peteb

This depends on what type of band it is and if the guy is actually any good. It’s OK to have fluid arrangements and for the guitar player to change the length of his solos, breakdown sections, etc if he is good enough to carry it off. Part of being a good musician is about being able to listen and adapt / change arrangements on the fly. But this requires the guitar player to give clear cues if he is going to extend passages (or cut them short) and for him to listen to the rest of the band too. Just adding or cutting a solo by a few bars because he can’t or won’t count isn’t acceptable by any means. It’s pretty clear that the guitar player and his singer brother are the band leaders, so you either work the way that they want to work, or you walk…

We all keep going back to bar gigs. I've been playing bigger venues recently with the Led Zep tribute, but tonight was much smaller - a bar with a postage stamp stage. Only 18 tickets sold before the gig, but a respectable turnout in the end considering the weather. A good night in the end, but a nightmare drive home at one o'clock in the morning, over the Pennines in a blizzard!

Not so sure that they actually do. A quick look at the Musicman website has a section titled 'How to manufacture electric bass guitars in the USA' on the first page that says "At our factory in San Luis Obispo, California, we start with hand-selected tonewoods imported from only the finest wood suppliers in the world; bodies of alder, ash, poplar, basswood, mahogany, and maple are individually chosen and matched for their rich tonal qualities, consistent grain characteristics and exceptional natural beauty". I think that most top end bass makers are going to talk about the wood they use, as most people (outside of Basschat of course) think it is of some influence to how a bass is going to sound. As discussed above, probably a marginal one, but still important enough for many buyers to consider when they are looking for a new instrument.

I'm sure that it will be an Epiphone, but as you say, a very nicely put together one (with probably upgraded pickups, hardware, etc)

It's likely that when he got the gig he went to Gibson (or they went to him) and they worked out a deal to push the Epiphone bass. I'm sure that the basses they give him will be top notch and to his spec, just with the Epiphone transfer on the headstock...

1) Yep, that's probably the reason 2) Most of them do

Funnily enough, I have started getting 'high end Samsung' smartphones for the last couple of contracts after years of getting cheaper ones. Although I'm not too bothered about mobile phones and always looked to save a tenner a month on a lesser known brand, I have now come to the conclusion that it is worth paying the extra to avoid the frustration of being stuck with a mobile for a couple of years that just does not do 'the basics adequately'. IME the Samsung is genuinely better and worth the extra cash. However, I haven't gone for an iPhone as that would cost even more than the Samsung and I don't think that it justifies the extra expense.

I'm surprised about that. As you say, it is all down to the individual and we all have different priorities, but I imagine that £1.6k isn't going to break the bank for you. Each of my main gigging basses cost me £1.6k secondhand and I gig them out regularly. I occasionally wonder about selling a few basses and getting a s/h Fodera or a vintage Fender, but that is where I would start to worry about taking them out to pub gigs (or even worse, multi-band festivals). That's my attitude as well - life's too short to gig disappointing basses...

I bought one on here last year (early lockdown) for £1,050 and flipped it pretty quickly (sold it on commission at Bass Direct where I got about £900-£950 for it, so add 20% for what they sold it for). A few years before that, I bought one on eBay that had a few minor issues for about £700 and sold it for about £850 after cleaning it up and changing the jack socket.

If you shop around you can pick up secondhand US Stingrays pretty cheaply.

I think the point is that Roger built his brand on the custom of top players who do know the difference, which was the test for his opinions about wood and how to build a bass in general. I suspect that these days the big majority of his custom will come from the PMABs, who want to own the same bass as the top players and are prepared to pay to do so. I would agree that wood is just one component of what determines the sound of a bass. I would say that all of these components on their own are pretty marginal in isolation, but if you get a lot of marginal gains in the same instrument then you get a good bass. Whether you really need to pay Sadowsky prices is another thing entirely.

A friend of mine is a pro who is paid by a company to endorse a couple of brands of basses that costs around the £400 mark and he constantly tells people / posts on social media that these basses are just as good as expensive brands / best he's ever played, etc. A couple of times I have picked up one of his basses (a jazz bass copy) having just played my Xotic bass (a jazz bass copy that I paid £1.6k for secondhand - about £2.3k new). Are his basses as good as mine? Nowhere close! My basses are streets ahead in terms of sound, playability and construction. When he plays his basses they sound OK because he is a decent player and I am sure that I could play one on a gig if I had to, but mine are just so much nicer to play and sound far better. Is my bass four times as good as his? Probably not, but you pay a bit more for a better instrument and you can tell the difference.

I suppose that you could make more of a case to say that about ACG, Overwater and the like (although whether that would be justified is another thing). You have to look at how Roger Sadowsky built his business, i.e. by becoming the go-to guy for NYC session players for repairs and customising their Fender basses. He then started building basses for this same client group that would be like souped up Fenders (but nether less still sounded basically like a Fender). He mainly used relatively mundane woods like ash and alder, rather than fancy exotic woods (not including those used for tops, which are purely for aesthetic reasons). As far as woods having different sounds, I have a few basses made of ash that sound more or less similar when you play them unplugged. However, I have also had a couple of Warwick Streamers with solid maple bodies. When you play them unamplified, they sound completely different to the ash bodied basses. Therefore, I would suggest that different woods must have some influence on the sound of a bass. As with everything, any one factor is pretty marginal when you play through an amp / PA, but enough marginal gains will make a better instrument (or at at the very least, a different sounding one).

If you are talking to Leszek, remember that English is not his first language and he can sometimes come across as a bit abrupt (which he will later apologise for after he has shown the email to his son). Good luck.

@Al Krow even though I agree with much of what Mr 4000 says, I think that he has a different motivation to the likes of you and me. I like playing live with decent musicians and entertaining an audience. To be frank, I'm not too bothered if it is original music, a tribute or covers (and I've done all three recently) - if I'm playing music that I like with a decent band and there is an audience that appreciates it, then I'm happy.

Or was it because he started scat singing over a bass solo?

You do undoubtedly have a point - it is for the artist to bring their vision to the masses, who may or may not like it. The better artists (including Ms Bush) to so in such a way that their audience will still be able to engage with it.

To be fair, I don't think that is quite what he means...

Absolutely, all great artists are aware of how their art will be perceived by their audience. Indeed, the whole point of art is to get an emotional response from the punter. Equally, most great musicians are aware of an element of performance to their art – from Mozart to Louis Armstrong to Jimi Hendrix. This doesn’t necessarily mean just ‘giving the audience what they want’, but you should be looking at the way that your music affects the audience. Unfortunately, here on good old Basschat, there seem to be people (on both sides) that think these two elements of being a musician are mutually exclusive. Any musician, even a “mediocre covers bass player”, should aspire to be an artist to at least some extent. Playing covers is a perfectly legitimate thing for any musician (be it playing the sexy fire song at the Dog & Duck or Beethoven’s fifth for the London Philharmonic). The art comes in how you curate your covers set and how you present your performance, of which a small part is how you develop your own tone.

You might get bored, but plenty of other people don't. There is something in the human psyche that makes them want to be impressed by other people doing something that they can't, especially something artistic. Of course, this has to be terms that they can readily appreciate and they will become bored as soon as the effect has worn off. To put it in rock and roll terms, when Van Halen came out Eddie playing Eruption live was one of the highlights of the show. Many people were astounded by his virtuosity, the fresh approach and that the solo was flash yet musical and didn't go on for too long. Years later, as his solos got longer and more developed, people applauded the demonstration from Eddie Van Halen, the renowned guitar player. But I don't think that they enjoyed them as much.

A point that some people here do not seem to be able to grasp.

Why? The audience are there voluntarily, because they are anticipating that the band are going to be good. The cheer when they come on is in anticipation, or even (hopefully) excitement. If the band are cr*p, then they can always walk out, boo, throw things, post cutting negative comments on internet forums, etc. But the reason that punters have paid money / gone to the trouble to go to the gig is in the hope that they are going to actually enjoy the band!

I wouldn't assume that Basschat is representative of bass players in general

Yes I agree, but whether you prefer the tone or not (or even if you think that it is important) is down to the player. However, you should be able to notice the difference if you A/B a bass with a BBOT and then with a high mass bridge fitted. If you are really chasing a pure vintage tone then I would have thought that a high mass bridge is not the way to go. Old Fenders, etc all had the original, rather flimsy BBOTs fitted.

If you want to keep it simple, does anyone know anything about the new Aguilar DB599 micro two knob compressor??