4000

I recently played an SR506 in the Gallery and it was one of my favourite basses in the shop (and I playing everything I can lay my hands on) despite the minimal price tag. Absolute steal of a bass. Light, comfortable, fabulous neck, nice tones and cheap as chips; what's not to like?

Why do I suspect the subject of Jeff's trainers is going to come up? (that really did have me crying, much as I respect Jeff as a player..)

Why is it a guitar player playing bass? More notes? Different technique? Why can't you play more notes or use those techniques on a bass? What would a bass player play it like? So far as I'm concerned it's all valid, as long as it fits the context of the music. When you're playing on your own, [i]anything[/i] is valid. It's a musical instrument; do with it what you will.

[quote name='karlthebassist' post='449723' date='Mar 30 2009, 06:01 PM']I've got an old Aria Pro II that's as light as a pack of fags. Don't know if that's true of all similar Arias, but I remember playing a what I think was a SB1000 and that was very light too. Loooovvvveryl neck. Sounded ace too. May be worth a look.[/quote] Pretty much all the SBs that I've played (quite a few, I was around when they first came out) have been [i]extremely[/i] heavy.

[quote name='crez5150' post='449433' date='Mar 30 2009, 01:15 PM']I'm suffering greatly at the mo with my back.... (anyone wanna buy an Eden Metro and extension cab) and I've found Swimming to be the best medicine by far.... really helping at the mo!![/quote] Swimming (along with many of the exercises mentioned) actually aggravates many of my problems so be careful.

Depends what's causing your backache. I have prolapsed cervical and lumbar discs (amongst other things) which are causing nerve root compression; I'm currently seeing a neurosurgeon and hoping to avoid surgery. I just sold my Alembic (which took me 20-odd years to get) and my Rick CS for exactly the same reason. Doing what you can to strengthen your core muscles is good, but I'd simply go lighter; some things are just more important. Weight-wise something like Ibanez or certain Status basses (eg Streamline) would be an option, or you could consider having something made.

My new Sei Flamboyant 5 (bought used last week).... ...and the same with my Series 2 singlecut.

Great looking bass Dave. Congrats! Hope I get to come and hear it some time; I'm intrigued!!!

[quote name='tischbein' post='446149' date='Mar 26 2009, 04:19 PM']I think Stuart had enough dough to have a custom job made.... but those songs mentioned don´t sound fretless to me. Even though, there is quite some distortion, so who knows??[/quote] I've read an interview where he said he originally played Manifest Destiny on a fretless but they scrapped it because JK had a hard time singing against it. Could be the bass on the scrapped track I suppose. FWIW, whilst the OP might not care if Zender played it there are probably people out there who do; he has a lot of fans.

[quote name='Telebass' post='445439' date='Mar 25 2009, 09:20 PM']I'm one of they who think the vintage thing is pure nonsense. Talking Fender here, they weren't at [i]any[/i] time in their past, built better than they are now. A lot of the jobs done by hand then are still done by hand now. Sometimes still by the same people. I've owned what would would now be vintage Fender basses, and, without any doubt, my Mexican P is the equal of any of them. My Japanese 51RI smokes the lot. I had a 68 Jazz for a while. It was a complete POS. Followed that with a 69 Telecaster Bass. Totally awesome. Yet the 51RI is better still. And most certainly better built. The one nice thing about some, repeat SOME vintage basses, is that they do feel nice to play. They're nicely worn in. But most decent instruments will feel this way after three hundred gigs or so! There's also a reason you find really clean vintage stuff sometimes - they were often dogs, and rarely got played. Buy a modern instrument with confidence, even (or especially?) Fenders. There's nowt whatever wrong with them, and it makes zero sense to fork out megabucks.[/quote] I certainly don't think all vintage guitars are better (I've played some absolute dogs) but what I do know is that for my purposes my 1972 Rick 4001 smokes any later Rick I've ever played in terms of tone. As ever, YMMV.

Niiiiiiiiice. With the full width transitional inlays it has (not quite as collectable as the crushed pearl but close) I'd probably expect over £2k these days, depending on condition. New 4003s are going for £1600!

[quote name='jonsmith' post='435426' date='Mar 15 2009, 07:10 PM'] (Actually, I might just have heard that one before.) Found a picture of John Entwistle's potatohead 8 string on the RickResource Forum: [url="http://www.rickresource.com/forum/download/file.php?id=10260&mode=view"]http://www.rickresource.com/forum/download...0&mode=view[/url] Looks like the bass string is the first one you would hit. Apparently the reason the standard 4008 and the 4003s8 had same size tuners for both strings was so that the owner could decide what way round to put them. I'm guessing that the nut was cut in a way that encouraged a particular choice, but perhaps 4000 can confirm? Oh, oh. Thread drift...getting back to Chris & Fenders, here's the front of the auction for Chris's Tele: [url="http://www.liveauctioneers.com/item/5548694"]http://www.liveauctioneers.com/item/5548694[/url][/quote] Indeed, you're correct about the tuners on the 4003s8. The nut on the 4008 was supposedly cut the opposite of the 4003s8. The 4008 had the octave string before the normal string (so if playing upstrokes you'd hit the deeper string 1st), whereas the s8 had it the other way round, although Entwistle's seems to be the same way round as my s8 was. Maybe he changed it, or maybe the 2 potatoheads were the same as the s8s but not the 4008, or maybe the "supposed to be" is hogwash. There are others on the Rick Resource Forum who would know more. I honestly can't remember....old age you know. [url="http://www.rickresource.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=387035&p=515024&hilit=4008#p515024"]http://www.rickresource.com/forum/viewtopi...it=4008#p515024[/url]

[quote name='ARGH' post='437008' date='Mar 17 2009, 10:53 AM']A player sounds like the player they are,be it on a J or a Ricky or a Warwick or a P.....A is A regardless of how its produced.[/quote] You obviously haven't heard me play different basses (particularly Js).

[quote name='Crazykiwi' post='436991' date='Mar 17 2009, 10:38 AM']Just to clarify, do you mean differences between ash and alder? Or do you mean that ash and alder sound different to other woods? I A/B'd two stingrays with different anchoring and they sounded the same to me. I've also made one post where I described at length my experiences of the two systems but someone's deleted the thread from what I can see and not put it on wiki. I really can't be arsed typing it all out again apart from saying the string vibrates between two points - the nut and the saddle. What happens either side of that is largely irrelevant. All IMO of course. Also on the subject of wood and 'growl' there's this too. [url="http://basschat.co.uk/index.php?s=&showtopic=32715&view=findpost&p=339845"]http://basschat.co.uk/index.php?s=&sho...st&p=339845[/url][/quote] I once had a Washburn bass that had optional through-body stringing. Sounded different to me and in those days I knew nothing about anything; didn't know whether it was supposed to sound different or not.

[quote name='ARGH' post='436839' date='Mar 17 2009, 03:17 AM']In theory you can have anything as a core or a top,it just depends on if the maker can actually get the stuff...and is willing to work it into what you want,something like Zebrano,is going to be harder to work with,though not impossible,compared to Mahogany,or Maple......weight might be an issue to,but there isnt a hard/fast rule on what is going to be heavy,what is going to be light in weight and ease or difficulty to work with.[/quote] My second Sei bass had a zebrano body with a buckeye top. Wasn't especially heavy.

Yes, I believe the potatoheads had the opposite stringing to the 4003s8 (I had one of those; great, great bass).

Sounds like a great gig to me. I don't if my memory would be up to some of the stuff though!

[quote name='OldGit' post='434545' date='Mar 14 2009, 12:37 PM']Yeah I know .. as a Yes fan of many years (well of the first eponymous album to Close to the Edge anyway) I've heard this.. but imagine if they fitted the song AND made sence.[/quote] Jon fitted his words to the music; they were never really supposed to make sense, and I feel are all the better for it. I love his lyrics actually; to me it's one step above the normal narrative; lyrics as Fine Art.

[quote name='jonsmith' post='434537' date='Mar 14 2009, 12:29 PM']I'm pretty sure that Chris used the Jazz on Parallels live as well, at least on the GFTO tour. His old Tele bass was stolen (Chris mentions this on the Fish Out Water DVD), but has recently been found at auction and bought by a friend of his. Small correction to an earlier post - he didn't use the Jazz on Roundabout in the Relayer era, but an 8 string Rickenbacker.[/quote] Absolutely correct; Chris used the Jazz occasionally and on Parallels both live and I believe in the studio. I've been informed that the low part in The Fish is Jazz Bass as well. Possibly my favourite part ever...I believe Vincent Gallo was the one who bought the Tele Bass, as well as Chris's old 21 fret Rick (used to record the Yes Album). He has indeed used Laklands occasionally since (as well as his Mouradian, Eric Ranney 8, Carvins, Tobiases, etc). Not exactly a shock him using a Fender as I've seen quite a bit of footage/photos of him using the Telebass around the turn of the 70s (see the pun there? ).

I used a mate's 3eq at rehearsal the other week through an original Ashdown Klystron 200w 1x15 combo, and I thought it was great. Didn't really lack anything soundwise, and certainly wasn't thin, although it obviously had a different sound to the '75 P I also used. It was fat with a bit of growl and twang; I kept the controls almost flat and just added a bit of mids. Seemed to suit the 15 really well though. FWIW the passive OLP I had briefly was extremely fat, one of the fattest-sounding basses I've ever owned although from the comments I've read that seems atypical. I used that through the same rig.

[quote name='ARGH' post='428967' date='Mar 9 2009, 12:09 AM']I have to say,the amount of people working on an 'Older' Warwick,would have been the same in number as Alembic. Can we define 'Custom' please...is it a bass designed,in an original body shape,with electronics fitted as you wish,be they in house or company made.neck/body/headstock all hand carved....neck to your specs,as is the hardware...its an instrument made for you...a...one off shall we say. or is it a 'Model' with options? The latter isnt custom to me,not totally.... (waits for that to be taken out of all proportion)[/quote] Using that argument (which is a perfectly valid one), there are very, very few true "custom" builders out there. Generally that would exclude most Alembic, GB, Sei, Fodera etc etc etc. although a few of each would creep in (certainly there are a few one-off Alembics out there). Most of the people considered custom builders still have certain body styles as a starting point. To the man who preferred his Thumb to the Alembics he's tried, that's exactly as I would expect as we're all different with different requirements. No one bass is right for everybody. One thing to bear in mind is that Alembic (in common with some other custom builders) will build you any non-copyrighted body shape, and will make a neck to your exact measurements/dimensions and choice of scale length. The only thing you have to have is a neck-through or set neck (they don't do bolt-ons) and you have to use their electronics (of which there are many types). Otherwise anything goes.

[quote name='bassace' post='428233' date='Mar 7 2009, 09:12 PM']10k - but how well do you play?[/quote] As long as you've got the money and it brings you pleasure, it doesn't matter a jot.