Misdee

I was about in those days and remember only too well what things were really like.The  mid - to - late  1970's in Britain is not a time I am particularly nostalgic about, for all kinds of reasons.  School disco dancing exhibitions would be one of those reasons.

I also remember the BritFunk movement all too well. Sorry to say it, but much of that music was a second-rate imitation of it's more sophisticated American inspiration. Listening back now, most has not aged well. A very notable exception would be the Average White Band. They were one ( perhaps the only one ) of the very few British bands who were playing  funk/soul music in such an authentic and convincing manner that they enjoyed great success in the USA. They were also notable in that they attracted a multi-racial audience in America - a phenomenon far less common in the 70's than now.  American listeners thought AWB's music sounded just as good as it's US equivalent.

Also, it is my recollection that people were well aware of the  jazz funk and soul music that was coming out of the USA during that era. It certainly wasn't like today where you can go on Youtube and get slapping lessons from Victor Wooten, but records featuring bass techniques like slapping were everywhere. When I had my first bass lessons in a provincial town in the North of England about 40 years ago, the chap giving me tuition knew all about slapping and his technique was perfectly legitimate and correct. It might not have been the information age we live in now, but players still had enough ingenuity and know-how to work out how to play new techniques. In fact, I would venture that musicians were actually better at working out things by ear precisely because  they weren't being spoonfed as they are today.

To be fair, this bass actually looks better than the legitimate AVRI 74 sunburst. It's a nicer  'burst and the tort plate makes it look like an early 70's model. It will not have any negative effect on the resale value.

I've got one of these basses and they are smashing instruments. The chunky neck feels good and is surprisingly easy to play, probably due to the very narrow nut width. The 74 pickups sound suitably nasty too.

Hope you get a lot of enjoyment from your lovely new bass.

3 hours ago, drTStingray said:

Interesting - I would agree they sound fat on a Stingray (as do flats generally) - I tend to compensate with the EQ setting.

To be fair the Reflex and 25th Anniversary are very different basses from the Stingray, with their Bongo inspired 4 band EQ and multi mode (active/passive/series/parallel).  Did you try it in passive with the TIs? 

Ive heard people rave about using flats on both MM Bongos and especially the passive Cutlass/Caprice basses.

I guess as with everything, our ears are differently tuned and one person's utopia can be another's anathema. 

Flats on a Stingray, you can't really go wrong. It's such a classic sound. It was a revelation to me when I realised that Bernard Edwards was using flats back in the early days. I had just presumed he had a really good muting technique! So I was expecting great things from the bridge humbucker on the 25th Anniversary. Unfortunately, the bottom end on that bass is so massive that it is a bit too much for my taste with flats, even ones as articulate as the Thomastiks.

I've no doubt that the Thomastiks  on a Stingray Classic are indeed a match made in heaven. Flats on a Bongo is an interesting proposition. That might work!

Like many others before me on this thread, I would recommend thinking long and hard before parting with your Wal.

I long for a Wal every time I hear Alan Spenner playing Roxy Music. Takes me right back to those days!

If you fancy trying something a bit different from what you already have, what about a used Yamaha BB2024 or 2024X? I have seen them for sale at very reasonable prices on Basschat, and in my opinion they are instruments of the highest order ( I own both). They are similar to a Wal in so much as they have a very strong and consistent midrange tone, although both basses have a distinctly unique sound all of their own.If weight is a priority, the 2024 is significantly lighter than the X version.

 I know it's not a Stingray, but I tried a set of Thomastiks on a 25th Anniversary with a humbucker in the Stingray position and they were mainly a bit of a disaster. The sound was so thick, for want of a better term, that I felt that I couldn't hear myself properly. I love those strings on a Fender, so it was quite a surprise and disappointment when they bombed on the Musicman. I suppose it just shows you  how you can never really tell until you try it.

I would say What is Hip? is not a simple or easy bassline in most people's estimation. Like just about everything that Rocco plays, to make it accurate and convincing (and to keep it properly in time!) is a lot harder than he makes it look. 

There are so many basslines that are much harder to execute properly than you might think on first hearing. A classic example would be Gimme Some Lovin' by the Spencer Davies Group. The slides under the chorus have to be bang on or it will never sound tight. I've heard so many bands cover this song and make a pig's ear of it by being complacent about it's simplicity.

To echo what others have already said, there really can be no right or wrong when it comes to nut widths, just personal preference. And that preference can be as much a result of an individual's physique as any technical or musical considerations. I can't play a 1.75in traditional P Bass width very well because i've got little hands. 

Another consideration is that different nut widths/neck profiles make you play differently. When I pick up my Fender Precision with  a1.625 nut width it puts me in a different frame of mind from when I play my USA Lakland 44-64 P with a very slim Jazz profile neck and skinny nut width. A wide nut tends to make people play a P Bass in a more traditional manner, if you follow my drift (and yes,I know that is a sweeping generalisation and you can find plenty of exceptions to that rule).

19 hours ago, Misowaki said:

Fairly certain it came as natural, plenty of marks on the body to suggest that.

 

That does indeed look like the original finish. If everything else is kosher then you have definitely got a bargain, considering what  prices 70's Fenders are trading at nowadays. 

I'm sure I speak for other Basschatters of senior years when I say that I cannot believe the price P Basses from this era are now commanding. Thirty years ago they were hard to sell for £200. I know because I was trying to sell a couple! Things change and the world has moved on,I suppose.

Anyhow, looks like a lovely bass at a very fair price and I hope you get a lot of pleasure and a lot of fun playing it.

Just out of interest, does anybody know which shops charge which rate of commission for selling bass gear? I would expect there are some that charge more than 15%. I would be very surprised if anywhere charges less, but I'd be interested to know. 

I think 15% is entirely reasonable commission for a shop to charge. As the saying goes, a fair exchange is no robbery. Both parties are getting something out of the deal that is worthwhile. The shop doesn't have to tie up capital in stock, and the punter gets a marketplace in which to present his bass to the buying public. You can't necessarily blame the shop if the goods don't sell. There can be a number of reasons for that;  most usually because the item is overpriced and/or no one wants it at any price.

From the photo, its difficult to tell if the bass has it's original finish, or if it has been stripped and refinished as natural. If it has been refinished then that will approximately halve the value of the instrument as a vintage piece.

How fair a price you paid depends entirely on how original the bass is and it's overall structural condition. To be honest with you, it is impossible to tell that just looking at the photo. I'm not trying to sound negative at all - if you enjoy playing this bass then great - but accurately assessing vintage Fenders is a bit of a "detective" job at the best of times.

The BB2025 is indeed a beast! I would prefer 19mm spacing, but then again maybe it wouldn't have such a great neck profile so I should be careful what I wish for.

Regarding the BBNE2, I've never played one, probably because I am a recent reluctant convert to the world of 5 strings ( I am, very sorry to say, old enough to remember the world of bass before such fripperies were even thought of). Also, in the past few years I have been gravitating much more towards passive basses, albeit ones with supercharged hot pickups. I am sure the NE2s are great basses, just not my cup of tea. All that might change if I played one, though.

I concur with those who say that the Steinberger XL was not lightweight. It's a long time since I played one, but I distinctly remember being surprised how substantial they felt, probably a similar weight to a typical P Bass. The Streamline, in comparison, is very light, maybe about 7 1/2 lbs.

In terms of whether the Status improves on the XL design, I have to say it is probably better in some respects, but not as good in others. The Steinberger, to my ears at least, had a very distinctive tone. I would describe it as being quite dry,and even a bit hard in the midrange. That was part of its appeal. The Streamline sounds like graphite but is a bit warmer.

 Also, the Status obviates the need for the "balance flipper" and leg rest, although whether the Streamline is ultimately as comfortable to use as the Steinberger is a matter of opinion. To be honest with you, it really is so long since I played a Steinberger I can't give an accurate evaluation. What I can remember with total clarity. is what fantastic instruments those original Steinbergers were, how great they sounded and how much I wanted one! 

I think a big part of why these basses are not currently in production is because they were so difficult to manufacture. Even if Ned could buy the patent back perhaps he doesn't want the hassle.

 I finally got to have a go on a P34. Very nicely made bass with a lovely slim neck profile and a great sound, but the one I played was just a little bit too heavy for me. I was rather surprised by that, considering that the P34 has got the new lightweight tuners, etc. Maybe the Maple core is to blame? Anyway, if you don't mind a moderately heavy bass, I really don't think you can do better for the money if you want a first-rate professional quality instrument. 

They were fantastic basses. I always wanted one but could never afford one back then. 

 I find it hard to understand why somebody ( preferably Ned Steinberger) isn't making a version of these basses today. It is a classic design with a unique tone that other graphite basses can't really reproduce. I've got a Status Streamline as a kind of homage to the Steinberger. It is a lovely bass, but it sounds a bit warmer than the typical Steinberger. 

The Steinberger had a very substantial feel, despite it's svelte design, and some folks found the neck a bit too chunky. Suited me just fine, though. I remember the UK retail price in 1982 when they first arrived in the shops, ( Soundwave in Romford was the UK outlet, if I remember correctly) was £999. That was a lot of money for a bass in those days. Much more than I had anyway!

 If I remember correctly, it was around the time they were promoting Wings Of A Dove.

It may well have been on the Tube, Must have been 1983, the same year as EC.

I remember seeing Bruce Thomas playing that bass live with EC around this time. The bass player from Madness had one in an identical finish about exactly the same time.

Most of the ones i've seen in shops online are over 10 lbs, unfortunately. My eyes are peeled for a Classic in the 9 - 91/2 lb range. In the right colour. I might be waiting a while!

I cannot play any bass over 9 1/2 lbs. It would just be a useless ornament to me. Pity, but I've learned from experience.

This thread has fuelled my Stingray longing no end.  I spent much of this morning pining over Stingray Classics, all of which were way too heavy. 

That 5 string in Cruise Teal is absolutely stunning. From what I can make out, the 4 string will only be available in that colour with black hardware, and I want chrome on the 4 string! 

A Bongo in that colour would be sublime. Maybe EBMM will offer that option.

To be fair, I am sure that these new basses will sound pretty much like MM Stingrays always did give or take some very slight subtle differences. It will be very interesting to see what the UK pricing is on these in the current economic climate. I doubt we will be pleasantly surprised.

Funnily enough, I'm after a Rickenbacker too! 

More than likely, I'm going to opt for a single H Bongo (absolutely love my HH Bongo, amazing bass). The only problem is, coming up to retirement age, I feel a bit like mutton dressed up as lamb with the Bongo design. I like it tremendously but I'm worried I look a bit silly playing it.

Lighter wood is not necessarily more expensive. Employing somebody to sort lighter wood from that which is too heavy is significantly more expensive.  Rejecting the wood which would be too heavy is  also a very expensive process. Wood is bought in bulk and EBMM would be stuck with a lot of useless planks.

I cannot help but wonder why other manufacturers manage to make traditional Stingray -style basses of a reasonable weight and yet it seems to elude EBMM.  US- made 44-94  series Lakland basses consistently weigh in at between 8 and 9 lbs, for example. They are essentially the same shape as a Stingray and are made out of the same woods. 

These new Stingrays look and sound ok, I suppose, but ultimately they appear to be a compromise designed to protect EBMM's profit margins whilst addressing the increasingly pressing need to make a lighter bass for a more fussy modern consumer. The design of these basses is as much to do with the politics and economics of manufacturing as it is to do with the efficacies of guitar design.Rather than use lighter hardware it would be preferable to select lighter wood. But that would cost more. Similarly, they will have chosen neodynium for the pickup because they can adapt the spec they are already using for the Bongo.I am reserving judgement until I have tried one, of course, but to my sensibilities these basses look uncomfortably close to being a "diet" Stingray.

From a personal point of view, Stingrays just don't look right without the traditional mute bridge. Black hardware also looks wrong on a four string Stingray to me. I am in the market for a Stingray at the moment, but these new hybrids  might be a bit too much of a compromise,to my taste anyway.

These are very nice basses. The narrower-than-usual nut width seems to make the fat neck more playable. The '74 Jazz pickups are fantastic, too. I notice that Fender are offering these pickups as a separate item now. This range was recently discontinued and it will be interesting to see what Fender replace them with, if at all.