4000

13 minutes ago, Misdee said:

Fair enough, good point. It's a great strength in life to have a clear idea of what you want. 🙂 Even the G&L Jazz width necks have some meat to their profile.

 

If your not a Fender- derived design guy I totally get it. I sometimes muse that my dad had, as I so wanted at the time, been able to shell out a bit more and buy me a Rickenbacker 4001 instead of the Jazz Bass copy I ended up with how different my taste in basses might have been.

I’ve often wondered the same, but in reverse. I wanted a Rickenbacker as my first bass (1980) but couldn’t even begin to afford one. My second choice - and only feasible option financially at the time - was to buy a black, maple-necked Kay P Bass from our catalogue. At least it would have had a bit of a Phil Lynott/JJB vibe, if not the Lemmy/Roger/Geddy etc thing I was really after. At that point my dad, who was a musician himself, intervened and said he’d help me get the bass I wanted as it would stand me in better stead (thanks dad!). So my first bass was a Rick 4001, which has coloured my tastes ever since. If I’d have bought the Kay, who knows where I’d have been now, taste-wise?

35 minutes ago, NickA said:

"I always set up my basses with straight neck and very low action. The lower the better"

 

My fretted Wal has 1mm of neck relief and a relatively high action.  Everything I can do to eliminate fret noise! 

 

Tbh I'd like a lower action but, after 30 years, the frets need flattening.

I love fret noise! That’s most of my sound! 😂

16 minutes ago, Misdee said:

They offer a selection of neck profiles to order. Unfortunately my L1500 was a bit too wide at the nut for me, with an overall profile like a classic vintage P Bass. If it had been more like a Jazz or Stingray I would still own it. G&L make some superb instruments, no doubt about that.

Problem is I’d never order a G&L hoping it would ok. I’ve never been a Fender or Musicman guy so it would be too far away from my preference to take a punt on. I like necks like the very early Thumbs, very, very slim. I’ve never played a Jazz neck that I consider slim. At the nut, yes, but I don’t spend a great deal of time down that end. 😉

29 minutes ago, Machines said:

 

I took my new Euro LX to practice Weds night. The singer said it was the best bass sound she's ever heard. Punched straight through without being obnoxious, this was with the Tonepump set to about 4 on bass/treble. I have the action setup so it snaps when I dig in, but doesn't buzz when playing with more restraint.

I had a Euro LX. I didn’t get on with it at all, one of my least favourite of the many basses that I’ve owned. 

I’ve never played a G&L that I’ve liked. In every case, I’ve absolutely hated the necks and and if I hate the neck, then it’s a no from me. 

10 hours ago, NickA said:

Some people play their Wals with a tight truss rod and low action so the strings smack the frets .. loud and clanky.  See vids posted by Joe Tischler and Vic Monte on YouTube and the Wal Facebook page. "The Geddy Sound". 

 

Also there's a lot of range in the filter electronics too; pull out the filter knob to engage the high Q filtering and you can pass through a lot of midrange.

 

Depends on setup and playing style. They're distinctive but tweakable too. 

I always set up my basses with straight neck and very low action. The lower the better!

FWIW I’ve never managed to get a truly aggressive sound out of a Ray; I suspect a drive pedal would help (or the Tech 21 heads I currently own). I find the Thumbs - wenge-necked ones, anyway - to be the most aggressive, but the Wals IME can be both full and aggressive at the same time. Again, a bit of drive helps. 

14 minutes ago, neepheid said:

 

That's pretty good, or at least it's above the lower end of the scale I outlined

Previous bands often played for nothing - well, maybe drinks or up to £50 - for years.😂 The current band had one regular gig that paid £400 but unfortunately the pub changed management and that was that. 

On 31/12/2021 at 18:11, Clarky said:

I suspect many bassists of my generation learned from Lemmy's propulsive playing on Hawkwind's 'Space Ritual'

 

 

That’s what initially taught me to play. Cracking lines. 
 

These days, still a bit of Hawkwind/Motorhead, anything by Yes, Renaissance, Genesis, Purple Mk 2 & 3, anything by Bow Wow Wow, Fleetwood Mac, Stranglers, ABBA, the first 3 Jamiroquai albums, Zero 7, Chic, the first Stanley Clarke album, anything featuring Jimmy Johnson, BSSM (Chilis - see Bow Wow Wow 😂), The Beatles, off the top of my head.  

38 minutes ago, neepheid said:

 

Just thought I'd check and take the opportunity to make the distinction - as I'm sure you're aware (not everyone is, it seems) it's wildly different for originals bands, you're minted if you "make it", but at the other end of the scale it's £50 after doing the promoter's job for them and expected to be grateful that your existence was acknowledged, nothing or even worse ... pay to play.

 

I physically shuddered as I typed that last bit!

As an originals band we average about £150 a gig. Sometimes a little less, sometimes more. 

8 hours ago, gjones said:

 I sometimes have to play with a pick so the action is not stupidly low

 

 

 

 

Not sure I understand this. I use a pick 99% of the time and my action is stupidly low! 

I got my perfect bass in 1993. For me, nothing comes close; my Fireglo ‘72 Ric. 
 

The Azure in the pic took me 17 years to find….
 

Beautiful bass. I nearly bought one like that a few years back, sometime after getting rid of my Pro IIE, but just missed out. I think it was about £2.5k then.
 

I’ve never found the passive Wals to suffer in terms of having ‘the’ Wal sound. Leigh “Leroy” Gorman of Bow Wow Wow has always used passive Wals and he has ‘that’ sound in spades IMO. He had a Custom but got rid as he didn’t like it as much. And although still active (but without the Custom’s filters), I much preferred my Pro IIE to the Custom I had. 

The original Energys were as per the first two pictures above. I’ve had a couple. They had walnut bodies, graphite necks and passive electronics. They came in headed and headless, 4 and 5 string. I had 3, 1 x 4 and 2 x5s.  Later on they were replaced by wooden necked versions, I can’t remember the exact spec of those, but the third pic looks right. 

That’s a really great solo sound. 

5 hours ago, SteveXFR said:

I looked up the Marshall Superbass on YouTube and nearly all the videos are demos with a guitar, just one dude with a Gibson Ripper

Chris Squire, Roger Glover (in Deep Purple) and Lemmy all used them and they’re 3 of my favourite sounding players. Obviously it’s not for everyone though. 

6 hours ago, Cosmo Valdemar said:

That was my issue. I was playing in a very loud thrash band at the time and to get the volume needed I was pushing the amp into distortion, and the only way to avoid farting was to cut the low end - instant Lemmy but not right for the band at the time. 

 

I often wonder if I was doing something wrong as I was playing through two custom Matamp 4x12s and still found the whole thing underpowered. Still, the guitar player I sold it to loved it.

I was using either an HH 2x15 or 2 x custom single 15 cabs depending on gig; I always used 15s at the time (and probably still would now if I could be bothered carrying them). Mine was competing with 2 modded full Marshall stacks and the loudest drummer I’ve ever played with and obviously I play very lightly, yet I could hear it fine. That one actually wasn’t that dirty tbh. Warm, yes, ‘rock’, yes, but not actually distorted, even at decent volume, although I never really got it much past half way.
 

The second one I owned was far more dirty. I hated it through the Marshall 4x12 I bought it with, it sounded pants. Through my early Trace sealed 4x10 though it was epic. 

On 04/01/2022 at 15:59, SteveXFR said:

 

Marshall originally intended it as a bass amp but it was more commonly used as a guitar amp because it was closer to being a guitar amp. It was under powered as a bass amp and didn't sound like a bass amp.

I used one for a few years. I thought it was great, but it was stolen (I’ve had two). I played in an extremely loud metal band at the time and never found it underpowered. I guess it depends how loud you like to hear yourself; I like to be in the mix, not standing out from it. Still, Lemmy was my first influence and my main guys are the Squires and Entwistles of this world. 
 

Definitely Lemmy. I once identified Ace of Spades on a not-very-loud jukebox in a really loud pub via the very first note. 

On 29/11/2021 at 21:13, AndyTravis said:

I’ve been told that particular guitar is a bit of a pig…

 

Also stood with Peter Green as he chortled at the Collectors Choice recreation we had on the wall in a shop…

 

ah well.

As you’ll doubtless know, apparently Peter liked pristine guitars so I imagine wouldn’t have got the ‘recreation’ thing at all.

I know he also used to complain about the original having a neck like a tree trunk (i.e. more of a ‘50s profile, unlike Clapton’s, which he liked and which had a thinner ‘60s profile, although others who have played it have actually said the neck isn’t that big). Somebody once asked him if he’d like the original back and he said “No. Look at the state of it!”
 

Personally I think it’s probably the best-sounding guitar I’ve ever heard. It’s certainly the best looking IMO. 

Sacrilege. My favourite guitar in the hands of my least favourite guitarist. 😂

2 hours ago, Hellzero said:

Except that this is absolutely not what this thread was about, but as it's a deaf and blind people world, why not continue talking about something else.

Once again Hellzero, apologies for the derailment - which I thought had previously righted itself - hopefully this can now be an end to it. I know I’ve definitely had enough of it. 

1 hour ago, Stub Mandrel said:

 

I doubt whether many successful bands don't know what their audience likes.

 

Otherwise Pink Floyd might still be playing Alan's Psychedelic Breakfast as part of their set...

 

It’s a fair point though. Post-Syd Floyd for instance isn’t that much like Syd-era Floyd. Rather than gaining fans, they could have lost them all and disappeared forever. The fact that the reverse is true I’m sure was more by accident than design. Genesis could be argued as another example, PG and post-PG. They lost some fans, retained some fans, gained some fans, but they could just have died a death. 

And when gigging at pub/club level, unless you have a fan base that follows you round or are familiar with what you do, every gig is a completely clean slate in terms of audience reaction/expectation and each individual in the audience is an Individual clean slate. How can you possibly predict how each individual in a completely new audience is going to react to what you do (this obviously applies to their reaction to recordings too)? 
 

The more I’ve thought about this discussion - and I’ve thought about it a lot over the last few days - the more it has disturbed me.
 

I started drawing & painting for my own enjoyment pretty much as soon as I could hold a pencil/pen/brush and was always encouraged to do so. As soon as I was able I wrote stories for my own enjoyment, created characters and comic strips for my own enjoyment. Pre-teen and pre-superhero/fantasy action figures, I made models first out of plasticine and later all sorts of materials, so I could play with them and act out stories and adventures, for my own enjoyment. My friends did the same (my best friend eventually went on to work for Cosgrove Hall and Tim Burton). It was the most natural thing in the world for me (and them) and I never thought twice about it, just assumed anyone else who was so inclined would do the same.

When I got into music and subsequently started playing I immediately started writing my own songs as it was simply a continuation of my natural mindset - although by this time I had like-minded friends who were also writing for their own enjoyment. We started a band because we liked making music together, no other reason. Making music was enjoyable and exciting. At the same time I went to foundation course and then Uni studying fine art. Everyone there in my experience was there because they felt the urge to create, nothing more. They just wanted to further their art, learn more about it, perfect it. The odd one was thinking consciously about a career in art but most weren’t. Hardly any of them ever thought about an audience, it just wasn’t a consideration. So the majority of people I’ve ever mixed with have created art of some sort primarily for their own enjoyment. I’ve obviously been aware that there are people who do it for other reasons but that has never concerned me - that’s their choice and they’re perfectly entitled to do it for any reason they see fit and to find enjoyment in it any way they can - and I’ll admit I haven’t had much contact with people who do it for other reasons. 
 

What has terrified me about this discussion is that there have been comments that have suggested that creating something primarily for your own enjoyment is wrong, selfish, pretentious, inconsiderate, dismissive, something to be ridiculed. That has absolutely shocked me to the core.  Especially coming from musicians, as I’d always assumed the majority of musicians were likewise creative-minded (and open-minded) people. At this stage, creating my own music, for my own reasons, is the only thing I have left in life. I spent most of 2019 considering whether or not to take my own life, and luckily (?) made it through, although it remains a daily battle. However if anyone tried to take away my final reason for living, that is what I would do. 
 

The great irony of course is that those who perceive they’re being looked down on by ‘selfish, pretentious creative types’ and object to that are guilty of exactly the same thing in reverse. 

Just now, Hellzero said:

I'm also an artist, I'm getting tone out of woods that aren't tonewoods, but woods producing tone when you'd expect they won't as they are tonewoods known for not producing tone, but sine waves you could see on an oscilloscope meaning that it's tone.

 

I love being an artist.

I do apologise profusely for the massive thread derailment Hellzero. 😂

20 minutes ago, Stub Mandrel said:

 

I don't know if it's relevant, but my brother is of an artistic bent. He largely gave up on commissions because of this. He still paints subjects that he hopes will appeal to people, and also paints things just for himself.

I get that. Personally I don’t think I’ve ever painted anything in the hope someone else would like it, unless it’s been a commission. I also gave up on painting commissions for similar reasons. They’re absolutely no fun whatsoever  and most of the time pay abysmally compared to the amount of work that is put in. 

6 minutes ago, Stub Mandrel said:

 

 

I think I've been defending considering your audience as part of the creative process rather than "allowing them to dictate your creative decisions".

 

I've interpreted your position as being agnostic to any consideration of how your music may be received; you appear to think mine has been that the artists should bow to any whim of the listener.

 

That's not mine and may not be yours.

 

But I think my attempt to further explore the subtleties of the artist-audience relationship (something I have mused on for 40 years or so) are just flogging a dead horse.

Thank you for the clarification, it’s much appreciated. As you’re no doubt now aware, even if you weren’t before, my point all along was that artists shouldn’t “bow to the whim of the listener”. Of course an artist may consider how their music will be received, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they should alter their music to accommodate it IMO, especially given different individuals may receive it differently and have different opinions about it. They’re two completely separate - although arguably overlapping - issues IMO. 
 

One of my favourite pieces of music is Shine On You Crazy Diamond, which to me is near - but not quite - perfect. Personally, I think Nick nods off on his stool half way through and I’m not overly keen on Roger’s bass sound, even in context. Now I’m sure the boys were well aware there would be an audience for Wish You Were Here. 😉 However I’m sure if I’d contacted Roger and pointed out the issues I’ve mentioned I would be told to go forth and multiply, and I would expect nothing less.😂 What’s more, someone else may love Nick’s sagging feel or Roger’s bass sound. So who is right? I’d say Pink Floyd are. 😉 

15 minutes ago, SumOne said:

I get the impression you are considering every comment to directly relate to you, I was just commenting generally on the discussion points. 

 

If someone really didn't care about having any audience to their art then I don't expect they would record and release music or perform it to an audience (perhaps they'd record it so they alone could listen to it). My point is that just about everyone that creates art does care a bit about what the audience thinks of it and it must inform their art to a certain extent. 

No, but your points were relating to points that I’ve been involved in discussing, hence why I’m continuing to comment. Although I am beginning to wonder why. 🙄
 

I don’t agree with your second point. Most of the painters and sculptors I’ve known - and I’ve known a lot - really aren’t concerned with what an audience thinks and most don’t even show their work. That doesn’t mean they don’t create the work though. 😉 Speaking personally, it’s one of the reasons I abandoned illustration, because having to fit a brief ruined my enjoyment of it. 
 

Now, can we go back to Roger Whittaker please? That was a lot more fun. 

5 minutes ago, SumOne said:

I expect that even the most avant-garde and experimental artists consider how their art will be consumed and appreciated by an audience.

 

...at least the ones that have been heard by an audience. I suppose the ones that really don't care at all about an audience would never record or perform their art for an audience to ever know about it. 

 

 

They probably would, but considering how their art will be consumed and appreciated by an audience doesn’t necessarily mean they would make artistic decisions according to their audience’s preferences. 

 
Why on Earth would someone who really didn’t care about an audience not record their music? Would a painter who doesn’t care about an audience not bother actually putting paint to canvas, or a writer who doesn’t care about an audience not bother writing anything down? It’s quite possible to do something simply for your own enjoyment, although based this thread that seems to be anathema to some. 🙄