"Core Tone" isn't very important in your bass.

[Bay Splayer]

[quote name='silddx' post='735194' date='Feb 4 2010, 04:12 PM']......sound was sh*t, and most of Geddy's sound was too[/quote]

[4000]

[quote name='bilbo230763' post='736223' date='Feb 5 2010, 02:29 PM']As I said elsewhere, I can't tell the difference between basses (ie gear) on recordings - players, yes, but not gear. I don't know a Musicman from a Wal from an Alembic from a Fender from a Status.[/quote]

Bilbo, I really do find this difficult to believe coming from you. Theres no way you're telling me that someone who obviously has a discerning ear (even where we disagree on the specifics) can't tell the difference between a "typical" MM sound, P Bass etc. Yes, you can blur the lines between basses but generally speaking (unless highly effected and eq-d) some of them have pretty identifiable sounds. You're really telling me you can't tell the difference between, for instance, Mark King playing a Status, a Jaydee and an Alembic? It all just sounds like Mark King? Foxton sounds the same on a P or a Rick? If so, I wish I had your ears as it would save me immeasurable grief when listening to music!


With regards to the overall thread, all I can speak from is experience. I've never been able to replicate the sound I get from my old Rick with any other bass (even other Ricks), no matter how I eq, use effects etc etc. Of course most other people wouldn't be able to tell the difference (although our long-suffering guitarist would agree with me ) , but I can and that's all that matters to me. If anyone can show me a way of making a (for instance) modern 7lb or less perfectly balanced instrument respond in exactly the same way (and by this I don't mean on just one note but to respond the way every single note on the fretboard responds and to sing out more as I move up the neck) I will be on it like a shot. I'm not saying it isn't possible but I've never found how to do it.

One other thing that I find a little strange which has been touched on; GAS is only bad if it takes you beyond your means or is a source of constant frustration. Although I don't really agree with Sliddx on the overall topic I certainly agree that I'd be bored wearing the same underpants for ever. In my case at least, variety truly is the spice of life. I was speaking to a friend recently who was telling me he always goes on holiday to the same place, every single year. For me, I suspect that would cease to be a holiday by the third year at the very latest.

Edited February 6, 2010 by 4000

[BottomEndian]

[quote name='4000' post='737231' date='Feb 6 2010, 02:23 PM']I ceratinly agree that I'd be bored wearing the same underpants for ever. [/quote]
Bored? I think "lonely" is the word you're looking for.

[Sibob]

[quote name='4000' post='737231' date='Feb 6 2010, 02:23 PM']Although I don't really agree with Sliddx on the overall topic I ceratinly agree that I'd be bored wearing the same underpants for ever. In my case at least, variety truly is the spice of life.[/quote]

But variety for varieties sake is pointless!?
It has to be relevant given the musical context!. But even that doesn't detract from having a good tone as a basis and adding to it as neceesary. Surely no one says "Oh it doesn't matter if my core sound is crap to my own ears, because all the bands I play in need loads of EQ and Pedals!?".

Si

[4000]

[quote name='BottomEndian' post='737233' date='Feb 6 2010, 02:26 PM']Bored? I think "lonely" is the word you're looking for. [/quote]

Depends how happy you are in your own company.

[4000]

[quote name='Sibob' post='737238' date='Feb 6 2010, 02:32 PM']But variety for varieties sake is pointless!?
It has to be relevant given the musical context!. But even that doesn't detract from having a good tone as a basis and adding to it as neceesary. Surely no one says "Oh it doesn't matter if my core sound is crap to my own ears, because all the bands I play in need loads of EQ and Pedals!?".

Si[/quote]

Why is it pointless (and I'm not just talking about music)? What has to be relevant given the musical context? Everyone will have different opinions of what is relevant given the musical context, hence the myriad tones/styles that are out there. I may be being dim but I'm not sure what point you're making. I think in terms of core tone (for a given instrument) I completely agree with you (maybe you misunderstood [i]my[/i] point); I certainly can't use what I think is a crap sound (and I almost never use pedals, although I do eq heavily).

On a personal level my dilemma is I'm simultaneously looking for several unique sonic identities at the same time.

Edited February 6, 2010 by 4000

[xilddx]

[quote name='Sibob' post='737238' date='Feb 6 2010, 02:32 PM']But variety for varieties sake is pointless!?
It has to be relevant given the musical context!. But even that doesn't detract from having a good tone as a basis and adding to it as neceesary. Surely no one says "Oh it doesn't matter if my core sound is crap to my own ears, because all the bands I play in need loads of EQ and Pedals!?".

Si[/quote]
There are enough basses out there which fit my criteria to have a new one every month and be happy. I'm not especially attached to any piece of gear I have, except my POD. My POD is the crucial interface to my music making and I would feel lost without it.

I like variety, I adore getting new instruments, but i normally get bored with them after a while, the Black Warwick Corvette $$ has been my mainstay for a couple of years and I swore I'd never sell it, but I love my Wilkins Jazz at the moment, its very pretty and I really enjoy playing it. I'm sure I'll sell it at some point probably, but i wouldn't dream of doing so at the moment.

Variety is fabulous, it's simply another of life's indulgences.

[4000]

[quote name='silddx' post='737273' date='Feb 6 2010, 03:01 PM']Variety is fabulous, it's simply another of life's indulgences.[/quote]

Which is why I so love buffets.

[xilddx]

[quote name='4000' post='737290' date='Feb 6 2010, 03:14 PM']Which is why I so love buffets. [/quote]
Ha ha, me too!

The Bass Buffet is the best

[flyfisher]

[quote name='silddx' post='735012' date='Feb 4 2010, 01:32 PM']I am a complete convert from the idea of needing valve amp and a Fender, Stingray, blah blah. The future is digital.[/quote]
Interesting point - and I agree with you - but you won't convince the diehards.

I'm also a keen photographer and a similar impassioned debate rages in that world between 'chemical' (i.e. film) and digital photography. The really amusing thing about such debates, I think, is that people start to lose the plot. Photography and music are both artistic endeavours and the end results are subjective - you like them or you don't. If you like the tone that comes out of your speakers then the method by which it has been generated is irrelevant. Same with a photograph. The music is not 'better' just because there are valves instead of DSPs in the signal chain anymore than a photo is any 'better' because it came out of a darkroom.

But, in a world where you can buy gold-lated mains plugs and interconnects costing £1000's, there are strong vested interests to keep such debates raging on.

[xilddx]

[quote name='flyfisher' post='737306' date='Feb 6 2010, 03:29 PM']Interesting point - and I agree with you - but you won't convince the diehards.

I'm also a keen photographer and a similar impassioned debate rages in that world between 'chemical' (i.e. film) and digital photography. The really amusing thing about such debates, I think, is that people start to lose the plot. Photography and music are both artistic endeavours and the end results are subjective - you like them or you don't. If you like the tone that comes out of your speakers then the method by which it has been generated is irrelevant. Same with a photograph. The music is not 'better' just because there are valves instead of DSPs in the signal chain anymore than a photo is any 'better' because it came out of a darkroom.

But, in a world where you can buy gold-lated mains plugs and interconnects costing £1000's, there are strong vested interests to keep such debates raging on.[/quote]
Right on the money, my friend.

[ped]

Spot on.

[Sibob]

[quote name='4000' post='737248' date='Feb 6 2010, 02:42 PM']Why is it pointless (and I'm not just talking about music)? What has to be relevant given the musical context? Everyone will have different opinions of what is relevant given the musical context, hence the myriad tones/styles that are out there. I may be being dim but I'm not sure what point you're making. I think in terms of core tone (for a given instrument) I completely agree with you (maybe you misunderstood [i]my[/i] point); I certainly can't use what I think is a crap sound (and I almost never use pedals, although I do eq heavily).

On a personal level my dilemma is I'm simultaneously looking for several unique sonic identities at the same time. [/quote]

Ok so, I love the sound of Jazz's and Precisions...(oh I hope Bilbo doesn't read this bit ), but for me, they work in two different settings....this is specifically for me, I realise that everyone is different. So, variety for variety sake would be me using my Jazz in a setting that wouldn't suit the Precision, then at the next gig with same band, at the expense of the situation/music, I use the Precision just to add some 'spice to my life'.

Do you see what I mean?

Si

[xilddx]

[quote name='Sibob' post='737337' date='Feb 6 2010, 03:52 PM']Ok so, I love the sound of Jazz's and Precisions..[/quote]
But really what you are saying is you love the sound of YOUR Jazzes and Precisions. They mostly all sound different to my ears.

I think it's now a pointless distinction to make. Your statement is more relevant to thirty or forty years ago. With the vast range of Fenders available, new and old, all Jazzes and Precisions will sound extremely different to each other.

[Sibob]

Well yes, point taken, but then the whole thread is subjective to the point of irrelevence, we proceed regardless though .
Even if the individual tones of the two basses are perceived differently by me and you, lets say the band leader also prefers the sound of the Jazz over the Precision, then why would I continue to use a Precision at a show just for the sake of my personal need for 'Variety'. I love the Jazz equally, and in this example it's giving more to the music than the Precision does. That is surely the ultimate goal, to marry your personal gratification with making the music/band sound the best that it can.

Si

[xilddx]

Interesting Si, and I agree wholeheartedly.

The thing is, and I hope I don't piss anyone off and sound like a prick, but I have come to the conclusion that no-one has demonstrated anything useful or constructive about the core tone of an electric bass. It is purely subjective, but people have to justify their (more and more expensive) choices by talking pointless rubbish.

In so many years, no-one has gone beyond, "pleasing mid-range honk", "Jaco-like nasal burp", "deep mid-rangy punch", "accents the upper mids", "The lows are 6.3 on the Richter scale", "Lovely top end sizzle", "Superb slap tone".

Almost every bass you buy can demonstrate these qualities with the right amplification, speaker box and a bit of eq. The reviews I read in magazines, the tone descriptions I see in the for sale threads, the reviews on Harmony Central are 99% complete bollocks and of no practical use whatsoever. Put my Warwick through a Markbass and it will sound one way, and sound entirely differently if I put it through an SVT. We think we are sophisticated about our tonal requirements, but we know naff all really. We are like people at the local art club discussing Athena posters while thinking we are Brian Sewell.

This recent market for "tonally transparent" amps and speaker boxes like Mark Bass are another red herring to get you to spend more money and keep the industry alive. They say (and we say) you can really hear the inherent qualities of the bass. ABSOLUTE UTTER TRIPES! Trust me, buy a Mark Bass rig and all it will do is make you talk total crap about the tone of your 1967 Jazz Bass.

Edited February 6, 2010 by silddx

[Jerry_B]

So perhaps it's really all down to the bass+amp equation? Or can we agree that certain types of bass can sound a bit different, because of the pups (i.e. Jazz or Precision)...? I tend to agree with you that nothing really hardcore is going on, deep down. Too many variations are possible.

[Sibob]

Perhaps the 'tone' arguement is indeed used by some to rationlise expensive purchases, I couldn't say. I've paid over £1000 for a bass twice in my life. One was my EUB that I know longer have, and the second was my 1973 Jazz. I love the '73 but it often makes way for my '03 MIA S1 Jazz that I paid £275 for ( ).

But getting back on topic, I refer back to my position of preferring to have a good tone between bass and amp that I like (given the musical situation). I can then add to it as necessary or upon request. But to start with a poor 'core sound' and live with it just because i'm GOING to add other sounds/effects seems like a backward way of doing things to me.
I'm sure my tone has changed as I've grown and gigged more, thats the nature of things, I wouldn't say my basic tone is boring because I enjoy it and I believe it adds something to whatever music I'm playing. So therefore changing things for the sake of it, rather than it serving a purpose also seems backward to me........but perhaps it's me that's backward

Si

[Marvin]

[quote name='Jerry_B' post='737413' date='Feb 6 2010, 05:17 PM']Or can we agree that .......[/quote]

I can tell you're an optimist

[4000]

[quote name='Sibob' post='737337' date='Feb 6 2010, 03:52 PM']Ok so, I love the sound of Jazz's and Precisions...(oh I hope Bilbo doesn't read this bit ), but for me, they work in two different settings....this is specifically for me, I realise that everyone is different. So, variety for variety sake would be me using my Jazz in a setting that wouldn't suit the Precision, then at the next gig with same band, at the expense of the situation/music, I use the Precision just to add some 'spice to my life'.

Do you see what I mean?

Si[/quote]

But occasionally that can be quite interesting to do just to reset your parameters. It often doesn't work but if you don't try you don't find out. Of course I have the luxury if being the band leader. Regardless, that wasn't what I meant. I was referring more to enjoying the myriad experiences of life; not all variety will be good, but at least it's there to try.

[Pete Academy]

[quote name='silddx' post='735706' date='Feb 5 2010, 12:42 AM']His sound was sh*t because it was never sympathetic with the music, he was possibly the most selfish bassist ever to gain glory. His technique and musicality were awe inspiring, but his sound was brash, ugly and selfish, and he was only ever out for himself.

I have not let the thread down with my comment either, there has been some superb debate on this thread which has really got me thinking. Thank you for challenging my view on Jaco's sh*t sound though, I appreciate it.[/quote]

Can you elaborate on why you think Jaco's sound was sh*t? How much Weather Report stuff have you listened to? Why brash, ugly and selfish?

Are you stating that he was selfish because he wanted his bass sound to be a main feature of Weather Report?

So was JJ Burnel selfish too?

[Prosebass]

[quote name='flyfisher' post='737306' date='Feb 6 2010, 03:29 PM']Interesting point - and I agree with you - but you won't convince the diehards.

I'm also a keen photographer and a similar impassioned debate rages in that world between 'chemical' (i.e. film) and digital photography. The really amusing thing about such debates, I think, is that people start to lose the plot. Photography and music are both artistic endeavours and the end results are subjective - you like them or you don't. If you like the tone that comes out of your speakers then the method by which it has been generated is irrelevant. Same with a photograph. The music is not 'better' just because there are valves instead of DSPs in the signal chain anymore than a photo is any 'better' because it came out of a darkroom.

But, in a world where you can buy gold-lated mains plugs and interconnects costing £1000's, there are strong vested interests to keep such debates raging on.[/quote]

Indeed, photography is dear to my heart and it is full of forum members discussing the merits of digital over film , films dead ? shall I go for 14 MP over my my 12 MP camera ? Full frame or 4/3 format, blah blah blah blah blah.
I use 35mm and medium format film cameras, compact and DSLR digital cameras, horses for course non are worse or better than the other, I just take photographs with them.
I am beginning to think the bass fraternity is exactly the same. There are those who have have to justify and push their decisions on equipment on others and those who just play the damm things through whatever they like.
As I said previously a simple Line 6 GX with POD Farm and a laptop is an amazing tool that I use alot. Conversely I love playing straight through a simple practice amp be it valve or tranny or IC.
Shouldn't we just celebrate all this wonderful gear rather than tell each other we are wrong ?

And yes Jaco was a bit of an arrogant twat but then it seems to be a trait of genius ?

Edited February 6, 2010 by Prosebass

[karlfer]

[quote name='Prosebass' post='737523' date='Feb 6 2010, 07:05 PM']Indeed, photography is dear to my heart and it is full of forum members discussing the merits of digital over film , films dead ? shall I go for 14 MP over my my 12 MP camera ? Full frame or 4/3 format, blah blah blah blah blah.
I use 35mm and medium format film cameras, compact and DSLR digital cameras, horses for course non are worse or better than the other, I just take photographs with them.
I am beginning to think the bass fraternity is exactly the same. There are those who have have to justify and push their decisions on equipment on others and those who just play the damm things through whatever they like.
As I said previously a simple Line 6 GX with POD Farm and a laptop is an amazing tool that I use alot. Conversely I love playing straight through a simple practice amp be it valve or tranny or IC.
Shouldn't we just celebrate all this wonderful gear rather than tell each other we are wrong ?

And yes Jaco was a bit of an arrogant twat but then it seems to be a trait of genius ?[/quote]


If I was a millionth as good as Jaco, I would be an arrogant t**t.

[Pete Academy]

[quote name='Pete Academy' post='737503' date='Feb 6 2010, 06:48 PM']Can you elaborate on why you think Jaco's sound was sh*t? How much Weather Report stuff have you listened to? Why brash, ugly and selfish?

Are you stating that he was selfish because he wanted his bass sound to be a main feature of Weather Report?

So was JJ Burnel selfish too?[/quote]

Are you there, Nigel? As Jaco used to say: 'It ain't braggin', if you can back your sh*t up.'

So please back your sh*t up.

Edited February 6, 2010 by Pete Academy

[xilddx]

[quote name='Pete Academy' post='737503' date='Feb 6 2010, 06:48 PM']Can you elaborate on why you think Jaco's sound was sh*t? How much Weather Report stuff have you listened to? Why brash, ugly and selfish?

Are you stating that he was selfish because he wanted his bass sound to be a main feature of Weather Report?

So was JJ Burnel selfish too?[/quote]

No, I can't really elaborate.

sh*t was the wrong word possibly and I did say it was my opinion, and in my opinion his tone was ugly, I do not like. I suppose his sound fitted with Weather Report, I have heard enough WR (and Jaco) to know it's not for me. I suppose they were THAT sort of band, a bunch of soloists joined together by some themes. I've heard his work with Joni, better but not really my thing either, although she is amazing.

He was a very troubled man, with serious mental health issues, and he was a genius on the bass. But his work is not above criticism. He was extremely arrogant, impossible to jam with, and Weather Report was one of the few vehicles that would tolerate that sort of attitude and style of playing. Or so I'm told and have read. Those cats were monsters in their field and were pretty much on an equal footing.

That said, I adore Scott Thunes and he can be an anti-social nut case, although a totally honest one with no real agenda other than his and his family's happiness. BUT, his playing, in my opinion, is so much more interesting, sensitive and augmentative of the whole rather than the individual, than Jaco's ever was, [u]in my opinion[/u]. It's easy to see Jaco's genius, he was virtually a soloist and he was totally in your face, you have to actively listen to Scott to spot his personal magnificence within the music he played a part in.

Hope that helps.