molan

I see that Fender have finally released a Signature version of a purple sparkle P that Adam Clayton has been seen with Theres also a matching J with what appears to be the same neck - 1.5” nut and a rounded C profile He had a pair of sparkle P basses made by Mike Lull quite a while ago - one gold and one purple. He didn’t keep the gold one but Fender released a Masterbuilt Custom Shop version in a small run of about 60. They then built him a personal one in purple that caused a bit of a stir after some high profile US TV performances. I cant find any official Fender press releases about them but stores in the US are taking deposits with a sale price of $1,999 so I’d expect they’ll be close to £2K over here. Seem to be limited editions of around 100 but obviously not CS builds at that price. They’ll be Standard US built Artist series I think with CS pickups (the J definitely has CS pups). I’m a complete sucker for sparkly basses and think they look great but far too bling for a lot of people

"Video has been removed by user"?

The overload light was flashing with gain set at zero? Did you have a pedal running into the effects return?

Bought a lovely bass from Alan at the weekend & had a good old natter about bass stuff and the joys of touring (him not me!). Thoroughly recommended

I spent a weekend once working alongside Roger and he was an absolute gentleman to spend time with and so inspiring. He has a great philosophy about instrument building and how a bass should sound and he's always very straight and honest about this. My NYC is one of my very favourite basses (I gigged it today as it happens). They just sound so good in a live band mix, almost no matter what the musical style or genre

Watching on iPlayer right now and I must admit that some of Jerry Barnes' playing is getting on my nerves. I don't necessarily believe that he needs to play Bernard E's parts note for note but the continued slides up and down the board seem a bit pointless and, at times, it's almost like he feels he has to fill in all those nice gaps that Bernard left to let the music breathe a bit. Without the gaps the songs seem to lose their core groove in places. Of course, Bernard was a total rhythm 'machine' so very difficult to fill in. Jerry's tone when he's just playing with fingers sounds good to me but some of the slappier stuff sounds a bit clanky to my ears. One thing I was surprised at was My Feet Keep Dancing - the middle section of this has what is almost a bass solo section in it where Bernard just pumps a robotic groove straight through and a flourish at the end. The current live version loses that groove and is all clicky/poppy sounding. I think this relentless groove stuff was core to the classic Chic sound but maybe not the most entertaining thing to stand and watch. Many songs barely deviate from a single groove all the way through with repetitive vocal lines and just the odd little flourish from bass or guitar. To listen, or of course dance, to this is great and the scarcity of those flourishes are sometimes pure joy (like when Niles comes back in after the breakdown in the full version of Good Times). The other thing missing with the live band is the string section. The horns sounded great on some numbers but another key aspect of many Chic songs is the way they breakdown and then build back up again with sparse key stabs, strings & horns over that perfect groove. The live keys sounded like it was trying to cover too much of this and, again, wasn't giving that space for the songs to breathe a little. I'm sure they would be great to see live if you're actually there but as a TV spectacle I kept finding myself reaching for the fast forward button Mind you - that's true of lots of music on TV. Too easy to start over analysing and picking holes - just as I've been doing here, lol

[quote name='wombatboter' timestamp='1498473229' post='3324775'] Paul Turner would be the ideal man for this sort of gig...and I'm not being chauvinistic, I'm Belgian :-) [/quote] Paul's 'everyday' warmup riffs are often Chic songs. He can play them perfectly whilst nattering about the weather, lol. Of course he is, to a degree, filling Bernard's shoes with Sister Sledge on tour these days

Send a message to Alan Greensall at Synergy Distribution. He's the man on all things PJB and he'll be able to help and maybe even source a replacement without too much hassle

[quote name='Jecklin' timestamp='1496856889' post='3314348'] Hi Molan, do you have any opinion on the sound of the nano? Relative volume etc etc Cheers Thomas [/quote] Just tried the Nano vs MB200 vs my 'reference' Demeter (which has non-standard valves & an 800w power amp). Bass used was an NYC Sadowsky Jazz with my usual settings of slight boost to bass & treble and passive treble wide open and a Fender Custom Shop P with relatively 'hot' pickup & tone set about half way. Cab was a Bergantino CN210, 8ohm with tweeter in the mid position. First thing to say is that the Nano feels considerably louder than than the GK at the same settings. It obviously has 50% more theoretical power but I've always felt that GK watts tend to be pretty 'loud' ones compared to some other brands. It's always tough to tell because different people set their pots to work in different ways (also the MarkBass is more flexible with both gain & master vol whereas the GK only has one gain control and a passive/active switch). Even taking this into account the Nano definitely seemed louder across the volume sweep. Playing at home both amps were capable of shaking the windows, lol. The CN210 is reasonably sensitive at 99db but it's not the loudest cab around. It does work really well as a gigging cab though. The Nano was fundamentally cleaner than the GK with all tone controls zeroed. In combination with the active Sadowsky and a, relatively, bright cab I found the treble a bit too much for me. However, this would probably disappear on stage and might even be useful. Could cut treble too of course. Good overall clean tone though, sounded nice to me with both basses and beginning to make the cab 'growl' once you start pushing the master vol. The GK has a more 'muscular' and punchy tone. Definitely sounds like some low end boost hard baked into the tone circuit. This gives an increased presence and could sound louder depending on cab etc but the Nano is definitely louder overall. Again, you could play with the tone controls on the Nano to add low end or low mids. The overall tone of the GK is smoother than the Nano. Ought to work well in a classic rock setting and would probably take to slap quite well too. The Demeter is whole different ball game and is way more expensive. Plus mine has an NOS valve in the front end that warms things up a bit when listening at home. Not sure if it makes the blindest bit of difference live but it does smooth things out for me. The 800w power stage increased volume but nowhere near what you might expect vs the 300w Nano. However it feels more controlled at really high levels. I should add that there's an internal trim pot for the gain in the Demeter that I've never touched. If I remember rightly this is set at a mid point from new so there will be more power on tap if needed - I've just never had to bother because it's easily loud enough for me. The biggest difference with the Demeter is the overall quality of tone. Much pleasanter to listen to in a home environment at high volumes. Both the Nano & GK are getting a bit harsh at around 75% on the master gain. In terms of feature set the GK adds an aux in and headphones out on the rear panel. Really useful for home practice or to take away on holiday etc. The Contour switch is an on/off affair & cuts mids. I really don't like this at all. Might work if you wanted to slap a lot but not for me at all.. Both GK & Nano have a 4 band tone section. The Nano doesn't have either of the classic MarkBass tone filters. Quite a few people have complained about this - especially the Vintage Loudspeaker Emulator. I must admit that I quite like the VLE controls on MB heads and find it can work really nicely to tame some of the high end brightness a lot of them have - can get a great older style sound with a passive P bass too. However, there's no real room for another knob on the control panel without making the whole thing bigger. Both feel pretty well constructed and tough. The Nano looks classier to me with the GK looking a bit plasticky (even though it's a steel case). The GK has the metal handles which will help to protect the knobs. I don't like the cheaper looking flick switches on the GK much either but could be because I also have no use for them whatsoever, lol. So - simple summary is that the Nano is louder and maybe a bit classier with more flexibility in tone whilst the GK adds some useful features and is a bit more muscular & rocky. If you need small & with greater volume then I'd say the extra cost on a Nano is worth the money

[quote name='Jecklin' timestamp='1496856889' post='3314348'] Hi Molan, do you have any opinion on the sound of the nano? Relative volume etc etc Cheers Thomas [/quote] I'll have a blast in the morning for you