4000

[quote name='thisnameistaken' post='476606' date='May 1 2009, 01:42 AM']It's not because the Chilis are actually crap now, then? I don't know whether it's because they grew up or because they stopped taking all the drugs, but my god their music is dull now.[/quote] As always, this is just a matter of personal taste. You might find their music dull, millions obviously don't. It baffles me when people think that because [i]they[/i] don't like something it must be bad.

[quote name='jim_bass' post='476532' date='Apr 30 2009, 11:40 PM']Seems to me that since they release the last few albums it has become uncool to like green day.[/quote] Yup. Happens with every niche band who outgrows the niche. "Oh they sold out", yadda yadda yadda. Same with the Chilis and a billion others. Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawn. Threads like this are funny. I used to be like this when I was about 14. What do I hate now? Racism, bigotry, cruelty, war, etc etc. If you don't like a band don't listen to them. Simple as. Im sure they won't lose sleep over it, and neither should you. BTW, if anyone can tell me exactly how to write music that will [i]without fail[/i] sell millions of records I'd like to hear from you....on 2nd thoughts, don't bother as you're obviously deluded.

[quote name='The Funk' post='476443' date='Apr 30 2009, 10:20 PM']THANK YOU! I've hated them since 1993. As far as I'm concerned, they undid all the good work that grunge did across all genres. Look at all the good albums that came out in '91, '92 and '93. Green Day are so f***ing '80s.[/quote]

[quote name='maxrossell' post='475814' date='Apr 30 2009, 11:05 AM']I do some production occasionally, but I'm not sure that your guitar players would appreciate some random guy telling them how to set their amps up Yeah, actually I mainly did it for my benefit (I don't enjoy practicing if it doesn't sound right), although I would add that if your experience of live performance is playing to drunks who don't give a toss what you sound like, you may be playing the wrong gigs.[/quote] For many those are the only gigs they can get.....

[quote name='BigBeefChief' post='476283' date='Apr 30 2009, 06:44 PM']Running out of mascara?[/quote] See, I don't really think they were ever that punk. Like I said, I always saw them as a pop band with guitars.

[quote name='BigBeefChief' post='474819' date='Apr 29 2009, 09:49 AM']You mean I won't be able to make loads of money from playing music anymore???? Talk about turning my life upside-down![/quote] You and me both BBC!

[quote name='EdwardHimself' post='476264' date='Apr 30 2009, 06:27 PM']That's what i f***ing meant. They do suck now obviously not just because they're sellouts but WHY they're sellouts which is the fact that they just pump out poppy sh*t to please the masses.[/quote] Ever thought they may just be pleasing themselves? Did you know Captain Sensible loves ABBA, the Carpenters and Chicago? Which reminds me, the Damned were awesome too.

[quote name='Lifer' post='476258' date='Apr 30 2009, 06:24 PM']Nimrod was the turning point, everything before then is awesome. So there. And it's not because they got successful, it's because their sound changed (as many bands do over the years, sometimes for the better, sometimes not)[/quote] So far as I'm concerned I'm quite happy for bands to change their sound over time, even if I end up not liking them. If someone told me what I should be sounding like I'd tell them to go shove themselves; it's entirely up to the band.

[quote name='BigBeefChief' post='476250' date='Apr 30 2009, 06:20 PM']Nah, they've always been sh*t.[/quote] Ah well, each to their own. I like 'em. I prefer 'em Dookie period (an album I love) but I still think they're good. See, to me they're kind of like (as Flea has said) an oldies pop band, but with guitars. I'm quite happy with that, as that's what my band is too, and I write all the material. In fact to be honest (Prog aside) guitar driven pop has always been my thing. Loved the Vapors, loved the Buzzcocks, loved the Undertones etc etc etc. I know they were punk at the time, but they sound like pop to me.

Oh dear.... Why is it as soon as someone has real success they've sold out?

[quote name='OldGit' post='475638' date='Apr 30 2009, 12:18 AM']Hiyah, Thanks .. Oh well ... I was after some idea of what the wide flat ones measure. I used to have a '72 or '73 and that was really thin (dimention C) and always felt great. Hence my question. Thanks all round. OG[/quote] I have a '72 which has my favourite Ric neck; it's kind of a flattened C. I'll try and measure it tomorrow.

[quote name='Crazykiwi' post='475573' date='Apr 29 2009, 10:52 PM']The only bass where Barts have sounded good to my ears was in my Modulus Quantum fretless. They really suited that particular instrument well by taming the highs and fattening the lower mids. Well I'll let the results speak for themselves in any case. This is the Pentabuzz with Alembics fitted - click on the sound samples if you like. Loads more upper mid growl with the Alembics fitted. The barts just muffled all that purr. [url="http://www.freewebs.com/crazykiwi_bass/pedullapentabuzz.htm"]http://www.freewebs.com/crazykiwi_bass/pedullapentabuzz.htm[/url] FWIW, I haven't had a bad reaction to it from anyone who's played it and I've owned the instrument for about 4-5 years.[/quote] As the missus is asleep I haven't listened to the clip yet (tomorrow!), but I have to add I've never played a Buzz and all my comments relate to my fretted 4. Having said that, every Buzz I've ever heard sounded great. With regards to Barts, my current Sei 5 sounds great and has them. My previous 6 and 4 sounded pretty good, but I liked the Pedulla better; clearer, less honky, less middy, more pure. Barts seem to sound good in all the maple basses I've tried. As I said before though, it's quite possible you and I playing the same bass sound very, very different. I struggle to get a fat, woolly tone out of anything! I also tend to find graphite-necked basses don't really suit me sound-wise, much as I love the idea. Just listened to the clip; difficult to tell from a soundclip but it seems like you like a thinner, more upper-middy sound than me. Lovely bass though!

[quote name='Crazykiwi' post='475558' date='Apr 29 2009, 10:34 PM']Try fitting a set of Alembic Activators, a set of EMG's or another set of hi-fidelity pickups perhaps one day? It will make the bass even more clear and alive sounding (which is all thanks to the maple construction). The Barts really take the edge off the bass IMO.[/quote] I tried one with EMGs, but didn't like it as much. I think it all depends what you're playing through, how you eq and what sound you're after (oh, and of course how you play; I recently played my mate's bass through my gear immediately after him it and sounded like I was playing a banjo. He sounded like Jack Bruce. ). My Pedulla honestly did not need to be any brighter or clearer, and I absolutely loved the quality of the tone. However I suspect we either play very differently or are after very different things; bear in mind our black Sei Original 4 experience! BTW, I invariably love maple basses. Oh, and mine was £599 new old stock from A1 Music in '93!

[quote name='OldGit' post='474806' date='Apr 29 2009, 09:28 AM']Anyone know where I can find the dimensions of a Ric 4001 neck? Preferably a 70's one if they vary. I'm interested in - the width at the nut and 12 fret, - the neck depth/thickness at the 3rd, 5th and 12th frets: that's the dimensions labeled C and D in this handy diagram from Ibanez. - Fingerboard radius - bridge string spacing I'd prefer it in mm but I appreciate that Americans don't tend to speak metric Thanks, OG[/quote] Rics vary from bass to bass, never mind year to year. I've recently played 3 '73s and they were all totally different, from pencil-thin to baseball-bat big. I've owned 9 and they have all felt different. Check out the Ric Resource Forum; they've done a thread about Ric neck dimensions. I think what was found was that the measurements didn't seem to vary that much but that doesn't tell the story of how different they all feel.

[quote name='Crazykiwi' post='475198' date='Apr 29 2009, 04:03 PM']I used to own one in amber sunburst Plus: Fantastic neck Easy to play Versatile Growly Superb craftsmanship Minus: Bartolini pickups make it sound woolly and sap the midrange a little All maple construction makes the B string a little weak unless you have good pickups fitted The eq really needs a mid-sweep control. The price is a little on the high side, but the used values have gone up considerably in the last 4 years. They used to be around the £800-1000 some years ago but now I've seen 1300 quid being asked for them.[/quote] I owned an MVP4 for a few years and I think of all the basses I've let go I miss it the most (barring my 2 Alembics, but unfortunately back problems meant that they were no longer viable for me whereas the Pedulla still would be as it wasn't at all heavy). With regards to the above I'd agree with all the positives, but with regards to the minuses my 4 was anything but woolly; along with my Alembic Stanley Clarke it's probably the clearest-sounding bass I've ever owned. I got nothing but compliments re the sound. Kiwi must eq very, very differently to me. I would however possibly agree with the mid-eq thing and the slightly sapped midrange (just how I usually like it to be honest), but can't comment on the B as mine didn't have one, although I expect that might be the case. To my ears they're not particularly aggressive or big-sounding (at least when I play them) but they have a quality, clear, balanced tone with great character and they feel great. I px'd mine for a Wal Custom and regretted it ever after; unfortunately I soon found I much preferred it to the Wal (which isn't to say anyone else would of course). I wonder if anyone out there has it? Amber-coloured, about an '88 (?), s/n something like 2236.

[quote name='wombatboter' post='473497' date='Apr 27 2009, 05:00 PM']I saw the Spandau-Ross clip on Youtube ... In "Chant" the drums are really not swinging at all...I don't know if he's the original drummer but his playing really isn't ok to me...Very annoying and holding the band down.[/quote] Yeah, exactly what I thought.

I actually thought the rhythm section was far worse than I expected. It sounded like they were really fighting the songs to me.

I've played 2, one through a Superfly/Accugroove set up (hated the sound through that), one through a cheap Hartke combo (loved the sound through that). As above, deep tone, quite fluid sounding; nice. The balance is very poor though; very headstock heavy (I'm really aware of this due to problems with my neck and shoulders; anything head heavy is out the window for me).

Nice stuff! Is it just me or do the intro and outro sound like Genesis gone mad?

Just about any head/cab/combo can be made to sound bad, and of course you have to take into account that the sound one player wants may not be the sound [i]you[/i] want. I currently own an ABM500 head and an Epifani UL502, and through the same cab (a Barefaced Compact) I'd say the ABM has the edge for most things for the sound I'm after. Oh, and it's certainly no less bright than the UL502.

[quote name='OldGit' post='468134' date='Apr 21 2009, 09:48 AM']Ok, I'll shuddup now Seriously, let us know how it goes blagging a gig ..[/quote] Yeah, I'll shuddup too. You know it's time to stop when you're even boring yourself!

[quote name='alexclaber' post='466800' date='Apr 19 2009, 04:27 PM']Exactly! Regarding the old TE 4x10" combos, although they have a nice punchy sound they're pretty restrictive tonally - not much bottom, not much upper mids and top - and they have very little power handling in the lows if you do try to get any depth from them. I regularly rehearse through one and when I do bother to take a Barefaced cab instead my bandmates tend to pester me to never use the TE because it's so muddy in comparison. However however easy it is to take a 32lb cab to rehearsal it's a lot easier to just use the 80lb one that's already there! Alex[/quote] My favourite cab that I've ever owned or played through (for my Ricks anyway) is my original painted wood, pre-Kevlar Mark 1 (?) Trace 4x10. It sounded wonderful, and I've been trying to replicate that in something lighter ever since. I wish i hadn't sold it. I've never heard anything that comes close for me, but then I'm after a very specific sound. BTW, in terms of getting your tone the mid cut preshape on a Trace is the single most useful button in the world in getting my sound. I've had "plug in and play" amps that I cant get a sound out of at all, and yet with a Trace it takes me about 5 seconds. Of course YMMV.

[quote name='redstriper' post='465076' date='Apr 17 2009, 02:48 PM']Do you know the make and model of driver used in the Trace cab that you played through? I have an old AH150 and it has a great tone with plenty of volume, which can sound very different with different speakers. You should try your Ashdown amp played through the Trace cab for a better comparison with the AH150.[/quote] +1. My ABM500 sounds great through a Trace 1153. If I still had my old 4x10 I imagine it would sound even better. FWIW I love Trace gear and if it wasn't so bloody heavy I'd doubtless still be using it.

[quote name='mildmanofrock' post='467979' date='Apr 20 2009, 11:50 PM']Is there a lone soul out there who's put an Ampeg up against an EBS and thought it trounced the Swedish upstart? Or should I admit my brand-loyal naivety, axe the Ampeg, and buy stuff beginning with 'E'?[/quote] When I bought my Sei Melt I played it through an EBS rig (HD650 and 1x15?) in the Gallery and it sounded stunning, probably the best it has ever sounded. I also played it through an Ampeg Classic and 8x10. It didn't sound so good. Game over you say? No. I also had my Rick 4001CS with me. Through the EBS it didn't sound so good. Through the Ampeg? Great, and I've never been much of a fan of Ampeg. So I'd say it depends what you're putting into it and what tone you're after.

[quote name='OldGit' post='466899' date='Apr 19 2009, 07:01 PM']I don't think Blackpool is unusual or you are alone here. Everyone is having a financially hard time.. You playing for nothing does not mean it costs the venue nothing to put you on. They still have to pay the rent etc, and the staff. The thing that many bands don't understand is the opportunity costs. That's the difference between you playing and attracting no one and costing them a night's costs with no profit, and them having a covers band ram the place and them making a shedload of profit and thus staying in business another day. Good luck getting one of the originals gigs. Let us know how it goes..[/quote] The venue is already paying the rent and staff whether we're there or not. I've been doing this for nearly 30 years so I do have a vague idea how it works. As I've already said, we're happy to support someone else, anybody, which means they can have their cake and eat it. They also tend to have covers bands on at weekends anyway, and used to have originals bands one night in the week, which most have stopped doing, so we're not strictly speaking competing with the cover bands anyway so that argument doesn't stand up. Oh, and we've never played a local venue where [i]less[/i] people have turned up as a consequence of us playing, so that's not it either. For the most part, they just don't want to take a chance. It's like the old job chestnut; need a job but no experience. No experience, can't get job. In this case, need audience, can't get gig; no gig, no audience. I don't know if I posted this earlier, but we once played a week night when a major festival was on and many of the people we knew were away at said festival. That night we had an audience of about 20 or so. The pub we played never, ever got more than 5 people in on any night during the week (it was round the corner from my mate's). We were told we hadn't pulled enough punters so we couldn't have another gig, despite the fact we'd pulled 15 more people than he would have had otherwise in less than ideal circumstances. The pub closed a year or so later.