XB26354

Sounds lovely! I read a Bass Player 5-string shootout where the testers mentioned the MTD was quite hard and unforgiving of sloppy technique. Wouldn't know . Haha, seriously, My experience is like yours - the more you give, the more you get back out. Even though Wenge is the hardest neck wood commonly used I don't find the tone has too much of an edge - perhaps the warmth of the custom wound Barts even things out.

[url="http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/WARWICK-6-STRING-THUMB-BASS-GUITAR_W0QQitemZ310137980540QQcmdZViewItemQQptZUK_Musical_Instruments_Guitars_CV?hash=item310137980540&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14&_trkparms=72%3A1688%7C66%3A2%7C65%3A12%7C39%3A1%7C240%3A1318"]This[/url] is a real eye-opener. Apparently a BO Thumb 6 is "£3400+" new. Well according to Warwick's price list from their site the new retail is £2297, and can be had on the high street for about £1800. Anyone want to buy a second-hand bass for £400 more than a new one?

That is without a doubt the ugliest looking bass I've ever seen. The body shape and scratchplate look like someone's vomited tomato and black olive pizza onto an Ikea table.

.. do you think Hiromi would give "lessons" too? I mean, if I ask really nicely?

Cheers! Every time I look at that top on your MTD Josh I get this terrible pang of envy! What's the ash neck like compared to a maple neck. Michael says on his website that it's half way between maple and wenge... never understood all this talk of MTD's being unforgiving of sloppy technique - mine just eats it up whether you play lightly with floating thumb or dig in hard. It's not clinical or particularly active-sounding either. The eq is really powerful and can radically change the tone - and the pan actually pans!

[quote name='alexclaber' post='469266' date='Apr 22 2009, 08:34 AM']I believe the Buzz Feiten system just spaces the nut and frets slightly differently to compensate for the greater change in static tension when you fret in the lower positions, hence everything's still perpendicular. Cunning. Alex[/quote] Really? I looked on the website and their retrofit kit uses a nut with staggered nut slots. Perhaps when instrument builders build it in they play with the fret/nut measurements. I must say I like the zero fret - allows a lovely low action with exactly the same camber as the frets...

18mm at the bridge. Ash and wenge seem to be a great tonal combination. The neck and headstock are really thin and, together with the Hipshot Ultralites, means balance is spot on. Also it has the first Bartolini PU and electronics I've really liked. The only bass I would get next is... another MTD (Josh where are you!!). Luckily this and the Warwick has put my GAS to bed... for now.

Fender didn't make a [b]5-string bass tuned BEADG [/b]until long after other manufacturers. It was a massive flop and disappeared very quickly. Rickenbacker invented the electric guitar - but we think of Fender as the true origin. OK? Must remember to say exactly word for word - how silly of me to think that, like EADG for a 4-string, that BEADG is a standard for a 5. Mystified what any of this has got to do with the OP so I'll bow out gracefully... Wal - a definite non-American classic.

Fender bass V - tuned EADGC. The 5-string as we know it today has a low B and Fender had nothing to do with it. The Bass 6 was tuned an octave lower than a guitar to cater for Nashville Tic Tac - not intended to play bass at all. Again the standard 6-string as it is today is tuned BEADGC and was an initial idea between Carl Thompson and Anthony Jackson. These have nothing whatsoever to do with what was developed later (and were both resounding flops). Just for accuracy...

Yeah and you're Mr reasoned argument on here aren't you? What was it you said in reply to the above - disabled or spastic? Great comeback. Having owned (to date) 12 Fenders, you can take your salt and shove it you annoying prat.

[quote name='maxrossell' post='470347' date='Apr 23 2009, 07:22 AM']Not really a model aimed at teens though, is it?[/quote] Still a Fender shaped like a Jazz Bass. [quote name='maxrossell' post='470347' date='Apr 23 2009, 07:22 AM']And once again, when you're dealing with teens, that tends to be true. The generalisations do have a foundation in reality. When I was growing up, the kids who had Fenders or aspired to Fenders played with picks, backed up rhythm lines and didnt really care that much about technique as long as the music rocked. The kids who had 5-strings or aspired to 5-strings, or six-strings, or active EQs or modern style basses, tended to overplay, to slap and pop all over the place, and generally to try to take their playing to places where no-one except a few other bass players (or Primus fans) really wanted to see it go.[/quote] Every musician that ever learned to play something reasonably well overplays. It's a natural part of learning. Acquiring taste or restraint comes with age and experience (usually) and has got nothing to do with which bit of wood you've got hanging round your neck. Who are these kids you talk about? I think these generalisations are in your head rather than in reality. It is also more due to general bias that if you don't have a Fender round your neck you're not a real musician. . There is always a place for Fender but they are not and never will be the only choice. My approach when other musicians comment on my choice of bass is to let my playing do the talking. [quote name='maxrossell' post='470347' date='Apr 23 2009, 07:22 AM']I'm not saying that one has more merit than the other, I'm just explaining why I think that people eventually gravitate back to the simpler instruments, as you say - eventually I guess most people grow out of wanting to be Mr. Technique and just settle into playing music for the sake of music. I'm also a guitar player. I used to own Ibanezes with Floyds and all sorts of other fiddly stuff, but these days I play a Telecaster. I could introduce you to thirty of my friends who went though exactly the same thing.[/quote] You seem to see this divide between musicality and technique which doesn't exist. I think you'd be surprised just how technically proficient a lot of the bass players you mention that endorse Fender actually are. As I said before, if someone is overplaying it's because they haven't learned enough, not because they've become Mr Technique. My technique is still improving after 25 years and it purely serves my ability to express myself, be that lplaying 1 note or 100. What was the topic about again? Oh yeah, +1 for the Ibanez Soundgear

She's at Ronnie Scotts London next Mon-Wed I believe. Definitely a talent on piano, prodigious technique but not really to my taste. Ditto Tony Grey. I've got the CD Brain. The first track (Kung Fu World Champion) is extremely annoying with the crappy keyboard sound. The rest is very good (and it's got Anthony Jackson so double Bass Bonus!) It's scary how good she will be when she's 35!

[quote name='LWTAIT' post='468873' date='Apr 21 2009, 06:06 PM']i think they both are and aren't. somtimes i think some people care so much about being technically good that they forget what music is about - being fun to make and listen to. so in that way, they are opposites. but also theyre not opposites because you have to be technically good to play good music (not necessarily good at deep theorey, but you have to be able to identify when a certain note doesn't sound right, and also need good technique, be able to get a good sound etc. which i'd all class as part of being good). it's a balance, really.[/quote] I don't think you can have two paradoxes in the same paragraph Oddly enough Dave Ellefson of ex-Megadeth fame put it quite succinctly in his BGM interview, basically that learn all the theory/jazz etc but also play in some basic rock/punk bands to get raw emotion. The whole point about theory is to get to the point where you no longer think about it at all - you just make music. These people that only care about being technically good don't really - they haven't learnt enough. Anyone that takes it far enough should have enough tools just to make the music that is in their head. What comes out is down to taste. Oh and ignorance is sometimes creative naivety, and sometimes just plain ignorance

[quote name='SJA' post='469547' date='Apr 22 2009, 01:05 PM']there's been a strange tip floating around on Talkbass claimed to improve low B tone- of using a short brass tube to extend the length of the B string past the bridge- the reasoning being along the lines of that for the benefits of through-body stringing (and of siting the B string machinehead further away from the nut)- the physics involved is a bit contentious as you can't alter the tension without changing the pitch of the string, but I think the way the string stretches and flexes when plucked changes in some way.[/quote] That's from the Gary Willis book "101 Tips For Bass" - he recommended using a PC board spacer. OTPJ and others are on the right track I think - solid anchor and a definite break angle over nut and bridge helps a lot with definition. MusicMan tuners have tapered shafts for this very reason. Also try pushing down on a new string just past the nut and bridge to make these break angles sit as the B does not always want to bend. Look at the bottom winding of the string coming off the tuner towards the nut - is it a straight line or a curve? If a curve push it in until it is straight. I actually had this with the Warwick. Wondered why the hitherto great-sounding B was suddenly lifeless when I put a new set of strings on, looked at the B tuner, pushed the string back in, hey presto great B tone again. Generally more of an issue with smaller shaft tuners like Gotoh, Hipshot Ultralite etc.

[quote name='maxrossell' post='469377' date='Apr 22 2009, 10:41 AM']You look at what happens with basses today: The ultra-modern, "exotic-fish-nailed-to-ladder"-style custom 5, 6 or more strings and all that, ultimately what they are is the same notion as the super-strat, i.e. you take the principle that was established with the Jazz bass and you push it so far into nerdy tonewoods and active EQ gadgetry that you can't even begin to imagine a style of music complex enough to warrant it, just like when you get a guitar that has 10 pickup configurations and a coil-split and a massive whammy bar and locking this and that and the other, and a top that looks more like a 15th century French dresser than a musical instrument. They're second-generation variants that started out with the ultra-light super-japs and went from there. On the other hand, whatever Gibson started for some reason never really happened. A few people still play Grabbers and T-Birds and you might even see a Les Paul bass here and there, but Gibson isn't really a name that springs to mind when you think "what bass could I get". Not sure where I'm going with this, but I guess that although the teen market is something that obviously needs to be catered to with the Yamahas and the SDGRs and the Rockbasses and so on, I think that most of the kids who stick with bass will eventually arrive at the same conclusion, which is that there's a good reason people keep going back to the originals. AND might I add, when you look at the signature models that are coming out these days that are aimed at teens, the dude from Green Day, the dude from Blink 182, the dude from Fall Out Boy, they're Fender Jazzes and Precisions.[/quote] Er. What? Well I guess Victor Bailey had better hand back his mahogany/rosewood/koa Jazz Bass signature then. This is all preconceptions regardless of the player - i.e. play a Fender and you'll be good, play simple music for simple people, and you're "real" Play something with more than 4-strings or no Fender on the headstock and you're a poncey show off who'll overplay. Jaco played Fenders, two of the best Nashville bass players use Warwick 5-strings. Anthony Jackson, one of (imho) the most innovative and funky players ever to pick up a bass plays a 6-string with 28 frets! Fender didn't make a 5 (used by plenty of pros all over the world) until years after other manufacturers had thought of it, designed it and perfected it. These are not super-strats. They had active eq and proper humbuckers, radically different designs (Steinberger to Jaydee to Yamaha), totally different construction methods and even, gasp, no headstock! Super strats look like strats with some bells and whistles (a testament to how conservative guitar players are compared to bass players). This year Fender unveils their first ever 6-string - the Steve Bailey - perhaps one of the ugliest Fenders ever made. Fender will be here for as long as people play bass, but they will never be the only option (if only for their cheap construction and poor quality control on US gear). Back to topic... I'd suggest the Warwick Thumb, not because I particularly like it, just remember it being a big hit at the time of release, and having briefly owned a 5, it had an unbelievable tone that would cut through anything. Very distinctive shape too (and still made today).

[quote name='Simon' post='465213' date='Apr 17 2009, 04:36 PM']For anyone reading this and interested in the Spider exercise I referred to, you can find it here: [url="http://www.thebassment.info/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8&Itemid=9"]The Spider[/url][/quote] I think you'll find that: Major 5ths are actually called Perfect 5ths Major 8ths are actually called Perfect Octaves Major 11ths are actually called Perfect 11ths

Scale length isn't the issue - I've owned plenty of Warwicks, a MusicMan, an Ibanez and a Ken Smith. They all had killer B strings and all were 34". I used DR HiBeams on all of them too - to me a better choice than a tapered string as the tone is consistent across all strings and I can still palm mute easily. I also owned a BB615 at one point and remember that it sounded great over the bridge PU with DRs. If you remember the BB605 having a good B in the first place then a change of string brand might be the answer. From your sig seems there's nothing wrong with amplification.

[quote name='Faithless' post='468601' date='Apr 21 2009, 02:49 PM']Not bad, but I prefer [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xahowfre4gg&feature=channel_page"]this [/url]video, when it comes to Mr. David Haynes - [u]real [/u]drums, I like 'em so much more![/quote] Serious groove - thanks for that!

I don't get it with Steve Bailey - he's plainly out of tune? I've listened to a few other clips on YT so it's not an isolated problem. It's not like it's a big stage with no monitoring - he had headphones on. If I played fretless like that I'd give up and play like Vic instead Love the minimalist drums!

Maybe. Perhaps it is a mistake, but Paul Geary's column is word for word the same as the second half of last month's column, with the addition of a picture of a tour bus...

So up to now we have (including a few additions of my own): Börjes Cort Dean Elrick ESP Fodera Guild Pilot Ibanez BTB ken Lawrence Lakland Mike Lull Modulus MTD Peavey Cirrus Roscoe Pulcinella Sandberg Spector Euro Status (headed) Traben Yamaha TRB I just sold a Stingray 5 that was 34" and had a great B. I've tried tons of other Stingrays that didn't sound anywhere near as nice - same electronics and pickup so I'm guessing that either the construction or the woods had something to do with it. I can definitely tell a difference with the two basses I currently own - totally different pickups and circuit both both are really solidly well made with high quality woods. One other important factor I forgot to mention - strings! I have used DR HiBeams for about 7 years now and they have the best sounding B I've come across. I tried tapered strings and while there is definition, the meat of the string is missing, plus palm muting is really difficult...

I only mentioned harmony because others were advising recognising intervals from familiar melodies (which are based on harmony, right?) My initial post also had about a year's worth of work as a general guide of how to develop the ear. Obviously ear training, like any other aspect of music, needs to be paced to the learner.

[quote name='SteveK' post='464568' date='Apr 16 2009, 11:47 PM']I disagree. It's surprising how easy (with a little perseverance) it is to apply the method to other modes and scales. The trick that I suggest is not meant as an alternative to the more "traditional" methods, but, as a simple and surprisingly useful addition... something for the student to have fun with. Associating a tune to an interval is something I did in my formative years (musically speaking) and I found it invaluable. You don't have to have your instrument with you, You can hum the intervals to yourself while out walking, sitting on a train (first find an empty carriage though ) knowing that you have them correct, getting to know the sound that they make. After a while, when listening to music you'll know where a melody starts and where it goes, and then be able to apply it to your instrument. Of course, this does assume that the student is practising all the more mundane stuff as well. Steve[/quote] I think you're missing the point about the underlying harmony. Learning an interval based on a melody you know doesn't work when you hear it in a different context. For example, a minor sixth from C to Ab could be considered root-minor 6th, indicating Cm harmony. It could also be part of a C7alt sound (b13). As C to G# it is an augmented 5th and can be part of a whole tone scale. As Ab to C inverted (or not) it could be Ab major harmony etc. I've lost count of the times a minor sixth didn't sound like a minor sixth until I'd taken the harmony into account. The method you suggest above is a bit of fun, but I stand by my statement (borne out by playing and teaching experience) that it doesn't really have a use in the real world. After all the jaws theme (minor 2nd E-F) is meaningless without the harmony. Could be E-F in a major scale - totally different sound and feeling.

Hi all, Just thought I'd post some pics of my new MTD 635-24. I recently picked this up used for a great price. It dates from 2003, has a swamp ash body, wenge liner, figured maple top and wenge neck and board. The top looks fantastic, with figured, quilt and spalted elements. Wenge neck grain is amazing too... Weight is medium - I'd guess around 10lbs. Tone is to die for!! Seriously the best bass I have ever owned. Tone is quite hard, but tons of woodiness, a ridiculously tight B (Think Warwick Thumb), very even bottom to top. The shape of the body and neck is so comfortable that issues I have had with ergonomics on other basses vanish. String spacing is neither tight like an Ibanez nor wide like a Warwick Streamer but the faster you play (and the better you can play!) the more it rewards you. Chords have a lovely full sound, almost like a classical guitar. I'm mystified what the Buzz Feiten actually does to this bass as the zero fret is perpendicular to the strings - the nut just acts as a string guide. All in all a wicked bass that shines in any style Cheers Mat

Interestingly I read in the London Paper today that last year UK bands made more money (£1.28bn) from touring than from selling records (£1.24bn) for the first time in years, indicating that most bands are having to go on the road to make even a decent living. When they do tour I'd imagine that the majority of it is outside the UK, probably mainland Europe, the US and the Far East.