peteb

Not to mention a different attitude to mental illness these days.

I must admit, and of course this is from my POV, if you are playing over 100 gigs in 18 months (getting on for three times as many gigs as I've done in that period), I am a bit surprised that you haven't given in to the temptation of upgrading to a Shure system. Assuming you're making reasonable money on each gig, it's only a couple of shows to pay for the difference and you've got a better system that's going to last for much longer (I paid £400 or so for my Shure nine years ago and it's still going strong with no issues). Back in the mid 80s when I first joined a band that played bigger gigs all over the place, it was on the understanding that I was going to upgrade my gear (I had a P bass that was deemed acceptable, but I was told that I needed a spare and to upgrade my amps, etc). They said that they always got the best gear they could, even if it was a bit more than they afford and that saved them a lot of money in the long run. They were, of course, quite right and within 18 months or so I had a really cool rig that sounded great. All of this helped to establish me as a credible player in the local scene (and beyond) that has served me well to this day. Having said that, I have just ordered a NUX system, partly inspired by what people have said about them on this thread. I've done a couple of deps recently where it wasn't practical to take the pedalboard with the Shure receiver, and where a decent dongle based system like the NUX would have been very useful (as well as for rehearsals).

I'm afraid that I take a very different view. I've had loads of wireless systems since they first came out decades ago (remember the old illegal Nady systems that always used to pick up local taxi firms in the middle of gigs) and all of them were c*ap and I ended up going back to leads! I got the GLDX16 not that long after it came out (about ten years ago?) and it just works as it should do. It's done hundreds of gigs and the battery is still perfectly good, no latency issues, works fine on bass and sounds as good as you would expect. My advice is to pay a bit more and buy once, rather than get cheaper alternatives that you will get rid off and replace because they don't work as well as the better kit. It's arguably cheaper, and certainly better. I've got an xvive system that I picked up for £30 or so on eBay and while it's OK for around the house, personally I wouldn't trust it on a gig. The Shure is in a completely different class.

Yes, I've got the GLXD16 and it works great, by far the best wireless system I've ever had (and I've had a few). Not sure what you mean by Tx, but the Shure has a transmitter that you attach to your guitar strap and a lead from that plugs into the jack socket of the guitar.

Don't disregard going for a commission sale. In addition to reducing the hassle of selling it yourself, a place like Bass Bros (or Bass Direct) will generally achieve a far better price than selling it on Facebook or on here. They will also make sure that you get a realistic price and reduce the chance of you making a costly mistake if you get the selling price wrong.

I was gigging a couple of Bergantino HD112s for a while, but even though I really liked the way they sounded, I thought that they were rather heavy / difficult to pick up and I didn't feel like they were that efficient. I replaced them with a Berg CN212, which I found easier to lift as well as sounding great and loud enough. I was one of those people who were never convinced of the original Barefaced cabs with 12" speakers. However, I know a couple of guys who use the big 610 BF cabs and they sound great, much nicer than the 12s to my ears. As I get older I may well consider getting the BF Three10 cab, which is very light at 22kg and has it's own tiltback wheels. If it makes it easier to gig if I start feeling my age then there may well come a time when I replace the CN212 with the BF 310 cab.

You may be surprised to know that the delights of Portuguese pastries have even made it to the grim north, or at least as far as Yorkshire - we even have Pasteis de Natas in t'Lidl these days!

Walworth Road - I used to rehearse in a studio down there (forty years ago)!

You will be pretty much passing my gaff on the way down. I will bring some Pastéis de Natas!

It's a small sub-set - bass playing pub landlords in the south of England who play GB basses...! 🙂

double-post

Baz??

A pretty good drummer of my acquaintance is flying out all over Europe (he's in Lithuania at the moment), playing theatres to big crowds and (I assume) earning decent money - just for playing in a Coldplay tribute...!

I think that you might want something different in a compressor than someone like me is looking for. My understanding of pedals isn't as detailed as yours and the way I use them is a lot different from what you do. I'm just using a comp to help the bass find its place in the mix rather than as an effect.

To be fair, it's not the £300 price tag in itself that is the problem, more that I've already spent a fair bit on the M87 (now going for £230)...!

In addition to PIno and a number of big names, a fair few of decent players I know use a Cali76 and apparently it is the one to go for. However, I'm not sure that I can justify dropping a further £300 on one - just how much better will it be than the M87?

I was in exactly the same position as you - I appreciate how and why compression is beneficial, but struggle to hear the difference between different compressors. I got the M87 and struggled with it at first, if anything it seemed to be making things worse! Then I spoke to a bass playing sound engineer of my acquaintance and asked his opinion. He just told me how to set it up and said 'trust me, this is what you're after'. I still don't really understand the reasons why, but since following his advice, the M87 has just worked really well. It is always on when I'm playing and I wouldn't be without it...

I can see the set now - end the night with an encore of a medley of Crazy Train, Highway To Hell and Do You Believe In Life After Love!

I agree! The trouble is that many people react in one of two ways to a woman playing bass because it is still seen as a novelty, despite all the names being quoted here (and I'm surprised that no one has mentioned Tal Wilkenfeld). Either they are condescending and refuse to believe that they get any recognition on their own merits 'because they're a gurl', or, they fall over themselves to over-praise a girl's playing 'because it's a gurl', which is also condescending in my book. Blu DeTiger is a pretty good player, but many here have reacted in a way that they wouldn't to the many dozens of similar players out there.

I was under the impression that she had recently been out on tour with her own band, playing arenas supporting Sabrina Carpenter. From looking on her Wikipedia page, it looks like she has already done a fair bit of touring.

That's just idiotic and is justifying everything that @Misdee has been saying! FWIW, I would guess that her success is largely down to her being an aspirational figure to her followers on social media who are impressed by both her abilities and her image. I would imagine that many (if not most) of these followers will be female.

Which by several accounts led to his sacking - his good looks were taking attention away from McCartney, while he and Lennon were setting themselves up as the leaders and focal point of the band. Bands eh...!

C'mon, that's mainly BS and you seem to enjoy coming in and aggressively posting about a subject then getting all upset if people call you out on it. FWIW, I agree with most of what you now say - my issue was that saying that she was 'intermediate' was diminishing her, as was the general tone of your initial posts. No, he's right, her appearance is a big part of her success and to point this out is not being sexist. But so what! Looks have always been a big part of success in popular music, male or female. I put forward the case of Nikki Sixx, but the same applies going back to Frank Sinatra and Elvis. Don't you think that part of the Beatles initial appeal was that Paul McCartney was very good looking and record companies knew that would appeal to teenage girls?

I know, it's a bit bizarre

I don't see the issue with her stage clothes at all - surely she just dresses pretty much the same as any 20 something girl has done on a night out for the last forty years.