drTStingray

[quote name='Grahambythesea' timestamp='1483664681' post='3209202'] Before the shads were famous and could afford to import US guitars, he also played a Framus. After he left the shads he recorded with Tony Meehan on a Fender VI - "Diamonds" [/quote] It was a case that Femder basses were generally irrelevant in the UK before 1960 owing to post war import restrictions. The two Strats and Precision in fiesta red were imported (brought over) by Cliff Richard and Hank famously gave back the Strat when he could get his own. Both Jet and Hank played bass VIs - as fat sounding guitars. The Shadows changed to Burns guitars in white in the early/mid sixties (but Jet had left by then). It was a change in the whole stage show etc. If you watch some of the more recent Shadows performances you will see that Mark Griffiths alternates between a fiesta red Precision and a Burns when the band change guitars. The sound is quite different and much more modern sounding - used in Rise and Fall of Flingel Bunt, which, when I played this music, sounded to me to be influenced by the Jack Bruce style of playing at times (the single was 1964). In fact it was also possible to pick up influences for bands in the late 60s - one of the songs had more or less the exact bass part from a Ten Years After song and there was another one (with distortion on the bass) which sounded very Led Zeppelin. I guess this is not surprising as Cliff and the Shadows and Jet Harris influenced lots of players in the 60s. In the 70s/80s Alan Jones played with them and used a 5 string sometimes and the bass parts were much influenced by music of the times and bass playing styles. That is what I based my own interpretation on when I played in a tribute group. Using a coral red Stingray - nailed the early recorded style and of course, the later stuff as well.

Ha ha - I'll go with that Pete. Having been a member of a tribute band rooted in music of the late 50s and 60s, I am well acquainted with the era/generation mindset of 'nothing worthwhile happened after the 60s', and an almost anal view of accuracy and adherence to period, particularly in minute detail but seemingly ignoring core matters of substance. I used to quietly chuckle to myself when their 'vintage' amps were unable to cope with poor venue acoustics simply because they didn't have mid range controls!!! But of course, they must be the best because they're vintage ha ha!! I'm not in the least surprised Vintage Guitar comes up with such nonsense. It's especially wrong for the UK where Fenders weren't even imported until the early 60s owing to post war import restrictions. It simply isn't right for the 60s where I seem to recall the most famous bass player of the era played a Hofner, two of the most famous and accomplished players of the decade (amongst others) played EB3s - move on to the 70s (when surf music and pastel coloured guitars were about as unhip as flared trousers from the 60s/70s were in the 80s), and players were often using CBS era Fenders, and Rickenbackers - move forward to the latter part of the decade and the influence of players using active basses like Alembic and Musicman is all pervading. No doubt active basses are anathema to the vintage brigade. I don't recall the funny shaped Gibson figuring in much of that. l I'm sure Vintage Guitar sells to that fast diminishing demographic of (generally) white 70+ year olds - who have never noticed that the instruments they're on about did not figure generally in for instance, Classic Rock. It's true that there were some great songs and music in the 50s and 60s, and it was a great pioneering era - but to ignore anything from 1970 - 1990 is plainly stupid, particularly when that era contains far more classic pop, rock, soul, R and B than the 50s/60s, and there are a lot of real classic designs which grew with the music. It's basically an out of touch magazine which I wouldn't expect to know much other than the obvious about basses anyway.

[quote name='Shambo' timestamp='1482668819' post='3202153'] If Fender had specified a natural finish with their new line of USA basses, (along with the staple black, white and 3TSB), I wouldn't have started this thread. The Jazz has got its natural '75 RI, so why no Precision equivalent? [/quote] Yes I've always been curious why Fender has never done this! Offering natural bodied basses requires a better standard of wood and maybe the cost is too much for Fender. Fact is, originals do crop up and they are much better value than say, 60s basses and worth saving for. Either this or maybe a team built CS?

[quote name='stingrayPete1977' timestamp='1482609475' post='3201922'] I think any with multiple pickups are Alnico, I could be wrong, where's DrStingray? [/quote] Merry Christmas folks!! I think the SR5 (all models) changed back to alnico when the US Sterling 5 was introduced - which has ceramic in all pick up configurations afaik (2008 I think). I agree with Pete, the one in the picture looks great - the pick up looks identical to the one in my 2003 SR5 which I've had since new.

Natural bodied Fender basses were a real 70s thing. Look just as good with a white scratch plate as well. You'll see lots of people on film, especially in R and B, using them in that era. It was the bass I really wanted at one stage (the 70s). It's also a classic Musicman colour, starting in that era also, and even Gibson offered it with their Grabber/Ripper IIRC. Good thing is you can actually buy a new Musicman in that spec - I suppose Fender have catered with the 70s Jazz reissues - I don't think they've done it with the P, but it was the look/sound of the early 70s for soul/funk - some might argue a golden era for bass playing and bass players. Good examples of original basses are quite good value to buy and crop up from time to time and I have been tempted. When you compare with the price of 60s stuff which, with a handful of notable exceptions of players, is hardly an iconic era for Fender bass!! I guess it's the CBS stigma...

Really enjoyed that - like the way they kept the ascending bass part in the breakdowns as well. Did someone mention Take Five http://youtu.be/qKkZ5ndxuDk

I use flats on my Fretless - tried lots of different types. The first thing to watch out for is string tension - bear in mind some of those flats designed for use in the 60s have tension which would challenge even a prize arm wrestler.... great if you're a double bass player who occasionally plays an electric - or as occurred in the 60s where bass guitarists were mainly ex double bass players. its unlikely you'll be playing 16th note grooves with these IMHO. If you use these they will be hard on your fingers. I have settled on using low tension flats - Thomastik, Rotosound Solo Bass (ground wound), Ernie Ball Group 3 have all been good but I am absolutely sold on Ernie Ball Slinky Cobalt flats and have them on my Stingray Fretless. They feel as smooth as anything (a little sticky for the first couple of days, but this goes), have similar tension to roundwounds, and the sound is fabulous. A great compromise between thump, fundamental sound and a bit of zing if you want it. They've been on the bass for 12 months now and are still great.

[quote name='lowregisterhead' timestamp='1481989898' post='3196821'] A few years ago EBMM did propose a 19mm wide-spacing SR5 ('The SLO Special 5') which they vowed to produce is they got 125 advance orders. IIRC they only got orders for 3, so it never happened! Here's the No Treble article: http://www.notreble.com/buzz/2011/07/01/ernie-ball-offers-test-run-of-music-man-stingray-5-string-bass-with-19mm-spacing/ [/quote] IIRC it was 50 orders required within one month of announcement.

[quote name='stingrayPete1977' timestamp='1481976976' post='3196698'] Ah but would it be if it was an EBMM model? will we ever know,will Big Poppa ever try it to find out? [/quote] Now you're being v wicked lol 😂

[quote name='lowregisterhead' timestamp='1481974030' post='3196667'] That was mine. Not for sale anymore - see post above... [/quote] Looks great. Never seen or heard of one before.

[quote name='stingrayPete1977' timestamp='1481972452' post='3196649'] Stonking, 35" inch Stingray with wide spacing, just what so many people say they want so I don't understand why these are not more popular? [/quote] Well there's the rub I guess. Clearly not as popular a requirement as appears from forums.

[quote name='lowregisterhead' timestamp='1481971943' post='3196637'] Not meaning to hijack the thread, but you did ask... :-) [URL=http://s1141.photobucket.com/user/lowwregisterhead/media/IMG_7115_zpsn2rq2cal.jpg.html][IMG]http://i1141.photobucket.com/albums/n588/lowwregisterhead/IMG_7115_zpsn2rq2cal.jpg[/IMG][/URL] [/quote] There was one of these in the for sale thread for many months - possibly still there.

I think most people compare the MM SR5H with the Lakland 55 (94, 01 or 02). However the MM can be had in the same HS arrangement as the Lakland or also in HH format so you can get that cute sound but with the added versatility of multiple pick ups. Although a different bass I find I often use the HS setting on my Sabre as it just fattens the H sound slightly giving it slightly more bass. Back in the early 2000s I was in the market for a 5 string and ended up with a shortlist of Lakland, Warwick Streamer, Yamaha BB2005 and MM SR5 - I did try others including Fenders - after a long time deliberating ended up taking the SR5 simply because I dug the core sound so much and the bass had enough versatility to do what I wanted - I even used it in a rockabilly band for a while!! I switch between MM 4 strings with 19 MM spacing and the SR5 with 17.5 without problem - however I don't have large hands so find the spacing for a 5 to be just right - slightly more difficult to slap accurately but still easily possible - and the build quality and playability is just excellent - it's a heavy bass but no problem on a wide strap - and I think it gives it more growl and resonance.

[quote name='Twigman' timestamp='1481734799' post='3194701'] There's a whiff of spinal tap's stonehenge about those measurements [/quote] They make a lot more sense in imperial - US basses presumably designed and built to imperial measurement standard!

There's some info in this thread http://basschat.co.uk/topic/295364-the-perfect-jazzmm-tone-in-one-instrumentis-there-such-a-bass/page__st__30

Glad you have some options there. Regarding the US Sterling, it's actually a lot more versatile than a Stingray, having a series, parallel and a single coil type option available by selector switch, on top of the usual 3 band EQ. The pick up is ceramic - so they are basically similar electronics to a 1992-2008 SR5. The body is smaller than a Stingray and as you know the neck is more to a Jazz bass profile. The SLO Stingray, which along with all Stingrays also has one less fret than a Sterling, is as rare as hen's teeth but could be ordered new. You could order one with a 2 band EQ if that's what you're after.

You could email the UK distributor of EBMM, Strings and Things and ask them if there are any in stock in the UK and where you can try one. Any approved dealer would be able to order you a new one once you've decided.

Musicman Stingray 5 is one of the best 5 strings money can buy. Closely followed by Warwick Streamer or Thumb and I'm sure a Wal would be great or a Sadowski. The Stingray 5 was one of the first mass produced 5 strings. A USA Sub 5 is also good if your budget is tighter. I personally wouldn't entertain the idea of a passive 5 string - One of the main points of a 5 string in my view is to enable playing keyboard-like bass lines on a bass guitar. I've never found 50s technology with an extra string fitted to achieve the heft required.

A couple of things I would add to Pete's extensive review. 1) The strings through definitely adds sustain 2) I have a classic SR4, an Old Smoothie SR4, a US Sub 5 and a ceramic SR5 (2003). The US Sub 5 is a Classic in utilitarian clothing, without strings through and with a poplar body - it has a great 2 band MM sound and a great B string. 3) My ceramic SR5 is an absolute tone monster - it's natural ash but is far more resonant than the Sub - the body positively vibrates and that resonance transfers to the output sound - it's also a bigger instrument than the Sub - it also weighs upwards of 11 lb whereas the Sub is a feather weight for an MM - so much so that it suffers from neck dive seated as the body is so light. I'm not sure how heavy a Classic 5 would weigh but the 4s are about 9.5 lbs. 4) I have a beer gut body shape (gradually reducing, to be fair!!) - I don't have a problem with the lack of contours on any of the three 2 band basses mentioned. 5) Even though the SR5 is heavy, it is such a well balanced instrument, particularly on a strap, that providing a well padded strap is used it's not a problem for an old guy like me to gig!! However I've heard of SR5s that are much lighter - around 9 lbs.

No doubt you've heard him play lots of warm vintage tones on his Rickenbacker as well 😉

There could be several answers:- 1) He can't afford you in January (this in my experience is not in the least unusual whilst venues recover from Christmas and New Year costs - particularly if they haven't got the ticket sales etc they expected) but may give you a gig on Valentine's Day. 2) You were too loud and he's got problems with the neighbours - so would prefer an acoustic band - of course a duo might be cheaper for him as well (not always the case - a singer with a band I used to play with could get as much as the whole band performing swing crooning to backing tracks). I think these are the most likely.

[quote name='hiram.k.hackenbacker' timestamp='1480488743' post='3184720'] I was going to say exactly this, including the bit about the 40th Anniversary as my one arrived yesterday and it's superb. [/quote] Hey glad you finally got it. I really do like the sound of mine - it can be really thumpy even without the mutes on

[quote name='NJE' timestamp='1480545148' post='3185377'] Does the reissued old smoothie actually have a pickup cover stuck together with tape? I saw some pictures online that seems to show tape. It's fun I guess but would seriously bloody annoy me if so. [/quote] Yes it is - quite neat though, you barely notice it and it's simply modelled on the original bass, which was made that way.

Crikey there's a lot there! My favourites are the powder blue standard SR4 and SR5 - and the 30th Anniversary Stingray 5 is just fabulous. That yellowy gold Stingray with black hardware looks good as well. A Bongo in that colour would be very radical!!

[quote name='White Cloud' timestamp='1480156419' post='3182039'] Happy Saturday felllow Basschatters! Back in 1987 (when I had black hair and a six pack) I bought a brand new Musicman Stingray, it was heavy but played like a dream and had a very, very special live and recording sound in what was a successful period in my personal musical adventures. Isn't the way that a musician can spontaneously reminisce about an instrument with which they have long since parted very strange? Anyway, we eventually parted company in a long forgotten trade in deal for something else that has been long forgotten. I have always loved the whole Stingray thing but never ever went there again (no idea why!) This has got me thinking - what was the golden era of this particular breed of bass, was my 80's version a classic or did I get lucky? [/quote] Well I've just bought a brand new 40th Anniversary Stingray and it's great - in fact I've had basses from the 80s (pre EB) from new - unfortunately sold - 90s, 00s and 10s - they're all rock solid live and recording basses so I would say there is no duff period. The golden years depend on what floats your boat - certain colours are from certain periods only (eg pastel colours 2010-11 Classic Ray/Sterling only) - highly figured necks are late 80s- early 90s or current model Classic Collection (2010-date). Different people will have different views. But if you want a slab body, two band natural Stingray with a maple neck like Bernard Edwards you can order one as standard production, which in my book is a cool thing to be available.