Count Bassy

[quote name='martthebass' post='247095' date='Jul 24 2008, 06:13 PM']Thought that was William Hague. ......... Despite his comment, he'd never touched a pint of John Smiths in his life [/quote] Well at least he's got some taste then!

[quote name='Delberthot' post='246156' date='Jul 23 2008, 02:47 PM']Unfortunately, finding the right string for you can be very time consuming and expensive. Even if you find the right sounding one, it may not be the ideal gauge for you.[/quote] And even if you find the 'perfect string' you'll probably find that 6 months laetr you want something slightly different again.

On my Urge Mk 1 (32") I currently have D'addario nickel half flats (ground wound) - the ERN71 set (100 - 45). This was an attempt to mellow my sound out a bit as I found that with round wounds I was constantly playing with the treble backed right off, and it worked treat. I love the sound of them, and although they felt a bit odd at first (sort of sticky) that either went away within a few days, or I've got so used to it that I don't even notice anymore. I had previously tried some heavier strings (Elites), but I didn't get on with the heavier gauge tension-wise, and it still didn't give the sound I was after. On my other Urge Mk1 (Mex) I think it still has the original Fender strings on, though I don't know as it was bought second hand. These are round wound, but seem to be quite mellow, and I'm fairly happy with those sound and tension wise. Are Fender strings known for being fairly mellow, and lowish tension for the guage?

[quote name='Ray' post='245329' date='Jul 22 2008, 01:20 PM']Customer service at PMT is non-existant in my experience. They are complete tw@ts, IMO of course.[/quote] On the other hand I used PMT in Northampton to get my lad his electic drum kit and I was very impressed with their service (and the price was OK too).

Perhaps Peter Jones wants to be 'in the music business'.

[quote name='gilmour' post='244998' date='Jul 22 2008, 01:39 AM']My favourite daft question used to happen to me once a week, every week, when i went into my local post office, with my bass ... Shop "So, catch anything interesting..." Me "hmm?" Shop "been fishing haven't you?" Me "erm, no, no, it's bass guitar" Shop "ahh" Every effing week, for two years! To top it of, I have seen a fishing rod before, they are a lot longer and thinner than bass guitars, and only have one string [/quote] I don't believe that they are that daft. They probably view it as a running joke, and enjoy seeing your reaction. Try changing you're response to play along with it! Some sort of pun on Bass (the instrument) and Bass (the fish) perhaps?

There's a steinberger Sprit on t'bay as we speak Item no: 180266980529 Currently £100, no bids + a hohner Jack Item No. 290247155575 Also currently £100, no bids

Ashley Hutchins? A bit of a Tw@ from what I've heard, but a very influential folk bass player in his day all the same.

Actually OG, you raise a further point there. Do current classical composers get peed off because the orchestras/audiences insist on playing/hearing Beethoven/Bach/Mozart & such? Paul, that's a fair point you raise there, although the fact that royalties go to the author is probably no consolation to the actors in the professional production. I have absolutely no problem paying royalties to the author's of songs, and I'm sure it's just the practicalities that result in the different methods of collecting. After all most ametuer dramatic productions last a couple of hours and go on for several nights, so you can cover 6-8 hours of entertainment in one payment. If you're doing 20 songs for one night only then it gets rather messy and inefficent. Some of the restrictions that are put on theatrical production are (IMHO) really ridiculous. Our local primary school put on joseph & the coat thing, and one of the license restrictions was that no-one was allowed to video it - how petty can you get. So if things went really wrong with a song how far out of time would the guitarist (we all know that bassists don't go out of time) be allowed to go before it counted as a separate (but simultaneous) performance of the song, and thus incurr double the royalties?

[quote name='MananaMan' post='240268' date='Jul 15 2008, 06:18 PM']Why are songs by famous people automatically better than songs by someone you've never heard?[/quote] It may seem to contradict what I've said previously, but I don't believe that they nessecarily are. I've got quite a collection of obscure CDs as well! But: Most famous song writers & bands are famous because they have written a few good songs (and in many cases a load of crap ones as well). I.e. the good song makes them famous rather than them being famous making the song good!! Also, it is quite possible to write a cracking song and not become famous! Also, it is quite possible to be famous based on past achievments and still write crap (eg McCartney) [quote name='MananaMan' post='240268' date='Jul 15 2008, 06:18 PM']At the end of the day, I think I really mean to attack the cult of celebrity rather than anything else. People in cover bands - if you could get the same money playing songs that you or a member of your current cover band had written (and that you had more of a personal engagement with), wouldn't you rather do that?[/quote] On the cult of celebrity question I'd agree whole heartedly, especially these days when people expect instant success via the X factor or some such, without having to put in the hard graft that people used to. On the second point, yes I would prefer to be playing our own stuff, and I'm sure that most people would. Unfortunately none of us in the band have any talent in that direction, so given the choice of playing covers, or not at all, then I'd go for the covers. Taking it further, and as I said in an earlier post, for lots of us ameteurs the buzz of playing to an audience would probably be enough in itself, and the payment is a bonus. As I said in my first post professional musicians suffer from the fact that what they do for a living other people do for a hobby, so the market is inevitably distorted by that, especially at the pub gig level. I do feel for pro's suffering from that situation, but what can you do (unless you're the government or the Mafia)? I just had the thought: Do professional actors complain about about ameteur dramatics people in the same way? its a similar sort of situation.

You Englisch: you think ve germans know f*** nothing, but ve know f*** all!

[quote name='MananaMan' post='239403' date='Jul 14 2008, 06:45 PM']If these things didn't exist then the public would still hanker after live music, and they'd be happy to go and investigate whatever is out there. Or maybe I'm just an optimist.[/quote] Or just a dreamer! Whilst in your dream, why not have radio stations banned from playing any records over 3 months old so that all the amazing new acts that are around can get the air play they want without any fear of competion or having to prove themselves!. Seriously though, in the real world things aren't going to change. A large proportion of the gig/pub going public are more than happy to hear songs they know performed live. It's no good burying your head in the sand and insist that they are all wrong, and that they should be listening to new unknown bands performing material which can be largely crap. The songs that are popular on the covers circuit are popular for a reason! They are good songs which have stood the test of time, which people like to hear! If an originals band is any good in what they do, and in promoting themselves, then they will break through and be deservedly successful. If on the other hand they cannot tempt people away from a night in the pub watching a good covers band, then they probably don't deserve success however good they think they are. You dream of a situation where the field is left open for originals bands. I could equally dream (but I don't) of a situation where crap originals bands are drowned at birth to save us all from having to hear them. My hypothetical dream won't happen, neither will yours. We all need to accept the reality of the world, and make the best we can of it. All IMHO of course, and no offence intended. Spleen vented.

Paris Texas - Ry Cooder Sweet Talker - Richard Thompson

The problem seems to arise from the fact that music (& I suppose performing arts in general) is one of the few areas that is a profession to some while is a great hobby to others. The pro needs to work for a decent fee to eram a living, and I can understand them occassionally getting frustrated when they see themselves being undercut by ameteurs. As several have said however there is a big difference between a pro and an ametuer, so how often are the pro and the ameteur truley in direct competion? I suppose the argument is that the ameteur bands going out for low fees generally drags the whole market down. On the other hand, most ameteurs beyond a certain age have no illusions of ever becoming a pro, but many still want to feel the buzz of performing to an audience. These are not pro's and cannot command a professional level fee. For many of these people the choice is to go out cheap or not to go out at all, and they shouldn't really be criticised for choosing the former. Even those ametuers wanting to become pro's have to start somewhere, and I'm sure many of the pros have done cheap gigs when they were trying to get established.

I've got one of the Fender floor pedal type units and its great. Seems very tough , with a big bright unambiguous display, which I can even read when stood up, even without my glasses. Mutes the output while tuning, or not, according to which socket you use. Seems to tune down to a B with no problem. Only problems: You actually have to stamp on it quite hard to turn it on/off. If you leave it on and with the input connected it sits and eats batteries, buts thats really down to operator error. Also have a Korg AT-12 analogue unit with a real moving needle. Also excellent, and probably a better tuner, will generate a pitch and allows none concert pitch tuning etc, but not really up to stage use.

IIRC: If you have a valve amplifier with an output transformer then you get the most efficient power transfer from the transformer to the speaker when the output impedance of the transformer is the same as the impedance of the speaker. So although lowering speaker impedance increases the internal power of the amp more of rtaht power is lost in the amp output stages, so you don't get double the power at the speaker. Mind you its about 30 years since I studied this.

[quote name='Bill Fitzmaurice' post='223680' date='Jun 21 2008, 04:57 PM']Were it not so we could use 0.4 ohm speakers. That would be a very good thing as far as the efficiency of the speakers is concerned, but would require an entire retool of the amp/speaker relationship from low voltage high current to high voltage low current.[/quote] The other way round surely?

Out of interest, do you notice, in the first pic, how far he's pulled that A string over in the act of plucking it! He must be one hard player. No letting the amp to the work for him!

Well yes, the wood is lovely, but I don't like the shape at all. However it does lead me to ask what exactly, of practical use, do you get in a 16K bass that you would not get in a 1K (or even less) bass?

[quote name='Jase' post='226354' date='Jun 24 2008, 11:56 PM']I've used one on a Jazz, no trouble with the clips, apart from when I put it in the case, tuck it in before you close the lid Oh! and they're very smooth too...so smooth you can do this.. [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqh6_QPhTvE&feature=related"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqh6_QPhTvE...feature=related[/url][/quote] Now try that with the cable plugged in!

A shameless bump to try and get some more opinions. The reviews on the web are so diverse that it makes me wonder if the cases went through a spec change at some point. For example one person describes the lining as thin and scratchy 'Like it was sprayed on', and another describes it as 'soft and plush'. In the meantime, thanks for your comments Mothra.

Well, I'm amazed. I was expecting a good slapping for my heretic tendencies! I can't believe that my thoughts we're that compelling that there was nothing to add, so I guess thay must have been really really stoopid (sic). Come on, someone either put me right or argue with me. Clive

Mustang Sally, Pickup the Peices, Can't get enough, et al are popular for a reason. They are good songs/tunes. They may not be overly clever or complicated, but people enjoy hearing them, which at the end of the day is (IMHO) what music is about ! To bring in another food (well, drink) analogy. You sometimes come across these beer festivals that specialise in wierd and obscure (and often stupidly strong) beers. When you try these beers it's all to clear why they remain obscure!. Mustang Sally is a GreeneKing IPA or London Pride type tune. Many original tunes fall into the old Peculiar/Santas Knob class of tune. Very interesting, but not actually drunk that much. Having said that more power to those people creating originals, that's where tomorrow's classics will come from. If an original song writer is very lucky he might even come up with something as popular as Mustang Sally himself! (although they might then slag it off for being too popular)!!

I am a fan of 32" scale basses, although the general consensus seems that they don't have the same tone as a 34" scale, and that 35" is better again. Anyway: I've just bought a second hand Ibanez GWB35 - a 34" scale 5 string (I would have gone for 32" again except 5 string lined fretless 32" scale basses don't seem to exist within my budget). Anyway this is my first 5 string and I've found myself playing it up around the 5th fret, i.e. if I want to play in E I'm 'basing' it around the B string at the 5th fret rather than the open E string, dropping down the B string for the low notes as required (bear in mind that this is my first 5 string experience and I'm still finding my way) Anyway, what this is leading up to is that I find the E produced at the 5th fret of the B string is perfectly acceptable, a slightly different tone to the open E, but acceptable. So, if I were to use the same gauge strings shouldn't I be able to build a 26.5" scale bass (i.e. 3/4 of 34") tuned E to C, with perfectly acceptable results? String tensions would be exactly the same as in the 5 string (wouldn't they?), and the tone on the E string would be similar to a B string fretted at the 5th (i.e. acceptable). I suppose that what I'm really getting around to that if a 34" scale 4 string bass, drop tuned to a D on the Estring, still produces an acceptable E tone at the second fret, then why shouldn't a 32" scale bass, using the same string gauge produce an equally acceptable E on the open string? This seems logical to me, but is contrary to what most people here seem to say. Just my thoughts, interested in yours.

I've just bought a second hand Ibanez GWB35 (which I'll expand on in a different thread), and I'm thinking of buying a hard case for it. (It came with a gig bag which is great for carrying around, but I prefer a hard case when its stacked in the back of a van with the PA & stuff) Anyway, Ibanez do a suitable case, the MB100C, internally tailored to the Ibanez shape ( I hate sloppy fitting cases), and they don't seem too expensive (£60 - 65 - less than a tank of diesel). I've looked at a a few user reveiws on the net, and they vary from brilliant to complete crap, although there does seem to be a consensus that they don't have must space for extras. Anyway, I'd have far more confidence in any bass chatter's comments, so if you've got one let me know what you think. Thanks in advance chaps (& Chappesses)