4000

[quote name='4000' post='1185199' date='Apr 1 2011, 08:00 PM']To answer 2 comments (and I'm rather disappointed that I have to explain this; if you can't tell the difference between The Musical Box and the typical band playing down the pub on a Friday I'm really not sure you should be playing ), [b]a tribute band, whilst obviously playing covers, are attempting to emulate everything about a particular band, from the music, to the exact performance, to the look, as accurately as possible[/b] and so invest in the audience a feeling of what it might be like to see the real band in their heyday. It goes far beyond "playing the songs", if nowhere near as far as creating the art in the first place. It is often done from a place of real love of the original band, and is often done with a sense of perfectionism. [/color] Have done the originals tours and also covers within original bands and have been playing since late 70's. Huge fan of early Genesis and most other music and quite open minded when it comes to bands and musicians. Based on what you described above as a tribute band Musical Box, although very talented musicians, don't exactly look like Genesis. ? Therefore you have a group of guys covering early Genesis songs who just happen to be very good at playing them. To be honest they are very good and i would pay to see them. No different to a group of guys covering various acts provided they do them well. Where do you draw the line ? Yes there is a difference between a tribute band playing well and a covers band playing badly and vice-versa. Is your gripe not more to do with quality and that you've been very unlucky to have only seen poor musicians doing covers. Just read your response to my other post and you highlight the quality as being the issue. Provided covers are done well within an originals band you have no issue. Quality then Dave [/quote] The Musical Box attempt to look exactly like the Genesis of the period, even down to the singer mimicking Phil's beard and T shirt/Pete's make up etc "Mike" dressing like Mike etc. They dress as similarly as they can and look as similar as they can, given they still have to play the parts properly. From a distance they look pretty darned close, and that's what I mean. They sound VERY close. I think you're rather splitting hairs here, but then I suspect you know you are. I've paid to see them 3 times. I can't imagine ever paying to see my description of a cover band, for reasons already stated, but also because even if they were really good, in addition to those reasons given, I don't really like the whole "musical jukebox" concept. Whenever a name band goes into a segue of rock'n'roll/r'n'b hits (e.g. Genesis doing the Blues Brothers thing), I really, really don't enjoy it. I don't tend to listen to music as a "selection of hits", I listen to something that suits my mood at that time. So, I'll put on an album that fits. It may be Genesis, it may be Floyd, it may be Motorhead, RTF, Duke Ellington, ABBA, RHCPs, whatever, but I will tend to listen to it all the way through. Of course if a "cover band" did unusual and interesting arrangements of cover songs, then that might be different. I like the concept of a band like Hayseed Dixie, because they have an identity of their own, which I think is my issue. I prefer bands and musicians to have an identity, and I feel many cover bands don't. Of course a good tribute band has someone else's identity, but at least it's still an identity. I'll add (as I have before) that I come from a fine art background so maybe this is something ingrained in me; "original = good, copy = generally pointless". Whilst I might love Van Gogh, Degas or Klimt, I wouldn't be interested in seeing someone paint copies even if they were really good. To see someone paint mediocre copies; well, what's the point, other than as a learning exercise? I can understand their enjoyment in doing it. I can understand a layman/punter being impressed by it. But it wouldn't impress me, and I wouldn't enjoy it, I would see it as utterly pointless [i]to me[/i], so would not be interested in witnessing it.

[quote name='stingrayPete1977' post='1185215' date='Apr 1 2011, 08:13 PM']That's probably 95% of basschat me included I'm sorry we can't meet your high standards [/quote] Me neither, which is why I hate the idea of us playing covers too .

[quote]Don't quite follow your reasoning on that one ?[/quote] See above. [quote]DTK are by far the best tribute band I've seen and as stated in this thread probably better than the originals.[/quote] See above. [quote]If you went to an originals concert and they played a cover song would you leave.[/quote] Depends how badly it was murdered; see above. [quote]Many original bands have over the yrs covered someone else's material.[/quote] But they've usually played it well or invested something in it; see above. [quote]If you look at many of the major bands "live set list" you will regularly find covers thrown in. Don't see any harm [b]provided its done well[/b].[/quote] Aye, and unfortunately there's the rub.... [quote]Rush produced a full covers album (Crossroads) - didn't make them inferior or worse musicians.[/quote] That's because they aren't. How many local cover bands that you know would be even close to their standards? I certainly don't know any. [quote]How does that work with Genesis when you had Phil Collins singing old Peter Gabriel material. ? Does that count as a cover. [/quote] No, because it's still the original band. [quote]Is there not a happy balance whereby you play both your own material and some covers and provided you are good pull in the max audience - i think that's a plan [/quote] Of course, providing you do it well (see bold above). I am not against playing covers at all. I am [i]most definitely[/i] against half-hearted, poorly played covers.

To answer 2 comments (and I'm rather disappointed that I have to explain this; if you can't tell the difference between The Musical Box and the typical band playing down the pub on a Friday I'm really not sure you should be playing ), a tribute band, whilst obviously playing covers, are attempting to emulate everything about a particular band, from the music, to the exact performance, to the look, as accurately as possible and so invest in the audience a feeling of what it might be like to see the real band in their heyday. It goes far beyond "playing the songs", if nowhere near as far as creating the art in the first place. It is often done from a place of real love of the original band, and is often done with a sense of perfectionism. What I describe as a cover band is often a bunch of mediocre players who cobble together a bunch of songs by different bands that they think/know will go down well (usually a pretty ubiquitous set), play them fairly inaccurately but conversely with little sense of putting an original spin on things in the hope of earning a few quid and who all look either far too excited or far too disinterested to be on stage doing what they're doing. A few years back I sadly watched a band who obviously wanted to be whatever the current version of Pantera is, dressed accordingly with BC Riches et al and looking totally cheesed off, playing a set of tunes (very badly) by bands like the Beatles and the Stones. That, I don't want to see. If someone plays Wish You Were Here, I either want to hear an exact copy of the original or a completely new take on it, not some half-hearted version completely lacking the beaauty and subtlety (and indeed musicianship) of the original. My problem with 99% of the cover bands I've ever seen is that they basically murder the songs they're playing. I may just have been unlucky. I appreciate there are parts of the world where there are cover bands that rise beyond this; indeed there are probably one or two round here, but they're certainly in a minority in these parts.

[quote name='Bilbo' post='1184962' date='Apr 1 2011, 04:23 PM']God forbid! I am not querying whether an originals band, tribute band or covers band pull a crowd or whcih pulls the biggest, just whether or not cover band A can pull a bigger crowd than cover band B or vice versa. Most of the bands I see or hear about in Suffolk tend to play before the same audiences as everyone else. If the venue is full because there is a band in, it is pretty much full whether it is cover band A or B or C or D. The prime determinates on audience size are things like 'is there an international football game on tv tonight'? 'is the X Factor final on tonight'? 'is it a bank holiday tomorrow (our Sunday residency is always busier if there is no work tomorow - nothing to do with us!!)? I am sure there are exceptions but I haven't seen them.[/quote] I'd say this is my experience too, although I tend to avoid pubs when cover bands are on- based on most of those I've actually seen who just depress me utterly - so maybe I'm not qualified to say. I will add there are probably one or two exceptions though.

[quote name='robocorpse' post='1184934' date='Apr 1 2011, 04:02 PM']Looks like I annoyed some people here. OK, I (personally) never really got on with the concept of "a song" as opposed to a performance, a good example being "Brown Sugar", which I have never ever heard a really good cover of, or any kind of backslapping cabaret exercise. I don't care HOW good the original is, if its played badly or without any conviction or with half the band SIGHT READING it, then I am likely to go home. I have a major problem with a stage full of 40-50 somethings with brand new boutique equipment wailing away aimlessly, adding 25 extra solos to "Mustang Sally" and playing everything in dead military 4/4 with no feel or swing while they disguise their paunch with something "the wife" picked up for them from Burtons, over their brand new loose fit 501s. It just smacks of desperation, although thats where the money is unfortunately, so originals bands get strangled in favour of another mind-numbing "The Fred Starwrangler Blues Experience plays Clapton" at the Dog and Duck.[/quote] You know, if I didn't know better I'd say you lived in Blackpool. Me, as soon as I see a waistcoat I'm off.

[quote name='dmccombe7' post='1184694' date='Apr 1 2011, 01:40 PM']I would definately pay to see a good cover band.[/quote] I definitely wouldn't. As I've said before, I'd far sooner see a bunch of kids trying to do something original but not very well than a typical cover band. It's to my eternal shame that we're now considering a 50-75% covers route and I'm sure we'll be as hopeless as the majority of cover bands I've seen round here, who really are quite appalling. I don't class tribute bands as cover bands; to me they're a different entity; The Musical Box for instance are superb, and light years above anything I've ever seen round here in every respect.

[quote name='stevebasshead' post='1183447' date='Mar 31 2011, 03:36 PM']My '74 had the non-cutaway surround when it arrived but either I'm way too heavy handed or it's proof that there's no guarantee of what to expect from any year of Ric manufacter as I couldn't get the action low enough without the strings clacking off the surround. So it now wears the cutaway surround from my now-horseshoe'd '02 4003 and is quite wonderful to play. Low action and a lovely slim neck front to rear, although probably nowhere near as slim as they can be. To the OP's question though, if you've found a brand new 4003 you love the feel and sound of, buy it You could wait a long, long, long time to find a 4001 that's both the colour you want (comparatively rare) and that feels as good to you to play.[/quote] My '72 necks (which I prefer) feel both wider and flatter than post-'72 4001s, which tend to feel narrower and rounder, although they do vary. I've even played a couple of 73s with huge necks. +1 to Steve's other comment. A while back I briefly played a new 4003 that felt fantastic but sold quickly. I later tried another new 4003 and didn't like it at all!

[quote name='SS73' post='1183306' date='Mar 31 2011, 01:42 PM']All 4001's after the transition in 73 lost the cutaway surround, when they got larger and thicker in all areas, the neck also was raised out of the body, check a pre 73 and see that the underside of the fretboard is on the level of the body and after they went up by about an 1/8'', so the cutout was not needed. For some reason the 4003's got the cut away back.[/quote] I'm sure you're right, I can't remember. I've only got pre-73s to check, and haven't had a post '73 4001 for many years (and no longer intend to either as I prefer the others)......I know I was recently put off a transitional '73 for that very reason, which worked out very well in the end because along came my Azure. EDIT: I've just checked pics of my old '73 4000 and though it had the smaller contours it did indeed have a non-cutaway surround. FWIW I could get the action on that lower than any other bass I've ever had, including the boutiques. For a long time I played it with an action of 1mm at the 12th fret E. I've also just checked pics of the '73 PW conversion and that definitely had the cutaway (serial ME; the 4000, which was a set-neck for those who didn't know, was serial MK).

[quote name='gelfin' post='1183210' date='Mar 31 2011, 12:25 PM']The CS is number 768 22nd January 1999. Although the neck is thicker than my 4003 I wouldn't say it was very much thicker though. Took me years to find one in mint condition. Eventually got it from the US about 6 years ago for £1200 plus shipping and the dreaded improt duty tax etc.[/quote] Thanks. I meant they have much thicker necks than the early ones (CS/V63) which are almost like the old RMs. My '91 had one of the thinnest necks I've ever played, a lot thinner than any 4003 I've ever laid hands on. In fact the only thing that may have had it beat was the 21 fretter, which was incredibly thin. I think you got a bargain there! I sold my '91 (far, far from mint and with no case) for about £1600 and I've seen 'em mint for up to £3000. Sadly I've found that the tones don't work that well for me compared to the vintage ones. Here are my 2x'72s; I've only recently received the Azure and it needs a couple of things fixing ( a piece of binding for a start) but it's a blinding bass; took me 17 years to find an original Azure '72 and it cost me comfortably more than your CS!

[quote name='gub' post='1178216' date='Mar 27 2011, 01:08 PM']I have only recently realised but i must of ben doing it for years ,if there is an open string note in a bassline i will make it into a freted note somewhere else ,just wondered if anyone else does the same ? prob bad technique as sometimes it means more of a fiddle to get to it .[/quote] Guilty as charged! I only use them where absolutely necessary (apart from low E of course). No idea why.

No cutaway is a no-no for me as I like a fag-paper action. Of course you can always replace the surround with one with a cutaway. I haven't much experience of recent 4003s (only played a couple briefly) but I believe the volute is minimal. Sounds to me like you want the 4003. You could always get it refinished later.... One thing to bear in mind is many 4001s can sound a bit weedy because they have a capacitor on the back pickup that effectively cuts the bass from that pickup. The 4003 (up until the introduction of the push pot which allows you to have either) doesn't have this, so a typical 4003 will immediately sound thicker than a typical 4001. Having said that, my main '72 sounds better with the cap in. Of course you can bypass the cap on a 4001 which (as on my old 76) can change the sound dramatically. However the pot values on 4001s also differ and as previously stated the pickups on 4003s are typically hotter anyway. I prefer the toaster (1/2" neck position) and early screw-topped high gain treble pickup combo tonally, but YMMV. Depends how much hollow clank you want.

[quote name='Stag' post='1180000' date='Mar 28 2011, 08:48 PM']The weight is great, and so is the balance. The PU cover on the bridge PU now has a nice cutaway into it so you can lower the action as much as you like, which you couldnt on 4001's due to the pesky PU cover.[/quote] If by this you mean the treble pickup surround on your 4001 doesn't have a cutaway to enable you to lower the strings sufficiently, this is something that varies from bass to bass, never mind year to year. All my Rics have had the cutaway, but some don't. Personally my least favourite 4001s are anything after mid '73 up until they changed to the 4003. For many people I suspect a 4003 is a better prospect because of the hotter pickups and "improved" (i.e. easier to adjust if nothing else) truss rod system.

[quote name='Stag' post='1183147' date='Mar 31 2011, 11:33 AM']Does the neck "bump" that you get on 4001's at the 1st fret appear on 4003's?[/quote] Do you mean the rear volute? It varies quite a bit over the years IME.

[quote name='gelfin' post='1181646' date='Mar 29 2011, 11:17 PM']I would echo the comments above TRY before you buy. I have a 4003 which to me is utterly superb. I recently aquired a 4001 for a friends son and was very impressed with it. Tried the latest offering in PMT Bristol and thought the neck felt awful. Oh and I have a CS Ltd edition which I think is awsome too, although the neck isn't as slim as my 4003. [/quote] What year is your CS from? The later ones have much thicker necks, like my 1998 V63. The Rics I've owned: 1980 4001 Jetglo (stolen) 1976 4001 Azureglo (sold) 1972 4001 Fireglo (my favourite, still owned) 1996 4001 CS (sold) 1999 4003s8 (sold) 1991 4001V63 (lost in transit, never received) 1998 4001V63 (sold) 1973 4000 (sold) 1991 4001 CS (sold) 1973 4001 Mapleglo to Azureglo conversion (sold) 1971 4001 21 fretter (sold) 1972 4001 Azureglo (my 2nd favourite, just bought)

[quote name='RhysP' post='1181002' date='Mar 29 2011, 04:43 PM']The full width inlays are a step backwards aesthetically - the smaller ones look MUCH better IMO. Having owned both I think the full width crushed pearl inlays on my checkerboard bound 4001 looked tacky as f***.[/quote] I, and many other hardcore Ric fans, beg to differ. The full width crushed pearl is one of my favourite Ric features. To be honest once I discovered them the small inlays just looked a bit crap to me. Same with the post '74-ish to early '80s "fat horn" shape....all just personal taste of course. FWIW, 4001s vary hugely, as I've stated many times. A '72 (even taking into account differences between individual instruments) will be nothing much like a '79. Different neck, pickups, body contouring, different detailing. The same goes for 4003s. You could play 4003s from various years and the necks (as an example) would go from frighteningly thin to P Bass chunky. So comparing a 4001 and a 4003 (unless you're comparing 2 specific instruments), other than saying 4003s tend to have hotter pickups (with different pot values) and a different truss rod system, is a bit difficult.

[quote name='Clarky' post='977752' date='Oct 4 2010, 10:13 PM']Time for the Status owners to come over all smug with their carbon graphite-yness[/quote] Nah, I'll do that with my Rics. I've now owned 12 and once set the only ones that have ever moved are the 2 x 4001 Chris Squires I had, and those far less than normal (and it could be a southerner thing as both moves were when they went down south). The rest have never, ever budged. In fact I've had 4 Statii and I had more problems with 2 of them!

[quote name='Rodders' post='397547' date='Feb 2 2009, 10:16 AM']Started playing bass because my hands were to big for guitar[/quote] Our guitarist has hands second only to Chris Squire and he's never had much trouble. Hendrix had big hands too, as have numerous other guitar luminaries. My first bass was a brand-new-at-the-time 1980 Rick 4001 (no surprise there then); I was 17. I started playing bass because we didn't have a bassist. As a huge Lizzy fan at the time I really wanted to play lead, which probably shows in my playing . However my dad said if I played bass I'd get more work and, far more importantly, he'd help me get a decent instrument, for which I was/am eternally grateful. I chose a Ric due to a combination of factors; a probable subliminal McCartney influence (I think possibly the first bass I ever noticed was his Ric circ Magical Mystery Tour), my dad's bassist Martin Roach having a lovely early 70s 4001 and my love of Prog and 70s Heavy Rock making it sonically and visually the most desireable bass for me. Also they had one hanging in a local guitar shop and I thought it looked glorious. The finisher was (a) Lemmy, otherwise known at that time as God and ( a pic of Gaye Advert playing an Azure 4001. Ironically I didn't listen to Chris Squire until I found out he played Rics rather than the other way round, which was a few years later. Can't quite work out as a Prog fan how I missed Yes but somehow I did.... FWIW I'd originally wanted to be a drummer, my boyhood heroes being first Buddy Rich and later also Phil Collins, but my older brother had asked for drums with no success.

I change them depending on what sound I'm after but the mainstay is a Jim Dunlop 3mm Big Stubby.

I suffer from "Entwistle Hook" syndrome and feel like I need a spare for everything (although ironically don't have a spare amp at the mo). I also once had a jack crap out on me during a gig and have never forgotten it. I have frequently gigged with one but much prefer to have a spare for piece of mind, even more so because both my main gigging basses are nearly 40 years old.

Speaking as someone who can never make the whole back-pickup thing work, that sounds tremendous. It actually reminds me somewhat of my old Sei Melt singlecut.

[quote name='chaypup' post='1141333' date='Feb 25 2011, 03:23 PM']Got myself a Westone Super Headless off of Gumtree yesterday.....pups need a respray but other than that, sounds and looks amazing! Came with the original case too! [attachment=73212:P1011420.JPG] [attachment=73213:P1011425.JPG] Will take more photos when I've done the pups - which i'm not in a hurry to do because re-stringing is a NIGHTMARE!!!![/quote] They were great basses; played a few of those. The stringing was the same as my old Quantum. Just takes a bit of getting used to, it's not as bad as it first appears. Double ball end is far easier though!