4000

FWIW I do have The One. I just have a couple of others too. My bits on the side, if you like.

[quote name='Legion' timestamp='1330609759' post='1560298'] Your turn to enlighten me as I have no idea? Bear in mind I've read a lot of buddhist rubbish though [/quote] http://www.amazon.co.uk/Alchemist-Fable-About-Following-Dream/dp/0722532938

None of them. I picked up bass because nobody else would play it. I wanted to be lead guitarist. I thought that's why everyone picked up bass?

+2.

[quote name='Legion' timestamp='1330608239' post='1560255'] I wonder if thats the point though - do you have to play other basses in order to realise that the one you had was already what you wanted? Bit like the travel thing - lots of people travel the world looking for something, only to find that they had left it behind them. Resulting from the experience, they now find what they could not see before. Only by going, can you come back. Bit deep for lunch time. I better make a cuppa [/quote] Ah, the Alchemist eh?

[quote name='Muzz' timestamp='1330599214' post='1559952'] "I only like tomato soup - I had a tin of Heinz back in 1976, and that were it for me. All other soup is unnecessary." There's a flip side to only playing one bass: if you try different basses, they induce (sometimes even enforce) different playing styles and approaches which you might not consider after x years playing the same bass. I had a BB3000 for twenty years, and only when I started buying, trying and selling basses over the last few years did I realise there's much more potential out there if you give it a try. I'm now of the opinion that for me, there isn't a single bass which will do it all, because 'it all' is so diverse there would have to be compromises which would reduce the experience. Probably three basses would cover it, and why not? I don't listen to one type of music, I don't wear one colour or style of clothes. This is all, of course, supplementary and very much subordinate to the music itself, but the bass is a medium for the music you produce, and it can be a substantial influence. [/quote] Absolutely +1. Different basses make me play differently and in addition the sonics of them work in completely different ways depending on musical context. Imagine playing in a Hadrien Feraud style with a Jah Wobble sound (and no, I don't believe everything can be sorted via eq). If I take either of my current Rics and compare them to my current Sei, my Sei is far more modern-sounding. However the response of the instrument is also different. The Rics sound much bigger and deeper in the upper register, the Sei rounder and fatter in the lower register; both also have a very different response to touch. The actual timbre of the instruments is completely different and as I play somewhat according to the sonics and response of the instrument it affects the way I play. It it doesn't matter to you then it doesn't matter, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't matter to everyone else.

[quote name='Lozz196' timestamp='1330512984' post='1558520'] I think the term under-rated definitely comes into the creativity of the material. Whilst I agree that, for example, Duffs material isn`t particularly difficult to play, the lines he`s created blend well with the rest of the band, add to the songs well, and don`t detract from them - all probably more difficult than it sounds, considering the guitarists he worked with. Even with his choice of tone, it works with rather than against. But, without paying particular attention to his work, it`s easy to overlook his contributions, due to the more obvious GNR members. Hence him being under-rated, for the job he did. Many incredibly well known songs are even more incredibly simple to play. Many of The Beatles songs can be played by someone with only a scratching of guitar playing. That said, I still rate Lennon & McCartney. [/quote] I would tend to agree with this. I'd add that subtle differences in a player's note choice, style or tone can make a big difference to the material IMO. FWIW I would suggest Leigh Gorman (Bow Wow Wow) in a heartbeat. Very few people seem to mention him and yet IMO he's a unique player. I've never heard anyone else like him, although occasionally it's pretty obvious Flea has heard him and has indeed been "swimming in the sound of Bow Wow Wow".

Bear in mind though that his sound in the DP days (ooer!) may have been different than now. It certainly sounds it to me. To be honest IME I've always found cabs (specifically speakers) to be as much of a factor in the sound as amps. Of course YMMV.

[quote name='Cosmo Valdemar' timestamp='1330354309' post='1556044'] I will refrain from feeding the troll. [/quote] Can we not feed it something nasty? Also FWIW I have nothing at all against Precisions and really like a good one.

[quote name='dmccombe7' timestamp='1330368159' post='1556370'] That's the sound i'm looking for. Fender precision through a big hefty valve amp and 15" reflex cabs. Whow. I guess my Bergs and GB amp just won't cut that Dave [/quote] Er, unlikely.

[quote name='Johngh' timestamp='1330366458' post='1556329'] California Jam was Hiwatt 200 heads through Martin bins. He played a Ricky for a while then went back to Fenders. [attachment=101166:deep-purple-1.jpg] [/quote] This, bang on. I always used to assume it was Marshalls but it wasn't. Made In Europe is just an [i]awesome[/i] bass sound.

[quote name='tografox' timestamp='1330220040' post='1554364'] Ric - 50s design, thin pickups, rubbish tone with fingers (OKish with a pic) - Chris Squires - Precision for recording. Bruce Foxton - Precision because Rics impossible to keep in tune - look great/sound crap. Great look, great style - but if you want to play bass then stick with a P/'Ray!!! Every bass player dreams of a Ric - and every bass player goes back to a P after playing one!! Nuf said. [/quote] Hilarious. Chris Squire (I notice you can't even spell his name right) using a P for recording? Is that instead of the RM1999 / 21 fret 4001 / 4008 / fretless 4001 / Jazz / Tobiases / Thunderbird / Mouradian / Ranney 8 / etc etc? I'll have to ask Chris about this next time I speak to him. Its quite possible he's used one somewhere but if you think he used one in place of all the above you're dreaming. Pete, where are you when I need you? Never had a problem keeping mine in tune (all 13 or 14 of them). Posts like this are so funny. Its nice to know they let the lunatics out of the asylum sometimes. FWIW My first bass was a Ric. My second was a P. I went back to my first.

I use an ABM500 and have a/bd it at rehearsal with both my mate's Markbass LMK and my old Epifani head, which I had high hopes for. My ABM (IMO) blew them both into the dust for what I wanted, which was a big, aggressive rock tone. However it also beat them at just about everything else too (again IMO), although I'll admit it was a bit noisier. It just sounded far more "alive" to my ears. I'm currently looking at a lighter alternative that compares. We'll see. FWIW I've only tried a Genz once (at a Bass Day) but thought it sounded just like all the clips, i.e. horrible IMO.

I personally think that Rics are the most difficult basses to amplify correctly to get "that" sound. Whenever I've tried mine (all 13 or 14) through modern, neutral, transparent rigs they just don't work. I've only found a few amps that really work with them and in every case I've eq-d heavily. I've always found them at their best through gritty valve amps or (strangely enough) Trace / Ashdown gear. i'll never forget trying my Sei singlecut and my Ric CS through an EBS rig and a full Ampeg stack in the Gallery. The Sei sounded blinding through the EBS, but pretty poor through the Ampeg. The Rick was the exact opposite; through the Ampeg it was monstrous, but I couldn't get it to work through the EBS no matter what I did. I tried the same CS through an Epifani rig and got equally crap results, but it sounded huge through my Ashdown and previous Trace.

[quote name='Pete Academy' timestamp='1330030463' post='1551849'] I must admit that the earlier post comparing him to Nathan East was a touch daft in my opinion. Can you see Alex with Fourplay? Nathan East is one of the best bass players in the world. Alex James is a bassist with limited experience, other than the pop band he has made a successful living with. [/quote] This illustrates my earlier point about the difference in viewpoints many of us have. How Nathan East can be judged, other than subjectively or in terms of having been chosen to do a lot of high profile work (which could be as much about him being a nice bloke and very professional as anything), as one of the best bass players in the world, defeats me. What does that even mean? In terms of the comparison with Alex James, obviously it's likely he's technically better and more versatile than Alex (although who really knows?) but I at least remember some of Alex's basslines, which is more than I can say for Nathan. I'll add that I'm not a fan of either and actually can't stand Blur. I don't measure someone by their versatility, I measure someone by their uniqueness, which was my earlier point. I do however find it interesting that other people seem to see versatility as pretty much the be-all and end-all. Of course it's all just opinion at the end of the day.

[quote name='Conan' timestamp='1330094009' post='1552634'] You'll be a fan of Treebeard then... [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhUAg4gEgEI[/media] [/quote] Hrum hom, but of course.

[quote name='Cosmo Valdemar' timestamp='1330089997' post='1552549'] The song I posted just struck me as a wonderful example of the instrument - those flute-like quality of the high notes and the slightly snarly, snappy low notes. It was just a little different to the norm and also an excuse to post a great song! [/quote] This is a great description of what I love about a good Rick. People often get wrapped up in the clank and completely miss that singing upper register stuff (see the Jon Camp clip I posted). Nothing does that like a Rick IMO, and as further evidenced by the same clip, it's the contrast of those singing, bell-like upper register tones with the aggressive, snarly lower register tones that really does it for me.

[quote name='Conan' timestamp='1330079393' post='1552291'] How about this tone? [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pCw3Aw9yyk[/media] [/quote] This is great! Never heard this before. Thanks for posting.

[quote name='dave.c' timestamp='1330080290' post='1552319'] The definative Ricky tone for me has to be Jon Camp on Renaissance's 'Live at Carnegie Hall', I can't find it to link to but do yourself a favour and search it out, every Ric fan should listen to it at least once and Jon Camp is a fantastic, melodic player and much underrated. [/quote] Not from that, but a lovely example of Jon and just about my holy grail of Rick tone (along with Messrs Squire & Kilmister): [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQ_5h0SKUSM[/media]

[quote name='scalpy' timestamp='1330068564' post='1552119'] Technique doesn't equal good musicianship, nor does complexity etc. I wish I was articulate enough to sum this up in a short post, but to me that's why someone like BB King is a great musician, he can say what he needs to in 3 notes- not 30. [/quote] I think for me being concise doesn't really matter. 3 notes or 30, it's all valid, as long as the person has something worth saying (which is of course entirely subjective).

[quote name='risingson' timestamp='1330022593' post='1551668'] I'm 22 and I get the importance of this type of stuff. What I've increasingly noticed in younger and more 'talented' musicians are attitudes like the ones displayed in this thread, i.e. the idea that music is somehow this quantifiable thing that is to be learnt like you would maths for example. It's probably one of the downside of attending music schools (not intentionally slamming you blackmn90, just an observation), and one of the reasons I left my Uni course. There are too many people who will take the books they read and the lecturer's word as gospel. The result of this is a fairly contrived idea of what music is all about and this mad idea that music can be rubbished purely because of a perceived lack of technical or theoretical prowess. The best plan of action is to trust your own judgement on what sounds good and what doesn't, as opposed to what you think people will judge you on listening to. Unfortunately, a kind of institutionalised musical 'snobbery' prohibits this. [/quote] +1. Strangely my degree course in Illustration wasn't much different; at least 75% bollocks, which is why I left too. What's that Zappa story about him opening a book on classical theory? It told him that 2 particular notes (IIRC) couldn't be played together; he played them, said "sounds fine to me" and threw the book away.

One other thing: some people have natural talent for things. Whether it's nature or nurture or a little of both can obviously be argued, but some people inherently understand things that other people have to study. For some, the study is essential. For others, the study simply isn't necessary. It's quite possible to be a brilliant creative artist without knowing the theory behind something, although obviously theory can help. I can't remember whether it was Richard Bona or Armand Sabal-Lecco (I think it was Armand) who said something to the effect of "the music comes first. The study comes afterwards". When I was at school I could always draw far better than anyone else. Why? Because I drew a lot. I never studied it. I just somehow understood how it worked. I understood how to look at things, but I couldn't have told you what I was doing. I just did it. When I went to college I learnt some of he technical stuff behind it and got a bit better, but not a lot better. Others gained hugely from the academic side, but often because they hadn't had the natural understanding in the first place.

[quote name='blackmn90' timestamp='1329999393' post='1551032'] Theres a lot of presumptions your making by my posts. To address your point of playing whats right for the song. I am 100% behind that point. However, there are many many many songs out there. Each song requires something different, and a good player will have the skills to play whats necessary for the part. In some band situation for example, Jeff Berlin's playing might be a perfect. Also the guys you play who you think are keeping it simple, doing big arena tours and stuff can play some incredible stuff that requires huge knowledge of theory. I know this because i know and have seen the young guys in london play when they're not supporting and artist and are just jamming. You presume i'm not used to being told what to play...... If anything that is pretty much what i do all the time, i am very used to it and i am very comfortable with not changing it at all or changing it if it is agreed t can be expanded. In a music school everyone wants to reach their potential. You pay ridiculous amounts of money to learn what i takes to be a successful pro with a long career. I'm told that these are the things to learn so i learn them. [/quote] I addition to the above, I do feel I have to answer a couple of your responses directly. Firstly, my point was that Jeff might be great in some situations but not in others, which you seem to have missed. Playing goes beyond knowing what notes to play or what feel to use; there are such things as tone and touch. Re you post about being able to play more than you show, did you see my post mentioning Matt Garrison playing with Whitney? FWIW if you'd seen me playing in my last band, you'd have assumed I was a bit Foxton / Entwistle-esque. Sometimes I am. Sometimes I'm not. Depends entirely on the music. My statement about being told what to play was in response to your earlier post. I'd re-read what you said if I were you. As to the last point, Adrian Legg (look him up) once said something to the effect of "it's a rare individual that can survive the academic". I can't remember the exact quote, but that was the gist of it IIRC.