Belka

27 minutes ago, tauzero said:

 

Surely G♯ A♯ B. Let's not encourage this mixing of sharps and flats. Although in Cm, I suppose that should really be A♭ B♭ C♭.

The thing is, there are more minor keys than there are major (natural minor, melodic and harmonic), and this song sounds more harmonic minor than anything with the flattened 6th (Ab) and major 7th (B) being fairly prominent throughout. So to be enharmonically correct I think it would be Ab, Bb, B.  The Bb is a chromatic approach note to the B and technically an accidental here.

Quite unusual for a pop song these days

I may be wrong though.

As far as I know the bassline on 'I'm too Sexy' was played by the sadly recently deceased Phil Spalding, not Richard Fairbrass. 

Actually, the two stamps show the same distortion in the '7','5'and 'A'. (the one above is a bass sold on Talkbass, the lower picture is the one at Charlie Chandler's). Same month too. I'm pretty sure that neck is legit.

I don't doubt that there are dodgy guitars out there but in most cases the problem is actually that they are cut and shuts, they're non original custom colours, or they're stolen (or any combination of the three). Faking an entire instrument or even neck is going to be a pretty rare occurrence.

The paler padauk necks really were a thing in 1965. It's a very hard wood which could account for why it looks new. There are more examples, all from 1965 in the pictures below, including one showing a prominent unfaded neck stamp. 

Apart from the replacement bridge and tuners the rest of that bass looks legit to me. The tuners are obviously new - you can tell by the thread being a lot longer than on original pre-CBS tuners. The bridge is obviously a replacement as up until around '67-68 the saddles were threaded. The bridge on this bass where the saddles aren't threaded but are adjusted with a screwdriver rather than an Allen key were used from around '68-83.

The only other thing is the missing decals on the neck, but it does look genuine as it has the correct round laminate fingerboard. These are hard to fake as outside of Fender from 1962-1983, nobody really made them (I have seen a couple on lawsuit era Japanese Tokais, perhaps, and Fender brought them back for the 2013-2017 AVRI line. Musikraft will still make them too). 

Interestingly this bass appears to have a Padauk fingerboard, which Fender used on a handful of basses in 1965 when they stopped using Brazilian rosewood but before they switched to Indian  - this could make it more attractive to buyers.

Electronics look correct, the sunburst looks right for the era, and the scratchplate looks fine too.    

My 1987/88 Jazz Bass Special. I got it in either late 1993 or early 1994 when I was 15/16. Around 1998 it was converted to fretless but the frets went back in a couple of years ago. The only other alteration is the Seymour Duncan Hotstack (Duff McKagan mod) jazz pickup (still have the original single coil in the case). It's missing the F cap on the tone/TBX control and the finish on the bridge has oxidised badly (it was brown/olive rather than black even when I got it, but it's more blue now) but the QC on these was great so it's still good to play after all these years.

19 hours ago, Baloney Balderdash said:

Who says that?

 

I mean anyone who would would kind of not be up to date with the development for the last 10 years or so.

 

Also I don't think Stanley Clarke would play one as his main if they were (though of course that is an Alembic, still however a short scale bass).

 

I agree, to me it seems like in the last 15 or so years short and medium scales have never been more popular. I've not heard any bassist/musician of note say anything disparaging about them at all. Perhaps you do get some negativity from some clueless music shop workers, and there are still a load of stupid myths about instruments that have been doing the rounds for years, but short scales seem to be an essential for a lot of today's top session players  to have in their arsenal. 

On 15/04/2024 at 14:14, Pow_22 said:

 Thirdly ive seen a few MIJ 70's reissues that nail the vibe albeit with incorrect pup spacing.

It's worth saying that from sometime in the mid-late 2000s Fender Japan started using the correct '70s spacing on their reissues. These later basses are also a lot lighter than the '80s/90s versions, which get into boat anchor territory like the originals.

On 15/04/2024 at 14:14, Pow_22 said:

 

Honestly, listening to that on decent headphones, I preferred the sound straight into the soundcard with no DI box. The Reddi and the Minnow were fairly inoffensive, but apart from making the signal louder I don't think they improved anything, while the Caveman and the Bassrig seemed to suck all the high end out of your tone. Straight into the soundcard had the most dynamics to my ears. 

I can understand the use of these boxes when going straight into a PA without an amp, as they can make the signal less sterile, but as effects to make you sound better in front of an amp (or mixing desk if recording), IMO it's the Emperor's new clothes. I'd include the Noble in that category too. 

To be fair to the Bassrig, I have heard people demo it and it does sound good with some saturation/drive on it, but as a clean DI it's nothing special. 

I don't know if any tabs for it exist, but to help you out I think the chords are the following: The introduction is all in F7, the verses go from F, Eb/G (you play G), to Bbsus4, to Bb. The chorus is Gm, C, D/F# (you play F#). The keyboard solo is like the chorus but it moves up to Bb (technically it should be Bbm but the bass is playing roots, the guitar is playing 5ths or power chords, and the keyboard is soloing, so there's no really strong/obvious minor quality to it) to Eb, and then, F/A. There's a kind of middle 8 which is like the verses, but you don't invert the Eb chord, and the outro is all in F again, before a chromatic figure down from F to D, setting up the chorus chord patterns again. 

I've played this before. To me the home key is F - it's certainly the tonic during the verses. The chorus could be heard as being in Gm in but it's really a ii/v pattern, followed by a d in its first inversion. It's much better to interpret a song like this through more of a jazz approach to theory than the classical that most people are more used to and look at the functions of the chords rather than looking at the sharps and flats and assigning a key based on that. 

I was at the Dog and Duck last night when I saw Charles Berthoud sitting in with a blues band. It was terrible - he kept playing so many notes and was slapping and tapping over everything. He was also playing a class D amplifier that had no heft. Nobody in the crowd was dancing due to the lack of groove. Eventually the band got sick of him and invited a Basschat greybeard onto the stage to sit in. From the moment he plugged his (modified) Harley Benton into his vintage '80s Trace Elliot everything changed. The power and heft of his whole notes and the tasteful use of minor pentatonic shapes (no matter whether over a major or minor tonality) had everybody up on the dancefloor grooving away. I later saw Charles outside pacing up and down nervously and chain smoking,  a bit like when Clapton saw Hendrix for the first time. 

True story. There's a lesson for us all there I think. 

Here's mine

3 minutes ago, dclaassen said:

You just need to install Sklar's "producer switch" onto your favorite bass.....

That's actually a good point - I think a lot of producers/artists judge as much with their eyes as they do their ears. A variation on this is turning up with a nice reissue Fender and claiming it to be vintage - I doubt whether anyone could ever really tell the difference. 

19 minutes ago, chris_b said:

 

A situation he should have been able to predict.

 

Sessions range from bringing your own gear and playing what you want, to playing the notes the producer wants on the instrument the producer wants. If you see interviews with US A list session guys, they bring 5 or 6 basses, from a Hofner Club to a Precision with flats. They say they usually end up playing the Precision/flats basses.

To be fair I think most pros would be able to predict this today, a lot less so in the late '90s when I presume this occurred. Sean Hurley famously tells a similar story about working for Robin Thicke with his 5 string Lakland, although he was given a P bass to redo it with rather than being sent home.

8 minutes ago, asingardenof said:

Ian Allison also does a load of stuff on social media for SBL demonstrating how to achieve certain sounds, and I guess it becomes problematic to do that if you only have one or two basses.

True, but from what I've seen of his social media he had a large collection of vintage stuff before he started working with Scott. I remember a story he told of how he was sent home from a session after turning up with a Yamaha attitude Billy Sheehan sig and being told to check out vintage gear.

Strange as you would think that if he just played it on the P pickup it wouldn't sound that different to a vintage Precision, but that's another thing; I think these days a lot of producers and artists won't considering hiring someone unless their gear also looks the part (Lenny Kravitz reportedly sends 5 string players straight home at auditions). 

I'd hazard a guess though that a lot of his (and Scott's) recent purchases are vanity ones (Wal), as they seem to doing fairly well financially from SBL - nothing wrong with that of course - I'd certainly do that in their position. 

One thing I've noticed recently is that a lot of pros seem to also have large amounts of equipment. Back in the day you would associate pros with their 'signature basses'; Marcus with his Jazz, Bernard and his StingRay (although the first chic album was done on a Jazz and a Precision), Anthony Jackson with his career girl and then his contrabasses (ok, so that's plural, but when he received each new one he stopped playing and sold the previous ones), and of course Jaco and his bass of doom, Jamerson and his Precision, Carole Kaye, Joe Osborn, Duck Dunn, etc.

These days, artists and producers are so into sounds and vibes that it seems to be taken seriously as a sideman you need to have a collection of basses in order to cover a load of different vintage vibes/sounds. If you look at the likes of Sean Hurley, Tim Lefebvre, Ian Allison, Dan Hawkins, etc., you generally seen P with flats, P with rounds, active 5 string, Jazz (sometimes 2, again, rounds and flats), vintage mustang (or if money is an issue the JMJ sig), Jack Casady sig (or if money is NO issue, the '70s Gibson version), various other short scales with flats/tapes; Hofner, Wilcock Mullarkey, Serek, etc., then maybe a Rickenbacker, pre EB StingRay, perhaps Spector  - they seem very in vogue again. Plus others depending on the player.

Dave Swift also has a huge collection of basses, although I would guess in his case it's more of a hobby than it is Jools Holland requesting certain sounds.

All this is before you take into account their in some cases huge pedal/amp collections (Janek Gwizdala, Tim Lefebvre, JMJ, Juan Alderete). 

It might be a bit different in the Jazz world, or for people known for solo work, although Victor Wooten seems to have a huge collection of mostly Foderas, as does Anthony Wellington and Tony Grey. Hadrien Feraud has a big collection too. Andrew Gouche has a huge collection of MTDs. There are others too. These guys seem to have multiple flavors of a similar taste for want of a better expression.

Does that mean we mortals need a huge collection too? Not really, but it makes it easier to justify if you get accused of being a dentist/lawyer suffering a mid-life crisis. 

Does this mean we should encourage up-and-coming players to focus on acquiring gear over skills? Obviously not, but if someone is serious about turning pro these days, getting the right gear for the job something they have to be aware of in this day and age.

29 minutes ago, Pow_22 said:

Also i note there are no pup or bridge cover holes, or thumbrest holes for that matter - is that normal on 80's fenders?

Yes, I'm not exactly sure when they stopped shipping them with ashtrays but it was early '80s. 

I have no doubt that the bass is all original. I think the price is fair. Get over to Bass Bros and try it. He should have lots of other Jazzes you can compare it with to see how it checks out for you. Make sure you can deal with the weight though.

32 minutes ago, Pow_22 said:

Not necessarily truly 'vintage' but what's everyone's thoughts on this tasty looking jazzer over at bass Bros:-

 

https://bassbros.co.uk/product/1982-fender-jazz-bass/

 

Down as an '82 but the Fender serial lookup thingy comes up as a '78.  Not seen a bounded dot neck before and as someone who is a recent jazz convert and looking for a nice older bass this is ticking a few boxes!

Binding with dots happened in two periods - around 1966 and again in around 1982. S8 and S9 serial numbers were used all the way up until 1983 so I'm sure Bass Bros are right listing it as an '82. Personally I really like 1976-1983 Fenders. Everyone says it was their worst period but from what I've seen the shoddiest woodworking/fit seemed to occur more around 73-75; that's when you see the worst cut bridge pickups routs/neck joints, etc. Actual fit and finish did start to improve on the S series basses and by 1982 I'd imagine it was pretty good as you get into the 'Dan Smith era'. Part of the reason why they get a bad rap is the weight- the example you listed is 5kgs, which is too much for many players these days. 

24 minutes ago, 40hz said:

This is exactly how I feel about Wal. I was 'this' close to pulling the trigger on a MK1 order a couple of years ago, when they were under 5k. Now you can't order them, the wait time would be 4 years anyway and the prices are utterly astronomical.

 

I know Wal can do what they like and they have their market, yadda yadda, but I can't deny it's infuriating to have a British bass design icon slowly move further and further out of reach of all but the most wealthy. 

 

I also know they have zero 'need' to, but I'd love for them to license the design and produce a model built somewhere else for half the price ala Spector and the Czech Euros.

 

As it stands they have a specific market of over 50's and Tool fans. When they're all gone, or the market falls on it's arse for them, who's interested in buying them next? 

Exactly. I remember hearing stories from Rufus Philpot and Janek Gwizdala going to Wal as up and coming young players to order their basses. Could something like that happen now? I don't think so. 

It's true for the pop world too. The likes of Nick Beggs, Martin Kemp and Mick Karn were all very young when they picked up their Wals. I doubt they had to wait 4/5 years for them.

51 minutes ago, JPJ said:

The bizarre thing about Overwater is, despite the quality, they do not retain their value on the used market. I own three that will probably go to the grave with me, but they were all £2k+ basses purchased secondhand for less than £1k. My main Overwater (J5) cost the original owner near £2.5k and I picked it up for £850 a year later. My original series five string has a 36” scale and a filter preamp (like the Wal) and should be worth a lot more than what I paid @BigRedX for it when I prised it out of his hands. 

I noticed this too. I don't the real reason why this might be exactly, but the only thing I'd hazard a guess at is that Overwaters are designed to be a Swiss Army knife/blank canvas kind of instrument - use the electronics to sculpt any tone you want - perfect for a pit player/touring musician who needs to be able to access different tones very easily on one bass. To my ears at least, this comes at the expense of the instruments not having a core, recognisable tone that jumps out and appeals to people  - people don't buy them for their sound, but for the flexibility/quality, so perhaps outside of the pro world they don't have that much appeal.

I could be wrong - I mean I've played a few of them but you've owned three so probably have a much better idea than I do.  

7 hours ago, NickA said:

NB: no cache in owning one ...except with other bass players over 50 years of age.  I'm out playing mine very week or so and mostly get "Love the sound of your bass.  What is it? ".

 

I think this is mostly true. It's a bit sad that the ridiculous prices and closed order book/4 year wait means that there are no (at least that I can think of) young/up and coming players playing Wals. I mean you can see younger players out there playing USA Spectors, Foderas, MTDs, Alembics, Ken Smiths, etc., professionally, but most of the new Wals I see (admittedly on Instagram so not necessarily truly representative, but it is a good indication of younger players' trends at least) seem to be going to weekend warriors of a certain age (over 50 is quite accurate) who have waited the 4/5 years (nothing against weekend warriors of certain age of course - they keep the custom builders in business). 

In the UK, Overwater seem to have the pro market pretty well sewn up, but go back a few years and there were plenty of players using Wals at the West End, on BBC sessions etc. (Rob Burns is one that springs to mind). Even Laurence Cottle seems to be using his GB more than his Wals these days (too valuable to play out perhaps?).

This just all reinforces the stereotypes that Wals are collectors' items, antiquated etc., as you're not seeing them out there used for new music.

Of course it's none of my business and Paul can do what he wants with his company, but he has really missed a trick in not finding a good quality manufacturer in Japan, South Korea or the Czech Republic (think Spector, Sadowsky, etc.) who can take up some of the manufacturing slack while still turning out a really high quality product which would get into players' hands and keep the brand alive, while keeping the UK operation as a smaller custom shop. 

I noticed these as well during a visit to the Gallery a couple of weeks ago. At least half of the Wals they had in stock seemed to be fretless basses with a single bridge pickup. The fretted versions with two pickups were considerably more expensive.

As in-demand as Wals are, I'd imagine the single pickup fretlesses are a considerably harder sell than the two pickup, fretted basses with the filter electronics (this may be unfair but I'd guess that the demand for Wals is driven a great deal more by Justin Chancellor, Flea and Geddy tones than any others) - and as much as I love the shop, they charge considerably more than other UK dealers and don't seem to mind stuff hanging around for years before it's sold (or quietly withdrawn) - every time I visit they seem to more and more stuff and less space.

I'd love a fretless single pickup Wal but I wouldn't pay more than £3000 for it - and I'm well aware that to a lot of people that would still be silly money.

I have a Nate Mendel and although I think generally it's a great bass and sounds good, the frets are the one thing I don't care for. It's not that my bass suffers fret sprout, it's that the ends are not well rounded and can feel a little sharp. I also don't like jumbo frets generally, IME small/mandolin frets feel much better and I can't see the need for jumbo frets on a bass generally; I understand that one reason guitarists like them is for bending, but you generally can't bend bass strings anywhere near as far as guitar strings, and in any case, the 7.25 radius on the Nate Mendel would severely limit any extreme bending you might want to try.