TrevorR

[quote name='Mykesbass' timestamp='1485378356' post='3223572'] This version of California Dreaming - the original is great, but always sounded sunny and happy, hiding the true melancholy of the lyrics. Here, Phillips age and fragility (he died before the album could be released) really shows through. Once those Mexican BV's kick in I'm gone! [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDcaydHVliM"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDcaydHVliM[/url] [/quote] Myke, guessing that you'll find this version moving in a rather different way... was in the studio audience when this was recorded. Still leaves me with a huge grin today! http://youtu.be/Kh9bGj09Ua0

Agree with most suggestions so far. A few more not yet mentioned... Sweet Caroline (end of evening drunken singalong) Rock Around The Clock Crazy Crazy little thing called love Lady Marmalade Angels/Hey Jude (end of evening drunken smooch and singalong) It Must Be Love Long train runnin'

I use the Air Turn Manos. Quite robust and clamps to the mic stand. Only complaint is that the x-axis swivel is a little less firm than it might be. Overall works well, though with my increasingly ancient and weighty iPad 4

I think that the USP is that it can not only tap line level signals but also speaker level signals. So, if you have a PA monitoring system that that doesn't use powered monitors but sends speaker level monitor signals from a power amp then you can take an in-ear signal from that. If you're only ever talking about line level signals and looking to blend in extra bass then a mini-mixer of some sort is the (easier and cheaper) way to go.

Interesting that they also offer one of ACG's models as a special offer. I guess its a new guitar industry business model that we may see more of in future, direct sourcing from the far East.

[quote name='White Cloud' timestamp='1485205462' post='3222149'] I can completely relate to this; my Wal custom was the best sounding bass that I have ever owned - but also one of the heaviest and uncomfortable to play. I would however love another one though ...just to confirm or negate my original findings [/quote] Oooooh, beware. Paul is making some beautiful Wals and choosing woods which are both resonant and featherlight. There was one at the Bass Bash - a 5 string which I accused him of making from balsa wood. Played and sounded great too. You have been warned!

[quote name='skb558' timestamp='1485195042' post='3221995'] I hope TrevorR doesn't see this [/quote] Don't worry, I'm not (too) traumatised! I'm more than aware that some folks won't love Wals as much as I do. I can even (sorta) understand that position. After all I have literally never played a Warwick neck that I could abide but unaccountably some other folks seem to like them! I'm just thinking of the chap who bought the bass for £350 in 2000 and something. When I bought my Mk 1 Custom in 1992 for £500 I was getting an absolute bargain. In the early 2000s the second hand price was starting to approach a grand. No, I'm not dismayed that w/w sold the Wal bass, I'm stunned that he sold it for a half of or a third of what he could have sold it for!!!! One day soon after the millennium some lucky bassist got themselves a PROPER bargain!!!

Oh yeah, and Jeff "Skunk" Baxter from the Doobies (and Steely Dan), now a high powered consultant on avionics and missile technology for the US military/industrial complex, if I recall rightly. In between regular Doobies reunions.

John G Perry, bassist for Caravan, Gordon Giltrap, Quantum Jump and Aviator was the head of public relations for the UK's sports shooting federation before he retired a few years ago. Lovely bloke.

[quote name='Bolo' timestamp='1485119810' post='3221371'] Anything Donald Fagen really, most boring, lifeless tunes, bereft of any energy or joy. [/quote] Ooooh, fightin' talk!

Of course you know that John Cage's people sued Mike Batt's people over copyright infringement of 4' 33"... From Wikileaks... [quote] John Cage dispute The track "A One Minute Silence" is entirely silent. The song is credited to Batt/Cage, a reference to John Cage's 4′33″ and the Cage estate sued over royalties, resulting in an out-of-court settlement,[6] although Batt has explained that, while he was inspired by Cage, he credited the track to himself and Clint Cage, a registered pseudonym of his.[7] The court case was later revealed to be a ruse by Batt to stir up a discussion about copyright. The subsequent debate involved a musical duel between The Planets and a clarinettist from Cage’s publishers, with simultaneous performances of the Batt and Cage silences. “Mine is a much better silent piece,” asserted Batt. “I have been able to say in one minute what Cage could only say in four minutes and 33 seconds." The story was brought to a close when Batt made a £1,000 donation to the John Cage Trust, which supports young artists. Batt proposed that it should be an undisclosed amount paid in a sealed envelope on the steps of the high court, giving the impression it was a settlement. Batt claims journalists were shouting out sums, and when they reached six figures, Riddle nodded, either out of mischief or nervousness. Thus a music industry myth was born.[8] [/quote]

Youth of today, they don't know they're born. When I wert lad we had to suffer for our music... etc etc etc etc Reading this thread has given me so much pleasure in so many ways! And it reminded me just how much the cultural context is necessary to understand the culture of even a few years ago. I don't know Bubinga5's age but I suspect not as old and decrepit as some of us. How can you possibly justify Timmy Mallet? Well, maybe not justify but explain... don't forget he was the host of one of the most popular kids shows of the time so he had a premade pre-teen customer base however good or rubbish the tune was. Then there is the tune itsef. A complete zeitgeist collection of summer tunes. Remember that in the 80s and 90s when you went to Spain or The Balearics the discos and clubs weren't playing Pete Tong or Fatboy Slim they were playing these buts of Europop trash. So the Mallett tune had a built in adult audience too. There was a culture of such novelty songs and they were hugely popular and made shed loads of cash. The Timmy Mallett tune is no different to a host of others whic made it to No 1 in the charts. And they weren't designed for any artistic merit. Nope they were just designed to make CASH. We don't really have novelty songs these days as far as I can see. Even Crazy Frog was over a decade ago. Different times! I'll leave youngsters with a couple of No odds to mull over and thank their lucky stars they dont live back then... http://youtu.be/hTA6I6hn-z4 http://youtu.be/5bGQ1-Gmoso

[quote name='casapete' timestamp='1485077651' post='3220851'] One of the guys involved in Star Trekking is a bit of a legend round here, lovely bloke called Dave Tenney. Very clever musician and a great guitarist, been a pro most of his life. He wrote the song along with Tony Thorpe, ex Rubettes and himself a top player. Think they were both surprised at the success of the song. Watching an old TOTP recently, saw their band The Firm doing the follow up 'Arthur Daley he's alright'. Both dire hits IMO, but hope they made some money out of them..... [/quote] And they were never meant to be anything but a p@ss take, in a period where rubbish novelty hits was a norm - whether Jive Bunny and Stars On 45 or Captain Beaky. So in those teams they knew what they were doing and achieved it. They weren't meant to be art, they were meant to be daft... therefore I'd suggest they're not truly bad songs. This on the other hand was done in all seriousness by an established, credible artist... this is really really good compared to the album version! You'll see what I mean from 1:11 onwards... and remember the studio version is much, much, much worse/annoying! http://youtu.be/hl8BMR1VyLg And in the "completely serious, should've known better pile"... http://youtu.be/A0fuVoSa3dc

[quote name='el borracho' timestamp='1485036314' post='3220699'] My favourite Yes album is Drama !!! [/quote] Tempus Fugit... amazing riff, amazing song!

[quote name='Bilbo' timestamp='1485012785' post='3220410'] I never understood why Tales of Topographic Oceans was so vilified. [/quote] Because (and I say this as a huge Yes fan) it's one OK album's worth of material smeared thinly across four sides of vinyl... Even Mr Wakeman thinks so. It's a shame that when Steve Wilson was given the job or remixing and recutting TFTO he only did alternate mixes and an extended version using some outtakes. What I would LOVE to hear is Mr Wilson being given free reign to take all the 24/48 track master tapes and recut them into 45 minutes of stunning Yes music! Now that would be a very special "Special Edition"! [quote name='ezbass' timestamp='1485015715' post='3220442'] Rush: Presto and Roll The Bones, vilified even by Rush fans, but I like them both - a lot. [/quote] I'm rather fond of those two albums having seen Rush for the third time on the Roll The Bones tour. I can even cope with the lame rap on the title track. There are a few tracks on Presto that drag abit (Dreamline and the Pass spring to mind) but I even like songs like Anagram. [quote name='Bassassin' timestamp='1485027294' post='3220587'] On the subject of Rush, I'll raise you Vapor Trails - seems to be universally despised by Rush fans but for me stands out as probably their best post-80s work. Genuinely challenging & inventive musically, and the best & most genuine lyrics of Pearts career, considering the very dark place from which they came. The production of the original release was dreadful (a theme with Rush, IMO) but not enough to overshadow the music, and the later remix fixed most of those issues. [/quote] Agreed, there are some cracking (if raw and almost disturbing) songs on VT but that original release was a nightmare to listen to. It's no surprise that it's one of the albums that always gets showcased when people write articles about the "Loudness Wars", over compression and digital clipping in post 90s rock music. I really found it so very tiring on the ears to listen to but because of the lack of dynamic range. As you say, the remixed and remastered version is a huge improvement and lets the songs breathe a little and the intensity of the writing and performance shine through on their own terms.

[quote name='jensenmann' timestamp='1485019108' post='3220485'] Here´s another Wal, obviously mine: [url="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3y2IRHgtxs"]https://www.youtube....h?v=P3y2IRHgtxs[/url] I bought her new in 1989 for 3500 DM (german Mark). In the meantime I had >30 other basses but this one is my big love. Most of the others had to go at some point, even if I played them for quite some time. Whenever I grab this one it feels like home. Somehow everything at this bass is exactly how I like it. That surely isn´t elitism. [/quote] [size=4][font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Nice! and sounding great on [/font][/size][size=4][font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]"Fächerstadt" too!![/font][/size]

Got both of mine second hand too...1985 Mk1 for £500 in 1992 and 1979 Pro IIE for £550 in 2002. Could never afford to but one now, though!

[quote name='lowhand_mike' timestamp='1484905644' post='3219504'] ^^This. set the amp at sound check (usually very minor tweaks from my default setting) bass eq during the set [/quote] Precisely!

[quote name='CamdenRob' timestamp='1484918309' post='3219684'] The problem (and the best bit) of getting a full custom build (designed to your specs from the ground up) is that you really need to know what it is you want... what sound and feel you are looking for from the instrument. if you don't know what it is you want you're likey to end up with something worse than an equivalent bass off the shelf. If you do go for a full custom it is difficult to look past ACG for quality, price and choice of options [/quote] [quote name='burno70' timestamp='1484919343' post='3219703'] I'd recommend you look into the most minute detail of the bass you want - there's more to it than the cosmetics and electronics; weight, neck shape at the xx fret, pick up placement can be just as important. Best thing you can do is have a checklist ready with everything you can possibly think of and then have a chat with the luthier. I doubt you would ever end up with something worse than a 'regular' off the shelf bass - unless it's a crazy build, but I suppose there's always a chance that the ideal bass in your head doesn't really do it for you when it's in your hands. Although I'm not speaking from experience on that particular point. If you want to go British I couldn't recommend Jon Shuker highly enough. [/quote] This and this. You need to know... REALLY know... to the finest detail... what you want. But also be willing to listen to the luthier's suggestions on how well those options will work and how they might be tweaked to improve the performance of the bass. You also need to consider whether you mean hand-build to a luthier's standard body shape with custom options or truly custom - entirely inspired from your imagination. That's both body shape and fixtures/fittings. That will also guide your choice of luthier and the cost.

[quote name='discreet' timestamp='1484913449' post='3219611'] They'll probably say, 'You're not a lady or a non-binary person', I should imagine. [/quote] Apply. So long as you've only got analogue and not digital pedals on your pedalboard I'm sure you'll fit right in.

I've got one and I really like it - especially as I got it at a really good discount off list price! Around £550 - PMT' curret pricelooks good. It's a perfectly functional acoustic bass and was the best of the bunch I tried in Andertons when I bought it - including a £700 Takamine which felt and sounded leaden compared to the Faith. The acoustic sound is nice and the preamp - though simple (with one tone control) is really well voiced, with tailored profile at either end. As I recall, rather than just being more or less treble it has something of a smile curve at one end and sweeps through to another profile. The acoustic feel and sound are very good, esp at this price point and I use it a lot at home for practice. I would say that it is very resonant so if you do go for one then also invest in a soundhole feedback buster for live work. Makes a huge difference to the headroom before feedback problems set in. So if you want a nice acoustic bass it's not a bad choice at all - I do like mine lots. However as others have said, you could probably get away quite nicely with an eelctric bass and a small amp. You'll need to amplify the acoustic bass anyway, it won't hold its own acoustically (no criticism, pretty much none will, unless you are straying into guitarron territory). So it comes down to whether you are looking for the all acoustic look and the more piezoelectric acoustic pickup sound. And that £609 PMT price looks really good against the other shops offering it at £850+

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1484867220' post='3219352'] The problem is that the frequencies that are enhanced or reduced by the acoustics of the room depend to a certain extent on the position of the sound source and also that of the listener. So using EQ correct the problem may well make it go away at some points but can also be too much correction or make it much worse at others. EQ will get you some of the way towards correcting room acoustic problems but it's not a consistent solution for the whole room. Remember that if you could sort out the acoustics of the room completely by using EQ then recording studio control rooms wouldn't need lots of expensive acoustic treatment to give the engineer and producer the ideal listening environment. They could simply slap a 31 band graphic in front of the control room speakers and use a spectrum analyser to set it up. In fact this was actually fashionable for about 15 minutes in budget studios in the mid 80s until everyone realised that it only worked at the point at which the sound was being sampled and that the required correction changed every time the something in the room moved. [/quote] Indeed, but we all do it, don't we? Especially to get an acceptable sound from our backline amps on "stage" which we can live with/perform with ("stage" in inverted commas given the huge range of positions/structures that pass for a stage in the course of a gigging life) . Any room will have its acoustic quirks and, as you say you'll maybe get massive cancellation in one spot and massive reinforcement in another. You'd be hard pressed to get perfect sound dispersion from a twiddle on a three or four band amp EQ stage (esp at a "backline only" gig or with a non-permanent/non-calibrated sound system). But still... most of us will check to see whether we can at least partially address the most gross elements which present either on stage or in the room to get a sound which is livable with. Any further EQ tweaks from the bass will be done for "artistic" rather than acoustic/corrective reasons, taking that compromise amp/PA EQ setting as the baseline sound.

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1484586793' post='3216543'] Thanks. That particular one was made to order especially for me. At the time Simon did have some demo models that he would take to the various trade shows and would be a bit cheaper than a full custom order, but I haven't seen him at any since about 2005, so I don't know if he still has "stock". When I last enquired, about 5 years ago, that particular bass, made new to order would have cost just under £5000. I have no idea what the current prices are, but I doubt they have got any less expensive. [/quote] Those Gus guitars and basses are so very beautiful! Modern, retro, outlandish, ergonomic all at the same time AND so beautifully balanced in aesthetic terms. Remember first seeing them in Guitarist magazine so many moons ago and just staring open mouthed at the photographs!

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1484843585' post='3219030'] Two problems with this approach: 1. You can't fix what is mostly a time domain problem (bad room acoustics) with a frequency domain solution (EQ). [/quote] Ooooooh, not sure that I buy that from a physics point of view. If a room has resonances which artificially amplify certain frequency ranges to cause those to "bloom" and "boom" then reducing the input signal into the room in those frequencies (i.e. eq-ing them out/reducing at the amp) will reduce the level of the resonant frequencies in the room - the amount of boom. That is surely what people mean when they say they "adjust the EQ to suit the room"? That's why sound engineers/designers measure the frequency response of rooms in which they install PA systems with white and pink noise and then set graphic EQs to reduce (or enhance) frequencies which are dominant (or phase cancel a bit). [quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1484843585' post='3219030'] 2. And if you could, then every time you make an EQ adjustment on your bass, you are potentially negating the correction you've applied at your amp. [/quote] If step 1 normalises the sound in the room to approximate what you expect to hear from the amp in a more neutral environment all you are doing is then varying the desired tone from the bass around your approximate bass amp colouration. As anyone does when changing the tone from your amp. It's a bit like saying "Why on earth would you set up your amp with a certain setting for your P-bass and then for some songs roll back the tone knob...? You're ruining the sound you set on your amp." What you are suggesting is, say, reducing the amp EQ at 100hz by 20db (with a Q width of say 30hz) to correct for a room resonance and then boosting the signal from the bass at 100hz by 20db (with a Q width of say 30hz)... only in that circumstance are you undoing the amp correction... and, let's face it, that's not how changes in tone from the bass works.

Never ever, ever got The Doors or The Velvet Underground. I find most Radiohead totally "meh!" and would probably have quite liked The Smiths if it wasn't for Morrissey. The one that annoys me that I don't enjoy is Grand Prix by Teenage Fanclub. On paper all the elements say I should love it but I've never connected with it.