Beedster

Feel your pain mate, I had to learn 36 songs for a gig lasy Saturday, all very simple but so simple that they were all to easy to confuse with each other. As Bryan said, I played it 'til my fingers bled

[quote name='OddBass65' timestamp='1473113418' post='3127134'] You're leaving yourself open to a lot of hassle if anything goes wrong. [/quote] But you're not, without an explicit agreement you cannot be held responsible in this situation. I'm sure it's 100% the owner's responsibility to ensure the security of their property, not their paying customers (correct me if I'm wrong legal folks)?

I'm always amazed by just how trusting music folks are. I wouldn't change it, despite the apparent risks.

[quote name='Meddle' timestamp='1473012343' post='3126047'] I've talked about this (and bored the pants off of folk) before. My opinion is that the answer is fairly simple: build a bass with the pickups in the right places and you are mostly there. For example, this Peterbuilt bass is basically a '51-style P bass with two pickups in the Rickenbacker locations: The neck pickup on a Rickenbacker is in basically the same location as that of a Gibson EB-0 - EB-3 bass. The classic Rickenbacker tone (Squire [i]et al[/i]) comes from having a reasonably low output single coil pickup in that location and another in the same position as a P bass pickup, as per the picture above. Squire, Lee and co split the output of their bass, with each pickup running through a separate signal chain. I think Lee used different amps for each pickup, whereas Squire actually mixed the two pickups back together into a mono signal chain, bolstered with Marshall amps. The important bit is that the two pickups don't 'see' each other, so don't cancel frequencies or load each other down electrically. You basically have two '51 P bass circuits running independently on opposite sides of a 3-way pickup switch (that basically runs as two kill switches and a 'both on' arrangement in the middle position). Rickenbacker also used to fit 4.7 nF capacitors in series with the bridge pickup, cutting bass frequencies. This doesn't put the pickup ninety degrees out of phase (as some would have you think) but basically scoops the frequencies from this pickup right where they would interfere and interact most with the bassy frequencies of the neck pickup. However if you are running a bass in stereo you can remove these bass frequencies from the bridge pickup anyway, so it probably isn't all that vital to have it there. Chris Squire had a way of making all instruments sound like Chris Squire. Probably a combination of low action, rotosounds, warm-voiced valve amps on the brink of distortion and forgiving producers like Eddy Offord working with him to get a full bass tone. In the world of Yes Chris was given a lot of space so, luckily for us, you can hear a lot of his tone! I've got the multitracks to Heart of the Sunrise somewhere, and Chris's bass sounds the same solo'd as in the final mix. For a lot of isolated bass tracks I've heard you tend not to realise the full tone of the bassist until the other instruments are stripped away. Sticking with Squire for a bit, the other contender is that we don't know what he used in the studio, really. On The Yes Album there are times that the bass is in stereo and panned across the stereo field, but on Fragile it is pretty much in mono and down the centre of the mix. Squire actually acquired a 21 fret Mapleglo 4001 bass around The Yes Album time (if not earlier), so it is hard to know what tracks he used this on. That bass had factory Ric-O-Sound fitted, so perhaps he modified his cream 1999 RM bass to have a stereo output after he purchased the 4001? Beyond the bass we also don't know what amp combinations he used in the studio, and what limiting and compression was added to the signal. From memory there is some drum bleedthrough on the bass tracks to Heart of the Sunrise, so this suggests there was a mic'd amp somewhere in the mix. Another idea I keep coming back to is that Rickenbackers don't sound like Rickenbackers. New 4003 basses sound way darker and less charismatic, in my view, than the originals. I played an early '70s 4001 last year, and the tone was way more open and bright sounding. Admittedly it had quite a low output and, with some fingerstyle playing, I got some ugly transients coming from the bridge pickup. I find modern 4003 basses to sound like dark, rubbery Jazz basses, and the 'vintage' tone circuit (which introduces the 4.7 nF cap mentioned earlier) just muddles up the mids a bit, adding a subtle honk to the tone. Rickenbacker went through an odd period of winding hotter and hotter pickups, using weaker magnets and generally making dull sounding pickups. I hope a manufacturer someday mass produces a bass with single coil pickups in the Rickenbacker locations. Copyists tend to try and copy the outline of the 4003 bass, and then get into legal trouble with RIC. Ironically none of the modern clutch of copies sound much like Rickenbackers, with some exceptions, due to a number of reasons (pickups used and scale length being the most obvious). Somebody could produce a P bass like the Peterbuilt above and RIC could do nothing. [/quote] Great stuff, thanks for posting.

[quote name='Happy Jack' timestamp='1472817974' post='3124494'] I love it when an expert bass player announces "and you can hear that lovely clear piano tone" before playing a few notes that couldn't sound less like a piano if you hit it with an adjustable spanner. [/quote] 'Piano tone' in this context doesn't mean 'sounds like a piano'. Beats me what it does mean, but I've heard it sufficiently often in relation to un-piano-like tone to know what it doesn't mean Perhaps it does in fact mean "sounds like a Rickenbacker"?