briefly. For bass guitar, all the fancy gubbins in the world inside the buds won't give you a nice low end response if the phones don't seal in your ear very well. That's the big advantage of the fitted ones. As I undertand it, the Shure SCL3s and above are compatable with most personal moulded earpieces. That having been said, I use the yellow foam tips (and have tried the black foamy ones too) they work pretty well. I did have a try with the silicon and rubber ones but found that none of the silicon ones gave a comfortable fit and were a bit hard while the rubber ones were a bit too soft. None of them worked as well in terms of comfort and sound as the yellow foam ones. However you have to change the foam ones more regularly. For me the IEMs are more about protecting ears and hearing vocals better, but with regards to bass, the EC2s weren't great, the EC3s and SCL3s are really good. I still use an amp on stage and as the IEMs only filter that onstage sound, everything is still audible, just less loud. In fact, I'd say that the drums are bit more distinct while the guitar drops into the background a bit. I still feel the bass from my amp and hear it, though slightly muffled. With the monitor mix added to that then I get the bottom end reinforced a little and the top end is quite sparkling, sometimes a bit too bright. I personally add a little guitar to my mix along with kick drum and a little from each of the other three vocal mics on stage as well as my own vocals. Where possible we try to add a condenser mic or two pointed out towards the room to get a bit more ambience. My experience is that it's very weird at first and will take some time both getting used to wearing them and also getting your mix right. Unless you have loads of time to soundcheck and set up room mics, you're always going to feel just a little isolated. The plus point though of course is you can hear everything without risking damaging your ears and you can turn up the bass in your IEM mix without affecting the FOH or on-stage balance. A minor downside (that you have to turn into a positive) is that you really can hear everything you're playing and it kinda accentuates your mistakes a little, but long term that's good 'cause it focuses your mind. I can't speak for the benefits or otherwise of using consumer phones as opposed to dedicated IEM phones, but so long as they're sufficiently high quality and have bud tips that will seal in your ear. Go for it. Other than that, my advice would be to make sure you have an individual mix, at least to control you bass volume in your IEMs and ideally you want to be able to EQ it seperately to the EQ on your amp/FOH mix. A simple two channel mixer should sort this for you if your PA or IEM system can't. Hope that helps.

[quote name='skankdelvar' post='425921' date='Mar 5 2009, 11:07 AM']I missed this one earlier in the week: [i]The BBC has apologised after Bono called Chris Martin a "w****er" live on Radio 1. The U2 frontman had just played the Live Lounge with his band and was speaking with Jo Whiley when he reportedly made the comment about the Coldplay singer. A BBC spokeswoman apologised for any offence the remark may have caused to listeners. "An on-air apology was made immediately for the language used," she said, adding that she was not aware of any viewer complaints lodged following the interview.[/i][/quote] [quote name='bassicinstinct' post='425929' date='Mar 5 2009, 11:11 AM']Kettle/pot. Pot/kettle. Q.E.D.[/quote] Just to add some context. It was said in jest. He also called him a disfunctional character and a cretin too. Then when the joking (and apology) was done he said he is a melodic genius, up there with RayDavies and Paul McCartney and a great soul.

[quote name='RAY AGAINST THE MACHINE' post='424464' date='Mar 3 2009, 08:03 PM']The rant lasted alot longer than that. .. It wasn't a brief detour. Campaign?? Sign up?? (it's that martyr thing again''gimme yer money'') Metallica to name just one band were cheaper..and better. I've no problem with any band making money ..I've been to hundereds of gigs and never had to listen to a jimmy swaggart type begger telling us to give money.(Text messages cost money..ask Simon Cowell) Most professional artists don't need to treat their audience to such drivel. They just put on a damn good show. I wonder if he'll put the rag on his head and start begging again when they tour here . Is he aware of the recession?? Oh well, I 'm keeping out of this topic now coz I had my rant and can only take so much of this band anyway ciao [/quote] First, I was there, it wasn't a huge long rant. He spoke a little about the "Make Poverty History" campaign and asked people who agreed with it's principle to text in as a way of signing the petition. Second, the text messages cost nothing over and above the standard network rate. There was no profit being made, plus, if you did happen to text in, your name was put up on the screens during the show. Third, as a result of the campaign, which also included Live 8 and numerous other associated activities, millions of extra children are in school in the developing world. Millions more people are getting the drugs that mean instead of dying of AIDS they are living with HIV as productive members of society and their kids are able to be kids instead of having to fend for themselves as orphans. I'm sorry that the brief moments it took to encourage other people to help make this little bit of goodness in the world a reality put such a crimp in your life. If he does pull out the rag again, make sure you haven't bothered to turn up to the show, I'm sure the band won't weep about you not being there.

[quote name='51m0n' post='424121' date='Mar 3 2009, 02:08 PM']He asked me who I thought was a great band, he didnt ask for any more than that. The Funk Brothers were a great band. They were responsible for all the musical hooks played on a gazillion sold albums. Where did anyone state they needed to be anything other than a house band? I stand by my point regarding what they did to extend the canon of popular music. Compared to which U2 have frankly done virtually nothing (IMO). As for "how many records did they sell when their record company and all it's artists upped and left for LA? ", well thats just part of the criminal neglect they got as the musicians responsible for putting those songs out. Jamerson invented the basslines, no one wrote them out note for note for instance. So, yeah a lot of people put their creativity into them, and I would rather everyone involved had got what they deserved to out of the success; I dont believe that that happened, but I also believe that that doesn't actually detract from the importance and significance of The Funk Brothers in any way.[/quote] I totally accept that the Funk Brothers didn't get the credit they deserved, but I don't even think there's one song you can point to and say that it was written by them. Yes, Jamerson's basslines were his creation, but within the framework of the song he was given. I suppose it would be fair to say that they brought the songs to life, or gave them the vitality they had. My point however was that taking the sales comparison between records that the Funk Brothers played on and U2's sales figures was not an even field as the Funk Brothers were not the sole creative force at work or indeed the artist on the sleeve who the punters bought into whereas U2 are (with the exception of a couple of tracks). I don't for one second deny the Funk Brothers contribution to music. The difference between us is that even if I don't particularly like some types of music, I don't dismiss their contribution to music simply because of my taste. However you (or anyone) feels about U2, it is just patently ridiculous to suggest they have contributed "virtually nothing" to music from anything other than a totally subjective, and therefore flawed, standpoint. Yes, you can qualify it by saying "IMO" but if you make the statement preceeding it as though it is fact, if you talk about "the canon of music" rather than simply the music you happen to appreciate, you can't expect people not to get a bit peeved by it. Are you unable to make an objective (or at least as objective as possible) evaluation of U2? Can you not see how The Edge has been a huge influence in the way the guitar is used in popular music (however uninspired you may find his playing to be)? Or that, even though you remain unmoved, their songs have touched millions or people's lives positively? Or that bands like Coldplay, Elbow, Keane, The Killers etc. (even if you don't like them) have been massively influenced by U2 and as a result popular music's evolution post U2 has been affected by U2 (even if you don't see that affect as a positive)? I'm not particularly a fan of the Beatles, or the Stones, or Led Zepplin but I'd be an idiot not to acknowledge that a lot of what came after them exists because of them. [quote name='51m0n' post='424124' date='Mar 3 2009, 02:10 PM']overrate v overrate [əuvəˈreit] to think that something is better, stronger, more valuable etc than it really is No argument from me on that one.....[/quote] I didn't suggest we couldn't find a dictionary definition of it, I said we wouldn't be able to get 100% aggreement as to what being overrated (within the context of this discussion) is exactly - i.e. is it record sales, artistic merit, peer opinion, critical opinion, public opinion, influence, etc.? Some combination? How much of each? - and even if we could decide, how do we then measure? In the end it'll only ever be opinion and to say a particular band is overrated in your own opinion seems odd. Surely you rate a band at exactly where you think they should be rated and if you mean overrated by other people, then surely you're then suggesting that your opinion is somehow more important than those other people and isn't that, in effect, overrating yourself? Unless your opinion only matters more to yourself, in which case, why inflict it on the rest of us? lol

Okay, like Motown, love U2. There's a snag with the Funk Brother's comparison though because really, how many records did they sell when their record company and all it's artists upped and left for LA? Don't get me wrong, these are masterful musicians, but people bought Marvin Gaye/Supremes/Temptations/Stevie Wonder records, not Funk Brother records. And virtually none of the songs on those records were written by the Funk Brothers. And if we're talking about marketing, Motown wasn't exactly backwards in that department and for every gem of a song that came out on that label, there was probably 100 banal offerings to accompany it. I don't mean to put down the legacy of the Funk Brothers at all, but they were a backing band - an extraordinary one for sure - but a backing band nonetheless. Their presence and abilities no doubt helped towards the success of many records, but it was far from the only reason for those records' success. When it comes to U2's record sales, most of everything they've achieved is down to them - their songs, their performance, their decisions on promotion, track orders, sleeve designs etc. Having said all that, the whole sales argument is phoney. As, to be honest, is the whole overrated argument. "One man's meat" and all that. I bet we couldn't even get 100% agreement as to what constitutes "being overrated." What's annoying about it as a U2 fan is that it's always directed at U2 without it ever really being sought out, as evidenced by the beginnings of this whole thread. Okay, so some people don't like U2. I'm sure that's true of pretty much every band, but no other band really has people going out of their way to point out their dislike/hatred of them the way U2 does.

[quote name='RAY AGAINST THE MACHINE' post='423603' date='Mar 2 2009, 08:02 PM']At least I have a reason for disliking bonehead. I had the misfortune of seeing them at Twickenham on their last tour. Misfortune? Yes! Here's why: Paid£ 75.00 for tkt. 1st few songs were ok (I do like some of their stuff,my friend likes'em alot so I went along) Anyway, about half way through the set bonehead puts this stupid rag on his head and rants for an eternity that WE SHOULD DONATE AS MUCH AS WE CAN to various charities. I've never been to a concert where a number to text is dominating the whole stadium. Where is his tax free money secured??? Why weren't the tkts cheaper?? I didn't pay to see a preacher!! I'm sure that many bands donate without the big I AM!! If Lennon can get shot so can bonehead! By the way ,love 'em or not they are good musicians at the end of the day. Not knocking that.. ..just that tosspot of a singer.Or is that the chosen one ?[/quote] See, this is where I have a bit of a problem, 'cause the "rag" on his head bore a graphoc of the word "coexist" with the c represented by a crescent, the x by a star of david and the t by a cross. He put it on during the song "Bullet the Blue Sky" and was making a point about the futility of war. He didn't ask you to donate [b][i]anything[/i][/b] to charity at all. The "rant" lasted about a minute and the number he asked you to text was simply to sign up to the concept of "Make Poverty History." a campaign which is largely funded by his "tax free" money. I've no problem if you don't agree with any of his politics, and maybe it's inclusion made the show less than you would have liked it to be, but you say you didn't pay to see a preacher and in fairness there was a whole 2+ hours of concert surrounding that brief detour. As for the £75 ticket. The majority of the tickets to those UK gigs were priced at £40 and even those £75 tickets were cheaper than every other big tour of that time. A wider question, to everyone who has a problem with the money side of U2 and uses it as a knock against them - why is it not okay for a band to make money?

[quote name='Shambo' post='422680' date='Mar 1 2009, 09:21 PM']You couldn't elaborate that for me could you? I'd honestly love to know.[/quote] I could, but I won't, it's not going to change anything, other than waste a load of my time.

[quote name='Linus27' post='422661' date='Mar 1 2009, 09:02 PM']I really am going to have to bite my tongue here. I would probably say I am the biggest U2 fan on this board so a lot of the comments are bugging me and annoying the crap out of me. I don't mind the comments saying I don't like U2, or Bono etc but saying a band is over-rated or crap really is pretty lame. A band as big as U2 in all honesty can't be classed as over rated. You may not like them but selling 144 million albums worldwide does not make them overated unless your opinion means more than 144 million people. Boy : ~3m October : ~3m War : ~8m UABRS : ~8m Unforgettable Fire : ~8m WAIA : ~2m Joshua Tree : ~25m Rattle & Hum : ~14m Achtung Baby : ~17m Zooropa : ~8m Pop : ~6m Best of 1980-90 : ~16m ATYCLB : ~12m Best of 1990-00 : ~5m HTDAAB : ~9m Total = ~144 million Also, having worked with some of the engineers/producers of U2 albums, I know what a lot of them think and say of the band as musicians. I would bet a large amount of money that a lot of people here would not be able to play Adam's bass lines as well as he. He is considered one of the tightest, spot on in time bass players around. I agree, he is not one of the most technical and he knows it but U2's music does not require that which I must admit, in my opinion is a shame. For the record, I find Adam's bass playing far more intersting within the context of the song than say listening to Victor Wooton or Jaco. To much noodling or fret w***ing and not enough substance. Early U2 songs had some great bass lines but it is a shame that U2 have gone away from this sound. In my opinion, The Edge is relying on far too many effects these days. They are still writing some great songs but I think they are trying to be too clever with the way they are presenting them. I would love to see U2 go back to the War/Unforgetable Fire period but I can't see it ever happening. The last album sold 9 million copies and the one before that 12 million. They are clearly doing somerthing right. As for the new album, well I think its sh*t. Honestly, I think the songs are weak, bland and totally lost of direction. I got the leaked copy some weeks ago and I thought it was a joke. Sadly, it is not. Ok, there are one or two good songs but most of it is very very weak. The general feeing among the U2 news group I am a member of also feel this way. I also agree that the recent live shows on the BBC and French TV etc have be very very poor. Anyway, I just hope some can put it in perspective and see that you may not like U2, or Bono as a frontman or Adam's bass playing and you may hate the songs but the sales show for themselves that they certainly are not overrated. Enough people like them but your just not one of them [/quote] Preaching to the choir in me, though I like the new album loads, my advice, don't bite.

Been a U2 fan for 25+ years and it always amuses me the amount of people who go out of their way to point out how much they hate U2. It says so much more about them than it does about the band.

[quote name='Linus27' post='420406' date='Feb 26 2009, 09:04 PM']Now that I would kill to see and would quite possibly love to own. Anyone know who here has it or got any pictures of this bass??[/quote] Search for "Adam" in the Gear Porn forum on here, there's a couple of threads with pics and sound clips. Can't post a link cause I'm on iPhone at mo.

[quote name='Linus27' post='418535' date='Feb 24 2009, 04:44 PM']Well, Adam's basses are, AUERSWALD-A. Clayton Custom [fretless]-Yellow-[1996/97] AUERSWALD-A. Clayton Custom [fretted]-Yellow-[1996/97] EPIPHONE // Rivoli (hollow-body // 19xx // finish uncertain FENDER - Jazz bass - [196x] candy apple red finish FENDER - Jazz bass - [1961] sunburst finish FENDER - Jazz bass - [1964] Sherwood Green finish FENDER - Jazz bass - [1965] Shoreline Gold finish FENDER - Jazz bass - [1966] sunburst finish FENDER - Jazz bass - [1972] sunburst finish FENDER - Jazz Deluxe Bass - [19xx] - vintage white finish (w. dark tortoiseshell pick guard) FENDER - Precision bass - [19xx] - black finish/white pickguard FENDER - Precision bass - [19xx] - white finish/tortoise pickguard FENDER - Precision bass - [1972 or 1973] - sunburst finish/finish highly faded/Jazz neck FENDER - Precision bass - [1997] - [finish confirmed] GIBSON - Firebird bass - [19xx] - natural finish GIBSON - Firebird bass (non-reverse) - [19xx] - natural finish GIBSON - Les Paul Recording Bass - [197x] - white finish GIBSON - RD bass - [19xx] - natural finish IBANEZ - Musician bass - [19xx] - dark brown finish IBANEZ - Roadstar bass - [19xx] - black finish LAKLAND - Bob Glaub signature model - [Xxxx] - natural finish/black pickguard LAKLAND - Daryl Jones signature model - [2005] - Metallic Gold / custom finish LAKLAND - Daryl Jones signature model - [2005] - Metallic Teal / custom finish LAKLAND - Daryl Jones signature model - [2005] - Natural finish (QTY. 2) LAKLAND - Joe Osborne signature model - [Xxxx] - natural finish LAKLAND - Joe Osborne signature model - [Xxxx] - tobacco sunburst finish RICKENBACKER - 4001 bass - [19xx] - Fireglo finish WASHBURN - acoustic bass - 198x - natural finish ZON - Legacy bass - [pre-1986] - white finish Last night on French TV he ws playing FENDER Jazz bass - [196x] candy apple red finish and FENDER Precision bass - [19xx] - white finish/tortoise pickguard. His main bass for years though was FENDER Precision bass [1972 or 1973] sunburst finish/finish highly faded/Jazz neck.[/quote] Also some vids on u2.com where he's playing basses not in your list. A Buzzard of some kind... looks to be gloss black finish so I'm guessing a Warwick JE sigature one (as opposed to the bolt ons as it had the proper Buzzard headstock) A Warwick Stryker 4... looked to be all black, but maybe very dark brown wood. Looked as though the neck (not fingerboard) might've been maple too A Fender Jazz in Burgundy Mist metallic with matching headstock, possibly a custom '62 re-sissue A Fender P in a very dark teal/indigo blue kinda colour which looked new but with a scratchplate that had holes for pick-up cover. Also, three of his DJ models, although based on the DJ4 are unique in that there's no binding on the necks. Lakland did do a limited run of Skylines with an Adam Clayton set-up... natural, black blocks, unbound. I believe one of our esteemed members here has one, though his was further customized with Chi-Sonic pick-ups. [quote name='ARGH' post='418611' date='Feb 24 2009, 06:07 PM']Its at Myung's request,that the design is minimal.... I actually reckon the MKI is better in design and feel than the MKII..I see a few turn up on the Bay,but only in that odd turquiose blue colour. The Veneer top looks nice,but the pots are cheap,and need replacing (this is from when Ive played them 2nd hand)..the 35" scale is a nice touch,as were the twin P/U's...The MKII looks awful to my eye.[/quote] Isn't JM using a Bongo 6 these days? [quote name='jimijimmi' post='419213' date='Feb 25 2009, 01:07 PM']id love to see the Entwistle Fenderbird....Alembic made some sig basses called Spyders..and i own one of the Warwick Buzzards they made after his death...[/quote] Lakland made a Fenderbird for JE [url="http://www.thewho.net/whotabs/equipment/bass/equip-entwistlegear-endorsements.html#lakland"]http://www.thewho.net/whotabs/equipment/ba...ts.html#lakland[/url] though saly it's never seen production.