Linus27

[quote name='RayFW' post='424131' date='Mar 3 2009, 02:16 PM']Do you know just how many tins of rice pudding were sold last week???!!![/quote] Who cares, rice pudding is sh*t. Treacle Tart is so much better

[quote name='51m0n' post='424117' date='Mar 3 2009, 02:01 PM']If I misunderstood you then I apologise, but thats how to came across when you said "If thats the genre of music you like then its unlikley you would be raving about U2.". Sounded like liking the Funk Brothers means you wouldnt expect me to like U2. What did you mean then???? Especially since you like both so much!?!?! Now you totally confused me.[/quote] I asked what other bands/groups you liked. Your reply was one group. This gave the impression that Motown was your thing. With the limitations to the internet and expression and the ease at assuming, my assumption was Motown was the genre you liked. If for example you said Iron Maiden or Girls Aloud, then again, due to the limitations with the internet, these answers would had given a totally different impression. What you should had done is said The Funk Brothers, Iron Maiden, Girls Aloud, Cliff Richard, Bo Didley, Duran Duran and Miles Davis. That way I would had been really confused and probably jumped off a tall building .... with my U2 records

[quote name='skankdelvar' post='424098' date='Mar 3 2009, 01:39 PM']Bono: "Everytime I clap my hands, a child dies in Africa" Audience member: "So stop clapping your f *ckin' hands".[/quote] You do know that that story is actually false and is a joke based on the Make Poverty History advert where stars are seen clicking their fingers.

[quote name='Prosebass' post='424088' date='Mar 3 2009, 01:25 PM']How it go ? can you hum it ?[/quote] Dum x 8, then Dum x 8, then Dum x 8, then Dun x 8 and repeat for about 4 mins until you fall asleep or die.

[quote name='51m0n' post='424084' date='Mar 3 2009, 01:19 PM']No you were fine at that point, and I responded with a band that I consider truly great, and an inspiration to all musicians; this however:- Is the point where your comment became absurd, since you assumed that liking and admiring the Funk Brothers for any reason at all could in some way prevent me from liking U2, unless of course you consider liking Motown to probably mean I have more discerning taste than to like U2 (which I'm starting to believe may well be the case) So is there anyone out there who likes Motown and U2?? or is Linus27 correct in his assumption that you can like one but not he other?????? Anybody??[/quote] I think your looking to deep into some of my comments as half the stuff you have written above is assuming on what I was thinking which is clearly wrong. Oh and to answer your other question, I like Motown and U2. So much so that only the other day I was saying to dave_bass5 that I would like to play in a Motown covers band. So to answer your question, then Yes.. ME

[quote name='51m0n' post='424024' date='Mar 3 2009, 12:01 PM']Oh please, dont for one moment dare to make assumptions about the breadth of my personal taste based upon that response. You have no idea how far and wide that may range, and your assumption is therefore utterly absurd.[/quote] Well, all I asked was I would be interested in hearing what music/bands you do consider good/great and well, thats all the answer you gave. Can't blame me for that one.

[quote name='51m0n' post='424008' date='Mar 3 2009, 11:52 AM']How about The Funk Brothers?[/quote] If thats the genre of music you like then its unlikley you would be raving about U2.

[quote name='51m0n' post='423938' date='Mar 3 2009, 10:20 AM']Very few people who hang off every album by U2 and aren't musicians have heard of Jaco, much less have heard and listened to Portrait of Tracy. It's sad but true, so to state that the 4 notes of the b-line to With or Without You means more than something they probably never heard is a bit silly, I mean its a fair point in some respects, but then I doubt most of them could even tell you thos four notes either, cos they are concentrating solely on the vocal in fact. Like with every other normal punter listening to pop, its ALL about the vocal. I agree that they wrote a couple of decent songs early on, they are absolute masters of playing the media game to best effect, or their record company are. I don't agree that the average pop listener pays any attention to Adam Clayton at all. Why would they, he deliberately does nothing noticeable, thats, if anything, his style, and it clearly works for them. I reserve the right to have an opinion that apart from one or two reasonable (though not staggering) early songs which I thought were OK when I was 14 or however old, they have done literally nothing that I have enjoyed, liked, thought of as great music or whatever. In that regard then I feel that they are generally over rated. We will all have to agree to disagree, since no amount of your personal enjoyment, or there frankly staggering (in light of their, IMO, mediocre product) record sales will change my mind for a moment. The fact is I clearly have different (not necessarily right or better, just different) criteria for what I consider good/great or simply decent pop music, for me that really isn't U2, and never will be. If you think they are modern messiahs of musical performance and expression I'm pleased you have found what you are looking for. I have found mine elsewhere.[/quote] Sorry but I have to disagree with you on the point of concentrating solely on the vocal. Peaches by The Stranglers for example is all about the music and the bass primarily. The Doors Light My Fire is based around the keyboard riff. Eric Clapton's Layla is about the guitar riff and Big Country's In a Big Country is based around the guitar riff, Simple Minds Waterfront is based around the bass and keyboard hooks, U2's New Years Day is based around the bass hook and the best of all, New Order's Blue Monday which was just a keyboard demo track is based solely on the music of that demo. Take those elements away and the song would be nothing. Take the vocal away and the song would still remain. Its natural for the listener to follow the vocal, thats the whole point of popular music. Jazz or clasical is different but not all pop music purely hangs on the vocal. I would be interested in hearing what music/bands you do consider good/great.

As I said earlier in this thread, I am a massive U2 fan but have been dissapointed by the latest album as are other U2 fans. I think one fan has summed up U2 for me with this sentance, [i]"U2 have stood still for the last 8 years, and they have suffered for it."[/i]

[quote name='bassicinstinct' post='423351' date='Mar 2 2009, 04:04 PM'][u][b]Linus27:[/b][/u] Could [b]not [/b]agree more with the final para of your last post. I would no more expect to persuade you toward my opinion than you would expect me to dash out and buy the entire U2 back catalogue.[/quote] You mean you don't have the entire works of Bono and boys??? Disgusting. You should download it now :):) Hope to chat with you again soon.

[quote name='bassicinstinct' post='423235' date='Mar 2 2009, 02:25 PM']On the other hand, is it not the case that there are countless bands or artistes of glaringly obvious quality and/or talent who sell little or nothing or may even be unsigned and would it not be reasonable to consider them to be "under rated"? Or am I missing something? [/quote] Not always the case because those artists do not have the commecial backing and exposure to get noticed to a wider audience. It does not mean they are under-rated. It's more of a case that they are just not very well known. Again, this goes back to the point of people liking U2. The early U2 albums only sold a few million. However, the popularity was growing and the next few albums sold more and more copies until they peaked with the Joshua Tree at 25 million. Coming up to date they are still selling 9 million copies so the popularity is still high. Take a band like Oasis who sold a few million early on but the last few albums have really dropped in album sales and I don't think even hit 1 million. I guess people/fans just don't rate them as much anymore. As for Westlife, I don't like them but for what they, I would rate them as one of the better boybands. They are clearly popular and the grannies and young girlies rate them very highly. Anyway, I don't think we are going to see eye to eye on this so best we just drop it and agree to disagree. I really don't want to get into arguments on this very fine forum. This is one of the nicest forums I read and I would sooner keep it that way and try to remain friends with everyone

[quote name='bassicinstinct' post='423163' date='Mar 2 2009, 01:20 PM']144 million album sales means an act [b]can't [/b]be over rated?!?! The logic of that proposal [b]totally[/b] defeats me. I'd have thought that the very fact that sales were high would tend to lend credence to the allegation but, hey, what do I know. [/quote] Don't be defeated, its easy. 144 million people like their music and so buy it. You, as 1 person do not. I think the 144 million people who have bought the albums shows a lot of people like the music. See, its easy. Even taking the last album which in my opinion was ok, sold 9 million album. Where as Oasis I think have not even sold 1 million of their last album. So U2 music liked and Oasis music not so liked. After all this time, which I think is about 30 years for U2, a band that was over-rated would not had sold 144 million copies and 9 million on their last album. Surely people would had realised that if they were over-rated that they would give up buying the music.

[quote name='51m0n' post='423065' date='Mar 2 2009, 12:11 PM']Total personal opinion, cant stand U2, never have. Although the first two songs I heard from them (Sunday Bloody Sunday and something else) I thought were OK at the time, I never felt they really did anything particularly great or all that worthy of amazement. Not once. Having said that I never liked the Smiths either (gets asbestos coat on and ducks). And Bono does his very best to come across as a t*t every time I see or hear anything from him. Last point, just having a huge number of sales doesn't make anything good in this industry - really. It is, and always was, very much a self perpetuating marketing machine, thats why they were on the JR show in the first place, no doubt billed as the saviours of rock and roll. ANd the vast majority of the public have historically bought what they were told to by said marketing machine. So don't quote sales figures to me as they are no indication of musical quality whatsoever. Anyone care to judge the output of Stock Aitkin and Waterman purely on sales? And now apply some musical taste and discretion to you judgment; still the same? Then you sir are IMHO a philistine.[/quote] Not sure who is more of a t*t. Bono or Morrisey. Morrisey keeps raving on about being a eco friendly vegatarian celibate ponse who dances around with flowers in his back pocket with an elvis quiff singing the same morbid depresive lyrics about someone either in a coma or about to be run over by a bus. Have to disagree on the sales point. The reason it was raised was because it was claimed U2 were over-rated. 144 million album sales really shows that a lot of people like them and so they can't really be classed as over-rated. Their last album alone sold 9 million. To put it in perspective, Stock Atkin and Waterman have sold 40 million worldwide. A drop in the ocean compared to U2 sales. The argument of sales versus quality however is very different but that was not being discussed.

I really am going to have to bite my tongue here. I would probably say I am the biggest U2 fan on this board so a lot of the comments are bugging me and annoying the crap out of me. I don't mind the comments saying I don't like U2, or Bono etc but saying a band is over-rated or crap really is pretty lame. A band as big as U2 in all honesty can't be classed as over rated. You may not like them but selling 144 million albums worldwide does not make them overated unless your opinion means more than 144 million people. Boy : ~3m October : ~3m War : ~8m UABRS : ~8m Unforgettable Fire : ~8m WAIA : ~2m Joshua Tree : ~25m Rattle & Hum : ~14m Achtung Baby : ~17m Zooropa : ~8m Pop : ~6m Best of 1980-90 : ~16m ATYCLB : ~12m Best of 1990-00 : ~5m HTDAAB : ~9m Total = ~144 million Also, having worked with some of the engineers/producers of U2 albums, I know what a lot of them think and say of the band as musicians. I would bet a large amount of money that a lot of people here would not be able to play Adam's bass lines as well as he. He is considered one of the tightest, spot on in time bass players around. I agree, he is not one of the most technical and he knows it but U2's music does not require that which I must admit, in my opinion is a shame. For the record, I find Adam's bass playing far more intersting within the context of the song than say listening to Victor Wooton or Jaco. To much noodling or fret w***ing and not enough substance. Early U2 songs had some great bass lines but it is a shame that U2 have gone away from this sound. In my opinion, The Edge is relying on far too many effects these days. They are still writing some great songs but I think they are trying to be too clever with the way they are presenting them. I would love to see U2 go back to the War/Unforgetable Fire period but I can't see it ever happening. The last album sold 9 million copies and the one before that 12 million. They are clearly doing somerthing right. As for the new album, well I think its sh*t. Honestly, I think the songs are weak, bland and totally lost of direction. I got the leaked copy some weeks ago and I thought it was a joke. Sadly, it is not. Ok, there are one or two good songs but most of it is very very weak. The general feeing among the U2 news group I am a member of also feel this way. I also agree that the recent live shows on the BBC and French TV etc have be very very poor. Anyway, I just hope some can put it in perspective and see that you may not like U2, or Bono as a frontman or Adam's bass playing and you may hate the songs but the sales show for themselves that they certainly are not overrated. Enough people like them but your just not one of them

I so want that Adam Clayton one

[quote name='stoo' post='420452' date='Feb 26 2009, 10:17 PM']Don't Lakland already make one of them?[/quote] Sure do and I want one

[quote name='P-T-P' post='420099' date='Feb 26 2009, 02:31 PM']Lakland did do a limited run of Skylines with an Adam Clayton set-up... natural, black blocks, unbound. I believe one of our esteemed members here has one, though his was further customized with Chi-Sonic pick-ups.[/quote] Now that I would kill to see and would quite possibly love to own. Anyone know who here has it or got any pictures of this bass??

[quote name='BigBeefChief' post='419871' date='Feb 26 2009, 09:40 AM']The trouble is, what you've described sounds different to everyone. Describing sound is so subjective. When I try a new amp, I usually look for amps with 3 knobs. The one on the left (Bass) I put most of the way up. The one in the middle (the one that does nothing apart from increase the clattering noise when you play) either gets turned turned most of the way down or off completely. The one furthest right, I can't really remeber where that goes (I think somewhere between in the middle and all the way up). In terms of basses, I won't go near anything with batteries of 5 strings. I don't like new strings either. I like what could be described as a dull thud. I would probably like flats but can't be bothered trying them. I like to sound like by playing has been recorded on really old and dusty cheapo studio gear.[/quote] I thought I was hardcore but you take it to a new level. Instead of turning things on full or off, I try and keep it all flat. Two knobs is better for me. Bass and treble. Then on the bass, if its a precision then volume on full and tone on either full treble or in the middle. If a Jazz then both volumes on full and tone of full treble or in the middle. As a rule, I hate 5 strings, actives, lots of knobs and dials. However, I can accept a Musicman Stingray. Generally, passive is best though. No pedals either. Plug in and play. I like my sound to be full but not fat. If I am playing 8's then I like them to be full but every single note heard, not just a constant low deep noise. I like the 70's Precision clank. Musicman is normally too thin and trebly but some days it sounds great. Its just never fat enough for me. I like a bass sound to sound angry.

[quote name='stingrayfan' post='419113' date='Feb 25 2009, 10:56 AM']America - when the £ against the $ was better. (my G&L bass) Otherwise: here (several basses, Trace Elliot stuff), online retailers like Absolute (leads, mixer etc), Ebay (odds and sods like strings) and Andertons in Guildford, Surrey (Yammy bass and Warwick cab - great store). There is a big guitar shop in my town but they're so aloof and overpriced, that I've stopped going in there.[/quote] Fleet or Farnham or other??

[quote name='Geek99' post='418525' date='Feb 24 2009, 04:34 PM']An adam clayton sig bass would just be a standard maple jazz as far as I can see; that's all I have seen him play recently. I think jpj just played a standard 62 3sb r/w jazz as far as I can recall; I think I read somewhere that he still has it[/quote] Well, Adam's basses are, AUERSWALD-A. Clayton Custom [fretless]-Yellow-[1996/97] AUERSWALD-A. Clayton Custom [fretted]-Yellow-[1996/97] EPIPHONE // Rivoli (hollow-body // 19xx // finish uncertain FENDER - Jazz bass - [196x] candy apple red finish FENDER - Jazz bass - [1961] sunburst finish FENDER - Jazz bass - [1964] Sherwood Green finish FENDER - Jazz bass - [1965] Shoreline Gold finish FENDER - Jazz bass - [1966] sunburst finish FENDER - Jazz bass - [1972] sunburst finish FENDER - Jazz Deluxe Bass - [19xx] - vintage white finish (w. dark tortoiseshell pick guard) FENDER - Precision bass - [19xx] - black finish/white pickguard FENDER - Precision bass - [19xx] - white finish/tortoise pickguard FENDER - Precision bass - [1972 or 1973] - sunburst finish/finish highly faded/Jazz neck FENDER - Precision bass - [1997] - [finish confirmed] GIBSON - Firebird bass - [19xx] - natural finish GIBSON - Firebird bass (non-reverse) - [19xx] - natural finish GIBSON - Les Paul Recording Bass - [197x] - white finish GIBSON - RD bass - [19xx] - natural finish IBANEZ - Musician bass - [19xx] - dark brown finish IBANEZ - Roadstar bass - [19xx] - black finish LAKLAND - Bob Glaub signature model - [Xxxx] - natural finish/black pickguard LAKLAND - Daryl Jones signature model - [2005] - Metallic Gold / custom finish LAKLAND - Daryl Jones signature model - [2005] - Metallic Teal / custom finish LAKLAND - Daryl Jones signature model - [2005] - Natural finish (QTY. 2) LAKLAND - Joe Osborne signature model - [Xxxx] - natural finish LAKLAND - Joe Osborne signature model - [Xxxx] - tobacco sunburst finish RICKENBACKER - 4001 bass - [19xx] - Fireglo finish WASHBURN - acoustic bass - 198x - natural finish ZON - Legacy bass - [pre-1986] - white finish Last night on French TV he ws playing FENDER Jazz bass - [196x] candy apple red finish and FENDER Precision bass - [19xx] - white finish/tortoise pickguard. His main bass for years though was FENDER Precision bass [1972 or 1973] sunburst finish/finish highly faded/Jazz neck.

What about Sir Paul McCartney?? Anyone done a signature model for him?

[quote name='EBS_freak' post='418360' date='Feb 24 2009, 01:25 PM']Mark King will play anything given to him! I seem to recall a signature Alembic too. I think theres a bit in here - [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_King_(musician)"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_King_(musician)[/url][/quote] [b][i]In 1996, King briefly used Fender basses. A limited run of 42 "Mark King" Jazz basses were made, based on the American Deluxe series, built and set up to King's specifications. They all came fitted with SIM's LED lights, flat-radiused fingerboards and a custom neck plate engraved with his signature.[/i][/b]