dub_junkie

I dont but my gf does.she sings out in a band and plays some guitar as well - her Ovation is called No Danger and her electric is Black baby Jesus . lol still funny after all this time

I voted for the the Streamer. Like the Spector it copied,its my idea of how a non-Fender looking bass should look

I tried a couple of Warwicks in SC Glasgow City Centre yesterday.afterwards I took away one of their printed catalogues and leafing through it it struck me how many shapes they do. I'm not asking which is best,or about woods or p/ups - more to do with the basic shape and aesthetics when viewed straight on from in front of it.so all Streamers whether they're BO or NT are lumped together and the same for each model I've listed all their main body shapes bar the signature and acoustic/EUB models. I also included the Fortress as its back as a Rock bass and was around a fair number of years in the 90's.

[quote name='Rumple' post='110580' date='Dec 29 2007, 04:38 PM']Very interestng, do you know when it's due to hit the shops? R.[/quote] The bass is due to debut at next months NAMM.no word beyond that I'm afraid. [quote name='Lfalex v1.1' post='110826' date='Dec 30 2007, 06:48 AM']I think a 3+2 tuner arrangement would look stylistically "wrong" on a MM bass, if only because the SR5 and Bongo 5 are both 4+1. Aesthetically, I reckon they'll keep it in the family, as it were. Furthermore, they'll probably be wanting to distance themselves from the 3+2 arrangement as one of their most similar competitors (G&L) use it.[/quote] you're right about the 3 + 2 I guess,I was hoping that when Sterling Ball said the headstock would be just big enough for the tuners to fit on they would maybe switch the D onto the other side of the head.still the Sterling 4 h/stock is noticeable smaller than a Ray's so I guess it'll be more of the same.

[url="http://www.ernieball.com/forums/music-man-basses/29372-poppa-sterling-5-prototype.html"]http://www.ernieball.com/forums/music-man-...-prototype.html[/url] yum yum! shame about the headstock shape/size not being finalised yet so I'm forgetting about the 20th SR5 neck on the end of this one. I think the Sterling shape suits being a 5 and I kind of like how its kept the look of the 4. apprently when the Sterling 5 is released the SR5 is reverting back to alnico magnets so the Sterling 4 + 5 = ceramic,Stingray 4 +5 = alnico. I can see a lot of SR5 players making the jump to this bass.what's the BC initial impressions? would you have liked no scratchplate or figured top? what about a 3+2 headstock?

The EVH guitar was the first MM with the oil finished neck in 1991.the others switched over sometime in '93 I believe nice bass!

I dont own a Jazz but if I did,I'd want it to look like this.candy apple red (a matching headstock would've made it perfect) [url="http://perso.wanadoo.es/tallent/gear/pics/sale/BF2735.jpg"]http://perso.wanadoo.es/tallent/gear/pics/sale/BF2735.jpg[/url] or this. maybe shoreline gold? [url="http://www.bassexchange.com/catalog/images...2066"]http://www.bassexchange.com/catalog/images...2066[/url] Jazz.jpg

I used to own a 2000 American standard Precision in white blonde over ash. it was a really lovely bass,as was the American series Jazz 5 string I had earlier this year. I'm not a fender player per se but I know that every MIA standard/american series I've tried has been rock solid.The rounded over edges,fretwork,component quality and playability was first class on all of them.

my white sparkle Sterling. Lightest MusicMan I've owned and a really great player.

[quote name='jazzbob' post='104741' date='Dec 15 2007, 07:37 PM']So before I get hypnotised by the Urge's looks (if not the slightly dodgy name) what else would you recommend for a good all rounder for under £1500? Do you have to spend a lot more for 'real quality' or can you get a rock solid, electronically quiet, good looking, narrow neck, no hassle bass for that price.[/quote] ah,you'll be wanting a s/h Sterling then which will still leave you more than half your budget

[quote name='john_the_bass' post='102259' date='Dec 10 2007, 05:32 PM']If I can afford (comfortably) to buy an instrument, be it a bass or a guitar, because I've saved up for it or made a few quid and I have no other financial commitment, then I'll buy one regardless of whether I need one or not. I don't aspire to have dozens and dozens of instruments, but if I have the money hanging around (which is not very often admittedly) then I'd rather spend it on something I'd get a return on if I sold it than just waste it. Does that make sense? I'm having trouble articulating properly what it is I want to say. I've bought guitars this year that I didn't know whether I [i]really[/i] wanted, but bought because I had the case, knew I wouldn't make a loss at the prices that I paid for them and the only way to find out if you're going to use an instrument in a band situation particularly, is to buy one and try it. Whilst you can get a feel for one in a shop, you don't know how well it's going to sit in a mix or how you get on with it over a period of time. Plus, I have a couple that I don't [i]really[/i] want that much, it gives me motivation to sell both of them and get the one big thing that I really want - in this case, this bloody idea of a 70s precision that I want. A couple of guitars is as good as money in the bank that i might have spent on nothing. does that make sense? my brain hurts[/quote] makes sense to me as.I normally have any spare cash tied up in guitars and basses.I cant save money for nothing ,its for guitars. they've helped me out on a few failed MOTs over the years when needs must. I know I wouldnt have had the money otherwise.I've a thing about double figures.that used to be my limit.but I've blown that one too - 4 basses,2 acoustics,5 electrics