peteb

I think that you have done just that. I'm sure that a P bass with rounds will be just what you need and you just have to be a bit more aware about your EQ to work around the keys player.

The US Standards with the CS pickups (2011? - 2016) are definitely my favourite series of latter day Fenders. Great bass with classic looks...

The mpulse has a bit more EQ available on the para than the Walkabout. To me the HB didn't sound natural from the start, as I want something slightly different from the amp to you. However, the underlying tone was great and once I got to grips with using the Contour control, the sound was there all along.

I was talking about the para on the mpulse rather than the HB. Personally, I like to push the low-mids a little and cut the hi-mids. To do this on the R-400 you have to use the contour control (up to about 11 o'clock for me) and cut the shelved treble control a bit. I may boost the bass a fraction (especially if I am using a jazz bass), or I may cut it if we're in a boomy room. With the mpulse, I have the EQ set on the para and then 'tune in' the frequency on the low-mids to suit the room. I've never used the bright switch!

The trouble is that I have to faff about taking them out! The thing with the paraEQ on the mpulse is that you can decide exactly what frequencies you use - there is no baked in sound. The problem with that is you can get an awful sound if you don't know how to EQ an amp.

I'm trying not to fall into the trap of pushing the R-400 just because I happen to use one. The reason I bought the R-400 was not because I thought it was better than the mpulse, but because I wanted an amp that would do more or less the same thing, but was lighter and more portable than carrying an amp in a rackcase around. To me, the R-400 is directly comparable to the mpulse in terms of tone, but a bit easier to move around. It isn't as small or as light as a Class D, but it's an easy one-hand lift and takes up less room in the car than the rack while sounding far better (IMO) than any Class D amp. It does definitely sound like a 'proper' amp. The downside is that you don't have the same flexibility with the EQ section, but that isn't an issue to many people and the sound is in there once you suss the EQ on the Handbox out. The WB-100 strikes me as more comparable to the Boogie 400+, being an all-valve amp. I am sure I would love to use one, just as I would loved to have had a 400+. But the thing that sold me on the R-400 is the portability.

The Handbox is very mid-focussed (too much for me) if you leave the EQ flat. The contour knob acts as a hi-mid cut, which seems to bring out the lo-mids. You do need to spend a bit of time to learn how to use the EQ properly to get the best out of the amp, but it is much more like your mpulse than an Aguilar or the like. Someone like WoT, who uses a more mid focussed sound than me, could probably advise you how to best use the EQ to get that sound. To me, the Handbox has a LOT more oomph than any Class D head I've come across.

Yea, but you do have a point...!

You do have to press the doorbell, but I've always found them to be very friendly once you gain entrance.

I believe that I saw him on his first ever tour, the Sass Jordan Rats club tour in the early 90s, just before he joined up with Alanis Morissette. A great drummer and a big personality. RIP

Yes and no, there is music theory to support pretty much any changes but of course, certain chord progressions are going to naturally re-occur as they sound easier to the ear (just as a change to the sub-dominant is the main thing that defines a song as having a 'bluesy' quality). However, if you listen to top producers who dominate a lot of chart music, Max Martin and the like, they nearly always use I-V-IV-VI or I-IV-VI-V progressions and will have an equal number of number of syllables on each line of the verse. I can't remember the 'hit factories' of the past, Motown etc, being anything like as rigid in their approach. Of course, there has always been a disposable element to pop music but there is a reason why modern chart stuff sounds so bland and instantly forgettable.

But songwriters were always prepared to break that formula occasionally in the past and audiences were prepared to let them do so. These days a song will not get on the radio / Spotify playlist if it does not exactly adhere to the formula (format, chord progression, number of syllables on each line of the verse, etc - there's been a couple of Rick Beato YT clips giving examples an explanation and examples of this).

Well it does if you are not a good enough songwriter. However, the fact that you can do that, along with the formulaic nature of modern pop music that has conditioned the 'consumer' to expect the hook within seconds of the song starting has led to the 'dehumanised' quality of a lot of new pop music and probably the reason why quite a lot of kids are turning to the music of their parents and grandparents.

But the trouble is that this is why you get cookie cutter modern music and part of the reason why popular music doesn't have the same sway over the public's imagination and the staying power of music from the various 'golden eras'. To take a couple of examples of well loved massive hits of the past that still get a reaction today, 'Wish You Were Here' & 'Don't Stop Believing' have hooks, but you don't hear the chorus until the end of the song. A slightly different example is that the Beatles hardly ever wrote a song using a variation of the I-V-IV-VI progression, which is ubiquitous in virtually all of today's manufactured pop hits. I'm not saying that there aren't great songs that follow the standard formula, but the fact that today's pop music is so disinclined to ever deviate from that formula is part of the reason it is so disposable and doesn't have the same effect on the yoof of today as it did people our age!

The thing is people go to see different types of live bands for different reasons. If your original material intrigues me, then I will quite happily drive to a gig and pay a few quid to see you play on a proper stage. When I go to a pub gig, it's not just about the band. At a pub I want to see a decent band playing reasonably familiar songs (but ideally not the same ones as I heard last week) while I have a few beers and hang out with friends. My expectations, not to mention what I actually want from the night, are completely different to when I pay to see a band playing original material.

So you have wondered about that as well...!

The thing with the real 'classic' rock stuff like Zep or Hendrix (and many other bands), etc that people like Tim dismiss as 'Dad rock', is that they have stood the test of time and are constantly rediscovered by kids who seek out as an alternative to the stuff they are spoonfed these days. A few weeks ago we played to a relatively disappointing audience of 70 or so in a well known venue just to the south west of London (we had had been led to expect an audience of three or four times that). Pretty much all of the audience were blokes in their 50s or 60s who looked like they didn't get out too much to rock shows these days and were there because it was a reminder of their youth / a tribute of their favourite band. Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with that and there is no reason why these people shouldn't go see bands playing the music they love, they were an appreciative audience and the ones we spoke to after the show were very friendly. The next night, we played in Newcastle (I know, sack the booking agent) to a packed and entirely different audience, made up of plenty of people of the same age but obviously very different in the way that they dressed and reacted to the band, but also to a sizable number of much younger people who were all very much LZ fans. Fortunately most gigs are closer to the second gig (although it must be said that Newcastle has always been a particularly good audience IME). The thing is that there will always be an audience for live music and for classic rock in general, but it is never going to be like it was 20 or 30 years ago again. But times move on and there is still plenty of scope to play to decent size audiences, play music you love and make a few quid at the same time. I would much rather do that than play lowest common denominator stuff at weddings of people I don't know and have nothing in common with (not that I haven't done that happily enough in the past).

I'm currently playing in a Led Zep tribute that travels up and down the country. We're gigging all the time, making decent money and packing out most of the shows we do. I've no problem with that so why are you turning your nose up at it? If you love playing blues (or reggae or whatever) and are good at doing it, then FFS that's what you should do. You may have to travel away from your home town, you might even spend the occasional night in the odd travelodge, but that's what being a musician is all about. Why celebrate being mediocre? I've nothing against playing pubs at all, but if you pick your venues you can still play an interesting setlist. A few years ago, I was playing pubs around West / South Yrks / Lancs playing a set mainly based on 80s hard rock (AC/DC, GnR, Van Halen, Skid Row, etc) and we were very successful. It helped that we had an ex touring pro guitarist and a convincing LV / frontman (singing that sh*t is not easy), but we played the right venues and got a decent audience. We made a point of not playing the most obvious songs from that genre, but had a great response wherever we played and built a pretty respectable audience. I would rather do that than playing random bog standard standards because that is all punters who are not really interested in live music know!

The thing is that they are all great songs - there is a reason why they have become standards that every lowest common denominator band plays. The trouble is that we've all heard them too many times.

I've played eight gigs in the last six weeks, from South East London to a bit north of Edinburgh. Like you, that's why I saved up to buy my first Fender Precision as a teenager!

That goes without saying. To be frank, I think its worse with bands playing original material - I have never been in an originals band where I liked all the songs!

Pretty much. Or you can play genre specific covers that you like, appealing to an audience who also like that type of music. Or you can play in a tribute band (something that I seem to be doing a lot these days).

The point being that Metallica started out playing something completely obscure and inaccessible (at the time) that had no audience. Then they and a few like-minded bands inspired by them, went out and created an audience.

Metallica...!

Are you doing this on purpose?? There is nothing to say that no one enjoys listening to the music you want to play, providing you are reasonable and tailor your set to an existing audience and don't go out of your way to find something that no one apart from you likes. However, if you are not playing Mustang Sally, Sweet Child O'Mine, the Killers or the sexy fire song you may find that your audience is not going to be in the chain pub on the main street of a city centre and you may have to search out suitable venues further afield. You may also find that there are a number of very good bands playing the same sort of music, are competing for these gigs in those venues appealing to a relatively smaller audience.