BigRedX

Watch or some other wearable electronic device? I've been in a band where the guitarist's choice of time-piece was a major source of unwanted noise through the amps. We ended up instigating a "no watches on stage" rule partly due to eliminating potential problems like this and partly because we ultimately thought it looked better.

Every pick sounds different, either due to weight or material. Go to your local musical instrument retailer and buy a load of different ones and see which you like best. Don't forget to also try them in a band setting (if appropriate) because like amp sounds, what works on solo bass can sound completely wrong once there are other instruments in the mix. There was a point where I was enjoying heavy but hard plastic picks which when I was practicing at home made my bass sound great, but in a band where one of the guitarists favoured a clean sounding Strat all that attack disappeared in the mix leaving the bass sounding weedy. These days I'll still try anything that sounds right when recording, but for live use I've settled on Herco Flex 75s which I now buy 100 at a time and never have any problems with the bass sound disappearing in the mix. For me they also have the added advantage of sounding similar to my finger-style playing so I swap between the techniques for reasons of feel rather than those of tone.

In the 90s my band of the time used MIDI controlled backing and multi-effects for guitar and bass. All the effects patch changes were controlled by the backing, so we didn't have pedals cluttering up the stage. It also meant that I could be anywhere on stage and my sounds would change automatically at the correct points in the song.

It's a difficult one. I know I'll be playing in bands until it becomes absolutely physically impossible, so why should I begrudge others the same? As a punter I'm reasonably lucky in that very few of the bands that I liked when I was first getting into music still exist in any gigging form so I'm unlikely to be disappointed, and there are plenty of new young bands coming up playing music I like, that I can go and see. Because of the genre both my current bands move in, I get to see a lot of bands that were reasonably famous back in the 80s and 90s because we are supporting them. Whilst all of them can still cut it from a performance PoV, the depressing thing for me is that most of them are completely happy to trade on songs that are at best 25 years old. I know that on the whole audiences want to hear what they know and like, but there's not even a token song from the "new album" mostly because there is no new album. It's never been easier to record and release music without needing record label backing, so why aren't they doing it? It's as though their creative abilities got switched off sometime in the late 90s. Notable exceptions to the above are Toyah and Mark Burgess.

The other reason why the bass (and drums) are quieter than anything produced since that advent of the 16 track tape recorder, is that they would have been committed to tape early on in the recording process and become further buried in the mix with each bounce required to get The Beatles vision for their songs achieved with only 4 tracks available. Out of interest how are these new mixes being produced? Do they have access to all the unbounced tapes (I believe that bounces were made between recorders onto a new reel of tape rather than onto a spare track and then the bounced tracks over recorded)? I suspect that there will still be a fair amount of instruments that share a single track simply because doing it that way reduces the number of times the tracks need to be bounced.

Generally the mono mixes were the ones that had the time spent on them. Once everyone was happy with these the stereo mix for the whole album would be dashed off in an afternoon.

All of the bands with "no bass guitar" still have plenty of bottom end in their sound. If you didn't know there wasn't a bass player in the line up you'd never know from just listening to the recordings. IMO this makes them all "gimmick" bands. If they didn't make a big deal about not having a particular instrument the average listen would never be aware of the fact, and the "gimmick" is all that makes them interesting. Most have at best a couple of decent songs. In Hurtsfall we try not to make a big deal about not having a guitarist. Obviously I talk about it on here, but that's because on Basschat we discuss the mechanics of making music and it's relevant to the instruments I use. However when talking to music reviewers we play it down, and I doubt that most of the listeners who haven't seen us live are aware of the fact and probably don't even realise that the more recent recordings don't even have a live drummer. Ultimately it doesn't matter how you make your music just that it is entertaining.

@Baloney Balderdash What strings do you have on your HB GuitarBass? And if you have either the LaBella's or the Newtone Axions can you get the low E string saddle far enough back for the string to intonate correctly?

Not wanting to put a damper on your quest but a few questions first. How wide is the neck on the Bronco at the nut? IMO the neck on most Bass VIs is far too narrow and the problem is only compounded by the extra girth of the bass strings. For instance the nut width on my Squier Bass VI is 40mm (that's less than it is on both my standard guitars) but the actual distance between the centres of the two E strings is only 35mm. How does this compare with the neck on the Bronco? Have you played a Squier Bass VI and can you get on with the tight string spacing? I've given up with "traditional" Bass VIs and moved on to the Eastwood copy of the Shergold Marathon 6-string bass that has a nut width of 50mm and 42mm between the centres of the two E strings). I find that much more comfortable to play. If the Bronco neck is going to be suitable for your needs, then moving on to the bridge. On the Squier the bridge is relatively wide (55mm between E string centres), and while I don't think it's identical to the similar guitar designs it's close. Of course if you're not intending on having a vibrato mechanism you'll need to find a suitable tail-piece for it. I also have a Burns Barracuda Bass VI and that has the Burns version of the "Stratocaster bridge" and is somewhat narrower at 52mm E-E. Fitting the low E string is a bit of a chore but it can be done. The thing to watch is having sufficient travel on the saddles to get the intonation right, especially if you intend to use the heavier Bass VI strings (those with at least a 95 gauge E string) which most bassists seem to prefer. Both the Squier and the Burns came with lighter strings and while the intonation was fine out of the box, fitting LaBella or Newtone Axion Bass VI strings have made it impossible to get the low E string saddle far enough back. If you can get on with Strat type string spacing at the bridge look for a version with a long bass plate and intonation screws so you sufficient travel to get the E string intonated. You'll probably also need to drill out the holes for the low E and A strings to get them to fit. I can't help you with machine head spacing at the headstock other than to say the Squier machine heads are very similar to guitar ones, so standard Strat spacing should work here. Regarding machine heads my personal preference is for the ones on the Burns which has large guitar style buttons but posts similar to the narrower ones found on basses. Finally have you considered just getting a Squier Bass VI? They are less than £400 from Thomann.

I think the problem with a poor live mix can be the presence of too many instruments on stage, often all fighting for the same frequency range. Hurtsfall are now a 3-piece comprising vocals, synth and bass VI with sequenced drums and some additional synths (mostly textures and effects). Since we lost the guitar and live drums our live sound has become much more focused and precise. Because we have computer-driven backing there can be a tendency to fill the mix with extra stuff, but I always try and work from the perspective of playing the songs with just "drums" live synth and live bass VI and only put additional instruments on the backing if there is an obvious gap in the sound that shouldn't be there. Also the "bass" part shifts between Bass VI, live synths and sequenced backing depending on the needs of the song. Originals bands should also remember that there is quite a big difference between what works best on a recording and what works best live in terms of sound and arrangements. Edit: also with Hurtsfall's current line-up I don't see the instrumentation in terms of typical bass and synth sounds, but sounds that are best produced by pressing keys and sounds that are best produced by plucking or strumming strings. These are two very different playing techniques that each lend themselves to different textures and arrangements.

If that was aimed, at me, it was never my intention to look down my nose at covers bands. In fact when I joined my first band in the 70s I was completely unaware that such bands even existed. My knowledge of pop/rock was listening to Radio 1 and seeing bands on TotP and TOGWT where all the bands I liked played songs they had written themselves and everyone else appeared to have their "hits" written specifically for them. In the absence of having our own hit song writing team ready to feed us their latest creations, there was no alternative but to write ourselves. And if "originals" bands can't find an audience, then IMO they are simply not entertaining enough. I've done covers bands and have discovered that it's not for me either as an audience member or a musician. I can't help but feel that even for the best covers band I've been in, our audience would have been better served with a good DJ. There is IMO nothing special about live music in itself, whoever wrote the songs. Of course it probably didn't help that my longest stint in a decent covers band also co-incided with joining what has probably been my most successful originals band. The originals band did more gigs, was more popular, and actually put out records, and while neither band made me any significant money the originals band was just about self-sufficient where the gigs and merch sales paid for our outgoings, whist the covers band despite having a rehearsal space that was essentially free always seemed to require another "upgrade" to the PA that would swallow up anything we earned from gigs. In the end after one gig conflict for both bands I quit the covers band, because for me it simply wasn't enough "fun" to be worth the hassle.

Interesting. I don't think I've ever come across a PJ bass where the P-pickup was quieter than the J.

Yes I agree that aesthetics are absolutely important. I am a Gus owner after all. However I fail to see what the attraction is for a signature bass that has no distinguishing features from the standard model other than the colour and/or graphics. For me the whole point of having a signature bass is that it would offer something noticeably different in terms playability or sound.

But it's still just a P-Bass with a paint job. Close your eyes and it's no different to any other.

I suppose it depends on the kinds of gigs you do, because you'll always be dependant upon being able to use your own amp and cab(s) to get your sound. The sorts of gigs I do - second or third on the bill at gigs with 3-5 bands playing and sharing backline in order to speed up change-overs means that there is a good chance that I will be presented with something that simply doesn't sound right, and insufficient time to make it sound right. Therefore if I can by-pass having to use an inappropriate amp and cab it makes life simpler for everyone. My sound is essentially in the Helix going straight into the PA. If it wasn't for the fact that one of my bands' sound relies on having a Bass VI, I could use anybody's bass, because once I've put it through all the effects I use they all sound much the same anyway. The ultimate aim of this band is to reduce the on-stage equipment to one keyboard controller, Bass VI and a 3U rack containing the computer and audio/MIDI interface that runs the drums, synth sounds and effects for the bass and vocals, all straight into the PA.

Because it tends to make the amp sound good when you try it out in the shop, which is where most amp sales still happen. We all know that what sounds good when playing on our own is not the same as what sounds good when playing in a band with other instruments. TBH having a mid-scoop baked into the basic amp sound is only a problem if you can't compensate for it elsewhere in your signal chain. Ultimately the best way to deal with it is to ditch your amps and cabs altogether, as they tend to add too many variable to the bass sound.

Tension values are absolutes so ordering a set of flat wound strings with the same total overall tension, when tuned to the correct pitches, as the strings they are replacing should achieve what you are after with regard to not having to adjust the truss rod. However as you point out, tension in itself is not the whole story when it comes to the feel of the stings. This is also down to compliance and on the whole flat-wound stings are less compliant than round wounds of the same tension at the same pitch (unless they are TI Jazz flats). Therefore the string will feel different, and more likely will be "stiffer". Only you can decide if the difference in feel is worth not having the make changes to the set up (although you may well have to alter the height of the saddles and adjust the intonation anyway due to the differences in construction of the strings).

But then what makes his bass any different from any other P-Bass?

But the sound that comes out of the speakers is down to the combination of all the elements in the signal chain -the bass, pedals/effects, amp and cab(s), all of which are designed to have a specific sound of their own. In the days when I was still using a conventional bass rig and would often have equipment share gigs, I found there was little point on worrying about "flat". I would plug in to whatever amp/cabs I been given to use, play some bass and tweak the EQ based on what I heard - usually cutting the bass and boosting the mids. Even if there was a definite setting for "flat" on an amp, everyone's signal chain upstream from the amp is going to make them sound different, and everyone has a different idea of what constitutes a good bass sound, which will depend on both personal preference and the instrumentation/sound of the rest of the band.

When I formed my first band at 14, with like-minded friends from school, it never occurred to us to start by playing "covers". In fact we probably didn't even know that word. Nearly all our favourite bands wrote their own songs, and those in the glam rock/pop world often made a big deal about it - usually disparaging those who had their hits written for them. Therefore there was never any question that we weren't going to start writing from the beginning.

AFAIK the less you have in the way of speaker the better for the sound. I would be looking for something like heavy-duty chicken wire to be in keeping with the aesthetic. However you would be better off getting this moved to the Amps & Cabs section and tagging Bill Fitzmaurice in your post (and as others have said changing the thread title so it says "Cab"). The best way to get the thread moved is to report your original post and then explain what you want to do to the in report.

Are the holes for the machine head posts all the same size? It's not obvious from the photo you posted. If so you could change it so the octave strings come first simply by exchanging the outer two machine heads in each course, flipping round the bridge saddles and cutting a new nut.

Maybe build up to it slowly? Try a couple of weeks with just one octave string in each course, and once you're comfortable with that for a set's worth of songs, fit the additional strings back on. I speak as an 8-string player, who never really had that much of a problem using one.

I learnt to play when I was 13 for the express purpose of being able to write my own songs. As soon as I was competent enough to be able to strum my way through most of "The Beatles Complete" I concentrated on writing rather than just playing.

I can't think of a single musician in any of the bands I really like who stands out as being more than adequate when it comes to technique. Maybe they do have "great chops" but in the context of their usual playing I don't see/hear it. What these musicians do have is great song writing and the ability when playing together to produce something that is far greater than the sum of their musical parts.