P-T-P

Clwb Ifor?

I had one of these a few years back for a particular project which fell through and I sold it without ever playing it through my actual gig set-up until the evening the new owner was coming to collect. Gutted when I heard it only to see it leave a few minutes later. Really full, beefy sound with rounded (but not as blunt as you might think) top end. Fit and finish on mine was excellent and while I didn't spend a whole lot of time setting it up, the action etc. was as good as the initial condition of most of the other basses that have arrived on my doorstep over the past few years (Fenders, Warwicks, Laklands, Yamahas). I'm still on the look-out for a second hand one at the right price. Can buy for £350ish new. Mine sold for £220 after a relatively long time on the market.

Personally, I love, love, love my DJ5. Never though I would find a bass that would stick and in the time I've owned it (3 years or so) I have also had more than a few other basses to accompany it but every time I go back to the DJ5 and have concluded it's going to be with me for a very long time. One of the other basses I owned was another DJ5 (rosewood, passive) which I didn't feel anything like the connection with as I do mine (maple, bartolini NTBT pre-amp). It sounded decent and for a passive bass it had loads of tone variation, but lacked a certain something that mine has in the comfort department and, more importantly in the sound. In the end I think it may have been the pick-ups as mine has Aeros in but some DJs shipped with Fralins and nowadays they all come with Lakland pick-ups. Personally, I think it would be worth trying to find a second hand DJ5 with Aero pick-ups in it. Oh yeah, comparisons. JO5 has a slightly sweeter tone to it, breathy, 60's-ish and does it really well. DJ5 is much more immediate and attention grabbing and does everything from heavy thump to zingy (without ever being thin). Does the Marcus Miller tone better than the Fender Marcus Millers too, if that's your bag. DJ5 is much more versatile and really knock-out live as it cuts and drives way better than pretty much every other bass I've owned (which is a lot, look through the For Sale forum lol). You're welcome to come try mine out if you can make it down to sunny Chepstow, it is an epic bass.

My DJ4 had a J-Retro which was always on for me. Did have DR Extra .045s on there, as that's what's on my DJ5, but then went for LaBella flats which gave it a lovely thud. Ultimately though, DJ4 not for me, much prefer the "warmth and punch" of my DJ5 (Bartolini NTBT, for the record) to the "punch and punch you harder" of the DJ4.

[quote name='niceguyhomer' post='485540' date='May 12 2009, 07:29 AM']A very nice bloke who lives in a very nice part of the world. He sold me a very nice Sandberg and now my Sadowsky is getting dusty. A pleasure to deal with in every respect.[/quote] And with the proceeds, Phil bought my DJ4 and that was an equally pleasurable experience.

[quote name='EBS_freak' post='481755' date='May 7 2009, 11:25 AM']Hmm. Interesting - my fingers and brain tell me different. Just goes to show eh?! I defo know that the string spacing at the bridge is wider... whats the neck profile like on a Fender Jazz? Is it thicker than the Lakland? I'm not making any excuses for being wrong (which I guess I am by looking at the figures) but the Lakland string width to me defo felt wider![/quote] Haven't played a Fender Jazz 5 from the last couple of years, but not aware of any changes. The nut is a couple of mm wider on the Fenders but the Lakland neck is far more tapered as you say, so I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that by the 2nd or 3rd fret, the spacing on the Lakland is wider. We're probably both right and wrong in equal measure lol

[quote name='OutToPlayJazz' post='479399' date='May 4 2009, 09:20 PM']String spacing is pretty narrow on the Lakland 5's, especially the DJ5 & JO basses.[/quote] [quote name='EBS_freak' post='480126' date='May 5 2009, 05:23 PM']Really? I find the DJ to be quite large - and there is not a lot of taper on the neck so the string spacing at the nut is wide compared to a standard Fender jazz.[/quote] Pretty sure string spacing on all the Lakland 5s is 19mm at the bridge and they're all 35" scale and all have the same 46mm nut width. Spacing at the nut is tight compared to a Fender Jazz 5 but wider at the bridge.

[quote name='Shambo' post='426414' date='Mar 5 2009, 04:43 PM']I'VE GOT IT! U2 haters have actually got better taste in music than U2 have? No?[/quote] I imagine many of them think that lol

I use IEMs. Used Shure EC3s and when they were lost, used SCL3s. Tried EC2s briefly. For bass guitar, all the fancy gubbins in the world inside the buds won't give you a nice low end response if the phones don't seal in your ear very well. That's the big advantage of the fitted ones. As I undertand it, the Shure SCL3s and above are compatable with most personal moulded earpieces. That having been said, I use the yellow foam tips (and have tried the black foamy ones too) they work pretty well. I did have a try with the silicon and rubber ones but found that none of the silicon ones gave a comfortable fit and were a bit hard while the rubber ones were a bit too soft. None of them worked as well in terms of comfort and sound as the yellow foam ones. However you have to change the foam ones more regularly. For me the IEMs are more about protecting ears and hearing vocals better, but with regards to bass, the EC2s weren't great, the EC3s and SCL3s are really good. I still use an amp on stage and as the IEMs only filter that onstage sound, everything is still audible, just less loud. In fact, I'd say that the drums are bit more distinct while the guitar drops into the background a bit. I still feel the bass from my amp and hear it, though slightly muffled. With the monitor mix added to that then I get the bottom end reinforced a little and the top end is quite sparkling, sometimes a bit too bright. I personally add a little guitar to my mix along with kick drum and a little from each of the other three vocal mics on stage as well as my own vocals. Where possible we try to add a condenser mic or two pointed out towards the room to get a bit more ambience. My experience is that it's very weird at first and will take some time both getting used to wearing them and also getting your mix right. Unless you have loads of time to soundcheck and set up room mics, you're always going to feel just a little isolated. The plus point though of course is you can hear everything without risking damaging your ears and you can turn up the bass in your IEM mix without affecting the FOH or on-stage balance. A minor downside (that you have to turn into a positive) is that you really can hear everything you're playing and it kinda accentuates your mistakes a little, but long term that's good 'cause it focuses your mind. I can't speak for the benefits or otherwise of using consumer phones as opposed to dedicated IEM phones, but so long as they're sufficiently high quality and have bud tips that will seal in your ear. Go for it. Other than that, my advice would be to make sure you have an individual mix, at least to control you bass volume in your IEMs and ideally you want to be able to EQ it seperately to the EQ on your amp/FOH mix. A simple two channel mixer should sort this for you if your PA or IEM system can't. Hope that helps.

[quote name='skankdelvar' post='425921' date='Mar 5 2009, 11:07 AM']I missed this one earlier in the week: [i]The BBC has apologised after Bono called Chris Martin a "w****er" live on Radio 1. The U2 frontman had just played the Live Lounge with his band and was speaking with Jo Whiley when he reportedly made the comment about the Coldplay singer. A BBC spokeswoman apologised for any offence the remark may have caused to listeners. "An on-air apology was made immediately for the language used," she said, adding that she was not aware of any viewer complaints lodged following the interview.[/i][/quote] [quote name='bassicinstinct' post='425929' date='Mar 5 2009, 11:11 AM']Kettle/pot. Pot/kettle. Q.E.D.[/quote] Just to add some context. It was said in jest. He also called him a disfunctional character and a cretin too. Then when the joking (and apology) was done he said he is a melodic genius, up there with RayDavies and Paul McCartney and a great soul.

[quote name='RAY AGAINST THE MACHINE' post='424464' date='Mar 3 2009, 08:03 PM']The rant lasted alot longer than that. .. It wasn't a brief detour. Campaign?? Sign up?? (it's that martyr thing again''gimme yer money'') Metallica to name just one band were cheaper..and better. I've no problem with any band making money ..I've been to hundereds of gigs and never had to listen to a jimmy swaggart type begger telling us to give money.(Text messages cost money..ask Simon Cowell) Most professional artists don't need to treat their audience to such drivel. They just put on a damn good show. I wonder if he'll put the rag on his head and start begging again when they tour here . Is he aware of the recession?? Oh well, I 'm keeping out of this topic now coz I had my rant and can only take so much of this band anyway ciao [/quote] First, I was there, it wasn't a huge long rant. He spoke a little about the "Make Poverty History" campaign and asked people who agreed with it's principle to text in as a way of signing the petition. Second, the text messages cost nothing over and above the standard network rate. There was no profit being made, plus, if you did happen to text in, your name was put up on the screens during the show. Third, as a result of the campaign, which also included Live 8 and numerous other associated activities, millions of extra children are in school in the developing world. Millions more people are getting the drugs that mean instead of dying of AIDS they are living with HIV as productive members of society and their kids are able to be kids instead of having to fend for themselves as orphans. I'm sorry that the brief moments it took to encourage other people to help make this little bit of goodness in the world a reality put such a crimp in your life. If he does pull out the rag again, make sure you haven't bothered to turn up to the show, I'm sure the band won't weep about you not being there.

[quote name='51m0n' post='424121' date='Mar 3 2009, 02:08 PM']He asked me who I thought was a great band, he didnt ask for any more than that. The Funk Brothers were a great band. They were responsible for all the musical hooks played on a gazillion sold albums. Where did anyone state they needed to be anything other than a house band? I stand by my point regarding what they did to extend the canon of popular music. Compared to which U2 have frankly done virtually nothing (IMO). As for "how many records did they sell when their record company and all it's artists upped and left for LA? ", well thats just part of the criminal neglect they got as the musicians responsible for putting those songs out. Jamerson invented the basslines, no one wrote them out note for note for instance. So, yeah a lot of people put their creativity into them, and I would rather everyone involved had got what they deserved to out of the success; I dont believe that that happened, but I also believe that that doesn't actually detract from the importance and significance of The Funk Brothers in any way.[/quote] I totally accept that the Funk Brothers didn't get the credit they deserved, but I don't even think there's one song you can point to and say that it was written by them. Yes, Jamerson's basslines were his creation, but within the framework of the song he was given. I suppose it would be fair to say that they brought the songs to life, or gave them the vitality they had. My point however was that taking the sales comparison between records that the Funk Brothers played on and U2's sales figures was not an even field as the Funk Brothers were not the sole creative force at work or indeed the artist on the sleeve who the punters bought into whereas U2 are (with the exception of a couple of tracks). I don't for one second deny the Funk Brothers contribution to music. The difference between us is that even if I don't particularly like some types of music, I don't dismiss their contribution to music simply because of my taste. However you (or anyone) feels about U2, it is just patently ridiculous to suggest they have contributed "virtually nothing" to music from anything other than a totally subjective, and therefore flawed, standpoint. Yes, you can qualify it by saying "IMO" but if you make the statement preceeding it as though it is fact, if you talk about "the canon of music" rather than simply the music you happen to appreciate, you can't expect people not to get a bit peeved by it. Are you unable to make an objective (or at least as objective as possible) evaluation of U2? Can you not see how The Edge has been a huge influence in the way the guitar is used in popular music (however uninspired you may find his playing to be)? Or that, even though you remain unmoved, their songs have touched millions or people's lives positively? Or that bands like Coldplay, Elbow, Keane, The Killers etc. (even if you don't like them) have been massively influenced by U2 and as a result popular music's evolution post U2 has been affected by U2 (even if you don't see that affect as a positive)? I'm not particularly a fan of the Beatles, or the Stones, or Led Zepplin but I'd be an idiot not to acknowledge that a lot of what came after them exists because of them. [quote name='51m0n' post='424124' date='Mar 3 2009, 02:10 PM']overrate v overrate [əuvəˈreit] to think that something is better, stronger, more valuable etc than it really is No argument from me on that one.....[/quote] I didn't suggest we couldn't find a dictionary definition of it, I said we wouldn't be able to get 100% aggreement as to what being overrated (within the context of this discussion) is exactly - i.e. is it record sales, artistic merit, peer opinion, critical opinion, public opinion, influence, etc.? Some combination? How much of each? - and even if we could decide, how do we then measure? In the end it'll only ever be opinion and to say a particular band is overrated in your own opinion seems odd. Surely you rate a band at exactly where you think they should be rated and if you mean overrated by other people, then surely you're then suggesting that your opinion is somehow more important than those other people and isn't that, in effect, overrating yourself? Unless your opinion only matters more to yourself, in which case, why inflict it on the rest of us? lol

Okay, like Motown, love U2. There's a snag with the Funk Brother's comparison though because really, how many records did they sell when their record company and all it's artists upped and left for LA? Don't get me wrong, these are masterful musicians, but people bought Marvin Gaye/Supremes/Temptations/Stevie Wonder records, not Funk Brother records. And virtually none of the songs on those records were written by the Funk Brothers. And if we're talking about marketing, Motown wasn't exactly backwards in that department and for every gem of a song that came out on that label, there was probably 100 banal offerings to accompany it. I don't mean to put down the legacy of the Funk Brothers at all, but they were a backing band - an extraordinary one for sure - but a backing band nonetheless. Their presence and abilities no doubt helped towards the success of many records, but it was far from the only reason for those records' success. When it comes to U2's record sales, most of everything they've achieved is down to them - their songs, their performance, their decisions on promotion, track orders, sleeve designs etc. Having said all that, the whole sales argument is phoney. As, to be honest, is the whole overrated argument. "One man's meat" and all that. I bet we couldn't even get 100% agreement as to what constitutes "being overrated." What's annoying about it as a U2 fan is that it's always directed at U2 without it ever really being sought out, as evidenced by the beginnings of this whole thread. Okay, so some people don't like U2. I'm sure that's true of pretty much every band, but no other band really has people going out of their way to point out their dislike/hatred of them the way U2 does.