Jump to content
Why become a member? ×

4000

Member
  • Posts

    5,890
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by 4000

  1. I used to have one of these, an ‘88. Brilliant bass. I px’d it against a Wal Custom and regretted it soon after as I preferred it to the Wal. For some reason I can only see one picture here. Did it go?
  2. It looks stunning either way! Of course one bonus is if having one built you can specify things like neck dimensions, pickups etc.
  3. I’ve owned well over 20 Rics. I’ve certainly had at least 4 or 5 that were better. My 2 x CSs were way down the pile for me, other than the wonderful looks (and the neck on the ‘91) I didn’t really rate them. FWIW I was actually just trying to provide a balanced view for anyone considering both. It’s all subjective anyway. Its certainly a lovely looking bass though and given that my ‘72s would now be in excess of £5k each it’s an absolute no-brainer if you want a vintage style Ric.
  4. Not entirely true. I had one built; it’s great, but I still prefer my 2 x ‘72 4001 basses. It’s certainly better than many of the Rics I’ve owned, but it’s certainly not better than all of them.
  5. Used to see quite a bit of Nigel when he worked at A1 Music back in the day. Lovely bloke. In fact it was him & Drew sold me my main bass. And yes, he is a great player.
  6. He confirmed that it was shimmed earlier in the thread. 😉
  7. My problem is that I have several prolapsed discs, both cervical and lumbar. Having had 10lb basses that cripple me and that were sold for that very reason (Alembic and Wal), 11.5lbs is way over my limit. 😉
  8. Am I correct in reading that as 11.5lbs? If so, it does help, thank you. Unfortunately it also makes it at least 2.5lbs too heavy for me, sadly.
  9. Ah, right. Yes, certainly wired differently to me then. I don’t really like most blues (there are some exceptions, like Peter Green) and although I’ve tried many times - since the ‘80s in fact - on the recommendations of others, I just can’t seem to enjoy any of the GD’s output. Strangely enough - which I guess shows how differently we perceive these things - it’s the warmth and passion of Yes that I love!
  10. No, that’s absolutely fair enough. 👍🏻
  11. It wouldn’t have sounded that different. And it would still sound far more like the original than completely different equipment. Maybe they had a bad night when you saw them? I’ve seen them 4 times and ‘lifeless’ certainly doesn’t apply!
  12. I think the bit that doesn’t work for me is the rest of the band, as I mentioned earlier. So it’s only 1 element of the band - Steve - being reasonably faithful to the feel/mood/playing of the original band. The rest aren’t really anything like, and IMO don’t sound like Genesis. As we’ve discussed before, when I’m listening to Genesis I personally want to hear something that sounds exactly like Genesis. Not a different-sounding band playing Genesis songs. That doesn’t interest me at all, unless they’re doing something really original with them, and Steve’s band aren’t. They sound exactly like a cover band to me.
  13. Genuinely interested, what does float your boat?
  14. In an effort to describe the difference between the two bands, MB are quite obviously a tribute and try and play everything as faithfully as possible, in terms of feel and sound. Hackett’s band play the songs more like a cover band than a tribute band, playing the songs but not particularly faithfully, which I personally am never going to like as much. As we’ve discussed before, YMMV, obviously.
  15. It’s the band that lets it down for me too. I agree that they just don’t have the right feel. I’ve seen MB four times and much preferred them to the Hackett gig, as has been discussed in previous threads. They capture the Genesis sound & feel far better, IMO.
  16. We had tickets for that but it was the same night as Genesis and we (obviously) chose Genesis. I didn’t regret it; the Genesis gig, even with Phil’s issues and the dearth of older material, was far, far better than the Hackett one that I saw.
  17. Like PG, because Hackett wasn’t in them when I first started listening to them, I didn’t really miss him (not that he isn’t great). I’ve seen Hackett live - probably about 4 or 5 years ago? - but I’m not totally enamoured of his band, at least when I saw them. I’m a bit anal about how the Genesis stuff is played and to me - at that time anyway - it was too much of an approximation.
  18. I love Yes. Love them. That is all. 😁
  19. Genesis are one of my 3 or 4 favourite bands. I love both the Phil and PG eras. I discovered Genesis via Follow You and ATTWT in ‘78, then bought Seconds Out and worked my way gradually backwards, so the problems many have with the Phil era, them having heard PG first, don’t exist for me. If anything it was a little jarring the first time I heard PG! My favourite studio albums remain the relatively unloved ATTWT - which I absolutely love, one of my all-time favourite albums - and TOTT. The much-loved W&W I like, but not as much; same with Duke. Seconds Out is my favourite Genesis album (in fact my favourite live album ever, along with Space Ritual). The PG-era stuff is mostly great, but I do feel the playing and production isn’t as good as on later albums. The Seconds Out version of Supper’s Ready blows the Foxtrot version (as good as that is) away IMO. But either way, I love them; they mean the world to me.
×
×
  • Create New...