Misdee

There's nothing wrong with the bolt-on Thumb, it's just slightly different in certain aspects to the neck-thru. There might well be a good reason why Warwick have made those slight changes for the bolt-on version.

So many bass makers are gone recently, Modulus, Pedulla, Vigier, Status, and now G&L. Myself, I don't see any of the newer makers as offering worthwhile alternatives to what those established brands offered. I know Wal are still going and turning out better basses than ever but last I heard it was a six year wait, so in practise you can't really buy a bass from them either.

What happens when crap bands go unchecked? Worst case scenario- Coldplay, that's what happens.

I agree! Despite all I have said, I'm still a sucker for a nice Thumb Bass. I could see me ignoring all good sense and buying one like that example. I once nearly inadvertantly got given one by the Bass Centre in Wapping when I bought a gig bag and someone had very thoughtfully left a brand new Thumb fretless inside. For a moment I thought they might have been so impressed by my playing they were forcing an endorsement on me. However, honest to a fault, I alerted the shop to their generous oversight and gave them their bass back.

If you enjoy it and you can play on it okay then that's all that matters. I really like the sound and appearance of Thumb Basses but I can't play very well on them so I've never bought one.

I've got a 4HH Bongo and it's a beast of a bass. It's got a unique character that I love, and a lot of folks who criticise the looks have never seen on in the flesh. I think it's a beautiful design, and I have done since the first time I saw one at NAAM. I like basses that sound obtrusive, and the Bongo certainly fulfils that brief. It's such a great sound, especially for modern music that's sonically very dense because it cuts through so well. The dual frequency mid controls are really useful in that respect. It's also got massive bottom end that can compete with guitars, synths and electronic drums. I think the problem for EBMM with the Bongo has been that it has an unapologetically modern sound and design in an era that is preoccupied with retro and vintage-inspired gear. If that bass had come out in the mid-1980's when modernity was all the rage then they would have sold loads of them. It's a design that's ahead of its time but behind the trend, if that makes sense.

I've wondered that too. It's not because it rectifies any of the problems with the neck-thru design because both versions are very uncomfortable to play if you're used to a more conventionally-proportioned bass. To play a Thumb you've got to love them, because there are so many drawbacks regarding the ergonomics. Still a great sound, though.

You might well be right; I'm getting too old and confused to understand what young people really want. (That was the basis of my defense in court, anyway.) That whole math rock, new metal thing is unlistenable for me so I don't pay too much attention In terms of sales numbers I have no idea, but traditional designs still seem to proliferate in the mainstream.

It only makes sense for Fender to buy G&L if they keep it separate entity. Migrating features of G&L instruments to their Fender counterparts would be a monumentally silly thing to do for lots of reasons. In terms of marketing G&L is an entity in its self with a profile that Fender could easily improve. It would only take a bit of razmatazz and a couple of big name endorsements to get players interested in buying G&L instruments again. To undertake creating some kind of Fender-G&L hybrid and making it successful is a much more difficult undertaking. Consider that Fender have never had an active bass that could rival the L2000, for example, and if they brought one out now it would be a hard sell to a conservative consumer base. Much better just to promote the existing model from G&L. . There's something a bit exotic about G&L, what with their history, their innovative designs and the interesting players who've played them in the past. Fender must surely have the wit to see what an opportunity this is to resurrect a potent brand. In football terms, their clean through on an open goal, all they need is but if clever marketing to put the ball in the back of the net

I'd be honest and tell them what I really thought from the get-go, in a discreet but frank and honest way. Your friend might well respect you more for doing so. Unless your friend is particularly vulnerable or overly sensitive then I don't think telling the truth is wrong in this instance.

My point is if you want a Bongo then one of these basses will only satisfy your craving for something that looks like a Bongo. If you want an inexpensive bass then a Sire offers much better value for money than one of these. They get much closer to their inspiration than these Sterlings do to a proper Bongo.

Are used prices going up? I haven't bought a used bass in a very long time so I haven't really been following it. That's interesting to know. I still think a Sire makes much more sense. Cheap and cheerful and shockingly good for the money. I bought a one as a stopgap and I have been flawed by how close it sounds and plays to a pro-level expensive bass. I wouldn't necessarily want to take a Sire on a world tour but if I was on a budget it's a no-brainer.

Bear in mind that most bass manufacturers have had to acquiesce to the fact that the prevalent trend is for P Basses and retro instruments in general. Kudos to Ned for completely ignoring that with this offering. There's no dressing this bass up as being anything but futuristic and hi-tech.

If I was after a Bongo but couldn't afford or didn't want a new one then then the £900 that those Sterling version costs is a major chunk of money towards a used example of the real thing or something else a bit more inspiring than a bass which essentially only has the appearance of a Bongo. I'm sure this bass is okay, EBMM don't put their name to poor products, but it's not cheap enough to be cheerful and it's not cheerful enough to be £900. £599 would be a different proposition, but even then I'd probably be looking to get a Sire rather than one of these.

If you had to point to one thing that has impeded G&L as a brand it would have to be that headstock shape. The CLF version is a huge improvement but it's probably a case of too little too late. I think they had to make such a radical revision of the original headstock design because Fender were determined to apply their copyright claims particularly hard because of Leo Fender's involvement in G&L. I would expect maybe nine out of ten players are put off G&L to some extent or another by that headstock shape.

Now they just need to find some customers. I love Steinberger but I fear this bass is a bit too "niche" to be a success. A better marketing plan would be if Ned were to manufacture a faithful and definitive version of the classic XL2 bass and then introduce new and innovative models as well as that recognised classic model. This Finn bass would stand a better chance under those circumstances. However, many years ago Ned told me there was zero chance of him ever making the XL basses again for a whole host of reasons, and that probably hasn't changed, so it's all just wishful thinking on my part. It's just that a headless graphite six string with fanned frets has a fairly narrow appeal. Ned will need to convince some technical metal dudes with deep pockets that they need to invest in his bass rather than an established market-leader like Dingwall. I wish him luck, though, I hope he proves me wrong.

If you want a traditional P-style sound and feel then the Sire is probably a better bet. The Yamaha is a decent entry-level BBC, but the Sire is a much more faithful rendition of a Fender Precision. Whether it's a P Bass, Jazz Bass or Stingray, Sire get shockingly close to the sound and playability of the more expensive basses they are trying to emulate.

That would be a dream scenario, but I expect that in the current economic climate and, let us say, governmental unpredictability in the USA I doubt that EBMM would be likely make that kind of a committment. . The tragedy is that G&L have got terrific products, a great heritage and so much to offer to the marketplace. Once any company gets a reputation for sub-standard quality it's a long way back to regain their reputation. As you pointed out Russ, G&L used to be a byword for build quality and solid, reliable instruments.

Quarter sawn necks are an extra-cost option on current USA G&L basses. A very worthwhile upgrade, in my opinion. There's also some confusion about the hardware in so much as I read on Talkbass that the Tribute basses were no longer using the same hardware as the USA models, and indeed that the USA models were now using the imported hardware previously for the Tribute series. If that's true then G&L have been trying to keep prices down by cutting corners on costs. That's never a good strategy, and smacks of desperation. If you want to be a prestige brand, once you degrade your own product it's very hard to recover from that.

I remember back in the 1980's when G&L had big glossy adverts in all the American guitar magazines with various prominent musicians endorsing their wares. Larry Graham had an L2000, and Dee Murray had an L1000, if I remember correctly (it's a long time ago.) They kind of lost that marketing edge and became a respected but not-so-prominent brand. I think one problem they had, similar to pre-EB- MusicMan, is that the guitars were never as popular as the basses. In the guitar business "doing the double" is pretty essential for long term success. There's a lot more guitarists than bassists.

I have to say Russ, I respectfully disagree that a G&L L2000 sounds anything like a Wal. I don't want to sound pedantic, but then again this is a bass guitar forum, so I'm gonna be! I agree with you on the rest, though. G&L needed to do a better job letting the world know about their superb instruments. I hear the same proposition quite often, usually from American bass players who admire Justin Chancellor but can't get hold of a Wal. My theory is that someone first came up with this notion based on the fact that the G&L pickups look a bit similar to those on a Wal. The rest is wishful thinking. Don't get me wrong, an L2K is a wonderful bass in its own right with a powerful and forthright tone, but sonically it's dissimilar to a Wal because of it's inherent mid scoop, both in series and parallel mode. It's got some MusicMan DNA somewhere in those pickups and electronics that give it a bit of a cut in a narrow band of mid frequencies, whereas the Wal has a consistent midrange presence no matter how you set the controls. With or without the filter preamp engaged the Wal has got that rubbery midrange thing going that makes them so great. The G&L might be able to mimic some of the Wal's top end and bass thump,but the mids are what really make the Wal sound.

I really enjoyed hearing that. If anyone needed proof how good Spector basses can sound out in the wild, now they have it. That band sounds tight, and the repertoire really suits your Spector basses. Great job all-round.

Was that the outboard preamp Chris? Buying an outboard Sadowsky preamp would makes good sense for a lot of reasons. That bit of kit makes most basses sound better, cheap and not so cheap, so it may well stay useful if someone upgrades to a more expensive instrument. Even if the Sadowsky preamp doesn't make your cheaper bass sound good enough to satisfy, you can keep it for the next bass. Sooner or later it will be useful and money well-spent.

How do people know? They often don't, they just think they do. If you've got a cheap bass that sounds deficient it's not necessarily the pickups or the preamp that makes it sound deficient. It could be shortcomings in how the bass has been designed and built, the structure of the bass itself. If the bass is active and has a preamp you can bypass and it sounds markedly better when doing so that can be a sign that the preamp is poor or knackered, to use the technical term. If the pickups sound very weak or hum excessively or both then they might be either rubbish pickups and or faulty. Overall, if you play bass unamplified and it sounds lively and dynamic and if you then find that isn't reflected in the amplified sound that can be an indication the bits that produce the amplified sound are not up to the job, but working out where and why can take a bit of investigation and experimentation. Throwing money and replacement parts at an inexpensive bass won't necessarily remedy your dissatisfaction.

I have a sneaking suspicion that these kind of threads are started by Russian bots, now that the Kremlin has decided to further undermine NATO by sewing the seeds of cultural conflict amongst its' bass players. We seem to fall for it every time, me included. Getting back to the O.P, I wouldn't play Fela Kuti covers because I don't like that music played by Fela Kuti, let alone anyone else especially me. But if for whatever reason I did fancy having a go I would, wearing whatever ethnic-inspired outfit I felt like wearing and other folks would be free to like it or lump it. The whole thing is ridiculous. If Slade came out today Noddy Holder would be accused of culturally appropriating a garden gnome. Whatever oppressed peoples in the world anyone is being offended on behalf of, they are unlikely to be further harmed by someone playing their popular music, probably badly. No Biafrans will be napalmed as a result of your dalliance with afro beat. These bourgeois anxieties are a symptom of having too much time to think up things to think about.