thodrik

It depends on the kind of music played/money available for strings. Low tunings generally mean I will use the Precision. The Sadowsky gets played at most gigs though, and when I have no money to new strings I try and save them and use the Precision for rehearsals and the like.

I just read my earlier post. I should never attempt to write anything after watching Scotland play football, it puts one into a bad state.

Cool thread though, I'm still in the 'pro-improvisation' camp, though of course there are moments where it isn't needed.

I always thought that once you have a decent knowledge of theory and know how to play the bass, you realise that it is possible and fun to change certain parts of a bass line in a song without ruining the feel of the song.

There are situations where improvisation doesn't work or is a bit inappropriate, like playing the double bass in an orchestra, or in a project where the leader of a band (ie the guy paying you) wants the bass to play a certain line, a 'serious' cover band where everything has to be played as it was on record, or a certain line that is an integral part of the song.

Frankly I think that if none of your band can improvise it can make for a very dull band and often means that they are unable to adapt to anything unusual (string break, drummers skipping a beat etc) in the context of a gig.

The fact that 'only musicians' will notice improvisation is pretty much the point. Lots of people who go to gigs actually play instruments themselves and get great pleasure out of watching and listening to someone that is a master of their craft. Also if you can add something extra to a song without getting bad looks from your guitarist it usually increases your enjoyment of playing, which is possibly the main point of playing in the first place. Also if it is 'your song' then you can play it however you want, as it is 'your' song.

Not all improvisation is good of course, but I think if you took it out of most blues-based pop/rock/metal music you would ruin the feel, vibe and character of the music itself, which is often as important as the notes that are 'composed' into the song.

If I want to hear a brilliant composition, I'll probably listen to Mozart, Vivaldi, Stravinsky or some other guys that really mastered the concepts of theory, harmony and melody, not a person that attempts to justify boring simple plinky-plonk bass lines as being 'all that is needed', and that any deviation from root and fifth notes to be pointless and unnecessary. For me less is more only if you are capable of more or know why you need less, otherwise less is simply less.

The one time I used an Ampeg Classic head a tube went. This was in a guitar shop where I was trying out a bass. Side by side I thought the Aguilar DB 750 was a bit superior tonewise even before the Ampeg broke down.

I would go all-tube but I don't like the idea of the constant upkeep costs and fear that a power tube would go in the middle of the gig. I don't think I'm really sacrificing anything when I'm playing a hybrid head at a gig (EBS Fafner, Mesa Walkabout until recently). After a certain point I think that good tone comes from whether you can actually play bass rather than whether you have an all-valve amp head or not.

I think that with each passing year, a 1970s Fender gets more and more expensive, so if you want one you might as well buy one if you have the funds. IF you find a good one of course. No point in my opinion spending £2000 on a vintage bass if it plays and sounds worse than a new Fender, Sandberg etc. If you find a good one though, you will probably keep it for life, unless you don't really like Fender basses, in which case you should perhaps question why you bothered spending extra for a vintage bass.

Warwick thumb bass. I wanted to like it, but nothing about it said 'this is the bass for me'. Didn't really like the neck or the general sound.

Tried a Wal Mach I (I think) and really wanted to love it enough to justify buying it. It felt really well made, but the neck was just a bit chunkier than I would like on a £1800 second-hand bass.

Spector basses, sound great and look great, but they don't look great on me!

Every time I see a Stingray I just think 'well I would kinda like one, but what could I do on that that I couldn't do with a P-bass?' I don't really feel the sense that I need one, despite them being great instruments.

Oh a five string basses regardless of the make. I love the idea of always being able to get a low B whenever, but I just don't want to lose out on the playability of a four string bass. I can't justify buying one right now, though I will probably get one at some point.

To be honest though, there are more amp companies that I want to love but can't than basses. Ashdown, Orange, and Ampeg amps and 8x10 cabs in general.

I always need two so I have a back up at a gig. Saying that the back up is the Squier Affinity.

You could probably get away with one bass though. I do love my Sadowsky Metro and my Vigier but when if it came down to me only having one bass it would be my Fender Precision bass every time!

Hi man sucks about the Uni thing. I'm at this very minute minute finishing my masters dissertation and I can tell you that you are not missing much!

CC music have 3 or 4 late 1960s to late 1970s jazz basses in. Though when you go in I would seriously advise you to try the Sandbergs as well. [url="http://www.ccmusicshop.com"]http://www.ccmusicshop.com[/url]

I was in your position a while back looking for a jazz bass, I ended up going for a Sadowsky metro, though the Sandberg was pretty close. Some folk don't like Sadowsky though, saying they are 'sterile', so best to give them a good playing to see if you like them. Though if you find a genuine vintage Fender you like its hard to go away from that. Personally I thought the Sandbergs in CC music were way better value for money than the vintage Fenders.

[url="http://www.strungoutguitars.com/"]http://www.strungoutguitars.com/[/url] They sometimes have nothing whatsoever but you might find something really special if you are lucky. They often get a vintage jazz in but they tend to go quickly!

I think guitar guitar recently got a whole load of Sadowskys, as well as some of the new Fender deluxe models and the Lakland models.

Good luck and have a good time in Glasgow!

Lots of Trace Elliot stuff is around at second hand. The Smx range has a tube preamp and you can pick up the heads for pretty cheap (I got one for £250 as a back head). Not everyone likes the Trace Elliot sound though so its best to try it out first. Not wooly add at all though in my experience.

Hartke as well are reliable and really good value for money new or used. If you like Ampeg you could probably find a B series heads (solid state stuff, it might have a different name) for under £500.

You could also try Peavey as well, the new Tourbass heads are under £500 new. I have not heard anything about them from anybody though.

Fender 1978 P bass - £390 (a steal)
Sadowsky Metro MV 4 - £1500 (not a steal!)
Viger Excess - £1200 (think they are going for £2000 now, so thats okay)
Gibson 1974 EB3 - £750 (I think that it is worth a bit more now, but nothing major)

£3840 then, add in my guitar and its around £4400. Adding in my Double Bass as well puts it at around £8400!

I don't want to start considering amps now.

I would have thought that any of the ampeg pro series would be able to pretty much nail the valve grit sound. I only have the bass driver DI, which is advertised as a DI, a pre-amp and a stompbox! It is a really good tool if you like the tone it gives you (some complain that it gives a very scooped sound). I personally think its more a preamp and DI than a stompbox as the speaker simulation drastically changes the character of the sound when you turn it on and off. For me its generally always on or not on at all.

The bass driver is very good at clean, slighty gritty sounds but if you have a valve preamp already it might take away rather than add to your sound. I think it works best with solid state amps and as preamp for a passive basses. It really is a bit of an Ampeg emulator, so if you have an Ampeg already, I'm not sure it is that useful.

I hear that the Vt bass is a lot better and less scooped sounding than the bass driver, but it doesn't have an xlr out so it isn't a DI box. I've not tried it yet so can't comment, but from what I've heard it is better than the bass driver at nailing the classic Ampeg grit.

I would maybe suggest trying to set the gain on your amp a bit higher to drive your preamp tubes a bit, or try a dedicated overdrive pedal, perhaps one with a tube to get a more authentic tube overdrive.

I hope that is some help.

I also have never have liked the guy from Kings of Leon or Kim Deal(as a bassist), personally and can't listen to either of them. I'm very much in the minority here I would guess though.

A part of me wants to say Newsted for not saying "Hey, turn up me up in the mix!" during the recording/mixing stage of "...And Justice for all". But, that isn't really a talent question and he had just joined a band in a difficult time. He is a good player.

I'm sure that there were a lot of really bad bassists that made albums during the nu-metal/nu-grunge era but I can't think of any off the top of my head.

Probably Kyuss - Un Sandpiper when I was about 16/17

I'd been playing for 4/5 years on the electric bass, originally playing lots a mixture of rock and blues Hendrix, SRV, Albert King, Buddy Guy, Sabbath, Led Zep. Then I got into Tool, Rage and Queens of the Stoneage. I was also playing a lot of classical double bass in orchestras and doing my grades and theory exams, so I was probably more into Vivaldi and Stravinsky than Sabbath at the time of discovering Kyuss.

But when I heard Kyuss, I pretty much knew that this was the kind of music that I really knew that was for me. Loose, loud heavy, melodic with a prominent role for the bass. I also liked the improvisational nature of it, as most of the magic hadn't really been composed into it, but rather just happened.

I did get into Jaco, Marcus Miller, Wooten and Mingus afterwards, but most of it doesn't speak to me in the same way, though they are all great muscians.

I know its a forum for the company, so you can expect a bit of brand loyalty, but it seems a bit over the top. Not good customer relations really. Still, they do make nice basses that are about as good as you get for mass production models. I would still take a Fender that works though.

Score one for Sadowsky, Vigier, Status, Overwater et al.

I would say Pete Wentz. I would also say Danny from the Wildhearts, though that was live rather than on an album, and I believe it was mostly due to the heroin, rather than lack of talent.

Must say I think Tal is a little bit overrated, but overrated and awful are pretty different, so she doesn't really belong in this thread. She is arguably a bit like Wentz, how they look makes a lot of people listen with their eyes, making them seem better than they actually are.

Really though, I think that the guy from Complete wins hands down. [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRnPE1u4ruM&feature=related"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRnPE1u4ruM...feature=related[/url]

[quote name='MoonBassAlpha' post='918867' date='Aug 8 2010, 05:15 PM']This may have been asked somewhere before in the mists of time, but does anyone know exactly what the frequency and boosts/cuts the pre-shape acts at?[/quote]

Its at around 55Hz and I believe around 2kHz where there is a boost, with a mid cut at around 400Hz.

Some amps from around the Kamen/Gibson era have a 'pre-shape 2' which is some kind of mid boost or something, which I think was described as a more 'rock' oriented voicing. I'm not entirely sure what exactly it is, all I know is that it doesn't that great to my ears, not because I hate mids, but that the pre-shape makes everything sound 'boxy' not at all natural sounding. I always thought that the original Trace pre-shape is about the best non-distortion/valve based rock voicings there is.

I played a furry GP7 SM300 1x15 combo for 8 years, no problems beyond a burst speaker due to lending it to an idiot.

I'm been using peavey-era cabs for the past couple of years. Great sound and a lot lighter than the older TE gear. The build quality isn't quite what it used to be, (the rubber feet have come loose a few times) but they are still sturdy enough for constant gigging, good speakers.

I love Trace Elliot amps, very dialled in sound if you use the preset but great if you like it. I have a GP12 300SMX head that I bought for £250 quid last year that I have as back up to an EBS fafner. I use the Trace now and again and it delivers. Its pretty much as good as the EBS, but I just find that the character of my bass comes through more in the EBS.

I have not tried the new range of amps, its just hard to justify paying £1000 quid for a new amp, when you can find an older model with a similar design for about a quarter of the price. My opinion would maybe change if I tried one, but I'm not in a hurry due already having amps that work alright.

I have been playing a metro jazz for around 8 months. Build quality is fantastic and it has what a consider to be one of the best preamps about.

I don't think that it will ever match the feel of my 78 p 'bass or obtain a vintage vibe in terms of looks or sounds, but I know that the Sadowsky will hold its tuning during a gig and will always cut through a mix with a minimal amount of eq on the bass or the amp. It just 'works' for the lack of any other word, which is great for gigging or recording.

I understand those that consider them to be a bit 'sterile', but I think that they are basses designed to be heard in the context of a band. I have found that mine just comes to life in a gig or rehearsal situation.

I think that the price that they are at now is a bit much, but saying that I think they are superior in terms of pre amp than the Fender Deluxe basses. Though when I see a Sandberg jazz go for around a £1000, the metro series starts to look a bit overpriced. But only a Sadowsky sounds like a Sadowsky.

However I find the finish on the maple fingerbourds on the metros and nycs (excluding birdseye etc) are just very plain and not very inspiring looking in my opinion. I still bought a maple fingerboard one because it plays so well.

I'm not a fan of the Beatles or Sir Paul's solo stuff. Its just not my thing and I think that the notion they influenced 'everybody' since is a bit of rubbish. Rock and pop music would have still existed, Buddy Guy, B.B King, Hendrix and Clapton would have still played guitar and I'm sure Pete Wentz would have still picked up the bass. Saying that Sir Paul is a very talented musician and a good solid bassist. Not really what I would call a virtuoso. I always thought of him as a bit of a guiarist that played bass, which he pretty much was.

I think the idea that he was the first bassist to play more than root notes is really overstated. He was probably a bit more influenced by classical music than a lot of electric bassists at the time, which in combination with his technique and short scale basses/rickenbacker gave his playing a different flavour than others at the time. I can't say I like that flavour, but millions of others do!

Ummmm, I would still say just try a bunch of Fenders, either Mexican Standard, Roadworn, or US standard. If you play around 20 you will probably find at least one that you fall in love with. Even if you find a Mexi with a good neck and decent fretwork that plays great, you could spend the rest on new pickups and new bridge.

I think that if you really want to get a 1960s sounding Fender Jazz that isn't a 1960s Fender Jazz you might be wanting an Alleva Coppolo, but I think that they are well over £2000.

As for an off the shelf new bass, that isn't a custom shop job, but will not suffer from the same kind of QC issues that you often see in Fenders, I would go with a Sandberg. The Hardcore aged ones have vibration treatment that makes them apparently sound more like vintage basses. I nearly bought one at the turn of the year.

I didn't know about the Lakland problems, that is a shame. I thought that they were all meant to pass through the US shop for final inspections, which would surely result in shoddy ones being picked up? I have only tried a Skyline P bass model, which seemed to be made alright, but had a strange neck profile that was really different to a Precision neck, and not in a way I liked.

Still my vote would be to find a Fender that plays well and sounds good, and then give it a good set up and tweaking.

I'm a bassist, so yes! I can't get past vintage Fender P basses and Jazz basses. Then there are modern Sadowsky, Nordstrand, Aleva Coppolo and so many others. Going away from Fender shapes I love the Wal basses, Vigier and Fodera stuff. Special mention to the Warwick Jack Bruce model which I love.

I do love the look of a classic style Fender Strat or Gibson Les Paul, but will take a bass over both.

Normally I would say 'its subjective think of the bass x compared to guitar Y', but I play bass, so its bass for me.

I put monthly but it depends on how many gigs or recording I'm doing with a particular bass. Gigging all the time and they (Generally EB Hybrid 105-45, but sometimes Dunlop Nickels when I'm short of funds) do well to last more than a couple of weeks.

It is all down to a matter of taste though, I used to never ever change strings, whether I was playing flatwounds or nickels. Now though, there is a point where I feel that a string goes beyond being 'worn in' and instead becomes 'dead'.

I generally only change strings on a bass if its being used for gigs or recording though, for the sake of jamming at home or rehearsing I can put up with slightly worn in strings. I've retired my P-bass from gigs and strung it with flats which won't need to be changed anytime soon, so only the Vigier and the Sadowsky tend to have frequent string changes.

I must say that Rotosounds Steels last forever but I can't really get on with the feel of them.

It depends on the bass and the amp and my ears. Generally I start with the amp flat, or at least what is considered flat for a particular amp, then work from that. I've found that I need to tweek the eq on the amp a fair if I'm using a passive Precision without any kind of additional pre amp. I understand that those with a Status, Wal or Fodera will not need to change settings as much (or at all) to get a great sound. I sometimes think its a bit of a badge of honour in these types of forums to claim that you always bypass or at least never touch the eq settings on your amp, but its still okay to go mad for any kind of eq/preamp pedal that comes on the market!

Its a nice overdrive but I almost prefer the clean tone. Good demo but it does leave me thinking it needs a clean blend as the character of the clean tone is lost when the pedal is turned on. It may have just been the settings though.

I think I will have to try before I buy. The Vt bass deluxe, EBS Multidrive/Metaldrive and the Xotic BB bass preamp have got me thinking.

If I was going for an active jazz bass and had no budget restrictions, it would have to be a 'super jazz' like a Sadowsky or the like, because I have never been that impressed with Fender's attempts at active preamps.

Saying that, for a passive bass again with no budget restrictions, I would go for the US standard, though probably a Precision rather than a jazz. Much as I love jazz basses, for the type of music I like I need a bit of a low end thud that I can't get from a passive jazz.

Other than that my choices would depend on budget. I ended up buying the Affinity Squier Jazz a couple of years ago for a back up bass and I must say I am very pleased with how it plays and sounds.