bumfrog

[quote name='OldGit' post='486120' date='May 12 2009, 05:00 PM']Nah That's a pants analogy.

A car is so much more than a way of getting one person from A to B and a bass is so much more than making a bass noise.[/quote]

in your opinion....

for some people a car is exactly that - for getting from a to b, for others it's a willy waving exercise, and for some it's an expression of freedom.

Hello

Just a thought really. Looks like our band is going to start doing some acoustic gigs. Either way, I'm wondering if it's worth bothering with an acoustic bass. 9 out of 10 of the gigs is going to be plugged in to the pa, so it would have to be an electro acoustic. So I was thinking I may as well just stick some flatwounds on a spare electric and turn the tone down a bit.

Does anybody have any other ideas. I mean Ideally I'd like to go for something like that status electro that was on here a while ago but don't want to spend that much, so if anybody has any alternatives they can suggest I would be most appreciative

Or, should I just stump up and buy and electro acoustic?

Over to you ......

[quote name='Adrenochrome' post='485896' date='May 12 2009, 01:29 PM']other bass players![/quote]

should read.... other bass players who judge superficially by what it says on the headstock....

[quote name='AdamWoodBass' post='485198' date='May 11 2009, 05:12 PM']I'm using a pretty crappy pc (2.8ghz, 1 gig ram etc) and a line 6 studio gx with ableton live 7. The real bitch was the fact that when I bough the line 6 it didn't come with a manual for ableton, they didn't account for numpties like me knowing virtually nothing about recording!

Any advice is much appreciated matey.

Ad[/quote]

so presumably the bass is just going straight in. You could try using a di box, or if your amp has it, a balanced out. That can sometimes smooth the sound out a bit. If not, a bit of compression.

Usually though I'll just my superfly as a DI box, make sure the level isn't too high, isn't too low, then any boosting needed afterwards will be through a bit of compression or something like that.

There's some more knowledgeable peeps kicking about, i'm sure they'll drop in at some point

If you give us some info about what you are recording with and how, we may be able to help you with your sound problems

great stuff

I reckon might sound good with some bernie worell/stevie wonder funktastic keyboards on there too, plus it's crying out for your very good vocalist to stick some layered backing vocals on the chorus' etc I reckon

Sound wise, only thing that's a minus is that the guitar sounds a little distant.

surely the only thing you'd need to take to a desert island is ray mears?

At least you could survive then.

But I think i'd also take an acoustic guitar over a bass in that situation.

[quote name='Musky' post='484210' date='May 10 2009, 10:42 AM']They actually wrote and recorded the material themselves, though Harry Shearer (Derek Smalls) is supposed to have gone on tour with Saxon for research purposes. [/quote]

yeh, twas what I head - that tap was based on saxon

But Christopher guest, harry shearer and michael mckean are all pretty talented individuals as is probably better demonstrated in Mighty wind

[quote name='BarnacleBob' post='482470' date='May 7 2009, 09:26 PM']Is there a word for that sickening feeling you get the first time u prang a (so far) pristine bass? And do you still get it if you have a pre-relic'd bass.

BB[/quote]

yep, there's two words in fact - f***ing bollocks!

hang on, you mean you can actually get paid for playing gigs!

Weird how the paid gigs are the ones that require you to play other peoples music..... sommet wrong there I reckon

[quote name='12stringbassist' post='482735' date='May 8 2009, 09:49 AM']If a company brings out a budget range bass, it should perhaps be badged 'slightly' differently.
I suggested the idea of putting the W in a circle to very subtly point out the difference.

As to the Warwick / Spector issue... licensing a body shape possibly shows a lack of imagination
on Warwick's part, but they have made a good job of the bass and you know which you're getting
if you have the choice of either in a shop, as they are badged properly. It's hard to mix them up.

I was just saying Warwick shouldn't really just use the plain W logo on a Rockbass... but it's their
decision in the end and the punters will probably flock to buy a Rockbass that doesn't clearly say
it's a Rockbass anymore. Sales will go up - +1 to Warwick.

It just irritates me in the very same way that 'Rockinbetter' copies of Rickenbackers do!

My first Squier P was badged 'Fender' - and it was a good bass that was simply sold due to underuse.[/quote]

Don't get me wrong, I'm with everybody else in the fact that I think the rockbass logo looks awful (hell I own one amongst the many other things )

I think it's just the way that a lot of companies are going with corporate branding on a lot of walks of life at the moment.

Even musicman are doing it now with the new sterling range looking the same as the us ones.

One plus point for bass geeks though, is it makes you more of a geek being able to spot the expensive one from a cheaper one at a distance

[quote name='Kongo' post='482594' date='May 7 2009, 11:45 PM']Bumfrog is a term I've heard used for "Mister everybody" where I live.[/quote]

really??????

[quote name='12stringbassist' post='482364' date='May 7 2009, 08:01 PM']
It's not all about what I've spent. I don't keep the price tags hanging off them.
And I DO care about what is in my hands which is why I've bought the particular basses I own.[/quote]

Cool, that's good, so when then follow it up with all the rest? Surely you're point above should mean that the following bits don't matter?

[quote name='12stringbassist' post='482364' date='May 7 2009, 08:01 PM']It's all about Warwick branding their budget range the same way as their better basses.
It doesn't distinguish very well between the two and is surely an attempt to boost their
cheapo bass sales.[/quote]

What about spector? They all have the same logo do they not? Seems to me like Warwick are just copying spector again... (iirc warwick licensed the body shape from spector didn't they? Please correct me if I'm wrong) Never hear about Spector owners whinging that they have the same logo...


[quote name='12stringbassist' post='482364' date='May 7 2009, 08:01 PM']I'm sure that all the Fender USA owners would love it if the Squier brand was rebadged as
Fender, or Gibson buyers if Epiphones suddenly came out with Gibson logos.[/quote]

If you're happy with what you have then what does it matter what it says on the headstock? So long as you know what you have got and you are happy with it, then that should be it shouldn't it? Unless I'm missing some kind of secret point nobody has told me about yet?

[quote name='12stringbassist' post='482364' date='May 7 2009, 08:01 PM']I wonder what Bumfrog plays?
Or if it matters...[/quote]

do you really want to know???

[quote name='thepurpleblob' post='482112' date='May 7 2009, 04:01 PM']Explain please![/quote]

whap the washers from a grolsch top over your strap buttons when your strap is on - hey presto - straplocks

[quote name='maxrossell' post='481624' date='May 7 2009, 09:02 AM']Why's that? I mean, you'll still be the owner of two MIG, exotic tonewood 'wicks. Rockbass buyers won't be.

There will arguably be more difference between MIC Rockwoods and MIG 'wicks, even if they look very similar, than there are between Mex Fenders and US Fenders, which from a distance look identical. But I've never heard a US Fender user say that he wishes that Mexican Fenders were more clearly identified as "second division".[/quote]

sounds like he cares more about what's on the headstock then what's actually in his hands....

Happens in all walks of life for all things. Some people like to wear the money they spend on their sleeve and want everybody to know they've spent a lot.

well your losses as they say

Guess I'm just not that superficial to let a thing like a headstock logo (or car badge) get in the way of what are great things at great prices.

Each to their own I guess.

[quote name='MuseMatt' post='479341' date='May 4 2009, 08:13 PM']now, if someone would collect for me and send it too Dutchland (\0/) [/quote]

could be a possibility, as I'm planning a trip to hoge veluwe soon

[quote name='51m0n' post='477041' date='May 1 2009, 02:25 PM']It is a result of:-
* poor musicianship
* bad decisions regarding tone/fx
* poor/broken gear
* poor sound engineering
* poor preparation
* lack of knowledge
* more often than not too much volume
* poor acoustics (which could in almost all situations be improved, usually quite cheaply)[/quote]


think you've described half the bands / venues I've been in with that list

Would it be worth compiling some of all this knowledge and getting it put in the basschat wiki or a sticky? I know I'd find it useful

Stuff Like Band sounds - how to get your band sounding better as a whole / how to tailor to different venues / tips and tricks and then Also maybe advice on Studio time / Best ways to prepare etc?

Just I find useful bits get lost in threads....

[quote name='silddx' post='477021' date='May 1 2009, 02:01 PM']Sorry bumfrog, I should have put a smiley on there to leaven the message Please don't be offended.

I'm not on a high horse, although it may come over that way. I just can't stand unprofessionalism, that's all. If it's just a hobby, no worries.

Of course I have an ego, don't you? What's wrong with having an ego?[/quote]

no problem, one of the problems of the internet sometimes is it's hard to get over some emotions. No offence taken (big hug)

I think from my point of view, I would love to be more professional, but it's impossible to do that if the rest of the band aren't up to it, so I've just had to kick back and go with the flow. Plus over the years (having been a roadie/soundman etc) you kind of become a bit blase to bands who (not aimed at you, just a general thing) want the most perfect sound, in a dive of a venue when you know full well it's never going to sound good, and the punters are going to be so drunk they wont care. I think a more horses for courses attitude type of thing. Ie, if you're playing a decent venue and people have come to pay to see *you* then yes, I wholeheartidly agree, a certain level of professionalism and giving the crowd something for their money is a must. It's just when you get a dodgy covers band at a pub that want to spend an hour soundchecking, then all the way through the gig they keep asking for changes to monitors and levels etc and they spend more time doing that then actually playing and having a good time, it makes me a bit sad really I guess.

I hope that makes a bit more sense, it's friday afternoon after all

Ego's are ok to a certain point, providing they are kept on stage imho. But then I am a bit of a hippy, (minus the hair I might hasten to add) so that's probably why

[quote name='silddx' post='477004' date='May 1 2009, 01:42 PM']That's fine if you're a bedroom bubinga botherer who plays in a hobby band or a little pub band with no ambition. Some of us on here play in pro and semi-pro bands that need to deliver value for the punters' cash and be professional about what we do. Contributing to your band with a sh*t sound is the same as dropping bum notes, playing out of time or tune, or turning up to a gig looking like a you slept in the road with a cheap didge and a dog with a scarf round its neck.

Sorry, but unprofessional "don't care" attitudes are guaranteed to completely piss me off. You don't turn up to your day job with that attitude I hope, or maybe you work for local government ..[/quote]

Can you see me all the way from up there on your high horse?

I was merely offering another view, and you come along and act all high and mighty, even when I'd asked for advice as well.

Then you go on and try and link it in with my day job... wtf???

Shame, as most people on here seem very approachable and helpful, yourself with that post on the other hand just smack of ego....

[quote name='51m0n' post='476948' date='May 1 2009, 12:47 PM']Yeah been there done that. ALways still do with a new buch in the studio. Try and tell them they would be best off going into the reheasal studio 4 times over the nexrt week to work it all out and tighten it up before recording, sort out tones, examples, mixes they like etc etc, bvs, overdubs, and lastly do you use a click?

Usuually they get to the studio and still arent sure. So they slow the process down. Its fine if they have the budget, hopeless if they dont[/quote]

Please don't take this the wrong way, it's not having a go. But you do sound like an IT guy

As in you know exactly what to do and what needs doing, but then you sound (apologies if i'm wrong on this bit) like you are getting frustrated/annoyed with those people who don't have the same knowledge as you.

I understand that when you reach a certain level of knowledge as it were that people then tend to start getting anal about stuff, but what tends to happen when people get to that stage is they tend to forget that actually there's quite a lot of people out there who play just for the fun of it, and really aren't that bothered about having the best sound they can as it really doesn't make any difference to them.

Yes, I do agree with the sentiments of this thread about how things sound a lot better if people know about eq'ing, using fx properly etc, but to a certain degree, I find that once you start getting obsessed with those things they can get in the way of actually enjoying the playing, if you get my drift. Also purely from a spectators point of view, one can start to let things like that get in the way of actually enjoying the music and performance.

Yes, I would love that every gig that I go to have well balanced sound, nicely seperated instruments etc, but that (in my experience) is the exception rather than the rule - as a few people have pointed out, the drummer, I feel, is the benchmark for this. Most gigs I go to, the drummer is too loud, so the sound people can't get the vocals up high enough to be heard over everybody competing with the drummer without it feeding back.

I guess all I'm trying to say is to those that get annoyed by these things, watch your heart rate dudes, it's not worth busting a gut over

EDIT:- Just out of interest, if anybody has any guides or advice about all of this stuff for live playing, I'd be most appreciative of some guidance

[quote name='BOD2' post='475929' date='Apr 30 2009, 12:51 PM']That's ok - this is what a "debate" is all about.

What I meant was, a good player with a good sound is more effective than a good player with a poor sound. They may have the same technical ability but I know which one I would rather listen to.

There are loads of good technical players out there but whose sound is very generic, or otherwise uninteresting. But if you pair that ability with a good sound, then you have the makings of a great player.

All the great players (Clapton , SRV, Hendrix etc.) have strong, recognisable sounds and I would argue it's this as much as their technical ability that makes them stand out.[/quote]

I agree when you put it like that. I'd say that those with a good sound are more individual and have thought about it. Still doesn't make them a better player per se, it makes them a better band member

All imho of course

[quote name='BOD2' post='475807' date='Apr 30 2009, 11:00 AM']The difference between a good player and a mediocre player for me is their sound.[/quote]

sorry, gotta disagree with that. If you are good player you are good player. If you spend ages messing about with amps then you also know about electronic sound. Doesn't mean you're a better player, just means you know how to use equipment. Conversely I have met sound men who can't play for toffee, but can get a good sound.

What about acoustic stuff? Does that mean because somebody isn't using an amp then all of a sudden they become a worse player?

Sorry if I sound a big facetious, I'm having one of them days

nice idea, but you'll find a lot of guitarists who won't let you touch their stuff because they have a sound they like, not what works with the band. We call these people eeejits