Lowender

I can't believe how some people have to crap on anything anyone presents here. Like it. Critique it. Or move on. They have to find SOMETHING to put down, I guess so they can feel better about themselves. There's no need to post Victor Wooton doing something similar. There's no need to comment on the fact that you don't like "that particular type of thing." It's like being a guest in someone's home and criticizing the food and drink they offer you. Be a little f*cking gracious. Geez, how petty. And I see it here A LOT.

[quote name='Telebass' timestamp='1373613933' post='2139556'] I'll add to that the fact that reissues and vintage are also a waste of time in my book. I just buy something current, say a MIM or MIA Fender, mod it if required, then gig it. I love basses, but they are also tools to be used. [/quote] How can you possibly have a problem with a re-issue? They make perfect sense. It all started when Fender was slipping and people were looking for the older models simply because they were better. Fender realized they had the specs and in some cases many of the old parts to the Pre-CBS models and simply reproduced them. It worked. They aren't rocket ships. They're pieces of wood with electronics. A well made 62 re-issue is essentially a 62. I can't say that's the case with every re-issue but I've played some where you honestly could not tell the difference. So if you like that, why ignore it? On principle?!?

[quote name='cameltoe' timestamp='1373524331' post='2138502'] Oooh get you! [/quote] You thought that was bragging? LOL. No man, I was just a kid with limited skills like a million other kids. And that's essentially what most of those riffs sound like -- just something that some unskilled kid would play.

The tuners on mine are just fine. In fact, everything is just fine. What's the point of getting a good bass at a great price to wind up spending hundreds of dollars more?

Some cool things in there, but honestly most of that stuff sounds like a collection of riffs I came up with the first week of playing bass.

[quote name='The Dark Lord' timestamp='1373476053' post='2138100'] Yeah. It's entertainment, not a music exam. [/quote] Who said anything about a music exam? Unless you're insinuating I only like snobbish, elitist music. Not so. That band just seems very pedestrian. If you like it, it's fine. I liked "The Hangover" but I wouldn't call it brilliant filmmaking.

[quote name='Prime_BASS' timestamp='1373494878' post='2138381'] Interesting. But the Roadworns are MIM, AMD nothing from their is nitro finished. The Highway ones are though, and are only over the boarder. [/quote] So you;re saying that the Roadworns are just MIM's? But MIM' are poly?!?

As for buying the road worn as opposed to doing it yourself, yes, there certainly is an artistic element. There's a difference between one that looks antique and one that looks like it was scratched on purpose. I guess I see it like a tattoo. If I could give one to myself one that'd be fine, but I don't want to walk around with someone else's artwork on me. And nobody seems to know the answer to the question -- what is the model they start with?

Real quick -- a comparison view on reliced basses. In my flat, I have a brick wall. I like that look. But the brick isn't actually in the wall. I brought a brick wall from a movie set -- which looks fine on camera but close up it's a little too "perfect." So I "reliced" it. Added some morter in between the rocks. Scuffed and chipped a few. Put a little stain here and there. A random smudge. Now, if you walked right up to it, you would not know it wasn't a real brick wall. Am I being deceptive? Am I trying to fool people? No, I would gladly tell anyone what I did. I just like that rustic look. That's the way I see reliced basses. If you like that look, you're entitled to have it. BUT... Whereas I see one as an art project, I see a pre -reliced bass off of an assembly line that looks like a thousand others is kinda lame. (Sorry). So I was wondering -- what model bass do they start with before the "relic?" It's not a MIA, that's for sure. And are we expected to pay for the scratches? I guess my point is -- if there's an additional cost to a road worn bass, why not just start out with what they start out with? Do the antiquing yourself, save some money and have your bass more personalized. It just seems to make sense. Does anyone know?

Brilliant? Really?

[quote name='Lo.' timestamp='1372965429' post='2132287'] This.... [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZbRXyeRr_I[/media] ....but well worth the humbling.... [/quote] In 1980 I thought this was so hip. Now it seems corny as hell.

I think they're horrible and I'm amazed they're still around. They were meant to be the best of both words -- the brightness of rounds and the smoothness of flats. But they're actually the worst of both worlds. They aren't really bright and they aren't really smooth. In fact, they have a "drag" about them. They feel rough. If you want a less zingy sound that can still be used for slap and are easier on the frets, go with Nickel rounds.

No comparison. The VM are fine for the price. But they're budget instruments. The CV are far better quality -- not quite as good as an American standard but at least as good as a MIM for about half the cost.

Oddly enough, his touch is pretty poor in that vid. It is NOT the Portait of Tracy version he recorded. Then again, that was many spliced sections.

I've never felt I needed a fret job. Vintage frets are fine, worn down, and slapping is best on jumbos, which last forever. I used nickel strings on a Music Man for 15 years and the frets are fine. I gave it one grind and polish in 20 years. . As for set ups, it amazes me how people think it's a specialized skill. Most anyone can learn to do it in 5 minutes.

Sometimes a great song can survive a bad lyric. "Something" by George Harrison is a good example of a great melody and a horrible lyric. Sometimes a great lyric is enough to make a so so melody seem powerful. "It Was a Very Good Year" is a good example. Some standards are better without the lyrics. But to say lyrics don't matter is shutting off a big part of ones creativity, empathy, artistic sense, expression and approach to music.

We're an American Band. : )

I've spent many years working on this formula. I finally got it down to owning all the basses that sound like no other and none of the basses that are just "variations" of those sounds. The list, for me, is as such... P J MM Rick Fretless Ibanez Hofner Obligatory 5 string upright And the Squier Deluxe active J (Yeah, I know -- an odd choice, but a wonderfully unique instrument).

What's Going On isn't a line. It's a bass symphony. As for the list ...it's just a stupid list. Anyone can compile a list of songs that feature an instrument and call it "the best." And people will get in line to debate it.

[quote name='Lozz196' timestamp='1371597515' post='2116122'] I always drop lows, add mids, and leave highs flat. Seems to get that "thwack" that`s required. [/quote] As a producer, engineer and drummer, I believe in the exact opposite of this. Low mids give a kick drum "woofiness" and high mids make it sound like cardbord. Pump 60 hz for depth and 4K for snap and scoop the mids. .

1: The juke box at the pizzeria had a blown horn so all that came out was bass. And I liked it. 2: I saw a band that was keys, bass and drums and the bassist played all the guitar parts and I thought it sounded great. 3: I heard The Yes Album.

It's certainly good for what it is, but what it is isn't particularly interesting. An extended set tempo jam in E can be limiting. He executes it well but it's basically a series of generic licks stuck together. This style was popular in the 70's-- busy rhythm playing will lots of fills. It goes with the stache.

Of course it's the player. A good player with a crap bass will sound better than a crap player with a good bass. But different basses just give tonal variety. As a recording bassist, I like that option. And it can really make a difference. Play straight ahead jazz with a P and you're convincing. Play it with a Music man -- not so much. And the opposite is true. If you want to sound like Flea and you're using a Squier 50's P -- it ain't gonna happen.

[quote name='KevB' timestamp='1371038661' post='2108917'] Also never underestimate that if an experienced soundman is constantly hearing different bands in the same venue he'll have a far more initmate knowledge of any odd aspects of how the arrangement of that venue's fixtures and fittings can have on the FOH sound than you will if you've never played there before. Has to be a large element of trust on both sides. [/quote] Interesting -- so I'll offer this point up... If you're in a bad sounding room, (no soundman, just a gig) how much can you really "EQ" a bad room to sound good? I've found that it makes almost no difference. I was a bandleader and brought and ran the PA to gigs for years and from to room I learned that the same EQ pretty much worked for that system no matter where we played. The sound of the room is the sound of the room. You just need to make sure there are no peaks. It ain't exactly rocket science. The same goes for a soundman. What is he really doing from room to room and band to band. Often, it's fiddling with knobs because he doesn't know what EQ sounds good in the first place. Whenever I've played major halls, the soundcheck took just minutes because the soundmen knew the room, knew what EQ each instrument needed and knew the equipment. It all changes anyway when the band breaks down for the next act or when people fill the room. Adjusting to that , should take a few seconds -- if you know what you're doing.

[quote name='Mr. Foxen' timestamp='1371034512' post='2108824'] If musicians have a big problem with how the sound engineer works, they are welcome to pay their own one to come to the gig with them. If your band doesn't suck, and you're not a dick, then they might even do it quite cheap. [/quote] There have been many times I would gladly not used a soundman. If you're a pro, you should know how to get a decent sound for playing in a pub!